THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 FREDERIC THOMAS BLANCHARD 
 ENDOWMENT FUND 
 

 
 TRACTS 
 
 I N 
 
 "ontroverjy with Dr. Prieftley 
 
 UPON THE 
 
 HISTORICAL QUESTION 
 
 F 
 
 The Belief of the Firjl Ages 
 
 1 N 
 
 3UR LORD'S DIVINITY, 
 
 ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED 
 
 In the YEARS, 1783* 1784, and 1786, 
 
 NOW REVISED AND AUGMENTED WITH 
 
 A Large Addition of Notes, 
 
 AND 
 
 SUPPLEMENTAL DISQUISITIONS, 
 
 BY THE AUTHOR, 
 
 SAMUEL, LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's. 
 
 \7votets 7!> (/.sya TI (A.OI 3bw KM %aX7rov atpupur/Aevov opav 
 e/Sbj, Trcurt TOIJ MOJJ aulrig dv1ira&(MV pepsin To, jUj 
 
 PLATO in SOPHISTA. 
 
 GLOCESTER: 
 
 PRINTED BY R. RAIKES, 
 
 FOR J. ROBSON AND Co. NEW BOND-STREET, LONDON, 
 
 M. DCC. LXXXIX.

 
 HlSt 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 A GENERAL view of the Controverfy^ 
 between Dr. Prieftley and the Author of 
 the trafls of which the enjuing Volume is com- 
 pofed, may not be unacceptable to fuch of its 
 readers, who for want of leifure or of opportu- 
 nity, or, perhaps , ofcuriofity toperufe the pieces on 
 either fide, as they were firft JucceJJi'vely publijhed 
 in feparate Pamphlets, may be fuppofed to be 
 as yet unacquainted with the rife and progrefs, 
 and with the prejent ftate, of the difpute. 
 
 In the year 1782, an open and vehement at- 
 tack was made by Dr. Prieftley upon the Creeds, 
 a 2 and 

 
 iv PREFACE. 
 
 and the eftaUiJhed difcipline of every church in 
 Chrijlendom, in a work in two 'volumes, $vo. 
 entitled, a Hiftory of the Corruptions of 
 Chriftianity. At the head of thefe, the Author 
 placed both the Catholic docJrine of our Lord's 
 Divinity, and the Arian notion of his pr<eexiftence 
 in a nature far fuperior to the human ; repre- 
 fenting the Socinian docJrine of his meer huma- 
 nity, as the unanimous faith of the firft ChriJ- 
 tians. Itfeemed, that the moft effectual preferva- 
 five, againft the intended mijchief, would be to 
 deflroy the writer's credit and the authority of 
 his name ; which the fame of certain lucky difco- 
 vsries in the profecution of phyjical experiments 
 hadfet high in popular efteem, by proof of his 
 incompetency in every branch of literature con- 
 nected with his prefentfubjeff -, of which the work 
 Itfelf afforded evident fpecimens in great abun- 
 dance. For this declared purpofe, a review of 
 the imperfetJions of his work, in the firft part 
 relating to our Lord's divinity, was made the 
 fubjeff of a charge delivered to the Clergy of the 
 Archdeaconry of St. Alb an s, the fpring next 
 
 following
 
 PREFACE. v 
 
 following Dr. Prieft ley's publication. The fpe- 
 cimens alleged of the imperfections of the work, 
 and the incompetency of its author, may be re- 
 duced to fix general clajfes. Inflames of reafon- 
 ing in a circle \ Inflames of quotations mif applied, 
 through ignorance of the writer's fubjeff; In- 
 flames of teftimonies perverted by artful and 
 forced conftrucJions -, Inftances ofpajfages in the 
 Greek Fathers, mifinterpreted through ignorance 
 of the Greek language; Inftances of pajfages mif- 
 interpreted, through the fame ignorance driven 
 further out of the way by an ignorance of the Pla- 
 tonic philofophy y Inftances of ignorance of the 
 phrafeology of the earliefl ecclefiaflical writers. 
 This difcourfe was received by the venerable body, 
 to which it was addrejjed, with marks of fa- 
 vour and approbation e.ver to be remembered by 
 its author with pride andfatisfaclion. At their 
 fequeft, it was given, with confider able enlarge- 
 ment, to the public. It is thefirfttraff in the 
 prefent collection. The firft publication of this 
 difcourfe gave no f mail alarm to the well-wijhers 
 and admirers of Dr. Prieftlefs docJrines. Dr. 
 a 3 Prieftley
 
 VI 
 
 PREFACE' 
 
 Prieftley, however, kept up the fpirits of his 
 party by promifing an early and fatisfaRory an- 
 
 Jwer. 
 
 Per damna, per caedes, ab ipfo 
 
 Ducit opes animumque ferro 
 
 was his vaunting language. He predicted that 
 bejhouldrife more illuftrious from hisjuppofed de- 
 feat -, he promised to ftrengthen the evidence of 
 his favourite opinion, by the very objections that 
 had been raifed againft it; he feemed to flatter 
 himfelf that he Jhouldfind a new convert in his 
 antagonift himfelf; and his new performance had 
 fcarce made its appearance, when he had the ri- 
 diculous vanity to boaft, even in print, of the 
 Jhame and remorfe with which he was confident 
 his adverfary muft be penetrated. Acontroverfy, 
 that was in the mean while going on, upon the fame 
 fubjett, between Dr. Prieftley and the Rev. Mr. 
 Samuel Badcock, the author of a learned critique 
 upon thefirft part of Dr. Prieftlefs Hiftory, in- 
 ferted in the Monthly Review for the month of 
 June 1783, gave Dr. Prieftley the occafion of 
 raifmg thefe expectations in the public. Jt was 
 
 late
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 late in the Autumn of the fame year 
 when the work, which was to effeft thefe won- 
 ders, appeared in the form of Letters to Dr. 
 Horfley. Thefe Letters gave occafion to the 
 traft, which is thefecond in this collection, en- 
 titled, Letters from the Archdeacon of St. 
 Alban's, in reply to Dr. Prieftley, which was 
 firft publifoed in the fummer of the year 1784. 
 Dr. Prieftley in his Letters, exprejjed a great de- 
 fire to draw his adverfary into a tedious contro- 
 verfy on the main queftion; the article of our 
 Lord's divinity. His adverfary, knowing that 
 queftion to have been long fince exhaufted, and 
 that nothing new was to be faid on either fide, 
 chofe in his Letters in Reply to adhere clofely to 
 his own main queftion. He defended his former 
 argument, and he collected new fpecimens from 
 Dr. Prieftley' 's new publication of his utter in- 
 ability to throw light upon the fubjecJ. Thus 
 a ufelefs and endlefs contention upon the maitt 
 queftion was avoided -, but many difcujjions necef- 
 farily arofe uponfecondary points more or lefs con- 
 neffed with it. The authority of the writings 
 a 4 that
 
 viii PREFACE. 
 
 that go under the name of the Apoftolical Fathers 
 the rife of the twojetts of the Nazarenes and 
 the Ebionites the difference between the two 
 and the difference of both from the orthodox He- 
 brew Chriftians thefe the learned reader will 
 probably efteem the moft interefting farts of the 
 whole controverfy ; as on the other hand he will 
 certainly judge the long difpute, whether the 
 word Jews, means Jews, on Dr. Prieftley' s 
 part at leaft, to be the moft frivolous. In thefe 
 Letters in Reply, Dr. Prieft ley's antagonift de- 
 clared himjelf refolved to give no anfwer to any 
 thing that Dr. Prieftley might find to fay further 
 upon thefubjeSf. A declaration in which at th$ 
 fim.e he was much in earneft. 
 
 Dr. Prieftley, mortified to find that his Letters 
 had failed of the expekJedfuccefs > that his anta- 
 gonift touched with, no Jhame, with no remorfe, 
 remained unjhaken in his opinion -, and that the 
 authority of his own opinion was ftill Jet at 
 nought ; his learning dif allowed; his ingenuity in 
 argument impeached; and, what was leaft to be 
 
 borne,
 
 PREFACE, i, 
 
 borne, finding that a haughty churchman ventured 
 incidentally toavowhisfentiments of the Divine 
 commiffion of the Epifcopal Mini/try > and pre- 
 fumed to queftion the authority of thofe teachers, 
 who ufurp the preacher' s office without any better 
 warrant, than their own opinion of their own 
 f efficiency, loft all temper. A fecondjet ^Let- 
 ters to the Archdeacon of St. Alban's appeared, 
 in the autumn of the year 1784, in which, all 
 profejfion of perjonal regard and civility was laid 
 afide. 'The charge of insufficiency in thefubjeff 
 was warmly retorted, and the in corrigible dig- 
 nitary was taxed with manifeft mifreprefentation 
 of his adverfary's argument; with injuftice to 
 the character of Origen, whofe veracity he had 
 called in queftion - y and with the grojjeft fal/ifica- 
 tion of antient Hiftory. He w^as ftigmatized in 
 Jhort, in terms, as a falfifier of hiftory, and a 
 defamer of the character of the dead, 
 
 Under all this reproach, he continued filent al- 
 Woft eighteen months : the charatler of Origen, 
 and an intricate queftion of antient hiftory, upon 
 
 which
 
 x PREFACE. 
 
 which the charge of direR faljification bad been 
 advanced againft him, were indeed the only points 
 en which he felt the leaft defire to reply. A Ser- 
 mon on the Incarnation, preached in his parifh 
 church of St. Mary Newington, in Surry, upon 
 thefeaft of the Nativity, in the year 1785, which 
 is the third tracJ in this collection, was the pre- 
 lude to a renewal of the conteft upon bis fide ; 
 and was followed early in the enfuing fpring by 
 bis Remarks on Dr. Prieftley's Second Let- 
 ters to the Archdeacon of St. Alban's, with 
 Proofs of certain facts aflerted by the Arch- 
 deacon. This tratt is the fourth in order in 
 this volume. It confifts of two parts. 'The firft 
 is a collection of new fpecimens of Dr. Prieftley's 
 temerity in ajfertion. The Jecond defends the 
 attack upon the charaffer of Origen, and 
 proves the exigence of a body of Hebrew 
 Chriftians at Mlia after the time of Adrian : the 
 fact upon which the author's good faith had been 
 Jo loudly arraigned. It alfo contains confirmation 
 of another f aft, which had been incidentally men- 
 tioned, the decline ofCahinifm among our Englijh 
 
 dijjenters,
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 XI 
 
 diffenters, and a chapter on thege^eralfpirit of 
 Dr. Prieftley's controverfial writings. With 
 this publication, he again promifed himjelf, that 
 the controverfy on his part would be clojed. But 
 having at laft yielded with reluctance to the fo~ 
 licitations of his friends, to republijh thejefour 
 trafts in the prejentform, he hath taken this occa- 
 fion to give Dr. Prieft ley's Letters afecondperu- 
 Jal j and to many things which he had before paf- 
 fed unnoticed, he hath now replied, partly in notes 
 occafionally interfperfed in the former trafts, and, 
 where the matter arifing upon any particular quef- 
 tion hath turned out to be more, than could be 
 conveniently comprifed within thecompajs of a note, 
 in Supplemental Dijquifitions of confiderable 
 length. The remarks upon Dr. Prieftlefs Second 
 Letters produced a, thirdfet of Letters from Dr. 
 Prieftley upon the two queftions of Origens ve- 
 racity, and the orthodox Hebrews of the church 
 cf Mlia. Tbefe too are anjwered-, partly in notes 
 interfperjed in the remarks, and partly in the two 
 laft of the Supplemental Difquifitions, which in 
 all, are fix in number. It is conceived, that no- 
 thing
 
 *ii PREFACE. 
 
 thing of any confequence in Dr. Prieftlefs three 
 Jets of Letters now remains unanswered. The 
 author, indeed, is well aware that Dr. Prieft- 
 ley will charge him with one capital cmiffion. 
 That he hath taken no notice of any thing that 
 may be contained, relating to the various points 
 of this controverfy, in Dr. Prieftley's Hiftory 
 of Early Opinions concerning Chrift ; that 
 large work in four volumes, the reju.lt of a whole 
 two-years ftudy of the writers of antiquity, 
 which, as it hath been publijhed fence Dr. Prieft- 
 leys laft Letters, may befuppofed to contain bet- 
 ter arguments, or at leafl bis old arguments in 
 a better form. The only apology to be made, is a 
 female declaration of the truth. Not conceiving 
 bimfelf obliged to engage in the injipid tajk ofread-^ 
 ingfo long a book, without better hope of infor- 
 mation from it, than his paft experience of the 
 writer's knowledge in the fubjeff gives; Dr. 
 Prieftley's adverfary is as ignorant of the contents 
 of that work, as he could have been, had it never 
 beenpubli/hed. It is reported, indeed, that the 
 'work, whatever may be its merits, hath a very 
 
 Jloiv
 
 PREFACE. xiil 
 
 Jlowfak. Of confequence it hath found but few 
 readers. The antagonifl of Dr. Prieftley, were, 
 he better acquainted with its contents, would ftill 
 difdain to do the office of the midwife for this la- 
 borious birth. He would not, by an unnecejjary 
 and unjeajonable oppojition to negletJed arguments, 
 be the inftrument of drawing four 'volumes, 
 fraught, as the very title imports, with pernici- 
 ous heretical theology, from the objcurity in which 
 they may innocently rot in the Printer's ware- 
 houfe. 
 
 CONTENTS.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 J. A CHARGE to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of 
 St. Albarfs. p. i. 
 
 II. Letters from the Archdeacon of St'. Alban's In reply 
 
 to Dr. Priejlley. p. 8l, 
 
 III. A Sermon on the Incarnation. p. 308. 
 
 IV. Remark* on Dr. Priejilefs Second Letters to the 
 Archdeacon of St. AlbarfS) with proofs of certain 
 
 fafts ajjertedby the Archdeacon. p. 331. 
 
 V. Supplemental Difquijitions on certain points in Dr. 
 
 Priejlley's Second and Third Letters to the Arch- 
 deacon of St. Alban's p. 413* 
 
 d o N-
 
 CONTEN-TS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 , Letters in Reply to Dr. Prieftley. 
 
 LETTER FIRST. 
 
 HP H E Archdeacon of St. Aborts declines a regular 
 
 cohtroverfy with Dr. Priejlley. Produces new 
 
 inflames of Dr. Prie/tley's inaccuracies and mifre- 
 
 presentations. Page 83. 
 
 LETTER SECOND. 
 
 A recapitulation of the Archdeacon's charge. - 94. 
 
 LETTER THIRD. 
 
 In reply to Dr. Prieftley's introductory^ and to part of 
 his firjl Letter. His defence of his argument from 
 the clear fenfe of fcrlpture confuted. Of the argu- 
 ment againft our Lord's pre-ex'iflence to he drawn 
 from the materiality of man. Of the Greek pronoun 
 iroj. 102 
 
 LET-
 
 CONTENTS, xvtt 
 
 LETTER FOURTH. 
 
 In reply to Dr. Priejlley's Firfl Letter. His defence of 
 his argument from St. John's firft epiftle confuted. 
 The phrafe " c ome In the fle/h" more than equi- 
 valent to the word " to come" St. John's affer- 
 tion that " Chrijl came in the flejh" not parallel 
 with St. Paul's, that he " partook of fejh and 
 " blood." p 107 
 
 LETTER FIFTH. 
 
 The Archdeacon's interpretation of Clemens Romanus 
 defended.* The Jhorter epiftles of Ignatius genuine. 
 
 H7 
 
 LETTER SIXTH. 
 
 In reply to Dr. Priejlley's Second. -The difference of 
 the Ebionites and Nazarenes nojingular or new opi- 
 nion of the Archdeacon* s. The fame thing maintained 
 by Mojheim and other critics of great name. Dr. 
 Priejlley's arguments from Origen and Eufebius not 
 neglefted in the Archdeacon's Charge. Dr. Priejl- 
 ley's conclujions from the fever al pajjages cited by him 
 from Epiphanius confuted. The Nazarenes nofeft of 
 the apoflolic age.Ebion not contemporary with St. 
 
 b A.
 
 iviii CONTENTS. 
 
 John. The antiquity of a feft nof a proof of Its or- 
 thodoxy. 125 
 
 LETTER SEVENTH. 
 
 Continuation of Reply to Dr. Prieftley's Second.-0f 
 the argument from Qrigen.That it rejls on two 
 pajjages .In the books againft CelfusThe firjl mif- 
 interpreted by Dr. Priejlley in a very important point. 
 - No argument to be drawn from the two pajjages in 
 connexion. -Origen conviffed oftwofalfe ajjertlons m 
 the fir/1 paj/age. "The opinions of the fir [I age not to 
 be concluded from the opinions of Or igcn's.. 151 
 
 LETTER EIGHTH. 
 
 A pojitive proof Jlill extant that our Lord's divinity 
 was the belief of the very firft Chrijlians. The 
 epiftles of St. Barnabas not the work of an apoftle* 
 but a production of the apojlolic age cited as fuch by 
 Dr. Priejlley. The author a Chriflian of the He* 
 brews a believer in our Lord's divinity writes to 
 Chriftians of the Hebrews concurring in the fame 
 belief. 163 
 
 LETTER NINTH, 
 
 The proof of the orthodoxy of.thefirjl age overturns Dr. 
 arguments from Hegefippus and Juflin 
 Martyr.*
 
 CONTENTS. xix 
 
 Martyr." Hegejippus, a voucher for the Trinitarian 
 .faith. Dr. Priejlley's own principles fet afide his 
 interpretation of Jujlin Martyr. Dr. Prieftley 
 himfelf gives it up.-^-Tertullian makes no acknow- 
 ledgement of any popularity of the Unitarian tenets in 
 his own time. * 160 
 
 LETTER TENTH. 
 
 / reply TO Dr. Prieftley' s Third Letter, in which he 
 would prove that the primitive Unitarians were not 
 deemed Heretics His arguments from Tertullian^ 
 Juftin Martyr^ and Irenceus^ confuted by the Monthly 
 Reviewer The insufficiency of Dr. Priejttey's re- 
 ply, The arguments from Clemens Alexandrlnus^ and 
 from Jerome confuted. 178 
 
 LETTER ELEVENTH. 
 
 In reply to Dr. Priejlley's Fourth^ in which he defends 
 his argument from a pajjage in Athanajius. The 
 fenfe of the words ailta IwXoyoj mi/laken by Dr. Priejl~ 
 leyThefenfe of the word <ruvs<ns miftaken by Dr. 
 Priejlley. Prudence and Caution not fynonymous . 
 The matter of facJ as reprefented by Athanafius mif- 
 taken by Dr. Priejlley. His grammatical argument 
 refuted. That Athanafius fpeaks of unconverted 
 b 2 ew*
 
 xx CONTENTS. 
 
 Jews proved from a comparifon of the two claufeS in 
 
 ' which Jews are mentioned. The Gentiles not unin- 
 
 tereftedin quejlions about the MeJJiah. Of deference 
 
 to authorities. jgi 
 
 LETTER TWELFTH. 
 
 In reply to Dr. Pric/lley's fifth; in which he moves 
 certain chronological difficulties. Himfelf chiefly con- 
 cerned to find thefolution His quejlion divided The 
 divinity of our Lord preached from the very beginning 
 by the Apojlles. St. Stephen a martyr to this doftrine. 
 His dying ejaculations jujlify the worjhip of Chrijl. 
 Chrift deified In thejlory of St. Paul's converjion. 
 The divinity of Jefus acknowledged by the Apojlles 
 from the time when they acknowledged him for the 
 MeJJiah. Notions of a trinity ', and of the deity of 
 the Mejfiah) current among the "Jews in the days of 
 our Saviour. 204 
 
 LETTER THIRTEENTH. 
 
 In reply to Dr. Prieftley's Sixth. Dr. Priejlley's ig- 
 norance of the true principles of Platonifm appears in 
 his difquijitions concerning matter and fpirit.The 
 equality and unity of the three principles of the Pla- 
 tonifls. Dr. Priejlleyt peculiar fenfe of the word 
 
 perfonification
 
 t O N T E N T S. xxi 
 
 perfonification not perceived either by the Archdea- 
 con or the Reviewer. The outline however of Dr. 
 Priejlley's work not^mifreprefentedby the Archdeacon. 
 The converfion of an attribute into a fubfiance dif- 
 fers not from a creation out of nothing. Never taught 
 by the Platonifts.The eternity of the Logos indepen- 
 dent of any fuppofed eternity of the world. Not dif- 
 carded therefore by the converted Platonijis. Dr. 
 Priejllefs arguments from the analogy between the 
 divine Logos and human reafon anfwered. The Arch- 
 deacon abides by his ajjertion that Dr> Prieftley hath 
 mifreprefented the platonic language. The Archdea- 
 con's interpretation of the Platonifts rejls not on his 
 own conjefturgy but on the authority of Athenagoras 
 confirmed by other authorities. Dr. Priejlley's 
 quotations from Tertullian confideredfrom LacJan- 
 tius. 219 
 
 LETTER FOURTEENTH. 
 
 In reply to Dr. Priejllefs Eighth. The Archdeacon's 
 fuppofetion, that the firjl Ebionites worjhipped Chrift^ 
 defended His fuppofition^ that Theodotus was the 
 fir/I perfon who taught the Unitarian dofirine at 
 Rome, defended. i 240 
 
 L E T-
 
 iwi CONTENTS, 
 
 LETTER FIFTEENTH. 
 
 In reply to Dr. Prieftley's Seventh. The metaphyfical 
 difficulties Jiated by Dr. Prieftley neither new nor un~ 
 anfwerabk. Difficulties Jhort of a contradiftim no 
 objetlion to a revealed doclrine. Difficulties in the 
 Arian and Socinian doflrines. The Father not thefole 
 tibjeR ofworjhip. Our Lord, in whatfenfe an image 
 of the invifible God and the firft-born of every crea- 
 ture. Not the defign of the Evangelifts to deliver a 
 
 fyftem of fundamental principles. The doftrine 
 
 of the Trinity re/Is on the general tenor of the fa- 
 cred writings. The inference^ that Chrift is not GW, 
 lecaufe the Apoftles often fpeak of him as man, invalid* 
 The inference^ from the manner in which he fame- 
 times fpeaks of himfelfc invalid. The dthanqfians 
 of the loft age no Tritheijls. 247 
 
 LETTER SIXTEENTH. 
 
 The Unitarian doSlrine not well calculated for the con- 
 verjion of Jews^ Mahometans^ or Infidels^ of any 
 defcription. . -*. 264 
 
 LETTER SEVENTEENTH. 
 
 The Archdeacon takes leave of the controverfy. 275 
 APPENDIX. _- .~ 296 
 
 CON-
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Remarks on Dr. Prieftley's Second Letters, 
 with Proofs, &Ci 
 
 PART FIRST. 
 
 Remarks. P- 333 
 
 PART SECOND. 
 
 PROOFS. 
 
 CHAPTER FIRST. 
 
 OfOrigen's want of Veracity. 'Of the Fathers in ge+ 
 neral. Of the pajjages in which St. Chryfojlom is 
 fuppofed to ajftrt, that the Apojlks temporifed. Afpe- 
 timen of Corredion by an Unitarian. p. 348 
 
 CHAPTER SECOND. 
 
 Of the Church of Mlia^ or 'Jerufalem^ after Adrian* 
 *MoJbeirrfs Narration confirmed. Cbrijlians not 
 included in Adrian's Edifts againft the Jews. -The 
 return from Pd/a, a faff affirmed by Epiphanius.- 
 
 Orthodox
 
 xxiv CONTENTS, 
 
 Orthodox Hebrew Chriftians exijling in the World 
 long after the times of Adrian* p. 362 
 
 CHAPTER THIRD. 
 
 Of the Hebrew Church and its Setts. p. 378 
 
 CHAPTER FOURTH. 
 
 Of the Decline of Cahinifm. "Of Conventicles, p. 387 
 
 CHAPTER FIFTH. 
 
 Of the Doctrines of Cahin.-> Of Methodifts. p. 398 
 
 CHAPTER SIXTH. 
 
 Of the general Spirit of Dr. Priejtley's Controverftal 
 Writings. Conclufm* p. 402 
 
 C O K-
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Supplemental Difquifitions. 
 
 D I S QJIJ ISITION FIRST. 
 
 Of the Phrafe of ^ coming in the flefh" as ufed ly 
 St. Polycarp in his epiftle to the Philippians. p. 415 
 
 DISQUISITION SECOND. 
 
 Of Tertulliari's tejllmony againjl the Unitarians, and 
 bis ufe of the word IDIOT A. p. 424 
 
 DISQUISITION THIRD. 
 
 Of what is found relating to the Ebionites in the writ' 
 ings oflREWJEUS t in confutation of an argument^ 
 advanced by Dr. Priejlley in favour of the Ebionites, 
 in the Third of his Firft^ and the Fourth of 'his Se- 
 cond Letters^ from the writings of Irenaus in par- 
 ticular. . p. 434 
 
 c D I S-
 
 Xxvi CONTENTS, 
 
 DISQUISITION FOURTH. 
 
 Of the fentimerts of the Fathers, and others, concerning 
 the eternal origination of the Son in the neceffbry ener- 
 gies of 'the paternal 'intellect. P- 458 
 
 DISQUISITION FIFTH. 
 
 Of Origen's want of Ferocity. -^ P- 477 
 
 DISQUISITION SIXTH. 
 
 Qf St. Jerome's orthodox Hebrew Chrtfians. p. 490 
 
 A CHARGE,
 
 CHARGE, &c. 
 
 MY REVEREND BRETHREN, 
 
 THE Bufmefs of the Chriftian Priefthood, like 
 that of every fecular occupation, confining in 
 two branches, the Speculative, and the Practical ; if 
 any of us, by a particular blefling of Providence at- 
 tending our temporal fortunes, are releafed from the 
 neceffity, to which the greater part fubmit, of a fevere 
 and conftant toil in the practical branch of the profet- 
 fion, as the labour by which they have to earn their 
 daily bread ; it feems to be our particular duty to 
 confecrate the leifure we enjoy, if I may borrow an 
 expreflion from the profane fciences, to the Theory of 
 Religion. And in the prefent ftate of Religious Learn- 
 ing in this country, it mould feem that the cultivation 
 of that branch of it, which is called Sacred Criticifm, 
 and particularly the elucidation of the Text of the Old 
 Teftament, by a diligent ufe of the materials which 
 the unwearied induftry of a learned Critic, fupported 
 by the munificence of the beft of Princes, hath fup- 
 plied, is the ftudy in which, of all others, our talents 
 and our induftry might be beft employed. It is, how- 
 B ever
 
 H A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 ever, to be remembered, that the Writings of the Old 
 Teftament are only of a fecondary importance; for 
 the evidence which they afford of the truth of our 
 Lord's pretenfions, and for the light which they throw 
 upon the doctrines of the Gofpel ; which is indeed fo 
 great, that an inattention to thefe more ancient parts 
 of the Code of Revelation, is likely to be one princi- 
 pal caufe of the fcepticifm which unhappily prevails 
 among our modern fedtaries, concerning the original 
 dignity of the Redeemer's nature, and the expiatory 
 virtue of his fufferings. But in whatever degree the 
 Jewifh Scriptures may be ufeful for the general confir- 
 mation of Christianity j it is from their relation to the 
 Gofpel, to which, we have been told by the higheft 
 authority, the Mofaic tlifpenfation was but a prelude 
 or preparative, that they derive the whole of the im- 
 portance which they yet retain. A profound and 
 critical acquaintance with them is ufeful only as 
 means conducive to an end : and in this, as in 
 other cafes, every folid advantage will be loft, that 
 might be reaped from the improvement of the means, 
 if, in the too afliduous purfuit of thefe, we lofe fight of 
 the end to which they mould be made fubfervient. 
 The Theology of the Chriftian Revelation is the great 
 object, to which every other branch of facred literature 
 is naturally fubordinate. To extract it from the writ- 
 ings of the Apoftles and Evangelifts, connected with 
 the earlier revelations; to aflert and defend their ge- 
 nuine doctrine ; to preferve it entire ; and to maintain 
 it in its native purity, unadulterated by the additions 
 of fuperftition, undebafed and undiminimed by the re- 
 finements
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. | 
 
 finements of philofophy ; this is the great bufmefs to 
 which thofe of us, who feel themfelves at eafe and in 
 affluence, and Matters of the leifure which affluence 
 affords, fhould confider their talents and their ftudies 
 to be folemnly devoted. 
 
 2. My Reverend Brethren, I would be underftood 
 to fpeak with fentiments of refpeft, of thofe whom I 
 mall take the liberty to call the labouring part of the 
 parochial Clergy : of thofe whofe lives are fpent in a 
 conftant attendance on the public ceremonies of exter- 
 nal worfhip, or in the charitable and necefiary bufinefs 
 of inftru6ting the people of the lower ranks in the firft 
 principles of the Doctrine of Chrift. Of thefe vene- 
 rable men, of their godly labours, and honourable oc- 
 cupations, I would be underftood to fpeak with reve- 
 rence and refpect. Of all the departments of the fa- 
 cred office, the bufinefs of that which it is their lot to 
 fill, is perhaps the moft immediately conducive to ge- 
 neral edification: and for the zeal and ability with 
 which it is difcharged by them, they are juftly entitled 
 to the higheft degrees of veneration and efteem. It is 
 matter of concern and grief to every ferious Chriftian, 
 that their rewards in this life mould but feldom cor- 
 refpond, in any fair proportion, with the worth of 
 their characters, and the importance of their fervices. 
 Thanks be to Him, of whom the whole family is 
 named, their hope is full of glory. It is felt, I am 
 perfuaded; by themfelves as the heavieft inconvenience 
 of their prefent fituation, that their employment, ufe- 
 ful and honourable as it muft ever be confefled to be, 
 B 2 partakes
 
 4 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 partakes in feme degree of the nature of a worldly bu- 
 finefs ; requiring a labour of the body, and a diftract- 
 ing intercourfe with the world, which leave little op- 
 portunity for private ftudy and folitary meditation. In 
 circumftances fo unfriendly to literary improvement, it 
 redounds highly to their praife, that they are fo emi- 
 nently well qualified, as they generally approve them- 
 felves to be, to difcharge the plain duty of Catechifts, 
 with credit to themfelves, and advantage to the Church 
 of God. To deliver the doctrine of the Gofpel in that 
 plain and general way, which, if it were to meet with 
 no oppofition from the difputers of the world, might 
 be fufficient to give it its full effect upon the heart of 
 the hearer. But occafions will from time to time arife, 
 when the truth muft be not only taught, but defended. 
 The ftubborn Infidel will raife objections againft the 
 firft principles of our faith: and objections muft be 
 anfwered. The reftlefs fpirit of fcepticifm will fuggeft 
 difficulties in the fyftem, and create doubts about the 
 particulars of the Chriftian doctrine : difficulties muft 
 be removed, and doubts muft be fatisfied. But above 
 all, the fcruples muft be compofed, which the refine- 
 ments of a falfe philofophy, patronized as they are in 
 the prefent age by men no lefs amiable for the general 
 purity of their manners, than diftinguifhed by their 
 fcientific attainments, will be too apt to raife in the 
 minds of the weaker Brethren. And this is the fer- 
 vice to which they, whom the indulgence of Providence 
 hath releafed from the more laborious offices of the 
 priefthood, ftand peculiarly engaged. To them their 
 more occupied Brethren have a right to look up, in 
 
 thefe
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. s 
 
 thefe emergencies, for fupport and fuccour in the com- 
 mon caufe. It is for them to ftand forth the cham- 
 pions of the common faith, and the advocates of their 
 order. It is for them to wipe off the afperfions in- 
 jurioufly cart upon the fons of the eftablifhment, as 
 uninformed in the true grounds of the doctrine which 
 they teach, or infincere in the belief of it. To this 
 duty they are indifpenfably obliged, by their providen- 
 tial exemption from work of a harder kind. It is the 
 proper bufmefs of the ftation which is allotted them in 
 Chrift's houmold. And deep will be their fhame, and 
 infupportable their punifhment, if, in the great day of 
 reckoning, it fhemld appear, that they have received 
 the wages of a fervice, which hath never been per- 
 formed. 
 
 3. You will eafily conjecture, that what has ledde 
 me into thefe reflections, is the extraordinary attempt, 
 which hath been lately made, to unfettle the faith, and 
 to break up the conftitution of every ecclefiaftical efta- 
 blifhment in Chrillendom. Such is the avowed ob- 
 jel of a recent publication, which bears the title of 
 A Hiftory of the Corruptions of Chrijtlanity ; among 
 which the Catholie Doctrine of the Trinity, in the 
 author's opinion, holds a principal place. With what 
 fuccefs he hath attacked this fundamental article, and 
 how far he hath been able to invalidate the argument 
 from early and uniform tradition, this Reverend Af- 
 fembly will be competent to judge, from the brief 
 view which mall be laid before them, of the account 
 which he attempts to give of the rife and progrefs of 
 B 3 the
 
 6 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 the do&rine in the three firft ages, accompanied with 
 fpecimens of the proofs by which his pretended hif- 
 tory, in this part of it, is fupported. 
 
 I. 
 
 i. The opinion which he maintains, is in general 
 the fame which was firft, I think, propagated in the 
 laft century by Daniel Zuicker, a Pruffian phyfician, 
 of the Socinian perfuafion ; and, upon the authority 
 of that writer, hath been current ever fmce among the 
 Unitarians of this country. That the doftrine of the 
 Trinity, in the form in which it is now maintained, is 
 of no greater antiquity than the Nicene Council : That it 
 is the refult of a gradual corruption of the doclrine of the 
 Gojpel, which took its rife in an opinion firji advanced in 
 the fecond century by certain converts from the Platonic 
 School; who, expounding the beginning of St. John's 
 Cofpel by the Platonic Dottrine of the Logos, afcribed a 
 fort of fecondary divinity to our Saviour, affirming that 
 he was no other than the fecond principle of the Platonic 
 Triad) who had aj/'umed a human body to converfe with 
 man: That before this innovation, of which "Juftin Mar- 
 tyr is made the author, the faith of the whole Chrijlian 
 Church, but particularly of the Church of "Jerufalem, 
 was fimply andftriffly Unitarian. The immediate Dif- 
 ciples of the dpoftles conceived our Saviour to be a man, 
 whofe exigence commenced in the womb of the Virgin ; 
 and they thought him in no refpecJ the objecJ of worjhip. 
 The next fucceeding race worjhipped him indeed, but they 
 
 had,
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. ? 
 
 had however no higher notions of his Divinity^ than thofe 
 which were maintained by the followers of Arms in the 
 fourth century. In fhort, the firft race of Chriftians, 
 in Dr. Prieftley's opinion, were Unitarians in the 
 ftriaeftfenfe of 'the word; the fecond, Arians*. Ajs 
 Dr. Prieftley follows Zuicker in thefe extravagant af- 
 fertions, fo the arguments, by which he would fup- 
 port them, are in all eflential points the fame which 
 were alleged to the fame purpofe, either by that writer, 
 or by Simon Epifcopius. Epifcopius, though himfelf 
 no Socinian, very indifcreetly concurred with the So- 
 cinians of his time, in maintaining, that the opinion 
 o/ the meer humanity of Chrift had prevailed very ge- 
 nerally in the firft ages ; and was never deemed Here- 
 tical by the Fathers of the Orthodox perfuafion; at 
 leaft not in fuch degree, as to exclude from the com- 
 munion of the Church. The opinion, I believe, had 
 its rife in no worfe principle than the charitable tem- 
 per of the man, and his juft abhorrence of the fpirit of 
 perfecution, with which Chriftians of every denomina- 
 tion were in his time much infected : which is indeed 
 itfelf of all herefies by far the moft malignant, being 
 the moft oppofite to that general Philanthropy, which 
 is the root of all focial virtue, and the higheft orna- 
 ment of the Chriftian profeffion. Epifcopius wifhed, 
 as every good man muft wim, to fee a general tolera- 
 tion eftablifhed ; which he thought could not be more 
 effe&ually recommended, than by the example of the 
 
 * See this brief ftatement of Dr. Prieftley's opinion de- 
 fended againft his obje&ions to it, in the i^th of my Letters 
 in Reply. 
 
 B 4 harmony
 
 S- A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 harmony which fubfifted among Chriftians in the ear- 
 lieft ages. The force of his example he would na- 
 turally think improved, in proportion as the idea of the 
 harmony was heightened; the idea of the harmony 
 heightened, as the controvorfies of the firft Chriftians 
 were magnified and multiplied. Thefe fentiments in- 
 clined him to credit as hiftorians, the fame writers 
 whom, as Divines, he held in little eftimation. He 
 gave eafy credit to Unitarian writers, when they repre- 
 fented the differences of opinion in the early churches, 
 as much greater than ever really obtained; and the 
 tendernefs for fectaries, as more than was ever prac- 
 tiied ; and while he oppofed their doctrine, he vouched 
 their ftory. The purpofes of Charity had been better 
 ferved, without injury to the caufe of truth, had the 
 talents of this able writer been employed to fet the doc- 
 trine of Univerfal Toleration on its only firm and pro- 
 per bafis : to mew, that although in dubious points of 
 doctrine, the judgment of antiquity, wherever it is 
 clear, muft be allowed to be deciiive; yet the jufl fe- 
 verity of the Primitive Church towards the refractory 
 Heretics, whofe vifionary doctrines, joined with their 
 contempt of apoftolic authority, difgraced the rifing 
 community, and obftructed the propagation of the 
 truth, conftitutes no example for the controul of fair 
 enquiry, or for the punifhment of meer fpeculative he- 
 refy in thefe later times ; by any hardier means than 
 the neceflary exclufion of Diflenters from the honours 
 and emoluments of national eftablimments. Had the 
 opinion which he chofe to adopt been true, Simon 
 F.piicopius, with his fcanty knowledge of ecclefiaftical 
 
 antiquities^
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 9 
 
 antiquities, was but ill qualified to maintain it. Falfe 
 and groundlefs as it was, his natural acutenefs enabled 
 him to furnim the Socinians of his time, wliofe caufe 
 in the doctrinal part he little thought to ferve, with the 
 belt arguments that have ever been produced on the 
 Unitarian fide of the queftion. Our modern Hiftorian, 
 in fupport of his imaginary progrefs of opinions from 
 the Unitarian Do&rine to the Nicene P'aith, hath pro- 
 duced few, if any, arguments which make directly for 
 his purpofe, but what are to be found in the writings 
 either of Zuicker or Epifcopius. Nor is a (ingle ar- 
 gument to be found in the writings either of Zuicker 
 or Epifcopius, which is not unanfwerably confuted by 
 our learned Dr. George Bull, afterwards Lord Bifhop 
 of St. David's, in three celebrated treatifes, which de- 
 ferve the particular attention of every one, who would 
 take upon him to be either a teacher or an hiftorian 
 of the Chriftian Faith : the firft, A Defence of the Ni- 
 cene Faith ; the fecond, The Judgment of the Catholic 
 Churchy in the firft ages^ concerning the necejfity of be- 
 lieving that our Lord Jefus drift is very God; the 
 third, The Primitive and Apojlolical Tradition concerning 
 the true Divinity of Jefus Chrift. 
 
 2. It feems very extraordinary, that any one mould 
 prefume to revive the defeated arguments of Zuicker 
 and Epifcopius, without attempting to make them 
 good againft the objections of a writer of Dr. Bull's 
 eminence. Nor is it eafy to conceive, what apology 
 can be made, for what mould feem fo grofs an infult 
 on the learning and difcernment of the age ; unlefs it 
 
 be,
 
 jo A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 be, that Dr. Prieftley imagines, that although he hath 
 abftained from a particular difcuflion of Dr. Bull's ar- 
 guments, he hath in effect anfwered them, by the new 
 light which he perfuades himfelf he has thrown upon 
 the fubject : That by the evidence which he thinks he 
 hath brought of the truth of his own narrative, in 
 every branch of it, he fuppofes that he hath virtually 
 replied to all objections : That he harh confirmed the 
 affumptions from which Zuicker and Epifcopius rea- 
 foned, which Dr. Bull pretended to deny : and that, 
 by confirming their aflumptioris, he hath made good 
 their arguments, although he may have taken no no- 
 tice of their learned antagonift. What new illuftra- 
 tions the fubjet hath received from Dr. Prieftley's la- 
 bours, will beft appear from fpecimens of the argu- 
 ments by which he would fupport his three principal 
 aflumptions : namely, that the firft Chriftians were 
 Unitarians in the ftricleft fenfe of the word ; that the 
 Deity of Chriit was firft taught by a Platonizing feet ; 
 and that the doctrine, which they introduced, was the 
 very fame, for which, in a later age, Arius was con- 
 demned. If his proof of thefe fundamental propofi- 
 tioris mould be found to reft upon precarious aflump- 
 tions, perverted hiftory, mifconftrued and mifapplied 
 quotations : if his fads mould appear to be confuted 
 by his own authorities, and his conclufions to be de- 
 feated by his own arguments : if the refemblance be- 
 tween the Chriftian and the Platonic Trinity fhoukl 
 appear to be no mark of corruption in the prevailing 
 opinions : the Catholic Faith, which hath heretofore 
 fuftained fo many rude afiaults, will hardly find its 
 
 mortal
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. u 
 
 mortal wound in the ftroke which Dr. Prieftley ima, 
 gines he hath inflicted. 
 
 3. The firft argument which is produced in fupport 
 of the firft affertion, " that the faith of the firft Chrif- 
 " tians was fimply Unitarian," is built upon an af- 
 fumption, which, could it be proved to be true, would 
 indeed render the conclufion obvious and inevitable. 
 " That the doctrine of our Lord's meer humanity is 
 " the clear doctrine of the Scriptures, and that the 
 " Apoftles never taught any other*." It will eafily 
 be granted, that the Apoftles never taught the contrary 
 of any doctrine that is clearly delivered in their writ- 
 ings ; and that the Faith of the firft Converts was a 
 belief of neither more nor lefs, than the Apoftles taught. 
 So that the fenfe of the Scriptures in any article being 
 once clearly afcertained, the argument from the clear 
 confefled fenfe of Scripture to the preaching of the 
 Apoftles, and from the preaching of the Apoftles to 
 the Primitive Faith, will be firm and valid. But the 
 profefled object of our learned adverfary's undertaking, 
 requires an argument, that fhould go the contrary 
 way : from the Primitive Faith to the fenfe of the 
 Scriptures. It is the profefled object of his under- 
 taking, to exhibit a view of the gradual changes of 
 opinions, in order to afcertain the faith of the firft 
 ages : and he would afcertain the faith of the firft ages, 
 }n order to fettle the fenfe of the Scriptures in difputed 
 points. He is therefore not at liberty, to afTume any 
 
 * Hifto.ry of Corruptions, vol. I. p. 6. 
 
 fenfe
 
 rz A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 fenfe of the Scriptures, which, becaufe it is liis own, 
 he may be pleafed to call the clear fenfe, for a proof 
 that the Original Faith was fuch, as would confirm the 
 fenfe he wifhes to eftablifh. His fenfe of the Scrip- 
 tures being not acknowledged by the majority of the 
 Chriftian Church, whatever may be his own judg- 
 ment of its clearnefs, it can only pafs for a particular 
 interpretation. When this particular interpretation is 
 alleged, in proof that the Original Faith of the Church 
 of Jerufalem was fuch as might juftify that interpreta- 
 tion j the middle term of the argument is no other- 
 wife confirmed than by an aflumption of the principal 
 matter in debate : and fo long as the fixth page of the 
 firft volume of Dr. Prieflley's hiftory fliall be extant, 
 the mafters of the dialectic art will be at no lofs for an 
 example of the circulating fyllogifm. To Dr. Prieftley 
 it may be very clear, that when St. John, fpeaking 
 of the Logos, of which he had already affirmed that it 
 it was in the beginning, fays, This perfon" (for 
 that is the natural force of the Greek pronoun oj/?cj*) 
 " This perfon was in the beginning with God ; all 
 " things were made by him, and without him was 
 " not any thing made that was made :" it may be 
 very clear to Dr. Prieftley, that St. John, fpeaking of 
 the Logos, as of a perfon who had been from the be- 
 ginning, and had done thefe great things, means to 
 affirm that the Logos is no perfon ; nor is, otherwife 
 than in a figurative fenfe, to be called an agent in any 
 bufmefs : that he means to contradict thofe, who held 
 
 * See the third of my Letters in reply, and the Appendix to 
 the Letters, No. 2. 
 
 that
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 13 
 
 that the Logos was any thing more than an attribute 
 of the Divine Mind j to filence them ; to extinguifh 
 their profane innovation by his definitive fentence upon 
 the queftion : and that when he fpeaks of eternity as 
 belonging to the Logos as a perfon, it is, that this 
 was the moft explicit way, in which he could give the 
 Chriftian Church to underftand, that eternity is only 
 accidental to the Logos, the fubftance to which it pro- 
 perly belongs, being that Mind of which the Logos it- 
 felf is only another attribute*. It may be very clear 
 to Dr. Prieftley's apprehenfion, that when St. Paul af- 
 firms of Chrift, that he is the " image of the invifi- 
 " ble God, the firft born of every creature, by whom 
 " all things were created," and explains in what ex*- 
 tent the words " all things" are to be underftood, by 
 an enumeration of the conftituent parts, and governing 
 powers of the Univerfe ; " things in heaven and things 
 in earth, vifible and invifible, whether they be thrones, 
 or dominions, or principalities, or powers, all things 
 were created by him and for him, and he is before all 
 things, and by him all things confift f ;" it may be 
 very clear to Dr. Prieftley, that St.' Paul in thefe ex- 
 preflions would be underftood to aflert, that Chrift 
 was nothing more than a man, and was no otherwife 
 the creator of any thing, than as he was the founder 
 of the Chriftian Church. All this may be very clear 
 to Dr. Prieftley's apprehenfion ; and equal to the clear- 
 nefs of the apprehenfion, which he imagines he enjoys, 
 that this was the doctrine of the Apoftles, will be the 
 
 * See Hift. of Corrup. vol. I. p. 10, n. 
 f Coloff. i. 15, 17. 
 
 confidence
 
 t4 A CttARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 confidence of his perfuafion, that it was alfo the faith 
 of their firft converts. But to others, who have not 
 the fagacity to difcern, that the true meaning of an in- 
 fpired writer muft be the reverfe of the natural and ob- 
 vious fenfe of the expreffions which he employs ; the 
 force of the conclufion, that the Primitive Chriftians 
 could not believe our Lord to be more than a meer 
 man, becaufe the Apoftles had told them he was the 
 Creator of the Univerfe, will be little underftood. 
 
 4. Another argument is built upon a pretended fi- 
 lence of St. John, about the error of thofe who main- 
 tained the meer humanity of Chrift*, in his firft epif- 
 tle : in which he is fuppofed to cenfure thofe, who be- 
 lieved Chrift to be a man only in appearance, in the 
 fevereft manner ; but upon thofe who believed him to 
 be nothing more than man, the Apoftle, as he is un- 
 derftood by Dr. Prieftley, pafies no cenfure. From 
 which it is to be concluded, that the latter opinion is 
 no error, but the very truth of the Gofpel. 
 
 5. But here the queftion is, whether the opinion of 
 Chrift's meer humanity is really paffed over by St. 
 John, as Dr. Prieftley fuppofes, uncenfured and un- 
 noticed. This queftion will be differently refolved, 
 according as different interpretations of the Apoftle's 
 expreffions are adopted. This argument, therefore, is 
 of the fame complexion with the former, and labours 
 under the fame defect. A particular fenfe of the epif- 
 
 * Hift. of Corrupt, voh I. p. 10 & 13, and vol. IT. p. 485. 
 
 tie
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 15 
 
 tie is alleged, in proof of a pretended facl ; which fact 
 muft itfelf fupport the interpretation. M Every fpirit," 
 fays St. John, " which confefles that Jefus Chrift is 
 " come in the flefh, is of; God*." " That is," fays 
 Dr. Prieftley, " every fpirit is of God, that confefles 
 " that Jefus Chrift is truly a manf." But it fhould 
 feem, that the propolition that he was truly a man, if 
 he was nothing more than man, is very aukwardly 
 and unnaturally exprefled by the phrafe of his " coming 
 in the flefli :" for in what other way was it poffible for 
 a meer man to come ? The turn of the expreflion 
 feems to lead to the notion of a Being, who had his 
 choice of different ways of coming : a notion which is 
 implied in other paflages of holy writ, and is explicitly 
 exprefled in a book little inferior in authority to the 
 canonical writings ; in the firft epiftle of Clemens Ro- 
 manus ; in a paflage of that epiftle which Dr. Prieft- 
 ley, fomewhat unfortunately for his caufe, hath chofen 
 for the bafis of an argument of that holy father's he- 
 terodoxy. " The fceptre of the majefty of God," fays 
 Clemens, " our Lord Jefus Chrift, came not in the 
 " pomp of pride and arrogance, although he had it in 
 " his power J." Clemens, it feems, conceived, that 
 the manner of coming was in the power and choice of 
 the perfon who was to come. St. John's expreflions 
 evidently lead to the fame notion. It mould feem, 
 therefore, that St. John's aflertions, concerning the 
 fpirits that maintain or deny that Jefus is come in the 
 
 * i John iv. 2., 
 
 } Hifi. Corrupt, vol. I. p. 10. J Chap. xvi. 
 
 flefhi
 
 :6 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 flem ; that the one are of God, and the other of Anti- 
 Chriftj were levelled not fingly at the herefy of the 
 Docettz^ as Dr. Prieftley imagines, but equally at that 
 and at another branch of the Gnoftic herefy, which 
 divided Jefus Chrift into two perfons : Jefus, who was 
 fuppofed to be a meer man, the fon of Mary by her 
 hufband Jofeph ; and the Chrift, a divine being, who 
 was confidered as the genius, or tutelary angel, of the 
 man ; not however fo united with the man, as to con- 
 ftitute one perfon, or to partake of the man's fuffer- 
 ings. The firft epiftle of St. John aflerts the doctrine 
 of a true and proper incarnation, in oppofition to the 
 extravagancies of both thefe fe&s. The Apoftle makes 
 the acknowledgment of the incarnation, in which both 
 an antecedent divinity and an aflumed humanity are 
 implied, the criterion by which the true teachers are to 
 be diftinguimed from the falfe. And in the pofitive 
 aflertion of the incarnation, and the exprefs cenfure 
 of the oppofite doctrine as Anti-chriftian, he repro- 
 bates the notion of Chrift's meer humanity in the only 
 fenfe, in which we have any certain evidence that he 
 lived to fee it maintained. It appears, therefore, that 
 to confefs that " Jefus Chrift is come in the flefh *," 
 and to affirm that Jefus Chrift is truly a man, are pro- 
 pofitions not perfectly equivalent. Dr. Prieftley in- 
 deed hath (hewn himfelf very fenfible of the difference. 
 He would not otherwife have found it neceflary, for 
 the improvement of his argument, in reciting the third 
 verfe of the fourth chapter of St. John's Firft Epiftle, 
 
 i John iv. 2. IWKV Xfirov iv <rat$Hi 
 
 to
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 17 
 
 to change the exprefllons which he found in the pub- 
 lic translation, for others which correfpond far lefs ex- 
 actly with the Greek text. For the words " Jefus 
 Chrift is come IN the flefh," Dr. Prieftley fubftitutes 
 thefe. Jefus Chrift is come OF the flefli*." 
 That he is come IN the flefh, and that he is come 
 OF the fleftij are two very diftinct proportions. The 
 one affirms an incarnation ; the other a mortal ex- 
 traction. The firft is St. John's affertion : the fe- 
 cond is Dr. Prieftley's. Perhaps Dr. Prieftley hath 
 difcoveredof St. John as of St. Paul, that his reafon- 
 ing is fometimes inconclufive f, and his language in- 
 accurate : and he might think it no unwarrantable li- 
 berty to correct an expreflion, which, as not perfectly 
 correfponding with his own fyftem, he could not en- 
 tirely approve. It would have been but fair to adver- 
 tife his readers of fo capital an emendation. An emen- 
 dation for which no fupport is to be found in the 
 Greek text, nor even in the varieties of any MSS. 
 We are informed indeed by Socrates the hiftorianj, 
 (and his teftimony is confirmed by the Latin of the 
 vulgate) of a very confiderable variety of fome of th 
 antient MSS. But it is fuch as only ferves to prove, 
 that the principal object of this epiftle of St. John was 
 underftood in the Primitive Church, to be the confu- 
 tation of the Cerinthian Gnoftics j the feet which di- 
 
 * Hift. of Corrupt, vol. I. p. 10. lin. 15. 
 
 f " I think I have ftiewn that the apoftle Paul 
 
 " often reafons inconclufively." Dr. P. Hift. of Corrupt, 
 vol. II. p. 370. 
 
 J Lib. 7. c. 3*. 
 
 C vided
 
 18 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 vided Chrift into two perfons, of which they made 
 Jefus a meer man j differing in this eflentiaUy from 
 the.Dacettfy who made the body of the man Jefus a 
 meer phantom. 
 
 6. AND this view of St. John's epiftle receives a 
 further confirmation from the genuine epiftles of Igna- 
 tius. In thefe the errror of the Doceta, which Dr. 
 Prieftley fuppofes to be the fole object of St. John's 
 Epiftle, is indeed particularly cenfured. But left, in 
 averting the truth of our Lord's Humanity, he mould. 
 be underftood to fupport the opinion of his meer hu- 
 manity ; the holy Father hardly ever mentions Chrift, 
 without introducing fome explicit affertion of his Di- 
 vinity, or without joining with the name of Chrift 
 fome epithet in which it is implied. 
 
 7. THE mention of Ignatius having occurred, it 
 \vere unpardonable not to fuggeft to the recollection of 
 this learned aflembly, one paflage in particular in the 
 epiftle to the Magnefians, in which the eternal ex~ 
 iftence of the Word, as a diftin perfon from the Fa- 
 ther, is aflerted in terms, which, though highly figu- 
 rative, are perfectly unequivocal. " There is one 
 " God who hath manifefted himfelf through Jefus 
 " Chrift his Son, who is his eternal Word, who 
 " came not forth from filence*." The name of the 
 
 * E:j SEOJ Inv 6 pavEf u<ra$ sculov Sia Irxrn Xftm rs i/m 
 aiHuy o$ trn duix Xcyoj i'Jj@", in owo PITHS ^oEXSar. 
 Ign. ad Magn. ^. 8. 
 
 Logos
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 19 
 
 Logos led the early fathers to conceive the generation 
 of the Son as an utterances or at leaft to fpeak of it 
 under that figure : as on the contrary the heretics who 
 denied the eternity of the Son, defcribed the period 
 preceding his generation as a time of filence *. Un- 
 der that figure Ignatius fpeaks of the generation of the 
 Son in this paffage : and he affirms, that no period of 
 filence had preceded the utterance of the eternal Word, 
 Or if it fhould feem more reafonable to fuppofe an al- 
 lufion, in thefe expreflions of Ignatius, to the Stge of 
 the Gnoftics, the confort of their Buthos^ upon whom 
 the ./Eons were engendered ; and to underftand the 
 holy Father as maintaining the immediate connexion 
 of the Father and the Son, unbroken by the interven- 
 tion of any fuch intermediate intelligences, as the im- 
 pious Theogony of the Gnoftics interpofed j ftill the 
 Eternity of the Son is aflerted. For the paffage, in this 
 view of it, amounts to this disjunctive propofition ; 
 *' The Son's exiftence holds not of the Father's by 
 " any fuch remote relation as thefe fabulous genealo- 
 " gies defcribe ; but he is the eternal Logos of the Pa- 
 " ternal Mind." According to either interpretation, 
 the paffage contains an evident affertion of the Divi- 
 nity of the Son of God. And this aflertion being 
 found in the writings of Ignatius, the familiar friend 
 and companion of the Apoftles, who fuffered martyr- 
 dom fo early as in the fixteenth year of the fecond 
 
 * So Marcellus of Ancyra ; HPO yap TJ 
 a/rtouTYcT^ wcruxix TI$ w, w; e/xof, ev TM Qsy rx Aoys ovrog* 
 Eufeb. contra Marcell. p. 39. 
 
 C a century
 
 ao A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 century, and had been appointed to the bifhopric of 
 Antioch full thirty years before, it is an unanfwerable 
 confutation of our author's confident aflertions, that 
 " we find nothing like Divinity afcribed to Jefus 
 Chrift before Juftin Martyr*," and " That all the 
 " early fathers fpeak of Chrift as not having exifted 
 " always f." 
 
 8. WE have feen the fort and fafhion of the argu- 
 ment which, in proof of his firft aflertion, Dr. Prieftley 
 builds on Holy Writ. Let us take a view of thofe 
 which he hath drawn from other writers. 
 
 9. ONE principal argument, " that the primitive 
 church of Jerufalem was properly Unitarian," main- 
 taining the fimple humanity of Chrift, is this: 
 " Athanafius himfelf was fo far from denying it, fays, 
 " Dr. Prieftley, that he endeavours to account for 
 " it ; by faying, that all the Jews were fo firmly per- 
 " fuaded that their MeJJiah was to be nothing more 
 " than a man like themfelves, that the Apojlles were 
 " obliged to ufe great caution in divulging the doftrine 
 " of the proper Divinity of Chrijl\" The latter 
 claufe of the fentence, which contains what Athana- 
 fius is fuppofed to have faid, is marked with inverted 
 commas ; which mould feem to intimate, that it is 
 an exad tranflation of fome paflage in the holy fa- 
 
 * Hift. of Corrupt, vol. I. p. 32. 
 
 f Hift. of Corrupt, vol. I. p. 42. 
 
 J Hift. Corrup. vol. I. p. 12. 
 
 ther's
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. ^\ 
 
 ther's writings : and the lower margin of Dr. Prieft- 
 ley's book refers to Athanafius's celebrated piece on 
 the orthodoxy of his predeceflbr Dionyfius. Now in 
 this piece upon the orthodoxy of Dionyfius, Atha- 
 nafius no where, I confefs, denies that the primitive 
 church of Jerufalem was Unitarian. Nor on the 
 other hand do I recollect, that Dr. Prieftley hath af- 
 ferted it, in any part of his Hiftory of Electricity. 
 The truth is, that in either of thefe valuable works, 
 the faith of the primitive church of Jerufalem never 
 comes in queftion. In the defence of Dionyfius not 
 a fingle paffage is to be found, which may be fairly 
 underftood as a tacit confeffion, that the primitive 
 faith of the church of Jerufalem was Unitarian : much 
 lefs is there any attempt to account for its fuppofed 
 heterodoxy. Athanafius fays indeed of the Jews of 
 the apoftolic age, that is, of the unbelieving Jews 
 (for Athanafius is a writer who calls things by their 
 names, and when he fpeaks of Jews, means not, as 
 Dr. Prieftley would perfuade us*, Jewifh Chriftians, 
 except when he farcaftically gives the Arians the name 
 of Jews as refembling the Jews, in his judgment, in 
 an obftihate denial of the Lord who bought them ; 
 but otherwife when he fpeaks his ufual, plain, unfi- 
 gured language, the unconverted Jews of the apofto- 
 lic age are they, of whom he fays) that they had fo 
 little infight into the true meaning of the prophecies, 
 as to look for nothing more than a MAN in the pro- 
 mifed Mefliah. He fays, that this error of the Jews 
 
 * Hift. of Corrup. vol. II. p. 486. 
 
 C 3 had
 
 ^^ A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 had been the means of fpreading the like miftake 
 among the Gentiles; meaning probably the Pro- 
 felytes of the Gate; who, acknowledging in fome 
 degree the divinity of the Jewifh fcriptures, looked 
 for the completion of the prophecies, and were the 
 firft Gentiles to whom the preaching of the Apoftles 
 was addrefled. Thefe Gentiles, with fomethingof 
 the Jewifh faith, it may eafily be fuppofed, had im- 
 bibed many of the Jewifh errors ; and among 
 others, as Athanafius imagines, the expectation of 
 a Mefliah of mortal extraction. This general 
 miftake, he fays, made it neceflary, that the Apoftles, 
 in their firft public fermons, mould infift largely on 
 the miracles of our Saviour's life on earth, before 
 they entered into a detail of the particulars of the 
 Gofpel doctrine, or explained what fort of perfon 
 the promifed Mefliah was to be, and Jefus was. 
 For their doctrine upon that article was not likely to 
 meet with credit, till their divine commiflion to teach 
 it was acknowledged, and their Mafter's general claim 
 to the character of the Mefliah, whatever that might 
 be, previoufly admitted. The example of the Apof . 
 ties' practice in this particular is alleged, to mew 
 what prudence requires of every preacher of the gof- 
 pel ; who muft allow himfelf to be determined in the 
 arrangement of his matter, the choice of his topics, 
 and the compofition of his language, by the degree of 
 previous knowledge, and the ftate of opinions, which 
 may actually obtain, among thofe to whom his in- 
 flructions are addrefled. What the ignorant will 
 
 moft
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 23 
 
 mofl eafily apprehend muft be firft taught: thofe 
 points, which are fuppofed to be mod generally mif- 
 underftood, muft be moft particularly explained: ' 
 and the truth muft be conveyed in that language, 
 which may the moft evidently (hew its difagreement 
 with any falfe opinions, to which the hearer may b 
 particularly addicted. Athanafius contends, that 
 upon thefe principles Dionyfius was to be juftiiied, if 
 he dwelt more on the topic of our Lord's Humi- 
 liation, than on that of his Divinity j the Sabellian 
 herefy being the error with which Dionyfius was en- 
 gaged. The consideration that the Son became man, 
 afforded the moft obvious proof that he was not the 
 Father : and the Sabellians were to be convinced that 
 the Word was made flefh, grofs, corruptible flefh, 
 before they could be brought to acknowledge that he 
 was God of God. Athanafius mews, that, in the 
 controverfy with thefe Heretics, Dionyfius was inevi- 
 tably ledde to the ufe of expreflions, which the Arian 
 party interpreted in their own favour ; though Dio- 
 nyfius always difclaimed the fenfe, to which his words 
 were wrefted. He contends, that to tax Dionyfius 
 with a propenfity to the Arian party, on account of 
 thefe expreflions, were no lefs unreafonable and in- 
 jurious, than it would be to entertain the like fuf- 
 picion of the Apoftles themfelves ; becaufe they had 
 found it neceflary to perfuade the Jews, that Jefus 
 had been approved of God by figns and wonders as a 
 man, before they could hope to perfuade them, that 
 he was fo much more than man, that hjs being found 
 C 4 in
 
 *4 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 in fafhion as a man, was really the moft extraordinary 
 part of his hiftory and character. It is in no other 
 way than this, that Athanafius fpeaks of the Apoftles 
 as teaching the Jews the humanity of Chrift. The 
 holy Father never fpeaks of any caution which they 
 ufed in divulging the doctrine of his full divinity ; 
 unlefs an hiftorian's diftribution of the matter of his 
 narrative, or a mafter's accommodation of his lef- 
 fons to the previous attainments of his pupils, is to 
 be called a caution of divulging, what, in the natural 
 order of tradition, is to be the laft difclofed. Was it 
 ever faid of Livy, that he relates the tragedy of Lu- 
 cretia's death, from a caution of divulging the expul- 
 fion of the Tarquins ? Of Porphyry, that he treats 
 of the five words, from a caution of divulging the 
 doctrine of the Categories ? The beginning of every 
 ftory muft be firft told. The eafieft part of every 
 fcience muft be firft taught. Of the great ability and 
 judgment, with which the Apoftles conducted the firft 
 preaching of the Gofpel ; of their happy art in the 
 perfpicuous arrangement of their lofty argument ; 
 with what readinefs they led their Catechumens on, 
 from the fimpleft principles to the higheft myfteries ; 
 of this confummate ability of the Apoftles in the ca- 
 pacity of teachers, Athanafius fpeaks with due com- 
 mendation. Their caution he never mentions. On 
 the contrary, the rapid progrefs of their infraction, 
 how they pafled at once from the detail of our Lord's 
 life on earth, to the myftery of his Godhead, is one 
 principal branch of his encomium. I wifli that Dr. 
 
 Prieftly
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 35 
 
 Prieftley had produced the paflage, in which he 
 thinks the Apoftles are taxed with caution, and of 
 which he certainly imagines (he would not otherwife 
 have ledde his reader to imagine) he hath given an 
 exacT: tranflation*. 
 
 10. NEARLY allied to this argument from Atha- 
 nafius's omiffion to deny^ is another from Epipha- 
 nius's omiffion to ajjert, " Epiphanius in his ac- 
 " count of the Nazarenes makes no mention of any 
 *< of them believing the Divinity of Chrift in any 
 " fenfeof the wordf." It is granted. Epiphanius, 
 in his account of thefe ancient heretics;};, makes in- 
 deed no mention, that they believed the Divinity 
 of Chrift in any fenfe of the word. But what is this 
 no-mention which Epiphanius makes, and of what 
 importance is it to our author's fyftem ? It is only 
 that Epiphanius confefles, that he had no certain in- 
 formation, what the opinion of the Nazarenes might 
 be upon this article. He had defcribed them in ge- 
 neral as a feel: half Jew and half Chriftian : not Jews, 
 becaufe they had fomething of a belief in Chrift : not 
 Chriftians, becaufe they lived in bondage to the ri- 
 
 * See the paflage produced and critically examined in the 
 Fourth of Dr. Prieftley's Firft Letters to me, the Eleventh 
 of my Letters in reply, and the Tenth of Dr. Prieftley's 
 Second Letters, and in my Remarks upon Dr. Prieftley's 
 Second Letters, Part II. Chap. i. ^. n. 
 
 f Hift. of Corrup. vol. I. p. 8. 
 J Hseref. 29. 
 
 tual
 
 a6 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 tual law. ?* But concerning Chrift," he fays, a I 
 u cannot fay whether they think him a meer man ; 
 " or affirm, as the truth is, that he was begotten of 
 ' : ary by the Holy Ghoft*." It is thus, and thus 
 only, that Epiphanius mates no jnention of the belief 
 of the Nazarenes in Chrift's Divinity. But he 
 equally- makes no mention of their difbelief. And 
 had it been Dr. Prieftley's point to prove, that the 
 Nazarenes held the Nicene P'aith upon the fubje& of 
 the Trinity, he might have alleged, with equal fair- 
 nefs and propriety, Epiphanius's no-mention of their 
 heterodoxy. 
 
 ii. Indeed that they were believers in our Lord's 
 Divinity were the fairer conclufion from the neu- 
 trality of Epiphanius's evidence. It was little the 
 temper of the age in which Epiphanius lived, it was 
 little the temper of Epiphanius, to think or to fpeak 
 favourably of thofe who were deemed heretics. It 
 was rather the practice to aggravate and to multiply 
 their errors, and to vilify their characters : to charge 
 them upon the flighteft grounds with every enormity 
 both in faith and practice. It is very unlikely that 
 Epiphanius would have been fo tender of the repu- 
 tation of thefe Nazarenes, as to confefs his want of 
 
 * IlEfl Xp;jX Sf, 8* oltibt ilTTElV, 1 KCU. Ouloi T TUV 
 
 xau MrjJvS 
 
 information
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. i 
 
 Information about their opinions of the nature of 
 Chrift, had there been the leaft ground to fufpecT:, or 
 had there been fo much as a fufpicion current in liis 
 times, although it had been founded only on a gene- 
 ral bad opinion of the fed, that they were heretical 
 in this article. A general clamour, or the bare af- 
 fertion of an earlier writer, would have fixed the im- 
 putation, without any nice enquiry into the evidence, 
 by which the charge might be fupported. And fince 
 Epiphanius confefles, that he had no ground to fay, 
 that thefe Nazarenes held Chrift to be a meer man ; 
 the prefumption is, that he ought to have faid, that 
 they affirmed, as the truth is, that he was begotten 
 of Mary by the Holy Ghoft, But to affirm, as the 
 truth is, that he was begotten of Mary by the Holy 
 Ghoft, in Epiphanius's fenfe of thofe words, was a 
 full confeffion of his divinity. So that if the opinions 
 of thefe Nazarenes be of any importance for afcertain- 
 ing the primitive faith ; and conjectures are to be 
 drawn, concerning their opinions, from Epiphanius's 
 profeffion of his want of information ; the fair con- 
 jehire is the oppofite of Dr. Prieftley's; namely, 
 that the Nazarenes homologated with the church ; 
 with the church, as its opinions ftood in the age of 
 Epiphanius, when I fuppofe he will allow it to have 
 been far gone from the primitive purity of his Uni- 
 tarian faith ; with this corrupt church, as Dr. Prieft- 
 ley deems it, his friends the Nazarenes homologated 
 upon the article of Chrift's Divinity. 
 
 J2. BUT
 
 i A CHARGE TO THE CLERGV, 
 
 12. BUT after all, of what importance is the opi- 
 nion of thefe Nazarenes ? Or how may the catholic 
 tradition be affected by the fingularities of a feet ? 
 Of a feet which lay under the cenfure of the church 
 as heretical ? Attend, my Reverend Brethren. It is 
 in this that we have been fo long, I believe I ought 
 to add, fo fatally miftaken. The Nazarenes were 
 never cenfured ! They were no fectaries ! They were 
 the very firft, and becaufe the firft, they were the 
 pureft, the very beft of Chriftians ! Nazarene was 
 the ancient name of the Jewifh Chriftians * ! Of the 
 firft members of the primitive church of Jerufalem, 
 that original, parent church, the mother of us all ; 
 where James the brother of our Lord was bifhop ! 
 In the opinions therefore of thefe Nazarenes, we have 
 the opinions of thofe firft Chriftians, who received, 
 not only the baptifmal ablution, but the illumina- 
 tion of the fpirit at the hands of the Apoftles ! You 
 feem to afk me, by what evidence this important 
 difcovery is confirmed ? By no evidence. The thing 
 is not proved. It is afferted. In philofophical fub- 
 jects Dr. Prieftley would be the laft to reafon from 
 principles aflumed without proof. But in divinity 
 and ecclefiaftical hiftory, he expects that his own af- 
 fertion, or that of writers of his own perfuafion, 
 however uninformed or prejudiced, fhould pafs with 
 the whole Chriftian world for proof of the boldeft 
 aflumptions. The Nazarenes, it is .confefled, were 
 
 * the Nazarenes (and the Jewifli Chriftians never 
 
 went by any other name.) Hfll. Corrup. vol. I. p. 8. 
 
 the
 
 A CHARGETO THE CLERGY. 29 
 
 the progeny of the firft Chriftians of the church of 
 Jerufalem. But the name of Nazarene, you will 
 bear me witnefs, was never heard of in the Chriftian 
 church, as defcriptive of the Jewifh Chriftians, be- 
 fore their fettlement in the northern parts of Galilee, 
 upon the banifhment of the Jews from Jerufalem, in 
 the reign of Adrian *. The Hebrews, and they of 
 the circumclfion, were the earlier names, by which the 
 Jewifh converts, who formed the church of Jerufa- 
 lem, had been diflinguifhed from the Chriftians of 
 the Gentiles. Their defcendants, the Nazarenes, 
 were at firft perhaps heretical but in a fingle article i 
 in maintaining the neceffity of the obfervance of the 
 Mofaic law for the attainment of Salvation under the 
 gofpel : whereas their anceftors, had indeed them- 
 felves adhered to their old law, but had declared 
 againft the abfurdity of exacting a fubmiffion to the 
 ceremonial part of it from the Gentile converts. By 
 degrees, however, thefe Nazarenes declined fo far 
 from the pure faith of that firft race of Chriftians, 
 from which they boafted their defcent ; that in Je- 
 rom's time they were become heretical in that de- 
 gree, that Jerom confidered them as a Jewifh fe<Sl 
 rather than a Chriftian. " To this day," fays Je- 
 rom, " a herefy prevails among the Jews in all the 
 " fynagogues of the eaft, which is called that of the 
 " Minaei, who commonly go by the name of Naza- 
 
 * See the laft paragraph of the fixth of my Letters In reply , 
 and the feventh of thofe Letters. $. 5, 
 
 " renes
 
 |6 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY, 
 
 " renes: who believe in Chrift, the Son of God 
 born of the Virgin ; and fay that he was the per- 
 " fon who fuffered under Pontius Pilate, and rofe 
 " again ; in whom we ourfelves believe. But from 
 " a defire of being Jews and Chriftians both at once, 
 " they are neither Jews nor Chrimans *." 
 
 13. It is rather for the fake of general truth, than 
 for the attainment of victory in the prefent argument, 
 that I am defirous to maintain the diftin&ion which 
 was ever made, till Zuicker attempted to confound 
 It, between the primitive church of Jerufalem, and 
 the fe& of the Nazarenes, its heretical offspring. In 
 the trinitarian controverfy the diftin&ion is of little 
 importance. Or rather it would be of advantage to 
 the argument of the orthodox party, if our faith 
 needed other fupport, than that which the plain fenfe 
 of the fcriptures and the whole tenor of ecclefiafti- 
 cal hiftory fupply ; it would be of fingular advantage 
 to our argument, that Dr. Prieftley mould be able to 
 to eftablifli Zuicker's extravagant pofition, that thefc 
 Nazarenes were no other than the original members 
 of the Hebrew church. Whoever they were, their 
 orthodoxy, in the article of our Lord's Divinity, is 
 notorious. It is attefted by moft of the writers of 
 antiquity that mention them. It is acknowledged by 
 Jerom, at the very fame time that he taxes them 
 
 * Epift. ad Auguftinum de diflidio Pctri et Pauli, 
 Tom, III. fol. 155. B, edit. Froben. 
 
 with
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. jt 
 
 with the grofleft herefy in other points. And were 
 no exprefs teftimony to be produced, ftill it would 
 be the fair and probable conclufion, from that very 
 paflage of Epiphanius, upon which Dr. Prieftley 
 would build the contrary opinion. If therefore it 
 could be proved, that thefe Nazarenes really were, 
 what Dr. Prieftley hath been taught by Zuicker to 
 believe, the firft converts of the circumcition ; we who 
 maintain the full Divinity of Chrift, mould find, in the 
 confeffion of the Nazarenes, the verdict of thofe firfl 
 Chriftians in our favour. But fince the fact is, that 
 they were an heretical fed-t, which arofe in the fecond 
 century from the afhes of the church of Jerufalem*: 
 their opinions upon any article are totally infigmficant, 
 and can in no way affect the catholic tradition. Still 
 therefore the modern Unitarian would ferve his own 
 caufe but ill, who fhould be able to fucceed in the at- 
 tempt to prove, that the meer humanity of Chrift was 
 a tenet of the Nazarenes. 
 
 14. THE neutrality of Epiphanius's evidence is 
 however not the whole of the proof, by which our 
 modern hiftorian hath taken the pains to fupport an 
 aflertion fo little to his purpofe. It is alleged only 
 to corroborate a more direct proof, which is very pro- 
 per to be produced as another fpecimen of the fort of 
 argument upon which our author's firft proposition 
 refts. 
 
 * See Letters in Reply, VI, *nd VII. 
 
 15. THE
 
 31 A CHARGE TO THE CLEROV. 
 
 15. THE Nazarenes, and the Ebionites, he tells 
 us, were the fame people, and held the fame tenets*. 
 By the appellation of Ebionites it is confefled a certain 
 feet, which denied the Divinity of our Saviour, was 
 originally diftinguifhed. But how is it proved, that 
 thefe Ebionites were the fame with the Nazarenes? 
 By a pretended acknowledgement of Origen and Epi- 
 phanius f. It is of great importance for a juft appre- 
 henfion of the exact force of any writer's arguments, 
 to catch the idioms of his ftile : and an attention to 
 this circumftance muft be particularly recommended 
 to Dr. Prieftley's readers. One of the moft ftriking 
 peculiarities of his language, is a very fingular ufe of 
 the words acknowledge^ and acknowledgment. Ac- 
 knowledgment, in the ufual acceptation of the word 
 in controverfial writing, fignifies a writer's avowal of a 
 principle or a fact, which, as making for his adver- 
 fary's argument, it might have been for his purpofe to 
 conceal or to deny, but that the evidence of the thing 
 extorted the confeffion. But with Dr. Prieftley, any 
 expreffions, which are capable of being drawn, by con- 
 ftruction and refinement, to a fenfe that may feem but 
 indirectly favourable to his own notions, are an ex- 
 plicit acknowledgment of the writer who ufes them, 
 that things actually were, as Dr. Prieftley is inclined 
 to reprefent them. If fuch expreffions of one writer 
 
 * Hift. of Corrup. vol. I. p. 7. 
 
 f- both Origin and Epiphanius acknowledge that 
 the Nazarenes and Ebionites were the fame people and held 
 the fame tenets. Hift. Corrup. vol. I. p. 7. 
 
 are
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 33 
 
 are quoted by another j they amount to an acknow- 
 ledgment to the fame purpofe, on the part of the 
 writer who makes the quotation. On the other hand 
 the acknowledgment of an original writer may fome- 
 times be inferred from a negligent citation. Hath 
 Eufebius, complaining of a total difregard to truth 
 among the fe&aries who denied our Lord's Divinity, 
 appealed, in confirmation of the charge, to a writer 
 of the fecond century ; who alleges it againft the Uni- 
 tarians of his own time, as an inftance of the moil 
 hardened effrontery, that they had the audacity to af- 
 iert, that their tenets had been originally taught by 
 the Apoftles, and were maintained by all the Roman 
 bifliops in fucceffion to the time of VicStor*? This 
 heavy accufation, thus fupported by the teftimony of 
 an earlier writer, is a plain acknowledgment f on the 
 part of Eufebius, that the Unitarians conftantly 
 claimed this high antiquity of their doctrine. And 
 what may feem more paradoxical, this writer's appeal 
 to " certain pfalms and odes, the competitions of 
 " faithful brethren in the firft age, which celebrate the 
 " Divinity of the Chrift the word of GodJ," is only 
 
 * Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. lib. v. c. 28. 
 
 , f " It is acknowledged by Eufebius, and others, " that 
 " the ancient Unitarians themfelves conftantly aflerted, that 
 " their doftrine was the univerfal opinion of the Chriftiaa 
 church till the time of Viftor." Hift. of Corrup. vol. II. 
 p. 486. Compare, vol. I. p. 18, 19. 
 
 otroj HOU <u3i, &s>ftn an a 
 rov Aoyov T SEX TOV Xpjrov w/wvstrt 
 Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. lib. v. c. 28. Compare Ephef. v. 19. 
 Col. iii. 16. James v. 13. 
 
 D a proof
 
 34 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 a proof of Eufebius's inability to confute the claim, 
 which, by his own acknowledgment, was fet up*. 
 Hath the learned Dr. Samuel Clarke, in an inaccurate 
 citation of a paflage in Origen, made Origen fpeak of 
 the Unitarians of his time as pious perfons ? This is 
 a candid acknowledgment f, on the part of Origen, of 
 the piety of thofe fe&aries; whereas Origen fays not 
 that they were pious, but that they boafted J that they 
 were pious, or affecled piety. Piety, and the affec- 
 tation of piety, belong to oppofite characters. Ac- 
 cording to this enlarged ufe of the word acknowledg- 
 menty it will indeed be very hazardous to deny but 
 that an acknowledgment to any purpofe may be 
 found in any writer, or be drawn from any words. 
 It is neceflary therefore to declare, that it is only in 
 the ufual meaning of the word, that I take upon me 
 to averr, that no acknowledgment of the fuppofed 
 identity of the Nazarenes and the Ebionites, is to be 
 found either in Origen or Epiphanius || . Origen 
 fays, indeed, of the Jewifh Chriftians of his own 
 time, that they were Ebionites : Not meaning to 
 make any acknowledgment in favour of the proper 
 Ebionites, as no worfe heretics than the Nazarenes ; 
 but rather to ftigmatife the Nazarenes with an op- 
 
 * . - _~ in refuting their pretenfions to antiquity, he 
 goes no farther back than Irenicus and Juftin Martyr. Hift. 
 of Corrup. vol. I. p. 19. 
 
 f Origen candidly calls thefe adherents to the ftricl unity 
 of God pious perfons. Hift. of Corrup. vol. I. p. 57. 
 
 See Appendix. ^ Contra Celf. lib. 2. 
 
 probrious
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 35 
 
 probrious appellation. And the only conclufion 
 which is to be drawn from this paffage of Origen, is 
 that the word Ebionite had in his time out-grown 
 its original meaning; which it eafily might do; 
 inafmuch as, by its derivation, it is not naturally 
 defcriptive of any particular fet of opinions; but 
 barely expreffive of the contempt, in which thofe 
 who beftowed it, held the knowledge and under- 
 ftanding of the party on which it was beftowed. It 
 was therefore likely to be varioufly applied at dif- 
 ferent times, according as one or another folly in- 
 curred the contempt either of any particular writer, 
 or of the age in which he flourished. Accordingly 
 it appears from ecclefiaftical hiftory, that the ufe of 
 it was various and indefinite. Sometimes it was the 
 peculiar name of thofe feds, which denied both the 
 Divinity of our Lord and his miraculous concep- 
 tion. Then its meaning was extended to take in 
 another party ; which, admitting the miraculous 
 conception of Jefus, ftill denied his Divinity, and 
 queftioned his previous exiftence. And at laft it 
 feems the Nazarenes, whofe error was rather a fu- 
 perftitious feverity in their practice, than any defi- 
 ciency in their faith, were included by Origen in 
 the infamy of the appellation. It was natural in- 
 deed for Origen, fond as he was of myftic interpre- 
 tations of the Jewim fcriptures, and poflefled with 
 the imagination that every particular of the ritual 
 fervice, and every occurrence in the Jewim ftory, 
 was typical of fomething in the gofpel difpenfation ; 
 it was natural for Origen to think meanly of a feel-, 
 JD 2 who
 
 3* A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY, 
 
 who held the obfervance of the letter of the cerem<V 
 nial law to be an efTential part of a Chriftian's duty. 
 They certainly had little apprehenfion of the free 
 fpirit of the religion they profefled ; and this with 
 Origen would be the fureft mark of a low and beg- 
 garly underftanding. It is in this reproachful ap- 
 pellation, which he alone of all the writers of anti- 
 quity hath beftowed upon the Nazarenes, that Dr. 
 Prieftley hath difcovered his acknowledgment in fa- 
 vour of the Ebionites. For Epiphanius, who is 
 joined with Origen in this acknowledgment, he de- 
 fcribes the Nazarenes and the Ebionites as different 
 fects, maintaining different opinions j except that 
 they agreed in retaining more or lefs of the Mofaic 
 fervice *. 
 
 1 6. AMONG other fpecimens of our author's 
 happy art of turning every thing, by a dextrous in- 
 terpretation, to his own purpofe, it were injuftice to 
 the injured memory of Eufebius, not to mention the 
 attempt that is made to make the credit of his hif- 
 tory, by reprefenting the unfairnefs with which that 
 candid writer is fuppofed to treat the Unitarians ; 
 when he fays, " that Theodotus, who appeared 
 " about the year 190, was the firft who held that 
 
 * See this two-fold queftion, concerning the Faith of the 
 Nazarenes, and the diftinction between the Nazarenes and 
 Ebionites, largely difcufled in the fecond of Dr. Prieflley's 
 Letters to me, the fixth and feventh of my Letters in reply, 
 the third of Dr. Prieftley's Second Letters, and my Re- 
 marks on his Second Letters, Part II. chap. ii. and iii. 
 
 OUT
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY, $| 
 
 " our Saviour was a meer man ; when in refuting 
 " their pretenfions to antiquity, he goes no further 
 c back than to Irenaeus and Juftin Martyr, though 
 " in his own writings alone he might have found a 
 * { refutation of his aflertion *." It muft be con- 
 fefTed, that any one who fliould aflert that Theodo- 
 tus was the firft who taught a do&rine, which funk 
 our Lord into the rank of meer man, might eafily 
 be confuted from the ecclefiaftjcal hiftory of Eufe- 
 bius ; " in which the Cerinthians and the Ebionites, 
 who are taxed by all antiquity with that impiety, arc 
 referred to an earlier period. The truth however 
 feems to be, that the doctrine of our Lord's Huma- 
 nity, like all corruptions, had its ftages ; that it was 
 carried by degrees to the height, which it at lad at- 
 tained; and that Theodotus, in this article, fo far 
 furpaffed the earlier Herefiarchs, that the merit of 
 being the inventor of the meer humanity, in the 
 precife and full meaning of the words, is with great 
 propriety and truth afcribed to him. When the 
 Cerinthians arid the Ebionites affirmed that Jefus 
 had no exiftence previous to Mary's conception, and. 
 that he was literally and phyfically the Carpenter's 
 Son ; it might juftly be faid of them, that they af- 
 ferted the meer humanity of the Redeemer : efpe- 
 cially as it could not be forefeen, that the impiety 
 would ever go a greater length than this, qf afcrib- 
 ing to him an origin meerly human. Thefe Here- 
 tics, however, went no further, as I conceive, than 
 to deny our Lord's Original Divinity : they admit- 
 
 * Hift. of Corrup. vol. I. p. 19. 
 
 D 3 ted
 
 $f A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 ted I know not what unintelligible exaltation of his 
 Nature*, which took place, as they conceived, upon 
 his afcenfion, by which he became no lefs the object 
 of worfhip, than if his Nature had been originally 
 divine. But when a more daring (though, I con- 
 fefs, a far more confiftent) feet arofe ; denying that 
 our Lord in Glory is more than a mortal mart, 
 raifed, as all the juft will one day be, to immorta- 
 lity ; or that he is more the object of adoration than 
 Enoch or Elijah : thefe younger Heretics eclipfed 
 the glory of their timid anceftors, and might juftly 
 claim the honour of being the firft affertors of the 
 meer humanity of Chrift ; for they were indeed the 
 firft, who made humanity the whole of his condu 
 tion. It was undoubtedly in this exalted fenfe, that 
 the Humanity of Chrift was taught by Theodotus. 
 For nothing mort of this might ferve his purpofe ; 
 whichj as we learn from Epiphanius, was to exte- 
 nuate the guilt of a renunciation of his faith, which 
 he had made under the terrors of perfecution, by 
 fetting up a plea, that, in renouncing Chrift, he had 
 not renounced his God, but a man. This plea 
 could be of no fervice to Theodotus's caufe, unlefs 
 Chrift were a man, not only in his origin, but at 
 the time when Theodotus renounced him. It was 
 therefore that fublime doctrine, which is at this day 
 taught in the conventicles f of Dr. Prieftley and Mr, 
 
 Lindfey, 
 
 * See the fourteenth of my Letters in Reply, V 5- 
 t That the aflemblies held by Mr. Lindfey in EfTex-ftreer, 
 and by Dr. Prieftley at Birmingham, are firstly CONVEN- 
 TICLES
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 59 
 
 Lindfey, the dofWne of our Lord's meer undeified 
 Humanity, which Theodotus, the learned tanner of 
 Byzantium, a deferter of his Lord, and a fugitive 
 from his countiy, broached at Rome in the end of 
 the fecond century. This doctrine Dr. Prieftley 
 will perhaps find it difficult to trace to any earlier 
 period, or to any more refpeftable origin. No in- 
 jury, therefore, is done to the Unitarian caufe, when 
 Theodotus is faid to be the firft author of the Uni- 
 tarian doftrine in this exalted, finished, form. But 
 after all, this is not, what Dr. Prieftley imagines it 
 to be, the aiTertion of Eufebius. It is the aflertion, 
 of a writer cited by Eufebius without any name. It 
 Ihould feem that he was of the Latin church, and 
 that his expreffions are to be underftood with parti- 
 cular reference to the ftate of religion in the weftern 
 world, efpecially at Rome. Now it was probably 
 true, that Theodotus was the very firft who at 
 Rome, in any fenfe, taught the meer Humanity of 
 Chrift. For notwithftanding the corrupt ftate of the 
 Roman church in later ages, it is notorious that (he 
 was the laft of all infected with any grofs herefy. 
 As for the pretenfions of -the Unitarians, which 
 it might be incumbent upon Eufebius to refute, 
 they were not fimply pretenfions to antiquity. The 
 
 TICLES in the genuine forenfic meaning of the word, fee 
 proved in the feventeenth of my Letters in Reply, ^. 8 ; and 
 my Remarks on Dr. Prieftley's Second Letters, part II. 
 chap. iv. ^.6. And that Dr. Prieftley is, by his principles, 
 difqualified to be the Paftor of any thing better than a Con- 
 venticle, fee proved by his own confeffion in the feventeenth; 
 of his Second Letters to me. 
 
 D 4 antiquity
 
 o A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 antiquity of the Unitarian doctrine, in a certain form, 
 is confefled. Its antiquity is proved by the exprefs 
 cenfure which is parted upon it in St. John's writ- 
 ings, both in his Firft Epiftle and in his Gofpel, as 
 a dangerous errour which was in being when he 
 wrote. But the pretenfions of the Unitarians, which 
 Eufebius contradicts, were pretenfions to a prior an- 
 tiquity. The pretence that their own doctrine was 
 original; and the doctrine of the church, in the 
 time of Zephyrinus, novel. And in refuting thefe 
 pretenfions, the writer quoted by Eufebius, goes 
 back to the Apoftlic age: he goes back to thofe 
 Pfalms and Odes, which feem to be alluded to in 
 the Apoftolic Epiftles, and to the books of Holy 
 Writ*. 
 
 jr. 
 
 i. BY thefe fpecimens a judgment may be formed 
 of the arguments and of the facts by which our au- 
 thor's nrfi: afTumption is fupported. By expofing the 
 vveaknefs of our author's arguments, and by the 
 proof which hath been produced from the writings 
 of Ignatius, that the Divinity of the Son, his full 
 Divinity, was acknowledged by the immediate dif- 
 ciples of the A pottles (a proof, which had not the 
 work been long fince done by the learned Bifliop 
 
 * See this queftion about Theodotus purfued in the eighth 
 of Dr. Prieftley's Firft Letters to me, the poftfcript, ^. 4, 
 and the fourteenth of my Letters in Reply. 
 
 Bull
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 4* 
 
 Bull, might have been {lengthened with a copious 
 c.olletion of paffages to the fame purpofe from Ig- 
 natius, Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, Hermas, and 
 the authentic a&s of the Martyrdom of Polycarp) 
 by the detection of the fallacy of the arguments on 
 the one fide, and by the pofitive proof adduced on 
 the other ; our author's notion of the faith of the 
 firft Chriftians, that it was purely Unitarian, is over- 
 turned. And if this notion of the firft Chriftians be 
 overturned ; the afiertion, that the doctrine of our 
 Lord's Divinity was an invention of the fecond race, 
 falls with it. For what was believed by the foil 
 j-ace, could be no invention of the fecond. Nor 
 Can any argument be drawn, from any refemblance 
 that may be imagined between the Trinity of the 
 Chriftian Church, and the Three Principles of the 
 Platonifts, that the doctrine of the Apoftles was not 
 rightly underftood by their firft converts : unlefs in- 
 deed it could be proved (which is the tacit aflump- 
 tion upon which this objection is founded) that the 
 difcoveries of Revelation and the inveftigations of 
 philofophy may never coincide. But why is it fup- 
 pofed that nothing can be a part of an infpired 
 teacher's doctrine, which had been taught before by 
 wife men, who were not infpired ? Were every iota 
 of the Gofpel Do&rine to be found in the writings 
 of the Greek Philofophers, this would not be fuf- 
 ficient to fet afide the pretenfions of the firft preach- 
 ers of Chriftianity to a Divine commiffion. The 
 juft conclufion from fo perfect: an agreement 
 would only be, that for the great importance of 
 
 thefe
 
 4* A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 thcfe doctrines to the manners of mankind, it had 
 pleafed God to make difcoveries to all men by Re- 
 velation, to which a few only could attain by ab- 
 ftract reafoning. The cafe indeed is far otherwife. 
 It is ever to be remembered, for the mortification of 
 man's pride, and to the praife of God's mercy, that 
 " when the world by wifdom knew not God," 
 when philofophy had made its utmoft efforts, not 
 entirely without fuccefs, but with little general ad- 
 vantage, " it pleafed God by the foolilhnefs of 
 preaching," by a method of inftruction, which in 
 the article of religious information, hath abolifhed 
 the diftinction between the philofopher and the idiot, 
 " to fave them that believe." But had our fup- 
 pofed cafe actually obtained, had Revelation difco- 
 vered nothing more to all than reafon had previoufly 
 taught a few, ftill to teach all and to teach a few is 
 fo different a bufmefs, that the previous attainments 
 of philofophers would have afforded no objection 
 againft the pretenfions of the firft preachers of the 
 Gofpel, fufficient to overturn the evidence by xvhich 
 their claim to a Divine comitiiffion is fupported. 
 Much lefs may a refemblance, more or lefs exact, 
 between faith and philofophy in fmgle articles, create 
 a prefumption, that thofe articles of faith, of which 
 certain philofophical opinions feem to carry a refem- 
 blance, made no part of the doctrine which thofe 
 infpired teachers .taught. The refemblance may 
 feem indeed a wonderful fact, which may juftly draw 
 the attention of the ferious and inquifitive. And if 
 it fhould be deemed incredible, as well it may, that 
 
 reafon.
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 45 
 
 reafon, in her utmoft ftrength, mould ever afcend 
 fo high, as to attain .even to a diftant glimpfe of 
 truths, which have ever been efteemed the moft myf- 
 terious difcoveries of Revelation : it will become a 
 queftion of the higheft curiofity and importance, to 
 determine by what means the Platonic fchool came 
 by thofe notions of the Godhead, which, had they 
 been of later date than the commencement of Chrif- 
 tianity, might have parted for a very mild corrup- 
 tion of the Chriftian faith ; but being in truth much 
 older, have all the appearance of a near, though 
 very irnperfeft view, of the dolrine which was af- 
 terwards current in the Chriftian church. 
 
 2. THE enquiry becomes more important, when 
 it is difcovered, that thefe notions were by no means 
 peculiar to the Platonic fchool : that the Platonifts 
 pretended to be no more than the expofitors of a more 
 antient doctrine : which is traced from Plato to Par- 
 menides: from Parmenides to his matters of the 
 Pythagoraean feel: : from the Pythagorseans to Or- 
 pheus, the earlieft of the Grecian Myftagogues : from 
 Orpheus to the fecret lore of the Egyptian priefts, 
 jn which the foundations of the Orphic Theology 
 were laid. Similar notions of a triple principle pre- 
 vailed in the Perfian and Chaldaean Theology ; and. 
 veftiges even of the wormip of a Trinity were dif- 
 cernible in the Roman fuperftition in a very late age, 
 This wormip the Romans had received from their 
 Trojan anceftors. For the Trojans brought it with 
 them into Italy from Phrygia. In Phrygia it was 
 
 introduced
 
 44 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 introduced by Dardanus fo early as in the ninth cen- 
 tury after Noah's flood. Dardanus carried it with 
 him from Samothrace ; where the perfonages, that 
 were the objects of it, were worshipped under the 
 Hebrew name of the Cabirim. Who thefe Cabirim 
 might be, has been matter of unfuccefsful enquiry 
 to many learned men. The utmoft that is knowq 
 with certainty is, that they were originally Three, 
 and were called by way of eminence, the Great or 
 Mighty Ones : for that is the import of the Hebrew 
 name. And of the like import is their Latin appel- 
 lation, Penates. Dii per quos penitus fpiramus^ per 
 quos habemus corpus^ per quos rationem animi pojjide-. 
 mu$*. Dii quifunt intrinfecus^ atque in intimis pe- 
 netraKbus cceli\. Thus the joint werfhip of Jupiter, 
 Juno, and Minerva, the Triad of the Romaji Ca- 
 pitol, is traced to that of the THREE MIGHT Y 
 ONES in SamothraceJ; which was eftablifhed in 
 that ifland, at what precife time it is impoflibJe to 
 determine, but earlier, if Eufebius may be credited^ 
 than the days of Abraham, 
 
 3. THE notion therefore of a Trinity, more or 
 lefs removed from the purity of the Chriftian faith, 
 is found to have been a leading principle in all the an- 
 tient fchools of philofophy, and in the religions of 
 
 * Macrob. Saturnal. lib. III. c. 4. 
 
 f Varro apud Arnob. lib. III. p. 123 Lugd. Bat. 1651. 
 
 J Tarquinius Demarati Corinthii filius, Samothra- 
 
 eiis myflice imbutus, uno templo ac fub eodem ted^o, numina 
 jnemorata cppjungit. Macrob. Saurnal. 1*. III. c. 4. 
 
 almoft
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 4* 
 
 felmoft all nations ; and traces of an early popular be- 
 lief of it appear even in the abominable rites of ido- 
 latrous worfhip. If reafon was inefficient for this 
 great difcovery, what could be the means of infor- 
 mation, but what the Platonifts themfelves affign, 
 Ideoirapa&olos soxo-yia. " A Theology delivered from 
 the Gods," i. e. A Revelation. This is the ac- 
 count which Platonifts, who were no Chriftians, 
 have given of the origin of their matter's doctrine. 
 But from what Revelation could they derive their 
 information, who lived before the Chriftian, and had 
 no light from the Mofaic ? For whatever fome of the 
 early fathers may have imagined, there is no evidence 
 that Plato or Pythagoras were ct all acquainted with 
 the Mofaic writings : not to infift, that the worfhip 
 of a Trinity is traced to an earlier age than that of 
 Plato or of Pythagoras, or even of Mofes. Their 
 information could be only drawn from traditions 
 founded upon earlier revelations : from fcattered frag- 
 ments of the antient Patriarchal creed; that creed, 
 which was univerfal before the defection of the firft 
 idolaters, which the corruptions of idolatry, grofs and 
 enormous as they were, could never totally oblite- 
 rate*. Thus the doctrine of the Trinity is rather 
 confirmed than difcredited by the fuffrage of the hea- 
 then fages : fmce the refemblance of the Chriftian 
 
 * " What Socrates faid of him, what Plato writ, 
 
 ic and the reft of the heathen philofophers of feveral na- 
 " tions, is all no more than the twilight of Revelation, after 
 the Sun of it was fet in the race of Noah." Dryden's Pre- 
 face to Rcligio Laid, 
 
 faith
 
 A* A CHARGE TO TfcE CLERGY, 
 
 faith and the Pagan philofophy in this article, whet* 
 fairly interpreted, appears to be nothing lefs than the 
 confent of the lateft and the earlieft revelations. 
 
 III. 
 
 I. OUR author's aflumption, that the doftrinfi 
 of our Lord's Divinity was an innovation of the Pla- 
 tonic Chriftians of the fecond century, being over- 
 thrown by direct proof, that this pretended innova- 
 tion was a part of the faith of the firft Chriftians : 
 all oblique and fecondary arguments, that might 
 otherwife create a prefumption in our author's favour, 
 are rendered wholly infignificant. To Dr. Prieftley 
 it feems a circumftance of great importance, that 
 thefe early writers " fometimes drop the perfonifica- 
 " tion of the Logos (which in his opinion had been 
 " their firft ftep towards the deification of our Sa- 
 <c viour*) and fpeak of it as the meer attribute of 
 " Godf." This he imputes to the difficulty, with 
 which new opinions lay hold upon the mind, and 
 to the natural prevalency of good fenfe, which is fuch 
 that it will in all cafes often get the better of imagina- 
 tion^:. Facls themfelves mould be eftablifhed, before 
 confequences are deduced from them. Let us there- 
 fore confider the example by which this affertion is 
 fupported. 
 
 * Hift. Corrup. part I. feet. II. 
 
 f Hift. Corrup. vol. I. p. 35. J Ibid. 
 
 2. THEOPHILUS
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 4* 
 
 ft. THEOPHILUS of Antioch fays, " that when 
 * c God faid, Let us make man, he fpake to nothing 
 u but his own Logos, or Wifdom*." It muft be 
 confeffed, that the example is happily chofen. It is 
 clear that in this paffage of Theophilus, as it is ex- 
 preffed in Dr. Prieftley's tranflation, the Logos is 
 defcribed as nothing but the Wifdom of God: nothing 
 but His Own Wifdom. His own Wifdom muft be 
 that internal Wifdom, which is a power of his own 
 Mind, a property of his own Perfon : and to fay that 
 God fpake to " Nothing but his own Wifdom," is 
 to fay, that he fpake to[no one but himfelf. Dr. Prieft- 
 ley methinks hath fpared to make the ufe he might have 
 done of this paffage of Theophilus j which feems not 
 only to be an inftance in which Theophilus drops 
 the perfonification of the Logos in his own writings } 
 but to prove, that as far as the interpretation of the 
 Old Teftament is of any importance, the authority 
 of this learned and antient bifhop of Antioch ftands 
 with the Unitarian fcheme. This learned bimop 
 tells us, that the writers of the Old Teftament, if 
 ever they feem to allude to a plurality of perfons in 
 the Godhead, fpeak figuratively, and are to be un- 
 derftood accordingly. The allufion is perhaps no 
 where ftronger, than in thofe words of Mofes in the 
 Book of Genefis, " God faid, Let us make." God 
 not only fpeaks; God faid:" but God fpeaks in 
 the plural number ; " Let us make :" as though per- 
 fons were addreffed, who were to take part with the 
 fpeaker in the bufinefs to be done. Theophilus, the 
 celebrated bifhop of Antioch, Theophilus fo refpecla- 
 
 * Hid. Corrup. vol. I. p. 35. 
 
 . ble
 
 4 A CHARGE TO THE 
 
 ble for his antiquity, his piety, and his learning ; 
 Theophilus cautions us, not to be over confident of 
 the confequences which we draw from this rigid ex- 
 pofition of the facred writer's words. Theophilus 
 affirms, that the expreflion is purely figurative ; fig- 
 nifying only that before man was made, the purpofe 
 of making him arofe, and was contemplated, in the 
 Divine intellect. The expreflion defcribes an inter- 
 nal deliberation of the Divine mind concerning the 
 intended work ; juft as the private thoughts and pur- 
 pofes of a man are fometimes expreffed under the fi- 
 gure of a difcourfe pafling within himfelf. All this 
 Theophilus affirms in Dr. Prieftley's Englifli. No- 
 thing of this Theophilus affirms fpeaking for himfelf 
 in his own language*, aMy $s im E/^WF, rioojTw^r^ 
 aXX i> ru lads Aoyw, KM ry txulx Zotpiat. The " No- 
 thing but" of Dr. Prieftley's Engliih conveys quite 
 another idea than the in axx^ TIW axx v of Theophi- 
 lus's Greek. The Logos and the wifdom, as dif- 
 ferent names of one thing, are connected by the dis- 
 junctive Or in Dr. Prieftley's Engliih j as names of 
 different things they are connected by the copulative 
 jfn4 [Ka/,] in Theophilus's Greek. The exaa 
 rendering of Theophilus's words is to this effect. 
 " It was to no other perfoflk' (that is the proper force 
 of x avy TM, haud alii cuipiam) " It was to no 
 tc other perfon that he faid, Let us make, than to his 
 " own Word, and to his own wifdom." ic? lad* 
 Aoyj KM TYI lanHa So^ia. The repetition of the de- 
 monftrative article with the pronoun, as well as the 
 
 * Ad. Autolyc. p. 114. Oxon. 1684. 
 
 connection.
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 49 
 
 conne&ion by the copulative, clearly fhews that 
 Aoyoj and 2o?<a, the Word and the Wifdom, are 
 different things. Hath Dr. Prieftley written a hif- 
 tory of the Corruptions of Chriftianity, and hath he 
 yet to learn, that in the language of Theophilus and 
 of the befl writers of his age, the Word and the Wif- 
 dom (Aoyoj and Sopja) 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 inftance? 
 that occur in Theophilus himfelf, in Origen, in Ta- 
 tian, and Irenseus, hath ever fallen under his own, 
 proper obfervation ; he might have been informed of 
 this peculiarity of their fiile, from the notes which ac- 
 company the text of Theophilus in Bilhop Fell's edi- 
 tion printed at Oxford in 1684; which, as it-js in- 
 ferted in his catalogue* of principal editions, it is 
 pofllble he may have feen. Theophilus's aflertion, 
 that God fpake to no other perfon than his Word 
 and his Wifdom, is an aflertion that he fpake to per- 
 fons of no lefs dignity, than the Son and the Holy 
 Ghoft. It is an aflertion of the Catholic expofitionf 
 of the text, and of the confequences deduced from 
 it, in oppofition to the Jewifh expofitors of that age j 
 
 * Dr. Prieftley's Preface, p. xxii. 
 t That this is the true expofition, that the text defcribes a 
 confultation which pafled between the perfons of the God- 
 head, is (hewn with great brevity, but with the higheft de- 
 gree of evidence and perfpicuity in Dr. Kennicott's diflerta- 
 tion on the Tree of Life, p. 29, 30. Compare the fame 
 diflertation, p. 71. 
 
 E who
 
 5 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 who contended that this fpeech of God was addreffcd 
 to the angels, Theophilus therefore in this paflage 
 hath not dropped the perfonification of the Loeos ; 
 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, were rather to aflert the 
 perfonification* than to drop it : but by the names 
 of the Word and the Wifdom he dimnguifhes t\vo 
 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 aflertions, " That the faith of the 
 " firft age was Unitarian, and that the doctrine 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 
 Chriftians 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 neceflity of exiftence, 
 having the meer name of Divinity, without any tiling 
 
 * Of my mifapprehenfion of the word Perfonijlcatlon, as 
 ufed by Dr. Prieftley, and how little it affefts my argument, 
 fee the thirteenth of my Letters in reply, \ 2 5. 
 
 si
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 51 
 
 of the real form : if the proof of this third aflertion 
 fhould 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 doctrine to the Arian, 
 and from the Arian doctrine to the Athanafian faith, 
 muft be deemed a meer dream or fiction in every 
 part. 
 
 2. IT muft be acknowledged, that the firft con- 
 verts from the Platonic fchool, took advantage of the 
 refemblance between the Evangelic and the Platonic 
 doctrine on the fubjecl of the Godhead, to apply th 
 principles of their bid 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 
 jnoft familiar and intelligible, that could be employed 
 upon fo abftrufe a fubjecl. Nor was this practice 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 prefled into the fervice of philo- 
 fophy, by any accommodation of the pure evangelical 
 doctrine to preconceived opinions j but philofophy 
 was made to exert her powers in the defence of Reve- 
 lation, and to lend her language to be the vehicle of 
 its facred truths. Thefe might be deemed the moft 
 promifing means that could be employed, for bringing 
 over more converts from the pagan fchools. And the 
 writers, who evangelized in this philofophical ftile, 
 conceived perhaps, that they had the fan&ion of an 
 4 a Apoftle's
 
 S z A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 Apoftle's example, for becoming all things to all 
 " men, that they might gain foirie." 
 
 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 dodrine 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 exifted*. We have feen 
 that this was not the belief of the firft 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 
 fufficient that the precife tenour of it be clearly under- 
 flood. 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 aft of the Father's Will. After all that Dr. 
 Prieftley hath written, about the refemblance between 
 the Ecclefiaftical and the Platonic Trinity ; he hath 
 yet, it feems, to learn that a created Logo's, a Logos 
 which had ever not exifted, was no lefs anabfurdity 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, 63. 
 
 their
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 53 
 
 their philofophy, before they could be the authors of 
 thisabfurd, this monftrous opinion *. As the notion 
 that this doctrine took 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 it, can only be founded in grofs mifconftructi- 
 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 exifted, other- 
 wife than as an attribute of the Divine mind, hap- 
 pens to be one, in which that philofophic Father 
 afferts the eternity of the Logos, as a diftinct per- 
 fon, in the moil explicit terms j and argues in flip- 
 ped: of it from a certain relation of the Logos to the 
 paternal intellect, which the name, Logos, implies. 
 " Athenagoras," fays Dr. Prieftley, " calls Chrift 
 " the firft production . of the Father ; but fays, he 
 " was not always actually produced ; for that from 
 " the beginning God, being an eternal mind, had 
 " reafon in himfelf, being from eternity rational f." 
 But let us hear Athenagoras himfelf J. " If," fays 
 
 * See more upon this fubjea in the eighth of Dr. Prieft- 
 Jey's Firft Letters to me, and the thirteenth of my Letters 
 in reply, $.8. 
 
 t Hift. of Corrup. vol. I. p. 36. 
 
 J See the entire Greek paflage, p. 56. 
 
 E 3 he,
 
 54 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 he, " endowed as you are with fuperior underftand- 
 u ing" (he addrefles the emperors Marcus Aure- 
 lius Antoninus, and Lucius Aurelius Commodus) 
 " it fhould occur to you to enquire, whence 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 
 " firft offspring. Not as fomething made" (This 
 is the true fenfe 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 
 11 the beginning had the Logos in himfelf, being 
 c eternally rational." The learned father under- 
 takes to explain to the philofophical emperors, why 
 the Second Perfon in the ever blefled Trinity is cal- 
 led the Son. He tells them, that this name is ex- 
 prefiive 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 eldeft born. But left 
 the relation of primigeniture mould lead to the no- 
 tion of a proper phyfical generation, which would 
 link 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. 55 
 
 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 j which is 
 therefore but a fort of making, and differs from that 
 which is ufually called a Making, in the means only 
 by which the end is compafled. Athenagoras there- 
 fore gives the Emperors a caution, not to under- 
 ftand 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 it 
 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 
 actual exiftence. The generation of the Son cannot 
 be underftood, he fays, of any fuch produ6tion, be- 
 caufe his actual exiftence is from eternity. This, he 
 fays, is the necefiary confequence of the confefled 
 eternity of the Father. The Logos hath exifted from 
 eternity, in union with the Father ; " 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 refls 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 Intellect 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 intellet hath 
 been ever active. But perfections, which have ever 
 been, the ever-active Intellect muft ever have con- 
 E 4 ternplatedj
 
 S 6 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY, 
 
 templated ; and the contemplation which hath ever 
 been, muft ever have been accompanied with its juft 
 effect, the perfonal exiftence 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 affigning the particular tranf- 
 adlion to which he conceives it to allude ; which 
 is no commencement of the Son's exiftence ; not 
 even that ad 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 bufinefs of 
 creation. " He is," fays Athenagoras, " to the 
 " Father as the firft offspring; not 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 active fpirit to im- 
 " pregnate them with form*." Here, indeed, the 
 
 Sort 
 
 U/JUV 
 
 Trdlfi. x o 
 
 E!%V auTog iv saurta TOV Xoyov, ai&ug Xoyi*o; ay M* 015 
 TMV wXixav ffv/j-Trotvluv anous <pi/<Tus xat ywj O%E(J uTroxsi/tfyuv 
 dixvjv, //E^uy/iEvwv TUV KaxpiJLttitrsqujV yrpos TO. xxtpoltfiZy lie 
 a:rroi$ idea KM ivtpytia slvai TT(> 0>&ajv. There feems to be 
 fome corruption in the words ton 7*15. A learned clergy- 
 man of the archdeaconry of St. Alban's, conjectures, that 
 W? fliould be TKJ. Nor can I devife any better emenda- 
 tion. The general fenfe of the partite cannot but be very 
 
 cle^r,
 
 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 unfubftan- 
 tial idea, or energy, of the Paternal Mind ; but a 
 living idea, energiiing on the matter of the univerfe, 
 to flamp 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 fubftances : or to ufe a more 
 Platonic phrafe, the firft projection of his energies. 
 
 6. IF any tiling be juftty 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- 
 
 rlear, tothofetowhom the imagery of the Platonifts is in any 
 degree familiar. 
 
 A pafTage of Hermes Trifmegiftus, preferved by Suidas 
 and Cedrenus, and Malela, may fomewhat illuftrate this 
 pafTage of Athenagoras. Hv pwj vospov irpo Qul&voepis, KOU 
 i$tv tlspov yv T\ Tblx evolwg' ast EV Icculai iv, aet TU ta'jlx vot 
 MCU Quit xat <xvv/jtalt vravla TTtpitxti' sxlo$ Txlx 8 SEOJ, VK 
 a Jai/Acov, xx, xcrta. rig atJw. vravluv yap xypioj, KM 
 nai Traty), KOU navla VTT avis nai EV aulu Inv. o yap 
 
 dula TrpoE^Swv, vravletei- KO,\ yovt/A@~ >tai 
 705 V yovifjua vdali i xtffuv\ iyxuov ETTQfiKre TO voup, 
 
 Malela has Iv yon/zoj QUITEI 7T<rtav t for EV yovifw vdali. 
 
 guage,
 
 5$ A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 guage, under the figure of his generation*. A 
 conceit which feems to have no certain foundation 
 in Holy Writ, and no authority in the opinions and 
 the do&rines of the preceding age : and it feems to 
 have betrayed fome of thofe, who were the moft 
 wedded to it, into the ufe of a very improper lan- 
 guage ; as if a new relation had taken place between 
 the Firfb and the Second Perfon, when the creative 
 powers were firft exerted. The indifcretion of pre- 
 fuming to affix a determinate meaning upon a figu- 
 rative expreffion, of which no particular expofition 
 can be fafely drawn from Holy Writ, is in fome de- 
 gree atoned by the object, which thefe writers had 
 in view. It was evidently their intention, to guard 
 the expreffions of Scripture from mifconftruction. 
 They thought to lead men away from the notion of 
 a literal generation, by affigning to the figure a par- 
 ticular meaning, which it might naturally bear, and 
 which, whether it was the true fenfe of it or no, 
 feemed not to clam with any explicit part of the 
 Revelation. The converfion of an attribute into a 
 perfon, whatever Dr. Prieftley may imagine, is a 
 notion to which they were entire Grangers. They^ 
 held indeed that the exiftence of the Son necefTarily 
 and infeparably attached to the attributes of the pa- 
 ternal mind: infomuch that the Father could no 
 more be without the Son, than without his own at- 
 tributes. But that the Son had been a meer attri- 
 bute, before he became a perfon ; or that the pater- 
 nal attributes were older than the Son's perfonal ex- 
 
 * See the thirteenth of my Letters in Reply, $. 12, 15. 
 
 iiknce,
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 5> 
 
 iftence, is a doctrine which they would have heard 
 with horror and amazement. With horror, as 
 Chriftians j with amazement, as philofophers ! 
 
 7. IT is but juftice to Dr. Prieftley to acknow- 
 ledge, what indeed he ought to have acknowledged 
 for himfelf, that in this mifmterpretation of the Pla r 
 tonic fathers, he is not original : that he hath upon 
 his fide the refpe&able authority of two very eminent 
 divines of the Roman church ; Petavius and Hue- 
 tius : which however is no more than a fingle autho- 
 rity ; the pious biftiop of Avranches, upon this fub- 
 ject, being but the echo of the very learned jefuit. 
 It is not the feafon to revive paft quarrels ; one is 
 therefore unwilling to recollect the motives, which 
 induced Petavius to belie his better knowledge, and 
 to charge the philofophical fathers of the fecond cen- 
 tury with errors, which he was too learned not to 
 know no Platonift could entertain. But at the time 
 when Petavius wrote, the minds of the moft en- 
 lightened and liberal of the Romanifts were fo ill re- 
 conciled to the feparation of the reformed churches 
 from their communion, that it was the fafhion for 
 the champions of the Papal fuperftition, in order to 
 weaken the fupport which they were fenfible the Pro- 
 teftant caufe received from the writings of the fa- 
 thers of the three firft centuries, to take every me- 
 thod to derogate from their authority. And this it 
 was thought could in no way be more effe&ually 
 done, than by bringing them under a fufpicion of 
 mifbelief, in doctrines which the reformed churches 
 
 and
 
 6o A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 and the Roman hold in equal reverence. The 
 learned Petavius confidered not, that he facrificed 
 the caufe of our common Chriftianity to the pri- 
 vate views of his own church, in thus attempting 
 to corrupt the flream of tradition at the very foun- 
 tain head. His arguments, which Dr. Prieftley 
 hath attempted to revive, are examined and con- 
 futed, with great erudition and ability, by the ex- 
 cellent Bilhop Bull in the third fe&ion of his De- 
 fence of the Nicene Faith. 
 
 8. THE laft fpecimen which I {hall produce of 
 Dr. Prieftley's manner of arguing from authorities, 
 fhall be taken from his fhort account of the word 
 Trinity*. This word, he fays, firft made its ap- 
 pearance in the writings of Theophilus bifliop of 
 Antjoch. But Dr. Prieftley thinks " it is not clear 
 " that by it he meant a Trinity confiding of the 
 " fame perfons, that it was afterwards made to con- 
 fift of:" and he affirms that it is certain, a Tri- 
 nity of Perfons in the Godhead was not meant by 
 Theophilus. And thus Theophilus, for the fecond 
 time, is brought to give evidence againft his own 
 opinion. But whence arifes the certainty, that a 
 Trinity of Perfons is not meant by Theophilus ? 
 From no other circumftance that I can perceive, but 
 that the word Trinity is exprefsly expounded in 
 the text of Theophilus by God, his Word, and his 
 Wifdom. " The three days," fays Theophilus, 
 * { which preceded the creation of the luminaries, 
 
 * Hift. of Corrup. vol. I, p. 99. 
 
 were
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 61 
 
 w were types of the Trinity; of God, and of his 
 Word, and of his Wifdom*." It hath already 
 been obferved that God, his Word, and his Wif- 
 dom, in the phrafeology of Theophilus's age, were 
 ufed for Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. It is unne- 
 ceflary in this aflembly to cite the numerous ex- 
 amples that occur in Theophilus, Tatian, Irenaeus, 
 and Origen. It may be more ufeful to explain 
 the grounds upon which, as I conceive, this lan- 
 guage was adopted. 
 
 9. We have feen that the Platonic Fathers, al- 
 though they held the eternity of the Second Perfon 
 no lefs than of the Firft, imagined that his genera- 
 tion fignified a particular tranfac~Hon, which took 
 place at a certain time. And it is probable that, 
 although they held the eternity of the Holy Spirit, 
 yet they conceived that the proceffion expreiTed fome 
 projection of his energies, which took place at the 
 fame time with that, which they underftood to be 
 the generation of the Son. They imagined that the 
 Second Perfon was not properly a Son, before that 
 event, which they underftood by his generation: 
 and they would equally imagine that the Third was 
 not properly the Spirit, before the event which they 
 underftood by his proceffion. But they conceived, 
 that the Second Perfon had ever been the Word ; 
 
 * uaaulagxoti ai rg if fj/nf ou [fffo] ruv tyurrifuv yeyovuiaty 
 
 TWTTOl SKTIV T>?5 Tf l5bj' T8 8, KOA TS AoyS <Zi/7, KM TJ?f 
 
 2o^Jj txulx. Theoph. ad Autol. lib. i. p. 106. Oxon. 
 1684. I have taken the liberty to infert the prepofition 
 
 srfo> the want of it being evidently an omilfion. 
 
 and
 
 Ss 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 diftindions : for which the beft 
 apology (for an apology they need) is the evident 
 good intention of the writers, who firft 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 Ghoft, 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 Thres 
 Perfons; but that rejecting the fimpler nomencla. 
 ture founded on relations, they defired to call each 
 perfon by the name which they conceived to be moft 
 defcriptive of his effence : and of the eflence of the 
 Father they could find no name at all defcriptive but 
 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 Holy Ghoft : and when Theophilus expounds 
 the word Trinity, by God, his Word, and his Wif- 
 dom, it is jufi the fame thing as if he had rendered it 
 
 by
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 63 
 
 by Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. 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 
 Theophilus's was not a Trinity of perfons in the 
 Godhead, it is not my bufinefs to explain. Dr. 
 Prieftley fliould 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 fliould be j 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. 
 
 ii. 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 the 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 maybe 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 10 fay much more of the latter 
 claufe j that it is certainly unintelligible in Dr. Prieft- 
 ley's
 
 64 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 ley's tranflation. But turn to the original The whole 
 obfcurity willvanifh; and inftead of it, you will find 
 that ftriking perfpicuity of language, which is the cha- 
 racteriftic 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 Wifdorn, Man *." This laft 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. 
 
 * utraulug xou ai T^EJJ yfASpou [erf o] TUV Qurvipav yiyovviat 9 
 tiffin T>j rpiaSbf * T# @HS, KM T Aoyx aw7, KOU. rv$ 
 slafly tie Tj/Trof Hriv dvSpuTrz' 6 Trpotrdrng TX 
 Iva y 0eo$, Aoyo?, So^ja, AvS^wirof. Ad Avitol. 
 lib. 2. p. 106. Oxon. 1684. 
 
 I FEEL
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 65 
 
 12. I FEEL no fatisfaction in detecting the weak- 
 nefies 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 the higheft improvement of its facul- 
 ties in the prefent life, that fuch fallacies in reafoning, 
 fuch mifconftructions of authorities, fuch diftorted 
 views of facts and opinions, mould 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 actual 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 doctrine of Chrift : and a 
 due proficiency in theological ftudjes, muft be the at- 
 tainment of future induftry. To the novitiates there- 
 fore of our order, confidered as unfinimed Theologi- 
 ans, 1 take the liberty to recommend the diligent ftudy 
 of the works of bifliop Bull ; efpecially of his writings 
 
 F on
 
 66 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 on the fubject of the Trinity, with the annotations of 
 Grabe his learned editor. In thefe they will find an 
 exact 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 apoftolic 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 
 theearlieft 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 hiflorians, I mean, Eufebius, Socrates, So- 
 zomen, and Theodorit. As for modern hiftories, 
 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 fubjec~t,, they may be redde indeed 
 with emolument ; as commentaries on the antient 
 text of hiftory, as it lies in the original writers, 
 which may occafionally throw light upon dark and 
 doubtful queftions. But as books of elementary in- 
 ftruction 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 feet. Of this Dr. Prieflley's 
 work is a ftriking example. No work was perhaps 
 ever fent abroad, under the title of a Hiftory, con- 
 taining
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 67 
 
 taining lefs of truth than his, in proportion to its 
 volume. 
 
 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 doctrine of the 
 firft 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 firft 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 doctrine muft 
 have been, not indeed obvious to the human under- 
 ftanding, not within the reach of its unaffifted 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 contradictions. No 
 tradition therefore may avail to prove, that any ma- 
 nifeft contradiction, that a part, for inftance, is 
 equal to the whole, or that the fame thing in the 
 fame refpect is at the fame time one and many, was 
 a part of the apoftolic doctrine ; if the infpiration of 
 the Apoftles be admitted. Or, if it fhould appear, 
 from the evidence of a tradition which cannot rea- 
 fonably be queftioned, that the Apoftles really re- 
 quired the belief of contradictions under the name of 
 F 2 myfteriesj
 
 68 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY, 
 
 myfteries; their pretence to infpiration will 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 tkat a 
 contradiction is, mould be allowed to overpower the 
 intuitive conviction, 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 
 firft 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 which 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 Chriftian ftudent ; 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 the beginning of Juftin Martyr's Dialogue with 
 Trypho, and Theopliil. ad. Autol. lib. 2. 
 
 Platonifts
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 69 
 
 Platonifts was, that they warped the genuine doctrine 
 of the original tradition, their wflragddofej- fo^oyia, 
 to a form in which it might be in friendfhip 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 
 the richnefs of the ore is fuch, as may well repay the 
 coft and trouble of the feparation. Or if leifure 
 mould be wanting for a minute ftudy of a fubjecT:, 
 which may feem but of a fecondary importance ; it 
 will at leaft be expedient, I had almofl 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 induflry of the inde- 
 fatigable Cudworth hath collected and arranged with 
 great judgment, in his Intellectual Syftem, 
 
 6. THE advantage to be expected from thefe 
 deep refearches, is not any infight into the manner 
 in which the three Divine Perfons are united; 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 juft apprehenfion of the Scripture dodtrine, 
 which will fhew that it is not one of thofe things 
 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 doclrincs of the Trinity, and the Atonement. See Hift. 
 Corrup. vol. II. p. S6iv
 
 7* A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 us to fee the Scripture doctrine in its true light: 
 that it is an imperfect difcovery, not a contradiction. 
 That 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 Athanalian Creed is fome- 
 thing very different from a fet " of contradictions, 
 " the moft direct which any perfon the moft fkilled 
 t{ in Logic might draw upf." A cenfure, which 
 could hardly have fallen from our learned adverfary, 
 Unitarian as he is, had he but known fo common a 
 book as Dr. Waterland's Hiftory and Paraphrafe. 
 In the opinions of the Pagan Platonifts, we have in 
 fome degree an experimental proof, that this abftrufe 
 doctrine cannot be the abfurdity, which it feems to 
 thofe who mifunderftand tt. Would Plato, would 
 Porphyry, would even Plotinus have believed the 
 miracles of Mahomet, or the doctrine of Tranfub- 
 ftantiation ? But they all believed a doctrine, which 
 fo far at leaft refembles the Nicene, as to be loaded 
 with the fame or greater objections. By every one 
 who will thus combine the ftudies of Divinity and 
 Philofophy, the truth of Plato's obfervation, I am 
 perfuaded, will be foon experienced ; that to thofe 
 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. 
 t Uift. of Corrupt, vol. I. p. 87, 
 
 haftily
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 7* 
 
 haftily upon the firft view of difficulties, what at firft 
 appeared the moft incredible, will in the end feem 
 the moft evident and certain ; and maxims, which 
 feemed at firft indifputable, will be difcarded*. 
 
 7. AN extenfive erudition in Pagan as well as 
 Chriftian antiquity, joined with a critical underftand- 
 ing of the facred text, is that which hath fo long 
 enabled the clergy of the church of England, to 
 take the lead among Proteftants as the apologifts 
 of the apoftolic faith and difcipline ; and to baffle 
 the united ftrength of their adverfaries of all deno- 
 minations. God forbid, that through an indolence, 
 which would be unpardonable, we mould 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&ion that it 
 muft give to every minifter of the Church of En- 
 gland, to underftand, that his engagements to the 
 eftablifhment 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 fatisfadKon is not the end of 
 our purfuits. The nobler end is public edification. 
 It is a maxim of Dr. Prieftley's, that every man, 
 who in his confcience diflents from the eftablifhed 
 church, is obliged in confcience to be a declared 
 
 * Plato in Epift. ad Dionyf. 
 
 F 4 dhTenter,
 
 ^^ A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 diflenter. I honour the generofity of the fenti- 
 ment. 
 
 noli y %9 
 r l%Scoj lav, Xyxoio 
 AM* a'^Xolf TrotlEioVj 65bjj 
 
 It ought much more to be the fentiment of every 
 one who ftands with the received doctrine, 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 
 Chrift, his God and Saviour, before men, he mould, 
 not be at laft confefied before the angels of heaven. 
 If this confeflion be the general duty of every man, 
 who feels conviction ; it is the particular duty of every 
 one, who hath been called to the EvangeMs' office. 
 He holds the authority of his commiffion for no 
 other purpofe, but to be a witnefs of the truth. 
 A conviction that it is the truth, founded on a deep 
 inveftigation of the fubject, will fupply him with 
 firmnefs 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 expect that his opinions will be 
 the open jeft of the Unitarian party : that his fmce- 
 rity will be called in queftion ; or if " a bare pojjibillty 
 
 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 
 recollection, that his adherence to the faith of the 
 firft 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 diflent 
 iliould be, that he muft mare with the excellent 
 Bifhop of Worcefter, in Dr. Prieftley 's " Pity and 
 Indignation f.', Not indeed that he will hold any 
 good man's good opinion cheap : or efteem it a light 
 evil, that a confcientious attachment to the truth 
 mould 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 hath 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 detect, nor the injury to irritate. Adoring 
 the wifdom of that myfterious difpenfation, which, 
 to heighten human virtue, ordains that it mould often 
 
 * Hift. of Corrup. vol. II. p. 471. 
 
 t To fee fuch men as Bifhop Hurd in this clafs of writers 
 [the defenders of the eflablifhment] when he is qualified to 
 clafs with Tillotfon, Hoadley, and Clarke, equally excites 
 efte's pity and indignation. Hift. of Corrup. vol. II. p. 471. 
 
 mjfs
 
 74 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 
 
 mifs the reward, which difinterefted virtue ever covets 
 moft ; of that difpenfation, which makes even error 
 and rafh judgment a ufeful part of the difcipline of 
 the prcfent life j he will 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 neceflary afperity of debate, will 
 he haftily retaliate their unjuft afperfions. He will 
 admit much more than a poffibility, that Dr. Prieft- 
 ley may be in carnefl in all his mifmterpretations of 
 the fcriptures and the fathers, and in all his mifre- 
 prefentations of fails. Appearances to the contrary, 
 however ftrong, he will refer to the fafcinating power 
 of prejudice, and to the delufive practice of looking 
 through authors*, 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 be will avow, the charitable opinion, 
 that fmcerity may be on both. And he will enjoy the 
 reflection, that by an equal fincerity, through the 
 power of that blood, which was med 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 moft capital works of 
 ' the antient Chriflian writers." Dr. Prieftley's Preface, 
 P. xvii. 
 
 and
 
 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 75 
 
 and Truth, which too often, in this world of folly 
 and confufion, fets thofe at wideft variance whom 
 the fimilitude of virtuous feelings ftiould the moft 
 unite, mall be the cement of an indiflbluble friend- 
 mip ; when the innumerable multitude of all nations, 
 kindreds, and people (why mould I not add of all 
 fe&s and parties) aflembled round the throne mall, 
 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 
 flain to redeem them by his Blood. 
 
 APPENDIX.
 
 [ 76 1 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 WHILE thefe fheets were in preparation fer 
 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. Prieftley 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. 
 Prieftley's reply hath already made its appearance ; 
 in which he is reduced to the neceffity of confefling, 
 that he hath no fuch paflage to produce*. Still, 
 however, he maintains, that the identity of thefe 
 feftaries, although not acknowledged by Origen, is 
 to be inferred from Origen, Epiphanius, and Eufe- 
 bius f . But this is ftill affirmed, without reference 
 to the particular paflages, 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 defcription is to be found of the opinions 
 of the Ebionites, which reprefents them as the fame 
 
 * See Dr. Prieftley's Reply to the Monthly Review, p. 5. 
 t See Corrections and Additions, &c. at the end of the 
 Reply. 
 
 opinions
 
 APPENDIX. K 
 
 opinions which others afcribe to the Nazarenes, and 
 makes it appear that Origen had no idea of any dif- 
 ference between the two feds *. Dr. Prieftley makes 
 a reference indeed to the i3th tract of Origen's 
 Commentary upon St. Matthew's Gofpel f j 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 I3th of 
 the Exegetics upon St. Matthew's Gofpel, I know 
 not. I fufpeft an error of the prefs ; and that the 
 reference mould have been to the i6th of the Ex- 
 egetics in the 3d fe&ion, which treats of the cure of 
 the blind near Jericho. In that tranfaclion, as St. 
 Mark relates it, Origen imagines that the two divi- 
 fions 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 laft 
 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. 
 
 f See the References, p. 4, of the Reply. 
 
 places
 
 fg APPENDIX. 
 
 places the characteriftic diftinction between the Gen- 
 tile and the Jew convert in a belief or difbelief of 
 Chrift's Divinity, may feem to militate ftrongly for 
 his iavourite opinion, that the whole Hebrew church 
 was Unitarian ; he will find one fentenee in par- 
 ticular in this difcourfe, or a part at leaft of 
 one fentenee, which, I am perfuaded, he will 
 think worthy to be written in characters of gold. 
 Kai STtav iSijf TWV 7TO bdfcuMi Kirsvovluv h$ TOV Iwxv TW 
 Trspi la <rulwo$ mnv, bis /J.EV l Ma^iaj xai 
 aJlov eivou, ore IMV EX. Maciaj /wowij xai ra Ssis 
 s (jmv KM (Asia TYI$ <7T^i aula SeoXoyjaj, 6^i x. T. >.. 
 
 <c and when you confider, what belief they of 
 
 " the Jewifh race, who believe in Jefus, entertain 
 * e 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- 
 u out any belief of his Divinity : you will under- 
 " ftand, &c." Thefe expreffions taken by them- 
 felves may feem to intimate, that the feel: of the 
 Ebionites, in its two great branches, embraced, in 
 the time of Origen, the whole body of the Hebrew 
 Chriftians. But let the learned reader attentively 
 perufe the whole difcourfe, let him confider well the 
 fubjecl: and the ftile ; and he will perceive, that as 
 the fubjecl is not hiftory, neither is the ftile of the 
 fedate hiftoric kind. The object 'of the difcourfe is 
 lo fpiritualize a plain ftory. An attempt in which the 
 imagination of the writer is always bufier than the 
 judgment : and the ftile, even in alhifion to hiftori- 
 cal facts, is generally rather warm than exact, and 
 
 is
 
 APPENDIX. }$ 
 
 is apt to border on the vehement and the exagge- 
 rated. This is in fome degree the cafe in this dif- 
 courfe of Origen's. His expreflions are therefore 
 to be interpreted by the known tenor of Ecclefiafti- 
 cal Hiftory : Ecclefiaftical Hiftory is not to be ac- 
 commodated to his expreflions. That the Jewifh 
 converts were remarkably prone to the Ebionaean 
 herefy, from which the Gentile churches in general 
 were pure, is the moft that can be concluded from 
 this pafiage, ftrengthened as it might be with ano- 
 ther, fomewhat to the fame purpofe, in the Com- 
 mentaries upon St. John's Gofpel. But what if it 
 were proved, that the whole fet of the Nazarenes 
 was abforbed in the Ebionsean herefy in the days of 
 Origen ? What evidence would that afford of the 
 identity of the Nazarenes and the Ebionites in earlier 
 times ? And even that identity, if it were proved, 
 what evidence would it afford, that the church of 
 Jerufalem had been originally Unitarian under her 
 firft bifhops of the circumcifion ? 
 
 2. BUT however indecifive the pretended tefti- 
 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 aflertion, is this : that Dr. Prieft- 
 ley hath never troubled himfelf to read more of Epi- 
 phanius's account of the Ebionites, than the firft ele- 
 ven words of the firft fentence. Had he redde the 
 
 * Reply, p. 4. 
 
 firft
 
 fo APPENDIX. 
 
 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. Prieftley triumphs in the filence of 
 Hegefippus, and the concefiions 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 mould have been fuffered 
 to pafs unnoticed in my own animadverfions, and that 
 the omifTion 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 ftrictures to thofe 
 arguments, in which the learned author feemed to me 
 the moft original. In thefe two he is the leaft fo. 
 Both are ftale. The one is from Zuicker's mint : 
 the other from Epifcopius. Both have been canvaffed 
 with great accuracy, and both have been effectually 
 overturned, by that excellent Divine, whom I have 
 fo often found occafion to mention, and who never 
 mufl be mentioned without praife, the learned and 
 pious bifhop Bull. 
 
 THE END.
 
 LETTERS 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's, 
 
 I K 
 
 REPLY 
 
 T O 
 
 DR. PRIESTLEY.
 
 LETTERS, &c. 
 
 LETTER FIRST. 
 
 The Archdeacon of St. Albarfs declines a regular con-" 
 troverfy with Dr. Priejlley Produces new injlances 
 of Dr. Priejiley's Inaccuracies and mifreprcfentations. 
 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 WHEN at the requeft of the clergy of my arch- 
 deaconry, I published the difcourfe, in which 
 I had given them my thoughts of your late attack on 
 the doctrine of the Trinity ; it was not at all my in- 
 tention to open a regular controverfy with you upon 
 the fubje6l. I cannot think, that you have redde my 
 publication with fo little difcernment, as not to per- 
 ceive in it a defign of quite another kind ; which yet, 
 I fear, I mall find it difficult to avow in explicit terms, 
 without giving an offence, which, were it poffible, I 
 would avoid. But fince you challenge me to a conteft, 
 in which it is my refolution never to engage ; not 
 from any diftruft of my own caufe, nor from any dread 
 of the abilities by which I mould 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 fatisfadion of either party; it is neceflary that 
 G 2 both
 
 $4 1ETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER both yourfelf and the public fhould be made to under- 
 ftand, upon what grounds I conceive rayfelf at liberty 
 to decline a difcuffion 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 
 collect : 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 
 hold 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, 
 I am not at all obliged to go into new arguments 
 upon the main queflion. The objections, 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 ; with 
 whatever metaphyfical difficulties the catholic doctrine 
 may be encumbered thofe difficulties, when the 
 doctrine is rightly apprehended, are in my judgment 
 not great, but I will allow you to fay they are infu- 
 perabje : whatever ambiguity may be pretended in 
 the expreffions of Holy Writ, in which the divinity 
 of the Son is generally fuppofed to be aflerted 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 j whatever variety and dif- 
 agreement is to be found in the orthodoxy of different 
 
 ages
 
 TO DR. 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 unilable 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 object 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 ecclefiaflical anti- 
 quity. 
 
 2. IF the inftances, which I have alleged, of mif- 
 information and inaccuracy are only fecondary over- 
 fights, fuch as affect 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, mufl 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 j and, 
 left I mould 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 fucceflion of the Roman pontiffs j when you 
 
 G 3 mention
 
 16 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER mention Vidor as the fucceflbr of the bifhop who 
 
 FIRST. . , . 
 
 came after him*. 
 
 4. SUCH is your aflertionf, that in the age of Ter- 
 tullian it was not pretended " that the fubject of the 
 " Trinity was above human comprehenfion;" when 
 but a few pages back you had produced a paflage 
 from Irenaeus, in which the generation of the Son, 
 which is a part only of the fabject, is mentioned as fo 
 wonderful a thing, as to be understood by none " ex- 
 u 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 hiftory. 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 doctrine .||" Valefius 
 hath indeed exprefled 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 neglecl, 
 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. 
 
 $ Hift, Corrupt, vol. I. p. 37. 
 
 II ^. p. 9.
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. *7 
 
 whofe loft work of the Hypotypofes he pafles 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- 
 tripailian herefy. Noetus's confeflion, according to 
 Epiphanius, was this ; " that he acknowledged one 
 " God, who was begotten, who fuffered and died." 
 But fuppreffing, or in your rapid glances having not 
 obferved, the latter part of this acknowledgment, 
 aflerting the fufferings and death of his one God; 
 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 doclrines 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 that 
 Clemens Alexandrinus fpoke favourably of Unitarians, ftill 
 I complain that he alleges the authority of Valefius for more 
 than 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 circumftancc 
 that ought to leflen his credit as an hiftorian, 
 
 G 4 knew
 
 SS LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER knew nor wormipped any God but one*" (a). 
 Having thus vindicated the injured character 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 Patripaffian error. 
 
 7. SUCH another inaccuracy we have in your re- 
 lation of the judgment, which the Roman Diony- 
 fius parted upon certain injudicious antagonifts of 
 Sabelliusj who, to avoid his error, divided the 
 Holy Trinity into three perfons unrelated to each 
 other, and diftin6t In all refpefls. EJJ r ei$ iwor7j?, 
 y, 'TravlaTroari %&> JOT/ievaf, dicupxflas TW ayixv 
 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 diftinEl in all refpetls y 
 is rank Tritheifm ; becaufe what are unrelated and 
 diftincl in all refpeds, are Many in all refpecls ; and 
 
 * Hid. Corrupt, vol. I. p. 74. 
 
 (a) In the nineteenth of his Second Letters, Dr. P. ac- 
 knowledges that he ought not to have exempted Epipha- 
 uius 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- 
 *' quence 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 dolrine. Mine is Dr. Prieftley's incompe- 
 tency in the fubjeft, which he pretends to treat.
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 89 
 
 being Many in all refpe&s, cannot in any refpecl: LETTER 
 be One. But in your tranflation of the paiTage, by 
 emitting the very fignificant adjective leva?, and the 
 very emphatical adverb wavWawj, 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 Athanafms, for concurring in a cenfure 
 upon his own opinions. " Some perfons in op- 
 " pofmg Sabellius having made three hypoftaies, 
 which we render perfons, feparate from each 
 11 other, Dionyfius bifhop of Rome, quoted with 
 " approbation by Athanafms 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 
 jn 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 reft 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 
 
 * Hift. Corrupt, vol. I, p. 65, 
 
 your
 
 90 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER your fubjeft, which might enable you to draw the 
 true conclufions from the paflages you cite j if they 
 prove you incompetent in the very language of the 
 writers, from which your proofs fhould be drawn ; 
 unfkilled in the philofophy, whofe doctrines you 
 pretend to compare with the opinions of the church ; 
 a few clear inftances of errors of this enormous fize 
 may releafe me from the tafk, which you would im- 
 pofe upon me, of canvafling every part of your ar- 
 gument, and of replying to every particular quota- 
 tion. A writer, of whom it is once proved that he 
 is ill-informed upon his fubjecT:, hath no right to 
 demand a further hearing. It is a fair preemption 
 againft the truth of his conclufion, be it what it 
 inay, that it cannot be right, but by meer accident. 
 To be right by accident will rarely happen to any 
 man in any fubjecl: ; becaufc in all fubje&s truth is 
 {ingle, and error infinite. 
 
 9. NOT long fince I was confulted about a new 
 opinion concerning the actual figure of the earth. 
 I objected, that while the bafis of the author's ar- 
 gument was an affumption, 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 challenged to prove a certain relation, which 
 I aflerted, between the rays of curvature in different 
 parts of the curve to prove the curvature at the fe- 
 cond lefs than at the principal vertex and at laft I
 
 TOD R. PRIESTLEY. 91 
 
 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 ? 
 
 10. PARDON me, Sir, if plain dealing compels 
 me to profefs, that I think little lefs refpe&fully of 
 this philofopher's learning in the conies, than of your 
 attainments in ecclefiaftical hiftory. I make this 
 avowal with the lefs heiitation, becaufe I find my 
 opinion in fome meafure juftified by your own con- 
 feffions. You confefs, 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 conceffions 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 Bimop 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 eftablifhment. What is this but to 
 confefs, that you are indeed little redde in the prin- 
 cipal writers, either on your own fide of the queftion 
 or the oppofite? But as no man, I prefume, is 
 born with an intuitive knowledge of the opinions or 
 the facts of paft ages, the hiftorian of Religious Cor- 
 ruptions, confefling himfelf unredde in the polemical 
 
 divines,
 
 9* LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 rER divines, confeffes ignorance of his fubjeh The 
 opinion therefore which I formed, upon a diligent 
 perufal of your work, is confirmed by your own 
 acknowledgements ; and my victory 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 eftablifhment, as in 
 danger from your attacks, muft now be laid afleep ; 
 and will be no incentive to any very vigorous ex- 
 ertions againft a proftrate enemy*. But the truth 
 is, that I never was alarmed, and it is neceffary that 
 I fhould fet you right in that point. When I fpake 
 of your extraordinary attempt to unfettle faith, and 
 to break up eftablimmentsfj 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 juftly celebrated name of Dr. Prieftley : a future 
 danger to myfelf, if I forbore to bear my witnefs to 
 the truth. For although we have a promife, that 
 the gales of Hell mall not prevail againft the Church, 
 yet the vigilance of the Priefthood 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, V 3. 
 
 its
 
 TOD R. PRIESTLEY. 
 
 its fecurity. I therefore thought it my duty to pre- 
 vent the mifchief, which might arife to the un- 
 learned and unftable, by demolishing the credit of 
 your Narrative, and in thefe fubjecls, 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- 
 tract my accufation. They only fix me in the 
 perfuafion, that to profecute the difpute with you, 
 would be to little purpofe. You will therefore ex- 
 cufe me, if I decline a controverfy to be carried on, 
 for fuch I underftand to be the conditions of the 
 Challenge, " till you mall have nothing left, which 
 " you may think of confequence to allege*." 
 When I have (hewn the infufficiency of the defence 
 which you have now fet up, and have collected 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 fubjeft, in 
 me you will have no antagonift. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 * Preface to Letters, p. iii. and xviii. 
 
 LETTER
 
 9) 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 fhould have nothing left to fay, our corref- 
 pondence would run to an enormous fize: for I 
 mould 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 fubjeii ; 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 mall be un- 
 willing either to fatigue by the length, or to perplex 
 by the intricacy or obfcurity of my reafoning. To 
 avoid the firft mifcarriage, I (hall be content to give 
 you a fufficient, rather than a full reply ; and to avoid 
 the fecond, I (hall 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 (hall begin with a recapitulation of the fubftance of 
 my Charge ; that before I enter upon particular dif- 
 cuffions, the points to be difputed may be brought at 
 once in view. 
 
 2. The
 
 TOD R. PRIESTLEY. 9 j 
 
 2. THE general argument of my Charge was a LETTER 
 -critical review of your Hiftory, in that part of it 
 
 which relates to the do&rine of the Trinity in the three 
 firft ages. This review confifted of two parts j a 
 fummary of the account, which you pretend to give, 
 of the rife and progrefs of the Trinitarian doctrine ; 
 and a view of the evidence, by which your narrative 
 is fupported, confining of nine felecl: 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 doctrine, 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 
 anfwer 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 confeflion 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 
 objection, that it is deftitute of novelty ; confifting of 
 proofs long fmce fet up, and long fmce confuted ; 
 that if you have attempted any thing new, it is only 
 to confirm the gratuitous aflumptions of former Uni- 
 tarians by inconclufive arguments, and falfe quota- 
 tions. The nine ipecimens of your proofs, by which 
 
 this
 
 9 6 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER t his heavy accufation was fupported, were nothing 
 lefs than your principal arguments in fupport of your 
 three 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 Platonifing fa- 
 thers. If your principal arguments were fairly ad- 
 duced as inftances of weak, infufficient proof; your 
 whole notion of the gradual progrefs of opinions, 
 from the Unitarian dodtrine to the Arian, and from, 
 the Arian to the Nicene faith, is overthrown. Of 
 this you have mewn yourfelf not infenfible, by the 
 great pains which you have taken, to what purpofe 
 will foon appear, to anfwer my objections. 
 
 5. THE Nine fpecimens of inefficient proof were 
 thefe. 
 
 6. Two inftances of the circulating fyllogifm. 
 The firft, when you allege your own fenfe of Scrip- 
 ture as the clear fenfe, in proof of your pretended 
 fact, that the Primitive faith was Unitarian ; whereas 
 the fact 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 doctrine is no error, but the very truth 
 of the Gofpel. The aflumption that St. John is 
 filent upon this fubjecl, 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 
 
 intheflefh." which will be admitted by none, who LETTER 
 
 J SECOND. 
 
 are not previoufly convinced that St. John's t>wn 
 faith was Unitarian. If St. John's faith was Uni- 
 tarian, the phrafe that " Chrift is come in the flem" 
 fignifies only that Chrift was a man : and thus we 
 fhall find no cenfure of the Unitarian doctrine in St. 
 John's firft epiftle. But if St. John was no Uni- 
 tarian, but a believer in the incarnation and divinity 
 of our Lord; then the phrafe of Chrift's coming in 
 the flem cannot but be underfcood 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 affumption therefore of St. John's filence, 
 concerning the Unitarian doctrine, prefumes another 
 fact, that St. John was himfelf an Unitarian. This 
 is the primary, though tacit affumption, on which 
 this argument is built. This argument therefore, 
 fairly analyfed, is found to circulate like the former. 
 For the conclufion to be eftablimed is the pretended 
 fact, that the faith of the Primitive church was Uni- 
 tarian. The mean of proof is the gratuitous affump- 
 tion, that the faith of St John was Unitarian. But 
 to affume the faith of an infpired Apoftle, is the 
 fame thing as to affume the faith of the primitive 
 church. 
 
 7. MY third fpecimen was an inftance, in which 
 you cite a teftimony, which no where exifts. The 
 pretended teftimony is of no lefs a perfon than Atha- 
 nafius. The fact, to which Athanafius is made to 
 depofe, is the high antiquity of the Unitarian faith. 
 H His
 
 9 8 LETTERS IN REPiY 
 
 LETTER His teftimony to this fact you find in his piece upon 
 the orthodoxy of the Alexandrine Dionyfius ; in a 
 certain pafTage in which he affirms, that the Jews 
 were firmly perfuaded that the Mefliah was to be a 
 meer man ; and alleges, as you understand him, this 
 perfuafion of the Jews as an apology for a caution, 
 ufed by the Apoftles, in divulging the doctrine of our 
 Lord's divinity. The Jews, of whom Athanafius 
 fpeaks, you prepofteroufly imagine were Chriftians, 
 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 doctrine. 
 
 8. MY fourth fpecimen 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 aflumptions, of which the one is 
 a meer gratuitous afiertion, of which no proof is at- 
 tempted ; the other is accompanied with a pretended 
 proof, which arifes however from a forged teflimony 
 and an ill-founded aflertion. The gratuitous af- 
 fumption is, that the Nazarenes and the Hebrew 
 Chriftians were the fame people : whereas the fact is, 
 that the feel of the Nazarenes arofe after the ex- 
 tinction 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 affumptioa, that the Naza- 
 renes
 
 TO Dk. PRIESTLEY. 99 
 
 tents and the Ebionites were the fame. This aflbr- LETTER 
 
 tion is unfounded, and the teftimony of Epiphanius 
 
 is in fact forged ; fmce 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 confeflion, 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 fingly true ; yet the other 
 
 being falfe, the conclufion would be either the reverfe 
 
 of your's, or altogether precarious. 
 
 9. MY fifth fpecimen was your mifreprefentation 
 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 Irenaeus 
 and Juftin Martyr ; although the writings of Eufe- 
 bius himfelf afford a refutation of the aflertion. But 
 although the aflertion, 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
 
 joo LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER thor quoted by Eufebius goes back to the apoftolic 
 age. 
 
 10. YOUR objection to the doctrine of the church 
 drawn from the refemblance, which you find between 
 the Chriftian and the Platonic doctrine, furnimed 
 my fixth fpecimen of inefficient 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 the catholic faith. 
 
 11. YOUR proofs of your fecond afiefticn, that 
 the doctrine of our Lord's divinity was an innovation 
 of the fecond age, are all of an oblique and fecondary 
 kind: fu ch as, were they liable to no other objec- 
 tion, would lead to no conclufion, without a .dif- 
 tincT: previous proof, that the faith of the firft age 
 was Unitarian. One of thefe arguments furnifhed 
 my feventh fpecimen of inefficient proof. It is an 
 inftance, in which you cite the testimony 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 particular acquaintance with the phrafeology of 
 the early fathers. 
 
 12. MY eighth fpecimen was taken from your at- 
 tempt to tranflate a pafTage of Athenagoras, at which 
 an abler philologer, than you have (hewn yourfelf to 
 be, unredde injhe Platonifts, might be allowed to 
 
 {tumble
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 101 
 
 ftumble. I produced it, to convict 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 (kill in the Greek language. A paflage 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 miffed, 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 fubje&s, 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 * LETTER
 
 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER THIRD. 
 
 In reply to Dr. Priejlley* s introductory and to part of 
 bis firjl Letter. His defence of his argument from 
 the clear fenfe of fcripture confuted. Of the argu- 
 ment again/} our Lord's pre-exijlence to be drawn 
 from the materiality of man. Of the Greek pronoun 
 itroj. 
 
 DEAR SIR, 
 LETTER / ~|~" S O remove the imputation of having argued in a 
 
 THIRD. f _ >'' 
 
 * circle, when alleging your own lenle of fcrip- 
 ture as the clear fenfe, you infer, that the faith of the 
 firft ages was exactly conformable to your own opini- 
 ons ; you tell me, that the clear fenfe of fcripture and 
 the hiftorical evidence are collateral proofs* of the 
 early prevalence of the Unitarian faith. I (hall admit 
 this, and mail retract all that I have written, when 
 once you mail have proved to the fatisfaclion of the 
 Chriftian world, that the Unitarian doctrine is deli- 
 vered in the holy fcriptures, taken in their plain and 
 obvious meaning. But while your fenfe of fcripture 
 is difallowed by the majority of Chriltians, I muftftill 
 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 aflumption. I 
 confefs, that an argument drawn from a gratuitous af- 
 fumption is not necefTarily an argument running in a 
 
 * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 4 * 
 
 circle,
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 103 
 
 circle, unlefs the only means of reducing the aflump- LETTER 
 
 e f i THIRD. 
 
 tion to a certainty, be a previous proof of the conclu- 
 fion to be drawn. But this I affirm to be the cafe in 
 the inftance under confideration. When we fpeak of 
 the clear fenfe of any piece of writing, this very ex- 
 prefllon 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 firfi: fenfe of the expreflion, in proof that the pri- 
 mitive faith was Unitarian ; I alk, whether it be not 
 the fole end and purpofe of the enquiry into the pri- 
 mitive faith, to fettle the differences of Chriftians 
 upon points in which the fcriptures, if there be any 
 ground in them for the difputes which have arifen, 
 are not clear ? You now aflume a fenfe, which you 
 call their clear fenfe, upon thofe very points, in order 
 to afcertain the primitive faith. 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 firft 
 fenfe of clearnefs. On the contrary, if ever it mould 
 be clearly proved to have been the fenfe of the facred 
 writers ; the juft conclufion will be, that of all writers 
 thefe have been the moft unneceflarily and the moft 
 wilfully obfcure. The Unitarians themfelves pretend 
 not that their doctrine is to be found in the plain literal 
 H 4 fenfe
 
 104 LETTERSINREPLY 
 
 LETTER fenfe of holy writ: on the contrary, they take the 
 
 THIRD. , . 
 
 greateft pains to explain away the literal meaning. 
 They pretend that the facred writers 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 Jewifh extraction. 
 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 
 doctrine 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 
 dotrine 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 aflertion. The Unitarian doctrine 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 Chriftians, once clearly afcer- 
 tained, muft be allowed indeed to be an unerring expo- 
 fition of the written word. To prove therefore that 
 the Unitarian doctrine is clearly the true fenfe of fcrip- 
 ture, which is your aflumption, you muft firft prove 
 that the primitive faith was Unitarian^ which mould
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 105 
 
 be your conclufion. Still this argument circulates, LETTER 
 and was not improperly alleged by me as my firft fpe- 
 cimen of inefficient proof. 
 
 3. BUT it is of no great importance to difpute, 
 where the particular infirmity of this argument may 
 lie i when you confefs that it is of fuch a fort, " that 
 " you could not fuppofe it would have any weight 
 <c with Trinitarians*." While you condefcend to 
 employ your rare abilities in framing arguments, 
 which will perfuade thofe only who are previoufly per- 
 fuaded, you will do little harm. Why fhould I dif- 
 turb you in this innocent amufement ? 
 
 4. To compenfate for the confefled 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 doclrine 
 *' of the materiality of man, which has been fuffici- 
 * c ently proved in your difquifitions on matter and fpi- 
 < c ritf." 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-exiftence. I believe, Sir, the 
 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, 
 ]3artley's Theory of the Mind. 
 
 t Letters tp Dr. H, p. 5. f Letters, p. 5.
 
 io6 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER 5. As a ftriking inflance of the conformity between 
 the Unitarian doctrine and the clear fenfe of fcripture, 
 I 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 Englifh, I took occafion to remark, that the Greek 
 pronoun JJTOJ 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 infinuate the con- 
 trary. Give me leave to refer you to a letter which 
 was publifhed 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 
 myfelf the writer of it. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 * Letters, p. 7. f Appendix, No. i. & a 
 
 LETTER
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 
 
 LETTER' FOURTH. 
 
 In reply to Dr. Priejllefs Fir/I Letter. His defence 
 of his argument from St. John's firjl epiftle con- 
 futed. The phrafe " come in the Jtejb" more than 
 equivalent to the "word " to come"- St. John's 
 affertion that *< Chrift came in the flejh" not pa- 
 rallel with St. Paul's^ that he " partook of flejb 
 and blood." 
 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 YOUR argument for the antiquity of the Uni- LETTER 
 tarian doctrine from St. John's firft epiftle, the 
 fecond among my fpecimens of inefficient proofs, 
 refts on a fuppqfition, that in that epiftle the Uni- 
 tarian doctrine is not cenfured. I have, (hewn* 
 that this fuppofition will ftand or fall, according as 
 one or another interpretation of the phrafe of " com- 
 " ing in the flefh" mail be admitted. That fingle 
 expreffion, as it is generally underftood, reprobates 
 the Unitarian doclrine, and overthrows your fup- 
 pofition. You muft therefore eftablifh your own 
 fenfe of the phrafe, before you can be permitted to 
 aflume, that St. John is filent about the Unitarian 
 doctrine. 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 flem 
 js meerly an aflertion of our Lord's humanity f. 
 
 * Charge, and Letter II, f Letters to Dr. H. p. 8, 10. 
 
 Sir,
 
 \6S LETTERS IN REPLY. 
 
 LETTER Sir, I underftood from the firft that this is vour obi- 
 FOURTH* 
 
 nion, and I doubt not in the leaft your firmnefs in 
 
 it. But I contend, that no fuch authority belongs to 
 your opinion, that the bare notification of it fhould 
 command the aflent of the whole Chriftian 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 aflumed, 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 mall 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 
 firft epiftle, will be difputable. 
 
 2. You fay, that this phrafe of coming in the 
 flefh " refers naturally to the doctrine of the Gnof- 
 " tics *." I fay the very fame thing. But I fay, 
 that in the fenfe in which the Church hath ever un- 
 derftood it, this phrafe refers to two divifions of the 
 Gnoftics; the Docetz, and the Cerinthians; af- 
 fcrming a doctrine, which is the mean between their 
 
 * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 9. 
 
 oppofite
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY 109 
 
 oppofite errors. The Docetae affirmed, that Jefus LETTER 
 
 FOURTH. 
 
 was not a man in reality, but in 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 
 " flefh ;" 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 Chrift 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 
 Ihould find an improbability, upon the firft face of 
 the thing, in fuppofing that the fame expreflion 
 fhould be equally levelled * at two herefies, which 
 you confefs to be oppofite. For is it not always the 
 cafe, that expreflions 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 (hade, 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 
 " doctrine of the Ebionites, tho' it is allowed to 
 9 have exifted in his time f." The dodrine of 
 the original Ebionites, and that of the Cerinthian 
 Gnoftics, upon the point of Chrirt's divinity, was 
 
 * Letters to Dr. H. p, 10. f Id. p. 10. 
 
 thfl
 
 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 condemns the other, whether he lived or lived not 
 to fee the rife of theEbionaean fed*. I (hall here- 
 after have occafion to fhew, that the Ebionaean feet 
 was of later date than you imagine. 
 
 3. IT is perhaps from fomething of a fecret mil- 
 giving, that your interpretation of the phrafe of 
 coming in the flefh, will not be allowed to be its 
 natural and obvious meaning ; that you are fo de- 
 firous to retreat into the ftrong-hold of Jewifh 
 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 cuftom of late to lay 
 too much ftrefs upon Jewifh idiom s in the expofi- 
 tion of the dida&ic parts of the New Teftament. 
 
 * " You infifl upon it," fays Dr. Prieftley, in the fifth 
 of his Second Letters, " that John does cenfure the Unita- 
 " rian doctrine : which is curious enough ; when, according 
 " to your account, there were no Ebionites or Nazarenes, that 
 " is none who denied the pre-exiftence of Chrift, till long 
 " after the time of John." But this is not according to my 
 account. My account is, that Cerinthus, who was unquei- 
 tionably contemporary with St. John, denied our Lord's 
 pre-exiftence, and was in this point the precurfor of the 
 Ebionites. And what if I had faid, that St. John had cen- 
 fured a do&rine not taught till after his death ? Do not the 
 fathers perpetually refer to proleptic cenfures of late herefies 
 in the facred writings ? Is 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. 8. 
 
 The
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 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 Jewifh ; it as much 
 locked up from general apprehenfion, as if the fa- 
 cred books had been written in the vernacular gib- 
 berifh of the Jews of that age. The Holy Spirit, 
 which dire&ed the apoftles and the evangelifts to the 
 ufe of the tongue, which in their day was the moft 
 generally underftood, the Greek, would for the fame 
 reafon, it may be prefumed, fuggeft 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 is, 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 Jewifh fenfe will, in all cafes, be far lefs than is 
 imagined, or none at all ; becaufe, though different 
 languages differ widely in their refined and elevated 
 idioms, common fpeech is in all languages pretty 
 much the fame. 
 
 4. BUT what are thofe Jewifh phrafes, with which 
 you would compare the Jewifh phrafe of " coming in 
 " the flefh?" They are the word " to come," and 
 the phrafe " partaker of flefh and blood." , 
 
 *'" The religion of Chrift was an univerfal religion, and 
 " the doctrines of the golpel were calculated for the Wef- 
 " tern as well as the Eaftern hemifphere." See Mr. She- 
 pherd's Preface to his Free Examination of the Socinian expo* 
 Jition of the prefatory verfes of St. John's Gofpel. 
 
 5. THE
 
 i LETTERS I NR.EPLY 
 
 LITTER 5. THE word " to come" is ufed by metaphor I 
 believe in all languages to fignify either a man's birth, 
 or nrft entrance into public life. He came into tbt 
 world; be came into life; be came into bujinefs. I have 
 no where affirmed, that fuch phrafes denote any thing 
 more than human, in any perfon to whom they may 
 be applied. But is the phrafe " to come in the flefh" 
 no more than equivalent to the word " to come?" 
 Are the words " in the flem" 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 r This limitation either prefumes 
 apoffibility of other ways of coming; or it is nuga- 
 tory. But was it pofiible for a meer man to come 
 othtrwife than in the flefhr Nothing can be more 
 decifive for my purpofe, than this comparifon which 
 you have fuggefted, between the word " to come," 
 which is general, and the phrafe u to come in the 
 " flefh," which is fpecific. My thanks are due to 
 you for this illuftration of my argument ; which may 
 be rendered ftill more evident by applying the two 
 phrafes fucceflively to a familiar inftance. If fome fu- 
 ture Hiftorian of thefe planet-ftricken times fhould 
 fay, " In the latter end of the eighteenth century came 
 " Dr. Prieftley preaching the Unitarian doctrine," no 
 one will fufpect any thing more, than that a man of 
 this name preached this doctrine. But if the Hifto- 
 rian mould fay, " Dr. Prieftley came in the flejh 
 " preaching this doctrine;" if the writer, who may 
 life this expreffion, mall 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 Y; 
 
 Prieftley had it in his power to come in any way with- 
 out his flem, " unmanacled with membrane, joint, or 
 " limb:" and when once it (hall be found', that- he 
 had not ; the ftyle of the writer will be condemned, 
 and his credit perhaps leflened. I leave you to make 
 the application. 
 
 6. BUT you think, that St. John's phrafe that 
 " Chrift came in the flem," may be expounded by 
 St. Paul's phrafe, that " he was partaker of flem and 
 " blood." The paflage 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; I am left to divine 
 what your argument might be. Perhaps you would 
 reafonthus. In this pafibge it is faid of men, that 
 they are partakers of flem and blood : and this expref- 
 fion is evidently defcriptive of the condition of huma- 
 nity. It appears therefore, that to be " a partaker of 
 " flem and blood" is a Jewifh phrafe, which figni- 
 fies " to be a man." But in this fame pafiage it is 
 faid of Chrift-, that " he likewife took part of flem and 
 " blood." It is faid of Chrift therefore that he was a 
 in an like other men : confequently nothing more can 
 be meant by his " coming in the flem." If this be 
 your intended argument, I reply, that Chrift was in- 
 deed a man like other men : and this perhaps is all 
 that is implied in St. Paul's aflertion, that he was 
 " partaker of flem and blood." But it follows not, 
 
 * Heb. ii. 14. 
 
 I that 
 
 113
 
 H4 LETTERS IN R Jb P L Y 
 
 LETTER that this is all which is implied in St. John's expref- 
 * fion, that " Jefus Chrift came in the fleflij" which 
 afTerts indeed his humanity ; but with an evident allu- 
 fion to a prior condition : and the proper conclufion 
 from the comparifon of St. John's exprefiion with St. 
 Paul's, is this ; that the two are not, as you fuppofe, 
 equivalent. 
 
 7. BUT I fufpedr, that you connect St. Paul's ex- 
 prefiion with your own doctrine of materialifm ; and 
 that you would argue thus. Since it is faid of men, 
 who are flefh and blood, and nothing elfe, that they 
 partake of fiefh and blood ; therefore " to partake of 
 " flefh and blood," in the Jewifh language, and " to 
 " be fiefh and blood," in other languages, are equiva- 
 lent phrafes. Therefore Chrift, of whom it is alfo 
 faid, that he partook of flefh and blood, was meer 
 flefh and blood ; a man like other men, in whom the 
 mental faculties were the refultof organifation. Thus, 
 you will fay, the notion of Chrift's pre-exiftence, 
 much more of his divinity, is overturned by the apof- 
 tle's ailertion ; and, whatever may have been imagined, 
 no allufion to his pre-exiftence or his divinity was in- 
 tended in any expreffions of the facred writers. The 
 aiTertion therefore of Chrift's real manhood is all that 
 can be contained in St. John's expreffions, that 
 " Chrift is come in the flefh." 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 expreffions, 
 
 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 
 notion of the meer materiality of man. To have 
 (hewn the true foundation of this argument is to have 
 confuted it. 
 
 8. I mufl remark, that in whatever form this argtu. 
 ment may be drawn, it will reft folely on the tranf- 
 lation of the facred text. For in the original, man's 
 connexion with fiefh and blood and Chrift's con- 
 nexion are exprefled by different words ; KEXOIVUVWE 
 and jWHTE^E. A difference, which, however flight 
 it may appear to you, was thought of fufficient impor- 
 tance to be preferved in the Vulgat, commun'icave- 
 rantparticipavit *. 
 
 9. BUT not to lay a ftrefsupon any critical refine- 
 ments upon fingle expreflions, let me afk your opi- 
 nion, Sir, upon the general fenfe of the paflage, in 
 which this phrafe, " to partake of flefh and blood," 
 occurs. I would appeal to yourfelf, whether the con- 
 cluiion, which you would build upon that particular 
 expreflion, is not overthrown by the general fenfe of 
 the paflage. The purport of the paflage is to aflign a 
 reafon, why the Redeemer mould partake of flefh and 
 blood ; that is, why he mould be a man. But a rea- 
 fon why a man mould be a man, one would not ex- 
 pect to find in a fober man's difcourfe. For why any 
 thing mould be what it is, rather than what it is not, 
 is a queftion which few, I think, would aik, and 
 none would attempt to anfvver. The attempt to aflign 
 
 * That xoivwuv is more than ptltxtiv. See lamblich. 
 de Myft. feet. 2. cap. V. 
 
 I 2 a rea-
 
 n6 LETTERS I NRBPLV 
 
 LETTEI 
 FOURTH. 
 
 ER a reafon, why the Redeemer ftiould 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 originaliy fomething diffe- 
 rent from man ; and that there might have been an 
 expectation, that he would make his appearance in 
 fome form above the human. It particularly implies, 
 that an expectation of his appearance in fome higher 
 form might be expected to prevail among the perfons, 
 to whom this reafon is affigned j fo that the manifeft 
 manhood of Chrift would be likely to be an objection 
 with them to his claim to the character of the Median. 
 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 Jewifti Chriftians ; of whom you fay, 
 that, before their converfion at leaft, " they had no 
 " idea that their MefTiah was to come down from hea- 
 " ven *," having never been taught by their prophets 
 to expect " any other than a man like themfelves in 
 " that illuftrious character f." 
 
 10. UPON the whole, fince the phrafe of " coming 
 ?' in the fiefh" muft be more than equivalent to the 
 word " to come ;" flnce there is no evidence of its 
 fuppofed parallelifm with St. Paul's phrafe of " par- 
 " taking of flefh and blood ;" fince in the difcourfeof 
 any but an Unitarian, it muft involve an allufion to 
 the incarnation and divinity of our Lord ; your de- 
 fence of your argument from St. John's firft epiftle is 
 
 * Letters to Dr. H. p. 49. 
 
 t Hift. of Corrup. vol. I. p. 2. 
 
 inefficient:
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 
 
 117 
 
 infufficient : the argument is ftill to be confidered as LETTER 
 running in a circle, and it was properly adduced as the 
 fecond among my fpecimens of infufficient proof. 
 
 I am, &c. , 
 
 N. B. THE argument, which Dr. Prieftley has 
 advanced in the fifth of his Second Letters, in fa- 
 vour of his own interpretation of the phrafe " com- 
 " ing in the flefh," from a paflage in St. Polycarp's 
 cpiftle, is confidered and refuted in the Firft of the 
 Supplemental Difquifitioris. 
 
 LETTER FIFTH. 
 
 The Archdeacon's Interpretation of Clemens Romanus 
 defended. The /horter epiftles of Ignatius genuine, 
 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 HAVING, to your own entire fatisfaHon, made 
 good your argument from St. John's firft 
 epiftle againft my exceptions ; you proceed to reply 
 to the teftimonies which I produced from Clemens 
 Romanus, for the pre-exiftence and divinity of our 
 Lord. 
 
 2. WHEN Clemens fays, " our Lord Jefus 
 " Chrift came not in the pomp of pride and arro- , 
 " gance, although he had it in his power," you 
 {ay, that the coming alluded to was " no coming 
 tc from heaven to earth ;" and that the pomp of 
 pride and arrogance, in which our Lord came not, 
 ftands for an < ( oftentatious difplay" of the mira- 
 I 3 culous 
 
 LETTER 
 FIFTH.
 
 uS LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER culous powers which our Lord never made*. To 
 this it is fufficient to reply, that my interpretation 
 refts upon the literal fenfe of the holy father's words, 
 which you fuppofe to be figurative ; that you have 
 nothing to object to the literal interpretation, but 
 that it fuits not with your own opinions ; whereas 
 I have fomething of great importance to fay in its 
 defence ; that it is eftablifhed by the context. " He 
 " came not (fays Clemens) in the pomp of pride 
 " and arrogance, although he had it in his power, 
 " but in humility, as the Holy Spirit fpake con- 
 " cerning him." The pomp therefore of pride 
 and arrogance, in which oar Lord came not, is 
 that pomp, which is the proper oppofite of the hu- 
 mility, in which the Holy Spirit had foretold that 
 he fhould come. For he came not in that, but 
 in this he came. Now to determine what this hu- 
 mility is, Clemens immediately goes on to cite the 
 prophecies, which defcribe the Mefllah's low condi- 
 tion. The humility, therefore, of an ordinary con- 
 dition is that in which it is faid the Mefliah came. 
 The pomp, therefore, of a high condition is the 
 pomp, in which it is faid he came not, although 
 he had it in his power fo to come. The expref- 
 fions therefore clearly imply, that our Lord, 'ere he 
 came, had the power to choofe, in what condition he 
 would be born. 
 
 3. IN citing this paffage of Clemens Romanus, I 
 de?.lt very liberally with you ; as I truft indeed that 
 
 * Letters to Dr. H. p. ij. 
 
 I have
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 119 
 
 I have done in every part of the argument. I cited LETTER 
 the paflage, as it (lands in our modern copies. More 
 antient copies, thofe which Jerome ufed, inftead of 
 xaiTrtf Swyo/AEvoj, " altho' he had it in his power," 
 had KxiTrtq TTccvIa 5vva//Evo^ " altho' he hath all things 
 " in his power." This appears from Jerome's 
 tranflation of the paflage, which is in thefe words, 
 " Sceptrum Dei, Dominus Jefus Chriftus non ve- 
 " nit in jactantia fuperbiae, cum poflit omnia *." 
 Now with this emendation of the laft claufe, which 
 it feems was an afiertion of our Lord's omnipotence, 
 you are welcome to make what you can of the pre- 
 ceding claufe, by figurative interpretations f. 
 
 I 4 4. No 
 
 * Hieronym. in Efaiam, cap. lii. 
 
 f Dr. Prieftley, to whom it is a matter of equal eafe to 
 bring the Holy Scriptures, or the Fathers, upon all occafions 
 to fpcak his own fentiments, finds no afTertion of our Lord's 
 omnipotence in this claufe of Clemens thus rendered by Je- 
 rome : nothing more than an allufion^' to the great power 
 *' of which he became poflefTed after We defcent of the Spi- 
 " rit of God upon him at his baptifm." (See the fecond of 
 Dr. Prieftley's Second Letters to me.) That is, to affirm 
 that a. perfon hath all tilings in his power, is, in Dr. Prieft- 
 ley's apprehenfion of the terms, to affirm that at a certain 
 time he had fame things in his power. Had any fuch allu- 
 fion been intended to the miraculous powers, the verb pqffit 
 in Jerome's Latin, mould have been in one or the other of 
 the preterite tenfes. By the ufe of the prefent tenfe, Je- 
 rome defcribes a plenitude of power now enjoyed. This 
 plerritude of power now enjoyed, is alleged -as what might 
 have been exercifed by our Lord in time paft with refpeft 
 to the manner of his own coming. It is a plenitude of power 
 
 therefore
 
 n LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER 4. No figurative interpretations will elude the 
 fores of my citations from Ignatius. But it is the 
 particular, happinefs of the Unitarian writers, that 
 they are never found at a lofs for an expedient. All 
 that I fay of the repeated afferlion of our Lord's di- 
 vinity in the epiftles of Ignatius, you allow to be 
 true, " according to our prefent copies of his epiftles. 
 " But tl>e genuinenefs of them, you fay, is not only 
 " very much doubted, but generally given up by 
 " the learned*. And left this aflertion fliould want 
 that appearance of weight, which an air of confi- 
 dence gives, you even tax my ingenuity " for con- 
 " cealing a circumftanc^ which, you fay, I muft 
 " have known;" and you challenge me to prove 
 thefe epiftles, " as we now have them, to be the 
 " genuine epiftles of Ignatius f." 
 
 5. SIR, if the genuinenefs of thefe epiftles be ge- 
 nerally given up by the learned, my ignorance, not 
 my ingenuity, is to be blamed, that I cited them as 
 genuine. I indeed knew nothing of this general 
 giving up. But fince the teftimony of Ignatius is 
 allowed 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 prefent to our Lord, now and in time part; 
 and being allowed to be now prefent, is fuppofed of neceflary 
 confequence to be capable of effefts in time paft. But this 
 defcribes nothing lefs than the attribute of omnipotence. 
 But language is no key to " unlock the mind of a Socinian.'* 
 f Letters to Dr. H. p. 13. 
 
 6. I
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 121 
 
 6. I KNOW that ancient writers mention feven LT.TTER. 
 epiftles of Ignatius, written upon his journey from 
 Antioch, where he was Biftiop, 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 beafts. 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, confefledly fpurious, two editions, a longer 
 and a ftiorter, are at this day current, of feven epif- 
 tles under the name of Ignatius, infcribed to thofe 
 to whom the real epiftles of the blefled martyr, ac- 
 cording to the Ecclefiaftical Hiftorians, were ad- 
 drefled. The longer epiftles firft appeared in print 
 in an old Latin verfion, publifhed by Father Stapu- 
 lenfis in 1498 ; a correfponding Greek text was 
 publiftied by Valentine Pacseus, from a MS. in the 
 Auguftan Library, in the year 1557. The morter 
 edition likewife made its firft appearance in print, in 
 an old Latin verfion, publiftied by Uftier from two 
 MSS. in the year 1644. The Greek was publiftied 
 by Ifaac Voflius in 1646, from a MS. in the Me- 
 dicaean Library at Florence. The Mediccean MS. 
 being imperfeft in the end, wanted the epiftle to the 
 Romans. But a Greek text of this epiftle, perfectly 
 correfponding with Uftier's Latin verfion, was pub- 
 liftied at Paris, from a MS. of Colbert's, by Mr. 
 Ruinard in the year 1689.
 
 , LETTERS IN. REPLY 
 
 LETTER y. IT has been made a queftion, whether the 
 fhorter epiftles are from abridged, or the longer from 
 interpolated copies. The phrafeology of the longer 
 feems in fome parts accommodated to the Arian no- 
 tions : that of the (hotter, is every where agreeable to 
 the Catholic faith. The fhorter edition hath the 
 fuffrage of the Fathers of the five firft centuries ; 
 their quotations, \yhich are numerous, every where 
 agreeing with this text. William Whifton, a man 
 whofe memory is more to be efteemed for his inte- 
 grity, and the extent and variety of his reading, than 
 for the foundnefs 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 epiftles, were unwilling to 
 allow their authenticity in either form. But with a 
 majority of the Learned thefe feven epifdes are re- 
 ceived as authentic ; and the fhorter edition is fup- 
 pofed to exhibit the genuine text. This at leaft was 
 the opinion of Ifaac Vollius, Ufher, Hammond, 
 Petavius, Grotius, Pearfon, Bull, Cave, Wake, Co- 
 telerius, Grabe, Dupin, Tillemont, Le Clerc. On 
 the other fide ftand no names to be compared with 
 thefe, except the three of Salmafms, Blonde], 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 Romans ; and they 
 
 * Hierozoic. P. I. lib. iii. cap. 3, 
 
 are
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 123 
 
 are founded on a chronology of the word Leopardus, LETTER 
 which Pearfcn hath proved to be erroneous *. 
 
 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, he thinks certain. That they 
 are not altogether forgeries, fo credible that nothing 
 can be more. But how far they are flncere, 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 queftion, 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 writings^ . 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. 
 
 * Vindicise Ignatianae, P. II. p. 91 94. 
 
 t De Rebus Chriftianorum ante Conftantinum, p. 161. 
 ; Ibid. p. 165. 
 
 9. WITH
 
 124- LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER 9. WITH this preponderance therefore of authori- 
 ties on the fide of the epiftles, and with this confeflion 
 of Moflieim againft his own opinion, 1 fhall take the 
 liberty to appeal to them, as they ftand in the fhorter 
 edition, as the genuine writings of the blefled mar- 
 tyr: not free indeed from thofe blemirties, which 
 arife from the hafte, the careleflhefs, and the igno- 
 rance of tranfcribers ; but upon the. whole not lefs 
 fincere, than moft other pieces of the fame antiquity. 
 I (hall 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 muft have been biafied by his opinions in pre- 
 judice of thefe writings, if any thing could have biafTed 
 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 bothj" 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 refpedting 
 a point of fuch importance as the original nature of 
 Chrift. I will therefore ftill appeal to thefe epiitles, 
 as fufficiently fincere to be decifive upon the point in 
 difpute. Nor mall I think, myfelf obliged to go into 
 the proof of their authenticity, till you have given a 
 
 * Thefe words of Dr. Lardner are cited by Dr. Prieftley 
 liimfelf in his Reply to the Animadverfions in the Monthly 
 Review of June, 1783, p. 36. They make a part of his 
 proof that thefe epiftles are fo corrupted, as not to be quoted 
 with fafety. See Reply to Animadverfions, p. 35. 
 
 fatisfaclory
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 115 
 
 fatisfadlory reply to every part of Bifhop Pearfon's LETTER 
 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 fhorter copies, I muft add 
 Fabricius. 
 
 LETTER SIXTH. 
 
 In reply to Dr. Prieftley's Second. The difference of 
 the Ebionites and Nazarenes no fingular or ne^u 
 cpinionofthe Archdeacon's. The fame thing main- 
 tained by Mojheim and other Critics of great name* 
 Dr, Priejlley's arguments from Origen and Eufe- 
 bius not neglecled in the Archdeacon's Charge. Dr. 
 Priejlley's conclufions from the feveral pajfages cited 
 by him from Epiphanius confuted. The Nazarenes 
 no feel of the apojlolic age. Ebion not contemporary 
 with St. John. 'The antiquity of a feel not a proof 
 of its orthodoxy. 
 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 THE Citadel of your ftrength is the argument LETTER 
 from the Nazarenes ; to which however I have SIXTH. 
 given a place among my fpecimens of inefficient 
 
 proof.
 
 12( j LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER proofs. You find the attack upon this fortrefs warm 
 on every fide ; and your refinance is proportionably 
 vigorous. So impatient are you for its defence, that 
 you take it out of .its turn, paiTmg 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 mould fur- 
 render which however muft be the cafej 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 firft point you abide by your original affer- 
 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 dial! fee with -what fuccefs. 
 
 3. You allow " it has been imagined by fame, 
 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, imagined. 
 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 diibelieved, while 
 " the Nazarenes maintained, the miraculous con- 
 
 * Letters to Dr. H. p. 14. 
 
 ception f ;"
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. $27 
 
 *' ception* ;" both concurring in the difbelief of our LETTER. 
 
 Lord's divinity. " For as to any Nazarenes, who 
 
 " believed that Chrift was any thing more than man, 
 
 " you find no trace of them in hiftoryf." And you 
 
 think it extraordinary, " that it mould 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 aflonifhed. 
 
 For " the learned Jeremiah Jones j|" wrote a cliapter 
 
 to prove them the fame people. 
 
 4. Indeed, Sir, I muft take fhame 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 
 eftablimment. 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 diffent 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 difference 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. f Ibid. 
 
 J Letters to Dr. H. p. 23. || Ibid. 
 
 Jones,
 
 si* L iT T T E R S IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER Jones, the illuftrious Moflieim. Tliis little body 
 " of ChriftianSj fays that learned hifcorian, which 
 " coupled Mofes with Chrift, fplit again into two 
 " feb, diftinguifhed from each other by their doc- 
 ec trines concerning Chrift, and the permanent obli- 
 " gation of the law, and perhaps by other circum- 
 " fiances*." As a certain proof that they were two 
 diftincT: fefts, 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 Momeim was the inventor of this 
 diftinclion, fince you have not found it in any critic of 
 any name of the laft 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? Voflius, Spencer, Huetius, were thefe critics 
 of any name ? If they were, Sir, you muft come again 
 to your confeflions. For Hugo Grotius, Vofllus, 
 Spencer, and Huetius J agree that the Nazarenes and 
 Ebionites, though fometimes confounded, were dif- 
 
 * Pufillum vero hoc Chriftianorum agmen, quod Moferi 
 Chrifto fociabat, in duas iterura diffiliebat feftas ; dogma- 
 tibus de Chrifto, legifque neceffitate, forte aliis etiam rebus 
 fejuniStas. Mo/belm de Rebus Cbrijlianontm ante Conjlantinum, 
 Saec. 2. ^ xxxix. 
 
 f Nazarei nunirum et de Chrifto multo reftius et verius 
 fentiebant quam Ebionei. Ibid. n. * * *. 
 
 J Grotius in Matth. c. I. Voflius degenerejefu Clirinw 
 cap. II. ^ i. Spencer in Origen contra Celfum, ad p. 56. 
 Huetius in Origenis commentaria, p. 74. 
 
 tincl
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 129 
 
 tind fe&s ; and they maintain the opinion, which I L S ' IXTH . 
 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 doctrine 
 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 fuccefsful 
 than Hugo Grotius, Voffius, Spencer, and Huetius : 
 not to mention others of inferior note. 
 
 7. You fee, Sir, our readers at leaftwill fee that 
 you had little ground to reprefent the opinion, which 
 I maintain, of a difference between the Nazarenes 
 and Ebionites, as fmgular or novel. Your attempt 
 to fet it forth in that light I cannot but confider as a 
 ftratagem, which you were willing to employ for the 
 prefervation of your battered citadel, the argument 
 from the Nazarenes. In this ftratagem, if I miftake 
 not, you are completely foiled. In your fallies againft 
 the batteries which I have raifed, I truft you will be 
 little more fuccefsful. But as too much of ftratagem 
 is apt to mix itfelf with all your operations, it will be 
 neceflary that I watch very narrowly the manner of 
 your approaches. 
 
 8. YOUR reply to my objections againft the tefti- 
 mony, which Epiphanius is fuppofed to bear to the 
 
 * Letters to Dr. H. p. 14. 
 
 K identity
 
 I 3 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER identity of the two feets, is opened with a complaint, 
 that I have faid nothing " to the arguments from 
 " Origen and Eufebius*." Sir, either here is more 
 ftratagem, or you have dealt by me, as you profefs to 
 do by the antients. You have only looked through 
 my charge. Had you redde it through, you could 
 hardly have milled fomething that I fay to the argu- 
 ments from Origen and Eufebius. I flatly deny any 
 direct teftimony of Origen, in favour of the identity 
 which you would prove ; and I have (hewn that the 
 paflages, from which you would draw the inference, 
 are little to your purpofe f." The argument from 
 Eufebius, you will be pleafed to recollect, made no 
 part of your original proof. It firft appeared among 
 certain corrections and additions, which are annexed 
 to your Reply to the Animadverfions of a learned writer 
 in the Monthly Review. It was impoffible therefore 
 that I mould take notice of it in my Charge, which 
 had been fent to the prefs, and was in great part 
 printed, before I had any knowledge of the Reply, or 
 indeed of the Animadverfions 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 paflages of Eufebius, upon which you 
 would found your argument}:. 
 
 9. HOWEVER, that I faid fomething very material 
 to the argument from Epiphanius, you deny not. I 
 
 * Letters to Dr. H. p. 14. 
 
 f Charge I. ^15, and Appendix, \ x. 
 
 \ Appendix to Charpr, \ 2. 
 
 faid
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 
 
 13* 
 
 faid indeed that no man could allege, as you do, the LETTER 
 
 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 doctrine of the Nazarenes. 
 
 Among thefe additions I place, although you will not, 
 
 the meer humanity of Chrift. 
 
 jo. You tell me in reply, that if I had myfelf 
 redde the fecond paragraph of this fame chapter of 
 Epiphanius, it would have fhewn 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 paflages 
 confirming, as you think, the aflertion, which you 
 pretend to find in it, of the agreement of the two feels 
 upon the point in queftion. Epiphanius tells us, as 
 you think, in the fecond paragraph of his firft fection 
 about the Ebionites, " that Ebion borrowed his abo- 
 " minable rites (foyou render &&upov} from the Sa- 
 tc maritans ; his opinion (-/VW/AUV) from the Nazare- 
 " nes; his name from the Jews." In the fecond fee- 
 tion, as you underftand him, he places the whole dif- 
 ference between the Nazarenes and the Ebionites in a 
 fmgle circumftance, totally unconnected with the opi- 
 nions about Chrift. In the fame feclion, you fay, he 
 fpeaksofthe two fects as inhabiting the faid country, 
 
 * Letters to Dr. K. p. 15 17. 
 
 K 2 and
 
 13* LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER anc j a dd S) that " agreeing together they communi- 
 " cated of their perverfenefs to each other*." 
 
 11. Now, Sir, in thefe quotations, I have to 
 complain partly of the want of critical difcernment ; 
 partly of ftratagem ; partly of unfldlful interpreta- 
 tion j and I affirm, that not one of the pafTages al- 
 leged is to your purpofe. 
 
 12. FOR the fecond paragraph of the firft feflion, 
 the only claufe in it of which you can avail yourielf, 
 is that in which it is aflerted, according to your tranf- 
 lation, that " Ebion took - his opinion from the 
 " Nazarenes f." 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 eftablim. Does Epiphanius fay, that 
 Ebion took his opinion fimply from the Nazarenes ? 
 He fays it not ; even if it be admitted, that the word 
 yvu/wv is rightly rendered by Opinion. If Opinion be 
 indeed what is here fignified by yvw^v, Epiphanius 
 fays, that Ebion took his opinion from " the Oflae- 
 " ans, the Nazoraeans, and the Nafaraeans." The 
 Nazorzeans of Epiphanius (Nawfjo) were the 
 Chriftian Nazarenes. But his Nafarzans were no 
 Chriftians. They were a Jewifh fet ; one of the 
 feven which were fubfifting at the time of our Lord's 
 appearance; the fifth in Epiphanius's enumeration. 
 The Oflkans were the fixth of thofe feven feels of 
 Judaifm. So that if any thing is aflerted in this 
 claufe concerning the opinions of Ebion, it is that 
 
 * Letters to Dr. H. p. 15. f Ibid. 
 
 they
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 133 
 
 they were a mixture of the extravagancies of three LETTER 
 fe&s ; two Jewifli, 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 do&rine 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 
 actuated by the fame generous motives : a tender 
 charity for the Jews, whom he might propofe, as 
 you do, to reconcile to the Evangelic doclrine, by 
 diverting the doctrine of every thing properly Evan- 
 gelic ? 
 
 13. BUT I contend further, that the word yvw/tiw, 
 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 j in which yvufw is mentioned as 
 fomething diftindl from yvua-i^ and <ruyxa.TaEo-i$ rav 
 (perhaps we mould read euayyehtruv) KOU 
 TrE{ virtu*;. " Ebion, fays Epiphanius, 
 " defired to bear the appellation of a Chriftian, but 
 " not to adopt the practice of Chriftians, nor their 
 " yiw/tm, nor their knowledge, nor their aflent to the 
 " Evangelifts and Apoftles concerning the faith*." 
 * Xfiriavuv (SsXETai !%eiv TVJV Wfoo-iryoffay, yap 
 TVTE 7Tp|iv, KOU Tnv yva,a*)v, xou T>?V yvsxriv, xctt 
 TWV ivary&tow *' aToroXwv TTE^I Kirtus <ruyxotla&e<riv. 
 
 K 3 Now
 
 134 LETTERSINREPLY 
 
 LETTER Now knowledge and aflent concerning faith to the 
 Evangelifts and Apoftles include religious opinion : 
 yvufw, therefore, being mentioned as diftindt from 
 thefe, is not opinion. It feems to be rather ufed 
 here, for what is exprefied in Englifli by the word 
 fentiment ; 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, 
 " poffeffed the fentiments of Oflaeans, Naza- 
 " renes, and Nafaraeans." He refembled thefe 
 Chriftian and Jewi(h feclaries, 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 Oflasans and the 
 Nazaraeans to many fenfelefs fuperfiitions. But this 
 refemblance is no proof, that he tok his opinion of 
 the meer humanity of Chrift from the Chriftian 
 Nazarenes. 
 
 14. BUT if this paflage is not fufficiently explicit, 
 the fecond fedlion you will tell me is decifive. Un- 
 fortunately the long paflage, which you have pro- 
 duced from this fection, 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 perfectly reftored without MSS. it will 
 little 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 correStion of it. " and firft, he af- 
 
 " ferted that Chrift was born of the commerce and 
 
 feed
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 135 
 
 " feed of a man, namely Jofeph, as we fignified LETTER 
 "above*." This aflertion of Ebion's had not 
 been fignified above : it is mentioned in this paflage 
 for the firft time. You remark, that thefe words, 
 u as we fignified above," refer to the firft words of 
 the firft fe&ion *. But in the firft words of the firft 
 fe&ion we have no fignification of Ebion's denial of 
 the miraculous conception, nor in any words pre- 
 vious to this claufe of the fecond feftion : and the 
 reference cannot be to previous words, for that 
 which no previous words contain. The 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 conneft 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 fe&ion, Epiphanius actually re- 
 peats what he had faid before. With thefe claufes 
 therefore this reference to the former part of his nar- 
 rative is to be conne&ed ; and the intervening claufe, 
 regarding the conception, mould be fet out as a pa- 
 renthefis. I will now prefent you with the Greek 
 text properly pointed, accompanied with two tranf- 
 lations ; your own on one fide, and mine upon the 
 other j that our readers, comparing both with the 
 original, may judge for themfelves of the propriety 
 of each. 
 
 * Letters to Dr. H. p. 16. 
 
 K 4 Dr.
 
 '36 
 
 LETTER 
 SIXTH. 
 
 LE 
 
 TTERS IN REPLY 
 
 *o g g> & * J* "S ^"2 % 
 
 lil-s'i's-* >* : * 
 
 < ~bn 4> rt C C^^ 
 
 -rl rt M =2 TV "Cf R -S.- I O '_"? 
 
 ^ g 
 
 wo 
 
 "bb " .2 3 
 
 iSmjI-fl 
 
 III t i J .s 
 
 2
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY 137 
 
 rc. THE manner in which Ebion's opinion con- LETTER 
 
 SIXTH. 
 
 cerning the conception of our Lord is mentioned, 
 in parenthefis, feems to exclude it from thofe prin- 
 ciples, which he borrowed from other fe&aries. Jf 
 thofe other fe&aries therefore were the Nazarenes, 
 then this opinion, as it .fhould feem, was no princi- 
 ciple with them ; and this paflage, like moft of your 
 quotations, contradicts what you have brought it up 
 to prove. 
 
 16. You will perhaps object, that if Epiphanius 
 meant to infmuate, that Ebion and the Nazarenes 
 held different opinions about Chrift ; he would not 
 have named another thing as the fmgle point in 
 which they differed. Nor hath he done this. Hav- 
 ing defcribed Ebion's doctrine as a compilation of 
 the extravagancies of other feels, he fays, he dif- 
 fered only in a fmgle point. That is, there was 
 but a fmgle point in his whole fyftem, in which he 
 differed from all the fects from which he borrowed : 
 which was this, that his Judaifm was of the Sama- 
 ritan caft. But it follows not from this, that what- 
 ever he maintained befidcs was to be found in the 
 doctrines 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 fincerely, I muft confefs, that 
 it is not at all clear to me, that the Nazarenes are 
 the feet intended, in the beginning of this fe&ion, 
 under the defcription of Ebion's contemporaries, 
 
 from
 
 , 3 S 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 rslav : 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 laft 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 OlTaeans and the Nafaraeans, and at 
 the very beginning of the chapter, where they are 
 intended by this fame pronoun as the feel 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 ratav 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 feel ; and 
 while the Samaritans were yet fubfifting as a diftincT: 
 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 fetion ; it is 
 the purport of the parenthefis, which follows them, 
 to remark, that Ebion, even in that part of his doc- 
 trine which could not be borrowed either from Jews 
 or Samaritans, carried his defire of accommodating 
 to Jewifh principles fuch a length, as to acknow- 
 ledge our Lord for nothing more than a preacher of 
 
 rishteoufnefs.
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 139 
 
 righteoufnefs. But this leads to no conclufion about LETTER 
 the faith of the Nazarenes. 
 
 18. I HAVE fometimes thought, that the pronoun 
 TLv might be redditive, not of the Nazarenes fingly, 
 but of all the fects which are mentioned in the pre- 
 ceding part of the narrative, as furniming the con- 
 ilituent parts of Ebion's fyftem ; namely, of the 
 Jews, the Samaritans, the Oflieans, the Nafaraeans, 
 the Nazarenes, the Cerinthians, and the Carpocra- 
 tians. With all thefe, 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 feels, fome from another ; the only thing 
 which was peculiar to himfelf being this ; that the 
 Judaifm, which he pra&ifed, was of the Samaritan 
 caft. In this expofition of the pronoun Mov, the 
 importance of the parenthefis muft be to fignify, that 
 the mcer humanity of Chrift 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 doctrine, not as a principle, but as a 
 confequence from principles. The principles of the 
 Cerinthian do&rine 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 
 material. But with Ebion the denial of the mira- 
 culous
 
 140 
 
 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER culous conception was itfelf a firft principle, inde- 
 pendent of every thing elfe. In this view of it again 
 the parenthefis leads to no conclufion concerning 
 the Nazarenes. 
 
 19. WHICH expofition of the pronoun Txluv is to 
 be preferred, is a point upon which I can bring my- 
 felf to no fixed opinion. I very much fufpedt, 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 " and adds, " that 
 " agreeing together they communicated of their perverfe- 
 " nefs 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 Nafarasan Jews ? 
 They are called " the lawlefs Nazarenes" [Najapjiw 
 cJavo/AOfl. TheChriftian Nazarenes had nothing in 
 their conduct, that might render them deferving of 
 this epithet. Their error was, that they feared to 
 ufe their liberty, not that they abufed it. The Nafa- 
 rseap Jews, as Jews, were lawlefs in a very emphatic 
 
 fenfe;
 
 TOD R, PRIESTLEY. 141 
 
 fenfe; inafmuch as they renounced the whole of the LET 
 Mofaic law, except that they circumcifed, kept the 
 Sabbath, and paid fome regard to the Hated feftivals. 
 It was not, that they denied the authority of Mofes ; 
 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 themfelves releafed 
 from all rites, but thofe which the hiftory itfelf con- 
 firmed. This feel 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 paflage. 
 
 21. It may perhaps feem ftrange, that any refem- 
 blance fhould be pretended, between a Chriftan feel 
 which adhered to the Mofaic law, and a Jewifh feel 
 which rejected it. But the firft Ebionites, if Epipha- 
 nius is to be trufted in his defcription of them, retained 
 nothing more of genuine Judaifm than the Nafaraeans. 
 Whatever more they had which looked like Judaifm, 
 it was borrowed from the Samaritan fuperftition. 
 
 * This conjecture, which I formed from Epiphanius's ac- 
 count of this feel, I have fince found 1 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. T; rrj; Trsvlalsu-^ yfa<pa$ XK 
 sivati Momwj &>y^o?i<?so-, aXXaj Jg TT#/ aula$ diata.mvTai. 
 Joan. Damafccji. de Hrcrefibus. 
 
 22. BUT
 
 S43 LETTERS IN REPLY. 
 
 I.ETTER 22. BUT whoever thcfe lawlefs Nazarenes might 
 be, their agreement with the Ebionites, is an addition 
 of your own, founded on a mifmterpretation of the 
 original. Epiphanius anfwersfor nothing more than 
 feme general refemblance. His words are to this ef- 
 fect. <c From hence he began to propagate his per- 
 * { nicious doc~lrine ; namely, from the fame parts 
 " which it hath before- been faid thofe lawlefs Naza- 
 " renes inhabited. For being contiguous, he to them, 
 11 and they to him, each imparted to the other of his 
 11 own particular impiety. And yet in certain things 
 " they differ ; but in evil difpofition they were coun- 
 <c 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 circumftance 
 but the common depravity of difpofition. 
 
 23. To thefe paffages from the chapter about the 
 Ebionites you fubjoin another, from the yth fedion of 
 the preceding chapter, which treats of the Nazarenes. 
 " He fays, that they were Jews in all refpe&s, except 
 " that they believed in Chrift ; but I do not know, wbe- 
 ** tber they hold the miraculous conception or not f." 
 
 * Ev5ev a^Ciai 
 xai Na#^nvoi o'i avofMi TTgow 
 
 ; taulx 
 
 V TPCJ TTpOJ TOV Tf 0V Xal<* 
 
 TT J,aa|av1ci. 
 f Letters to Dr. H. p. 17. 
 
 This
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. ,43 
 
 This you fay, " amounts to no more than a doubt, LETTER. 
 '* which he afterwards abandoned, by aflerting that 
 u the Ebionites held the fame opinion concerning 
 " Chrift with the Nazarenes ; which opinion he ex- 
 u prefly ftates to be their belief, that Jefus was a meer 
 " man, andthefonof Jofeph*." I lament, Sir, that, 
 in juftice to my own caufe, I muft here openly com- 
 plain of the perverfenefs of your tranflation. When 
 you cite an antient author, why will you make him 
 fay more or lefs, than he hath faid for himfelf ? Why 
 not tranflate literally ? that your readers might fee, 
 how far your account of things is fupported by exprefs 
 teftimony, how far it is meer inference; and be 
 enabled to eftimate the degree of probability, with 
 
 which each inference is accompanied. " they be- 
 
 " lieved in Chrift ; but I do not know, whether they 
 " held the miraculous conception or not." Is this 
 a tranflation of the words of Epiphanius ? It is not. 
 It is an artful fubftitution of an inference of your own, 
 from the author's words, for the words of the author. 
 I, Sir, in my Charge had furnimed you with a more 
 exa&tranflationf. Why would you not adopt it; un- 
 lefs you could have made a better of your own, or could 
 have fhewn its impropriety ? " Concerning Chrift, 
 " fays Epiphanius, I cannot fay with certainty [or, I 
 " am not informed to fay, 5* o'iSa E/TTE/V] whether they 
 " too, carried away with the impiety of the aforemeji- 
 tc tioned Cerinthus and Merinthus, think him a meer 
 " man ; or affirm, as the truth is, that he was be- 
 gotten of Mary by the Holy Ghoft." To affirm, 
 
 * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 17.' f Charge!. ^ 10. 
 
 as
 
 t44 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER as t h e trut h j Sj that Chrift was begotten of Mary by 
 " the Holy Ghoft," in Epiphanius's feiife of thofe 
 words, was to affirm much more than the miraculous 
 conception, in any fenfe in which an Unitarian might 
 affirm it. It was to affirm our Lord's divinity. Epi- 
 phanius's confeflion, that he had no ground to afierr, 
 that the Nazarene* held the contrary opinion, amounts 
 to much more than a doubt. It amounts to an un- 
 willing confeflion of a bafe accufer j who had not the 
 liberality to abfolve in explicit terms, when he found 
 himfelf unable to convict. As you have not yet pro- 
 duced the pafiage, in which Epiphanius aflerts, that 
 the Nazarenes and Ebionites held one opinion con- 
 cerning Chrift ; your aflertion, that he afterwards 
 abandoned this doubt, or this acknowledgment, is 
 deftitute of proof j and it is the fair conclufion from 
 this pafiage of Epiphanius, that the Nazarenes were 
 orthodox in their opinions concerning Chrift. This 
 I {hewed at large in my Charge*. You now attempt 
 to elude my argument, by fetting up an unfair and fo- 
 phifticated tranflation of the pafiage, upon which my 
 reafoning was founded f. 
 
 24. WERE 
 
 * I. $ 10, II. 
 
 t In the third of his Second Letters to me, Dr. Prieftley has 
 produced a paflage from another part of Epiphanius's work, 
 his chapter againft the Arians, which clearly proves that the 
 Ebionites and the Nazarenes, in the judgment of that writer, 
 were different fefts ; in as much as both are feparately menti- 
 oned. Dr. Prieftley perhaps may fay, that whatever diftinc- 
 tion this pafTage may prove between the Nazarenes and the 
 Ebionites, upon the whole of their do&rine j it clearly proves 
 
 that
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 145 
 
 24. WERE the identity of the Nazarenes and Ebi- LETTER 
 onites clearly eftablifhed, ftill you could turn it to no 
 advantage, without making good your other aflertion, 
 that the Nazarenes were originally the very fame with 
 the Hebrew Chriftians, or the members of the Primi- 
 tive Church of Jerufalem. But of this I .cannot find 
 
 that they held one opinion concerning Chrift, which is fuffici- 
 cnt for his purpofe. It muft be acknowledged, that, in this 
 paffage, the Nazarenes are mentioned together with the Ebi- 
 onites, as feels in error in their opinions about Chrift, and 
 confuted by the beginning of St. John's Gofpel ; ftill I main- 
 tain, that, in that part of his work where he profefTedly treats 
 of the herefy of the Nazarenes, Epiphanius exprefTes a doubt 
 of their heterodoxy upon the article of our Lord's Divinity, in 
 fuch terms as ought to leave no doubt upon the mind of his 
 reader of their orthodoxy in that. particular. And what he 
 
 fays of them, when they are only incidentally mentioned, ought 
 to have much lefs weight than what he fays, or fhevvs himfelf 
 averfe to fay, in that part of his work where the errors of that 
 feel are the immediate fubjedt. 
 
 Dr. Prieftley, allowing Epiphanius to have been te infome 
 " things weak enough," exults however in the teftimony 
 which, in his chapter againft the Arians, he bears againft the 
 Nazarenes as a fed, which, together with the Ebionites, 
 " held the doftrine of the fimple humanity of Chrift." And 
 he fays, that in this Epiphanius " ftands uncontradicled by 
 *' any authority whatever." Dr Prieftley is miftaken ; raflily 
 venturing to aflert, that where no authority is known to him, 
 none is extant. Epiphanius is in this contradicted, not only 
 by himfelf, as I have already fhewn, but by a writer of far 
 fuperior credit ; by Joannes Damafcenus, who, in his book 
 De Hxrefibus, fays exprefsly, that the Nazarenes confefled 
 Jefus to be the Son of God. Damafcenus would not have 
 faid of Dr. Prieftley, or of any one maintaining the fimple hu- 
 manity of Chrift, that he confefles Jefus to be the Son of God. 
 L that
 
 X40 . tETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 tnat y u k ave l^ 011 ^ a faadow of a proof, except 
 what you pretend to derive from the teftimony of Ori- 
 gen ; which I lhall confider in my next letter. You 
 talk indeed of the antiquity of the Nazarenes. You 
 bid me obferve, " that they were prior to Ebion*." 
 Of whom you fay, that " he was himfelf co-tempo- 
 " rary with the apoille John f." And you tell me, 
 that in allowing that the " Jewifh Chriftians weredif- 
 " tinguifhed by the name of Nazarenes ..... 
 " from the time that they were fettled in the country 
 " beyond the fea of Galilee, I carry the opinions of 
 " the Ebionites, as univerfally held by the Jewifh 
 " Chriftians, to the very age of the ApoftlesJ." 
 When you do me the honour to argue from my con- 
 ceffions, I wifti, Sir, you would report them with 
 more fidelity and exa&nefs. I have allowed no fuch 
 antiquity to the Nazarenes, as you would claim for 
 $em upon the ground of my conceffions. I faid not, 
 that the Jewifli Chriftians were diftingui(hed by the 
 name of Nazarenes, from the time when the firft fet- 
 tlements were made beyond the fea of Galilee. I faid, 
 that the feel of the Nazarenes firft arofe when thofe of 
 the Jewifl} Chriftians, who pertinacioufly retained 
 their Judaifm, made their final fettlement in thofe 
 parts, in confequence of Adrian's fevere edicts, by 
 which .the Jews were banimedfrom the antientfite of 
 Jerufalem and the adjacent region. Thus I carried 
 not the opinions of the Ebionites up to the Apoftolic 
 age : but I fixed the rife of a prior feel: to. an epoch lit. 
 
 * Letters to Dr. H. p. 18. 
 I Ibid. J Ibid. p. 2*, 
 
 jffi
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. t4? 
 
 tie earlier than the middle of the fecond century. I 
 maintained, that the Nazarenes at that time feparated 
 from the main body of the Jewifh Chriftians, and ap- 
 peared as a diftinft fe&. It is not allowed by me, that 
 from that time, or in any age of the Church, " the 
 " whole body of the Jewilh Chriftians were diftin- 
 " guiftied by the name of Nazarenes." If any fuch 
 conceffion may feem to be implied in the expreffions 
 in which I fpeak of the Nazarenes in my Charge 
 (I. 12) I difavow it. Appealing againft your afier- 
 tions to the fenfe of the learned and reverend aflembly, 
 which I had the honour to addrefs ; I rather fought 
 expreffions, which might convey the general part of 
 an opinion common to us all, than fuch as might 
 more precifely mark the particulars of my own. That 
 the name of Nazarene was defcriptive of a herefy, I 
 was confident none in that aflembly doubted. I was 
 not equally confident but that fome might doubt, 
 whether that herefy, from the time the name was ufed, 
 embraced not the main body of the Jewifli Chriftians. 
 Whatever doubts might fubfift about the extent, I was 
 confident there could be but one opinion, in that af- 
 fembly, about the chronology of the name. But 
 Ebjon, you fay, was contemporary with St. John. To 
 that circumftance, when it is proved, I (hall be difpo- 
 fed to give great attention. I believe the opinion hath 
 no foundation, but in the foolim ftory told by Epi- 
 phanius of St. John and Ebion in the bath. The fame 
 is told by other writers of St. John and Cerinthus; 
 and it hath altogether the air of fiction. But fuppofe 
 I were to allow the higheft antiquity to thefe Naza,- 
 yenes. Suppofe that with you I were to place them in 
 L 2 the
 
 H* LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LE TER the Apoftolic age. Would this oblige me to allow, 
 that they were the true members of the Primitive 
 church ? Had not the Apoftolic age its fchifms and 
 its herefies? The Simonians, the Nicolaitans, the 
 Cerinthians ; were not all thefe contemporary with the 
 Apoftles? Were they therefore found members of the 
 Church of Jerufalem? Bepleafed, Sir, to confider this 
 queftion. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 I. EUSEBIUS, \n\\\s Ecdefiaji'ica! Theology^ fpeaks 
 as if he thought the name Ebionites had been impofed 
 by the Apoftles themfelves, upon thofe who difowned 
 our Lord's divinity; which neceflarily implies, that 
 in his opinion the feel: and the name were of the Apof- 
 tolic age. " Our Saviour's own firft heralds, fays 
 " Eufebius, named thofe Ebionites - 
 " who acknowledged not the godhead of the Son*." 
 Our Saviour's own firft heralds muft be the preach- 
 ers, it mould feem, of his own appointment; namely, 
 the Apoftles; and that they are the perfons intended 
 
 * Kai Otula $ TX 
 
 &vo/j,aoV) ?fai'K <ptvy 7r7^%sf TJIV otavoiay 
 
 rag tva ptv (itov Xsycvtaj li^Hvai, i ra crulwccs to 
 
 (J.Y, a.f>vK[/,Evx{) inv OE ra w Sfolnlct pr, itcwa;. Ecc. Theol. 
 
 lib. i. c. 14. 
 
 is
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 149 
 
 is the more probable, for the diftin&ion which feems LETTER 
 
 to be made between thefeyfry? heralds and Ecclefiaftical 
 
 Fathers^ who are afterwards mentioned. Strenuoufly 
 
 as you afiert the antiquity of the Ebionites, you. 
 
 have no-where, that I remember, alleged this tefti- 
 
 mony. You were aware perhaps, that were it good 
 
 for the antiquity of the fe&, 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 mall have a right 
 
 to infift, that you accept the whole. Should you 
 
 produce it in proof, that an Unitarian fe6t exifted in 
 
 the apoftolic age ; you will be obliged to allow, that 
 
 it is equally a proof that the Unitarian doctrine 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 exiftence reft on a prefumption, 
 
 that he had the honour to be the objecT: of Apoftolical 
 
 cenfure. 
 
 2. Upon the ftory of St. John and the hserefiarch, 
 
 in the public baths at Ephefus, I pafled judgement 
 
 haftily, when I fpake of it as a foolifh ftory carrying 
 
 altogether the air of fiction. I ought to have recol- 
 
 L 3.
 
 5 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER le&ed, that Irenaeus * vouches ftrongly for fo much 
 of ii 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 living 
 when he wrote, who had heard the ftory from the 
 mouth of Polycarp. The teftimony of Irenasus is 
 hardly to be difbelieved $ the teftimony of Polycarp 
 is irrefiftible. But the ftory, which Irenseus 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 fictionf. 
 
 * Lib. iii. c. 3. 
 
 f- Dr. Prieftley, in the third of his Second Letters to me, 
 to corroborate the teftimony of Epiphanius, alleges that of 
 Jerom; who, he fays, "mentions the Ebionites, not only as 
 " a fed, but a flourifhing feft 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 dodlrine of the Ebionites 
 (not then flourifhing but) tune confurgens, then making its 
 firft appearance. This I readily allow ; for what was after- 
 wards the doclrine of the Ebionites was firft propagated by 
 the Cerinthian Gnoftics. 
 
 LETTER
 
 T D R. P R I S T L E Y. t$i 
 
 LETTER SEVENTH. 
 
 Continuation of Reply to Dr. Prieftley's Second. Of 
 the argument from Origen. That it re/is on two 
 paj/ages in the books again/I Ce/fus. The fir/1 mif- 
 interpreted by Dr. Prieftley in a very important 
 point. No argument to be drawn from the two 
 pajfages in connexion. Origen conviffed of two 
 falfe ajjertions in the fir/I paffage. The opinions of 
 the firjl age not to be concluded from the opinions of 
 Origen' V. . 
 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 TN failure of all other proof of your fuppofed iden- tETTER 
 * tity of the Ebionites and Nazarenes, you ftill ap- SXVINTH. 
 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- 
 ject, and in the paflages which were at firft cited to 
 eftablim this fuppofed identity, you have at laft the 
 good fortune to difcover an immediate proof of your 
 
 * Hiftory of Corruption, Vol. I. p. 7. 
 f See the Monthly Review for June 1783, and for Sep 
 tember 1783. 
 
 JL 4 mairj
 
 jjt LETTERS IN 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 j 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 firft 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 Ebidnites* 
 " in the time of Origen j" 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 aflertion, before it was made by my anta- 
 gonift ; and you now make it for the firft time 5 at 
 leaft I remember nothing like it in your former pub- 
 lications. I believe I was myfelf the firft to bring 
 forward this paflage from the fecond book againft 
 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 
 paflages. I produced this paflage, as of all that I 
 could recollect the moft for your purpofef. I pro- 
 duced it in order to mew, that when it is rightly un- 
 
 * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 18. f Charge I. 15. . 
 
 derftood.
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 153 
 
 derftood, it is nothing to your purpofe : for, altho' LETTER 
 the Chriftians of the circumcifion in general are in 
 this paflage 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 doctrine ; 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. I acknowledge therefore, that in this 
 paflage, " Origen fays of the Jewiuh Chriflians of 
 " his own time that they were Ebionites*." Thefe 
 were my very words. But I faid 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 Origenf is to this effect " they of the 
 
 Jews who believe in Chrift have not abandoned 
 " the law of their anceftors ; for they live according 
 w to it; bearing a name, which correfponds with 
 
 * Charge I. 15. 
 
 T Ol O.TTO lao&jwv /j Iji<78y yrtrevovltf 5 
 
 tfa.o'i TQV Tralpiov vofjidVy @ix(ri ya^ Kofi 
 
 xaia mv lSb%jv Trlax.eiacg TK voftx ysysvYi/Atvot. "EGiuv 
 
 ya.% o Trluxos wapa, Ixdouois xaXfilai, xau 
 
 li&ffiv ol O.TTO Ivdaiuv rov Iwcrsv wj "Xpirov T 
 
 Origen in Celfum, p. 56. edit. Spencer. 
 
 the
 
 J5 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER the poor expectations which the law holds out*. 
 
 Si VEK T H 
 
 " For a beggar is called among the Jews [that is in 
 ct the Hebrew language] Ebion. And they of the 
 " Jews who have received Jefus as the Chrift, go 
 " by the name of Ebionasans." The converted 
 Jews went, it is . faid, by this name. But where 
 have you found that the unbelieving Jews impofed 
 it ? Not in Origcn, 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 objeb 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 expectations 
 built on legal righteoufnefs. Could thefe, Sir, be 
 the fentiments of unconverted Jews ? 
 
 3. IT would have been a circumftance of mucli 
 advantage to your argument, which I doubt not you 
 well underftand, that the unconverted Jews mould 
 have been the coiners of the name : becaxife it would 
 have followed, that the name was originally common. 
 to the whole body of the Hebrew Chriftians. Then, 
 fince Origen, in the other paflage 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 Chriflians 
 that were not Unitarians. 
 
 * Literally, being named after the poverty oj the law in 
 txpefiation, 
 
 4. You
 
 T6 DR. PRIESTLEY, ,55 
 
 A. You will fay, perhaps, that fince we have Ori- LETTER 
 
 ... SrvESta. 
 
 gen's teftimony for the univerfality or the name, the 
 argument from the two paflages, taken in connexion, 
 may ftill proceed. If J could admit the univerfality 
 of the name upon Origen's teftimony ; I mould infift 
 that his defcription of the twofold Ebionites, in the 
 fifth book, is not exactly what you take it to be. 
 I fhould remark, that the words, O/MOW? ij/wv, " in like 
 " manner as we do," make an important branch of 
 
 the character of the milder fort i " thefe, 
 
 < fays he, are the double Ebionites ; who either con- 
 " fefs Jefus born of a virgin, in like manner as we do^ 
 " or think he was not born in that manner, but 
 " like other men*." I mould 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 hold ; and I fhould contend, 
 that Origen affirms, but with lefs equivocation, of 
 thefe better Ebionites, what Epiphanius reluctantly 
 confeffes of the Nazarenes, that they held the Catho- 
 lic do&rine concerning the nature of our Lord. And 
 in this manner the words of Origen feem to have 
 
 * Erwtrav Je nvtg HOI TOV \YKTHV a7ro^E%0jv, ug yraoa 
 TH?O Xpiriavo rival ay%8vJff, in CE xala rov Ixdaiuv vo- 
 fMVy u$ ret Ixdaiuv TTXnSw, @mv ISe^vlfj* STOJ Je EJCTIV ot 
 5tr7o< ECiwvaio/, >ITOI EK 
 TOV Ir<w, >j x it 
 
 9jjT5' TI TXTO pspti syxhn/tx TQI$ IXTTQ 
 Gontra Celf. p. 272. 
 
 been
 
 tsfi L E T T E R S 1 N R E P L Y 
 
 LETTER been underftood both by Grotius and Voflius j when 
 they allow, that the Nazarenes, though orthodox in 
 this part of their faith, are included, in this pafiage 
 of Origen's fifth book, in the appellation of Ebi- 
 onites. I Ihould contend, that if the former paffage 
 prove the name general for the whole body of the 
 Hebrew Chriftians ; the latter equally proves, that 
 the notion of an Unitarian was not neceflarily in- 
 cluded in it. The connection therefore of thefe two 
 paflages makes little for your purpofe ; fmce the fe- 
 cond ferves but to overthrow the argument, which 
 might be built upon the firft. It juftifies what I ad- 
 vanced in my Charge, upon a prefumption that the 
 firft fingly would be made the foundation of the ar- 
 gument from Origen ; that the word Ebionite, in 
 Origen's time, or at leaft in his ufe of it, had out- 
 grown its original meaning. 
 
 5. IN this manner I mould combat your argument 
 .from thefe two paflages ; were it not that I think too 
 lightly of the teftimony of Origen, in what relates to 
 the Hebrew Chriftians, to be folicitous to turn it to 
 my own advantage. Let his words be taken as you 
 underftand them ; and fo far as the faith of the He- 
 brew Chriftians of his own time is in queftion, let 
 him appear as an evidence on your fide. I mall take 
 what you may think a bold ftep. I mail tax the vera- 
 city of your witnefs of this Origen. I mail tell you, 
 tjiat whatever may be the general credit of his charac- 
 ter, yet in this bufinefs the particulars of his depofition 
 are to be little regarded, when he fets out with the al- 
 m legation of a notorious, falihood. He alleges of the 
 
 Hebrew
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. X57 
 
 Hebrew Chriftians in general, that they had not re- LETTER 
 nounced the Mofaic law. The aflertion ferved him 
 for an anfwer to the invedive, which Celfus had put 
 in the mouth of a Jew againft the converted Jews, as 
 deferters of the laws and cuftoms of their anceftors, 
 The anfwer was not the worfe for wanting truth, if 
 his Heathen antagonift was not fufficiently informed 
 in the true diftinctions of Chriftian feels, to detect the 
 felfehood. But in all the time which he fpent in Pa- 
 leftine, had Origen never converfed with Hebrew 
 Chriftians of another fort ? Had he met with no 
 Chriftians of Hebrew families, of the church of Jeru- 
 falem ? Was the Mofaic law obferved, was it tole- 
 rated, in Origen's days, in the church of Jerufalem, 
 when that church was under the government of 
 Bimops of the uncircumcifion ? The fa& is, that af- 
 ter the demolition of Jerufalem by Adrian, the majo- 
 rity of the Hebrew Chriftians, who muft have pafled 
 for Jews with the Roman magiftrates, had they con- 
 tinued to adhere to the Mofaic Law, which to this 
 time they had obferved more from habit than from any 
 principle of confcience, made no fcruple to renounce 
 it ; that they might be qualified to partake in the va- 
 luable privileges of the -/Elian Colony, from which 
 Jews were excluded. Having thus diverted themfelves 
 of the form of Judaifm, which to that time they had 
 born, they removed from Fella, and other towns to 
 which they had retired, and fettled in great numbers 
 at jElia. The few, who retained a fuperftitious vene- 
 ration for their law, remained in the North of Gali- 
 lee, where they were joined perhaps by new fugitives 
 
 of
 
 158 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER O f the fame weak character from Paleftine. And this 
 was the beginning of the feel of the Nazarenes. But 
 from this time, whatever Origen may pretend to ferve 
 a purpofe, the majority of the Hebrew Chriftians for- 
 fook their law, and lived in communion -with the 
 Gentile Bifhops of the new-modelled church of Jeru- 
 falem; for the name was retained, though Jerufalem 
 was no more, and the feat of the Bifhop was at JEllz*. 
 All this I affirm with the lefs hefitation, being fup- 
 ported by the authority of Momeim f. From whom 
 indeed I firft learnt to rate the teftimony of Origen, in 
 this particular queftion, at its true value J. 
 
 6. IT is in defiance therefore of the fa&, and I fear 
 of his own knowledge of the fact, that Origen affirms 
 of the Hebrew Chriftians in general, that they lived 
 in the obfervance of the Mofaic Law : and it mufl be 
 equally in defiance of the fact that he affirms, that 
 they were all in general called Ebionites : for he pre- 
 tends not, that this name generally belonged to them 
 otherwife than as Judaizers. His expreffions in the 
 paflage in the fifth book feem to imply a retractation 
 of both thefe aflertions. For there he fpeaks only of 
 feme, who, with the profeffion of Chriflianity, retained 
 
 * See Dr. Prieftley's objections to this reprefentation of 
 Facts, in the Fourth of Dr. Prieftley's Second Letters to 
 me, and my Defence in my Remarks on his Second Letters. 
 p. 2. c. ii. 
 
 f De rebus Chriftianorum ante Conftantinum. Saec. II. 
 $. 38. Not.* 
 
 J See his Ditfertation about Ebion, which is the tenth in or- 
 der in the Firft Volume of a Collection, intitled, Dijfertationcs 
 zriav: Eccltfafticam pertlnenta. 
 
 the
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. *59 
 
 the practice of Judaifm. Thztefome he fays were the LETTER 
 Ebionites j and, which is more, he defcribes thefe 
 Ebionites, not indeed as uniyerfally Unitarians, but 
 as defpicable wretched heretics, whofe extravagancies 
 could bring nodifgrace upon the Chrjftjan church, of 
 which they were no part. Were the Hebrew Chrifti- 
 ans, living in communion with the Bifhop of Jerufa- 
 lem, in the days of Origen, no part of the true church 
 ofChrift? If they were a part of it, in Origen's. own 
 judgment they wtre no Ebionites. " I would not 
 " believe this witnefs upon his oath," fays Mo- 
 fheim, " vending as he manifestly does, fuch flimfey 
 " lies*," 
 
 7. I may now, Sir, without damage to my caufe, 
 freely make you a prefent of the whole teftimony of 
 Origen, not only as it is given by him, but as it is in- 
 terpreted by you. As it is given by him, it ftates, 
 that the Hebrew Chriftians in his time were generally 
 Judaizers. As interpreted by you, it ftates, that in 
 his time they were generally Unitarian. But if this 
 teftimony were more unexceptionable than it is, and 
 this fenfe of the teftimony lefs doubtful, what evidence 
 would it afford, that the ftrft Hebrew Chriftians were 
 Unitarians in the time of the Apoftles? 
 
 * Ego huic tefti, etiamfi jurato, qui tarn manikfto fumoj 
 vendit, me non crediturum efle confirmo. Moflieim dc Ebi- 
 one. ^. x. See the veracity of Origen defended by Dr. 
 Prieftley, and further impugned by me, in the Fourth of Dr. 
 ^rieftley's Second Letters to me, and in my Remarks on the 
 Second Letters, p. a. c. i. 
 
 3 You
 
 i6 LETTERS IK REPLY 
 
 LETTER g. you pretend not, that this would follow by nc- 
 
 SXVENTH. ^ 
 
 ceftary confequence. But you fay, " if the Jewifh 
 " Chriftians were univerfally Lbionites in the time of 
 " Origen, the probability is, that they were very ge- 
 " nerally fo in the time of the Apoftles*." Whence 
 fliould this probability arife? From this general 
 maxim, it feems ; that " whole bodies of men do 
 not foon change their opinion f." You are indeed, 
 Sir, the very laft perfon, who might have been ex- 
 pected to form conclufions upon an hiftorical queftion 
 from meer theory, in defiance of the experience of 
 mankind : in defiance of the experience of our own 
 country and our own times. How long is it, fince 
 the whole body of diflenters in this kingdom (the fin- 
 gle feel of the quakers excepted) took their ftandard of 
 orthodoxy from the opinions of Calvin ? Where fhall 
 we now find a diflenter, except perhaps among the 
 dregs of Methodifm, who would not think it an af- 
 front to be taken for a Calvinift ? 
 
 9. I NOW, Sir, take my leave of your argument 
 from the Nazarenes. I truft I have fhewn, that, 
 although it is the chief ftrength of your caufe, it was 
 well intitled to a place among my fpecimens of in- 
 fufficient proof, of which it was the fourth in order. 
 Before I proceed to examine other parts of the evi- 
 dence, by which you think to eftablifh the high an- 
 
 * Letters to Dr. H. p. 21. -j- Ibid, 
 
 t Of the Numbers of the Calvinifts among the Diflenters of 
 the prefent day, See the Fourth of Dr. Prieflley's Second Let- 
 ters, and my Remarks-, p. 2. c. iv. 
 
 tiquity
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 161 
 
 tiquity of the Unitarian do&rine ; give me leave to LETTER 
 
 remind you, that, although you have overlooked it, 
 
 a very pofitive proof is at this day extant in the 
 
 world ; that the Divinity of Chrift was the belief of 
 
 the very firft Chriftians. This (hall be the fubjed 
 
 of my next letter. 
 
 I am, &c 
 
 POSTSCRIPT to LETTER VII. 
 
 A LEARNED corrcfpondcnt of mine, an eminent 
 Divine of the church of Scotland, a Calvinift*, and 
 by confequence a ferious and devout believer in the 
 Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, hath remarked to 
 me, that your afleftion, that the Nazarenes were the 
 firft Hebrew Chriftians, might have had fome co- 
 lour given to it, from the hiftory of the acculation of 
 St. Paul before Felix, in the A6ls of the Apoftles. 
 St. Paul was charged upon that occafion, by Ter- 
 tullus the orator, as he is called, as a ringleader 
 " of the fett of the Nazarenes ." Whence it might 
 have been argued, that this was the name, which 
 Chriftians in general at that time bore. This ar- 
 gument, I think, is far more fpecious, than any 
 you have produced for yourfelf ; but it is only an 
 inftance, by which it may be feen how eafy it is, to 
 frame arguments, in that oblique kind in which you 
 fo much delight, which may give a faife colouring 
 
 * The perfon meant was my maternal uncle, the Rev. 
 Robert Hamilton, D. D. many years Profeffbr of Divinity 
 in the College of Edinburgh. 
 
 M to
 
 i6z LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER to things, and impofe upon the ignorant or heed- 
 Icfs. It is for this purpofe, I believe, that it is pro- 
 duced by my learned and much honoured corref- 
 pondent; not as a proof which, had it been fet up 
 by you, would have convinced, or even ftaggered, 
 either him or me. It only proves, that in the in- 
 fancy of Chrifh'anity, Chriftians, among the unbe- 
 lieving Jews, who confidered them as an heretical 
 feet in their own religion, went by the name of Na- 
 zarenes ; as followers of the Nazarene ; for that was 
 the appellation which, in contempt, they gave our 
 Lord himfelf, from the obfcure village to which his 
 family belonged. But while the Chriftians were 
 called Nazarenes by the unbelieving Jews, they were 
 called among themfelves The Brethren^ They of the 
 Faith, and The Faith; till at length, when they 
 became more numerous, and received a large accef- 
 iion of converts from the Gentiles, Chriftians be- 
 came the general name, and the Hebrew Chriftians, 
 who frill perhaps bore the name of Nazarenes 
 among the Jews, were diftinguifhed among Chrif- 
 tians by the names of The Hebrews and They of the 
 Circumcifion. I ftill therefore abide by my aflertion, 
 that the name of Nazarene was never heard of In the 
 Church^ that is, among Chriftians themfelves, as de- 
 fcriptive of a fe (as a general name for the whole 
 fraternity of believers, it was never heard of in the 
 Church at all) but as defcriptive of a feet, it was ne- 
 ver heard of before the final deftruclion of Jerufa - 
 lens by Adrian; when it -became the fpecific name of 
 the Judaizers, who at that time fepa'rafed from the 
 church of Jerufalem, and fettled in the North of 
 
 Galilee
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 163 
 
 Iralilee. The name was taken from the country in LETTER 
 
 SEVENTH* 
 
 which they fettled ; but it feems to have been given 
 in contempt, and not without allufion to the earlier 
 application of it by the Jews to the Chriftians in ge- 
 neral. The intent of it was, to fignify that thefe 
 Judaizers, who were for impofing the yoke of the 
 Mofaic Law upon the brethren of the uncircumciilon, / 
 knew fo little of the fpirit of the gofpel> that they 
 were only to be confidered as a fet of Jews ; 
 and were undeferving of any more honourable name, 
 than that by which the unbelieving Jews, of the 
 Apoftolic age, had been accuflomed to exprefs their 
 contempt for the then new and little family of 
 Chrift: that they could not be more properly de- 
 fcribed than as heretical Jews, living in the pooreft 
 village of the pooreft province. 
 
 LETTER EIGHTH. 
 
 A pofitive proofJJill extant that our Lord's divinity was 
 the belief of the very firjl Chri/lians.The Epiftle 
 of St. Barnabas not the work of an apojlle^ but a 
 production of the apojtollc age >cited. as fuch by Dr. 
 Prieftley. The author a ChriJJian of the Hebrews 
 
 a believer in our Lord's divinity writes to 
 
 Chriftians of the Hebrews concurring in the fame 
 belief. 
 
 I 
 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 AM to produce a pofitive proof, that the divinity 
 
 of our Lord was the belief of the very firft Chrif- 
 
 M 2 tians*
 
 iS 4 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER tians. Give me leave then to afk your opinion of 
 that book, which hath been current in the church 
 from the very firft ages, under the title of The Epif- 
 tie of St. Barnabas. It is quoted, you know, by 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, not to mention later writers, 
 as the compofition of Barnabas the Apoftle. Take 
 no alarm, Sir-^-I (hall not claim a place for it in the 
 canon. I fliall not contend, that any Apoftle was its 
 author. I am well perfuaded of the contrary. But 
 the reafons which perfuade me, are fuch as ought 
 to have no weight with you, if you will be true to 
 your own principles. The ftyle is indeed embarraf- 
 fed and undignified ; the reafoning is often unnatural 
 and weak. Texts of the Old Teftament are drawn 
 by violence to allegorical fenfes, which are inadmif- 
 fible ; as when Mofes, encouraging the Ifraelites to 
 take pofTeflion of the promifed land, is fuppofed to 
 exhort the Jews to embrace the Chriftian religion ; 
 and in the defcription of Canaan, as a land flowing 
 with milk and honey, the land is our Saviour's 
 body, the milk and honey are the doctrines and pro- 
 mifes of the gofpel. The attempt to find evangeli- 
 cal types in the Jewifti rites is injudicioufly con- 
 ducted. The eflential part of a rite, which was of 
 divine appointment, is often fuperficially treated ; 
 and the fuppofed fenfe of fubordinate ceremonies, 
 and thofe very often of human inftitution and of no 
 fignificance, is purfued with a trifling exacinefs : thus 
 in the expofition of the red heifer, and in that of the 
 fcape-goat ; the ftrefs is principally laid upon circum- 
 Glances, about which the divine law is filent. But 
 
 what
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 165 
 
 /ETTEB 
 EIGHTH. 
 
 what may leaft of all be reconciled with the apoftolic LET 
 
 fpirit, is that ftrange cabaliftic procefs, by which the 
 name of Jefus and the Crofs are drawn from the 
 number of Abraham's armed domeftics ; and the 
 great credit which the author gives himfelf for fuch 
 difcoveries. My notion of infpiration will not allow 
 me to believe, that an infpired Apoflle could be the 
 writer of fuch a book, and be vain of having writ- 
 ten it. Your principles leave you at liberty to be 
 lefs fcrupulous. You, who have convicted St. Paul 
 of reafoning to precarious conclufions *, may eafily 
 admit that St. Barnabas, the companion of St. Paul, 
 might reafon from falfe premifes. You, who think 
 that one apoftle " has ftrained his imagination very 
 " muchf" to find analogies between the rites of 
 Judaifm and fomething in Chriftjanity, may eafily 
 fuppofe, that another Apoftle from the fame motive, 
 a defire of reconciling the Jews to Chriftianity, may 
 have ftrained much more to make the analogy much 
 more compleat. I can therefore fee no reafon, why 
 you mould not receive what is called the Epiftle of 
 St. Barnabas, extravagant and nonfenfical as it is in 
 many parts, for the genuine work of Barnabas the 
 Apoftle. But this is much more than I defire, and 
 mucn more than is neceflary to my argument J. I 
 M'3 fuppofe, 
 
 * Hiftory of Corruptions, vol. II. p. 370. 
 -f Hift. Corrupt, vol. I. p. 24. 
 
 J Modica funt, quae in ejus gratiam, nee (ut puto) facile 
 recufanda: ut nimirum, fi non ipfis faltem annis ejus honos 
 habeatur: fi non Apoftolumagnofcamus; eumtamenceu Pa- 
 
 trem
 
 if 6 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER fuppofe, however, that you will allow, what all al- 
 low, that the book is a production of the Apoftolic 
 age : in the fifth fection of your hiftory of the doc- 
 trine of atonement, you quote it among the writings 
 of the Apoftolic fathers. I think it fair to remind 
 you of this circumftance, lefc you mould haftily ad- 
 vance a contrary opinion, when you find the tefti- 
 mony of this writer turned againft you. 
 
 2. You allow him a place, then, among the fa- 
 thers of the Apoftolic age : and will you not allow, 
 that he was a believer in our Lord's divinity ? I 
 will not take upon me, Sir, to anfwer this queftion 
 for you j but I will take upon me to fay, that who- 
 ever denies it, muft deny it to his own fhame. 
 " The Lord, fays Barnabas, fubmitted to fuffer for 
 " our foul, although he be THE LORD OF THE 
 " WHOLE EARTH, unto whom he faid, the day 
 " before the world was finiftied, Let us make man 
 " after our image and our likenefsf." Again, 
 
 " for if he had not come in the flem, how 
 
 " could we mortals feeing him have been preferved ; 
 " when they who behold the fun, which is to perifh, 
 
 trem revcreamur; et demum, fi non in Canonem ilium re T 
 cipiendum ducamus, laltem in clafTicis fcriptoribus, pro dig- 
 nitate quam olim obtinuit apud Ecclefiae fcriptores antiquifli- 
 mos, numeremus. Prafat. Editoris Oxonienjis. 
 
 f Dorrjnus fuftinuit pati pro anima noftra, cum fit orbis 
 terrarum dominus, cui dixit die ante conftitutionem fasculi 
 " Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et fimilitudinem nof- 
 4 * tram." ^ y, 
 
 and
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY 167 
 
 and is the work of his hands, are unable to look LETTER 
 
 " directly againft its rays.*" Compare Deut. xviii. 
 
 16. Exod. xxxiii. 20. Judges vi. 23. and xiii. 22. 
 
 Again " - if then the Son of God, being Lord, 
 
 " and being to judge the quick and dead, fuffered 
 
 " to the end that his wound might make us alive ; 
 
 " let us believe that the Son of God had no power 
 
 " to fuffer, had it not been for us f." And again, 
 
 " Mean while thou haft [the whole doctrine] con- 
 
 " cerning the majefty of Chrift j how all things were 
 
 " made for him and through him ; to whom be ho- 
 
 " nour, power, and glory, now and for everj." 
 
 He who penned thefe fentences was furely a devout 
 
 believer in our Lord's divinity. It is needlefs to 
 
 obferve, that he was a Chriftian; and almofl as 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 Jewifli rites, which is 
 
 difplayed in this book. In the writer therefore of 
 
 the Epiftle of St. Barnabas, we have one inftance of 
 
 a Hebrew Chriftian of the Apoftolic age, who believed 
 
 in our Lord's divinity. 
 
 tv crasxi, wag cv 
 
 vj oil rov (tshhovlos: pri EIVOU riXiOV, if yov 
 civlts i/TrafxovIa, xx <V%i/a<7iv eig d>t!iva 
 -f- ' E<' av o yioj T Ses, uv K 
 
 iva y Trtwyy cxuia ZcaoKcorntrrt vfjiaK' 
 oil o iio$ TS SES xxscfuvxlo ^raSsiv, it (M\ $ia n[Mt$, 
 
 J Habes interim de majeftate Chrifti, quo modo omnla 
 in ilium et per ilium fafta funt : cui fit honor, virtus, gloria 
 nimc et in fsecula faeculorum. ^ xvii. 
 
 M 4 3. BUT
 
 z6S LETTERSINREPLY 
 
 originally Jews to whom this epiftle was addreffed. 
 The difcourfe fuppofes them well acquainted with 
 the Jewim rites, which are the chief fubjecl of it : 
 and indeed to any not bred in Judaifm the book had 
 been uninterefting and unintelligible. They were 
 Hebrew Chriftians, therefore, to whom a brother of 
 the circumcifion holds up the doctrine of our Lord's 
 divinity. He upholds it, not barely as his own per- 
 fuaiion, but as an article of their common faith. He 
 brings no arguments to prove it he employs no 
 rhetoric to recommend it. He mentions it as occa- 
 fion occurs, without mewing any anxiety to incul- 
 cate k, or any apprehenfion, that it would be de- 
 nied or doubted. He mentions it in that unhefi- 
 tating language, which implies that the public opi- 
 nion flood with his own. So that in this writer we 
 have not only an inftance of an Hebrew Chriftian, of 
 the apoftolic age, holding the doctrine of our Lord's 
 divinity ; but in the book we have the cleareft evi- 
 dence, that this was the common faith of the He- 
 brew Chriftians of that age, or in other words, of 
 the primitive church of Jerufalem. 
 
 4. THIS, Sir, is the proof, which I had to pro- 
 duce, of the confent of that church with the later 
 Gentile churches in this great article. It is fo direct 
 and full, though it lies in a narrow compafs, that if 
 this be laid in the one fcale, and your whole mafs of 
 
 evidence.
 
 TO D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 169 
 
 evidence, drawn from incidental and ambiguous LETTER 
 
 EIGHTH. 
 
 allufions, in the other, 
 
 " The latter will fly up, and kick the beam*." 
 I am, &c. 
 
 * See Dr. Prieftley's attempt to invalidate this proof in 
 the fecond of his Second Letters to me, and my Remarks 
 upon the Second Letters. Part I. 2, 3. 
 
 LETTER NINTH. 
 
 The proof of the orthodoxy of thefirjl age overturns Dr. 
 Priejlley's arguments from Hegefippus and Jujtin 
 Martyr Hegi/ippus^ a voucher for the Trinitarian 
 faith Dr. Priejlley's own principles fet afide his in- 
 terpretation of 'Juftin Martyr Dr. Priejlley himfelf 
 gives it up. Tertullian makes no acknowledgement 
 of any popularity of the Unitarian tenets in his own 
 time. 
 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 OINCE it is proved of the firft Chriftians of the LETTER 
 *^ circumcifion, that they were believers in our NINTH. 
 Lord's divinity ; what becomes of your two argu- 
 ments to the contrary from Hegefippus and Juftin 
 Martyr? 
 
 2. THE argument from Hegefippus refted on a 
 prefumption, that Hegefippus himfelf was an Unita- 
 rian. That Hegefippus himfelf was an Unitarian 
 was prefumed, becaufe he was a Chriftian of the He- 
 brews,
 
 , 7 o L E T T E R S I N R E P L Y 
 
 LETTER brews, and the Chriftians of the Hebrews were fup- 
 pofed to be generally of that perfuafion. But now that 
 the reverfe is proved of the Hebrew Chriftians, the 
 prefumption mud be reverfed concerning Hegefippus. 
 Hegefippus muft be deemed no Unitarian, and all 
 confequences deduced from the contrary fuppofition 
 muft be reverfed, or at leaft they will vanifh. 
 
 3. You remark indeed that Hegefippus, enume- 
 rating the herefies of his times, makes no mention of 
 the Ebionaean*." But this, I fuppofe, is mentioned 
 only as a circumftance, that might feem to corrobo- 
 rate the inference from the fuppofed prevalency of the 
 Ebionasan tenets in the antient Hebrew church, if that 
 fuppofition might be allowed to ftand. It will hardly 
 be pretended, that this circumftance alone will amount 
 to a proof, that Hegefippus was a diflenter from what 
 hath been (hewn to be the prevailing opinion of his 
 church. Of the five books of his Ecclefiaftical Com- 
 mentaries nothing more furvives than a few fentences, 
 cited by Eufebius in different parts of his hiftory, 
 which all brought together might perhaps fill two 
 pages and a half in a folio of a middling fize. In thefe 
 fragments no mention occurs of the Ebionaean herefy. 
 Is it therefore to be concluded that the Ebionites were 
 not mentioned, or not mentioned as Heretics, in the 
 entire work ? Or where is the cogency of this argu- 
 ment ? In certain fragments of the work of Hegefip- 
 pus the Ebionites are not mentioned as Heretics ; 
 therefore the author was himfelf an Ebionite. 
 
 * Hift. of Corrup. vol. T. p. 8. and vol. II. p. 486. Re- 
 ply to Monthly Review for June, p. 8. Letters to Dr. H. 
 p. 143- 
 
 4. SCANTY
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. j 7 i 
 
 4. SCANTY as thefe fragments are, Providence LETTER 
 Jiath fo ordered, that clear evidence is to be found in 
 them that Hegefippus was no Ebionite, and that his 
 teftimony is to be found in them in favour of the ca- 
 tholic faith. That he was no Ebionite appears with 
 the higher! evidence from a little circumftance inci- 
 dentally mentioned by Eufebius, which thofe who 
 only look through antient writers may be very apt to 
 overlook. Eufebius relates, that Hegefippus cited the 
 Proverbs of Solomon, by a title which implied his ac- 
 knowledgement of the book *: whereas the Ebionites 
 acknowledged no part of the Old Teftament but the 
 Pentateuch, nor the whole of that f . His tefcimony in 
 favour of the Catholic faith is contained in his decla- 
 ration " that he found in all the churches which he 
 " viiited in his journey to Rome, that faith main- 
 " tained which was agreeable to the law, the pro- 
 " phets, and the doclrine of our LordJ." Hege- 
 fippus, in this declaration, bears his teftimony to the 
 faith of all the churches at this time, that it was the 
 faith which Chrift had taught. But what faith the 
 
 * Eufcb. Ecc. Hift. lib. iv. c. 22 
 
 f Dr. Prieftley, in the third of his Second Letters, quef- 
 tions this fact ; that the Ebionites acknowledged no part of 
 the Old Teftament but the Pentateuch 5 and I muft confefs 
 that his objections carry forae weight. He remarks in par- 
 ticular, that Irenjeus fays of them, that they were over-cu- 
 rious in the expofition of the prophecies ; and that Grabe 
 mentions fragments, which he had feen, of an expofition of 
 prophets afcribed to Ebion. Still that Hegefippus was no 
 Ebionite is evident from the favourable teftimony which he 
 bears to the general docVme of the church in his own time, 
 
 J Eufeb. Ecc. Hift. lib. iv. c. ^^. 
 
 churches
 
 t7* LETTERS IN REPLY. 
 
 LETTER churches at this time maintained, let Irenaeus and 
 Juftin teftify : and where is the Unitarian, who will 
 have the forehead to affirm, that the faith, defcribed 
 as the faith catholic by Irenaeus and by Juftin, was 
 any other than the Trinitarian ? 
 
 5. So much for Hegefippus. Now for Juftin 
 Martyr, your argument from his fuppofed apology 
 for his own opinions as contrary to the general and 
 prevailing, refts on a particular interpretation of cer- 
 tain expreffions, which in themfelves perhaps are 
 not free from ambiguity. But this interpretation, 
 Sir, refts on your aflumption, that the firft Chriftians 
 were Unitarian. This being now difproved, I 
 will reafon againft your interpretation from your 
 own principles, and, with little variation, in your own 
 words ; and from the contrary interpretation I will 
 deduce the contrary conclufion. 
 
 6. Juftin wrote, you know, " about the year 140 ; 
 " i. e. about 80 years after the time of the Apof- 
 les*." If we confider the ftate of opinions in their 
 time "we can hardly doubt, whether Juftin aflert it or 
 " not, that the doctrine of cur Lord's divinity f mujt 
 " have been the prevailing one in his time J." For 
 we have certain evidence , that it was the opinion 
 of the church in the age of the Apoftles ; and it is 
 not likely, that fo important a doctrine mould be 
 
 * Reply to Monthly Review for June, p. 17. 
 
 fr Dr. Prieftley's words are the f.tnple humanity of Chrift. 
 
 J Reply to Monthly Review for June, p. 17, 
 
 ^ See my laft Letter. 
 
 generally
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. ,73 
 
 generally abandoned " in fo fhort a time as fourfcore LETTER 
 " years *. And if we take in another well authen- 
 " ticated circumftance, we (hall be obliged to reduce 
 " this mort fpace to one ftill fhorter. Hegefippus 
 
 fays that the church of Jerufalem continued 
 
 " a virgin, or free from herefy, till the death of Si- 
 " meon, who fucceeded James the Juft, that is, till 
 " the time of Trajanf, or about the year 100 or 
 
 "perhaps no. Knowing therefore (from 
 
 " another evidence^ that of Barnabas ) what this pu- 
 " rity of Chriftian faith was, and what Hegefippus 
 " muft have known it to be, we have only the fpacc 
 " of 40, or perhaps 30 years, for fo great a change. 
 " So rapid at that particular period muft have been 
 " that movement, which we find by experience to be 
 " naturally one of the very floweft in the whole 
 " fyftem of 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 
 11 body, the 01 5rAE<ro<, mould have abandoned the 
 " doctrine of our Lord's divinity J _in the time of 
 " Juftin Martyr ." Certainly not. The words 
 therefore, a av 01 TTteiroi lot'Jla, pet do%a<ravl$ SITTOLSV 
 could not be intended to convey the fenfe, which 
 
 * Reply to Monthly Review for June, p. 17. 
 
 f Eufeb. Ecc. Hift. lib. 3. c. 32. 
 
 J Dr. Prieftley's words are thejlmple humanity of Cbrljl. 
 
 ^ Reply to Monthly Review for June, p. 18, 19. 
 
 you
 
 174 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER you and your vindicator would impofe upon them* 
 On the contrary they muft be underftood as an aiTer- 
 tion, or at leaft as an infmuation, 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 pafTage of Jufh'n. But 
 I find myfelf excufed from that tafk by your candid 
 acknowledgement, in the fixth article of your pofl- 
 fcript, that you are influenced in your conftruclion 
 of this pafiage by your own particular opinions ; 
 " and that another perfon having a different per- 
 " fuafion concerning the irate of opinions in that 
 " age, will naturally be inclined to put a different 
 " conftrutSiion upon it*." A pafiage, which may 
 bear one or another conftrucHon, 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- 
 figniffcance. Perceiving at laft, that the exprefiions 
 of Juflin, when you have made the mod of them, 
 are but ambiguous, you are inclined to lay but lit- 
 tle ftrefs upon the paflage. You refume the confide- 
 ration of it, with a declaration that you arc not " folli- 
 " citious about trifles f." I muft remark however, 
 that expreffions, which in themfelves might be very 
 ambiguous, may receive a definite fenie from the 
 
 * Letters to Dr. H. p. 130. f Ibid. p. 127. 
 
 known
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. i 7J 
 
 known hifcory of the writer's times. This is the LETTER. 
 cafe in this paflage of Juftin. His words, confidered 
 by themfelves, are ambiguous : but connected with 
 the opinions of the writer and of his age, they afford 
 a decifive teftimony againft you. 
 
 8. But you think, if Juftin Martyr and Hegefip- 
 pus fail, you have ftill the pofitive teftimony of Ter- 
 tullian to oppofe to my conclufions from the faith of 
 the firft Chriftians. Tertullian, who was little 
 younger than Juftin, complains that in his time 
 the Unitarian doctrine was the general perfuafion. 
 " The fimple, the ignorant, arid the unlearned, 
 " who are always a great part of the body of Chrif- 
 " tians, becaufe the rule of faith transfers their wor- 
 " fhip of many Gods to the one true God, not 
 " underftanding that the unity of God is to be 
 " maintained, but with the ceconomy, dread this 
 " ceconomy*." I muft confefs, Sir, here feems, 
 to be a complaint againft the unlearned Chriftians 
 as in general unfavourable to the Trinitarian doc- 
 trine. But the complaint is of your own raifing. 
 Tertullian will vouch but for a very fmall part of it. 
 " Simple perfons f, fays Tertullian (not to call them 
 " ignorant and idiots) who always make the majo- 
 " rity of believers, becaufe the rule of faith itfelf car- 
 " ries us away from the many gods of the heathen 
 
 * Hift. Corrupt, vol. T. p. 55. 
 
 f Simplices enim (nee dixerim imprudentes et idiotse) 
 qua: major femper credentium pars eft, quoniam et ipfa re* 
 gula fidei, a pluribus diis fasculi, &c. non intelligentes uni- 
 cum quidem, fed cum fua ceconomia credendum, expavefcunt 
 ad oeconomiam. 
 
 to
 
 J76 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER to the one true God, not underftanding that one 
 " God is indeed to be believed, but with an oecono- 
 " my (or arangement) of the Godhead, ftartle at the 
 <c oeconomy. They take it for granted, that the 
 " number and difpofition of the Trinity is a divifion 
 " of the Unity. They pretend that two, and even 
 " three are preached by us, and imagine that they 
 <c themfelves are the wormippers of one God. We, 
 " they fay, bold the monarchy. Latins have caught 
 " up the word monarchia, Greeks will not underftand 
 " ceconomia." Let the author's words be thus ex- 
 adtly rendered, and you will find in them neither 
 complaint, nor acknowledgement, of a general pre- 
 valence of the Unitarian doctrine among Chriftians 
 of any rank. Tertullian alleges, that what credit 
 it obtained was only with the illiterate 3 nor with 
 all the illiterate, but with thofe only, who were 
 ignorant and ftupid in the extreme. To pre- 
 clude the plea of numbers, he remarks that the 
 illiterate will always make the majority of be- 
 lievers. " Some fimple people, he fays, take a- 
 " larm at the notion of a plurality of perfons in the 
 " unity of the Godhead. Simple people faid I ! I 
 " fliould have faid, ignorant and dull; who have 
 " never been made to comprehend the true fenfe of 
 " the Apoflles' creed ; which fpeaks of one God, in 
 " oppofition only to a plurality of independent Gods 
 " wormipped by the heathen, without any refpect to 
 " the metaphyfical unity of the Deity. When it is 
 " confidered, that perfons of mean endowments mud 
 tc always be the majority of a body, colle&ed, as the 
 " church is, from all ranks of men ; it were no 
 " wonder, if the followers of the Unitarian preachers
 
 T D R. R I E S T L E Y. t'jr 
 
 fc were more numerous than they really are." This, LETTER 
 
 Sir, is the natural expofition of the paflage, which 
 
 you cite as Tertullian's teftimony of the popularity 
 
 of your favourite opinions in his own time. It is 
 
 no fuch teftimony. It is a charge of ignorance 
 
 againft your party; of fuch ignorance as would 
 
 invalidate the plea of numbers, if that plea could 
 
 be fet up, The argument, which you build upon the 
 
 rank and condition of Tertullian's Unitarians, who 
 
 were common or unlearned people, can be of no 
 
 force, unlefs it could be proved, that the Unitarian 
 
 opinion was general in this rank of Chriftians. The 
 
 common people, who will be the laft to depart from 
 
 the opinions of their anceftors, when they are left 
 
 to themfelves, will on the other hand be the firft 
 
 to be daggered with difficulties, and, for that reafon, 
 
 the firft to be mifledde. Whatever therefore might 
 
 be the novelty of the Unitarian do&rine in the age 
 
 of Tertullian, it is no wonder that it fliould find 
 
 admirers among the moft ignorant and ftupid of the 
 
 common people. * 
 
 9. You muft fearch, Sir, for fome clearer tefti- 
 mony, than any that is to be found in Tertullian, 
 Juftin Martyr, or the few furviving fragments of He- 
 gefippus, to oppofe to my proof from the Epiftle of 
 St. Barnabas. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 * See the Second of the Supplemental Difquifitions. 
 
 LETTER. 
 N
 
 ,78, LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER TENTH. 
 
 In reply to Dr. Priejlley's third letter^ in which he 
 would prove that the primitive Unitarians mere not 
 deemed Heretics-*-His arguments from Tertullian^ 
 'Jujiln Martyr^ and Iren&us^ confuted by the Month- 
 ly Reviesver The infufficiency of Dr. Pricjlley's 
 reply The arguments from Clemens Alexandrinv.s^ 
 and from 'Jerome confuted. 
 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 LETTER T y faould f eemj that you have fome fecret mif- 
 truft in your own heart of the proof which you 
 pretend to bring, that the Unitarian doc/trine was or- 
 thodoxy in the firft age ; or you would have been lefs 
 follicitous to fhew, that the primitive Unitarians 
 were not deemed Heretics. For a proof that con- 
 fefied orthodoxy was not deemed herefy, or in other 
 words, that the orthodox did never excommunicate 
 themfelves, might have been fpared. This however 
 is the fubjecl: of your third letter. Your arguments 
 from the apoftles creed, as it is ftated by Tertullian* ; 
 from the little feverity with which Irenasus fpeaks 
 of the Ebionites f ; and from the refpecl with which 
 Juftin Martyr treats thofe blafphemers J, for that 
 is the appellation by which his regard for them is 
 exprefled, have been already fo completely anfwered 
 by my good and able ally the Monthly Reviewer ||, 
 that little is left for me to fay upon the fubjecl:. 
 
 * Letters to Dr. H. p. 27. 28. f p. 32. t- P- 3 r - 
 
 *' Dr. Horfley confiders this writer as learned in ecclefi- 
 " aftical hiftory, and may wifti to have him for an ally/' 
 |j In the Monthly Review for January 1784. 
 
 I MUST
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 179 
 
 2. I MUST take this occafion to declare, that you LETTER 
 
 TENTH. 
 
 are perfe&ly right in your conjecture *, that I enter- 
 tain a high opinion of that Gentleman's learning 
 in Ecclefiaftical Hiftory. Indeed my opinion of his 
 learning hath been gradually rifing, while yours 
 hath been going down f : and what you predicted 
 is at laft come to pafs ; I think myfelf happy in the 
 alliance of that able Critic. I am informed by your 
 laft publication J, that my valuable ally is the Rev. 
 Mr. Samuel Badcock, a difTenting minifter at South 
 Molton, in Devonfhire. To what ever denomination 
 of Chriftians my worthy fellow-labourer may belong, 
 he is a learned and an able advocate of the faith 
 which was at firft delivered to the Saints, and 
 his alliance will not be difgracefull, though he choofes 
 to fight in a reviewer's armour. Indeed I cannot 
 fee for what reafon the alliance of a Chriftian divine, 
 although he be a reviewer by profeffion, mould be 
 lefs creditable than that, which you, Sir, fo obfe- 
 quioufly court, with Jew, Turk, Heretic^ and Infidel. 
 You feem to think it unfair, that your antagonift 
 mould avail himfelf of the prodigious advantage, 
 which the Review gives him, of a cheap and immenfe 
 circulation . This complaint, Sir, really comes 
 with an ill grace from you ; who are every day diffu- 
 fmg your dangerous do&rines among the common 
 
 * See note (^). 
 f Letters to Dr. H. p. 159. 
 
 1 Remarks on the Monthly Review of the Letters to Dr, 
 Horfley, &c. 
 
 ^ Preface to the Letters to Dr. H. p. xxi. 
 
 N 2 P e pk*
 
 iSa LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER people, in pamphlets published for their benefit in 
 an ordinary form, to be purchafed at the eafy price 
 of lixpence, a groat, and even twopence. Some re- 
 ferve on our part might be proper, if any were ob- 
 ferved on yours. But while you invite the moft 
 illiterate of the laity to take a part in the difpute, it 
 is our duty to guard them, what we can, from fe- 
 duction ; to take advantage of every mode of cheap 
 and general circulation, that the antidote may be 
 as widely fpredde, and as eafy to be had, as the medi- 
 cated phials. I return to my fubject. 
 
 3. JUSTIN Martyr's refpect for the Unitarians of his 
 time, you collect from certain paffages, in which 
 fpeaking of heretics with the highefl indignation he 
 makes no allufion, as you conceive, to the Unitarians. 
 My learned ally replies *, that in one of thefe paf- 
 fages Juftin Martyr exprefsly alludes to the Unita- 
 rians, under the very honourable character of blaf- 
 phemers of the Chrift, whofe coming had been 
 announced by the Prophets. He remarks, that in 
 this paflage Juftin couples the name of Chrift with 
 the title " of God of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob," 
 in a manner which, as it muft bring to every 
 learned reader's recollection other paflages of the 
 holy martyr's writings, in which Chrift and the God 
 of Abraham are defcribed as the very fame perfon, 
 clearly defines the particular blafphemy, which was 
 the fubject of the accufation My learned ally com- 
 plains, that your tranflation of this paflage is fo 
 managed, as to conceal this allufion to the Unitarian 
 
 * Monthly Review for January 1784, p. 61, 62. 
 
 herefy j
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. Si 
 
 herefy ; and to convey " no idea of diftindion be- LETTER 
 " tween tlie Maker of the world and the God of 
 Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob." He might have added 
 another complaint j that in your tranflation you 
 have fupprefled another claufe in the fame period, 
 in which certain perfons are treated with great feve- 
 rity, "who, inftead of worfhipping Jefus" [inftead 
 of paying him divine worihip, for that is the proper 
 force of the verb <TEEJV] " confefled him only in 
 " name." Your reply * is indeed very extraordi- 
 nary. It confifts of three parts. An apology for 
 the omiflions ; a defence of your argument ; a flat 
 denial f, that you have made the omiflions, for 
 which however you have condefcended to apologize. 
 4. Your apology is, that the omiflions were made 
 to Jborten a kng Greek quotation^. But, Sir, the 
 omiflions are in your Englifli tranflation ; and the 
 Greek, which is given at length at the bottom of 
 your page, is nothing fhortened by them. If the 
 paflage was to be fhortened, either in Greek or in 
 Englifh ; why was this fhortening effected by the 
 omiflion of thofe claufes in particular, which might 
 feem at leaft adverfe to your argument ? Your de- 
 fence is, that the omitted paflages affecl not the 
 argument either way. For the whole of Mr, Bad- 
 cock's remark is anfwered you fay at once ||, by ob- 
 ferving "that it is to no fort of purpofe, who it was 
 " that Juftin meant by the God of Abraham, Ifaac, 
 
 * Remarks on the Monthly Review of the Letters to Dr 
 llprfley, fet. I, 
 
 fr Appendix to the Remarks. 
 J Remarks, p. 14. 
 )l Remarks, p. 13. 
 
 N 3 and
 
 i8* LRETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER an d Jacob : but who it was, that the heretics he 
 " is fpeaking of meant by the perfon fo defcribed, 
 " and whom they meant to blafpheme: and this 
 " certainly was not Jefus Chrift but another being, 
 " the fuppofed maker of the world, the author of 
 " the Jewifh difpenfation, and the introducer ot 
 " much evil, which they faid Chrift was fent to rec- 
 " tify." Sir, I apprehend, and my learned ally, I 
 believe, will be of the fame opinion, that the true, 
 not the fuppofed, maker of the world was the perfon 
 blafphemed, by the introduction of the fabulous 
 Demiurgus of the Gnoftics. Of the fame pinion 
 was Juftin. You cannot, Sir, know fo little of his 
 language as to imagine, that by the title of vonT^ ruv 
 oMiv, the Maker of the Univerfe^ he defcribes the 
 Gnoftic DemiurguS) not the true Creator, the Father 
 of our Lord Jefus Chrift. But how is it that you 
 maintain, that Jefus Chrift was not blafphemed, by 
 thofe whom Juftin accufes? Juftin defcribes thofe 
 whom he would accufe, as blafphemers of Jefus 
 Chrift. This is in part the matter of his accufation. 
 That you fliould attempt to deny it is extraordinary, 
 Sir; when you confefs, that you omitted it "to 
 " fhorten." It appears, however, that your argu- 
 ments reft entirely upon a fuppofition, that the blaf- 
 phemy of Jefus was no part of Juftin's accufation. 
 You took therefore that method of fhortening, which 
 might beft ferve your purpofe. 
 
 5. BUT you infift, that " they were Gnoftics only, 
 " not Unitarian Chriftians, that Juftin was reflecting 
 " upon or alluding to*." Sir, will you take upon 
 
 * Remarks, p. 13. 
 
 yen
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 1*3 
 
 you to define on whom Juftin would reflect, in con- LETTER 
 tradiction to Juftin's own declaration. I think with 
 
 you, that the phrafe a>Mt ya^ *T axxov T^OTTOV is 
 Distributive ; introducing, not the mention of any 
 new feel:, but a fpecific enumeration of the fedls 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 objection, 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 Chrift, by denying his 
 divinity, and refilling to honour him with divine 
 worfhip, is a part of Juftin's defcription of the here- 
 iies to which he alludes. Whence it is manifeft, 
 that his reflections allude to other heretics befide the 
 Gnoftics ; unlefs indeed you will choofe to fay, that 
 fome of the Gnoftics had a principal mare in this 
 Unitarian blafphemy : which, if you mould 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 Lord. 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 jnfift, that 
 Juftin Martyr's reflexions are levelled only at the 
 Gnoftics ; fmce 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 
 doctrine, maintained by any branch of the Gnoftics, 
 ftilj Juftin exprefsly cenfures the Unitarians. If the 
 N 4 Ebionites
 
 j?4 LETTERS INREPLY 
 
 LETTER Ebionites are not mentioned by name, are you fure 
 TENTH. 
 
 they are not included among the [a^oi an 
 
 " others of various denominations," thus generally 
 mentioned after an enumeration of the principal Gnof- 
 tic feds. The Ebionzean herefy was at this time in 
 its infancy, and probably too inconfiderable to deferve 
 particular notice. 
 
 6. SUCH, Sir, is your apology for your omiflion, 
 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 tranflation ? 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 ypur tranflation, lay innocently enough 
 in the Greek at the bottom of your page. 
 
 7. To your argument from the Apoftle's creed, 
 as recited by Tertullian f, it might, Sir, be a fuffi- 
 cient reply, that Jefus Chrift is mentioned in it as 
 the Son of God j a title which, in the fenfe in which 
 it was conftantly expounded and underftood, rebro- 
 bates the Unitarian herefy. But my learned ally 
 refers you J to another creed, produced by Ter- 
 
 * Appendix to Remarks. 
 
 t Letters to Dr. Horfley. p. 27. 28. 
 
 $ Monthly Review for January 1784. p. 60. 
 
 tullian
 
 T O D R. P R I E.S T L E Y. 185 
 
 tullian in the book, De Prtefenpticne^ feV. in which LETTE& 
 
 the divinity of Chrift is more explicitly alTerted. 
 
 This you fay is not fimply a creed, but an expofition 
 
 of the creed*, and "exprefies no more than Ter- 
 
 " tullian'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 
 
 " expreffed the general faith, which was difputed 
 
 t by none but heretics." After this, Sir, will you 
 
 fay, that " Tertulljan did not confider Unitarians as 
 
 " excluded from the name and auemblies of Chrif- 
 
 tianst." 
 
 8. 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 fubjecl: [herefies]. He mentions fourteen 
 " different herefiarchs by name, and ten herefies by 
 ^ l character : but none of them bear any relation 
 " to the Ebionites or any fpecies of Unitarians ." 
 Indeed, Sir, it was not wjthout 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 fubjecl of our pre- 
 fent controverfy, will be accompanied with a glof- 
 fary, to explain the words of the Englifh language, 
 
 * Remarks, &c. p. 18. -f 1 Ibid. p. 21. 
 
 t Letters to Dr. H. p. 27. 
 
 ^ Letters to Dr. Horfl^y, p. 118. 
 
 upon
 
 iS6 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER U pon which you fhall 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 {ingle example, which I am fenfible muft 
 be liable to great inaccuracies, I fpeak therefore under 
 the correction of your authoritative decifion but by 
 the beft computation I can form, the WHOLE may 
 be any 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 
 ihocked at the extravagant hyperbolifm of your own 
 expreffions ; and for the words almojl the whole, you 
 advife the reader to fubftitute thefe, a great part, 
 Sir, a reluctant and imperfect: retractation 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 correct: again ; and for a great bid 
 him read a very little part. The feventh book of 
 the Stromata^ in Sylburgius's edition, which I ufe 
 as moft convenient for my prefent purpofe, becaufe 
 the pages x 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 fubject of the book is the excellence of Chriftian 
 Knowledge in preference to Philofophy. This ar- 
 gument fills more than 38 pages of the 48, that is, 
 
 more
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 
 
 more than three-fourths of the whole book, without 
 any mention of heretics. Then the author anfwers 
 an objection to the certainty of Chriftian knowledge, 
 taken from the differences of opinion that fubfifted 
 among the different fe&s. This introduces a ge- 
 neral invective againft heretics, and a diffuafive of 
 herefy, drawn from general topics, not from the 
 enormities of particular fec~b ; which fills eight pages 
 more. The difTuafive 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 herefies, which are mentioned for no other 
 purpofe, but to mew that the very denominations, 
 which they bore, argued a late origin, fingularity of 
 ppinion, and reparation from a mpre antient fociety. 
 This lift, with many interfperfed remarks upon the 
 origin of each feel:, 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 are 
 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 Strc- 
 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 
 lift of heretics, which occupies almoft the whole, or, 
 to fpeak more accurately, a great part, or, to fpeak 
 , almoft a forty- eighth part of the feventh book 
 
 of
 
 jSS LETTERS IN R P L V 
 
 BETTER O f t he Stromata*. I think indeed they have not, 
 unlefs they be included, which I fufpedl 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 necelfity of this conclufion, unlefs in- 
 deed it had been of importance to the argument of 
 Clemens, that he mould make an exac"l enumeration 
 of all the fects, which he deemed heretical. But this 
 was not the cafe. A few inftances fufficed for the 
 illuftration of his reafoning ; and thefe, in a difcufllon 
 with Greek philofophers, he would naturally felect 
 from thofe herefies, which, for fomething of fubtlety 
 and refinement in their dolrine, were the moft likely 
 to have attracted the notice of the Gentiles. A fedt, 
 which lived in obfcurity in the North of Galilee, of 
 no confideration for number, learning, or abilities, 
 was 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- 
 fefled by Jerom, that the Ebionites were anathe- 
 matized, not for their Unitarian opinions, but for 
 
 their rigid adherence to the Mofaic lawf propter 
 
 bo folum a patribus anatbemattzati funt^ quod legis 
 <zrimonias Chrijli evangelio tnifcuerunt. 
 
 12. I SHALL frankly confefs, Sir, that if nothing 
 more were known either of the Ebionites or Cerin.- 
 
 * Letters to Dr. Hrfley, p. 118. 
 f Letters to Dr. Horflcy, p. 34, 
 
 thiansj
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 189 
 
 thians, from ecclefiaftical hiftory, than what might be 
 gathered from this fentence of Jerom ; I mould be apt 
 to conclude, that the (ingle error of either fct was 
 this ; that they judaifed. The words however are ca- 
 pable of another meaning ; namely, that the Judaic 
 fuperftition was a thing fo criminal in the judgement of 
 the primitive Chriftians, as to conftitute by ttfelf one 
 very fufficient reafon for the excommunication of the 
 feels, which were addicted to it. For it is to be ob- 
 ferved, that the Ebionites are coupled in this pafTage 
 with the Cerinthians. 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- 
 tinction, 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 expreffions 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 
 paflage of Jerom be no teftimony in favour of the Ce- 
 rinthian doctrine about the creation ; it is no tefti- 
 mony in favour of the Ebionsean doctrine about our 
 Lord. It is lame and defective, like every other tefti- 
 mony which you have produced to the fame purpofe ; 
 and your opinion, that the Primitive Unitarians were 
 not confidered as heretics, I muft ftill, Sir, in defiance 
 
 of
 
 j 9 o LETTERSINREPLY 
 
 LETTER G f a ii y 0ur teftimonies, take the liberty to place 
 among the extravagant affertions of Daniel Zuicker, 
 of which Simon Epifcopius was the charitable but 
 inefficient advocate. 
 
 I ain, &e. 
 
 P. S. You are pleafed, Sir, to fay in the conclu- 
 fion of your third Letter, that the Unitarian doclrine, 
 even in its moft 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 underftand that form, 
 which excludes thewormip ofChrift. 
 
 N. B. In anfvver to Dr. Prieftley's argument from 
 the writings of Irenaeus in particular, fee the Third 
 of the Supplemental Difquifitions* 
 
 LETTER
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 191 
 
 LETTER ELEVENTH. 
 
 In reply to Dr. Prieflley's fourth^ in which he defends 
 his argument from a pajfage in Athanafius. The 
 fenfe of the words aflia. iv^vyosmiftaken by Dr. Prieft- 
 ley The fenfe of the word crwi/ecnj mi/taken by Dr. 
 Prieftley Prudence and Caution not fynonymous- 
 The matter of faff) as represented by Athanafius^ mif- 
 taken by Dr. Priejlley His grammatical argument 
 refuted. That Athanafius fpcaks of unconverted 
 Jews proved from a comparison of the two claufes in 
 which Jews are mentioned. The Gentiles not un- 
 interejted in quejlions about the Meffiah. - Of defe- 
 rence to authorities. 
 
 A 
 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 SUPPOSED teftimonybf Athanafius made a 
 principal branch of your original proof, that the " xi. 
 
 faith of the firft Chriftians was Unitarian ; 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 confeffion of two very important circumftances ; 
 that \he Apoftles ufed great caution in divulging the 
 doctrine 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 oppofition to this, I took upon me to affure 
 the reverend aflcmbly which I had the honour to ad- 
 
 drefs,
 
 n>i LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 I.KTTER drefs, that no mention of the caution of the Apoflles, 
 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 paflage, you fay, you " only abridged 
 " before*." (I am forry, Sir, to remind you, that 
 the manner in which your abridgments are managed, 
 has appeared in other infcances). You abridged it 
 before, but now you " give a larger portion of it at 
 " full length :" not the whole, by your own confef- 
 fion ; " for the whole is much too long to tranfcribe." 
 Pardon me, Sir, if I add, that the whole, were it 
 tranfcribed, would juftify 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 
 which I affign, 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 fhort 
 iflue, I will fet the general fcope of the difcourfe quite 
 out of the queflion. I will take the particular portion, 
 which you have produced, by itfelf, as you defire it 
 fhould be taken : and I will fliew, that even thus taken 
 it will give no fupport to your aflertions, without a fin- 
 gular conftru&ion of certain words and phrafes, which 
 cannot be admitted. 
 
 . * Letters to Dr. H. p. 39, 
 
 4. THE
 
 TOD R. PRIESTLEY i9J 
 
 4. THE Apoftles, it is faid, fpake of Chrift as a LETTER 
 man ; a man of Nazareth ; a man obnoxious to fuf- 
 ferings. Was it that the Apoftles were in the fenti- 
 ments of Arius ? No fuch thing* " But this they did, 
 " as wife mafter-builders and ftewards of the myf- 
 " teries 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 ? 
 For doing as wife mafter-builders and ftewards of the 
 myfteries of God. Are fpecious pretences needed 
 then for wife conduct ? Or were the Apoftles men to 
 make pretences ? Surely this is the language of Dr. 
 Prieftley, not of Athanafms. He thought more re- 
 verently of the Apoftles. , Let him fpeak for himfelf. 
 Kai TW ailiav !%acny iuhcyov. Is pretence the fenfe of 
 ailta ? The true Greek word for pretence is Kfopcuns. 
 And even had this word been ufed, the adjective 
 iuhoyog would have carried it away from that bafe 
 meaning, which is infeparable from the Englifh words 
 fpecious pretence. For IwAoyoj is not fpecious in the 
 Englifh fenfe. It may be applied to any thing in quo 
 fpecies cernitur honejti ; but it is not meer feeming. 
 Had Athanalius meant to fay, that the Apoftles had a 
 fpecious pretence only for their conduct, the adjective 
 muft have been snSoroj . He muft have faid, xou TT^O 
 
 TIVOC, E7%oy TT&OtVYiV. Or, KM %ft OtTTlSctVOV TlVOt 
 
 5. THE word aflia 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,
 
 j 9 4 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER a caufe, in any one of the four kinds of caufes ; th* 
 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, to, ' ca&a^ 01 fa xai 3i ae, 'AITIA2 
 ttyufizlo) sing ITTE^IOI iraa^ &c. in Tim&o. Again, 
 3ia fa rv\y AITIAN KM TOV hoyur/MV rovJs EV otev sf cvncwlM 
 
 sTsxIyvaro. in Tim&o. A motive may be either 
 
 good or bad, but atlia It/Xoyo$ can be only good. It 
 mufl be a wife and honourable motive ; or, in plain 
 Englifh, a good reafon. 
 
 6. Afliatj in the rhetorical or popular fenfe, anfwers 
 to the Englifh word caufe in its forenfic meaning. 
 It fignifies an action or fuit at law, or a criminal in- 
 dictment. In this fenfe aflia Iz/xoyoj 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 l^sn is in the prefent time, when 
 the preceding and the following are in the paft. " If 
 u the conduct of the apoflles mould be at any tim 
 " questioned, they have a fair and fubftantial plea.'* 
 This may dill be exprefled in Englifh by a goed 
 reafon. This therefore is the proper Englifh phrafo 
 to convey the holy father's meaning, whether culm 
 be taken in its philofophical or in its popular fenfe. 
 
 /. Now, Sir, if for fpecious pretence you will be 
 pleafed to fubftitute good reafon, you will find that 
 
 this
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 195 
 
 this paflage, even in your own tranflation, will af- LETTER 
 
 ford no ground for the inferences you would build 
 
 upon it. Athanafius proceeds to (hew what this 
 
 good reafon was ; and he commends the great faga- 
 
 city, which was difplayed in the conduct 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. 
 " o-yvscnf, which, in the connection in which it ftands 
 " can bear no other fenfe than caution, and great 
 
 " caution ; ^fta sroxxnj a-wereo; *." Sir, may 
 
 I afk in what lexicon (you muft excufe me if I fuf- 
 pect that you are ufed to take the fenfes of Greek 
 words from ordinary lexicons) in what lexicon, good 
 or bad, have you found that auve<ri$, in any con- 
 nection may ftand for caution? It is literally the 
 meeting or coming together of different 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 fitnefles 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 w rering
 
 , 9 5 L E T T E R S I N R E P L Y 
 
 LETTER vering what is proper and befeeming to each*." 
 Plato fays more concifely, o-vvwat means that the 
 mind go$s along with things f. Sagacity is the Eng- 
 lifh word, which moft nearly renders the fame idea. 
 Prudence, the word which you have ufed in your 
 tranflation, may be born, but the idea, which it 
 gives, is rather fimilar than the fame. You have 
 Ihewn, 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 Englifh 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 provifioa by fome difhoneft referve 
 for the fuccefs of doctrine 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 defcribes the 
 thing, though he may not have called it by its pro- 
 
 * See Phavorinus. -f In Cratylo. 
 
 . H, p. 4> I See p. 185. 
 
 per
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 19? 
 
 per name. " He evidently, you fay, doss not re- LETTER. 
 " prefent them as deferring the communication of 
 " the doctrine of the divinity of Chrift, on account 
 " of its being more conveniently taught afterwards, 
 <c as part of a fyftem of faith ; but only left it 
 tc mould have given offence to the Jews * ." I 
 cannot read this fentence without aftonimment, when 
 I turn back to the quotation, and find that you have 
 fairly produced the paffage, in which Athanafius, 
 in your own tranflation as well as in the original, 
 affirms that what related to our Lord's humanity 
 was taught firjl^ for no other reafon, but that the 
 doctrine of his divinity might be taught afterwards 
 with more effect. The defire of inftrucling the 
 Jews, not the fear of offending them, was the mo- 
 tive with the Apoftles for propounding firft what 
 was the eafieft to be underftood, and the moft likely 
 to be admitted. 
 
 10. BUT whatever the motive may have been 
 with the Apoftles, for their conduct, you infift that 
 the fact was, that the doctrine of the Trinity was 
 not divulged by them : and of this you think you 
 find a proof in this paffage 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 fubfifted) would operate till within a mort time 
 of the difperfion and death of the Apoftles. Whence 
 
 * Letters to Dr. H. p. 45. 
 
 O 3 you
 
 *9* LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER y OU conclude, that if ever they divulged this doc- 
 trine, it muft have been at fo late a period, that the 
 church, in confequenoe of their former filence upon 
 the fubject, muft have been fixed in the contrary 
 perfuafion *. 
 
 11. BUT what if the foundation of this whole 
 argument mould be rotten. What if the whole 
 mould be built on a mifmterpretation of Athanafius. 
 Athanafius affirms not, that the Apoftles, in any 
 period of their miniftry, kept the dodrine 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, addrefled 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 inftru&ion was not more par- 
 ticular than their public. For this you will find 
 little fupport in Athanafius ; or in Chryfoftom ; who 
 is called upon to corroborate the argument from the 
 conceffions of Athanafius. 
 
 12. BUT whatever the doctrine of the Apoftlej 
 might be, or whatever opinion Athanafius, or Chry- 
 foftom, might entertain concerning it; Athanafius, 
 jt feems, acknowledges that the firft Jewifh Chrif- 
 
 * Letters to, Dr. H. p. 42 44- 
 
 tians
 
 T O D R. PRIESTLEY. *99 
 
 tians were Unitarians. O role Is&upi, '" 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 meer 
 
 humanity of the Meffiah. Now, Sir, if " The 
 
 " then Jews," O< rote Is&xioi, may denote Jewifh 
 
 Chriftians ; will you be pleafed to inform me, what 
 
 more precife expreffions the holy father might have 
 
 found in the whole compafs of the Greek language, 
 
 to denote genuine Jewifh Jews, had he had occafion 
 
 to mention them ? But the verbs, it feems " in 
 
 " that part of the paflage which mentions Cbrijl 
 
 " being come of the feed of David^ and the word be- 
 
 " ing made flefa are not in the future tenfe**" In 
 
 this remark, Sir, I cannot but admire the fingular 
 
 caution of the expreffion. " The verbs are not 
 
 <l in the future tenfe." It is true, they are not. 
 But the moft important of thefe verbs, in that part 
 of the paflage which mentions the Meffiah'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 5 which often denotes an inftant 
 futurity, but never denotes time either long fince, 
 or juft now, part. This obtains in all the Greek 
 verbs, but particularly in the verb fyxflitcu; which, 
 not only by ufe, but naturally involves a notion of 
 futurity even in the prefent tenfe. EVOIM&V rov Xfirov 
 
 iJ'JXov av&fojTrov jnovov f%E&u. " They thought 
 
 ** the Chrift was a-comlng as a meer man only." 
 This expreffion refers to the Meffiah not as come, 
 
 * Letters to Dr. H. p. 42. 
 
 O 4 but
 
 ** LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER but as coming. Another verb, I confefs, which 
 relates to the incarnation of the Word, is in a pre- 
 terite tenfe. 5f ort *oyo; <rafi sywtlo emreucy. " Nei- 
 " ther believed they, that the word was made flefh." 
 6 'xoyoj ffa.fi lyevsJo, " the word was made flefh," 
 thefeare 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 myftery ; and for that reafon, he may have fa- 
 crificed fomewhat of the accuracy of his fyntax to 
 the exaclnefs of his quotation. The paflage mould 
 be printed thus, xbe " OTJ b xoyoj vot.fi syzvilo" ETTI- 
 revov. 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 delire to lay no 
 great ftrefs upon it. What you have refpeft to in 
 this paflage " is the obvious general tenour and fpi- 
 " rit of it*." Indeed, Sir, you w r ould do well to 
 be cautious, upon all occafions, how you handle 
 thefe 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 tliemfelves, and having deceived the Gen- 
 
 " tiles." And again, " the bleffed apoftles 
 
 *' taught what related to the humanity of our 
 
 " Saviour to the Jews." Is it your opinion, Sir, 
 , that they are the fame or, different pcrfons, who are 
 
 * Letters to Dr. H. p. 42. 
 
 mentioned
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. act 
 
 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 mew 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 muft 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 o*f, which you have erroneoufly 
 
 " rendered by the word fully) at any rate to be per- 
 
 ' fuaded, from the actual ftate of things, and from 
 
 " the evidence of the miracles which had been 
 
 " wrought, that the Chrift 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, 
 
 \vhofe 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. 
 
 * Iva cXaj wfuraylss ^ 8 5 ** y tpsuvofAEVuv xau 
 
 14. BUT
 
 *oz 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 mifled them, were Jewim 
 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 doclrine 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- 
 probabilityj that the general opinion concerning this 
 perfonage mould be modified by the opinions which 
 prevailed in Judaea, which was the center of the tra- 
 dition ? Efpecjally 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 you. It hath been (hewn, that none but Jew 
 Jews can be intended by Athanafius, when he fpeaks 
 of the Jews as milleaders of the Gentiles. They were 
 Gentile Gentiles therefore who were mifledde : for 
 from unbelieving Jews Chriftians of the Gentiles, 
 would hardly take inftruclion. 
 
 15. YOUR laft refource is to flee for fhelter to the 
 authority of Beaufobre. " The learned Beaufobre, 
 
 * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 41. f Ibid. 
 
 aTri-
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 303 
 
 tt 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 (hall not affect a modefty, which I feel not 
 when the fenfe of a Greek fentence is the thing in 
 queftion, if I have the writer upon my own fhelf, or 
 can find him upon my friend's, it is not much my 
 practice to (land bowing at a diftance to authorities ; 
 unlefs indeed it be the authority of a Cafaubon, a 
 Scaliger, or a Bentley. But thefe men would laugh, 
 or they would ftorm, at your attempts to conftrue 
 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 wreft from my 
 learned ally his ftrong argument for the difference, 
 which we afiert, in articles of faith between the Naza- 
 renes and the Ebionites. The 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 Weftminfter man, were enough to bring old Buiby 
 from his grave. But alas, Sir, you are not to be per- 
 fuaded though one mould rife from the dead. I truft 
 pur readers are perfuaded, that the argument from 
 
 * Letters to Dr. H. p. 42. 
 
 j- Ibid. p. 152. 156, 
 
 Athanafius;
 
 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 I.ETTER Athanafius* was with great juftice and propriety 
 
 XI. 
 
 placed among my fpecimens of infufficient proof. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 tETTER 
 
 XII. 
 
 LETTER TWELFTH. 
 
 In reply to Dr. Prlejtley's Fifth ; in which be moves 
 certain chronological 'difficulties. Himfelf chiefly 
 concerned to find the folution His quejlion divided 
 The divinity of our Lord preached from the very be- 
 ginning by the Apoftles. St. Stephen a martyr to 
 
 this docJrine. His dying ejaculations juftify the 
 
 wor/hip of Chrijl. Chrijl deified in the Jlory of 
 St. Paul's conversion. The divinity of Jefus ac- 
 tnoivledged by the Apoftles from the time when they 
 acknowledged him for the Meffiah. Notions of a 
 Trinity^ and of the deity of the MeJJiah, 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 
 
 Apoftles were taxed by the fathers with a referve upon 
 
 * Ofthe teftimonies of other writers, by which Dr. Prieft- 
 ley attempts to confirm his argument from Athanafius, fee 
 the Tenth of his Second Letters to me, and my Remarks 
 upon his Second Letters, part 2. c. i. ^. 10. 14.
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. aoj 
 
 the fubject, 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 affign the time, 
 when this great fecret " was communicated firfl to 
 11 to the Apoftles, and then by them to the body of 
 " Chriftiansf." You " requeft my opinion" upon, 
 this queftion 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 confident with my creed. But the truth is, 
 that you are yourfelf the perfon moft concerned to 
 find the folution. Or to exprefs myfelf more accu- 
 rately, the queftion fplits into two, of which the 
 one concerns not me, and the other concerns not 
 either of us. 
 
 2. WHEN was the doctrine of our Lord's divinity 
 firft published in the church by the Apoftles ? 
 
 3. WHEN was the knowledge of the thing fail 
 conveyed to the minds of the Apoftles themfelves ? 
 
 4. Thefe, Sir, are two diftin<a queftions. 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 doctrine. Nay, if you mould even 
 be able to aflign fome later time of its commencement, 
 
 * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 55, f Ibid. 
 
 yet
 
 io6 L&ETTfiRSIN REPLY 
 
 LETTER y et f mce that time muft fall within the compafs of the 
 Apoftolic age, to which you are limited by virtue of 
 my proof from the epiftle of St. Barnabas, a queftion 
 might indeed arife, which might be of difficult refo- 
 lution j why was this doctrine, for a certain time, 
 kept back ? But this difficulty would not make the 
 credit of the doctrine. For fmce there is no reafon 
 to fuppofe, that any of the Apofdes, having once re- 
 ceived the light of infpiration, was in any future pe- 
 riod of his life deprived of it ; any doctrine publilhed 
 by them claims implicit credit, whatever might be 
 the time of its firft 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 firft 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 beft may pleafe you in the Apoftolic age ; 
 I will hold no argument with you upon the fubjeft. 
 In my own congregations I mall think it my duty to 
 bear my witnefs, that from the very beginning of the 
 gofpel the thing had been no fecret. For proof from 
 holy writ, I (hail have recourfe to thofe very pafTages 
 of the Apoftolic hiftory, from which you draw the 
 contrary inference. I mail remind my hearers, that 
 in St. Peter's firft public fermon, when it was rea- 
 fonable to keep to the general affertion, that Jefus 
 was the Mefliah, 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 fcrongly imprefled with notions, 
 
 vWhich
 
 TO DR. P R I E S T L Y, 307 
 
 Which it was his policy to conceal. I lhall partial- LETTER 
 
 lady defire them to remark, that it is faid of our 
 
 Lord Jefus, that " it was not poffible that he mould 
 
 " be holden of death*." The expreffions clearly 
 
 imply a phyfical impoiTibility. I fhall 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 f. And I (hall maintain, that the three 
 
 perfons are diftinctly 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 Ghoft^:" 
 
 of the Father -^OL^O. TS TT^OJ The Father: the 
 fubftantive, with the article prefixed, defcribes a per- 
 fon, whofe character it is to be the Father. Paternity 
 is the property, which individuates the perfon. But 
 from whom is the firft principle thus diftinguiflied ? 
 From his creatures ? From them he were more fig- 
 nificantly diftinguimed 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 Ghoft. And fince this is 
 his diftin&ion, 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 diftindtions, 
 not in eflential qualities. Thus I will ever reafon, 
 Sir, for the edification of my own flock, but with 
 
 f A&s ii. verf. af. ^ Afts ii. ?erf. 32, 33. 
 
 | Ibid. 
 
 little
 
 o3 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER little hope of your conviction from St. Peter's firft 
 fermon. 
 
 I SHALL always infift, Sir, that the blefled Ste- 
 phen died a martyr to the DEITY of Chrift. 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 God f .'* 
 The blafphemy againft the temple and the law pro- 
 bably confifted in a prediction, that the temple was 
 to be deftroyed, and the ritual law of courfe abolifhed. 
 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 blefled 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 faw||, the Jewifh rabble underftood 
 as an aflertion of the divinity of Jefus. They ftop- 
 
 * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 60. f Afts vi. verfe n. 
 J Ads vii. verfe 55. (| Atts vii. verfe 56. 
 
 ped
 
 t 6 D R. P R I E 5 T L E Y. zc 9 
 
 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 Matter. 
 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 fin 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 laft 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 obferve that I difclaim 
 it, that " the proper objet of prayer is God the Fa- 
 " ther J." This you tell me I cannot but acknow- 
 ledge. That the Father is a proper object of prayer, 
 God forbid that ever I mould not acknowledge. 
 That he is the proper object in the fenfe in which you 
 feem to make the aflertion, in prejudice and exclufion 
 of the other perfons, God forbid that ever I mould 
 concede. I deny not, that there is an honour per- 
 
 * Afts vii. verf. 57, 58. f Afts vii. verf. 59, 60. 
 
 I Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 8r. 
 
 P fonally
 
 aio LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER ' fondly due to him as the Father. There is alfo an 
 honour perfonally due to the Son, as the Son ; and 
 to the Spirit, as the Spirit. But our knowledge of 
 the perfonal diftinciions is fo obfcure, in comparifon 
 of our apprehenfion of the general attributes of the 
 Godhead, that it mould feem that the Divinity 
 [the TO SEJOV] is rather to be generally worshipped 
 in the three perfons jointly and indifferently, than 
 that any diftinct honours are to be offered to each 
 feparately. Prayer however for fuccour againft ex- 
 ternal perfecution feems addreffed with particular 
 propriety to the Son. 
 
 74 WHEN you deny, not only that any pre- 
 cept, but that any proper example is to be found in 
 fcripture to authorize the practice *, 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." But, Sir, why 
 is it inconfiderable ? Is it becaufe it was only an eja- 
 culation ? Ejaculations are often prayers of the moft 
 fervent kind ; the moft 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 re^-aifite to make a prayer an act of worfhip f 
 Was this petition preferred on an occafion of diftrefs, 
 on which a Divinity might be naturally invoked? 
 Was it a petition for a fuccour, which none but a 
 Divinity could grant ? If this was the cafe it was 
 furely an acl: of worfhip. Is the fituation of the 
 
 * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. Si. f Ibid. 
 
 wormipper
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 7 n 
 
 worfhipper the circumftance, which in your judge- LETTER 
 
 ment, Sir, leffens 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 aft of one who knew 
 
 his fituation, and poffefled his understanding. After 
 
 praying for himfelf, 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 
 
 inoft 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 "fhort 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 pofleffion of his 
 
 faculties, prayed to him who is no God ; 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 ailertion of 
 
 Chrift's divinity was the blaijphemy, for which the 
 
 Jews, hardened in their unbelief, condemned him. 
 
 8. ANOTHER inftance, to which I ever (hall ap- 
 peal, of an early preaching of our Lord's divinity, 
 tho' it may not conduce to your conviction, is the 
 
 * Als vii. verf. 60, 
 
 P 2 flory
 
 ia LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LE xii ER ^ r y ^^ t * ^ au ^' s convcr fion : in which, as it is twicjr 
 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 
 bum, heightened in terror and folemnity. Inftead 
 of a lambent flame appearing to a folitary (hepherd 
 amid the thickets of the wildernefs, the full efful- 
 gence of the Shechinah, overpowering the fplendor 
 of the mid-day fun, burfts upon the commiffioners 
 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 fubmifllon 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 of 
 " 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- 
 ever late the time might be when they themfelves 
 
 received
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. ij 
 
 received their information. It concerns not you 5 LETTER 
 becaufe with your notions of infpiration, you are at 
 liberty to difpute what the infpired Apoftles taught, 
 whatever pretenfions they may have to the earliefl 
 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 afligning the pre- 
 cile time, when the Apoftles were firft made ac- 
 quainted with it, might be fomething of an objection 
 againft the antiquity of the do.5lrine, and againft it's 
 truth. But in oppofuion to direct proof the objec- 
 tion, were it founded, could have no weight. 
 
 IT. Upon this queftion therefore, as the former, 
 you muft not take it amifs if I leave you to yourfelf. 
 Choofe any time, within the compafsof each apoftle's 
 life, for the epoch of his illumination. I will hold no 
 argument upon the fubjecl: : although I have an opi- 
 nion upon the queftion, as upon the former, which I 
 ever mall 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 u the Apoftles were wholly igno- 
 norant of this*." At firjl indeed, before their ac- 
 quaintance with our Lord, or at leafc with the Baptift, 
 they were ignorant, I believe, of every thing. But 
 frpm their firft acknowledgement of our Lord a$ 
 .the Mefliah, they equally acknowledged his divi- 
 
 * Letters to Dr. H. p. 56. 
 
 P 3 nity.
 
 3i 4 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER njty. Their faith, I believe, was but unfettled, as 
 theii notions of the Median's kingdom were certainly 
 very conrufed, till the delcent of the Holy Ghoft. 
 But fo far as they believed in Jefus as the Meffiah, 
 in the fame degree they underftood and acknow- 
 ledged his divinity. The proof, which I have to pro- 
 duce of this from holy writ, confifts of too many 
 particulars, to be diftinclly enumerated in the courfe 
 of our prefent correfpondence. I mall mention two ; 
 which to any but a decided Unitarian, will be very 
 ftriking; Nathaniel's firft profefiion, and Peter's 
 confternation at the miraculous draught of fifties. 
 It was in Nathaniel's very firft interview with our 
 Lord, that he exclaimed, "Rabbi, thou art the 
 " Son of God ! thou art the king of Ifrael ! *." 
 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 
 nfhes taken at a fingle draught, when the net was 
 caft 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 I am fmful man, O 
 " Lord f." 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 fmful mortal might not fee God 
 and live. Thefe and many other paflages of the 
 Evangelical' Hiftory difcover, that our Lord's af- 
 
 * John i. vcrf. 49. f Luke. v. 8. 
 
 fociates
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY, ari - 
 
 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 character. Nor indeed were early inti- 
 mations of it wanting; in the firft annunciation 
 of his birth -by the angelic hoft; in the Baptift's 
 declarations ; and in our Lord's own 'aflertions 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 understood as an exprefs 
 deification of his own perfon. 
 
 12. BUT Judas Ifcariot, you think, " could not 
 " poffibly 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 would 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 almoft defperate, 
 if you would defire that Judas Ifcariot mould be ad- 
 mitted as an evidence for you, or as an advocate. But 
 what if your caufe mould turn out to be, what Judas 
 Ifcariot himfelf would fcruple to undertake. I would 
 not willingly be the apologift of that traitor. But I 
 am inclined to think, that, traitor as he was, his in- 
 tentions went not to the mifchief which he effected. 
 It was rather perhaps his meaning to cheat the Chief 
 
 * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 58. 
 
 P 4 Priefts
 
 2i6 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER Priefts of their money, than actually to fell his Maf- 
 ter's life. When he bargained to lead them for * 
 certain fum to the place of our Lord's retirement ; he 
 thought perhaps that he might fafely truft to his Maf- 
 ter's power to repell any attack upon his perfon. 
 This is very confident with a belief of our Lord's 
 divinity; as the mofl dishonourable defigns are often 
 found to confift with the trueft 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 
 <c there been any pretence, you fay, for imagining 
 <c that the Jews in our Saviour's time had any know- 
 <c ledge of the doctrine of the Trinity, and taht they 
 " expected the fecond perfon in it, in the character 
 " of their Meffiah, the queftion I propofe to you 
 M would have been needlefs*." Then, Sir, the 
 queftion which you propofe to me, is needlefs. The 
 Jews in Chrift's days had notions of a trinity in the 
 divine Nature. They expected the fecond perfon, 
 \yhom 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 
 " Judgement of the ancient Jewljh church again/I the 
 
 * Letters to Dr. Horfley, . 64,
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. a, 7 
 
 " Unitarians." A work which it is to be hoped, LETTER 
 
 X"3L. 
 
 Sir. you will carefully look through, before you fend 
 abroad your intended view of the doctrine of the firft 
 ages concerning Chrift*. That you will be convin- 
 ced by Dr. Allix's proof, I have indeed little hope; 
 I (hall 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. The 
 Naked Gofpel, you know, was printed at Oxford in 
 the year 1690, and was burnt the fame year by order 
 of the convocation. The anonymous author of the 
 Hijlorical Vindication was fuppofed to be Le Clerc. 
 He it is, who fays in his preface, that the platonic 
 enthufiafm crept firft into the Jewifh, afterwards into 
 the Chriftian church. Then he tells his readers how 
 the Jews picked up their Platonifm. Of which, he 
 fays, the principal doctrines were two : the one, that 
 of the Pre-exiftence of Souls ; the other that of the 
 Divine Trinity. Thefe, he fays, were the opinions 
 of the Jews in the days of our Saviour and his Apof- 
 ties : 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 doctrine of the firft ages. He thought the 
 doctrine of the Trinity one of the ancient corruptions 
 of Judaifm ; which in laying-trie foundations of Chrif- 
 
 * Preface to Letters, p. xviii, 
 
 tianity
 
 *i* 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 refpet to more antient times, was 
 " obliterated from the minds of the Jews in our 
 " Saviour's time*." I believe, Sir, I (hall never 
 fit down to the tafk, which you defire me to 
 undertake; a tranflation of the works of Bifhop 
 Bull f. For as his argument 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 alk me, whence was the offence 
 which the afiertion of our Lord's divinity, by my own 
 confeflion, gave the Jewifh people, if divinity made 
 a part of their own notion of the Meffiah's charac- 
 ter ? 1 anfwer, the deification of the Meffiah was not 
 that which gave offence, but the afiertion that a cru- 
 cified man was that divine perfon : and before his 
 crucifixion, the meanneis of his birth gave an of- 
 fence, lefs in degree, but of the fame kind. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 64. 
 f Letters to D r. Herfley, p. 113. 
 
 LETTER
 
 T O D R. PRIESTLEY. 319 
 
 LETTER THIRTEENTH. 
 
 In reply to Dr. Prieftley'sjixtb. Dr. Prtejllefs igno- 
 rance of the true principles of Platonifm appears in 
 bis difquijitions concerning matter and fpirit. The 
 equality and unity cf the three principles of the Pla- 
 tonifts. Dr. P riejlley's. peculiar fenfe of the ivord 
 perfonification not perceived cither by the Archdeacon, 
 or the Reviewer. The outline however of Dr. 
 Prieftley's ivork not mifreprefented by the Archdeacon. 
 The converfion of an attribute into a fubjlance dif- 
 fers not from a creation out of nothing. Never 
 taught by the Platonifts The eternity cf the Logos 
 independent of any fuppofed eternity of the world. 
 Not difcarded therefore by the converted Platonifts 
 Dr. Pricftlcy's arguments from the analogy between 
 the divine Logos and human reason anfwered. 
 The Archdeacon abides by his affertion that Dr. 
 Priejlley hath mifreprejentedthe platonic language. 
 The Archdeacon's interpretation of the Plator.ijis 
 rejls not on his own conjecture, but on the authority 
 of Atbenagoras confirmed by other authorities. 
 Dr. Priejl ley's quotations from Tertullian conjidered 
 from Laflantius. 
 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 YOU muft forgive me, if I confefs to you, that LETTER 
 that fo long fmce as when I firft red your dif- X1II 
 quifitions concerning matter and fpirit, I formed no 
 very high opinion of jour learning in the Platonic 
 philofophy. What gave me my firft fufpicion, as I 
 well remember, was a furprize which you exprefs, 
 
 that
 
 22* LETTERS INREPLY 
 
 LETTER that a certain French writer mould fpeak of the idea 
 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 divifible, unlefs they 
 were extended f, 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 J efpe dally 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 impreffions of external objects on the material 
 fenfory : which impreffions 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 
 flijlory of the pbilofophical doffrine concerning the foul ^ 
 .jnfomuch, that I red your aflertion, that " Plato's phi- 
 ct lofophy was the oriental fyftem 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 refpedl:, indifpofed 
 as he is in general to be partial to the Platonifts, hath 
 however fo far done them juftice, as to point out the 
 total difcordance, in principle at leaft, between the 
 fober philofophy of Plato and the extravagancies of 
 
 * Difquifitions, p. 39. f Ibid. p. 37, 58. % Ibid. 
 79, 93- S Ibid. p. 274. 
 
 the
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. a*t 
 
 the Gnoftics ; whofe principles were thofe of the LETTER 
 oriental fyftem. After this, Sir, it gives me no fur- 
 prize at all, that you mould now aflert, " that it was 
 " never imagined that the three component members 
 " of the Platonic Trinity are either equal to each other, 
 K or m-iclly fpeaking one*." They are, Sir, more 
 ftri6tly 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 neceflarily fuppofed : and the firft 
 [A-yoSov) being, the fecond and third, [Na$ & "Fy%] 
 muft come forth. Concerning their equality, I will 
 not fay that the Platonifts have fpoken with the fame 
 accuracy, which the Chriftian fathers ufe ; but they 
 include the three principles in the divine nature, in 
 the TO icv; 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 
 ftriUy 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 perfonification of the 
 Logos mould not be diftinftly underftood, either by 
 myfelf, or by my learned ally. For my own part, 
 I confefs, I had not the leaft apprehenfion, that you 
 ufed the word perfonification in any other than its ufual 
 fenfe ; till, in your reply to the animadverfions of my 
 learned ally, you diftinguimed between the perfonifi- 
 cation of the Logos, which you impute to Juftin, 
 
 * Letters to Dr. H. p. 99, f See Charge V. ^ 5. 
 
 and
 
 aaa LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER and the earlier do&rines of the Gnoftics *. By per - 
 fonification 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 
 fuch figured language was the occafion, that a meer 
 attribute was miftaken for a real perfon, fir ft in the 
 Academy, and afterwards in the Church : and that 
 this error led to another, full founded on a literal 
 interpretation of figurative expreflions ; the expreffi- 
 ons in which St. John defcribes, as you conceive the 
 extraordinary degree in which wifdom and power 
 were conferred on Chrift, being underftood as afler- 
 tions that Chrift was that very perfon, which was 
 fuppofed to have been previoully defcribed by the 
 evangelift as a branch of the divinity. I thought, 
 Sir, that you conceived that a meer grammatical 
 profepcpeia had been, in this way, the firft ftep towards 
 the deification of Chrift. Upon looking again into 
 the fecond fe&ion of your hiftory, I fee no great rea- 
 fon to be afhamed of my miftake. I believe, Sir, 
 that without the affiftance of the comment, which 
 your Reply to the Monthly Reviewer furnimes, no 
 reader of your work would difcover any other mean- 
 ing in your expreffions. It feems, however, that the 
 word perf unification is a new term of theology, inven- 
 ted by you, for a do^rine which is alfo of your own 
 invention; though you are pleafed to give the credit 
 
 * Re^-ly to Monthly Review for June, '... 5. 
 
 of
 
 T O DR. PRIESTLEY. 313 
 
 of it to the platonic fathers : the doctrine of the con- LEETTR 
 verfion of an attribute into a perfonj 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 the prefent doctrine of the Tri- 
 te n j t y */ 7^ diftinction between this perfonifica- 
 tion of the Logos and the earlier doctrines of the 
 Gnoftics is, it feems, an important feature in the great 
 outline of your work. The outline of your work, 
 as Sketched by yourfelf, is briefly this. The exalta- 
 tion of the perfon of Jefus Chrift began with the 
 Gnoftics; who maintained the pre-exiftence of human 
 fouls. When their errors were exploded, the per- 
 fonifkation was adopted. The Arian doctrine was 
 fubfequent to this ; and it was after all thefe, that, 
 from improvements upon the doctrine of perfonifi- 
 cation, the prefent doctrine 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 diftinctions ; and the omifllon 
 mews, that, "we have never formed a right con- 
 " ception of what we undertook to exhibit J," 
 
 3. EVERY writer muft be allowed to be the beft 
 interpreter of his own expreflions. But in the fenfe 
 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. 
 J Ibid. p. 35. and Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 66. 
 
 what
 
 4 LfcTTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER ^3,. propriety it is called the firft ftep towards the 
 deification of Chrift ; fince the doctrines of the 
 Gnoftics, which you maintain to be more antient, 
 had, in your judgment, the fame tendency. I am 
 fometimes inclined to fufpect, that you are apt your- 
 felf to fluctuate between your own and the vulgar 
 fcnfe of perfonification. 
 
 4. BUT although I mould allow, that I miffed 
 the fenfe of a particular exprefiion ; I am not fenlible, 
 that I mifconceived, or mifreprefented, your account 
 of the antient opinions. You certainly make the 
 Unitarian doctrine the general opinion of the firft 
 Chriftians. In the fecond age you allow, that fome- 
 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 diftinft perfonal 
 
 . cxiftence. 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 ftridteft fenfe of the word ; the fecond, Arians*. 
 This 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 platonizedj." 
 
 5. SIR, I am very fenfible that the platonizers of 
 the fecond century were the orthodox of that age. I 
 
 * Charge I. \ i. f Letters to Dr. H. p. 60. 
 
 ,J Ibid. 
 
 fcavt
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY 
 
 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 catholic 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 perfect agreement, but fuch a fimi- 
 litude, as fpeaks a common .origin, and affords an 
 argument in confirmation of the catholic do&rine, 
 from 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 hiftory and the pa- 
 triarchal creed, bears its teffimony to revelation. But, 
 Sir, I well know that thefe platonizers of the fecond 
 century were far more antient than Arius : 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- 
 eond century, was conveyed in a fingle word ; . 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 convit me of an error in this re- 
 prefentation of your opinion, you now fet up a dif- 
 tin&ion, 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- 
 
 " tribute
 
 3=6 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER " tribute of the father, and not any thing that was 
 " created out of nothing, as the Arians held Chrift to 
 " have been*." However, when this diftinflion 
 hath ferved the purpofe of convicting me of one er- 
 ror, it is cleared away again to convict me of another. 
 This Logos of the Platonifts, I am told, " was ori- 
 " ginally nothing more than a property of the divine 
 " mind, which afiumed 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 exifted 
 " always, except as reafon exifts in man, viz. as an 
 " attribute of the Deity J." And the affumption ofa 
 perfonal character, feems to be the fame thing, which 
 in your hiftory you call " the converfion of a meer 
 " attribute into a thinking fubftance." Indeed, it 
 is not eafy to conceive, how a perfonal character may 
 be aflumed, otherwife than by being made a perfon. 
 Now, what the difference may be between a making 
 out of nothing, and the converfion ofa 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 mould take the 
 trouble to explain. If this was the difference between 
 the doctrines 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. 
 
 J Hili. of Corrupt, p. 42. ^ p. 4- 
 
 he
 
 T O D R. PRIESTLEY. 227 
 
 the fame thing, the fame in form not in time, with LETTER 
 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 defcribed 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 doctrine*." I am happy, Sir, to be in- 
 formed by you, that the Unitarian doctrine 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 
 mould 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 ftarts. But for 
 any production 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 expreflion, 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. 
 
 Q.2 Platonifts,
 
 S LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER Platonifts, betrays an entire ignorance of the genuine 
 principles of their fchool *. 
 
 7. You tell me, that " Idifcover inthefeanimad- 
 " verfions a total ignorance of what you have af- 
 " ferted. That you have no- where faid, that either 
 " the Platonifts, 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 J :" that they taught "the 
 " converfion of this attribute into a fubftance." 
 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 aflumed a feparate perfonal cha- 
 
 ' racier 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. 
 
 8. You admit however, that the eternity of the 
 Logos was a do&rine of Platonifm ; but you attempt 
 to affign a reafon, why the converted Platonifts, when 
 they entered into the church, muft have parted with 
 this opinion. " The Logos (you fay) of the Pla- 
 
 * Charge, IV. $4. f Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. ?* 
 J Hiftory of Corrnptions, p. 42. ^ Ibid. p. 40. 
 
 || Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 72- 
 
 tonifts
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 229 
 
 tc tonifts had, in their opinion, always had a per- LETTER 
 * c fonal exiftence, becaufe Plato fuppofed creation to 
 " have been eternal ; but this was not the opinion of 
 " the Platonizing -Chriflians, 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 alone, and without a Son*." Sir, if 
 I thought proper to deny your afiertion, 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, notwithstanding what he fays to the con- 
 trary in the Timaeus ; I mail take no advantage of 
 the uncertainty of your aflumption. Indeed it would 
 befufficient for your purpofe, were your argument 
 found in other parts, that the opinion of the world's 
 eternity was current in that fchool in which the Chrif- 
 tian Platonifts were trained, and was probably en- 
 tertained by them all before their conversion. 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
 
 2 3 o LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER world's eternity. Whereas neither the one nor the 
 other of thefe principles would have been allowed, 
 even by thofe Platonifls who deemed the world eter- 
 nal. The eternity of the world feemed to them a 
 confequence of that eternal activity, which they 
 afcribed to the deity : that is, to the three principles of 
 Goodnefs [TayoSov], Intelligence [Nj], and Vi- 
 tality [i/%n] : and chiefly to the two laft. For to 
 the firft principle they infcribed indeed an activity, 
 but of a very peculiar kind ; fuch as might be con- 
 fiftent with an undifturbed immutability. He ads, 
 pevuv EV eaula $*, by a fimple indivifible unvaried ener- 
 gy j which, as it cannot be broken into a multitude 
 of diftind ads, cannot be adapted to the variety of 
 external things ; on which therefore the Firft Good 
 ads 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 adive 
 upon external things, was neceflary in this fyltem to 
 the eternity of the world. And this eternal adivity 
 was fuppofed to be the confequence of that goodnefs 
 of the deity, which could not fuffer that to be de- 
 Jayed, which, becaufe he hath done it, appears to be 
 fit to be done. The world therefore, however the 
 fad may adually 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 
 necefiity, 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 Intellect 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 ; and 
 from the doctrine of the converfion of an attribute 
 into a fubftance, which you perfuade yourfelf they 
 deliver in the moft unequivocal language. 
 
 TO. " THAT the Logos of the Father, the fame 
 11 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- 
 " felf*." In proof of this aflertion you bring a 
 paflage from Athanafius, in which, to prevent as it 
 mould feem a conclufion which the unwary might 
 draw from the agreement of the name, inftead of the 
 
 * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 69. 
 
 exaft
 
 a 3 2 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER exat correfpondence which you may imagine, he 
 fhews the great difference between the divine Logos 
 and human fpeech. Tertullian, in a paflage 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 fchoolmen with their peculiar fubtlety; and, as 
 far as it obtains, is well explained by the learned Dr. 
 Charles Leflie, in his dialogues intitled The Socinlan 
 Controverfy dtfcujjed. 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 
 fubftance, I abide by my aflertion, that it is the off- 
 fpring of your own imagination ; and can only have 
 arifen from a mifapprehenfion of the language of the 
 Platonic fathers. It is true, that they fpeak of the 
 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 projection of his ener- 
 gies ; the difplay of his powers in the production 
 pf external fubftances. 
 
 i; Hiftory of Corruption, p. 38. 
 
 12. You
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 233 
 
 12. You reply, "that any meer external difplay LETTER. 
 a 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 
 " fince ; 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 conjedlure, 
 " deftitute of any thing that can give jit a colour of 
 " probability*." This fentence, Sir, only finishes 
 the proof, if it was before defective, of your incom- 
 petency in the fubject, It (hews 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 
 conjedure is the exprefs aflertion of Athenagoras, in 
 the very paflage which you have quoted : and Athe- 
 nagoras, I mould 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 becaufe 
 he went forth to a& 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* 
 f See Charge, IV. $ 5. 
 
 general
 
 134 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 L XIH ER & eneral amon S the writers who came from the fame 
 fchool. It refts not however upon any conjerure, 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 object a want of 
 analogy, between the figure and the thing which it is 
 fuppoled to reprefent. This, I think, with an Uni- 
 tarian mould 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 j but in what 
 fenfe it was accepted by the Platonizing Chriftians. 
 I affirm, upon the authority of Athenagoras, that it 
 was underftood by them, when they fpeak of it as 
 taking place at a certain time, not of a beginning of 
 the Son's exiftence, 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 teftimony is exprefs and 
 full on mine. 
 
 13. BUT for the fenfe which thefe Platonifts 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 particular 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 object to the propriety of the expref- 
 fion, in the fenfe in which they underftand it. You 
 fay to me, " Since according to your hypothefis the 
 " Logos was always an intelligent perfon, he muft 
 11 have exerted his intellectual faculties in fome way 
 " or other from all eternity, as much as the Father 
 " himfelf t." It is true, Sir. But it was not an exer- 
 tion of his faculties in feme way or other^ but the firft 
 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, 
 uniflued 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 a generati- 
 
 " on of the Father ? and yet, according to you, 
 
 " this language muft have been equally proper with 
 
 " refpect 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. Horfley, p. 71. I Ibid. 
 
 the
 
 33 6 LRETTERSIN REPLY 
 
 LETTER the Platonifts, is as improper of the Son as it would 
 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 expreflion ; 
 but the fact, how an expreflion was ufed and un- 
 derftood by certain writers. It were endlefs to ac- 
 cumulate authorities j but if the fmgle teftimony of 
 Athenagoras is not fufficient, I will produce two 
 more j 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 ; becaufe, as you have yourfelf obferved, 
 he alleges the authority of Plato in fupport of the 
 Catholic doctrine. Now Conftantine the Great in 
 hisepiftle 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 afierts the eternal co-exiftence of the 
 Son and Father. The other teftimony, on which 
 I mould 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 
 
 /aa:X>iGy $t TTf onxSfv aylof, KM vravlols If TM 
 ETT* T*r; raiv otTT ccJix r 7itHQw.[Ji.i':m &<x>co7/j.Yi7iv. 
 
 Of
 
 T O D R. PRIESTLEY. 257 
 
 of his faction. 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 j " that the Son previoufly exift- 
 
 " ing was afterwards begotten *." And it is re- 
 
 markable, that this ftands laft in a lift of articles of 
 
 difbelief. In the preceding articles their dilbelief 
 
 is juftified, by a reference of the rejected propo- 
 
 fitions 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 doctrine, to wlich he could not give aflent. 
 
 You will find both thefe epiftles, in Epiphanius's 
 
 account of the Arians. 
 
 * 
 
 rov 
 
 f ETTEiVj a <run<puvxnsv at!)*) 
 o wo; a,yemlu$ TU $u.
 
 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 I5 ' FROM thefe teftimonies if is iodifputable, that 
 the early Platonifts ; by the generation of the Son, 
 when they fpeak of it as taking place at a particular 
 time, underftand not any beginning of hisexiftence; 
 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: coaeval indeed with the eternal 
 Father's. Later writers diftinguifti three generations : 
 the incarnation ; the going forth to the bufmefs of cre- 
 ation ; and an eternal generation ; which laft is only a 
 name for the unknown manner in which the Son's 
 exiftence is connected with the Father's. Tertullian, 
 in the paffage 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 mould be underftood to aflert a be- 
 ginning of the Son's exiftence, when he faid, " that 
 " the nativity of the word was perfected when God 
 " faid, Let there be Light" 
 
 16. You now, Sir, produce another paflage of 
 Tertullian to prove <c how ready the Platonizing 
 " Chriftians were to revert to the idea of an attribute 
 " of God in their ufe of the word Logos ." But 
 the paffage, inftead of proving this readinefs of the 
 platonizing Chrifrians, proves the readinefs of the pa- 
 gan philofophers to apply this fame name to a perfon j 
 even to the Maker of the Univerfe. 
 
 * Vol. I. p. 38 40. f Letters to Dr. H. p. 67- 
 
 J Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. j6^ 
 
 17. You
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 23, 
 
 17. You call upon me to confuler alfo a paflage 
 cited in your Hiftory from Lactantius, 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- 
 ceffions which they will be willing to make to you. 
 The orthodoxy of Lactantius I (hall queftion, I (hall 
 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 doctrine of the church. 
 But his talent was eloquence, which he poflefled in 
 a high degree, and his learning was in mythological 
 antiquity. In Philofophy his information 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 mould 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. 
 
 1 6. I perfuade myfelf I have now (hewn, that your 
 objection to the catholic doctrine, founded on its 
 fuppofed Platonifm, and your argument for what I 
 
 * Letters to Dr. H. p. 76. 
 
 (hall
 
 34 o LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 L xmf R flla11 cal1 the Arianimi f the Platonizers from Athe- 
 nagoras, are well entitled to the places which they 
 hold among my fpecimens of inefficient proof; of 
 which the one is the fixth, and the other the eighth 
 in order. 
 
 1 am, &c. 
 
 LETTER FOURTEENTH. 
 
 In reply to Dr. Prieftley's Eighth. The Archdeacon's 
 fuppofition^ that the firjl Ebionites worfoipped Chriff^ 
 defended His fuppofition, that Theodotus was the 
 firjl person who taught the Unitarian doSlnne at 
 Rome^ defended. 
 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 LETTER /^\F a N m y nine fpecimens of infufficient proofs 
 ^-^ fele&ed 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 was your mifreprefentation 
 
 of Eufebius, a writer of acknowledged veracity and 
 
 candour, whom you very rafhly charge with incon- 
 
 fiftency, and even with unfairnefs ; becaufe in his 
 
 * account
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 34* 
 
 account of Theodotus the hserefiarch, who appeared LEETTR. 
 at Rome about the year 190, he cites another writer, 
 who fays, that this Theodotus was the firft who 
 taught the meer humanity of Chrift ; whereas it ap- 
 pears from his own hiftory, that the Ebionites, who 
 held the meer humanity of Chrift, were far more an- 
 tient than Theodotus. Admitting the antiquity of 
 the Ebionites, I maintain, that Eufebius is fo eafity 
 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 Chrift in the grof- 
 feft fenfe : in that grofs and mocking 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 
 refurre&ion, which rendered him the objel of wor- 
 fhip. If this was the cafe, Theodotus might juftly 
 claim the honour of being the firft aflertor of our 
 Lord's humanity, being indeed the firft 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 meer humanity of Chrift *. 
 
 3. BUT this is not the aflertion 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,
 
 342 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 firft, who, in any fenfe, 
 taught the meer humanity of Chrift *. 
 
 4. You tell me, in your eighth letter, that the 
 difference which I put between Theodotus and Ebion 
 is advanced upon my own athority 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 witii 
 approbation, fhould need no great authority to fup- 
 port it ; unlefs it be contrary to known fat, in which 
 cafe indeed no authority might fupport it, or in it felt" 
 improbable. Now, Sir, can you prove, that Chrifl 
 was not worlhipped by the original Ebionites ? Can 
 you prove this, I would afk, by explicit evidence ? 
 For as for that kind of proof, in which you fo much 
 delight, which is drawn by abftracl reafoning from 
 general and precarious maxims ; it is of no more 
 fignificance in hiftory, than teftimony would be in 
 mathematics. To think to demonflrate a fact by 
 fyllogifin is not lefs abfurd, than to go about to ef- 
 tablifh a geometrical theorem by an affidavit. Ex^ 
 cufe me, if I infift upon the difference, in the nature 
 of things, between hiftoric certainty and fcientific 
 truth. I apprehend an inattention to this diftinclion 
 hath mifledde many, and hath been the caufe of much 
 fruitlefs labour in many fubjecls. Scientific truth 
 
 * See Charge, p. 39. 
 
 f Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 103. 
 
 can
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. H4J 
 
 can only be eftablifhed by abftra<a reafoning. Tefti- LETTE1 
 mony can jn fcience produce nothing more than pro- 
 bality. In hiftory it is quite the reverfe : abftraft rea- 
 foning can never go beyond a probability: proof 
 muft arife from evidence. And the reafon of this is 
 plain. The principles of fcientific truth are all with- 
 in the mind itfelfj the truths of hiftory are the 
 occurrences of the external world. Neglecting this 
 neceffary diftindh'on, the great Berkley queftioned 
 the exigence 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 fubjedt; 
 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 fact. Is it in itfelf improbable, 
 fince all innovations have a progrefs, and the divinity 
 of Chrift was the belief, and the wormip of Chrift 
 the practice of the firft ages, that prefumptuous men 
 would begin to queftion the ground, on which his 
 right to wormip might be thought to ftand, before 
 they abandoned the wormip 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 j Soci- 
 nus, although he denied the original divinity of our 
 Lord, was neverthelefs a wormipper of Chrift, and 
 a ftrenuous afiertor of his right to wormip. It was 
 left to others to build upon the foundation which 
 Socinus laid ; and to bring the Unitarian do&rine 
 R 2 to
 
 *44 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER to the goodly form, in which the prefent age be- 
 holds it. 
 
 5. BUT, Sir, my fuppofition is not only free from 
 improbability ; it is highly probable. Ebion in his 
 notions of the redeemer, as I have already had occa- 
 lion to obferve, feems to have been a meer Cerinthian. 
 Epiphanius and Irenaeus fay, that he held the Cerin- 
 thian doctrine of a union of Jefus with a fuperange- 
 lic being. The Cerinthian doctrine was, that this 
 union commenced at our Lord's baptifm ; was inter- 
 rupted during the crucifixion and at the time of our 
 Lord's interment, but reftored again after his refur- 
 redtion : and being reftored it rendered the man 
 Jefus an object of divine honours. As Epiphanius 
 fays in general of Ebion, that he held the Cerinthian 
 doctrine concerning Chrift, without fpecifying parts 
 that he received, and parts that he rejected; the 
 probability is, that he received the whole j and of 
 confequence that he worfhipped Chrift 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 diftinct from 
 that whieh accrues to it from its ufe in reconciling 
 Eufebius with the hinorian that he quotes, and is 
 founded on the acknowledged agreement of Ebion 
 with Cerinthus. 
 
 6. FOR my other fuppofition, that Theodorus 
 might be the firft perfon who taught the Unitarian 
 doctrine at Rome, you mink it highly improbable ; 
 " becaufe Tertullian fays, that in his time the Uni- 
 
 u tarians
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. ,45 
 
 ** tarians were the greater part of believers *." At LETTER 
 Rome therefore, " where there was a conflux of all 
 " religions, and of all fe&s," the probability is 
 little that there fhould be no Unitarians. Sir, I will 
 grant I am liberal, I am fure, in my conceffions 
 I will grant, that Rome fwarmed with Unitarians 
 in the time of Tertullian. Not for the reafon which 
 you aflign ; that Tertullian fays, the Unitarians were 
 the majority of believers. For this Tertullian hath 
 not faid ; with whatever confidence you may afcribe 
 to him the dreams of Zwicker and his credulous dif- 
 ciples. I muft 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 detection, in the attempt to brow-beat the world 
 with a peremptory and reiterated allegation of tefti- 
 monies that exift not. But, Sir, although I deny 
 that Tertullian 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 Tertul- 
 lian. I profefs I know not how numerous, or how 
 few, they were. But to (hew the ftrength of my 
 caufe, fmce you are pleafed to have it fo, let them be 
 numerous. How will their numbers affecl: my fup- 
 pofition, that Theodotus was the firft perfon who at 
 Rome taught the Unitarian doctrine r Might not this 
 be, although the Unitarians fwarmed at Rome in the 
 time of Tertullian ? Believe me, Sir, it well might 
 be; for the times of Tertullian were the very 
 times of Theodotus. About the year of our Lord 
 
 * Letters to Dr. H. p. 103. See alfo p. |2i---and Se. 
 cond Letters, p. 71. 
 
 R 3 l8 S
 
 s 4 <5 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER 185 Tertullian embraced Chriftianity. About the 
 year of our Lord 190 came Theodotus the apoftate, 
 the tanner of Byzantium, preaching at Rome the 
 doctrine of Antichrift. 
 
 7. MY learned ally has a third conjecture 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- 
 jecture which may be made upon the fubject, mould 
 be brought to a certainty. You tax Eufebius with 
 want of candor and confiftency. The charge refts 
 upon an affumption, that what Eufebius relates of 
 the antiquity of the Ebionites, and what his author 
 affirms of the firft afiertion of our Lord's meer huma- 
 nity by Theodotus, cannot be interpreted but in con- 
 tradictory fenfes. If we have (hewn, by a variety 
 of probable conjectures, that the two aflertions ad- 
 mit confident interpretations, that each may be true 
 in the fenfe in which each writer underftood himfelf, 
 without contradiction 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 refpectable hif- 
 torian. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 
 
 LETTER FIFTEENTH. 
 
 In reply to Dr. Priejlley's Seventh. The metaphytjkal 
 
 difficulties ftated by Dr. Prieftly neither new nor un- 
 anfuuerable. Difficulties Jhort of a contradiftion no 
 objeflion to a revealed dottrine. Difficulties in the 
 Arian and Socinian dottrine. The Father not thefole 
 objett ofworjhip. Our Lord> in whatfenfe an image 
 of the inviftble God and the firft-born of every crea- 
 ture. Not the defign of the Evangelifts to deliver a 
 
 fyftem of fundamental principles. The dottrine 
 
 of the Trinity rejls on the general tenor of the fa~ 
 cred writings. The inference^ that Chrift is not God^ 
 becaufe the Apojlles often fpeak of him as man^ invalid. 
 The inference from the manner in which he feme- 
 times fpeaks of himfelf) invalid. The dthanafians 
 of the lajl 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 fubjecT: 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 objections which it contains, 
 would lead me into metaphyfical difquifitions ; which 
 I wifh to decline, becaufe in that fubjedt I forefee 
 that we fhould want common principles and a com- 
 mon language. The queftions which you propofe 
 R 4 in
 
 34* LETTERS IN REPLY. 
 
 LETTER j n t ne fecond and the fourth fections of this letter, 
 are not ne\v, and have been anfwered. But if they 
 were unanfwerable, what would be the inference? 
 The inference would only be, that the doctrine of the 
 Trinity hath its difficulties. And is it poflibje, that 
 any doctrine concerning the nature of the Deity 
 fhould be without its difficulties ? When the infi- 
 nite diftance is confidered between Man and his 
 Maker ; it feems reafonable to prefume, that there 
 muft be myfteries, far above the reach of the human 
 underftanding both in the nature of God ; and in 
 the plan of his government : that the fulleft difcovery 
 that could be made, of God and of his ways, to the 
 human intellect, muft be imperfect ; becaufe, how- 
 ever perfect in itfelf, it could be but imperfectly ap- 
 prehended. No difficulties therefore, mort of a 
 contradiction, can be allowed to conftitute an objec- 
 tion to a doctrine claiming a divine original. On 
 the contrary, it mould rather feem, that to involve 
 difficulties muft be one characteriftic of a divine re- 
 velation ; and its greateft difficulties may reafon- 
 ably be expected to lie in thofe parts, which im- 
 mediately refpect the nature of God and the 
 manner of his exiftence. If you would fuppofe 
 the contrary, if you would infift that a divine re- 
 velation, being intended for the general information 
 of mankind, muft be perfpicuous and free from dif- 
 ficulty ; I would afk, is Chriftianity clear of difficul- 
 ties in any of the Unitarian fchemes ; Hath 
 the Arian hypothefis no difficulty, when it afcribes 
 both the firft formation and the perpetual government 
 of the univerfe, not to the Deity but to an inferior 
 being ? Can any power or wifdom, lefs than the fu- 
 preme, be a fufficient ground for the truft 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 ; ftill 
 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 imperfection in the 
 original contrivance, or in the prefent management? 
 Since every intellect, below the firft, may be liable to 
 error, and any power, fhort of the fupreme, may be 
 inadequate to purpofes of a certain magnitude. But 
 if evil may have thus crept in, what affurance, 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 mould 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 Evangelift fays, that all things were made 
 by it, and that it was itfelf made flefh. If this Word 
 be the divine attribute Wifdom ; then that attribute, 
 in the degree which was equal to the formation of 
 the univerfe, in this view of the fcripture-do&rine, 
 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. If* 
 
 * In reply to this, Dr. Prieftley fays to me in the thirteenth 
 pf his Second Letters, fel. 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. John maintains it, if St. John was, what Dr. Prieft- 
 ley believes him to have been, a Socinian. It is maintained in 
 
 the
 
 25 p LETTERS INREPLY 
 
 LETTER 2. IN the third fection of your Seventh letter, you 
 build an argument for the foJe deity of the Father, 
 upon ap aflumption that he is the fole object of wor- 
 fhip. To this argument I have replied *. I deny 
 the aflumption. I cite the example of St. Stephen, 
 whofe laft a& of worfhip was addrefled to Chrift. 
 You allege, on the other fide, the example of our 
 Saviour, who himfelf prayed to the Father j the au- 
 thority of Origen ; and I know not what early and 
 univerfal practice. I reply, that our Saviour, as a 
 man, owed worfhip to the Father. I maintain, that 
 neither the authority of Origen, nor any univerfal 
 practice 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 Evangelift's words 
 be expounded in the true fenfe by the Unitarians. The 
 ' Word, which was with God from the beginning, according 
 to St. John, was made flefti. If tke Word, which was made 
 flefh, was not the fame Word which was in the beginning 
 with God, by which all things were made, there is no mean- 
 ing in the Evangelift's words, literal or figurative. The 
 Word's being made flefh, 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- 
 Jey fays, this is more than the Unitarians believe. " What 
 
 " we believe is that a portion only of the fame wifdom, 
 
 {t 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 paflTage acknow- 
 ledges, they believe much lefs than St. John' aflerts in the 
 moft reduced fenfe of his expreffions. 
 * Letter XI. 
 
 nvorfhip
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y, 251 
 
 worfhip addrefled to Chrift by St. Stephen, and the LETTER 
 Apoftles, either proves the divinity of Chrift, or it 
 juftifies the worfhip of the faints and martyrs in the 
 Roman church ; and they who live in countries, 
 where the papal fuperftition is eftablimed, 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 aflertion that may 
 be found in Scripture, of our Lord's divinity ; but 
 as an explicit aflertion, that he 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 paflage, or were no- 
 where defcribed by higher titles than thofe which the 
 Apoflle ufes here, "the image of the invifible God 
 " and the firft-born of every creature," divinity might 
 feem more than is implied in them. But when we 
 recollect the ftronger exprefiions, which occur in 
 other places ; in particular St. Paul's aflertion, that 
 he was originally in the form of God, of which lie 
 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 j it muft be very 
 evident, that it could not be the intention of St. 
 Paul, in this paflage, to fmk the Son of God into 
 the rank of a creature, or to feparate him from the 
 
 * Charge, p. 13. 
 
 divine
 
 s 5 s LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER divine nature. The force of St. Paul's defcription 
 in both its branches, lies rather in the adje&ives, 
 
 nv 
 
 ifible and Jirft-born^ than in the fubftantives, image 
 and creature. The firft 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 diftinclions : that it 
 is in the perfon only of the Son that the glory of the 
 Godhead can be rendered vifible. For God 9 in the 
 perfon of the Father, no man bath feen at any time *. 
 The Son is therefore an image of the invifible deity ; 
 not as a likenefs formed in a diftincl: fubftance, 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 diftin&ion between birth and creation, which im- 
 plies that the Son's exiftence 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 know, that the words in the original 
 text, nsuloloxog 7raa~ng 7j<7Ea;, are equivalent to thefe ; 
 o TE^SEJJ TTpo vratrr.s Klitrsca^ he who was born or be- 
 gotten before any creation^ or before any thing was made. 
 " It is obfervable, (fays Dr. Clarke) that St. Paul 
 " does not here call our Saviour vrfuloxrirov vrami 
 the firfl created of all creatures^ but 
 7ra<rri$ xliaug y the fir/}- born of every crea* 
 * turey the firft begotten before all creatures." 
 
 * See John i. 18. and vi. 46. 
 
 f > - image of the in<vijible God. tl A lively defcription 
 " of the perfon of Chrift ; whereby \ve underftand, that in 
 " him only God flieweth himfelf tq be feen." Marginal 
 ;icte in Barker's quarto Bible, 1599. 
 
 4- I
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 255 
 
 4. I ALLOW, that " there is nothing that can be LETTER 
 " called an account of the divine nature of Chrifl 
 " in the gofpels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, or St. 
 " Luke *." But every one of the gofpels abounds 
 with paflages, in which it is fo evidently implied, 
 that no room is left to doubt, that the four Evan- 
 gelifts had but one opinion upon the fubjecT:. I 
 cannot admit your pofition, that, " each of the gof- 
 " pels was intended to be a fufficient inftrucHon in 
 " the fundamental principles of the doclrine of 
 " Christianity |." Nothing feems to have been lefs 
 the intention of any of the Evangelifts, than to 
 compofe a fyftem of fundamental principles. In- 
 ftru&ion in fundamentals in that age was orally 
 delivered. The general defign of the Evangelifts 
 feems to have been nothing more, than to deliver 
 in writing a fimple, unembellimed narrative of our 
 Lord's principal miracles ; to record the occurren- 
 ces and adtions of his life, which went immediately 
 to the completion of the antient prophecies, or to 
 the execution of the fcheme of Man's redemption ; 
 and to regifter the mofl interefting maxims of Re- 
 ligion and Morality, which were contained in his 
 difcourfes. The principles of the Chriftian religion 
 are to be collected neither from a fingle gofpel j 
 nor from all the four gofpels ; nor from the four 
 gofpels with the acts and the epiftles j but from the 
 whole code of revelation, confifting of the canoni- 
 cal books of the Old and New Teftament : and for 
 any article of faith the authority of a fingle writer, 
 
 * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 91. f Ibid. 
 
 where
 
 LETTERS IN REPLY* 
 
 where it is exprefs and unequivocal, is fufficient. 
 Had St. Paul related what he faw in the third heaven, 
 I hope, Sir, you would have given hi'n implicit cre- 
 dit, although the truth of the narrative muft have 
 refted on his fingle testimony. 
 
 5. I CANNOT however grant, that the general te- 
 nor of fcripture fuppofes not fuch a trinity, as I con- 
 tend for*. I contend, that your do&rine is what 
 ftands upon particular texts ; while the catholic faith 
 is fupported by the general tenor of the facred 
 writings, and by the confent of thofe writings, in 
 many parts, with an univerfal tradition of unexplo- 
 red antiquity. 
 
 6. You afk me, " why the doctrine of the Trinity, 
 " if it be a truth, was not taught as explicitly in the 
 " New Teilament, as the doctrine of the divine unity 
 " both in Old and New-)-?" And you fay, that 
 " many pafiages in fcripture inculcate the doctrine 
 of the divine unity in die cleared and ftrongeft 
 " manner J." Be pleafed, Sir, to produce one of 
 the many. I know of no doftrine of the divine 
 unity, taught either in the Old Teftament or in the 
 New, but the doSrine that Jehovah, the God of 
 Abraham, Ilaac, and Jacob, the Creator of Heaven 
 and Earth, is the one true God, in oppofition to the 
 variety of imaginary gods worfhipped by the hea- 
 then . Concerning the metaphyfical unity of the 
 
 * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 87. f Ibid. p. 92. 
 
 t Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 93, 
 
 To (j.zv ya.% SEOV bfMtoyz'.v ivz^ 7?%os avTtdiaroKw n; 
 EXXwav TroXySsoj; jrXawj;, 5Tf uloi Kafi?.r,<pa<riv Ixfaw Trxibt;. 
 Eufeb. Ecc. Thcol. lib. i. c. 2. 
 
 divine
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 255 
 
 divine nature the fcriptures are iilent ; except that by LETTER 
 difcovering a Trinity of perfons, they teach clearly 
 what the Unity is not : namely, that it is not perfo- 
 nal. If you imagine that the abfolute Unity of the 
 divine fubftance is more eafy to be explained than the 
 Trinity, let me entreat you, Sir, to read the Par- 
 menides. It is indeed in Plato's fchool, if any where, 
 that a man's eyes are likely to be opened to his own 
 ignorance. Read the Parmenides You will then 
 perhaps perceive, that that Unity, which muft be the 
 foundation of all being, is itfelf of all tilings the 
 moft myfterious and incomprehenfible. I muft know 
 more of it than I do, before I can pretend to per- 
 ceive, what is fo clear to you, that you think that I 
 cannot deny it, " that the doctrine of the Trinity 
 <c looks like an infringement of the Unity *." 
 
 7. THE argument contained in the feventh fe&ion 
 of your feventh letter fplits, I think, into three, reft- 
 ing on the three different afiumptions. The Apof- 
 tles both in the book of A6ls, and in their epiftles 
 ufually call Chrift a Man ; therefore they knew not 
 that he was God; for the difcovery would have 
 changed their language f. 
 
 8. THEY fpeak of him as a man in reafoning and 
 argumentation. Therefore he was a man J 
 
 9. THEY behaved to him as a man in their ordi- 
 nary intercourfe with him; therefore they had no 
 apprehenfion that he was God . 
 
 * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 92. -f- Ibid. p. 93. 
 
 J Letters to Dr. H. p. 94. ^ Ibid. p. 93 & 94. 
 
 10. THEY
 
 25 6 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER jo. To the two firft arguments it is an anfwer j 
 that according to the faith which I defend, Chrift is 
 truly a man as well as God. It is no wonder there- 
 fore that he fhould be mentioned as a man, when no- 
 thing in the narrative, or in the argument, requires 
 that his divinity mould be particularly brought to 
 
 11. To the firft argument in particular it is a fur- 
 ther anfwer, that it was the ftile of all the facred 
 writers, and it is the ftile of all writers, to name 
 things rather after their appearances than their inter- 
 nal forms. The tempter you know, in the Mofaic 
 hiftory of the fall, is called the lerpent j and is not 
 once mentioned by any other name. The three 
 angels, who appeared to Abraham in the form of 
 men, are called men throughout the ftory. 
 
 12. To the fecond argument in particular it is a 
 further anfwer, that as the fcheme of man's redemp- 
 tion required the incarnation of the Son of God ; 
 the Apoftles would often find it neceflary, in reafon- 
 ing upon that fcheme, and ia argumentation in de- 
 fence of it, to infift on his humanity. 
 
 13. THE third branch of the argument cannot be 
 allowed to have any force at all, even though the af- 
 fumption upon which it refts mould be admitted, 
 if we have the authority of the Apoftles, in their 
 writings, for ihe deity of Chrift. The moft that 
 could be inferred, were the aflumption true, would 
 be fomething ftrange in their conduct ; and even this 
 
 might
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 257 
 
 might be a hafty inference. The fmgularity of their 
 conduit might difappear, if the accounts which they 
 have left of our Lord's life on earth, and of their at- 
 tendance upon him, were more circumiiantial. But 
 the truth is, that the foundations of this argument 
 are unfound. It may be gathered from the evan- 
 gelical hiftory, imperfect as it is, ' that the behaviour 
 of the Apoftles to our Lord during his life, poffefled 
 as they were with an imperfect wavering belief irt him 
 as the MefTiah, and with indiftincl: 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 
 ftorm. If the angels Michael or Gabriel mould 
 come and live among us in the manner which you 
 fuppofe *, I think we mould foon lofe our habitual 
 recolle6lion of their angelic nature. It would be 
 only occasionally awaked by extraordinary incidents. 
 This at leaft would be the cafe, if they mixed with us 
 upon an even footing, without afluming any badges 
 of diftinclion, 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 refreshments. The wonder would be 
 if angels, in this difguife, met with any other refpec"!, 
 than that which dignity of character commands, with 
 fomething of occafional homage, when their mira- 
 culous help was needed. This was the refpect which 
 
 * Letters to Dr. H. p. 94. 
 
 our 
 S
 
 a 5 g LRETTERSIN REPLY 
 
 LETTER our L or d me t with from his followers. You fay, 
 " he could not dived himfelf of his fuperior and 
 " proper nature* :" but St. Paul fays quite the con- 
 trary ; that he emptied himfelf, and affumed 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 fe&ion 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- 
 " therms f," 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 Fathef 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 
 have 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 paflages, 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 J the word which you 
 
 * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 24. f Ibid. p. 95. 
 
 J St. John, v. 19. 
 
 hear
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 259 
 
 " hear is not mine but the father's which fent me* LETTER 
 
 " 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 affert the mofr 
 perfect identity of nature, the moft entire unity 
 of will, and confent of intellect, and an incefiant 
 co-operation in the exertion of common powers to 
 a common purpofe. You are, Sir, very pofitive 
 in the aflertion, that Dr. Waterland in particular, 
 and all the ftricl Athanafians of the laft age, main- 
 tained, " that the Trinity confifts of three perfons, 
 " all truly independent of each other J." Upon this 
 opinion, which you afcribe to the ftrit Athanafians, 
 you remark in your hiftory , that to make three 
 proper diftincl: perfons, independent of each other, is 
 to make three diftinct Gods. I concur with you 
 in this remark, in which you have been anticipated 
 by the Roman Dionyfius; whofe judgment you 
 know, upon certain' perfons of his own time, who, 
 in their zeal againft Sabellius, ran into this error, 
 " is quoted with approbation by Atbanafius him- 
 " felf||." But, Sir, I deny of Dr. Waterland in 
 particular, and of the drift Athanafians of the laft 
 age in general, that they fall juflly under this cen- 
 fure. 
 
 * St. John, xiv. 24. -f Ibid. xiv. 10. 
 
 J Letters to Dr. H. p. 80. 
 Vol. I. p. 147. 
 
 H See Dr. Prieftley's Hift. vol. I. p. 65, and the firft of 
 thefe Letjers. 
 
 S 2 15. Bimop
 
 a6o LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER j^ BISHOP Bull, in his defence of the Nicene 
 faith, fpends a whole chapter, and a very long chap- 
 ter it is, upon the fubject of the Son's fubordination; 
 which he maintains to be as much a branch of the true 
 faith, as the dodtrine of the Son's eternity or con- 
 fubftantiality. 
 
 1 6 THE fame thing is aflerted by Bifhop 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 firft in refpect of the fecond perfon*." 
 
 " We muft not therefore fo far endeavour to 
 
 " involve ourfelves in the darknefs of this myftery, 
 <c 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 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 bifhop founds 
 the congruity of the divine miflion % ; and he main- 
 " tains, that " the dignity of the Father appears 
 
 * Pearfon on the creed, p. 34. f Ibid. 
 $ Ibid. p. 37. 
 
 from
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY 261 
 
 " from the order of perfons in the blefled Trinity, LETTER 
 " of which he is undoubtedly the firft. Although in 
 " fome paflages of the apoftolical difcourfes, the Son 
 
 " may be firft 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 rule of faith, there that order is obferved which 
 
 " is proper to them this order hath been perpe- 
 
 " tuated in all confeffions of faith, and is for ever 
 " to be inviolably obferved*." And this order be- 
 ing fo generally acknowledged by the fathers, the 
 bifhop 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 perfection 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 eflablimed all that fub- 
 " ordination which we aflert among the Perfons of 
 " the Trinity." He adds, that " unlefs fome fub- 
 " ordination be maintained, we run into Tritheifm." 
 For he agrees wkh you and me, that " three co- 
 " ordinate Perfons would be manifeftly three Gods." 
 
 18. THE fame fentiment* are acknowledged by 
 Dr. Waterland, in his commentary on the Athana- 
 
 * Pearfon on the creed, p. 37. -f Ibid. 
 
 S 3 fian
 
 36z LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER cc f ian crc ed. "When it is faid, none is afore or after 
 cc othcr^ we are not to underfland it of 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 fupreme in office, while 
 " the Son and Holy Ghoft condefcend to inferior 
 " offices. But we are to underftand it, as the creed 
 w itfelf explains it, of duration and dignity*." 
 
 19. FROM thefe pafTages it appears, that you mif- 
 reprefent the ftricl: 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 
 infinuate, 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 j One by mutual relation, indiflbluble con- 
 nection, and gradual fubordination : fo ftri6tly 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 porTefles 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. PRIESTLEY. 363 
 
 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 refpect 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 Jewifh cabala* ( of 
 which I fufpect 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 
 Scotus f. Perhaps, Sir, though a proteftant divine, 
 I may fometimes condefcend to look into the Summa^ 
 and may be lefs mortified, than you conceive, with 
 this comparifon. It was well meant however, and is 
 one of thofe general depreciatory infmuations, 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. So. f Ibid. p. 99. 
 
 % no Proteftant, I imagine, will ever think it worth 
 his while to read x many feftions in that work the Summa. 
 Hiftory of Corruptions, vol. I. p. 119. 
 
 S 4 LETTER
 
 254 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER SIXTEENTH. 
 
 The Unitarian deSirine not ^vell calculated for the con- 
 verfion of Jews, Mahometans^ or Infidels, of any 
 description. 
 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 I TETTER. 
 
 xvi. "V^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 objections to the doctrine of the Trinity, that 
 it is, as you conceive, an obftruction to their con - 
 ' verfion ; which you think might be fpeedily effec- 
 ted, by reducing Chriftianity to the Unitarian creed. 
 My notion is, - that it is cur duty to adhere to the 
 letter of the gofpel ; and to Jeave it to God to open 
 the eyes of Jews, Mahometans, and Infidels, in 
 his own time and in his own way. Your device of 
 bringing them to believe Chriftianity, by giving the 
 name of Chriftianity to what they already believe, 
 in principle exactly refembles the ftratagem of a cer- 
 tain miffionary of the Jefuits, of whom I have fome- 
 where redde j who, in his zeal for the converfion of 
 an Indian chief, on whom the fublimity of the doctrine 
 of The gofpel and the purity of its moral precepts made 
 little impreffion, told him that Chrift had been a valiant 
 and fuccefsful warrior, who in the fpace of three years 
 fcalped men, women, and children without number. 
 The favage was weil-difpofed to become a difciple of 
 luch a mafter 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 
 ther your ftratagem promife equal fuccefs. For 
 
 the Jews; whenever they begin to open their eyes 
 to the evidences of our Saviour's miffion, they will 
 1 ftill be apt to conflder the New Tcftament in con- 
 nection 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 difcovery. 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 muft 
 harmonize, as parts of one fyftem. They will retain 
 fome veneration for their traditional doctrines ; and 
 in their moft antient Targums, as well as in allufions 
 in their facred books, they will find the notion of one 
 Godhead in a Trinity of perfons j 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 
 is the laft therefore to which the Jews are likely to 
 be converted, as it is the moft at enmity with their 
 antient faith. 
 
 3. WITH the Mahometans indeed, your profpect? 
 may feem more promifing ; as the whole difference 
 between you and them feems very inconfiderable. 
 The true MufTulman believes as much, or rather more 
 of Chrift, than the Unitarian requires to be believed ; 
 and though the Unitarians have not yet recognifed 
 the divine miflion of Mahomet, there is good ground 
 
 to
 
 L-ETTERS IN REPLY 
 ETTTR to think, they will not long fland out*. In Unitarian 
 
 V VI 
 
 writings of the laft 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 difpofitions towards 
 each other, it mould feem that the Mahometan and 
 the Unitarian might eafily be brought to agree. 
 But the experiment hath been very ferioufly tried, 
 without any event anfwerable to the expectation. You 
 may not know it, Sir, but fo it was, that in the 
 reign of Charles the fecond, a negociation was re- 
 gularly opened, on the part of our Englifh Unita- 
 rians, with his excellency Ameth Ben Ameth, am- 
 balTador of ihe emperor of Morocco at the Britifh 
 court, in order to form an alliance with the Maho- 
 metan prince for the more effectual propagation of the 
 
 * Dr. Prieftley, in his Second Letters, p. 163, wittily 
 remarks, " that I might almoft as well aflert that all the 
 ** Unitarians in England are already fo far Mahometans, 
 " that, to my certain knowledge, they are actually circum- 
 P cifed." Upon this occafion I cannot but remind him of 
 what hiftjry records of an elder brother of our modern Uni- 
 tarians. In the latter end of the fixteenth century, Adam 
 Neufer, paftor of the church of Heidelberg, the firlr, or 
 among the firft propagators of the Socinian herefy in the 
 Palatinate, began in Socinianifm, and fini/hed his career with 
 turning Mahometan, and fubmitting to circumcifion at Con- 
 fbntinDple. 
 
 Unitarian
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 
 
 Unitarian principles. The two Unitarian divines, 
 who undertook this fmgular treaty, addrefs the nm- 
 bailador and the Muffulmen of his fuite, as "vo- 
 " taries and fellow-worfhippers of the fole fupreme 
 11 deity." They return thanks to God, that he 
 hath preferred the emperor of Morocco, and his 
 fubjecls, in the excellent knowledge of one only fo- 
 verein God, who hath no diftin&ion 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 ftile them- 
 felves the fellow- champions with the Mahometans 
 for thefe truths. They offer their affiftance, to purge 
 the Alcoran of certain corruptions and interpolationsj 
 which, after the death of Mahomet, had crept 
 into bis 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 writings 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 correftions, 
 which they would propofe, would render the Alcoran 
 more confiftent, not with itfelf only, but with the 
 gofpel of Chrift ; of which they fay Mahomet pre- 
 tended to be but a preacher. They tell the am- 
 bafTador, that the Unitarian Chriftians are a great 
 and considerable people. To give weight to the 
 aflertion, they enumerate the herefiarchs of all ages 
 
 whq
 
 26$ LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 w ^ ^ ave PP fe< * l ^ e 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 lift with the Mahometans themfelves. " All 
 " thefe, they fay, maintain the faith of one God. 
 " And why mould we forget to add you Mahome- 
 ct 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 ambafiador, 
 with fome latin manufcripts refpecling 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 confideration of the 
 fitteft perfons of his countrymen. This fingular 
 epiftle may be feen entire in Dr. Lefiie's Socinian con- 
 ti-overfy difcujjed. An hundred years are almoft elapfed, 
 fince thefe overtures were made to the Moor ; and as 
 no effect hath yet followed, it mould feem, that the 
 converfionof 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 two descriptions. 
 
 * " Mr. Gibbon has abfolutely declined to dif- 
 
 cttfswithme, as I propofed to him, the hiftorical evidences 
 of Chriftianity." Preface to Reply to Monthly Review for 
 June, p. 8. 
 
 The
 
 T O D R. PRIESTLEY. *% 
 
 The fober Deifts -; who, rejecting revelation, acknow- LETTS*. 
 ledge however the obligations of morality; believe a 
 Providence ; and expect a future retribution : and the 
 Atheifts ; wiio have neither hope nor fear beyond the 
 prefcnt life ; deny the Providence of God ; and doubt 
 at leaft of his exiftence. 
 
 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 die moral 
 attributes of God. Upon our notions of his attributes 
 we build an expectation of a future exiftence ; and we 
 look for a lot of happinefs or mifery, in our future 
 life, according to our deferts in this. The whole dif- 
 ference between you and us is this ; that we believe 
 the fame things upon different evidence : you, upon 
 the teftimony of a man ; 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 
 actually revealed. Revelation is difcovery. The 
 doctrines of a God, a Providence, and a future ftate 
 were known to the Jews before Chrift ; 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 muft 
 otherwife have been enjoyed but by a few; to convey 
 information by teftimony to thofe who are incapaHe 
 
 of
 
 a7 o LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER of informing themfelves by abftracl: reafoning ; that 
 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 
 reply, that whatever weight this argument might 
 carry, if it were urged by thofe who take the fcrip- 
 tures in their literal meaning, and conceive that the 
 revelation is conveyed in a plain undifguifed language ; 
 it is a feeble weapon in the hand of an Unitarian. 
 " If your method of interpretation be the true one, 
 the firft preachers of Chriftianity, they will fay, dif- 
 fered not from other moralifts, 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 appreheniion, as the abftrufe rea- 
 fonings of philofophers. The fuccefs of their doctrine 
 hath been fuch 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 followers for almofl two thoufand 
 years. They profefled to teach the pure worfhip of 
 the true God. The language, in which they con- 
 veyed their doctrine, hath been the means of intro- 
 ducing the grofleft idolatry. We will not truft our- 
 felves to fuch dangerous guides, who, as you expound 
 their writings, never fpake upon the moft interesting 
 fubje&s without figure and equivocation." 
 
 6. FOR the Atheiftic infidels, who are in the firft 
 place to be convinced of the exigence of a deity; your 
 do&rine, that there is no mind in man, but what re- 
 
 fults
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E V. 2 7 t 
 
 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 intellect than 
 mine, the caufe of all things. But if intellect 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 ftarted fpontaneoufly from a 
 corporeal chaos ; and, inftead of being the firft caufe and 
 the governing principle, is the youngeft of all nature's 
 productions." Your principle that death is an utter 
 extinction of the man, your Atheiftical pupil will eafily 
 admit. But it is little likely to awaken him to the 
 hope of a future exiftence. The hope which you 
 hold out of a refurrection, 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 Atheift will fay, 
 may indeed have compofed a man before, and may 
 again. But Me they will never more compofe, when 
 once the prefent Me is diflipated. 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 ; ncc jam de illis nos afficit angor, 
 Quos de matcria noftra nova proferet astas. 
 
 Liter
 
 LETTER 
 XVI. 
 
 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 Inter enim jecta eft vital paufa, vageque 
 Deerarunt paflim motus ab fenfibus omnes." 
 
 7. IT mould feem, Sir, that your dodtrines are ill 
 calculated for the converfion of Jews or Infidels. Upon 
 the Mahometans their efficacy hath been tried without 
 fuccefs. The Unitarians therefore are not likely to 
 be the inflruments ofthefeconverfions. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 N. B. THE ftory of the negociation on the part 
 of the EnglHh Unitarians, in the reign of Charles the 
 Second, with the ambaffador 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 fact is yet extant in the Archiepifcopal Li- 
 brary at Lambeth. Among the Codices MSS. 
 Tenifoniani^ is a thin folio, marked with the num- 
 ber 673, and entered in the Catalogue, under the 
 article Socinian^ by the title of Syjhma Tbealoglts 
 Soclnianes. It contains four tracts. The firft is the 
 very letter to Ameth Ben Ameth, publifhed by Dr. 
 Leflie, written in a very fair hand. On the pre- 
 ceding
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 273 
 
 ceding; leaf are thefe remarks. c * Thefe are the ori- LETTER 
 
 XVI. 
 *' ginal papers, which a cabal of Socinians in Lon- 
 
 *' don offered to prefent to the Embaffadour of the 
 " King of Fez and Morocco, when he was taking 
 " leave of England. Auguft 1682. The faid 
 " Embaffadour refufed to receive them, after having 
 <c 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 ; which was 
 " graunted : and he brought them and gave them 
 " to me Thomas Tenifon, then Vicar of St. Mar- 
 " tins in the Fields, Middl." 
 
 THE fecond tract is in Latin, entituled, Epijlola , 
 Ameth Eenundula Mahometan's ad Aurlaaim Princi- 
 pem Comltum Maurii'ium, et ad Emmanuelem Portu- 
 gallies Principem. 
 
 The thtrd tract is again in Latin, entituled, Am- 
 madverfiones in prtecedentem Epiftolarn. Thefe two 
 trails are the Latin letter, and the remarks of the 
 Unitarian Divines upon it, which are mentioned in 
 the Englifh letter to Ameth Ben Ameth, and of 
 which Dr. Leflie, in his preface, fays he had feen a 
 printed copy. 
 
 THE fourth tract I take to be the preface to the 
 printed edition, or intended edition. This alfo is 
 in Latin, and is infcribed Theognh Irenaus Chrijliar.o 
 LeElori falutem. 
 
 T I DO
 
 274 LETTERS tN REPLY 
 
 LETTER I DO moft folemnly averr, that I have this day 
 (Jan. 15, 1789) compared the letter to Ameth Ben 
 Ameth, as publifhed by Dr. Leflie in his Socinian 
 Uontroverfy difcuffed^ with 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 affecl: the fenfe, and are fuch 
 as any reader will difcover and correct for himfelf, is 
 exactly 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 
 poflefiion of Dr. Tenifon, were this fame day copied 
 verbatim from the MS. by myfelf upon the fpot. 
 
 IF Dr. Prieftley mould miftruft my veracity in 
 thefe affertions (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. 275 
 
 LETTER SEVENTEENTH. 
 
 The Archdeacon takes leave of the controverfy* 
 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 IT might be but confident with the pride* which LETTER 
 XVII. 
 
 you impute to me as a churchman ; and with the 
 contemptuous airs, which I am apt to give myfelf with 
 refpect to diflenters *; 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 mould condefcend to give to any one for whom I 
 retained not, under all our differences, a very con- 
 fiderable degree of perfonal efteem. But as Dr. 
 
 * " If your pride as a churchman, and the contemptuous 
 ' airs you give yourlelf with refpeft to Diflenters, &c." 
 Letters to Dr. H. p. 112, 
 
 T 2 Prieftlay
 
 1 7 <5 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER Prieftley is my adverfary, in fome points I could wiih 
 to fet him right, and in fome I defire to explain. 
 
 2. IF I have any where exprefled myfelf contemp- 
 tuoufly, the contempt is not of you, but of your ar- 
 gument upon a particular fubjeft, 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 refpect, which I profefs, for your learning in 
 other fubje&s ; for your abilities in all fubjects in 
 which you are learned ; and a cordial efteem and af- 
 fection for the virtues of your chara&er, which I be- 
 lieve to be great and amiable. Your attack being 
 made upon thofe parts of the eftablifhed faith, which 
 I conceive to be fundamental principles of the Chrif- 
 tian religion, I hold it my duty to (hew the weaknefs 
 of your reafoning ; to expofe your infufficiency in 
 thefe fubjecls ; and to bear my teftimony aloud againft 
 your dodtrine. Between duty to God and to his 
 church, andrefpecl for man, it were criminal to he- 
 fitate. Upon any occafion, wherein complaifance 
 might be allowed to operate, you are the laft perfon, 
 whofe feelings I would have wounded. 
 
 3. You feem to think that I fecretly fufpecT: 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- 
 
 difin-
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E V. 277 
 
 difmgenuity *. I am fenfible, that, in thefe letters, 
 you will find more and ftronger inftances 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 inftances 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 undetected. I 
 am unwilling to draw any conclufion from this un- 
 feemly practice, againft the general probity of your 
 character. But you muft allow me to lament, that 
 men of integrity, in the fervice of what they think 
 a good end, fhould indulge themfelves fo freely as 
 they often do, in the ufe of unjuftifiable means. 
 Time was when the practice 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 recourfe to the willful 
 and deliberate allegation of a notorious falfehood. 
 
 * Remarks on the Monthly Rview, p. ia, note, 
 f Letters to Dr. H. p. no. 
 
 T 3 You
 
 2? S LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER You have gone no fuch length as this. I think you 
 may believe me fincere, when I fpeak refpeclfully of 
 your worth and integrity, notwithftanding that I 
 find occafion to charge you with fome degree of 
 blame, in a fort in which the great character of Ori- 
 gen was more deeply infecled. 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 Difienters in general. A fair and 
 confciencious diflent is not the object of contempt ; 
 neither is a petulant hoftility againft eftablifhments 
 refpelable. The praife which I give the Church of 
 England, that me is the firft in confideration of all 
 the Proteftant Churches, is no more than liberal 
 DiiTenters have themfelves allowed. I have heard, 
 from very good authority, of a converfation that 
 pafTed 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; to which however another cir- 
 
 cumftance
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 179 
 
 cumftance hath in fome degree contributed ; name- LETTER 
 ly, that me had the difcretion to obferve fome de- 
 cency and moderation, in the bufmefs of reforming. 
 I cannot admit, that meer diftance from the Church 
 of Rome is the true ftandard of purity ; and when 
 you recoil eel:, how flrongly that maxim favours of 
 Jack's fpleen againft Lord Peter j I am apt to think 
 you will regret, that fuch a fentiment mould ftain 
 your page *. 
 
 6. IT is ftill my opinion, that any young cler- 
 gyman who will diligently apply to the courfe of 
 fludies, which I took the liberty to recommend, 
 may do without Dr. Whitby's Difyuifitions, or Dr. 
 Clarke's Scripture Dottrine f. The laft treatife 
 contains indeed a very full collection of the texts re- 
 lating to the Trinity. The compilation from the 
 fathers is incompleat ; the learned author having 
 carefully fele&ed thofe paflages 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 me 
 to declare. I believe, Sir, that few have thought fo , 
 much upon thefe fubje&s, as you and I have done, 
 who have not at firft wavered. Perhaps nothing 
 but the uneafmefs of doubt, added to a juft fenfe of 
 the importance of the queftion, could engage any 
 
 * See Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 112. f Ibid. p. 3. 
 T 4 man
 
 2 8o LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER man i n the toil of the enquiry. For my own part 
 I fhall not hefitate to confefs, that I fet 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 ftill yours, that all appearance of 
 difficulty in the do&rine of the gofpel muft arife 
 from mifinterpretation ; and I was fond of the ex- 
 pedient of getting rid of myftery, .by fuppofmg a 
 figure in the language. The harmnefs 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 
 looking for nothing myfterious in the true fenfe of a 
 divine revelation. By this cure I was prepared to 
 become an eafy convert to the doctrine of atone- 
 ment and fatisfaclion ; which feemed to furnifh in- 
 centives to piety, that no other doctrine could fup- 
 ply. I foon perceived, how the value of the atone- 
 ment was heightened, and what a fublimity accrued 
 to the whole doctrine 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 teacher and to make the ex- 
 piation. Thus I was brought to a full perfuafion 
 of our Lord's pre-exiftent dignity. Having once 
 admitted his pre-exiftence in an exalted ftate, I faw 
 the neceflity of placing him at the head of the cre- 
 ation. " For a derived pre-cxiftent Being, fup- 
 " pofed to animate the body of Jefus, who is not 
 <c aifo the maker of the world, is, as you well ob- 
 
 " ferve
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 281 
 
 " ferve, a meer creature of the imagination ; whofc LEETTR. 
 " exiflence 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 literal confefledly. 
 Not in the figurative ; becaufe if the texts, which 
 fpeak of Chrift as the maker of the world, admit a 
 figurative conftruclion ; " much more thofe w.hich 
 " refer only to his pre-exiftence f." I thank you, 
 Sir, for expreffing 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 j 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 firft opened Dr. 
 Clarke's Scripture-Doctrine 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. 
 
 J- Hiftory of Corruption, vol. I. p. 146. 
 
 commend
 
 iSa LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER commend to others, you will fay, a book which 
 had fo principal a fhare in your own converfion? 
 I will tell you. It is one of thofe books, which may 
 either inftrucl: or miflead, according to the previous 
 attainments and habits of the ftudent. I was much 
 at home in the Greek language ; I had redde the 
 Ecclefiaftical Hiftorians, and I had been many years 
 in the habit of thinking for myfelf, upon a variety of 
 fubjedts, before I opened Dr. Clarke's book. There 
 is in mod 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 llavirti 
 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 always on the fide of new and fingular 
 opinions ; and that, by adopting them, they get 
 themfelves into better company, than they have na- 
 turally any right to keep : and thus they are fe- 
 cretly worfhippers of authority, in that very act in 
 which they pretend to fly in the face of it. They 
 worfhip 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 
 connection 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 
 ftmplicity they fuffer themfelves to be ledde by the 
 
 meesr
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 
 
 283 
 
 meer name of the writer of the day, a Bolingbroke, LETTER. 
 a Voltaire, a Gibbon, or a Prieftley ; as if they XVII< 
 thought to become wife and learned by taking a 
 fliare 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 eftabliflied 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 fubje&s in which he feels him- 
 felf unlearned. To thofe, therefore, who are qua- 
 lified to ufe Dr. Clarke's book as a digeft, which, 
 though incompleat, may affift 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 modeft fenfe of their own insufficiency 
 irt 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 ftudies. 
 
 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 lecommended the writings of 
 JJifhop Bull without exception, you " prefume, you 
 
 tell
 
 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 " tel1 me> that * a PP rove -" And to correa thefe 
 expreffions, which ftate as a prefumption only, or 
 an inference, what might be directly proved upon 
 me by my own words, you add in a parertthefis, 
 that I have mentioned this among the moft valuable 
 works of that learned prelate *. Of whatever im- 
 portance, Sir, I may conceive it to be, that the faith 
 which was firft delivered to the faints mould 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 firft ages, and by 
 confequence of the fame authority with that on 
 which the credit of the Canon refts j I am no lover 
 of damnatory claufes. I am an enemy to any ap- 
 plication of damnatory claufes to particular perlbns. 
 I am hopeful, that there is more folly in the world 
 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 ? Bifhop Bujl'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 ; De- 
 fenfiQ fidei Nicerue ; Judicium Eccle/its Catholics de 
 necessitate credendt Jefum Cbrlflum eJJ'e verum Dewn ; 
 
 * Letters to Dr. Horflcy, p. 100. 
 
 Primitive
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. a5 
 
 Primitiva et Apojlollca traditlo de ytfu Cbrijli divi- LETTER 
 
 nitate. To which I might have added a fourth, of 
 
 lefs importance, Anuneufaerfoiui in brevem traftatum 
 
 GuL Glerke, &c. 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 i 
 
 nor, that I recollect, any mention of the Athana- 
 
 fian creed. There is no defence of the damnatory 
 
 claufe in the fermons and Englifh tracts published 
 
 by Mr. Nelfon. Nor can I find any fuch tracl: 
 
 mentioned by Mr. Nelfon among the Bilhop'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 I 
 
 ftill doubt the exigence * ? 
 
 8. HAD 
 
 * Dr. Prieftley is reduced to the necefllty of confefiing, 19 
 the fixteenth of his Second Letters, that he knows no more 
 than I, in what library any work of Bifliop Bull's upon 
 the damnatory claufe in the Athanafian creed is to be found. 
 And yet he affects to be indignant that I fliould prefume to 
 rcfent 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 Ecclefia Cathollcx, but, " not looking into the title- 
 page of the book," he defcribed it by a wrong name. But 
 unfortunately his description is not more erroneous in the 
 name, than in the fubjecl:. The occafion and manner of his 
 error may eafily be divined. Having no acquaintance with 
 Bifliop Bull's writings, but what his controverfy with me 
 
 hth
 
 486 LETTERS 1NREPLY 
 
 LETTER 8. HAD I been aware of the offence which I find 
 the word conventicle hath given, I would have avoided 
 the ufe of it. We are engaged in a fubjecT:,kjin which 
 I hold it my duty to difplay my argument in its utmoft 
 
 force j 
 
 hath occafioned ; when he wrote his Firft Letters, he made a. 
 guefs about the particular fubject of each work, from the 
 titles enumerated by me. Among thefe he found the " Ju- 
 " dlc'ium Ecclefuz Catholics," &c. He guefTed 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 guefled, that Bilhop Bull, 
 defending that judgement, muft have defended the damna- 
 tory claufe ; and he chofe to guefs further, that I, the pro- 
 fefled admirer of Bifliop 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 mould in any way impugn the 
 article of our Lord's divinity. This Bifliop Bull indeed de- 
 fends : that is, he maintains the hiftorical faft, that the Fa- 
 thers of the Nicene Council inforced the belief of that ar- 
 ticle under the folemn fanction of a public fentence ; which 
 faft Epifcopius had' denied. 
 
 Dr. Prieftley, being now informed of the real fubjecl of 
 Bifhop 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 fhould indeed be upon this principle, that it 
 is a thing fomewhat of the fame nature with the 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 S T L E Y. 2*7 
 
 force; and even to ufe pretty freely that high feafoning BETTER. 
 ofcontroverfy, 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 
 foree norluftre. You fay, that the word conventicle 
 ufually fignifies, an unlawful aflembly. For my own 
 part I thought it barely equivalent to the old Greek 
 word tn/vjixi/o-ij, which was the name for certain irre- 
 gular afiemblies, 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 diflincl: as an anathema, 
 and an article of faith ; which he conceives the damnatory 
 claufe to be. An anathema is fimply a fentence of ex- 
 communication. The church of England anathematizes 
 thofe, who fpeak difrefpedtfully of her Book of Common 
 Prayer. (See the IVth Canon). But that every perfon, 
 who fhall incur the anathema of the IVth Canon, fliall pe- 
 rifti everlaftingly, is no claufe of the church of England's 
 creed. 
 
 Dr. Prieftley hath lengthened his fixteenth letter, with a 
 recital of feveral paflages from Bifhop Bull's works, which 
 he thinks muft compel me to acknowledge, that, whatever 
 I may be, Bifliop Bull at leaft was a friend to damnatory 
 claufes. The fentiments exprefled by Bifliop Bull, in the 
 paflages produced by Dr. Prieftley, I would be underftood 
 to cherifli and embrace with the moft entire unqualified ap- 
 probation. If to cherifh fuch fentiments, and to be a friend 
 to damnatory claufes, be the fame thing, I ftand convicted, 
 Habet cvnf ten tern reum, 
 
 brought
 
 ,88 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER brought into ufe in an age when all aflemblies of Chrif- 
 tians were, in the civil fenfe, equally illegal ; but it 
 was the name for aflemblies, meeting for the purpofe 
 of religious wormip, without authority from the 
 Bifhop. Such affemblies, 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 wifhed, that the 
 ufe of it had been conlidered 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 conviction, that 
 Mr. Lindfey's meeting-houfe and your own are not 
 more emphatically conventicles ; in your own fenfe, 
 that is, in the worft fenfe of the word. From perfo- 
 nal refpecl from you and him, I mould be happy to 
 be allured, that you ftand not within the danger of the 
 35th of Eliz. c. i. or the ijth 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- 
 ftanding the late act of the igth 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 acl, inftead of the fubfcription to ar- 
 ticles required by the former a&s 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 Middlefex, or 
 the city of Weftminfter. Could I make the fame 
 
 * Appendix, N* VI. 
 
 enquiry
 
 T D D R. P R I E S T L E Y. a8 9 
 
 enquiry concerning you (which the diftance of your LETTER 
 refidence prevents) I fear I fhould have the mortifica- 
 tion to find, that you have no more than your friend 
 complied with the laws, from which you claim pro- 
 tection. A report prevails, that you both object to 
 the declaration, from confcientious fcruples, A very 
 fufficient 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 previoufly made. Had you made the declaration, 
 you might indeed be intitled to the fame indulgence 
 by virtue of the late a&, to which you would have 
 been intitled by a fubfcription to certain articles un- 
 der former a6ls 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 
 ftatutes. For the fmgle operation of the igth 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 necefiary that the places of them fhould be 
 certified (according to the laft claufe of i ft of William 
 and Mary, c. 18.) either to the Bifhop 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
 
 290 
 
 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER pjace where fuch meeting may be held *. 1 have 
 
 7llt fearched the Regifters of the Epifcopal court of Lon- 
 don, of the Archdeacon's court of Middlefex, and the 
 records of the feflions for the County of Middlefex, 
 and for the City of Weftminfter, for an entry of the 
 houfe in Eflex-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 diffent from the church of 
 England is not a meer difagreement about particular 
 articles, but a general denial of the magiftrate's autho- 
 rity, either to prohibit or to tolerate J. Still, Sir, 
 were you ready to comply with the requiiitions 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 magiftrate, Mr. Lindfey and you, by the doc- 
 trines which you publicly maintain j|, are excluded 
 from all benefits of the acts 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, No. V. 
 
 t But fee xvii. of Dr. Prieftley's Second Letters and my 
 Remarks upon the Second Letters, Part 2. cap. iv. ^ 6. 
 
 J " Exclufive of every thing contained in the religion of 
 " the church of England, it is chiefly the authority by which 
 " it is enjoyned that difienters object to in it." Hift. of Cor- 
 ruptions, vol. II. p. 357. 
 
 II Appendix, No. IV. 
 
 letter
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 
 
 291 
 
 letter of the law, and in your own confirmation of the LETTER 
 
 XVII 
 
 word. Still, Sir, I had no thought to infult over 
 your miferable unprotected ftate. The extravagant 
 outcry which you have made, and the arrogance 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. Refpe<l 
 for individuals in Mr. Lindfey's congregation and in 
 yours, as well as for you and him, would have re- 
 ftrained me from the ufe of a word, which I had 
 perceived to be any otherwife reproachful, than as it 
 might contain a ftrong difapprobation and cenfure of 
 your dodlrine, 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 doctrine 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, juft as the King's pardon differs from his 
 favour : if your fpiritual authority, as minifters 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 prefent with the Apoftles, the delegated 
 
 * " our places of worfhip are as legal as yours 
 
 " equally known to the laws and prote&ed by them." Let- 
 ters to Dr. Horfley, p, 112. 
 
 U 2 preachers ,
 
 292 LETTERS IN REPLY 
 
 LETTER preachers of the gofpel, even to the end of the world ; 
 when he connects it with the hiftory of the firft or- 
 dinations, and with the great ftrefs laid upon the Bi- 
 fhop'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 himfelf 
 to be eafily perfuaded, that the authority of the com- 
 mifilon, under which he acts, is fomething more than 
 meer human legiflation 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 diffractions, which I have 
 feen in my own country within the compafs of my 
 own life, arifing from the irregular zeal of felf-con- 
 ftituted teachers of religion ; when I reflect, how the 
 unity 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 proteftant caufe difgraced, by a 
 combination of wild fanatics, pretending to afTociate 
 for the prefervation of the reformed religion ; when 
 I confider, how by thefe fcandals the true religion 
 hath itfelf been brought into difcredit ; how it hath 
 been injured by attempts to inflame devotion on 
 the one hand, and by theories fabricated to reduce 
 the myftery of its doctrines on the other j when I 
 confider that the root of all thefe evils hath been the 
 prevalency of a principle, of which you feem difpofed 
 
 to
 
 TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 
 
 2 93 
 
 to be an advoacte, that every man who hath credit LETTER 
 
 XVII 
 enough to collel a congregation, hath a right, over 
 
 which the magiflrate cannot without tyranny exercife 
 controul, to celebrate divine worfhip 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, that the commifTion 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 inm'tution muft have 
 within itfelf a provifion for harmony and order. 
 And upon thefe principles, though I wim that all 
 indulgence mould be mewn to tender confciences, 
 and will ever be an advocate for the largeft tolera- 
 tion that may be confident with political wifdom, 
 being indeed perfuaded, that the reftraints of human 
 laws muft be ufed with the greateft gentlenefs and 
 moderation, to be rendered means of ftrengthening 
 the bands of Chriftian peace and amity ; yet I could- 
 wifh to plant a principle of fevere reftraint in the., 
 confciences of men. I could wim, that the im- 
 portance of the minifteral office were confidered ; 
 that the practice of antiquity were regarded ; and 
 that it might not feem a matter of perfeft indiffe- 
 rence to the laity, to what houfe of worfhip they 
 refort. I cannot admit, that every aflembly 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
 
 394- LETTERSINREPLY 
 
 LETTER femblies, which are not churches, I could wifh to find 
 a name of diftindlion void of opprobrium. As fuch 
 I ufed the word conventicle ; as exprefling great irre- 
 gularity (which I muft exprefs, wo! is me if I exprefs 
 it not) but no infamy of the afiemblies to which I 
 applied it. If you are ftill difpofed to be indignant 
 about this harmlefs word ; recollect I befeech you, 
 with what refpet you have yourfelf treated the vene- 
 rable body to which I belong, the Clergy of the 
 eftablifhment. You divide it into two clafles only ; 
 the Ignorant, and the Infincere*. Have I no mare in 
 this opprobrium of my order ? Have I no right to be 
 indignant in my turn ? 
 
 8. STILL 
 
 * Dr. Prieftley, 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 
 eftablifhed church, for he afterwards defcribes thcfe Trini- 
 tarians as perfons " to all of whom the emoluments of the 
 establishment are equally accefTiblej" he fays of thefe per- 
 fons, that " they are all reducible to two clafles, viz. that 
 '* of thofe who, if they were ingenuous, would rank with 
 " Socinians, believing that there is no proper divinity in 
 " Chrift befides that of- the father; or elfe with Tritheifts, 
 *' holding three equal and diltinct Gods." The firft clafs 
 furely muft be infmcere, 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 greateft eminence in the church, who have 
 appeared as its advocates, " is fo palpably weak, that it is 
 " barely pollible they fliould be in earned in thinking their 
 " arguments have that weight in themfelves, which they wiih 
 " them to haye with others." And he fpeaks of this infin- 
 
 ' cerirv
 
 T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 
 
 8. STILL looking forward to the time, when af- 
 ter all that is paft, we mall mutually forgive, and be 
 ourfelves forgiven, I remain, 
 
 DEAR SIR, 
 Your very humble Servant, &c. 
 
 Fulham Palace, 
 June ijth 1784. 
 
 cerity of the defenders of the eftablifhment, 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 eftabliflied 
 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 juftifies 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 estimation than the Church 
 of Rome, 
 
 U 4 APPENDIX.
 
 396 
 
 APPENDIX, 
 
 N. I. 
 Gentleman's Magazine for O&ober 1783, p. 842. 
 
 MR. URBAN, 
 
 No. i. -r WAS formerly a pupil of Dr. Harwood, and read 
 with my learned and worthy mafter Thucydides, 
 Sophocles, and the life of Mofes, in a magnificent 
 edition of Philo, printed by the learned Mr. Bowyer; 
 and wonder that Dr. Horfley fhould aflert, as he is 
 reprefented to do by the learned and ingenious Mr. 
 Maty in his New Review, that aroj is fpoken of pcr- 
 fens 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 predicated of bread 
 twice in John vi. 50 and 58, aroj en b aflos, and of a 
 ftone, Luke xx. 17, the fame -, viz. ftone, STO; is be- 
 come bead of the corner. Controverfialifts are apt to 
 overflioot the mark. 
 
 GRjECULUS, 
 N, IL
 
 APPENDIX. 39? 
 
 N. II. 
 Gentleman's Magazine for November 1783, p. 944. 
 
 MR, URBAN, 
 
 BE pleafed, Sir, to inform your correfpondenr, No> j^ 
 Grtsculus^ that Dr. Horfley has not afferted of 
 the Greek pronoun STO?, that it is fpoken of perfons 
 only. He renders it indeed, in the fecond verfe of the 
 firft chapter 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 Grceculus 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, fince the application of the 
 word is confefledly fo general in the beft writers, Gr&- 
 culus will perhaps be apt to put the queftion, how 
 fhould Dr. Horfley know, that " This perfon" is 
 more the natural fenfe of STOJ than " This Loaf," 
 or this any thing ? Perhaps Dr. Horfley has obferved, 
 that it is peculiar to the two pronouns STOJ and J7oj, 
 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 
 srof, when it is demonftrative of any thing which has 
 no perfon, and which the writer would not perfpnify,
 
 39 S APPENDIX. 
 
 No. II. i s often put in the neuter gender, although the noun, 
 
 which it reprefents, be mafculine sa-Ei5v Jg rauiot 
 
 hvcrnle after you have abrogated tbefe LAWS vo/*f. 
 Demofth. Olynth. iii. ralo STI TO yufta pa. this 
 [i. e. this bread, a/log'] is my body. Matt. xxvi. 6. 
 This is another argument that STOJ is naturally de- 
 monfirative of a perfon. For there are but three 
 caufes, to which the various anomalies of fpeech may 
 be referred. Ignorance, negligence, defign. Thofe, 
 which are frequent in the bed writers, can be afcribed 
 to neither of the two firft caufes. They muft have 
 arifen therefore from the third. But the third, de- 
 fign, implies an end. And what mould be the end 
 of this anomaly of gender, in the word STOJ, but that 
 it was the means of avoiding an appearance of a profo- 
 foptsW) where no profopoptsla was intended. 
 
 2. Perhaps Gractilus^ though perfectly right in his 
 remark, that TOJ may be demonftrative of any thing 
 of which the Greek name is mafculine, has been 
 unfortunate in his fele&ion of paiTages'in proof of it. 
 Perhaps of the three, which he has produced, two 
 are nothing to his purpofe. Perhaps ttro$ !nv b apiof, 
 &c. in boththe, texts in St. John, fhould be rendered 
 " This, perfon is the bread, &c." 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, *O/7o$ yf Irw o p$j, 
 &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 form, in which the 
 
 following
 
 APPENDIX. 299 
 
 following fentence is begun. AvJoj tie 6 luawvg. " Now No. II. 
 " this fame John, &c." a form which marks the 
 writer's refumption 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. STOJ muft neceflarily 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. Horfiey's view of it, it contains an 
 explicit aflertion of the perfonality of the Logos, which 
 with great propriety and fignificance 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 Graculus 
 almoft a match for the brighteft boys in the upper 
 forms of our public fchools. Perhaps fomething 
 more mould be done in the ftudy of" the Greek lan- 
 guage, before a man begin to play the critic in it. 
 'H yap TMv hoycav xf<n; 9roXXnj en 
 
 I am Sir, 
 
 your moft obedient, 
 
 PERHAPS.
 
 3 oe APPENDIX. 
 
 N III. 
 
 Short Strictures on Dr. Prieftley's Letters to Dr. 
 Horfley, by an unknown hand. 
 
 No. in. T ETTERS to Dr. Horfley, p. 9. Jefus Chrift is 
 ' come in the fleih. Dr. P. mould produce an 
 inftance, where the whole phrafe of 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 epiftles if he can. 
 They fubvert all his theology and hiftory *. 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 Archbimop 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 apoftolical father. 
 
 P. 14. If Dr. P. could, prove, that the Naza- 
 renes held the fame doctrines with the Ebionites, 
 what would it avail his caufe ? Could he prove by 
 this medium, that the Nazarenes continued in. the 
 doctrine 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 j that 
 
 * The chief of them are mentioned by Cave under Ignatius. 
 
 Chrift
 
 APPENDIX. 3 ot 
 
 Chrift defcended into Jefus in the form of a dove at No. HI. 
 his baptifm ; cum multis aliis ? See Epiphan. Haeref. 
 xxx. 14. 
 
 24. HERE and throughout, Dr. P. fuppofes the 
 Unitarian do&rine to have had a general prevalence 
 among the the gentile Chriftians, and univerfal among 
 the Jewifh. Does this well agree, with refpedl to 
 the gentiles, with his quotation from Origen at 
 the bottom of page 20 ? 
 
 THE much controverted paflage of Juftin Mar- 
 tyr in his Dialogue with Trypho *, aAd the mean- 
 ing of 'H/XET^OW ylvowf, are well illuftrated by Mr. 
 Bingham, in his Vindication of the doctrine 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 Chrift, 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/Asripou yevovf] 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 (killed in Greek, may give a faulty tranflation 
 
 * See Prieftley, page 127. 
 
 fometimes
 
 3G2 APPENDIX. 
 
 No. in. fometimes through inadvertency. But what fliall 
 we fay for Ijis rendering dtriav ev^oyov^ a fpeclous pre- 
 tence ? Can he really think, that Athanafius meant 
 to fpeak in this ftile of the conduct of the Apofcles ? 
 'AtT/ svboyos occurs in Chryfoftom on Matth. xxiv. 
 42. (torn. ii. p. 448. Ed. Savil) where tho' a/J/ 
 fignifies fomewhat differently, evtoycs bears the fame 
 fenfe, as here, of wife and reafonable. 
 
 In the fame paffage '^x, eff ^ M is miftranflated. As 
 the prefent infinitives have fometimes a future fenfe 
 in the beft claffic authors, it here means a Mefliah 
 TO COME 3 as the next fentence evinces, where Chrift 
 already come is faid, ekyhv&vou. 
 
 49. ANOTHER, inaccurate verfion of Athanafiuj. 
 
 50. ANOTHER of the like kind from 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, 6v Travlxxfiv, fpeak plainly of his own 
 divinity. In the judgment of Chryfoftom he fome- 
 times did fo. See on John vi. 35, 36. viii. 58. 
 x. 30. 
 
 56. LAST paragraph. Caiaphas adjures our Sa- 
 viour by the living God to tell them, Whether tbou 
 be the Cbrlft, the Son of God? Our Lord avows, 
 thefe characters, and adds, Nevertbelefs [rather, more- 
 over] I fay unto you. Hereafter ye Jhall fee the Son of 
 Man fitting on the right hand of power. How can 
 Dr. Prieftley be fure, in what fenfe Caiaphas under- 
 ftood our Lord's anfwer, when he rent his cloths,
 
 APPENDIX. 30J 
 
 and accufed him of blafphemy ? Was the notion of No. nr. 
 a Son of God fuperior to all created beings, then un- 
 known among the Jews ? See, befides Bp. Bull's 
 Defenf. Fidei Nicznae, cap. i. feel, i. 16. p. 13. 
 a remarkable paffage quoted from Philo Jud. by Dr. 
 Randoph, Vindication of the doctrine of the 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 
 
 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 mamfeji in the 
 flefl) ; and the Apoftolical Ignatius, God appearing in 
 the form of a man. Ad. Eph. xix. If we are led 
 into an error, it is by taking St. Matthew's words 
 in their literal and obvious fenfe; and was he lefs 
 folicitous 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
 
 5 c 4 APPENDIX, 
 
 No. in. with fuch an application and interpretation of the 
 name Emmanuel ? hiod tu non feceris. Ego fed ? 
 might St. Paul afk; who writes with the greateft 
 fimplicity, and never ufes any amplification of any 
 fubjecl 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 \vas not afraid of Jewim prejudices 
 and clamour. 
 
 IN the fame gofpel our Lord is introduced de- 
 claring, " No one knoweth the Son but the Father ; 
 neither knoweth any one the Father, fave the Son, 
 and he to whomfoever the Son will reveal him." 
 Here the negative 6voi$ 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, muft 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 ? Utique parum modcjTe (fit 
 vcrbo venia) de feipfo locutus eft Ghriftus^ aut alias 
 loquentes audivit^fe nibil inter ea prater merum hominem 
 fe effe noverit. Burnet de Fide et Officiis, p. 20*. 
 
 THE fame 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. 
 Vvhere a fimilar paflage is cited from St. Chryfcftom. 
 
 P,
 
 APPENDIX. 305 
 
 P. confiders the Holy Spirit as an attribute of the Fa- No. ill. 
 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 conduct appear fuitable to his 
 care and tendernefs to guide his flock into the whole 
 truth? The fuppofition feems impoffible; and no- 
 thing to be more certain than that the very firft evan- 
 gelift, in full harmony with all the fucceeding facred 
 writers, exhibits to us the divinity of Chrift, in the 
 beginning, middle, and end of his gofpel. 
 
 IT is objected to this form of baptifm, that the ufe 
 of it does not appear any where in the Acts of the 
 Apoftles. This objection is, I think, well anfwered 
 by Mr. Bingham, Vindicat. p. 37 41. particularly 
 from Acts xix. 
 
 P. 63. TOWARDS the end of the firft 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 paflage 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. 
 
 LET-
 
 3 o$ APPENDIX. 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 P. 92. " IF the doctrine of the Trinity be true:, 
 it is no doubt in the higheft degree important and in- 
 ter,efting," 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 quaji Deo, 
 novel in the time of Paul of Samofata ? 
 
 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, 
 
 NS. IV. 
 i W. & M. c. 18. 
 
 Ko.lT. PROVIDED always, That neither this a&, nor any 
 claufe, article, or thing herein contained, mall ex- 
 tend^ to give any eafe, benefit, or advantage 
 
 to
 
 APPENDIX. 307 
 
 to any perfon that (hall deny in his preaching or No * VI * 
 
 writing the doctrine 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, (hall be permitted or allowed by 
 this aft, until the place of fuch meeting mail be cer- 
 tified to the bimop of the diocefe, or to the arch- 
 deacon of the archdeaconry, or to the juftices of the 
 peace at the general or quarter feffions of the peace for 
 the county, city, or place in which fuch meeting (hall 
 be held, and regiftered in the faid bimop's or archdea- 
 con's court refpeclively, or recorded at the faid gene- 
 ral or quarter feffions. 
 
 N. VL 
 19 G. III. c. 44. 
 
 ' be it enacted, 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 diflenting 
 Proteftants who (hall take the oaths, and make 
 and fubfcribe the declaration againft popery, required 
 by the faid aft (i W. & M. c. 18.) and (hall alfo 
 make and fubfcribe a declaration in the words follow* 
 ing, videlicet. 
 
 X a I A. B.
 
 3 o 7 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, do con- 
 tain the revealed will of God; and that I do receive 
 " the fame as the rule of my do&rine and pra&iee." 
 
 lhall be entitled to all the exemptions, benefits, 
 
 privileges, and advantages granted to Proteftant dif- 
 fenting minifters by i W. & M. c. 18. and by 10 
 
 A. c. and every fuch perfon, qualifying himfelf 
 
 as aforefaid, fliall be exempted from ferving in the 
 militia of this kingdom, and (hall alfo be exempted 
 from any imprifonment or other punifhment by virtue 
 ofthea&of uniformity, &c.
 
 A 
 
 SERMON, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 INCARNATION, 
 
 PREACHED IN THE 
 
 PARISH CHURCH 
 
 O F 
 
 St. MARY NEWINGTON, 
 In SURREY, Dec. 25, 1785.
 
 LUKE I. 28. 
 
 Hall tbou that art highly favoured^ the Lord 
 Is with thee : Bleffed art tbou among women. 
 
 THAT flie, who in thefe terms was faluted by 
 an angel, mould in after ages become an obje6t 
 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 4he 
 hiftory of our Saviour's Life, mould queftion the 
 truth of the meflage which the angel brought. Some 
 nine years fince, the Chriftian Church was no lefs 
 aftonifhed than offended, by an extravagant attempt * 
 to heighten, as it was pretended, the importance of 
 the Chriftian Revelation, by overturning one of thofe 
 firft principles of natural religion, which had for 
 ages been confidered as the bafis, upon which the 
 whole fuperftruclure of Revelation ftands. The no- 
 tion of an immaterial principle in man, which, with- 
 out an immediate exertion of the divine power to the 
 ex'prefs purpofe of its deftru&ion, muft neceflarily fur- 
 vive the diflblution of the body ; the notion of an 
 
 * Difquifitions relating to Matter and Spirit, &c. London 
 
 1777- 
 
 X 4 immortal
 
 3 i2 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 dodrine of a refurredion of the body, 
 in an improved ftate, to receive again its immortal 
 inhabitant, was heightened into the myftery of a re- 
 production 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 neceffarily perma- 
 nent, was fuppofed to enter the original compofi- 
 tion; how the prefent perfon could be interefted 
 in the future perfon's fortunes j why / mould be at 
 all concerned for the happinefs or mifery of the man, 
 who fome ages hence mall 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 
 fufficient recommendation of the fyftem with all its 
 difficulties, that the promife of a refurreclion 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 eftablifhed, 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 fmgular reafon, that it 
 
 had
 
 INCARNATION. 313 
 
 had been entertained by wife and virtuous Heathens, 
 who had received no light from the Chriftian, nor, 
 as it was fuppofed, from any earlier Revelation. 
 
 IT might have been expe&ed, that this anxiety 
 to extinguish every ray of hope, which beams not 
 from the glorious promifes of the Gofpel, would 
 have been accompanied with the moft entire fub- 
 miffion of the underftanding to the letter of the 
 written word ; the moft anxious follicitude for the 
 credit of the facred writers ; the warmeft zeal to 
 maintain every circumftance in the hiftory of our 
 Saviour's life, which' might 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 mould 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 myfcery with the more advantage, they fcruple 
 not to deny, that that Spirit which enlightened the 
 nrft preachers in the delivery of their oral inftru&ion, 
 and rendered them infallible teachers of the age in 
 which they lived, directed them in the compofition 
 of thofe writings, which they left for the edification 
 
 of
 
 3 i 4 ASERMON ON THE 
 
 of fucceeding ages *. I hey pretend to have made dif- 
 coveries of inconclufive reafoning in the Epiftles f ; 
 of doubtful fa6ls in the Gofpelsj and appealing from 
 the teftimony of the A pottles to their own judg- 
 ments, they have not fcrupled to declare their opi- 
 nion, that the Miraculous Conception of our Lord is 
 afubjeft, "with refpeft to which any pcrfon is at full 
 " liberty to think, as the evidence fhall appear to him, 
 " without any impeachment of his faith or charac- 
 " ter as a Chriftian J." And left a fimple avowal 
 of this extraordinary opinion mould not be fuffici- 
 ently offenfive, it is accompanied with certain ob- 
 fcure infmuations , 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, 
 fhould in a little time be declared. 
 
 WE are aflembled this day to commemorate our 
 Lord's Nativity. It is not as the Birth-day of a 
 Prophet that this day is fanclified ; 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 Apoftles as writers." 
 Pr. Prieftley's Letters to Dr. H. Part I. p. 132. 
 
 f Hiftory of Corruption, vol. II. p. 370. 
 
 t Letter to Dr. H. part I. p. 132. 
 
 ^ Letter to Dr. H. part I. p. 54, 
 
 their
 
 INCARNATION. 3 j 5 
 
 their compleat and literal accomplifliment. In the 
 predictions, as well as in the correfponding event, 
 the circumftance of the Miraculous Conception 
 makes fo principal a part, that we lhall not eafily 
 find fubjects of meditation more fuited either to 
 the feafon, or to the times, than thefe two pints ; 
 the importance of this doctrine, as an article of the 
 Chriilian faith, and the fufficiency of the evidence 
 by which the fact is fupported. 
 
 FIRST for die importance of the doctrine, as an 
 article of the faith ; it is evidently the foundation of 
 the whole diftinction between the character 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 j 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 paft to the Fathers by the Prophets, hath 
 in thefe latter days fpoken unto us by his Son * j" 
 
 * Heb. I. i. 2. 
 
 evidently
 
 3 ,6 A SERMON ON THE 
 
 evidently eftablifhing a diftin&ion of Chriftianity from 
 preceding revelations upon a diftinction between the 
 two chara&ers 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- 
 " vants, and to all his land ; and in all that mighty 
 " hand, and in all the great terror, which Mofes 
 " fhewed in the fight of all Ifrael*." Yet this 
 great Prophet, raifed up to be the leader and the 
 legiflator of God's people; 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 mould 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 
 u his perfon J," the God " whofe throne is for 
 " ever and ever, the fcepter of whofe kingdom is 
 u a fcepter of righteoufnefs:" and this high dignity 
 of the Son is alleged as a motive for religious obe- 
 
 * Deut. xxxiv. 10 12. f Heb. iii. 5. 6. 
 
 J Heb. i. z 6. Hebr i, 8. 
 
 dience
 
 INCARNATION. 317 
 
 dience 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 
 doctrine, as render faith in him the firft 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 
 John 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 which 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 diftinct perfonality of his own, feparate from 
 the Godhead, no other communion could obtain, 
 than what mould confift in the action of the Divine 
 Spirit upon the faculties of the feparate perfon. 
 
 This
 
 3 iS ASERMON ON THE 
 
 This communion with God the Prophets enjoyed. 
 But Jefus, according to the primitive do&rine, was 
 fo united to the ever-living word, that the very ex- 
 iftence of the man confifted in this union*. We 
 ihall not indeed find this propofition, that the exif- 
 tence of Mary's Son confifted from the firft, and 
 ever mall confifl, in his union with the Word ; we 
 ihall not find this propofition in thefe terms in Scrip- 
 ture. Would to God the neceflity never had arifen 
 
 * So Theodoret in the fourth of the feven dialogues about 
 the Trinity, publifhed under the name of Athanafius. The 
 perfons in this dialogue are an Orthodox Believer and an 
 Apollinarian. The Apollinarian aflcs, Oux Irtv v IJKTSJ 
 avfycoTTOf ; the Believer replies, OIVEU TS Aoys XTS avfyutrov 
 autov otoa uTroravla, rw yap VTTIX^LV aura sv TYI IVOITEI TS 
 Aoya yvuptZco. To the famepurpofe Joannes Damafcenus, 
 . yap 'srpouTrora'TYi xaff ttzvlw trapm wu6y b SEIOJ 
 
 Aoyoj, aM svoMwag T yarpi Trig ayix$ wafa 
 
 sv ry saulx vnorotvEi ex TOJV aytuv TV; afiTr 
 cra,%Jta fyvftftfievm 4^%? Xoyjxn TE xai 
 
 ATT02 'O AOFOS TENOMENOS TH 2APKI 
 'TnOSTASlS. De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. 3. cap. II. 
 and again, cap. VII. HL&apxulou toivuV" > wrs avlyv 
 Xgiyutttffoi TYI trapxi vvroratriv Y\ ra Aoys V 
 So alfo Gregory Nazianzen, l TJJ $ia7TE7r*oi>J$ai TOV 
 eiff U7ro$i$uxsva.i teyoi $ov, xalaxpilo;. Emj wj kv 
 Xyoj xalat xapiv l^ynxeva/, aXXa iw xoff xtriav 
 TE xou cnivaTrWSai, EJJI *eyof THJ xpenlov- evepyEia^ 
 S ev#v7<aj. Epift. ad Cledon. I. 
 
 of
 
 INCARNATION. 3 i 9 
 
 of fating 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 poflible to abftain, 
 from a philofophical phrafeology. By the perpetual 
 cavils of gainfayers, and the difficulties which they 
 have raifed ; later teachers, in the aflertion of the 
 fame doctrines, have been reduced to the unpleafing 
 neceflity 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 chara&eriftic 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- 
 trefled with fear : that he was obnoxious to all the 
 evils of humanity, except the propenfiry 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 invifible; whether they be 
 " thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or pow- 
 " ers ; all things were created by him, and for 
 " himj," and " he upholdeth all things by the 
 " word of his power ||." And that we may in fome 
 
 * John xvii. 5. f John i. 3. 
 
 J ColofT. i. 16. (I Heb. i. 3. 
 
 fort
 
 320 A SERMON ON THE 
 
 fort underftand, how infirmity and perfection fhould 
 thus meet in the fame perfon ; we are told by St. 
 John, that the " Word was made Flem." 
 
 IT was clearly, therefore, the doctrine 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 doctrine in 
 which a Miraculous Conception would have been 
 implied, had the thing not been recorded ; fince 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 
 perfon, which the Scriptures fo clearly aflert, had 
 been a phyfical impoffibility. 
 
 * 'O xv eo$ Aoyo$ <rapxu8Ei$, XTE TW ev TV 4^*1 Seupiat 
 Qvviv avsteGtv (H yap cracxua-if TS?C>, aXA* 
 Kai Tffhao-pa a-apxaffscag) xx rw ev a7o/*&>, rrtv avlw 
 TYI EV TO) siosi (aTTOpxyv yap avsXaoE T rif^slsps 
 aS tauJlnv vTrorourotv xcu aTOttov ^170.7 at 
 apolepaf, KM XTUS !nf duly vpoffXvfQeurav, aM* Iv TIJ avis 
 vnoraati vTrasZourav avly yap v uTrorxris TH Qsn Aoyx 
 hevelo TJI <ra?xi lnrorenris. Joann. Damafcen. De Fide 
 Orthodoxa. lib. 3. cap. XI. 
 
 BUT
 
 INCARNATION. 341 
 
 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 neceffary to the 
 fcheme of Redemption, by the Redeemer's offering 
 of himfelf as an expiatory facrifice ; that the man- 
 ner of his conception mould be fuch, that he mould 
 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 (lain of original fin may confift, 
 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 punimment. 
 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, inflicting 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 Juftice, 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, 
 11 Jefus Chrift the righteous, and he is the propi- 
 
 * i Cor. xv. 22. f James iii. 2. 
 
 Y <c tiation
 
 3 22 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 fepa- 
 rates the righteous advocate from the mafs of thofe 
 offenders. That any Chriftian 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 aflault of every temptation main- 
 tained that unfullied innocence, which gives merit 
 and efficacy to his Sacrifice and Interceffion, could 
 not be of the number of thofe, whofe offences called 
 for an expiation, and whofe frailties needed a Divine 
 affiftance, to raife them effectually 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 fince 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 necefiary, that the manner 
 of his Conception mould be fupernatural. 
 
 THUS you fee the neceffary connection of the 
 Miraculous Conception with the other articles of the 
 Chriftian faith. The incarnation of the Divine 
 
 * i John i. 8. and ii. i. 
 
 Word
 
 INCARNATION. 323 
 
 Word, fo roundly afTerted by St. John, and fo 
 clearly implied in innumerable pafTages of Holy Writ, 
 in any other way had been impoffible ; 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 doctrine. 
 
 ON the other hand, it were not difficult to fhew, 
 that the Miraculous Conception, once admitted, na- 
 turally brings up after it the great doctrines 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 bufmefs of a teacher might 
 have been performed by a meer man, enlightened by 
 the prophetic fpirit. For whatever inftruction 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 unneceflary 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. 21. 
 
 Y 2 So
 
 3 2 4 A SERMON ON THE 
 
 So clofe, therefore, is the connexion of this ex- 
 traordinary fact with the cardinal doctrines of the 
 Gofpel, that it may be juftly deemed a neceflary 
 branch of the fcheme of Redemption: and in no 
 other light was it confidered by St. Paul, who men- 
 tions it among the characteriftics of the Redeemer, 
 that he mould be " made of a woman*." In this 
 fhort 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 ram judgment of thofe, who have dared 
 to tax this " chofen veffel" of the Lord with 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 
 difbelief of it; if they expect to make difcerning men 
 profelytes to their Socinian doctrine. 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 practical 
 Deifm, enforced by the fanction of high rewards, 
 
 * Gal. iv. 4. " There is no reference to the Miraculous. 
 " Conception, either in the Book of Acts, or in any of the 
 " Epijlles." Dr. Prieftley's Letters to Dr. H. p. 53. 
 
 and
 
 INCARNATION. 325 
 
 and formidable punimments, in a future life ; which 
 are yet no rewards and no punimments, but fimply 
 the enjoyments and the fufferings of a new race of 
 men to be made out of old materials, and therefore 
 conftitute no fanction, when the principles of the ma- 
 terialift are incorporated with thofe of the Socinian in 
 the finimed creed of the modern Unitarian. 
 
 HAVING feen the importance of the doctrine 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 fact is fupported. 
 
 WE have for it the exprefs teftimony of two out of 
 the four Evangelifts : of St. Matthew, whofe Gofpel 
 was publifhed in Judaea within a few years after our 
 Lord's Afcenfion ; and of St. Luke, whofe narrative 
 was compofed, as may be collected from the author's 
 mort 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 fact of the Miraculous Conception mould be 
 found in the firft 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 
 mould be found again in St. Luke's Gofpel ; written, 
 for the peculiar ufe of the converted Gentiles, and 
 for the exprefs purpofe of furnishing a fummary of au*. 
 thentic facts, and of fuppreffing fpurious narrations. 
 Y 3 Was
 
 32 6 ASERMONONTHE 
 
 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. 
 Matthew wrote, and the Greek congregations, for 
 which St. Luke wrote ; fhould find an exprefs record 
 of the Miraculous Conception each in its proper Gof- 
 pel? Or if we confider the teftimony of the writers, 
 fimply as hiftorians 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 facts, which 
 they have recorded ? Is it likely that they have re- 
 corded facts, upon the credit of a vague report, with- 
 out examination ? 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 exact 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 compofed from St. 
 Pa ul's fermons. " Luke, the attendant of St. Paul," 
 fays Irenaeus, " 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 under/landing of all things from 
 " the very firft, to write unto thee in order, moft ex- 
 
 cellent
 
 INCARNATION. 31-7 
 
 " cellent Theophilus, that thou mighteft know the 
 " certainty of thofe things wherein thou haft been in- 
 " ftructed." The laft verfe might be more literally 
 rendered " that thou might know the exadt truth of 
 " thofe doctrines, 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 Catechifm^ which 
 Theophilus had learned, when he was firft made a 
 Chriftian. The two firft articles, in this hiftorical 
 expofition, are the hiftory of the BaptUl'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 
 fact of the Miraculous Conception : we have the tefti- 
 mony of St. Luke, that this fact was a part of the ear- 
 lieft catechetical inftruction : 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 
 mall aik 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 facl of our Lord's Miracu- 
 lous Conception is anfwerable to the great importance 
 of the doctrine ; and you will efteem it an objection 
 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 reject their teftimony. You will remem- 
 ber, that the doctrines of the Chriftian Revelation were 
 Y 4 not
 
 3*8 A SERMON ON THE 
 
 not originally delivered in a fyftem ; 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 doctrine 
 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, mould be de- 
 ferted by that Spirit, when they committed what 
 they had preached 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 facts. You will recollect one in- 
 ftance upon record, in which St. Peter detected 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 mould be enabled to detect falfehoods in the hif- 
 ory of our Saviour's life; than that St. Peter mould be 
 enabled to detect 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, mould be permitted 
 to lead the whole Church for many ages into error : 
 that they mould be permitted to leave behind them, 
 as authentic memoirs of their Matter's life, narra- 
 tives compiled with little judgement or feleftion from 
 the ftories of the day, from facts and fictions in 
 promifcuous circulation. The credulity, which fwal- 
 lows thefe contradiftions, while it (trains at my- 
 fteries, is not the faith which will remove moun- 
 tains. The Ebionites of antiquity, little as they 
 were famed for penetration and difcernment, ma- 
 naged
 
 INCARNATION. 329 
 
 naged however the affairs of the fedl 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 of St. Matthew's Gofpel, curtailed of 
 the two firft chapters. You will think it no incon- 
 fiderable confirmation of the doctrine in queftion ; 
 that the fe6l, which firft denied it, to palliate their 
 infidelity, found it neceflary to reject 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 mod efFe&ual motives to a 
 good life. You will therefore not reft in the 
 merit of a fpeculative faith. You will make it your 
 conftant endeavour that your lives may adorn your 
 
 profeffion that "your light may fo mine 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 T H 
 
 ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's, 
 
 PROOFS OF CERTAIN FACTS ASSERTED BY THE 
 ARCHDEACON
 
 PART FIRST. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 VT7HEN firft I had the pleafure to perufe the Se- PAKT 
 
 * * cond Letters addrefled to me by Do&or 
 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- 
 jecl, in which nothing new is to be faid on either 
 fide; nor to purfue an interminable controverfy, 
 with one, whom, with high refpecl: for his natural 
 abilities, and for his attainments in fome parts of 
 learning, I muft ftill call an inefficient 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 conteft with Dr. Prieftley, I 
 was at liberty to indulge my indolence, without 
 feeming to defert my caijfe; that his book, abound- 
 ing
 
 334 REMARKS 
 
 PAHT I. ing in new fpecimens of that confident ignorance, 
 which in thefe fubje&s is the moft prominent fea- 
 ture in his writings, and in expreffions of fiery re- 
 fentment and virulent invective, carried with it, 
 as I thought, its own confutation to unprejudiced 
 readers of all defcriptions : to the learned reader, by 
 the proof which it furnimes of the author's incom- 
 petency in the fubjecl:; 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 fatisfaclion 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 firft 
 Hebrew Chriftians*, was to confift in an infinua- 
 tion, that " doubts had been entertained by many 
 " learned men concerning the genuinenefs of that 
 " epiftle f ;" and in an aflertion of my antagonift's, 
 " that it is moft evidently interpolated; and that 
 ** the interpolations refpect the very fubjecl: 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. 
 t cularly in what refpects the fubjecl of which 
 we treat ; the evidence by which the aflertion is 
 fupported, is of that fort, which every one, who 
 
 * See Letter viii. in reply to Dr. Prieftley. 
 
 t Second Letters to the Archdeacon of St. Albans, p. 7. 
 
 \ Ibid. 
 
 engages
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 
 
 335 
 
 engages in controverfy, muft rejoice that his adver- PART I. 
 fary mould 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 fubje6l, 
 appear in the old Latin verfion only, and are not 
 found in the Greek text*. That both the Greek 
 text and Latin verfion carry evident marks of the 
 injuries of time ; that defects, 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 aflertion 
 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 pafTages 
 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 aflerted or ftrongly implied : of thefe four two 
 are found, with inconfiderable varieties, both in the 
 Greek and in the Latin j the other two in the Latin 
 
 * Second Letters to the Archdeacon of St. Albans, p. 7 
 
 only.
 
 336 REMARKS 
 
 PARTI, 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 fatisfaction, which this confutation of my 
 argument from Barnabas afforded me, was not a lit- 
 tle heightened, by the manner in which I am con- 
 victed 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 
 fingular in aflerting this. To (hew that I was not 
 fingular in the aflertion (not to prove the thing 
 aflerted ; 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, Voflius, Spencer 
 and Huetius. " Having examined, fays my anta- 
 11 gonift, in the Third of his fecond Letters, the moft 
 " refpeclable of thefe authorities, viz. Grotius, I find 
 " him entirely failing you, and faying no fuch thing 
 " as you afcribe to him f." Then, to prove that 
 Grotius fails me, and fays no fuch thing as I afcribe 
 to him ; Dr. Prieftley 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. Albans, p. 8. 
 
 ttbid ""'" 5. THE
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 337 
 
 5. THE fatisfaction, which it gave me to find my- PART I. 
 felf thus confuted, was full increafed, by the re- 
 tractation of this confutation in my adverfary's ap- 
 pendix, No. III. A retractation, which in effect is 
 
 little lefs than a confeffion 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 j for upon me he 
 could not think that it would pafs. Whatever may 
 be his opinion of my learning; he has, I believe, 
 had fome experience of my vigilance, in watching 
 the movements of an enemy ; and he could not 
 imagine, that the paflage, which he produces, would 
 pafs with my felf, 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- 
 tection. 
 
 t 
 
 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 refpect to Chrift ;" meant only that they held 
 fomething, which was not the common faith of other 
 Chriftians * And that Sulpitius Severus, when he 
 
 * " By the common faith of Chriftians in that early age, 
 " Grotius np doubt meant his ooun opinion, &c." Second 
 Letters to the Archdeacon of St. Alban's, p. 217. 
 
 2 fays
 
 33 REMARKS 
 
 PART I. f a y S that "all the Jewifh Chriftians till the time of 
 Adrian held that Chrift was God, though they 
 obferved the law of Mofes, (Chrijtum Deum fit It 
 " legls obfervatlone 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 hiftorian are to be fo 
 underftood. For were they to be underftood in the 
 plain meaning of their words, they would flatly con- 
 tradict Dr. Prieftley; which however if they had 
 done, it would have been no great matter : for any 
 writer, who may contradict 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 himfelf well qua- 
 lified to encounter that profound book. The benefit, 
 which he has received from the performance of this 
 knotty tafk, exadly correfponds with my notion of 
 his abilities for the undertaking. He has found the 
 whole treatife unintelligible J ! Perhaps he has 'ere 
 this looked through the Enneads of Plotinus with the 
 like emolument. He muft therefore be well quali- 
 fied to illuftrate the hiftory of the Platonic doctrines, 
 in the moft myfterious parts : and in the GREAT 
 WORK, with which the prefs now labours, his pro- 
 mife will, 1 dare fay, be fulfilled, of teaching the 
 world many things refpe&ing them, of which his 
 
 * Second Letters, p. aiS. f P. 145 % Ibid. 
 
 antagonift
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 33* 
 
 antagonift is ignorant. He can produce hundreds PART I. 
 of paflages to prove, that the " divinity which the 
 " orthodox Chriftians afcribed to Chrift was the very 
 " fame principle which constituted 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 Platonic triad was, according to 
 the theology of that fchool, the Principle of In- 
 telligence in the godhead, he will find indeed not 
 difficult to prove. But unlefs he can fhew, 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, diftindl from the per- 
 fonality of either of the two other principles ; he 
 will prove nothing, but what 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 being , fub/tance^ and fubjlratum * > 
 that is, ignorant of the diftinclions of v7rorao-i$ 
 (which feems to be Being in his language) *<n and 
 vTToxtipsvov : to find him unapprized of that great 
 principle, without which a logician will handle his 
 tools but aukwardly, that the genus cannot be pre- 
 
 J Second Letters, p. 124. 
 * Second Letters, &c. p. 138. 
 
 Z 2 dicated
 
 34 a REMARKS 
 
 PART I. dicated 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 genera rank zsfpecies. 
 
 g. THESE, and many other, glaring inflances of 
 unfiniflied erudition, mallow 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- 
 fpet 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 fubjecT:, except fo far as might be necefTary, to 
 eftablifti fome fafts, which he hath fomewhat too 
 
 * " The former [being] is the genus, and the lat- 
 
 " ter [pedon] the fpecies," &c. p. 140. 
 
 (a) In the Sixth of his Third Letters, ^ iii. Dr. Prieftley 
 courageously encounters this principle. To prove the fal- 
 lacy of it, he fays, " According to it, fince men are divided 
 " into Whites and Blacks, -tc. &c. it would follow, that it 
 " cannot with propriety be faid of any Whites or Blacks 
 " that they are men.''' A more curious inftance of logical 
 accuracy will not eafily be found, than this deduction. 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. Prieftley's inference, that man- 
 hood is not predicable of any iubjecl in which colour is 
 found. 
 
 peremptorily
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 34 i 
 
 peremptorily denied j and to vindicate my character PART i 
 from afperfions, which he hath too inconfiderately 
 thrown out. 
 
 10. THE matters of fact which I mean to prove 
 are thefe. 
 
 I. ORIGEN'S want of veracity in difputation. 
 
 11. THE exigence of orthodox Hebrew Chri(- 
 tians at Jerufalem after the time of Adrian. 
 
 III. THE decline of Calvinifm, amounting almoft 
 to a total extinction of it, among the Englilh dif- 
 Centers. 
 
 II. THE flander, which I mean to repel, is con- 
 tained in my adverfary's infinuation, that I have 
 fpoken with contempt of the doctrines 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 ftrug- 
 gle of a ftrong animal which feels itfelf overcome ; 
 the meer growling of the tyger in the toils j 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
 
 54 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 the fcabbard Jhould 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 attracted to 
 a paflage near the bottom, diftinguifhed by a mark, 
 which in the firft perufal of the work, I had fet 
 againft 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 firft took up my 
 pen, I thought to do, in culling the flowers of my 
 adverfary's compofition ; I cannot refift the tempta- 
 tion of flopping (although it delay for a few moments 
 the bufinefs to which I haften) to pluck this deli, 
 cious bloflbm, 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 doctrine of the Ebion- 
 ites as an heretical do&rine. Thefe references 
 would demolish Doctor Prieftley's notion, that the 
 Ebionites were not confidered as heretics, fo early 
 as in the times of Ignatius. Dr. Prieftley > there- 
 
 * See the Animadversions on Dr. White's Sermons an- 
 nexed to Dr. Prieftley's difcourfe upon the Importance of 
 .Free Inquiry, p. 78. 
 
 fore
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 343 
 
 " fore finds no fuch references," in thefe epiftles, PART I. 
 " except perhaps two paffages." Two clear refe- 
 rences are juft as good as two thoufand. How then 
 mall we difpofe of thefe two paflages ? Very eafily. 
 " They may eafily befuppofed 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 may we build 
 this fuppofition, which is fo eafily made, of an alte- 
 ration in two paflages in the epiftles of Ignatius, 
 which, as they now ftand, contradict Dr. Prieftley ? 
 Upon the firmeft ground imaginable. " When 
 CORRECTED by an UNITARIAN, nothing 
 <l is wanting to the evident purpofe of the writer." 
 Corrected by an Unitarian ! The Unitarians, if they 
 are not mamefully belied by the ecclefiaftical hifto- 
 rians, have ever indeed been ready at this bufinefs of 
 Correflion. The Arians took the trouble to correct 
 a treatife of Hilary of Poictou, in which the here- 
 tical confeffion of the council of Aritninum was the 
 fubject : they corrected, and corrected, 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 Constantinople 
 at a low price. Similar liberties were taken with 
 the works of the two Alexandrians, Clemens and 
 Z 4 Dionyfius.
 
 344 REMARKS 
 
 PAT I, Dionyfius. They, who thus corrected, 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 do&rine, that both the 
 Primitive Fathers, and the Holy Scriptures, muft 
 be corre&ed in every page, before they can be 
 brought to give evidence in its favour. It is be- 
 caufe the Unitarians themfelves have always under- 
 ftood this, that they have ever been ready to apply 
 the needful corrections^ when they thought the thing 
 might be done without danger of detection. But the 
 modern Coryphaus of the company is, I believe, the 
 firft who ever had the indifcretion to avow the practice, 
 and confefs that he could not otherwife (land his 
 ground, than by an appeal to the teftimony of COR- 
 RECTED FATHERS! He is himfelf indeed a mafter of 
 the art of correction. His attempt upon a paffage in, 
 St. John's firft Epiftle, will never be forgotten -f . 
 
 15. WILL he dare to recriminate? He will. 
 " The orthodox, he fays, as they are commonly cal- 
 led, have tampered with the New Teftament itfelf, 
 
 See Eufeb. Ecc. Hid. lib. V. 
 
 t See the charge to the clergy of the archdeaconry of St. 
 Albans, I. \ 5. 
 
 having
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 545 
 
 ** having made interpolations favourable to the doc- PART I. 
 " trine of the Trinity, efpecially the famous paflage 
 <c concerning the 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 
 myfelfwill acknowledge. 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 how 
 I would recant ; how my eyes would be opened by 
 the information which he had to give me ; that I 
 wonder he mould venture to imagine any more, in a 
 fubjecl: in which he hath found himfelf fo liable to er- 
 ror. He imagines, that I muft acknowledge, that 
 Newton hath clearly proved, that the record of the 
 three in heaven in St. John's firft 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 paflage is an interpolation j what con- 
 fequence would bind me to the fecond ; that the or- 
 thodox have been the wilfull falfifiers ? Is it becaufc 
 their purpofe might have been ferved by the pretended 
 fabrication ? Truly their purpofe had been poorly 
 ferved 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 
 the reafon, that it is fo feldom alleged by the ancient 
 writers in proof of the Trinity. But why muft I ao 
 
 * Second Letters, p. 13. 
 
 knowledge.
 
 34 REMARKS 
 
 PAT I. knowledge, that the paflage is at all an interpolation ? 
 Becaufe Newton and others have clearly proved it. 
 To me the proof is not clear. Were the defect 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 omiffion of it breaks the connection, 
 and wonderfully heightens the obfcurity, of the Apof- 
 tle's difcourfe. Doctor 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 fubjecls, in which he hath 
 been convicted of the greateft want of knowledge. I 
 hope I may fay, without arrogance, that it is probable 
 that Sir Ifaac Newton's talents in demonftration, are 
 as well known to me, as to Doctor 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 ; I am as well quali- 
 fied, as Dr. Prieftley, to judge of his talents in other 
 fubjects, which are not capable of demonftration. 
 Now in 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, 202. Animadver- 
 sions on Di. White, p. 66, 72. 
 
 courfe j
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 347 
 
 courfe ; I hold it to be a model of that fort of para- PART I. 
 phrafe, by which any given fenfe may be affixed to 
 any given words. But that even the external evi- 
 dence of the authenticity o^the paflage is far lefs de- 
 fective, 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. 
 
 16. 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 charter. 
 
 * See Remarks on Mr. Howes' s difcourjfe. 
 
 PART
 
 348 REMARKS 347 
 
 PART SECOND. 
 
 PROOFS. 
 
 CHAPTER FIRST. 
 
 Of Origen'' s want of Veracity. <Of the Fathers in ge-* 
 neraL Of the paj/ages in which St. Chryfoftom is 
 fuppofed to affirt) that the Apoftles temporifed. Afpe- 
 cimen of Correction by an Unitarian* 
 
 THE firft fa<St that comes in queftion is the wanfc, 
 of veracity in difputation, which I impute to 
 Origen. 
 
 2. IN the fecond book againft Celfus, near the be- 
 ginning of the book, Origen aflerts of the Hebrew 
 Chriftians 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. Prieftley fets a high value upon this 
 teftimony of Origen ; as clearly eftablifliing his great 
 point, that the Ebionites were nothing worfe than the 
 
 Chriftians
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 349 
 
 Chriftians of the Circumcifion. I maintain, that if PART 11. 
 the truth of Origen's affertion were admitted ; ftill 
 his teftimony would be lefs to Dr. Prieftley's purpofe, 
 than he imagines. It would prove, indeed, the He- 
 brew Chriftian, 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 Ebionsean 
 doctrine. But I go further. I deny the truth of Ori- 
 gen's aflertion in both its branches. I deny, that it is 
 univerfally true of the Hebrew Chriftians, 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 aflertion. 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 conflders 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 character of the dead *. From afler- 
 tions which I have not raflily 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 mall 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, &c. Preface p. xviii. p. 47, and 192. 
 
 neral
 
 35 o REMARKS 
 
 PART II. neral, that a ftrift regard to truth, in difputation, was 
 not the virtue of his character. 
 
 5. WITH refpecl to the particular matter in quef- 
 tion ; if I prove, that Origen knew the falfehood of his 
 own aflertion in the firft branch of it, in which he 
 avers, < that th Hebrew Chriftians in his time had 
 " not abandoned their ancient laws and cuftoms j" 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 muft here 
 repeat, what I obferved in the feventh of my letters 
 to Dr. Prieftley, 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 aflerts, that the Jews believing in Chrift 
 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 fection 
 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 
 diftin&ions, which he himfelf, in the allegation in 
 queftion, had confounded. " It is my prefent point, 
 * c fays Origen, to evince Celfus's ignorance j who 
 
 has
 
 UPON SECOND LETT t R S. 351 
 
 " has made a Jew fay to his countrymen, to Ifraelites PART II, 
 " believing in Chrift j Upon what motive have you 
 " defer ied the law of your ancejlors ? 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. * ?" 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 afTertion, that 
 the Chriftians of the circumciiion had abandoned 
 their ancient law ; but prove only, that the difufe of 
 the law, if it was actually 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<5t ? 
 * when he might have faid more plaufibly, SOME 
 *' of you have relinquiflwd the old cujloms upon pre- 
 ** tence of expofitions and allegories. SOME again, 
 ** expounding, as you call it, fpiritually, neverthelefs 
 " obferve the inftitutions of our anceftors. But 
 " SOME, not admitting thefe expofitions, are wilfing 
 " to receive Jefus as the perfon foretold by the pro- 
 " phets, and to obferve the law of Mofes according 
 
 * Nwv 5s -arpoxEilai Ixsylat TW TX KfXirs a//,a6ta.Vy tsa^ 
 u Q la^aios ^E7t TOI iffo 
 SKI TOV In<rsj', TO. Ti 
 
 noti TO, Ilwj. Ilajj ?e KoilatetoiTrcuri rov TZ/xlyov vofjtov of 
 I$ /txvj <i8i.vtv aulxy xou AeyovrEf htyeie pot <u 
 
 &C, 
 
 "to
 
 3 5 a R E M A R K. S 
 
 P.\RT ii. to the ancient cuftoms, as having in the letter the 
 " whole meaning of the Spirit *." In thefe words 
 Origin confefTes all that I have alleged of him. He 
 confeffes, in contradi&ion 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 Origen's enumeration) had relin- 
 quifhed 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 underftand, though I confefs more indi- 
 rectly, but he gives us to underftand ; that of thefe 
 three forts of Hebrews profeffing Chriftianity, 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&s, that in his account 
 of the herefies of the Chriftian Church he had omit- 
 
 * Kou ug ffvyH E%v/<tvwf ye ravff b TScipa ra KX<ra) 
 
 Aeyei, ^ntyceftf ttiOavuleqov stoeiv, OTI TINES 
 v xalatehoiTratri T& !Sw, 'arfofao'Ei SiwTncrfftiv xat 
 TINES oie xai JlnysjUEvoi, ug ETrayfexAEafe, 
 
 5Vv yrloV T 'EolglO. TfEJ/* TINES 3e, 8? 
 
 ttays/AEvoi, fixteaQz xai rov Incrav sraf a.$si;a<rQa,i ug 
 SEvleXy xai rov MojycrEwj VOJAOI Tribal xizla ra -z 
 sv TV X|EJ exovlte rov -sravla TS f srvy^l- vxv. 
 
 ted
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 353 
 
 ted the Israelites believing in Jefus^ and not laying PART II. 
 
 afide^ the law of their ancejlors. " But how fhould 
 
 " Celfus, he fays, make clear diftiniStions 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 relinquishing the lav/ of 
 
 " their fathers* ?" What opinion is to be enter- 
 
 tained of a writer's veracity, who, in one page, aflerts 
 
 that the Hebrews profefTmg Chriftianity had not re- 
 
 nounced the Jewifh 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 TESTI, ETI- 
 
 AMSI JURATO, QUI -TAM, MANIFESTO 
 
 FUMOS VENDIT, ME NON CREDITURUM 
 
 ESSE CONFIRMO. 
 
 8. I FLATTER myfelf, that I have eftablifhed my 
 charge againft Origen with refpecT: to the particular 
 fad in queftion. That a ftric"l regard to truth in 
 difputation was not the virtue of his character, I 
 lhall now fhew 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 Ifaiah's 'prophecy of the Virgin's 
 
 yap tzoQEv KE^CTOJ ra Kotla rov TOTTOV 
 oj ttat aig<Tuv (tev ddsuVy KOU TX lyex r ssa.\\v\ 
 
 A a conception,
 
 354 R I) M A R 1C S. 
 
 PART IF. conception, makes his Jew fay, what hath fmce 
 been faid by many Jewifti 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 Chriftian interpreters underftand the 
 paflage, cites * the law againft the incontinence of 
 betrothed virgins, in Deut. xxii. 23, 24. the word 
 no/y, which Chriftians underftand of a virgin in 
 Ifaiah, being allowed, as Origen will have it, to 
 denote a virgin in this paflage of the law. But in this 
 paflage, according to our modern Hebrew text, the word 
 is not HDty, but r6iro. Were it certain that noty 
 had been the reading in the copies of the age of 
 Origen j a fufpicion might arife, that the text had 
 been corrupted by the Jews, for the purpofe of de- 
 priving the Chriftians 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 fufpecled 
 of prevarication, than the fynagogue of fraud. 
 
 xai kv Tw &iultfwo(ju ZTTI 'SJX^EVX) &c. <c The word 
 K HDty which the LXX have tranflated into the 
 " word 'srafSEvoj [ a virgin ], but other interpreters, 
 " into the word VEVJJ [ a young woman ], is put too, 
 " AS THEY SAY, in Deuteronomy fora virgin." 
 What is this, As they fay? Was it unknown to the 
 compiler of the Hexapla, what the reading of the 
 
 * Contra Cclf. Lib. I. \ 34 , 
 
 Hebrew
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 35$ 
 
 Hebrew text,- in his own time, was? If he knew PAR TIT. 
 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 aflert what 
 could 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 remarjc upon 
 the early fathers in general, whofe memories are 
 neverthelefs to be revered, for their learning and 
 the general fan&ity of their characters ; that in their 
 popular difcourfes, and, in argument, they were too 
 apt to facrifice fomewhat of the accuracy of facl: 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 reafon the great profit, which 
 
 * " I ha^e completely vindicated tire character of Origen, 
 *' which you have endeavoured to blot. 1 ' Second Letters, 
 Sic. p. * 89. 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 Difqui- 
 iitions. 
 
 A a 2 may
 
 35 6 REMARKS 
 
 PART ii. ma y ar if e ffom the fludy of their works, is rather 
 that we may gather from them, what were the opi- 
 nions and the practice of the whole body of the 
 Church, in the times wherein they lived j than that 
 any one of thefe writers is fafely to be followed in all 
 his affertions. 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 
 fliall 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 Acls 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- 
 leflhefs of the fathers in their rhetorical affertions, I 
 mould build my reply to the feveral paffages which 
 Dr. Prieftley hath produced from St. Chryfoftom, 
 
 to
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 357 
 
 to prove that it was allowed by St. Chryfoftom, that the 
 doftrine of the Trinity had never been openly taught 
 by the Apoftles ; if thofe pafiages appeared to me, 
 in the fame light in which they appear to my anta- 
 gonift. As for the particular pafiage 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 Apoftles taught firft 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 where faid, what Dr. Prieftley thinks he finds 
 in his expreflions, that the Apoftles had been re- 
 ferved and concealed upon an article of faith j I 
 mould 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 difcuffion 
 in a popular aflembly ; and that he had haftily let it 
 efcape him. I am well perfuaded, that any prieft in 
 Chryfoftom's jurifdiclion, who mould 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 bi(hop
 
 35 S REMARKS. 
 
 PAR rii. bifhop of Conftantinople. Had the prieft, in his 
 own vindication, prefumed to fay ; " Holy Father, 
 " if I am in error, you yourfelf muft anfwer for it. 
 " Upon your authority 1 adopted the opinion, which 
 " you now condemn; you have repeatedly faid in 
 " your commentaries, upon the facred books, that 
 " the Apoftles and the Evangelifts flood in awe of 
 cc the prejudices of their hearers :" St. Chryfoftom 
 would have replied ; " Faithlefs monfter ! is it thy 
 " ftupidity, or thy bafenefs, that interprets, as an 
 <l impeachment of the fmcerity of the firft infpired 
 " preachers, my encomium of their wifdom ? But 
 " why mould I wonder, that he mould not fcruple 
 " to flander his bimop, who fpares not the Apoftles 
 " and Evangelifts." Had the prieft been able to 
 prove againft St. Chryfoftom, that he had indeed 
 given countenance in his writings to fuch an error ; 
 the good father would have repented in fackcloth 
 and a/lies. 
 
 12. As the mention of Dr. Prieftley's quotations 
 from St. Chryfoftom hath occurred ; I muft not 
 omit to "do juftice to a paflage, which hath fuffered 
 a little in the hands of this emeritus profefTor of 
 Greek* in the late academy at Warrington. I 
 
 * I , taught it nine years, the laft fix of them at 
 
 *' Warrington." Second Letters, p. zoz. 
 
 Ad fummum, non Maurus erat, nee Sarmata, nee Thrax, 
 (ivn fumpfit pennas, medils fed natus Athcnis. 
 But " the elements of the language, it feems, were not 
 " taught there." [Ibid.] The profeflbr indeed, had the 
 t elements been to be tauglit, had been ill qualified for his 
 chair. 
 
 fpak
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 359 
 
 fpeak of the paflage cited by Dr. Prieftley, in his PART " 
 Second Letters, p. 94, from the firft 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 Englifh. Dr. Prieft- 
 ley, to get it into Englifh at all, has had recourfe to 
 an emendation. An " muft be turned into ua^ 
 " or fomething elfe." Suppofe turned into xaj ; 
 what will be the antecedent of the pronoun aulog in 
 the Greek, or of himfelf in Dr. Prieftley's Englifh I 
 Had Dr. Prieftley confulted any good edition of St. 
 Chryfoftom, either the Paris edition of 1735, or the 
 old Paris edition of Fronto Ducaeus, or the Eton 
 edition ; he would have found that yap IJTTEV b SEOJ 
 fhould be yap E/TTEV o Xproj ; and that fhould 
 keep its place. u Obferve (fays St. Chryfoftom) 
 " the Apoftle's prudence in the choice of his ex- 
 " preffions. For he hath not faid, Chrift fpake t al- 
 <c though he [i. e. Chrift] was the perfon who fpake: 
 " but becaufe their minds were weak, and they were 
 " not yet able to bear the tilings concerning Chrift, 
 " he fays, God fpake by him" 
 
 13. THE particular notion that Chrift was the 
 Jehovah of the Old Teftament, the perfon who con- 
 verfed with the Patriarchs, talked with Mofes in the 
 bufh, 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 do&rine of cur 
 A a 4 Lord's
 
 36o REMARKS 
 
 CH!P T I" Cord's * ITY J h ls judgement would be of little 
 weight, fince St. Paul thought otherwife. For, in 
 the fecond verfe of the firft chapter of this epiftle, 
 the Apoftle enters upon that abftrufe fubjec*, which, 
 in the firft verfe, according to Dr. Prieftley's inter- 
 pretation of St. Chryfoftom, he is fuppofed to fhun ; 
 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 u 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, (hews 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 pafiage, fpeaks of Chrift as the Jehovah of the 
 Old Teftament. He thought it beft to keep the 
 true meaning of the paiTage out of fight j 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 rejecting 
 an emendation unanimoufly received by later editors, 
 who took the pains to rectify the text by a laborious 
 collation of many MSS. to make the beft of the paf- 
 fage for himfdf, by correfting in the wrong place. 
 Thus indeed we have a beautiful fpecimcn of 911 
 ancient father corrcflcd by an Unitarian / 
 
 14. I MUST not quit the fubjeft of thefe quota- 
 tions, without obferving, that the Learned Reader, 
 
 in
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 
 
 in this firft homily of St. Chryfoftom upon the epiftle 
 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 thing 
 known and admitted in his time, that the ApoftJes 
 had been filent upon the fubje<5t of our Lord's divi- 
 nity; and that the orthodox, to account for this ac- 
 knowledged facl, were reduced to the neceffity of 
 fuppofing that they temporized. What the filence 
 of the Apoftles, upon this fubjecl:, was ; may bz 
 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 that homily, will perceive, that the pru- 
 dence, which St. Chryfoftom afcribes to the Apof- 
 tles, was a prudence in the manner of preaching 
 myfterious dodtrines, not a dHhoneft 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 epiftle is 
 the confutation of thofe, who, in ignorance, or in 
 art, would afcnbe to him fo unworthy a notion of 
 the founders of our faith. 
 
 CHAP-
 
 362, REMARKS 
 
 CHAPTER SECOND. 
 
 Of the Church of //;'#, or Jerufalem^ after Adrian. 
 Mojheim's Narration confirmed. Chriftians npt 
 included in Adrian's Ediffs again/I the Jews. The 
 return from Pella^ a faff affirmed by Epiphanius. ; 
 Orthodox Hebrew Chri/lians exljling In the World 
 kng after the times of Adrian, 
 
 F.**T II. / I'^HE next fact that comes in queftion, is the ex- 
 J- iftence of a body of orthodox Hebrew Chrifti- 
 ans at Jerufalem, after the final difperfion of the Jews 
 by Adrian. 
 
 2. IN the feverith 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 imperfect ; that whoever attempts to 
 make out a confident ftory from the ancient writers, 
 which are come down to us, will find himfelf under 
 a neceffity of helping out their broken accounts by his 
 own conjectures. In the general view of the tran- 
 fadtions of that time, I agree almoft entirely with 
 -Momeim ; who, in my judgement, hath, with great 
 penetration, drawn forth the whole truth ; or what 
 muft feem to us the truth, becaufe it carries the 
 higheft air of probability ; from the obfcure hints, 
 vhich the hiftorian Sulpitius furnilhes, connected 
 *ith other hints, which, though unobferved by Dr. 
 
 Prieftley,
 
 UPON SECOND- LETTERS. 365 
 
 Prieftley, are to be found in other writers of antiquity. P* R T y 
 Dr. Prieftley fpeaks of a feries of fads *, and of many 
 circumftances, which, he fays, I have added to Mo- 
 meim's account, and " muft know that I added." 
 If Dr. Prieftley confulted that part of Mofheim's work, 
 De Rebus Chrijlianorum ante Gonftantinum^ to which 
 the margin of my letters referred him (but in Mo- 
 fheim, as in Grotius, it is likely that he turned to the 
 wrong place) : if he opened Momeim in the place to 
 which I referred ; he muft know that I have added 
 no circumftance, to Mofheim's account ; but fuch as 
 every one muft add, in his own imagination, who ad- 
 mits Momeim's reprefeflttation of the fa6t in its prin- 
 cipal parts. He muft know, that three circumftances 
 in particular, which he is pleafed to mention among 
 my additions, are affirmed by Mofheim : the conflux 
 of Hebrew Chriftians to JEAia. ; the motive, which in- 
 duced the majority to give up their ancient cuftoms ; 
 namely the defire of lharing in the privileges of the 
 ./Elian 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- 
 fheim's aflertions before they were mine : and Dr. 
 Prieftley either knows this ; or, pretending to feparate 
 Mofheim's own account from my additions, he hath 
 not taken the trouble to examine what is mine, and 
 what is Mofheim's. 
 
 3. IT may feem, however, that to convict myad- 
 verfary of the crime of fhameful precipitance, in affert- 
 ing what he hath not taken the pains to know ; or of 
 
 * Second Letters, &c. p. 192. f Ib. p. 39. 
 
 the
 
 364 REMARKS 
 
 'ART IT. 
 CHAF. II. 
 
 PART IT. the worfe crime of aflerting the contrary of what he 
 
 knows ; abfolves not me of the imputation, that I 
 have related upon the authority of Mofheim, what 
 Moft>eim related upon none *. I will therefore briefly 
 ftate the principles, which determine me to abide by 
 Momeim's account of the tranfaclions in queftion. I 
 take for granted, then, thefe things. 
 
 I. A Church of Hebrew Chriftians, adhering to 
 the obfervance of the Atfofaic 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 
 -ffilia. 
 
 III. THE Church of ^Elia, often, but improperly, 
 called the Church of Jerufalem, for Jerufalem was no 
 more ; the Church of yElia in its external form, that 
 is, in its do&rines 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 ^Elia was compofed. He fays, of con- 
 verts of Gentile extraction. 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 Lcttrrs, &c. p. 1^2. 
 
 IV. THAT
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 365 
 
 IV. THAT the obfervation of the Mofaic law, in PART n. 
 
 . CHAP. II. 
 
 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, muft have put every true believer's confci- 
 ence at eafe upon the fubjecl:. St. Paul, in all his 
 epiftles, maintains the total infignifkance of the Mo- 
 faic law, either for Jew or Gentile, after Chrift had 
 made the great atonement j and the notion that St. 
 Paul could be miftaken, in a point which is the prin- 
 cipal fubject 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 divert 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 fhort duration ; and 
 the Bifhop, while he ii*t there, was ftill called the JJilhop of 
 Jerufalem. 
 
 A. Dr.
 
 3 66 REMARKS 
 
 IART rr. 4. DR. PRIESTLEY afks me, " Where, Sir, do 
 " 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 paflage of Sulpitius ; nor 
 in any paflage of any antient, I may add, nor of any 
 modern writer. But the queftion implies a falfe and 
 fraudulent reprefentation of my argument. I never 
 fpake, I never dreamed, of any promife of particular 
 immunities to Jewifh Chriftians, upon condition that 
 they renounced the Mofaic law. I fpake only of the 
 general immunities of the JElhn colony, of which 
 Chriftians might, and Jews might not partake f. 
 
 * Second Letters, &c. p. 42. 
 
 f- Notwithftanding the explanation, which I have here 
 given, of what I faid, in the Seventh of my Letters in Reply, 
 of the exclufion of Jews, and of Jews only, from the privi- 
 leges of the .flilian colony ; Dr. Prieftleyin his Third Letters, 
 has the affurance to tell me, " You lay that the Jews were al- 
 *' lowed to remain in the place and enjoy the privileges of the 
 " ./Elian 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 
 exprefled my 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- 
 tc lem on condition of their embracing it." But I fuppofe 
 that the Emperor might diftinguifh between rebels and thofe 
 who had been good fubjecls. The Hebrew Chriftians had 
 taken no part in the rebellion. And yet, had they not dif- 
 scarded the Jewift rites, they might have been miftaken for 
 Jev*"s 
 
 5. Dr.
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 3ft 
 
 5. DR. PRIESTLEY alleges, that " the hiftorian P*T 11- 
 " [Sulpitius] fays, that the objeft of Adrian was to 
 
 11 overturn Chriftianity*." But whatever the em- 
 peror's diflike to Chriftianity might be, there is little 
 probability that, upon this occaiion, he would be dil- 
 pofed to treat Chriftians with feverity. The hiftorian 
 Sulpitius nowhere fays, that the emperor's edicts 
 againft the Jews extended to Chriftians ; and the hif- 
 torian Oroiius fays exprefsly, that to Chriftians they 
 extended not f. Was Orofius too late a writer to 
 give evidence about thefe tranfa&ions ? 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 aflerlion, 
 and his talent of accommodating his ftory to his opi- 
 nions, mould 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 aflertion 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, Sec. p. 42. 
 
 f- praecepitque ne cui Jtidaeo introeundi Hierofoly- 
 
 mam efletlicentia, Chriftianis tantum civitate permifla. Orof. 
 Hift. Hb. 7, cap, xiii, 
 
 Adrian
 
 368 REMARKS 
 
 PART. ii. Adrian was not unfavourable to the Chriftians. The 
 [Ae ' JI ' Church, in his reign, obtained a refpite from perfe- 
 cution. The fury of its perfecutors was reftrained 
 by the imperial refcripts to the provincial governors : 
 who were directed not to proceed againft the Chrif- 
 tians, except by way of regular trial upon the alle- 
 gation of fome certain crime : and when nothing 
 more was alleged than the bare name of Chrifti- 
 anity, to punHh the informer as a fycophant. A 
 refcript to this effect addrefied to Minucius Funda- 
 nus, proconful of Afia, is preferved by Juftin Mar- 
 tyr in his firft apology ; and, after Juftin, by Eufe- 
 bius in his hiftory *. [J This equitable difpofition of 
 the emperor towards the Chriftians, is afcribed by 
 Eufebius to the eloquent apologies of Quadratus and 
 Ariftides, and to the remonftrances of Serenius Gra- 
 nianus, the predeceffor of Fundanus in the Afiatic 
 proconfulate f. When the Jewifli war broke out; 
 reafons of ftate immediately took place, which would 
 greatly heighten the effect of any impreffions, pre- 
 vioufly made upon the emperor's mind by the 
 pleadings of the Chriftian Apologifts, and the inter- 
 ceffions of what friends they might have among his 
 
 * Hift. Eccl. Lib. IV. c. 8 & 9. 
 
 [a] Dr. Prieftley in the Second of his Third Letters con- 
 tends that thefe refcripts meant nothing more, than that no 
 one mould be punifhed as a Chriftian, 'till he was proved to 
 be fuch. But this had been no indulgence ; for every Chrif- 
 tian might have been, proved to be a Chriftian by his own 
 confeilion. The writers of -the times boaft of thefe refcripts 
 as indulgences. 
 
 t Hift. Eccl. Lib. IV.c. 3. & inChron.adann. MMCXLII. 
 
 courtiers
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 369 
 
 courtiers. The Chriftians of Paleftine refufed to PART 11. 
 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 fad is, I believe, that of Eufebius in his 
 chronicle *. But the known impiety of Barchoche- 
 bas, which renders it incredible that the Chriftians 
 Ihould inlift under his banners, fufficiently avouches 
 the truth of the chronologer's aflertion. The thing 
 therefore in itfelf is highly probable, that the emperor 
 Ihould make the diftin&ion which, Orofms fays, he 
 made between the feditious Jews and the harmlefs 
 Chriftians j who had, indeed, been fuffeters by their 
 loyalty. The probability is ftill increafed 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 refractory 
 manners of the Jews might naturally excite. Spar- 
 tian fays, that a prohibition of circumcifion was one 
 of the pretences of the Jewifh 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 
 practice had been forbidden by fome preceding em- 
 peror ; in fome meafure confirms Spartian's relation. 
 All thefe circumftances 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 edicts of Adrian, by which the Jews 
 
 * Ad annum MMCXLIX. 
 
 f Movebant ea tempeftate & Jud<ei bellum, quod veta- 
 bantur mutilare genitalia. Spartian in Adriano. 
 
 B b were
 
 37e> REMARKS 
 
 PART ii. were banimed from Jerufalem. And although no 
 author that I know of, befide Orofius, exprefsly 
 mentions the distinction; the contrary, that the 
 ChrifKans were included, is affirmed by no ancient 
 writer. The diftin&ion indeed, though not men- 
 tioned, is clearly implied in Epiphanius's afiertion; 
 that the Hebrew Chriflians, after Adrian's fettlement 
 of the /Elian colony, returned from Pella, whither 
 they had retired from the diftrefles of the war, to 
 JEli*. For it happens, that this facl, of which 
 Dr. Prieftley does me the honour to make me the 
 the inventor, is aflerted 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 JElia -, proceeds 
 in thefe words : b TOIVUV Axvhas, diayuv sv TJJ 
 KM bpuv TS$ (JMQ$a.$ TUV pctQnlav ray avorohuv 
 TJJ -BnrEf, # <rv/j,ia, jWsyaXa J^yafo/^Evsj layeuv 
 Sauftalw wav yap 'TnOSTPE^ ANTES' AHO IIEA- 
 AH2 
 
 yap /XEXXEV w -sroMj aMtrxtfQai ino riav 
 VTTO ayfete wavls; ol iLaJa-ftau 
 XX7>i$ a^nv a.'Trott.uffSai' bmn$ uai 
 Kwav EV IIsX/ji TJI 'srpoysyfafji.fji.svYi 'sr 
 loftavn, *)Ti$ EK dettaTrotetog teytlai eivou' pila Je rnv 
 'EnANAITPE^'ANTES, ug Ipnv, 
 b roivvv Axvha$) . T. \. Epiph. 
 
 De Pond y Menf. Wither 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
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 371 
 
 and of Adrian's, is a matter of no importance. It PART II* 
 is fufficient for my purpofe, that thefe returned 
 Chriftians wefe refiding at Jerufalem, or more pro- 
 perly at /Elia, 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, Mofheim, relating the fact, refers. Relating the 
 
 fame 
 
 * Dr. Priefiley in the Third of his Third Letters, has 
 treated this teftimony of Epiphanius juft as I expected 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 pofitive tef- 
 timony fubmit to his own theory. " What can be more 
 " evident, he fays, than that the return of the Jewifti Chrif- 
 " tiansfrom Pella, mentioned in this pafTage by Epiphanius, 
 " is that return which followed the deftruction of Jerufalern 
 " by Titus?" Be it fo. It is granted then that fome of the 
 Jewifti Chriftians, who fled to Pella during Titus's war, re- 
 turned to Jerufalem afterwards. But the queftion is, not at 
 what time the Jewifh Chriftians, whom Aquila found at 
 JEYia, 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 ./Elia. 
 At that time therefore there were Hebrew Chriftians fettled 
 at ./Elia, 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 ^Elia, before the Jewifli rebellion, 
 were included in Adrian's edict for the banifliment of the 
 Jews. 
 
 But Dr. Prieftley remarks further upon the authority of 
 
 Cave, that Aquila' s tranflation of the Old Teftament was 
 
 B b i made
 
 37 a REMARKS 
 
 PART II. fame fat, to Mofheim I referred* : to the very paf- 
 fage f, where Dr. Prieftly, had he known what it is 
 to examine authorities before he pronounces upon 
 
 made in the nth or izth year of Adrian. Then, fmce that 
 translation was undertaken in confequence of his apoftacy, 
 and his apoftacy was fome confiderable 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 JElia., while he was 
 residing there in the time of Adrian, is difcredited. 
 
 Perhaps to aflign the exadt year of Aquila's tranflatien 
 would prove atafk of nolefs difficulty to any who mould 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 reafon for fixing 
 Aquila's tranflation to the nth or i2th of Adrian; but that 
 Epiphanius fays, that in the 1 2th year of Adrian, " Aquila firft 
 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 
 .^Elia. This was in the i zth year of Adrian. His converfion 
 to Chriftianity was fome time fubfequent to that appoint- 
 ment : his apoftacy, at fome confiderable diftance of time, 
 fubfeque'nt to his converfion : and his tranflation of the Old 
 Teftament fubfequent to his apoftacy. So that the time/>f 
 that tranflation, can be no otherwife defined than thus ; that it 
 certainly was not earlier than the izth 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 Pella, is but too much juftified by the event. 
 
 * Letters to Dr. Prieftley, p. 61. 
 
 f De Rebus Chriftianorum ante Conftantinum. Saec. II. 
 ^ 38. not. * 
 
 them,
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 373 
 
 them, might have found the reference to the original PART II. 
 author. The confidence with which he mentions 
 this as a fact 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 fi&ions to the hiftorical difcuffton. 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 Paleftine, 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 ^Elia. To complete the proof therefore, I might 
 appeal to Epiphanius's aflertion of the return of the 
 Chriftians of Jerufalem from Pella. But I will 
 rather derive the proof, from a fact which I think 
 more convincing than the teftimony of Epiphanius; 
 a fact, by which that teftimony is itfelf indeed con- 
 firmed. I affirm then, 
 
 VII. THAT a body of orthodox Chriftians of 
 the Hebrews were actually 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 ; that, were his 
 evidence at all admiflible, his diftinction would be 
 fomewhat a ftronger proof for me ; than his general 
 
 B b 3 aflertion.
 
 374 REMARKS 
 
 PART ii. afTertion, of which the generality is difcredked by the 
 diftintion afterwards alleged, can be allowed to be 
 for my antagonift. But I give him Origen. I will 
 reft the credit of my feventh pofition, upon the men- 
 tion which occurs in St. Jerom's commentary upon 
 Ifaiah, of Hebrews believing in Chrift as diftincl: 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 Chrijl ; the other, to the Naza- 
 renes. The character given of thefe Hebrews, that 
 " they believed in Chrift," without any tiling to 
 diftinguifh their belief from the common belief of the 
 church, without any note of its error or imperfection, 
 is a plain character of compleat orthodoxy. For it 
 was neither the difpofition of St.Jerom, nor thefafhion 
 of his age, tomifs any opportunity of proclaiming the 
 vices of thofe, who were deemed heretics j 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 error, that hadbeenjuftlyto 
 be imputed to thefe Hebrews ; 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 diftin&ion of them from 
 the Nazarenes, made by St. Jerom, is a plain proof 
 that they were not obfervers of the Mofaic law. For 
 although the Mofaic law was obferved in the orthodox 
 
 church
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 375 
 
 church of Jerufalem, until the time of the fuppreffion P** T J J* 
 of the Jewifh rebellion by Adrian; it was after his 
 time, by my adverfary's own confeflion, confined to 
 the Nazarenes and the Ebionites. If then the He- 
 brews believing in Chrift obferved not the Mofaic law 
 in the time of St. Jerom : fmce the Mofaic law had 
 been obferved by the firft race of believing Hebrews; 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 hiftory of the church mail we find a pofture 
 of affairs, fo likely to induce the Hebrew Chriftians 
 to forfake the Mofaic law, as that which obtained in 
 Palestine upon the final difperfion of the Jews by 
 Adrian ? If the orthodox Chriftians of the Hebrews, 
 actually exifting fomewhere in the world from the reign 
 of Adrian to the days of St. Jerom, were not mem- 
 bers of the church of ./Elia, dwelling at JLlia, and in 
 the adjacent parts of Paleftine; 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 Chriftian 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 Jli% was 
 furnifhed with its members. 
 
 * " What became of the Chriftian Jews who were driven 
 " out of Jerufalem by Adrian, does not appear.'* Secon4 
 Letters, &c. p. 45. 
 
 B b 4. 9. UPON
 
 3 7 6 REMARKS 
 
 PART ii. g. UPON thefe foundations, which a ftronger arm 
 than Dr. Prieftley's ihall not be able to tear up, ftands 
 " the church of orthodox Jewifh Chriftians at Jeru- 
 <c falem* :" To which the aflertors 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 that 
 this church, even before the time of Adrian, was 
 Trinitarian. I brought evidence in my letters!, 
 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 feel, 
 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 church 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 ceafetofay, 
 that Epiphanius's reprefentation juftifies no fuch opi- 
 
 * '* Thus ends this church of orthodox Jewifh Chriftians 
 " at Jerufalem, &c." Second Letters, p. 44. 
 
 f " I hope y (Idpopiflus curat falicct) I hope, however, 
 we fhall hear no more of them as an evidence oftheanti- 
 ' quity of the Trinitarian doarine." Second Letters, p. 45. 
 
 J See particularly Letter VIII. 
 
 Second Letters, p. 45, 
 
 nion.
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 37X 
 
 nion. But what is Epiphanius's account of the Na- PART H - 
 zarenes, or what is any account of the Nazarenes, to 
 thepurpofe; //"the Hebrews of the church of Jerufa- 
 lem were no Nazarenes ? With St. Jerom, the He- 
 brews believing in Chrift, and the Nazarenes, are 
 different people. 
 
 N. B. Dr. Prieftley's objections 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.
 
 37* REMARKS 
 
 CHAPTER THIRD. 
 
 Of the Hebrew Church and its Sefts. 
 
 
 TT muft ftrike the learned reader, that the Naza- 
 CHAP. III. renes mentioned by St. Jerom, in the pafTage 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 delegation ; their traditions 
 in contempt ^ and the Apoftle St. Paul in high ve- 
 neration *. And yet thefe Nazarenes, of the beft 
 fort, were ftill a diftincl: 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 edicts againft 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 diftincl: notion of the different 
 feels of Hebrews profeffing the Chriftian religion, 
 than I have met with in writers of ecclefiaftical anti- 
 quity ; a much more diftincl: one, I confefs, than I 
 had myfelf formed, when I delivered the Charge to 
 the Clergy of my Archdeaconry, which gave the be- 
 
 * See Jerom in If. JX. i, 2, 3, et VIII. 14, 1922. 
 
 ginning
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 3 
 
 ginning to this controverfy; a notion however per- PART 
 feclly confident with every thing, which I then main- 
 tained j and tending to eftablilh the points, in which 
 I differ from Dr. Prieftley. As the queftion about 
 the Hebrew feels is of great importance, I (hall here 
 briefly ftate 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- 
 NJEUS. Irenaeus fays of the Ebionites *, that they 
 acknowledged God for the maker of the world ; 
 that they refembled not Cerinthus or Carpocrates in 
 their opinions about Chrift j 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 Jewim 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 paiTage which relates to their opinions 
 about Chrift, Cotelerius fufpecls a corruption ; and 
 for non fimiliter he would read conjimiliter ; fup- 
 pofmg that Irenaeus muft have affirmed, 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. 
 
 * Irenaeus, lib. i. cap. XXVI. 
 
 3. IRENJEUS
 
 3 5o R E M ARKS 
 
 PART ii. 3. IREN<JEUS in another place infinuatcs, that for 
 I1J ' wine, in the Eucharift, the Ebionites fubflituted 
 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 refpedt higher in 
 glory than the prophets f. In another place J he 
 fays, that Ebion was the fucceffor 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 j 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 difagreemenr, 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 Garpocrates and Cerinthus as 
 well as Ebion ; which renders the emendation, pro- 
 pofed by Cotelerius, in the Latin verfion of Ire- 
 naeus, confimillter 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 againft the ob- 
 fervers and defenders of circumcifion and the lavr," 
 
 * Irenseus, lib. 5, c. II. f De carne Chridi. c. XIV. 
 t De Prxfcript. Hseret. c. XLVIII, 
 
 adds,
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 3*! 
 
 adds, " this was Ebion's herefy*." This how- PABTII. 
 
 , . CHAP. III. 
 
 ever is no argument, that Ebion lived when that 
 epiftle was written. ( Tertullian 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 refurrection 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 againft 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 profefles 
 to defcribe the Chriftianity of the Hebrews with the 
 greateft accuracy, he divides the whole body into 
 three fefts. 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 to the letter, but rejected all fpiritual ex- 
 politions of itj. 
 
 * Deprafcript. Hzeret. cap. XXXIII. 
 f Contra Celf. lib. II. ^ i. 
 J Con.Celf.lib.il. $3. 
 
 6. EUSEBIVS
 
 3 g* REMARKS 
 
 PART ii. 6. EusEBius divides the Ebionites into two forts, 
 both denying our Lord's divinity ; but the better 
 fort believing the miraculous conception*. Both 
 rejected the epiftles of St. Paul, whom they called 
 an apoftate from the law. They ufed the Gofpel 
 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 Irenaeus, mention not the Nazarenes 
 by name. 
 
 7. ST. JEROM, in his commentary upon Ifaiah, 
 mentions Hebrews believing in Chrift f ; and, as a 
 diftind 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 doctrine of our 
 Lord's divinity. For, by an expofition of If. viii. 
 J 3> *4> which St. Jerom afcribes to them, it ap- 
 pears that they acknowledged in Chrift the niNDS? 
 mn [the Lord God of hofts] 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 Jewifli feel:, than 
 a Chriftian. In the fame place, he fpeaks of the 
 
 * Hift. Ecc. lib. III. c. 27. f In If. ix. i, 2, 3. 
 
 J In If. ibid. & viii. 14. & 1921. || Ibid. 
 
 ^ Hieron, Op. Tom. IL f. 341. A. edit. Froben. 
 
 Ebionites
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS, 3X3 
 
 Ebionites as a fed: anathematized for their Judaifm, A*T 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 commiflion. 
 
 8. EPIPHANIUS defcribes the fe& of the Naza- 
 renes as a fet of people hardly to be diftinguifhed' 
 from Jews. He exprefles a doubt, whether they ac- 
 knowledged our Lord's divinity : but the terms, in 
 which his doubt is exprefled, 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 ; 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 fects 
 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 feel, which branched off 
 from the Nazarenes, and appeared not till after the 
 deftruclion of Jerufalem f. 
 
 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. ^j 10, II. 
 
 Hr. 30, 
 
 of
 
 3*4- REMARKS 
 
 PART II. of the fecond century, was the firft who taught the 
 meer humanity of Chrift *. He preached at Rome. 
 His doctrine 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 deftruclion of Jerufalem, the Hebrew church, 
 if under that name we may comprehend the fets 
 which feparatedfromit, was divided into five different 
 fets of people. 
 
 I. St. JEROM'S Hebrews believing in Chrift. 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 
 not efteem the law generally necefiary to falvation. If 
 thefe people were at all heretical j I mould guefs that 
 it was in this angle point, that they received the gof- 
 pel of the Nazarenes inftead of the canonical gof- 
 pels. 
 
 * Hift. Ecc. lib. V. c. 28. 
 
 f See more upon this point in Mr. Howes's fermon. 
 
 III. NAZARENES
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 385 
 
 III. NAZARENES of a worfe fort, bigotted to the PART n. 
 Jewifli Jaw, 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 lefts, 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 fedts, 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 fefts, was not car- 
 ried to its height among them. A fe 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,
 
 3 8<J REMARKS 
 
 PART ii. ever, feem certain ; that the Nazarenes, even of the 
 beft 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 frill 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 mould, 
 at any time hereafter, fee caufe to think myfelf mifta- 
 ken ; my conviclion is not likely to come from Dr. 
 Prieftley, but from a very different quarter. Mr. 
 Howes's Qth number is juft fallen into my hands. 
 That learned writer, I perceive, thinks that it was 
 but a fubordinate divinity, which 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 ftrongeft pre- 
 pofleffions, I confefs, at prefent in favour of my 
 
 CHAP.
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 38? 
 
 CHAPTER FOURTH. 
 
 Of the Decline of Calvinifm. Of Conventicles. 
 
 I NOW pafs to the third facTr, which I have taken C J*J T , 
 upon me to eftablifti ; the decline of Calvinifm, 
 amounting almoft to a total extinction of it, among 
 our Englim Diflenters ; who, no long time fince, were 
 generally Calvinifts. 
 
 2. THIS fact is of no great importance in our con- 
 troverfy ; as it is but very remotely conned-ted 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 the 
 opinions of great bodies of men change, would lead, 
 in the practical application of it, to very erroneous 
 conclufions. If my inftance was ill-chofen; it will 
 not immediately be a confequence, that Dr. Prieftley'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 refpet 
 to this fact ; and to fee reafon to believe Dr. Prieftley, 
 in his aflertion, that the great body of our Diflenters 
 at this day are Calvinifts. So many Calvinifts as are 
 among them, fo many friends there are to the catholic 
 C c 2 faith
 
 s8 $ REMARKS 
 
 PART. ii. faith in all its eflential branches ; for the peculiarities 
 1V * of Calvinifm affecl: not the eflentials 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 cognifance of the Britifti legifla- 
 ture, I could allow Dr. Prieftley's aflertion, to out- 
 weigh the plain teftimony of fails of public noto- 
 riety. 
 
 3. IF the great body of the Diflenters are, at this 
 day, Calvinifts ; upon what pretence was it, that the 
 diflenting minifters, who, in the years 1772 and 
 1773, petitioned Parliament to be releafed from the 
 fubfcriptions to which they were held by the iftof 
 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 ftridl tenets of Calvi- 
 nifm ; yet they are in this part, what, as I conceive, 
 no true Calvinift would fcruple to fubfcribe; and, 
 with refpecl to the great doctrines 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 confefllon of his faith : for none better 
 underftands than the genuine Calvinift, the force of 
 that facred maxim, " with the heart man believeth 
 " unto righteoufnefs, 1 and with the mouth confefllon 
 " is made unto falvation." Would Dr. Prieftley infi- 
 
 nuate,
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 389 
 
 nuate, that his brethren of the rational diffent ap- PART n. 
 
 CHAP IV 
 
 proached the auguft aflembly of the Britifti Parlia- 
 ment, with a petition founded upon falfe pretenfions ? 
 Will he fay, that they were, in fat, the minority of 
 the body, of which they called themfelves the gene- 
 rality ? Will he fay, that the Thirteen *, who 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 wifdotn 
 of our forefathers, by the A& of Toleration, hadim- 
 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 
 redde;}:. 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 fenfe 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, A Collection of the federal Papers 
 relating to the Application made to Parliament, in 1772 avd 
 
 1773, by fame of the Protcjlant Di/enters, for Relief in the mat- 
 ter of Subfcription, &c. London, Printed for J.lVilkie, N 71,. 
 St. Paul's CburJj- Yard. MDCCLXXIII. 
 
 t See Wilkie's Colleftion, N III. 
 t See Wilkie's CoUeftion, N II, 
 
 C C 3 " VERNMENT
 
 39 o REMARKS 
 
 PART II. vERNMENT ever defend the orthodox DifTenters*." 
 Thefe thirteen fpake only the fentiments of every 
 Calvinift, when they faid, " We believe the doctrines 
 <{ 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&ing 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 moft 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 Confeflbrs, who, on 
 the 23d of December, 1772, and on the 27th of Ja- 
 nuary in the following year, in meetings of the Gene- 
 ral Body of the three denominations, flood for the 
 Faith once delivered to the Saints. " They thought 
 " themfelves bound, they faid, to contend earneftly 
 " for it againft all who mould oppofe it." For this 
 purpofe they formed, as I gather from the documents 
 of the times J, into a diftincl: aflbciation. When the 
 
 * See Candid Thoughts on the late Application offome Protef- 
 tant Jijflnting Minljlers, &c. By an Orthodox Dijjenter. Lon- 
 don, Printed for W. Goldfmitb, N". 20, Paternofter-Roiv t 
 1772. 
 
 f See Wilkie's Collection, N II. ', 3. 
 
 J See Wilkie's Collection, N III. and IV. 
 
 petition
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 391 
 
 petition of the Rationales was laid before the Parlia- P A*T n. 
 
 CHAP. IV 
 
 ment, they were firm and a&ive in their oppofition to 
 it ; confidering the requeft as little lefs than a blow 
 craftily aimed at the very vitals of the Reformed reli- 
 gion, and of Chriftianity, indeed, itfelf. They pre- 
 fented a crofs petition *, figned, as they themfelves 
 faid, by the Minifters as well as the Laity of the moft 
 refpeftable congregations of real Proteftant Diflenters 
 in town and country. But, when they wimed to give 
 credit and authority to their oppofition, by boafting 
 of their numbers: the moft that they could fay of the 
 number of minifters, who had figned the crofs petition 
 was this j that they were " upwards of Fifty." The 
 number of difTenting 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 ftill Calvinifts," he muft be underftood 
 to ufe 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 new in- 
 ftance it turns out fomewhat larger. 
 
 4. THUS, from the evidence of public facls, I have 
 the mortification to find Dr. Prieftley's fentiments 
 confuted, and my own confirmed, concerning the 
 prefent ftate of Calvinifm among the Englifh DUIen- 
 
 * See Wilkie's Colkaion, N V, 
 
 G c 4 ters.
 
 39 Z 
 
 REMARKS 
 
 PART ii. t ers< And however it may nowferve 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. te It is ad- 
 " mitted," fay the Rationalifts, in the Cafe of the 
 Proteflant dijfenting Minifters and Schoolmafters, " that 
 " the greater part of the diflenting minifters liave not 
 " complied, and cannot in conference comply with 
 " the fubfcription required by the Act of Toleration. 
 " The diflenting minifters in general are confequently 
 " liable to the penalties abovementioned." After ftau 
 ing the relief which they defired to obtain, they allege 
 that the " generality of Proteftant diflenting minifters, 
 " together with their people, are happily united in the 
 " object of the prefent application *." The petition- 
 ing Diflenters it feems in the year 1772 thought the 
 Calvinifts fo few and inconfiderable ; that the minif- 
 ters, who could not in confcience" comply with the ift 
 of William and Mary, and were happily united in the 
 object of the application at that time made to Parlia- 
 ment, feemed to them the generality of Proteftant dif- 
 ienting Minifters. Thefe gentlemen knew, it is to be 
 prefumed, the ftate of the diflent. They meant not 
 to impofe a lie upon the three eftates of the Britim le- 
 giflature. For they were all, all honourable 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 
 refpe&able authority. 
 
 * See Wilkie's Colleaion, N I. 
 
 5. I am
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 393 
 
 5. I am not ignorant indeed, that this authority PART n. 
 was treated with little refpecl by the protefting 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 meer 
 tendernefs for fcrupulous coniciences ; many more 
 upon that goodly principle, the fource of all that or- 
 derly fubmiflion to the higher powers, which hath 
 ever been fo confpicuous in the Puritans of this coun- 
 try, that even a true faith is not to be confefled at the 
 requifition of the magiftrate. I bear that good will to 
 Calvinifm, that it gives me real concern to remember, 
 that it hath ever been difgraced by a connection with 
 fuch a principle. 1 am inclined however to believe, 
 that the Calvinifts, 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 magiftrate is now removed ; and no 
 pretence exifts for a Puritanical referve. I would afk 
 then, what is now the ftate of the DifTenting miniflry? 
 Are they at this time a majority, are they any confi- 
 derable part, of the diffenting minifters, who have 
 qualified under the ift of William and Mary ? Every 
 diftenting minifter hath now the alternative of quali- 
 fying, either by- fubfcribing the doctrinal articles; or 
 by a declaratiqn, which, by the iqth of his prefent 
 Majefty, is accepted inftead of fubfcription. But the 
 Calvinift, even of the puritanical caft, holds himfelf 
 
 * See " Candid Thoughts, &c. by an Orthodox Dif- 
 fenter," fed. II. 
 
 bound
 
 394 . REMARKS 
 
 PA*T IT. bound to an open declaration of his faith; excentin 
 
 HAP* IV 
 
 that extraordinary cafe, when the interference of the 
 magiftrate 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 Aft of Toleration. And 
 if they are but an inconfiderable part of the dhTenting 
 miniury, who have qualified in this manner j it is but 
 too plain that Calvinifm among the diflenters is almoft 
 extinguished. Inconfiderable, however, as I fear their 
 numbers are, the Calvinifts, for the foundnefs of their 
 faith, are the moft refpe&able part of our modern Dif- 
 fenters : and though few, in comparifon with the ge- 
 neral mixed body of the Rationalifls, I hope they are 
 more numerous than the proper Unitarians. 
 
 6. So much for the principal facts which I engaged 
 to eftablifh. It may, perhaps, be expected, that I 
 ihould take fome notice of another, in which I have 
 been charged with mifreprefentation. Dr. Prieftley, 
 in his firft letters to me, exprefled high refentment, at 
 the ufe which I had made in my Charge of the word 
 Conventicle; as defcriptive of meetings in which he, 
 and friends of his, prefide. To inform myfelf how 
 far this refentment might be well-founded, and for no 
 other purpofe, I fearched the regifters of certain courts 
 for fuch an entry of the houfe in Eflex- Street, and for 
 a record of fuch declarations on the part of the minif- 
 ter, as, by the iQth of his prefent majeliy, are requi- 
 fite to make a meeting, upon the pretence of Divine 
 Worlhip, not a conventicle in the ftricl fenfeofthe 
 word. I told Dr. Frieftley, that I had found neither 
 
 entry
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 395 
 
 entry of the houfe, nor record of the minifter's decla- P ART n - 
 ration. Dr. Prieftley replies, that I could, indeed, 
 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 trufted to their report, which I find 
 was not accurate. I believe the fact to be, as Dr. 
 Prieftley ftates it. The houfe is entered^ but the mi- 
 nifler 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 moil un- 
 pleafant part of the controverfy, were it not that the 
 ftyle 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 infift, that all meetings 
 under minifters 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 
 me in my Charge, was not mifapplied*. 
 
 N. B. THE 
 
 * Dr. Prieftley in his Third Letters infifts that his own 
 meeting-houfe, and Mr. Lindfey's, cannot be brought under 
 the denomination of Conventicles merely becaufe they, who 
 preach in them, are not authorifed by Law. He thinks, " that 
 " if, by any accident an unauthorifed diOTcnting Minifter, like 
 " himfelf, fhould preach in a pari/h church, it would not on 
 *' that account become a conventicle." But whatever he 
 may think, an aflembly in a parifh church to hear Dr. Prieftley 
 preach, or even to aflift at Divine Worfhip performed by a 
 
 Prieft
 
 396 REMARKS 
 
 PART ii. N. B. THE preceding Chapter gave occafion to a 
 CAF. IV. p amp hj etj en titled, The Cahinifm of the Protejlant 
 DiJJenters afferted: in a Letter to the Archdeacon of St. 
 Man's. By Samuel Palmer, Paflor 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 ourEnglifh Diflenters. 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 Magiftrate in religious mat- 
 ters. 
 
 Of thefe three propofitions, the two firft feem to 
 militate ftrongly on my fide, heightening the appear- 
 ance at leaft of a paucity of Calvinifts among our Dif- 
 fenters : fince fix of the thirteen who protefted, and 
 
 Prieft of the Church of England, otherwife than according to 
 the form preicribed by the Book of Common Prayer, would 
 be a Conventicle ; and all perfons reforting to it would be 
 liabla to the penalties, which the Laws denounce againft per- 
 fons frequenting Conventicles.
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 397 
 
 all the fifty who petitioned, according to Mr. Palmer, PART IL 
 were not Englifti Diflenters. As for the third, if 
 the fa& be as Mr. Palmer ftates it, I can only la- 
 ment that a republican principle mould fo ftrongly 
 have infected fo refpeclable 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 Diflenters 
 of the prefent times; tho', for what reafon I pre- 
 fume not to fay, the diflenting Teachers diflike to be 
 told of its extinction.. 
 
 CHAP.
 
 REMARKS 
 
 CHAPTER FIFTH. 
 
 Of the Doarines of Calvin. Of Metbodi/ls. 
 
 PAT IT. T NOW proced to reply to Dr. Prieftley's infinua- 
 CBAP. v tjgj^ t h at i h ave fp ken with contempt of the 
 
 dotrines 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- 
 Cncerity f." 
 
 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 expreffions. It is 
 one thing not to aflent to doctrines in their full ex- 
 tent; quite another 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 things which we hold in common with 
 the Lutherans; and fome things which we hold 
 in common with the Romanics. It cannot well be 
 otherwife ; for as there are certain principles which 
 are common to all Proteftants, fo the eflential articles 
 of faith are common to all Chriftians. Perhaps, in 
 points of meer doctrine the language of our articles 
 agrees more nearly with the Calviniftic, than with 
 
 * Second Letters, &c. p. 35. t Ibid. 
 
 any
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 3W 
 
 any other Proteftant confefllon, except the Lutheran. PART n. 
 But I never was aware, till Dr. Prieftley informed me 
 of it, that I am obliged, by my fubfcription to thp 
 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 mall, in thefe matters, " ftand 
 " faft in my liberty." Neverthelefs, I hold the 
 memory of Calvin in high veneration ; his works 
 have a place in my library; 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 refpect; even 
 when I exprefs, what I often exprefs, a diflent, upon 
 particular points, to their opinions. The refpecl: 
 with which they are mentioned in my Good-friday 
 fermon, in which I afTerted the doctrines of Provi- 
 dence on the one hand, and of Free-agency on the 
 other, is, perhaps, in Dr. Prieftley 's own recollection. 
 In the paflage 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 reflection falls on thofe, who have fo fpeedily de- 
 ferted a doclrine 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 orthodoxy 
 
 * Second Letters, &-c. p. 35. 
 
 ' out
 
 4 oe REMARKS. 
 
 PART II. O ut of Calvinifm. I confider it as the reproach of 
 the Diflenters of the prefent day, that a genuine 
 Calvinift is hardly to be found ; except in a feet, 
 confpicuous only for the encouragement, which the 
 leaders of it feem to give to a diforderly fanaticifm. 
 The rational Diflenter hath nothing in common with 
 the Calvinift, except it be an enmity to the epif- 
 copal eftablimment of this country; and this he 
 hath not fo much in common with the Calviniftic 
 churches, as with his own anceftors the fatious 
 Puritans. 
 
 3. IT was, perhaps, an omiflion, that when the 
 fcarcity of Calvinifts among the Englim Diflenters 
 was mentioned, a diftintt exception was not made 
 in favour of natives of Scotland, formed into Cal- 
 viniftic congregations, under refpedlable paftors 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 
 Englifti Difienters. They are members of another 
 national eftablifhment ; who, refiding here, may 
 think that a conformity with the church of Eng- 
 land might be interpreted as a defertion of their 
 own communion. The rational diflenter may take 
 no credit to himfelf, for their adherence to their old 
 principles; nor are they involved in the reproach 
 of his degeneracy. 
 
 4. WHILE I thus repel my adverfary's flanderous 
 infinaation, of contempt exprefTed by me of Cal- 
 vin's doctrines ; the reflection, I doubt not, is ari- 
 fmg in his breaft, and with much fecret fatisfaction 
 
 he
 
 ij PON SECOND LETTERS. 4ct 
 
 he fays within himfelf, He is making his peace, I P A T n. 
 tc fee with the Calvinifts ; but how will he get over 
 " my remark, upon the difrefpec~lful language in 
 " which he has fpoken of the Methodifts ? his bro- 
 " ther churchmen*!" To the burthen of that 
 crime my moulders, I truft, are not unequal. What 
 if I frame my reply in terms, which Dr. Prieftley's 
 late publication furnifhes : That whenever occafions 
 (hall arife, which may make it my duty, as a minifler 
 of the gofpel, to declare my fentiments ; I mail 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 mocking-}.." 
 The Methodift, I am fenfible, profefles 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- 
 m'tuted'uncommiffioned teachers ; let him mew his 
 faith by his works ; not the formal works of fuper- 
 flition and hypocrify, but the true works of everlaft- 
 ing righteoufnefs ; the works of Fair-dealing, Cha- 
 rity, and Continence : let him do this, and churdv- 
 men will turn to him, and call him brother. 
 
 * See fecond Letters, &c. p. 35. 
 t Importance of free enquiry, p. 39, 
 
 CHAP. 
 D d
 
 REMARKS, 
 
 CHAPTER SIXTH. 
 
 Of the general Spirit of Dr. Prieftlefs Controverftal 
 
 Writings . Con clnfion . 
 
 CHAP, vi! 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- 
 tween 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 1 may perceive an opening ; and I think my- 
 felf called upon, by the prefent iituation 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 
 fhould be generally known, what fpirit he is of. 
 
 1. HE avows, indeed, with the greateft franknefs, 
 that the great object of his eflays upon theologi- 
 cal fubje&s, 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 ; the only branch, againft which he thinks 
 it prudent, as yet, to declare his antipathy. In his 
 View of the Principles and Conduft of the Protellant 
 S) with refyett to the Civil and Ecclefiallical 
 
 ConJIitution
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. _ 4*3 
 
 Confl'itution of England^ a pamphlet firft publimed in P AR T * 
 the year 1769, after a picture, 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 prediction. He foretells, 
 that in " fome general convulfion of the ftate," fuch 
 as he might hope our difputes with the American co- 
 lonies, which were then viflbly tending to an open 
 rupture, might, in no long time, produce ; " fome 
 " bold hand, fecretly impelled by a vengeful provi- 
 * e dence, (hall fweep down the whole together*." 
 In later publications he difcovers no averfion, to be 
 himfelf the hand employed in that vindictive bufi- 
 nefs j although his indifcretion, which he avows, 
 and which feems indeed to be very great, when 
 the glorious profpect 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 
 Hi/lory of Corruptions to Mr* Lindfey, he tells his 
 friend (what might be fitting for an affociate'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 difficulties, which more immediately 
 " prefs upon them ; the endeavours of the friends 
 " of reformation [that is, of thofe concealed infiru- 
 
 * View of the principles, &c. p. 12. 
 
 D d 2 ments
 
 4e . REMARKS 
 
 PAR TII. ments of vengeance on their devoted country], 
 " their endeavours in points of doctrine pafs with 
 " lefs notice and operate without cbjlruRion *." In 
 his laft publication he has thrown out many acute 
 remarks upon the efficacy of " final! changes in the 
 " political ftate of things, to overturn the beft com- 
 " packed eftablifhments f :" upon the certainty, with 
 which the exertions of himfelf and his aflbciates 
 operate to the ruin of the ecclefiaftical conftitution : 
 upon the violence, with which caufes, that lie dor- 
 mant for a time, at laft act. " We, he fays, are, 
 " as it were, laying gun-powder grain by grain under 
 " .the old building of error and fuperftition, which 
 " a fingle fpark may hereafter inflame, fo as to pre- 
 " duce an inftantaneous explofion J." He mews, 
 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 ||. And, for this good purpofe, 
 he declaims in his c onvent icle to "enlighten the minds- 
 " and excite the zeal " of the mechanics of the 
 populous town of Birmingham, with refpect to the 
 doctrines in difpute between himfelf and the aflertors 
 of that faith, which the Church of England holds 
 in common with the firft Chriftians. The avowal 
 of thefe fentiments in himfelf, of hoftility to the 
 political eonftitution of his country j the attempt, to 
 
 VII. 
 
 * Dedication of Hlftcry of Corruptions, p. 
 
 t Importance of free enquiry, p. 39. \ Ibid. p. 40, 
 
 [| Importance of free enquiry, p. 41. 44. 
 
 ^ Ibid. p. 29. 
 
 excite
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 405 
 
 excite fimilar fentiments, in the breafts of the " conv P *T n. 
 " moneft people," in whofe breafts they cannot be 
 expected to lie inactive, quietly expecting 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 infinuate that they, in any 
 degree, deferve the attention of our governors ; for 
 I am well perfuaded that neither his doctrine, 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 doctrine is but flow, except in his own 
 head ; in which it feems to be making hafty ftrides. 
 In his good wifhes to the conftitution, I think bet- 
 ter or many of his Unitarian friends, than to believe 
 that they concur with him. And while Trade and 
 Manufactures flourim 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. Prieflley's endeavours to " enlighten and ex- 
 * c cite." It feems therefore unneceflary at prefent 
 to think of " raifing the dam or of making it flronger." 
 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, mould 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 mould attempt to execute the fmalleft part, 
 of what he would now be underftood to threaten ; it 
 D d 3 may
 
 4 o6 REMARKS 
 
 PART. II. may then indeed be expedient, that the magiftrate 
 fhould mew, that he beareth not the fword in vain. 
 But whatever Dr. Prieftley may affect 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 perfon 
 of Dr. Prieflley, 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 nourishes even the noxious 
 weeds, which carry but a refemblance of the true 
 plant in the external form. Let us truft, therefore, 
 for the prefent, as we fecurely may, to the trade of 
 the good town of Birmingham, and to the wife con- 
 nivance of the magiftrate (who watches, no doubt, 
 while he deems it politic to wink) to nip Dr. Prieft- 
 ley's goodly projects in the bud : which nothing 
 would be fo likely to ripen to a dangerous effect, as 
 conftraint exceffively, or unfeafonably, ufed. Thanks, 
 however, are due to him, from all lovers of their 
 country, for the mifchief which he wants not the 
 inclination to do, if he could find the means of doing 
 it. In Gratitude's eftimation, the Will is ever to 
 be taken for the Deed. 
 
 3. IN his Firft Letters to me, and in former pub- 
 lications, Dr. Prieftley profefied to diibelieve an in- 
 fpiration of the Apoftles and Evangelifts j in any 
 
 greater
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 407 
 
 greater extent, than might be confident with the li- 
 berty which lie ufes, of criticifmg their reafonings 
 and their narrations. I had a hope that denying, 
 as he does, our Lord's divinity, he ftill admitted, in 
 fome figurative fenfe, that " all the fulnefs of the 
 " Godhead dwells in him bodily." I had a hope, 
 that he believed, at leaft, an unlimited infpiration 
 (fince he djlbelieves any nearer communion with 
 the Godhead) of him to whom "the Spirit was 
 " not given by meafure." I perceived, with con- 
 cern, by his late publication, that " the plenary Sn- 
 " fpiration of Chrift*" is to be disbelieved, no lefs 
 than that of the Apoftles. The aflertion, indeed, is 
 qualified, by confining it to cafes, u with refpcft to 
 " which the object of their miflion did not require 
 " infpiration." The objecl: of their miflion re- 
 quired, that the firft preachers of Chriftianity mould 
 be infallible, in whatever opinions they maintained 
 either about the nature of God, or the principles 
 of his moral government ; in whatever they taught 
 concerning the terms, or the means, of man's 
 acceptance and fulvation ; and in the facts which 
 they have related of the Redeemer's life. If in thefe 
 things they were not infallible ; if an appeal lies from 
 their aflertions, to any man's private opinions ; who 
 mall draw the line, where the truth of their preaching 
 ends, and their error commences ? If their infpira- 
 tion was compleat upon thefe fubjects ; it was, to all 
 intents and purpofes, plenary. If it gave them nq 
 
 * Importance of free inquiry, p. 35. 
 
 D d 4 light
 
 4 o8 REMARKS 
 
 PART II. \\ff\\t about the true fyftem of the world, the circu- 
 lation of the blood, or the properties of the Leyden 
 Phial ; it was not upon that account defective, as a 
 religious infpiration. The diftinction therefore be- 
 tween a plenary infpiration, and an infpiration extend- 
 ing only to cafes in which the object of their million 
 required it, is vain and imaginary : and it is a meer 
 pretence to profefs a belief in the one, when the 
 other is openly denied. 
 
 4. IN his firft Letters to me Dr. Prieftley difa- 
 vowed his belief of the infpiration of the Apoftles 
 as writers only *. Our bleffed Lord left no wri-^ 
 tings. When, therefore, the fulnefs of his infpira- 
 tion is denied; the denial muft be underftood of 
 his infpiratian, as an oral teacher. Dr. Prieftley, 
 therefore, muft extend his difbelief of the infpira- 
 tion of the Apoftles to their oral doctrine i unlefs 
 he would be guilty of the folly of fetting the dif- 
 ciple above his Lord. 
 
 5. IT is fome time fince it was told me, that an 
 admirer of Dr. Prieftley's tenets, in converfation with 
 a Divine of the Church of England, high in ftation 
 and in learning, had maintained, that our dying 
 Lord's promife to the thief, that he mould be with 
 our Lord that day in Paradife, was founded on a 
 miftaken notion, of him who gave it, about the ftare 
 of the dead. Dr. Prieftley's difciples well know, that 
 the thief at this time is no where, and will not be in 
 Paradife before the refurrection. The leader of a party 
 is not anfwerable for the abfurdities of all his followers : 
 
 * Firtf Letters, p. 132. 
 
 I was
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 409 
 
 I was unwilling, therefore, to make the conclufion, PART ir. 
 that Dr. Prieftley himfejf ever would maintain, what ^"* 
 he now maintains, the fallibility of Chrift ! I fhudder 
 while I relate thefe extravagancies, though it be only 
 to expofe them. 
 
 6. DR. PRIESTLEY hath given free fcope to the 
 powers of his eloquence, upon the fubject of my pre- 
 tended injuftice to illuftrious chara&ers, living and 
 dead. If injuftice may be committed by praife be- 
 ftowed where it is unmerited, no lefs than by cenfure 
 injurioufly applied ; Dr. Prieftley may find it more 
 difficult, than I have done, to refute the accufation. 
 A character now lives, not without its eminence, nor, 
 I hope, without its moral worth, which Dr. Prieftley 
 feems to hold in exceffive admiration; and upon 
 which he is too apt to be lavifh of his praife. Few, 
 who are acquainted with his writings, will be at a lofs 
 to guefs, that the character I fpeakofis HIMSELF. 
 As the analyzer of elaftic fluids, he will be long re- 
 membered : but he fometimes feems to claim refpect 
 as a GOOD CHRISTIAN, and a GOOD SUBJECT. If 
 upon any branch of Chriftian duty my confcience be 
 at perfect eafe ; the precept, " Judge not," is that 
 which, I truftj I have not tranfgrefled. The mo- 
 tives, by which one man is impelled, are, for the 
 moft part, fo imperfectly known to any otherj that 
 it feems to me cruel to fuppofe, that the evil, which 
 appears in men's actions, is always anfwered by an 
 equal malignity in their minds. I have ever, there- 
 fore, held it dangerous and uncharitable, to reafon 
 from the actions of men to their principles ; and, 
 
 from
 
 4 i* REMARKS 
 
 CAT. VI*. fr m m y y ut ^ U P> have been averfe to cenforious 
 judgement. But when men declare their motives and 
 their principles ; it were folly, to affect to judge them 
 more favourably than theyjudge themfelves. I mall, 
 therefore, not hefitate to fay, that after a denial of our 
 Lord's divinity, his pre-exiftence, and the virtue of 
 his atonement ; after a denial, at laft, of our Lord's 
 plenary infpiration; after a declaration of implacable 
 enmity to the conftitution under which he lives; under 
 which he enjoys the licence of faying what he lifts, in a 
 degree in which it never was enjoyed by the nrft ci- 
 tizens of the freeft democracies; the goodnefs of his, 
 Chriftianity, and his merit as a fubjec't, are topics 
 upon which it may be indifcreet for the encomiaft of 
 Dr. Prieftley to enlarge. 
 
 7. FOR eighteen months or more it hath been the 
 boaft of the Unitarian party, that the Archdeacon of 
 St. Alban's hath been challenged to eftablifh fads 
 which he had averred; that he hath been infulted in 
 his character, as a fcholar and a man ; charged with 
 ignorance, mifreprefentation, defamation, and ca- 
 lumny*; and, that under all this he hath continued 
 fpeechlefsf. He hath at laft fpoken ; in a tone which, 
 perhaps, will little endear him to the Unitarian zea- 
 lots. It matters not. The time feems yet fodiftan^ 
 when the train which they are laying may be expected 
 to explode ; that the danger is exceedingly finall, that 
 
 * Second Letters, &c. Preface, p. xviii. pp. i, 39, 47, 
 560, 161, 163, 208, & alibi paflim. 
 J- See Animadverfions on Mr. White, p. 84.
 
 UPON SECOND LETTERS. 411 
 
 he will ever be reduced to the alternative of renounc- P / R T n. 
 ing his faith, or relinquishing his preferments : or to 
 the harder alternative, which Dr. Prieftley feems to 
 threaten *, " of a prifon, with a good confcience, or 
 " his prefent emoluments without one." If thofe 
 happy times, of which Dr. Prieftley prophefies, 
 fhould overtake him 'ere his courfe is finifhed ; when 
 an Arian, or Socinian Parliament f, mall undertake 
 the blefled bufmefs 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<Sl 
 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 mall 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 antagonift, if he hath any part in the fpirit of a 
 Chriftian, upon his bended knees will fay, AMEN. 
 
 * See Second Letters, &c. p. 
 f See Second Letters, p. 87, 
 
 SUPPLE-
 
 SUPPLEMENTAL 
 
 DISQUISITIONS 
 
 UPON 
 
 CERTAIN POINTS 
 
 1 N 
 
 DR. PRIESTLEY'S 
 
 SECOND AND THIRD LETTERS 
 
 TO THE 
 
 ARCHDEACON O/ST. ALBAN's. 
 
 B y 
 SAMUEL, 
 
 LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVI D'c;
 
 4S 
 
 D I S QJJ ISITION FIRST. 
 
 Of the Phrafe of " coming in the flefh" as ufed by 
 St. Polycarp in his epi/lle 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" aflerts nothing more than our 
 Lord's manhood, without any reference to a prior 
 ftateof exiftence, alleges that the phrafe is fo ufed by St. 
 Polycarp, the difciple of St. John, in his epiftle to the 
 Phillippians. The paflage, in which Dr. Prieftley 
 imagines that he hath found this ufe of the phrafe, 
 ftands thus in Archbimop Wake's tranflation, from 
 which Dr. Prieftley makes his quotation. 
 
 " WHOSOEVER does not confefs, that Jefus Chrift 
 " is come in theflem, he is Antichrift ; and whofoever 
 <l does not confefs his fuffering upon the crofs, is 
 " from the Devil ; and whofoever perverts the ora- 
 " cles of the Lord to his own lufts, and fays that there 
 " mall be neither any refurre6lion nor judgement, he 
 " isthefirft-bornofSatan." 
 
 BY an argument, the force of which will, I believe, 
 be perceived by few, but his Unitarian brethren, Dr. 
 
 Prieftley
 
 4i6 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 
 
 Dis. I. Prieftley perfuades himfelf, that the Blcffed Martyr, in 
 this pafiage, is not defcribing three different feds, but 
 that " he alludes to no more than one and the fame 
 u 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 
 refurrection and the futurejudgement. 
 
 HENCE he would infer, that the phrafe of cc com- 
 " ing in the flefh," predicates the manhood of our 
 Lord, and nothing more, as I conceive for this rea- 
 fon ; for he hath not ftated his argument very clearly. 
 The denial of our Lord's coming in the flefh muft be 
 fomething that might confift with the denial of his 
 fufferings; fmce the two errors (by Dr. Prieftley's hy- 
 pothefis) were found in the fame perfons. They, 
 who denied the reality of our Lord's fufferings, denied 
 his manhood; and in that fenfe 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 leaft to the human. 
 Any allulion therefore, which may be fuppofed in the 
 phrafe of his " coming in the flefh," to an original 
 nature in him more than human, they denied not. 
 His manhood therefore, which is 2!! that they, who 
 are charged with a denial of his " coming in the flefh," 
 denied, is all that the phrafe imports. 
 
 THIS is the very moft that I can make of my ad 1 - 
 verfary's argument. And in this ftate of it (if I have 
 mifreprefented it, I moft ferioufly declare it is without 
 <lefign) I confefs myfelf too dull to perceive the con- 
 nection of the premifes and the conclufion. We of 
 
 the
 
 O I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 41? 
 
 of the orthodox perfuafion coriceive that the phrafe of Dl8 ' Im 
 " coming in theflefli" exprefles the INCARNATION. 
 That is to fay, it contains this complex proportion, 
 that a Being originally Divine affumed the human na- 
 ture. This complex proportion 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 afTumption of the manhood; and the 
 denial of this was the foundation of their error about 
 the fufferings on the crofs. Thefe three charters 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 flefh" in its natural fenfe may, for 
 any thing that appears from St. Polycarp's own words, 
 allude not to the manhood (imply, but to the Catholic 
 Doctrine of the Incarnation* 
 
 It muft be obferved however, and the fact is too 
 well known to the learned in ecclefiaftical hiftory to 
 require proof, that a great variety of feels, 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 characters, 
 was the Gnoftics; is to fay that this one and fame 
 kind of perfons was many different kinds. Of the va- 
 rious fets that went under this common name, the 
 Docetas, who denied our Lord's genuine manhood, 
 were one general branch ; itfelf fubdivrded, if I miftake 
 not, into many diftjncl: denominations: the Cerin- 
 E e thians,
 
 4x j D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 
 
 Dis. I. thians, who denied his original Divinity, were and- 
 ther. Both thefe, equally, tho' in different ways, 
 denied the proportion, 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 refurreclion, was not to be found in a third clafs, 
 diftinfV 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 refurre&ion was paft, and in that affer- 
 tion, as St. Chryfoftom obferves, denied a refurrec- 
 tion to come and the general judgement, are nor 
 numbered, by the writers of antiquity, among the 
 Gnoftic teachers. (See Dr. Whitby's note upon 
 2 Tim. ii. 17, 1 8.) The future judgement was 
 more explicitly denied by thefe, than by the Gnof- 
 ties ; 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 pafTage 
 alleged by Dr. Prieftley, defcribes three different fets 
 of people j and I Ihould paraphrafe the whole pa-fiage 
 thus: 
 
 " WHOEVER confefles not that Jefus Chrift, the 
 ' ever blefled and only begotten Son of God, the 
 " brightness 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 Antichriflv 
 " And if any one, pretending to confefs this, mall
 
 b I 5 OJJ I S I t 1 6 ft Si 4'& 
 
 " yet deny the reality of his fufferings, in his own DI.I. 
 
 u proper and entire perfon, on the crofs ; 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 flefh, and his 
 
 " fufferings and death, ihall however pervert the bra- 
 
 " clei of God, accommodating the divine doctrine^ 
 
 " to his own prejudiced and conceits, and fay that 
 
 " there (hall be neither refurre&ion nor judgement ; 
 
 " this man, notwithftanding his confeffion of our 
 
 " Lord's incarnation and paflion, is the firft-born of 
 
 Satan." 
 
 But whether St. Polycarp in this pafiage defcribe 
 three different fort of Heretics, or one fort by three 
 characters, it is not very material to difpute. The 
 Blefled Martyr is not enumerating feels, as an eccle- 
 fiaftical hiftorian; 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 
 bis judgment, tb the perdition of him who mould 
 maintain it. For I contend that nothing in the 
 words of St. Polycarp himfelf, nor any known and 
 admitted fact in the hiftory of the heretics of his 
 times, makes it neceflary to apply the defcription in. 
 the whole to one feet, rather than in the parts of 
 it to three. I contend that the coming of our Lord 
 in the flefh, his paflion, and the general refurreclion, 
 are three diftinct things : the two firft, for any thing 
 that appears from St. Polycarp's words$ as diftinct 
 from each other, as either is from the third : fo dif. 
 tincl: therefore from each other, that a perfon admit- 
 ting the one might poflibly not confefs the other. I 
 E- e 2 contend
 
 4 j D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 
 
 DJ s. I. contend therefore, that for any thing that appears from 
 the words of St. Polycarp, a perfon confefling that 
 our Lord came in the flefh, might ftill deny his fuf- 
 ferings. The phrafe therefore of coming in the 
 flefh, 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 feel ; fo that the coming in the flefh muft ne- 
 cefTarily be fo underftood, that the denial of that 
 coming and the denial of the fufferings mould be con- 
 fident errors ; ftill it will not follow, that the coming 
 in the fiefh muft be underftood as defcriptive fimply of 
 the manhood. If any one feet indeed fingly be de- 
 fcribed, the Docetas muft be that one ; fince their 
 characteriftic error makes an explicit part of the de- 
 fcription. But with their error the denial of the In- 
 carnation was perfectly confiftent. Dr. Prieftley thinks, 
 that St. Polycarp condemns the Docetas, becaufe they 
 admitted not that Chrift was a meer 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 reaforr, he made 
 choice of the phrafe of " coming in the flefh" that he 
 might not feem to condemn more of their doctrine 
 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, die phrafe may be inter- 
 preted
 
 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 4" 
 
 preted in either fenfe ; the true inference is, that it is Dis. I. 
 ambiguous. This conclufion indeed follows, with 
 refpecl: to the ufe of the phrafe in this particular paf- 
 fage ; and it is upon this very ground that I maintain 
 the total infignifkance 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 flefh." 
 I have fhewn, 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 it pleafed him otherwife to come, that if the 
 facred writers really meant to affirm, that our Lord 
 was a meer man, and nothing more, no reafon can be 
 devifed, why they mould make choice of fuch uncouth 
 myfterious words, for the enunciation of fo fimple a 
 proportion j which they might eafily have ftated in 
 plain terms incapable of mifconftru&ion. 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 queftion about 
 a fa& ; 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 
 paffage 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 e 3 I main-
 
 4** D I S QJU I S I T I O N S. 
 
 ! 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 paflage of St. 
 Polycarp ; and tha{, in whatever light the paffage be 
 confidered, whether as defcriptive of three feels, as I 
 believe it to be, or of one only as Dr. Prjeftley under- 
 ftands it. This paflage, therefore, is of no fignificance 
 in the argument ; fince 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 oppofe a very decifive 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. '" p'or if 
 " he had not come in the flcfa how fhould we mortals, 
 " feeing him, have been preferred ? When they who 
 " behold the fun, which is to perifh and is the work of 
 " his hands, are unable to look directly againft its 
 " rays." Let Dr. Prieftley find a paflage, in which the 
 allufion to our Lord's original glory is as neceffarily 
 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 fignifica- 
 tion, as may fuit the particular occafion on which it 
 
 is
 
 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S, 4*3 
 
 is introduced : but that in its full and natural import DI. 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. Pevoted himfelf to the Unitarian doctrine, 
 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 to his original prejudice, that St. Polycarp 
 held and taught an Unitarian Creed, as to a conclu- 
 (ion which he hath drawn, and can teach others to 
 draw, from St. Polycarp's own writings. Alas! the 
 ium 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 tfct 
 fiippofed infallibility of JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, 
 
 E e 4 D I S-
 
 DIS QU I S I T I O N S. 
 
 DISQUISITION SECOND. 
 
 Of TertulUan* s tejlimony again/I the Unitarians^ and 
 bis ufe of the word IplpTA. 
 
 Dis. II. -T\ R - PRIESTLEY has made it an occa- 
 * flon 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 tranflation which I have 
 given, in the Ninth of my Letters in Reply, of a certain 
 paflage in Tertullian's book againft Praxeasj which 
 is produced by him as an acknowledgement ofTer- 
 tullian, that the Unitarians were i,n 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. 
 Prieftley conceives, in the learned languages would 
 imagine that the Englifli word " idiot," which I have 
 ufed in my tranflation of that pafTage, might in any 
 fenfe render the Idiofoj of the Greek or the Idiota of 
 the Latins, which is the name by which, with other 
 adjuncts, Tertullian defcribes the Unitarians of his 
 time. Dr. Prieftley fays in the Nineteenth of his 
 Second Letters, left. 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. 425 
 
 over his daring adverfary, on the very ground on which Die. II. 
 the enemy had taken his (land with particular fecurity. 
 But it will be time enough to bind the laurel on their 
 chieftain's fpear, when they are fure he is in poffeffion 
 of the field. 
 
 In the Seventh of his Second Letters, Dr. PriefUey 
 fays to me, " I will venture to fay that it properly 
 *' fignifies [the word Idlota in Latin, or l5ia>Twj in 
 " Greek properly fignifies] an unlearned man ; or a 
 " perfon who his not had a liberal education." This 
 Dr. Prieftley ventures to affirm ; and this I venture to 
 deny. The word l$fof hath ten diftinil fenfes, 
 which I fhall recite in order. 
 
 I. A 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 fubjecls ; and this is its 
 firft and proper fenfe ; as it is of all its fenfes the moft 
 immediately connected with the fenfe of the adjeclive 
 I5ic?, from which the fubftantive I&j1$ is immedi* 
 ately derived. 
 
 II. A perfon in low life, one of the common people \ 
 in oppofition to perfons of condition. This is no- 
 thing more than an intenfion of the former fenfe ; 
 private life in the extreme becoming obfcure and 
 low. 
 
 III. A LaiC) as diftinguifhed from a elerk. This 
 fenfe the Greek Fathers eafily grafted upon the 
 
 firft:
 
 4** D I S QJTI S I T I O N S. 
 
 Pis, II. /krt: the 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, 
 i Cor. xiv. 1 6, to denote a private member of a con- 
 gregation as diftinguifhed from the minifter. 
 
 IV. A perfon tin/killed in any particular fcience or 
 arty in oppofition to the profefTors of it. The word 
 thus ufed rather exprefles the want of profeffional 
 fkill, than of ordinary knowledge. In this fenfe, the 
 word is fometimes conftru&ed by the Attic writers 
 with a genitive of the thing ; and by ordinary writers 
 with an accufative, either with or without a prepofi- 
 tion. s&vos flyfay ovlct. Plat, in Tim. ftiuhs 1xlo y 
 or u$ Kfcs Wo, 
 
 V. A perfon deficient in any particular talent^ 
 
 er accomplijhment. In this fenfe the word is fbmetimes, 
 conftrucled with a dative of the thing. I&uhf ra 
 ^oyw, 2 Cor', xi. 1 6. In this fenfe the word is ufed 
 by St. Paul, i Cor. xiv. 23, 24, to denote" a common 
 Chriftian, not endowed with any of the extraordinary 
 gifts of the Holy Spirit, as diftinguiihed from perfons 
 fo gifted. 
 
 VI. A perfon generally unlearned; one who has 
 not had a learned and liberal education. In this 
 fenfe, in conjunction with the epithet, ayfa^Mo7o<, the 
 word is applied to the Apoftles by the rulers of the 
 Jews. Acls iv. 13. 
 
 VII. THE
 
 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 4*7 
 
 VII. THE plural IftwJaM, fignifies Individuals; ci- DJS. II. 
 fizens, individually confidered, as diftinguimed from 
 
 the colle&ive body, the ftate. 
 
 VIII. THE plural Ihaleu, is a collective name for 
 the illiterate vulgar, in particular reference to theif 
 general want of accomplishment, in literature, the 
 fciences and the arts. O TTOTWJ o/*(Aoj, 5 l&ulas 01 cofoi 
 xa\x<rt. Lucian, 
 
 IX. HENCE among philofophers and fophifts, an4 
 pretenders to that fort of tafte, which is now called 
 Vit , it became a name of reproach, which they 
 gave to thofe, whom they thought difgracefully defi- 
 cient in thofe accomplishments, which they value4 
 and admired in themfelves. Thus the great Roman 
 peculator, feeking to hide his avarice under a mafle 
 of affected tafte for the works of the Greek mafters, 
 reproached his accufers with idiotcy in this fenfe of the 
 
 word. Erat apud Heium facrarium peranti- 
 
 quum, in quo figna pulcherrima quatuor 
 
 quae non modo iftum, hominem ingeniofum & in- 
 telligentem, verum etiam quemvis noflrum, quo? 
 ifte idiotas appellat, clelelare poiTent. Cic. in Ver- 
 rem. A61 2. Lib. iv. c. 2. 
 
 X. AND becaufe the faculties are apt to be dull^ 
 when they have not been Sharpened by exercife upon 
 any fubjeft whatfoever ; loiwlaj, from its ufe in the, 
 fenfe of illiterate and uncultivated, comes to be an 
 opprobrious name for the dull andy?#/>/V/, without 
 any reference to the want of education, as the caufe 
 
 of
 
 4* D I S QJJ ISITIONS. 
 
 Pu. II. o f t ne ftupidity. It never indeed, as far as I know, 
 refers to that conftitutional defect of the faculty of rea- 
 fon, which is the peculiar fenfe of the correfponding 
 word of our language in our ftatutes and law-books. 
 But it denotes the goodly qualities of ftupidity and 
 ignorance in the grofs, like our vernacular words, 
 dunce^ looby, and their fynonyms. 
 
 THAT this laft is the fenfe in which it is ufed by 
 Tertullian, in the paflage in queftion, is fufficiently 
 evident from the very ftruclure of the fentence. Who- 
 ever knows the force of the phrafe, posne dixerim, 
 which is probably as little underftood by Dr. Prieft- 
 ley as St. Jerome's, quid dlcam ; but whoever knows 
 the true force of this phrafe, will allow that the epi- 
 thets, imprudentes and idiot*, which are introduced 
 by it, muft contain fome high intenfion and aggra- 
 vation of the qualities, whatever they may be, which 
 are contained in the notion of the preceding adje&ive, 
 Jimplices: an aggravation in fuch degree, that the 
 writer thinks it neceflary to apologize for the ftrength 
 and feverity of the terms, which he finds himfelf 
 obliged to employ. This is the force of the phrafe, 
 fcene dixerim ; to take away what may feem too 
 much in the terms, which a writer is about to em- 
 ploy, when he fears they may feem exceflive, not- 
 withftanding that they are the loweft which will con- 
 vey his full meaning, and do juftice to his argument. 
 The imprudentes therefore of Tertullian are a fort of 
 people in difcernment and information many degrees 
 below his Jimplices: and his idiot es are ftill below his 
 imprudent es. All this "is evident, to thofe .who have 
 
 any
 
 t> I S QJJ I S I T I O N S; 429 
 
 any real knowledge of the Latin language, from the Djs ]I< 
 bare ftru&ure of the fentence, whatever the proper ufe 
 of each of the three words may be, among the polite 
 writers of the Auguftan age. As equivalent to the 
 Latin idiotrt) as it is ufed by Tertullian in this paflage, 
 I employed our Englifti word idiots. I employed the 
 Englifh word, to exprefs that extream degree of igno- 
 rance and ftupidity, for which our language furnifhes 
 no other word fufficiently contemptuous j of which 
 Tertullian affirms the Unitarians of his day, like their 
 younger brethren in our own, exhibited a notable ex- 
 ample. It was little to be apprehended, that even 
 Unitarian prejudice would render any one fo much 
 an idiot in ftyle and phrafeology, as not to perceive, 
 that I ufed not the word in what in Englilh is its 
 forenfic fenfe j efpecially when in an expofition of the 
 paflage, which, at the diftance of a few lines, follows 
 my tranflation, I explain it by the words " dull,'* 
 and " perfons of mean attainments." 
 
 Dr. PRIESTLEY afks me, in the Seventh of his 
 Second Letters, " Pray, Sir, in what lexicon or dic- 
 " tionary, ordinary or extraordinary, did you find 
 " this fenfe of the term idlota in Latin, or I&wfas in 
 " Greek?" Dr. Prieftley is venturefome in pro- 
 pounding queftions like this, and feems to be one of 
 thofe, whom repeated mifcarriages cannot render 
 wary and difcreet. I certainly confulted no lexicon, 
 for the purpofe of making my tranflation of that plain 
 paflage of Tertullian : and it is within thefe very few 
 days, that I have taken the trouble to confult lexicons, 
 in order to difcover, what ground my adverfary may 
 
 have
 
 4jo D I S QJJ ISITIONS. 
 
 Pis. 1 1. have found in their defects, 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 profeflbr 
 there might occafionally have condefeended to con- 
 fult, with advantage to himfelf and to his pupils. The 
 firft is that old gloflary, which was found annexed to 
 fome copies of St. Cyril, and is publimed by Henry 
 Stephens, in the appendix to his Greek Thefaurus. 
 In this gloflary the word I3i% is expounded by 
 o iw vavpuv', words which exprefs not the want of edu- 
 cation, but dullnefs of the natural faculties. The 
 fecond is Robert Stephens's.D/#/0wrfr/Ktfz Latlno-Gal- 
 in which the word idiot a is rendered Ung lour- 
 qui n't/l pas des plus fins dti monde^ qui n'ba pas 
 grand ejprit, Idiot. The third is the learned Cale- 
 pini's Diftionarium Offolingue^ in which the author 
 gives the French words lourdaut, fit. Ignorant, and the 
 Englifh words, an idiot, afool^ 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-witted; an idcot. 
 If my adverfary demand the authority of an ordinary 
 dictionary, I will refer him to a very ordinary dicti- 
 onary indeed; to a dictionary in every fchool-boy's 
 hand. Let him turn to the word idicta in Ainfworth j 
 he will find among its firft fenfes, an idiot. 
 
 I ABIDE therefore by my affertion, that this paf- 
 fage of Tertullian, which Dr. Prieftley miftakes for a 
 teftimony of the popularity of his favourite opinions in 
 Tertullian's time, is no fuch teftimony ; but a charge 
 
 of
 
 I S QJLJ I S I t I O N S. 431 
 
 of ignorance againft his party : of fuch ignorance, as D" ir 
 would invalidate the plea of numbers, if that plea 
 could be fet up. 
 
 AND that this is the true reprefentation of Tertul- 
 iian-'s meaning, may be proved, without infifting upon 
 any particular force of the word idiota, from the 
 neceflary indifputable fenfe of the adverb femper ; 
 which extends Tertullian's propofition, concerningthe 
 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 ofjimplicesi imprudentes y and idiot a (that is, ac- 
 cording to Dr. Prieftley's own tranflation, which yet 
 I admit not otherwife than difput andi gra tia> for I have 
 ftill " the aflurance" to call my own an exact tranf- 
 lation ) but according to Dr. Prieftley's own tranfla- 
 tion, Tertullian fays, that perfons, who come under 
 the character 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 
 collected indifcYiminately, as the church is, from all 
 ranks of men. Tertullian alleges that perfons of that 
 defcription, in his time, meaning to aflert, what they 
 little underftood, the Divine Monarchy, 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- 
 Venturer in criticifm (hall be able to jarove, that the 
 
 adverb.
 
 43 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S, 
 
 D. ii. a dverb femper is equivalent to nunc> expreffive of pre- 
 fent time exclufively. 
 
 Dr. PRIESTLEY " wonders at my aflurance" in 
 another circumftance : namely, that I fhould limit, 
 as he fays, what Tertullian affirms, as he would have 
 him underftood, of the whole body of thejimplicer 
 arid idiotee to fome of them. In this limitation, he 
 fays, I am altogether unwarranted. But when Ter- 
 tullian fays, that fimple perfons and idiot es are ftartled 
 at the ceconomy, the natural fenfe of the words is, 
 that this fcruple was incident chiefly to perfons of that 
 defcription ; not that it was to be found in the whole 
 body of the common people. He infinuates that per- 
 fons of that weak character only were liable to that 
 alarm i Had he meant to fpeak of the whole body of 
 the common people, he muft have ufed phrafes of ano- 
 ther caft; as vttlgiis tndoftwn^ or genus hominum (im- 
 plex* Dr. Prieftley's complaint againft 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 expofition of 
 the paflage, which follows the tranflation. And 
 furely having tranflated the paflage exactly, 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 pafiages in antient writers, which he cites, 
 been always accompanied with exact tranflations ; the 
 world would have had lefs reafon to ftand aghaft at 
 his aflurance and ill-diflembled management. But to 
 what purpofe can it be to hold an argument with a 
 
 man,
 
 D I S QJU I S I T I O N S. 433 
 
 man, who is too hafty to diftinguifh between what DIS.II. 
 profefies to be paraphrafe, and what pretends to be 
 exa& tranflation ; who has the vanity to play the 
 critic in languages, to the idioms of which he is a 
 ftranger ; 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 I&?>ij in Greek rendered idiot?" 
 Vide Gloflarium Vetus ; R. Steph. Calepin. Cooper. 
 Ainfworth. 
 
 F f D I S.
 
 434 D I S QJJ 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 writ- 
 ings O/*!REN^EUS ; in confutation of an argument y 
 advanced by Dr. Priejlley in favour of the Ebionite^ 
 in the Third of his Fir/}, and the Fourth of his Se- 
 cynd Letters.) from the writings of Irenceus in par- 
 ticular. 
 
 Du. Iir, / "T A 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 Irenseus, was fo ably, though concifely, an- 
 fweredin the Monthly Review for January 1784, by 
 Mr. Badcock; who, taking facts as Dr. Prieftley chofe 
 to ftate them, mewed, 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 affumptions ; that 
 when I wrote my Letters in Reply, I thought I 
 might be excufed if I pafled by this argument without 
 any other notice, than a flight reference to Mr. Bad- 
 cock's confutation. But in the Sixth of his Second 
 Letters, Dr. Prieftley hath attempted to refit this mat- 
 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 was 
 
 " not
 
 D I S QJU I S I T I O N S. 43^ 
 
 " not by myfelf till very lately," It had indeed been Dis. III. 
 
 ftrange, if any fagacity of remark in me had outrun 
 
 Dr. Prieftley's! " that Irenseus, who has written 
 
 " fo large a work on the fubje6t of herefy, after the 
 
 " time of Juftin, in a country where it is probable 
 
 " there were fewer Unitarians, again and again cha- 
 
 " raterifes them in fuch a manner as makes it evi- 
 
 " dent, that even he did not confider any other per- 
 
 " fons as Heretics, befides the Gnofh'cs. He ex- 
 
 " prefles a great diflike 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 
 fhall 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 aflert, 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 Irenaeus. It could have 
 occurred to none, that had known more of the work 
 of Irenseus, than is to be learned from an occafional 
 reference to particular paflages, by the help of an 
 Index. 
 
 The great object of Irenaeus, in his work againft 
 herefies, is to aflert the Scripture doctrines of the 
 
 * Second Letters,, p. 56. 
 
 F f 2 unity
 
 43* D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 
 
 Dis. in. unity of God, and the Incarnation of the Divine 
 Word, in their original fimpiicity, againft the nume- 
 rous fectaries of his times, who, from various views 
 and motives, had varioufly disfigured and difguifed 
 them. Some thought, that they gave a clear folution 
 of the dark queftion about the origin of evil, when they 
 maintained that the world is the work of one or more 
 intelligences, far inferior to the firft 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 diftinct being from the Father of our Lord 
 Jefus Chrift. Some, to folve the difficulties in the 
 great doctrine of the incarnation, indulged in a moft 
 criminal wantonnefs of fpeculation concerning the 
 perfon of Chrift. Some, affecting a deep myfterious 
 wifdom, endeavoured to explain, in obfcure and ill- 
 imagined allegories, the procelfion of the different or- 
 ders of intellect and life from the Divine Mind, and 
 the production of the vifible world. Some, the moft 
 profane and hardened, artfully availed themfelves of 
 certain myfterious points of the Chriftian doctrine, to 
 give peribnal confequence to themfelves, and to gain 
 credit among the vulgar to the moft impious preten- 
 ficns. To guard the faithful againftthefe various fe- 
 ductions, and to eftablifh them in the belief of the 
 true Scripture dodtrine, 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 
 inviiible; and, having in time paft 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 QJJ I S I T I O N S. 437 
 
 reconciled mankind to himfelf, through him, who, D ^ in 
 to effect this reconciliation, united the manhood to 
 the Godhead in his own perfon : to eftablifh the faith- 
 ful in this doctrine, Irenasus undertakes 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 
 moft efientially from genuine Chriftianity ; reciting the 
 names of the principal Haerefiarchs ; defcribing their 
 characters, and relating the varieties of opinion, by 
 which the different fe<Sts were diftinguifhed. 
 
 IN the Second book, the author profefles to refute, 
 the extravagant opinions recited in the firft, by ge- 
 neral arguments expofmg 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 Firft book, after a general recital of the prin- 
 cipal extravagancies of the Valentinians, the author 
 undertakes to (hew, that Simon Magus was the pa- 
 rent of all herefy , and that the diftinguifhing conceits 
 of every feel; attached to one point or another of his 
 doctrine. For this purpofe, he gives a lift of Haere- 
 F f 3 fiarchs
 
 43 3 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 
 
 is. in. fiarchs and fets from Simon Magus in fucceffion to 
 his own time, fpecifying the particular do&rines of 
 each. In this lift, the Ebionites have the honour to 
 have the name of their fet enrolled* between the 
 Cerinthians and Nicolaitans. If Irenasus deemed 
 them not Heretics, he has furely put them in bad 
 company. At no great diftance from the Ebionites, 
 he introduces Marcion f. This Marcion. was a moft 
 diftinguifhed Heretic ; not only for the extravagance 
 and impiety of his doctrine, but for the liberty which 
 he took with the books of the New Teftament ; al-> 
 tering or expunging whatever he diiliked, till he made 
 the Holy Scriptures, as he though!, 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- 
 ftanding 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 dodrine 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. 
 
 J Sed huic quidem feorfum contradicemus ; ex 
 
 ejus fcriptis arguentes eum, et ex iis fermonibus, qui apud 
 eum obfervati funt, Domini et Apoftoli, quibus ipfe utitur, 
 everfionem ejus facientes praeftante Deo. Nunc autem necef- 
 fario meminimusejus, ut fcires quoniam omnes, qui quoquo 
 modo adulterant veritatem, et praeconium Ecclefias laedunt, 
 Simonis Samaritani Magi difcipuli et fucceflbres funt. Lib. 
 I. cap. xxix & xxx. 
 
 lar
 
 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 4,39 
 
 lar work upon the herefy of Marcion, he would have D "- HI 
 omitted the mention of him in this place, but that 
 the omiffion would have rendered the lift of Haerefi- 
 archs, defcending from Simon Magus, defective. 
 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. 
 The accuracy of his lift had certainly been as much 
 vitiated by an improper infertion, as by an omiffion. 
 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 fuchfcruple, 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 
 admiffion ? 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 
 " doctrine of the church, and difciples of Simon the 
 " Samaritan Sorcerer," clearly proves, what the 
 public character of the Ebionites was, whom he hath 
 enrolled among thefe worthies. To have regiftered 
 among the fects 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 confent or refem- 
 tolance of opinion between Simon Magus and thofe 
 F f 4 who
 
 440 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 
 
 Dis. in. w ho were no heretics, or not generally deemed fuch, 
 could little contribute. It would rather indeed con- 
 duce to the acquittal of Simon, than the condemna- 
 tion of an innocent feet 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 character, which Irenaeus makes the peculiar 
 mark of that family. They were adulterators of the 
 truth'; not barely of what was truth in the private 
 judgement of Irenaeus, but they were impugners of 
 the public doctrine 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- 
 ceflary 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- 
 rnaritan o.-^ fays what may be thought to imply a re- 
 femblance, in many circumftances, between this feel: 
 and the Samaritan Sorcerer. But the principle in 
 which Irenaeus, I doubt not, placed the refemblance, 
 was no other than the cardinal doctrine of the Ebio- 
 nites
 
 D I S QJJ ifclTIONS. 441 
 
 nites of the meer humanity of our Lord. This, as D '- '" 
 it was taught by the Cerinthians and the firft Ebio- 
 nites, was indeed nothing more than a refinement 
 upon the older error of the Docetae, of which Simon 
 was the firft teacher. The Docetae, 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 firft 
 Ebionites followed in what related to the perfon of our 
 Lord, thought it more reafonable to admit that Jefus 
 was a real man, the fubject of real fufferings. They 
 maintained that he was a meer man ; 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 diftincT: from the man, and 
 exempt from all participation of his fufferings. This 
 is evidently a refinement upon the doctrine of the Do- 
 cetae. Both doctrines had a common object : to give 
 the doctrine 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 
 Docetas denied the reality of the manhood j and the 
 Ebionites, with the Cerinthians, maintained a fepa- 
 rate perfonality and diftinct conditions of the man and 
 the fuperior being. Thus the affinity between the 
 Ebionites and the Simonians is manifeft ; and the de- 
 rivation
 
 44* D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S 
 
 Dig. ill. rivation of the one from the other, eafy and natural ; 
 and I cannot but remark, that as the antient Ebio- 
 naean dodtrine paffes by a fmgle ftep, the difmiffion 
 of the fuperangelic 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 Irenasus 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 difiervice 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 Irenaeus no mention of the 
 Ebionites occurs either by name, or by defcription. 
 Nor is this, indeed, the place, where any mention of 
 that fe& might be expected. 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 of thofe 
 that may be fo confuted. The great myftery 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 inefficient 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. Ill 
 conviction of the Ebionites inuft reft entirely upon 
 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 laft no conjunction with the word of 
 " God the Father, nor receiving freedom through 
 " the Son, according to that faying of his own, If 
 <c the Son give you ?nanumljjlon^ ye Jhall be 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 flem, 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 ; fince 
 
 * Rurfus autem qui nude tantum hominem eum dicunt ex 
 Jofeph generatum, perfeverantes in fervitute priftinae inobe- 
 dientiae moriuntur, nondum commixti verbo Dei Patris, ne- 
 que per Filium percipientes libertatem, quemadmodum ipfe 
 ait ; fi Filius <vos manumiferit, vere liberi erlt'is. Ignorantes 
 autem eum qui ex Virgine eft Emmanuel, privantur mu- 
 nere ejus, quod eft vita aeterna: non recipientes autem Ver- 
 bum incorruptionis perfeverant in carne mortali, etfunt de- 
 bitores mortis, antidotum vitae non accipientes. Lib. 3. 
 Cap. xxi. 
 
 apart
 
 444 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 
 
 IJ. ill. a part of the paflage is cited by Dr. Prieftley himfelf, 
 in the appendix of his firft letters, as unqueftionably re- 
 lating to that fe&. In this paflage their error, and 
 their crime, is placed in their aflertion, that our Lord 
 was a meer man, the fon of Jofeph. This error is 
 called a rejection of the incorruptible word, a refufal 
 of the antidote of life. Thefe are phrafes evidently 
 defcriptive of a hardened infidelity, which liflens not, 
 with a due fubmiflion of the underftanding, to the 
 evangelical doctrine. The Ebionites therefore, by 
 their wicked doctrine of our Lord's meer humanity, 
 feemed to Irenaeus to be meer infidels ; and in confe- 
 quence of this infidelity " to die in the bondage of 
 " the former difobedience, having to the laft no con- 
 " neUon with the word of God the Father, conti- 
 " nuing in the mortal flefh, and liable to the natu- 
 " ral debt of death." Thefe exprefiions defcribe the 
 miferable condition of the unconverted and impeni- 
 tent ; who, notwithftanding, what the Son of God 
 hath done and fuffered for thofe who will believe in 
 him, remain obnoxious to the guilt and punifhment 
 of their own fins, as well as to all the dreadful confe- 
 quences of the firft tranfgreifion. Such Irenaeus 
 deemed the dangerous fituation of thefe infidel Ebio- 
 nites. He fays further, that for their ignorance of 
 him who is the Emmanuel of the Virgin, and in con- 
 fequence of the infidelity and impenitence, of which 
 that ignorance was, in his judgement, afure fymptom, 
 " they are deprived of the gift of that Emmanuel, 
 " which gift is eternal life." To be deprived of that 
 life eternal, which is the gift of the Emmanuel, is 
 the fame thing in the phrafeology of the antient wri- 
 ters,
 
 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 445 
 
 ters, as to be under a fentence of eternal damnation. P* 5 - ill 
 Thefe Ebionites, therefore, who faid that our Lord 
 was a meer man, convicted by that wicked aflertion 
 of an evil heart of impenitence and unbelief, in the 
 opinion of Irenaeus lay under a fentence of eternal pu- 
 nimment, which nothing but a renunciation of their 
 error, and a fincere repentance might avert. Nothing 
 can be clearer, than, that in this paMge, they are 
 taxed with infidelity and impenitence, and threatened 
 with the doom which awaits fuch crimes. But Dr. 
 Prieftley can find no fuch fentence of damnation, in 
 this paflage, parted upon the Ebionites. " Irenaeus 
 " mujl have meant, not that the Ebionites in par*- 
 " ticular, but that mankind in general, could have 
 " had no refurre&ion, if the Ebionaean doclrine had 
 " been true*." That is, Irenaeus, exprefsly fpeak- 
 ing of the Ebionites in particular, mujl be understood 
 of mankind in general. Speaking of their particular 
 punimment he muj?be underftood to fpeak of a gene- 
 ral calamity. The ground oftheneceffity is obvious. 
 In no other way of interpretation, can what Irenaeus 
 hath actually faid of the Ebionites, be brought to agree 
 with what Dr. Prieftley, for the intereft of his caufe, 
 mujl wifh he had faid about them. The learned 
 Feuardentius, who lived not to be enlightened by the 
 new revelations of our modern Unitarians, and above 
 all, by Dr. Prieftley's ingenious expofitions of the 
 Scriptures and the Fathers, was blind to this necef- 
 fity . " Irenaeus contends in this chapter, fays Feuar- 
 " dentius, that they who make Chrift the Son of Jo- 
 
 Firft Letters, p. 118. 
 
 feph,
 
 446 D I S QJU I S I T I O N S 
 
 Dis. ill. feph, attain neither remiflion of fins, nor the adop- 
 " tionofthe Sons of God, nor fo much as the right 
 " ofablefledrefurreaion*." 
 
 IN the Fourth book, after a confutation of many 
 heretical opinions, Irenaeus lays down this maxim f ; 
 that the believer, who fteddily adheres to the great 
 principle of one God, who created all things by his 
 word, and ftudies the Scriptures with the affiftance of 
 the Prefoyters of the church, who were in pofleffion, 
 as Irenaeus fays, of the doctrine of the Apoftles, will 
 extricate himfelf from the difficulties, which were the 
 ftumbling-blocks of Heretics. In particular he will 
 perceive the connection and affinity between the Old 
 Teftament and the New, and will underftand that the 
 fame God was the author of both. " Such a difciple, 
 " he fays, being truly fpiritual, inafmuch as he receiv- 
 " eth the fpiritofGod, who under all the difpenfa- 
 u tions of God was prefent with men, and announced 
 " the future, and fheweth the prefent, and relateth 
 " the paft j [fuch a fpiritual difciple] judgeth all, but 
 " is judged himfelf of none J." He judgeth all; that 
 is, he difcerns in what point the error of any errone- 
 
 * Contendit autem hoc capite Irenaeus, illos nee pecca- 
 torum remiflionem, nee adoptionem filiorum Dei, imo nee 
 jus beatae refurredtionis aflequi, qui Chriftum filium Jofeph 
 conftituunt. Feuardentlus ad laudatum locum Irentcl. 
 
 t Lib. 4. Cap. Hi. 
 
 \ Tails difcipulus vere fpiritalis, recipiens Spiritum Dei, 
 qui ab initio, in univerfis difpofitionibus Dei, afFuit homini- 
 bus, et futura annuntiavit, et praefentia oftendit, et praeterita 
 enarrat, judicat quidem cranes, ipfe autem a nemine judica- 
 tur. Lib. 4. Cap. liii. 
 
 OUS
 
 t> I S QJJ. I S I T I O N S. 447 
 
 ous dodrine lies, and he can evince its inconfiftence "' 
 with the truth. But he, himfelf, having the written 
 word, and the doctrine of the apoftles for his guide, 
 and enjoying the fecret illumination of the Spirit, is 
 inconfutable. Irenaeus illufcrates and amplifies this a- 
 phorifm, by an application of it to different feels ; mew- 
 ing how, and upon what principles, the fpiritual difci- 
 plevnft judge them ; i. e. expofeand refute their errprs. 
 This amplification of the general fentiment makes a 
 very long period ; which fome of the early editors 
 (Grynaeus I believe) hath broken into no lefs than 
 nine chapters, prefixing to each a proper title. This 
 fpiritual difciple, Irenaeus fays, will judge the Gen- 
 tiles*, will judge the Jews f, will judge the Mar- 
 cionitesj, will judge the Valentinians. " He will 
 " alfo judge the vain bablings of wicked Gnoftics, 
 " mewing them to be the difciples of Simon Ma- 
 " gusjj. He will alfo judge the Ebionites. How 
 " can they be faved, unlefs he, who wrought their 
 " falvation upon earth, be God**." Dr. Prieftley 
 imagines, that Irenaeus fays of the Ebionites that 
 " God will judge them ff." This miftake, of put- 
 ting God's judgement for the found believer's judge- 
 ment, is indeed of no importance in the argument. 
 I mention it only as one inftance of that practice,, of 
 
 * Lib. 4. Cap. liv. f Cap. Iv. J Cap. Ivii. ^ Cap. Iviii. 
 
 || Judicabit autem et vaniloquia pravorum Gnoflicorum, 
 Simonis eos Magi difcipulos oftendcns. Cap. Iviii. 
 
 ** Judicabit autem et Ebionitas ; quomodo pofTunt fal- 
 vari, nifi Deus eft qui falutem eorum fupcr tcrram operatus 
 eft ? Cap. lix. 
 
 ft Firfl Letters, p. 33. 
 
 which.
 
 44 S D I S QJLT I S I T I O N S. 
 
 is. in. which I accufe Dr. Prieftley, of taking fhort detached 
 paflages in the fenfe which may firft occur to him, 
 without knowing, and without examining, with what 
 they may be connected in the context of the author's 
 difcourfe. Tails difcipiilus vere'fpiritalis is the fubjeft 
 of the verb Judlcabit from the LI I Id. chapter to the 
 end of the LXIId. Irenaeus fays then, that the fpi- 
 ritual difciple " will judge the Ebionites." And this 
 is the principle upon which he will judge them, " that 
 " they could not be faved, unlefs he, who wrought 
 " their falvation upon earth, be God." But this, 
 Dr. Prieftley fays, " is no fentence of damnation paf- 
 u fed upon them in particular, for holding their doc- 
 " trine, but an argument ufed by him to refute them; 
 " and is the fame as if he had faid, mankind in gene- 
 " ral could not be faved, if Chrift had not been God 
 " as well as Man *." This fhall be granted. What 
 Irenaeus fays, in the paflage now under confideration, 
 is nothing more than an argument for the refutation 
 of the Ebionites ; and the principle of this argument is 
 rightly ftated by Dr. Prieftley. But by whom is this 
 argument ufed ? By Irenaeus? Not fimply by Irenaeus 
 in his own perfon. It is the argument which Irenaeus 
 puts in the mouth of the fpiritual difciple. The fpi- 
 ritual difciple, that is, every fpiritual difciple, every 
 found believer is the perfon, who upon thefe principles 
 will confute the Ebionites. Irenaeus, therefore, dif- 
 tinguiming the Ebionites, who are confuted, from 
 every fpiritual difciple, who confutes, fets the former 
 out of the fociety of fpiritual difciples, of found be- 
 lievers, and puts them in the clafs of thofe who are 
 not fpiritual ; that is, of thofe who have not the fpirit. 
 * Firft Letters, p. 33. 
 
 For
 
 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 449 
 
 for were they fpiritual, they could not be the obje&s D " IIL 
 
 of the fpiritual difciple's oppofition and confutation. 
 
 But the clafs of thofe, who are not fpiritual, is thq 
 
 choice fociety of heretics and infidels. For be^ who 
 
 hath not the fpirit of Chrift^ is none of bis. In this 
 
 pafTage, therefore, the Ebionites are clearly ranked 
 
 with Heretics. 
 
 IT deferves particular notice, that one circum- 
 ftance in Irenseus's defcription of the fpiritual difciple, 
 who judges thefe Ebionites, is, that " he is a fol- 
 " lower of the public do&rine of , the church*." 
 Whence it might feem no unnatural conclufion, if 
 other proof of the thing were wanting, that the pub- 
 lic judgement of the church, no lefs than the fend- 
 ments of Irenaeus, was againft the Ebionites ; that 
 they were oppofers of the public doctrine, and of 
 courfe, in the public eftimation, Heretics. But the 
 fame thing indeed is fufficiently implied in the re- 
 prefentation given them, as mairitainers of an opinion, 
 which ftruck at the very root of the dodlrine of re- 
 demption, and lay open to every found believer's 
 confutation. 
 
 IN the Fifth book, the Ebionites are mentioned 
 among Heretics, whofe doctrines fall all together, 
 when the great fcheme of man's redemption is rightly 
 underftood. " Our Lord redeeming us by his own 
 " blood, and giving his own foul for our foul, and 
 
 ' * Si et fcripturam diligenter legerit, apud eos qui in Eccle- 
 a flint prefbyterj, apud quos eft apoflolica do&rina. cap. Hi. 
 
 G g his
 
 D I S QJJ IS1TIONS. 
 
 in. n j s body for our bodies, and pouring out the fpirit 
 " of the Father for the adunion and communion of 
 " God with men, bringing God down to men by 
 " the fpirit, and again, by his incarnation, raifing 
 " mu : to God, and, in his advent, actually and af- 
 " furediy conferring on us incorruptibility by com- 
 " munion with God ; the doctrines of Heretics fall 
 " all together. For they are vain, who fay that his 
 " appearance was phantaftic. The Valentinians, 
 " therefore, are vain, who hold this doctrine. The 
 " Ebionites alfo, are vain, not receiving the union of 
 God and man, by faith, &c*." 
 
 THE only ufe, which Dr. Prieftley makes of this 
 paflage ; is to take the claufe relating to the Ebionites 
 by itfelf, and to remark that " the hariheft epithet, 
 " which Irensus here applies to that fe&, is that of 
 " Vani ; which confidering the manner of the anti- 
 " ents, he fays, is certainly very moderate f." But 
 however moderate he may think this epithet, had he 
 
 * Suo igitur fanguine redimente nos Domino, et dante 
 animam fuam pro noftra anima, et carnem fuam pro nofiris 
 carnibus, et efFundente Spiritum Patris in adunitionem et 
 communionem Dei et hominum, ad homines quidem depo- 
 nente Deum per Spiritum, ad Deum autem rurfus imponente 
 hominem per fuam incarnationem, et firme et vere in fuo ad- 
 ventudonante nobis incorruptelam, per communionem quao 
 eft ad Deum; perieruntomneshaereticorum dodlrinae. Vani 
 autem funt qui putative dicunt eum apparuifle Vani igi- 
 tur qui d Valentino funt, hoc dogmatizantes Vani autem 
 
 et Ebionaei, unitionem Dei et Hominis per fidem iwn recipi- 
 cntes in fuam animam. Lib. 5. Cap. I, 
 
 f Firft Letters, p. 33. 
 
 attended
 
 D I S QJJ ISITIONS. 451 
 
 attended to the context, he would have feen that it is D. Hf. 
 the very fame epithet, which Irenseus in this fame place 
 applies to theDocetae, the Valentinians, and themoft 
 impious of the Gnoftics. It fliould feem, therefore, 
 that it is a term of more fevere reproach, than Dr. 
 Prieftley apprehends. It imports indeed that they, to 
 whom it is applied, were perfons become vain in their 
 imagination^ cheriming opinions void of foundation 
 in Scripture and in truth, fuch as arofe out of a mif- 
 apprehenfion of the whole fcheme of revealed religion. 
 And whatever the particular fenfe of this epithet may 
 be, the manner, in which the mention of the Ebionites 
 is introduced, fhews that they are mentioned as afford- 
 ing one inftance of Heretics of that defcription. 
 
 IN another paffage of this fifth book, Irenaeus fays 
 
 of Heretics in general, that <c they are unlearned, 
 
 " ignorant of the divine difpenfations, particularly of 
 
 " the fcheme refpe&ing man, blind to the truth, and 
 
 " that they contradict their own falvation." This 
 
 general charge he illuftrates and confirms by fpecifying 
 
 the particular abfurdities of different fe&s. " Some, 
 
 " he fays, introducing another Father befide the De- 
 
 <c miurgus. Some again faying that the world, and 
 
 c the fubftance of it were made by certain Angels. 
 
 " Some, that the fubftance of the world fprang up 
 
 " from itfelf, and is felf-produced, far feparate from, 
 
 <|L him, whd, according to them, is the Father. 
 
 " Some, that it took its fubftance from corruption 
 
 " and ignorance, being among the things within the 
 
 " Father. Some treat the doctrine of our Lord's 
 
 " vifible advent with contempt, not admitting the 
 
 G g a " Incarnation.
 
 452. D I S QJU ISITIONS. 
 
 pis. in. Incarnation. Some ignorant of the difpenfationof 
 " the Virgin, fay that he was begotten by Jofephj 
 " Some, &c*." 
 
 Dr. PRIESTLEY " once thought f" that in this 
 paflage, the Ebioni^es were included in the appellation 
 of Heretics: as indeed any one would think, who 
 could explain the grammatical conftrution of the 
 fentence ; in every claufe of which Heretici [Heretics] 
 is underftood as the fubftantive to be joined with 
 Alii [Some]. They, therefore, who maintained that 
 our Lord was literally and naturally Jofeph's fon, are 
 here exprefsly called " Some Heretics." But Dr.. 
 Prieftley has reconfidered the paffage ; and perceiving 
 how ftrongly the natural fenfe of it makes againft him, 
 he has found himfelf miftaken in that conftru&ion of 
 it. He fays, " as Cerinthus and Carpocrates, and 
 " other Gnoftics denied the miraculous conception as 
 " well as the Ebionites, and all the reft of this de- 
 
 * Indofti omnes Hasretici, & ignorantes difpofitiones Dei, 
 & infcii ejus quse eft fecundum hominem difpenfationii, 
 quippe caecutientes circa veritatem, ipfi fuse contradicunt fa- 
 luti, alii quidem alterum introducentes, prseter Demiurguni, 
 patrem. Alii . autem ab angelis quibufdam dicentes faflum 
 efle mundum, & fubftantiam ejus. Alii quidem porro et 
 longe feparatum ab eo, qui eft fecundum ipfos, patre, a femet- 
 Tpfa floruifle, et efle ex fe natam. Alii autem in his quaecon- 
 tinentur a patre, de labe & ignorantia fubftantiam habuiflfe. 
 Alii autem manifeftum adventum domini contemnunt, incar- 
 nationem eius non reeipientes. Alii autem rurfus ignorantes 
 virginis difpenfationem, ex Jofeph dicunt eum generatum^ 
 Lib. 5 Cap. XIX. 
 
 f Second Letters, p. 57. 
 
 < c fcription,
 
 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 453 
 
 " fcription, both before and after this circumftance, Dls IIr 
 " evidently belongs to the Gnoftics only, and as in 
 *' no other place whatever does he comprehend them 
 " in his definition of herefy, it is natural to conclude 
 " that he had no view to the Ebionites even here, 
 " but only to thofe Gnoftics who in common with 
 " them denied the miraculous conception*." This 
 conclusion might indeed be fomewhat more natural 
 than it is, if the paffage really were, what Dr. Prieft- 
 ley, when he calls it " this defcription," would re- 
 prefent it to be, a defcription of one feel: by various 
 characters. For in that cafe it might be faid, that all 
 the parts of the defcription muft be united to make 
 up the compleat character of an Heretic. But the 
 paflage is plainly an enumeration of different fe&s, to 
 which the name of Heretics, and the charge of igno- 
 rance and blindnefs, belong in common ; an enume- 
 ration, defcribing each by its particular error. This 
 appears, not only from the grammatical ftru6ture of 
 the period, in which the repetition of Alii^ Alil^ Al'ti^ 
 &c. Some^ Some, Some, diftinguifhes and enume- 
 rates, and hath no other force ; but ftill more evi- 
 dently from this circumftance: that the opinions 
 mentioned in the different claufes are, in fome in- 
 ftances, manifeftly repugnant; infomuch that they 
 could not all be maintained by the fame perfons. 
 Thus the fecond, third, and fourth claufes mention 
 contradictory opinions about the origin of the vifible 
 world: and the " fome Heretics" who held any 
 one of thefe opinions, muft have been a different fet 
 
 * Second Letters, p. 58. 
 
 G g 3 from
 
 454- D I S QJJ ISITIONS. ' 
 
 Dis. III. from the " fome Heretics" who held another. And 
 indeed that they were different, is clearly exprefled in 
 the Latin words. For I have been favourable to Dr. 
 Prieftley in rendering the repeated Aiil^ Some, and 
 Some and Some. The proper rendering would be, 
 Some, Others^ Others, &c. In this enumeration of 
 herefies, the error afcribed to each, is alleged as an in- 
 ftance of the ignorance of that feel, of their blindnefs 
 to the truth, and their oppofition to their own falva- 
 tion. The enumeration being made in proof of that 
 general charge, it is natural to fuppofe, that each feel 
 is defcribed by that error, which, of all their abfurd 
 opinions, was the fitter! for the purpofe of that proof; 
 the cleared inftance of their ignorance and blindnefs, 
 and their contradicting of their own falvation. The 
 particular error, therefore, mentioned in each claufe, 
 is not indeed, by itfelf, a definition of herefy, but, it 
 is by itfelf a fure mark of a Heretic ; by which, every 
 one maintaining that opinion, might be known to 
 come under that general character. One of thefe 
 marks of a Heretic is the opinion, that our Lord 
 was literally and naturally the fon of Jofeph. All 
 therefore were Heretics, in the judgement of Irenzus, 
 upon whom that mark was to be found, whether 
 they were Cerinthians, Carpocratians, or Ebionites. 
 If this was a mark that might, in the judgement of 
 Irenaeus, convict a Carpocratian or Cerinthian ; why 
 fhould it not equally, in his judgement, convict the 
 Ebionites ? Becaufe in the Cerinthians and Carpo- 
 cratians, Dr. Prieftley will fay, this opinion was 
 blended with impieties, "which were indeed Here- 
 tical.
 
 D I S QJLT I S I T I O N 5. 455 
 
 tical. But this is to place the mark of the herefy, in Dis. ill, 
 the judgement of Irenaeus, not in the circumftance 
 which he exprefsly mentions as the mark, but in 
 others which he fupprefles. A mode of interpretation, 
 by which every writer may be brought to fay what- 
 ever his expofitor (hall be pleafed to fay for him. 
 
 " IF there be any other pafiage in Irenseus, in 
 " in which he calls, or feems to call the Ebionites 
 ' Heretics*," Dr. Prieftley declares he hath over- 
 looked it. He hath then overlooked a very remarkable 
 paflage in the third book, the mention of which I have 
 referved for this place. Irenaeus, fpeaking of the uni- 
 verfal credit and authority of the Gofpels, fays, that 
 *< even Heretics bear witnefs to it, fince each of them 
 " endeavours to confirm his own doctrines by proofs 
 " from thofe writings. For the Ebionites, u(ing only 
 " the goipel according to St. Matthew, are by that 
 " convicted of error in their notions of our Lord. 
 " Marcion, cutting off much of the Gofpel accord- 
 " ing to St. Luke, may be proved a blaiphemer 
 " againftthe only God, from the parts which he re- 
 " tains, &cf". 
 
 * Second Letters, p. 58. 
 
 -J- Tahta eft autem circa Evangelia base firmitas, ut et ipft 
 ihasretici teftimonium reddant eis, et ex ipfis egrediens unus 
 quifque eorum conetur fuam confirmare doftrinani. Ebionaei 
 etcnim, eo evangelio quod eft lecundum Matthasum folo 
 iitentes, ex illo ipfo convincuntur non refte praefumentes de 
 Domino. Marcion autem id quod eft fecund m Lucam cir- 
 cumcidens, ex his qua; adhuc fervantur penes eum, bblpbe^ 
 jnus in folum exiftentem Deum oftenditur. Lib. 3. cap. xi. 
 
 G g 4 As
 
 45 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 
 
 Di. III. As Dr. Prieftley mentions a definition of herefy 
 
 given bylrenaeus, in terms which exclude, or at leaft, 
 comprehend not the Ebionites *, I mail juft take the 
 liberty to fuggeft, that he might confer an obligation 
 upon the learned world, if he would be plea fed to 
 give information, in what part of the whole work of 
 Irenaeus that definition may be found. 
 
 MEAN while it appears that the Ebionites are re- 
 peatedly mentioned by Irenaeus, and never mentioned 
 but as Heretics. When any heavy charge againft 
 Heretics is to be confirmed by particular inftances, the 
 Ebionites feldom are forgotten. In the firft book, 
 they appear in a lift of Heretical fects, as one inftance 
 among many confirming the author's general afler- 
 tion, that all the Heretical feds, of his own and the 
 preceding age, had their root and origin in the doc- 
 trines of Simon Magus. In the third book, they are 
 mentioned as one inftance of Heretics, who, rejecting 
 the greater part of the four Gofpels, contribute to the 
 general evidence of the authenticity and credit of thofe 
 writings, by their folicitude to build their particular 
 opinions upon the parts which they receive, and yet 
 are convicted of error in thofe opinions, by thofe very 
 parts to which they appeal. In another paflage of the 
 third book, they are defcribed as perfons in a ftate of 
 impenitence and hardened infidelity, lying under the 
 dreadful fentence of eternal damnation. In the fourth 
 book, their feet is mentioned among thofe, whom the 
 Spiritual Difciple, i. e. the found believer, will judge. 
 
 * Second Letters, p. 58. 
 
 In
 
 ,D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 457 
 
 In the fifth book, they are mentioned among Here- Dis. m. 
 tics, whofe do&rines are detnolifhed all in the lump, 
 and at one blow, by being contrafted with the fcheme 
 of man's redemption truly ftated. And in another 
 pafiage of the fame book, their diftinguiming tenet of 
 the meer humanity of our Lord is alleged as an inftance 
 of the ignorance and blindnefs of Heretics, and of the 
 forwardnefs of fuch perfons to oppofe their own fal- 
 vation. 
 
 OF the truth of that remark of Dr. Prieftley's, 
 which provoked this long difquifition, that the Ebion- 
 ites in Irenaeus's large work " are again and again cha- 
 " ra&erized by him in fuch a manner as makes it evi- 
 " dent that even he did not confider them as Heretics, 
 " and that he never calls them by that name;" of 
 the truth of this remark, and of the qualifications of 
 the man who could make it, and take credit to him- 
 felf that he had been the firft to make it, to enlighten 
 the age upon points of ecclefiaftical antiquity, let the 
 intelligent reader now form his own judgement 
 
 D IS-
 
 D I S QjJ ISITIONS* 
 
 D I S QJJ ISITION FOURTH. 
 
 Of the fentiments oftke Fathers^ and other s^ concerning 
 the eternal origination of the Son in the neceffary ener- 
 gies of the paternal intellect. 
 
 IV. TTN a fubjet fo far above the comprehenfion of the 
 * human mind, as the doctrine of the Trinity muft 
 be confefied to be in all its branches, extream caution 
 fliould be ufed to keep the doctrine itfelf, as it is de- 
 livered in God s word, diftincl: from every thing that 
 hath been devifed by man, or that may even occur to 
 a man's own thoughts, to illuftrate it, or explain its 
 difficulties. Every one, who hath ever thought for 
 any length of time upon the fubject, cannot but fall 
 infeniibly and involuntarily upon fome way or other 
 of reprefenting the thing to his own mind. And 
 if a man be ever fo much upon his guard to check 
 the licentioufnefs of imagination, and bridle an irreve- 
 rent curiofity upon this holy fubjecl:, yet if he read 
 what others have written, Orthodox or Heretics, he 
 will find opinions propofed with too much freedom 
 upon the difficulties of the fubjeit ; and among diffe- 
 rent opinions, he cannot but form fome judgement 
 of the different degrees of probability with which they 
 are feverally accompanied ; nor can he fo far com- 
 mand himielf, as not in fome meafure to embrace the 
 opinion, which feems the moft probable. In this
 
 D I S QJJ ISITIONS. 459 
 
 manner, every one, who meddles at all with thefub- D. iv. 
 je, will be apt to form a folution for himfelf of what 
 feem to him the principal difficulties. But fince it 
 muft be confefied, that the human mind in thefe en- 
 quiries is groping in the dark, every ftep that (he ven- 
 tures to advance beyond the point, to which the clear 
 light of revelation reaches ; the probability is, that all 
 thefe private folutions are in different ways, and in 
 different degrees, but all, in fome way and in fome de- 
 gree, erroneous : and it will rarely happen, that the 
 folution invented by qne man will fuit the concep- 
 tions of another. It were, therefore, to be wifhed, 
 that in treating this myfterious fubject, men would 
 not, in their zeal to illuftrate what, after their utmoft 
 efforts, muft remain in fome parts incomprehenfible, 
 be too forward to mix their private opinions with the 
 public do&rine. Many curious queftions were 
 moved by the Heretics of antiquity, and are now re- 
 vived by Dr. Prieftley, about the nature and the limit 
 of the divine generation. Why the Father generates 
 but one Son? Why that Son generates not another? 
 Why the generation is not infinite ? Inftead of anfwer- 
 ing fuch queftions, it feems to me, that except when the 
 neceffity may arife, as indeed it too often will, of " an- 
 " fwering a fool according to his folly," it mould he 
 a point of confcience with every writer to keep any 
 particular opinions, he may have formed, as much as 
 poffible out of fight ; that Divine Truth may not be 
 debafed with a mixture of the alloy of human error, 
 and that controverfies may not be raifed upon points 
 in which no man, or fet of men, can be authorized * 
 or qualified to prefcribe to the belief of others. 
 
 Upon
 
 46. D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S, 
 
 it. IV. Upon thefe principles, I mould wifh to decline all dif- 
 pute upon the metaphyfical difficulties of the fubject, 
 even with an adverfary better qualified, than I take 
 Dr. Prieftley to be, for fuch difcuilions. 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 neceffity, may be connected with 
 the Father's; were it not, that what I am there at- 
 tempting to illuftrate is not fo much the fcripture doc- 
 trine itfelf, as the manner in which that doctrine 
 was underftood 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 Intellect exerted on itfelf f." 
 I (hewed how the Son's eternity will follow from this 
 principle. And I difcovered, what indeed I might 
 have concealed, that I 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 aflert 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 di&elief of this parti- 
 cular principle is a circumftance that may, in the lead, 
 
 * IV. V 5- t- Ibid. t Ibid. 
 
 affect
 
 D I S QJJ ISITIONS. 461 
 
 affect the integrity of any Chriftian's faith. It was D 1V 
 not alleged as a principle, on which I meant at all to 
 reft the credit of the Scripture doctrine ; 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 mifmterpreta- 
 tion. At the fame time, I difcovered my own opinion 
 about this principle, that I think it true, or likely to 
 be true; for itfeems (that is the word I ufed) to be 
 founded in Scripture. Many phrafes of Holy writ 
 feem to me to allude to it : and to thofe, who firft 
 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 expreflions. When I mewed, that from 
 this principle once admitted, a ftrict demonftration 
 might be drawn of the eternity of the fecond perfon ; 
 it was not that I fet any value upon that demonftra- 
 tion, as adding in the leaft degree to the certainty of 
 the Scripture doctrine. 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 infufficiency of reafon j to refift her encroach- 
 ments upon the province of faith j to filence her ob- 
 jections, 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 prcfent controverfy never had ari- 
 
 fen.
 
 46z t> I S QJJ I S I t I O N S. 
 
 JSl IV> fen. But this demonftration of the Son's eternity, 
 was produced for no other purpofe, but to mew the 
 difagreement between the immediate confequences of 
 the principle, from which it was deduced, and certain 
 notions which Dr. Prieftley would afcribe to thofe 
 who held that principle. But Dr. Prieftley, miftak- 
 ingfor an illuftration of Scripture, what is only an il- 
 luftration of writers, whofe meaning had been per- 
 verted by him ; conceiving that the whole Catholic 
 doctrine of the Trinity would be confuted, if a certain 
 principle, which being admitted might furnim a de- 
 monftrative proof of a particular part of it, might be 
 mewn to be without foundation ; calls upon me in the 
 Seventh of his Firft Letters *, to " fliew what it is in 
 " the Scriptures, or indeed in the Fathers, that gives 
 tl 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 doctrine of 
 " the Trinity [fo he calls it], he fancies himfelf got 
 " back to the darkeft of the dark ages, or at leaft, 
 " that he is reading Peter Lombard, Thomas Aqui- 
 * c nas, or Duns Scotusf." In his Second Letters, 
 waxing confident by my'negleftj which he interpreted 
 as a cowardly defertion of my argument, he is loudef 
 in his challenge, and more flout in his defiance. 
 Upon every occafion of thefe challenges and calls, of 
 which fometimes the Dean of Canterbury, fome- 
 times Dr. White, fometimes Bimop Prettyman, 
 Fometimes I myfelf have the honour to be the objeft, 
 
 * Firft Letters, p. 78, 
 .-} 1-ii ft Letters, p. 99, 
 
 upon
 
 t) I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 463 
 
 upon every fuch occafion, but particularly on this, Dis * 1V * 
 
 his tone reminds me of the ftrutting a&or on the 
 
 ftage; 
 
 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 CHALLENGE him, he fays, to produce any 
 " authority whatever, antient or modern, for that 
 " opinion of the origin of the Son from the Father's 
 " contemplation of his own perfections*." In ano- 
 ther place he fpeaks of it as " my own peculiar no- 
 <c tion." He exprefles " great mortification," that 
 in my Letters in Reply to his Firfl Letters, " he found 
 " not one gleam of more light on this curious fub- 
 " jet f." He reminds me of his moft magnanimous 
 " CHALLENGE to produce any authority for it, ex- 
 " cept what may exift in my own imagination];." 
 He makes no doubt but that, had it been poffible for 
 me to give an anfwer, I mould have anfwered ||. 
 
 As for the queftion about the opinion itfelf, how 
 far it may be reafonable or unreafonable, how far the 
 allufion to it may be real or imaginary, which I think 
 I perceive in fome fcriptural phrafes, no challenge of 
 
 * Second Letters, p. xxxiv. 
 f Second Letters, p. 135 
 J Ibid. U P. 134.
 
 464 CIS QJJ ISITIONS. 
 
 Dis. IV. j) r prieffley's, no call, taunt, defiance, infult, will 
 move me from my vow of iilence. But upon the 
 queftion of facl:, concerning my own exclufive pro- 
 perty in whatever there may be of truth or falfehood 
 in the notion, I think myfelf more at liberty, and feel 
 more ftomach for the conteft. I cannot indeed refift 
 the temptation, which Dr. Prieftley's challenge " to 
 " produce any authority whatever, antient or mo- 
 " dern," prefents, to feize the occafion of ftrength- 
 ening the proof of my main point^ by exhibiting in 
 its true light an inftance, which, more perhaps, than 
 any other fmgly taken, evinces Dr. Prieftley's igno- 
 rance of the religious opinions of every age, and mews 
 how much the oldeft things to him are novel- 
 ties. 
 
 THE Fathers, it muft be confeffed, were in gene- 
 neral very properly referved and 'ihy, when they were 
 dire&ly prefled with queftions about the manner in 
 which the exiftence of the three Divine Perfons is 
 connected. At the fame time the analogy, which 
 the platonizing Fathers in particular fuppofe between 
 the relation of the Father to his Word, and the rela- 
 tion of every man's mind to its own thoughts, fo ne- 
 ceflarily implies this principle concerning the Son's 
 origination, that with this principle as a key what 
 they fay upon the fubjel is very intelligible ; and 
 without this key, impenetrably obfcure. Infomuch 
 that to me it is matter of aftonimmenr, that any one 
 can read fome of the paflages which Dr. Prieftley him- 
 felf hath produced from Athenagoras, Tatian, Ter- 
 tulVan, and others, and not perceive that this notion 
 
 was
 
 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 455 
 
 was common to all thofe writers, and is the principle Di s- IV" 
 upon which all they have faid upon the fubject refts. 
 But if the fentiments of the Fathers upon this abftrufe 
 point, were not to be collected with certainty from 
 the tenor of their reafoning, and from their language, 
 St. Bafil and St. Cyril are fufficiently explicit : St. 
 Bafil, when he fays, that the fon of God is called the 
 Aoycj, " to fhewthat he came forth from intellect*." 
 Which he endeavours to illuftrate by the example, fo 
 generally inufe among the writers of antiquity, of the 
 Human Mind producing an image of itfelf in its own 
 thoughts : St. Cyril, when he fays, that " if any one 
 " would inveftigate the manner of that generation, 
 " he ought to confider the fructifications of Intel- 
 " lect, and to endeavour rather to compare with 
 " them [than with phyfical propagations] the gene- 
 " ration of the Word j and not to fay that God is 
 " lefs capable of generating than body, becaufe he 
 " generates not in a corporeal way. That the human 
 " intellect generates good thoughts, muft neceflarily 
 " be confeffed. If it be impious to fuppofe, that the 
 " human intellect is unfruitful, how much more ab- 
 u furd to think, that the fupreme intellect mould be 
 tc unproductive, and to deprive it of its pf oper fruc- 
 " tificationf." In thefe words, St. Cyril evidently 
 
 places 
 
 * AiXTi Ao-yoj; Iva ^i%Sr?, oil EX. TS Ns 
 Homil. in verbailla '* In J?rincipiO erat verbum." Tom 
 
 p. 506- 
 
 f Aia Tixvlnv di/Mii TW afaav %fva< SEJV tJ O<TOI 
 ICT avis yewYicriv s^la^iv @X*OVTM, TJ l vx 
 H h
 
 466 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 
 
 Dis. IV. places the generative faculty (if the expreflion may be 
 allowed) of the Divine Nature in the neceflary fecun- 
 dity of intelligence. In another part of the fame dif- 
 courfe, he fays, that it is to be conceived, that " the 
 " Son is in fuch fort begotten of the Father, as wif- 
 " dom of Intellect*." And again, in another place, 
 heilluftrates the intimate union of the Father and the 
 Son, by its analogy to the union between the human 
 intellect and its internal operations f. 
 
 FROM the Fathers if we pafs to the Schoolmen, 
 we fliall find among them in this, as in moftfubjecls, 
 more philosophical fubtlety and much lefs of a lauda- 
 ble referve. With them the quefdon was exprefsly 
 agitated, whether the Divine generation was effected 
 by Intellect, or by Will. If by Intellect, there arofe 
 a fecond queftion, from which they had not the mo- 
 defty to abftain ; what the object of the Intellect 
 might be; whether the Divine eflence fimply, as Sco- 
 tus maintained, or the totality of the Divine nature, 
 
 ravlaig 
 
 yzvvwriv xat /ttn teysw o-upixlcoy ayovulfgov zlvai TOV 
 57"Et |ti wj eufjix yswoi. Fewav /AM yap KO,I rsv 
 ivov VAV 
 
 i TOIVW afft^sg tiTttiv rov aa&fSHtftw vav 
 
 TTWJ aiovov TOV vv$f xavla vav owafTTOv elvai Asysiw, 
 xcu Tnj cr^8!7r)j aulu xagiropogia/; aTTortgtiv.- Cyril in 
 Thefauro. Tom. v. p. 45, edit. Auberti. 
 
 * - Noj&ov S?w yEysvi/wtrSai TOV viov K ra TT^POJ, wj 
 
 SH vov. P, 48. 
 \ Ei o eivSfUTFtvog vuf t &C. p. 31, 
 
 in
 
 D I S QJLJ I S I T I O N S. 467 
 
 in the efTence, the perfons, and the works of Crea- Dis 
 tion, which was the notion of Thomas and his fol- 
 lowers. And for this unbounded curiofity of fpecu- 
 lation, they are jufliy cenfured by Simon Epifco- 
 pius * ; whofe cenfure is a teftimony, which Dr. 
 Prieftley, perhaps will regard, that fuch opinions 
 were maintained, and fuch queftions agitated. 
 
 AFTER the Council of Trent, this peculiar notion 
 of mine, this fingular conceit, for which no authti- 
 rity whatever can be produced, antient or modern, 
 became the public doctrine of the Church of Rome, 
 being exprefsly aflerted in the rule of public teaching, 
 fet forth by the authority of that council, for the affif- 
 tance and direction of the parochial clergy, under the 
 title of Catechifmus ad Parockos. The firft part of 
 that work is an expofltion of the Apoftles Creed. In 
 the explanation of the firft articlej the comment 
 upon the word " paternj* 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 contemplating 
 " and exerting his intelligence upon bimfelf^ he mould 
 " beget a Son the exat counterpart and equal of 
 " himfelf f". In the expofltion of the fecond article, 
 
 * Epifcop. Inft. Lib. iv. feft. n. c. 33. 
 
 f Orel fine intermiflione ut aliquando in zeterna taber- 
 nacula receptus dignus fit qui videat, quse tanta fit Dei Patris 
 fcecunditas, utfeipfum intuens atque intelligens parem et aequa- 
 lem fibi Filium gignat. Artie. Prim. \ xiv. 
 
 H h 2 upon
 
 46S D I S QJLJ I S I T I O N S. 
 
 is. IV. upon the words " Fllium ejus unicumj' it is faid 4 
 " That of all fimilitudes 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 ; 
 " upon which account St. John calls the Son the 
 " Word. For as our mind, 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, exercifing intelligence upon himfelf, gene- 
 " rates the eternal Word *." 
 
 THIS, however, was not fo peculiarly the doctrine 
 of the Roman Church, but that it had its advocates 
 among the moft eminent of the proteftant Divines. 
 Philip Melan&hon, that 'great luminary of the refor- 
 mation, was its conftant and ftrenuous afTertor j and 
 he repeatedly reforts to it as a principle for the expla- 
 nation of the Phrafeology of Scripture. Philip Me- 
 lancthon, a man with whom it were more honourable 
 to err, than to be in the right with Socinus or Dr. 
 Prieftley, thought, as I think, that the notion was 
 
 * Ex omnibus autem, qua; ad indicandum modum ra- 
 tionemque seternse generationis fmiilitudines afferuntur, ilia 
 propius ad rem videtur accedere, quae ab animi noftri cogita- 
 tione fumitur ; quamobrem fandtus Joanes Filium ejus ver- 
 bum appellat. Ut enim mens noftra, fe ipfum quodarn modo 
 intelligens fui effingit imaginem, quam verbum Theologi 
 dlfcerunt; ita Deus, quantum tamen divinis humana con- 
 ferre poflunt, feipfum intelligent , verbum aeternum generaf. 
 Artie. Secund. ^ xv. 
 
 founded
 
 D I S QJU ISIT1ONS. 469 
 
 founded in Holy Writ. He thought it indeed fo D". }V. 
 clearly implied in the Scripture phrafes, that he was 
 lefs fcrupulous, than I would be, in aflerting it as a 
 part of the Scripture doctrine. 
 
 In his Loci Theologici, he fays, " the Son, there- 
 <c fore, is an image generated by the Father's 
 
 " Thought. The eternal Father, contemplating 
 
 " himfelf, begets a thought of himfelf [or a concep- 
 u tion of himfelf in his own thoughts] which is an 
 " image of himfelf never vanishing away, but fub- 
 " lifting, the eflence 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 Melandhon with Tertul- 
 lian's fifth chapter againft Praxeas, and judge for him- 
 felf, whether Tertullian and Melanclhon had not the 
 fame view of the fubjecl:. 
 
 AGAIN in the form of examination of Candidates 
 for holy orders, Melancthon fays: " The eternal 
 " Son is the fecond perfon of the Divinity, which 
 
 * Eft igitur imago cogitatione Patris genita. Pater 
 
 jeternus fefe intuens gignit cogitationem fui, quae eft imago 
 ipfius non evanefcens, fed fubfiftens, communicata ipfi eflen- 
 
 ti^. Dicitur Aoyoj, q"i? cogitatione generatur. Dici- 
 
 tur imago, quia cogitatio eft imago rei cogitatas. Op. Me- 
 Janft. Tom. I. p. 152. 
 
 H h 3 ^ c perfon
 
 47 o D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 
 
 Dis. IV. p er fon is the fubftantial and entire image of the eter- 
 " nal Father, which the Father, contemplating and 
 " confidering himfelf^ 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 firft expofition of the Nicene Creed, he 
 fays, " The eternal Father is a divine perfon, eternal, 
 " not fprung of any other, but by thought upon him- 
 " ftf generating from eternity the coeternal Son, hi? 
 
 " own image. The Son is a divine perfon be- 
 
 " gotten by the Father thinking upon and contem- 
 plating himfelf^" 
 
 IN the fecond expofition, he fays, " To be born is 
 * c of the intelligent power j becaufe the Son is bora 
 " by thought ." 
 
 IN his annotations upon the Gofpel, for the feaft 
 of the nativity, he fays, " Bafil and others, fay, that 
 " the Son is called the Word, becaufe he is the 
 
 * Filius asternus eft fecunda perfona divinitatis, qua? eft 
 fubftantialis et Integra imago casterni Patris, quam Pa.terfefe 
 zntuens et eonfiderans ab asterno gignit. Opera Melan6th. 
 Tom. I. p. 307. 
 
 j- Tom. I. p. 350. J Tom. II. p. 213, and p. 315. 
 
 I) Pater aeternus eft perfona divina, aeterna, non nata ali- 
 unde, fed cogitationefui gignens ab a^terno Fiiiumcoacternum, 
 
 imaginem iuam. Filius eft perfona divina genita a Patre 
 
 cogitante ac intuente feipfum. Symb. Nicen. De Tribus 
 perionis. 
 
 ^ Nafci eft a potentia intelligente ; quia Filius cogitatione 
 nafcitur. Tom. II. p. 228. 
 
 " image
 
 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 47* 
 
 " image of the Father, generated by the Father !> IV 
 
 " thinking upon himfelf. For the Father, contemplat- 
 
 " ing him/elf, 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 fo 
 
 " fpeak, transfufes his own efTence*/' 
 
 So poflefled was Melancthon 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 Mejanclhon 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 Melanfthon, 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 fubjecT:; 
 and that this view of the fubjecl: 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 
 
 * Bafiliuset alii dicunt, Filium dici Aoyov, quia fit imago 
 Patris, genita a Patre fefe cogitante. Pater enim intuensfe, 
 ignitcogitationem, qu* vocatur verbum ; quas cogitatio eft 
 imago Patris, in quam imaginem Pater, ut ita dicamus^ 
 transfundit fuam eflentiam. Tom. III. p. 12. 
 
 H h 4 from
 
 47 D I S QJJ I S I T I. O N S. 
 
 Djs. IV. ce f rom the Father, is after the manner of an emana- 
 " tion of Intellect, and other things of that kind, 
 tl . which have no proof from the word of God, we 
 " muft reject them as rafh and vain ; that is to fay, 
 'f if the thing be pofitively afferted fo to be *." Zan- 
 chius, therefore, were he now living, 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 which 
 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 doctrines 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 thing 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 do&rine, 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 afierted 
 
 * Caeterum quod quidam, ut fcholaftici, fcribunt, Deum 
 patrem fe videndo et confiderando genuifle Acyov, et quod 
 emanatio Filii a Patre eft fecundum emanationem intelleftus, 
 et alia id genus, quae nullum habent ex verbo Dei teftimo- 
 nium, rejicienda nobis funt tanquam temeraria & vana; 
 nempe fi res i'a fefe habere aflfeveretur. Zanchius De Tribu 
 Elohim. Lib. v. c. 3. 
 
 fo
 
 D I S QJJ ISITIONS 47$ 
 
 fotobe. 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 furniming 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 effected 
 
 by motion and change. Such objections, 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, 
 
 <c he fays, may be drawn from the example of our 
 
 l -> own incorporeal intellect. Intellect, in the 
 
 " energy of intelligence, generates another quafi- 
 " intelletf) as the philosophers call it, like unto itfelf s 
 " 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 Aoyo{ 
 ^ 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 intellecT:, without 
 c this other generated intellecT:; and the parent in- 
 " tellect generates without fuffering in itfelf any 
 M change*." Zanchius fuggefts thefe philofophical 
 
 topics 
 
 * Clariuc etiam haec refutari pofTunt exemplo intelleftus 
 
 noftri incorporei. Intelleftus, dum intelligit, gignit 
 
 (ut philofophi vocant) alium quafi intelleftum, fibl fimilem, 
 quern hanc ob caufam nos conceptum mentis, Platonici men- 
 tern genitam a mente, Patres verbum & Aoyt>v mentis appel- 
 
 larunt.
 
 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 
 
 IV. topics of reply to philofophical arguments againft 
 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 hypothecs 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 afiert too 
 pofitively, that this analogy reprefents the way in 
 which the thing actually is. 
 
 IF the Calvinifts have been my of reforting in theif 
 difputes with Anfitrinitarians, to the arguments, 
 which Zanchius fuggefts and recommends ; I take 
 thereafon of this 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 Elandratta, was carried to the ufe of 
 fome unguarded expreffions, which feemed to imply 
 that the exigence of the Son was entirely independent 
 of the Father's. He went indeed fo far as to queftion 
 the propriety of the expreflion in the Nicene Creed, 
 " God of God." This notion was confidered as a 
 dangerous novelty, and gave much alarm to fome of 
 the molt eminent Divines of thofe times, as necefTa- 
 
 larunt. Et ilium gignit intra fe ; & nunquam intellehis eft 
 - actu intelligens, & ideo vere intelledtus, fine hoc genito al- 
 tero intellectu : & quidem fine ulla fui mutations gignit. 
 Zanchius De Natura Dei. Lib. II. c. 7. 
 
 rily
 
 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 47* 
 
 j-jly terminating in one or the other of two horrible D "* 1V 
 extremes; Sabellianifin on the one hand, or Tri- 
 theifm on the other. It was treated with great fsve- 
 rity by writers of the Roman Church, and was ftre- 
 nuouily oppofed, though with much moderation and 
 candour, by my illuftrious predeceiTor BHhop Bull 
 among ourfelves, and in Holland by Arminius. 
 Beza, in his preface to Athanafius's dialogues, makes 
 the apology of Calvin ; conferring that he had not been 
 fufficiently circumfpeft in the choice of expreffions, 
 and alleging that his expreffions had been mifunder- 
 flood ; 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 affert, that he is ftriclly fpeaking God ; and 
 that the exiftence of the three peribns, of the fecond 
 and third, no lefs than of the firft, 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 doctrine, and the notion of the Son's origi- 
 nation in the neceflary energies of the paternal intel- 
 le-l is reje&ed by many of the Calvinills, more pe- 
 remptorily than by Zanchius. 
 
 THE Church of England, with her ufual caution, 
 hath abftained from giving her fanclion to any parti- 
 cular opinion concerning the manner of the Divine 
 generation. Of her Divines, tome have embraced 
 the opinion, which I have acknowledged for my own 
 (particularly Dr. Leflie in his Socinian controverfy 
 
 difcu/td)
 
 D I S QJU I S I T I O N S. 
 
 iv. difcujjed) and a great majority acknowledge a depen- 
 dance of the Son's exiftence on the Father, ftrenu- 
 oufly aflerting 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 Ihould 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 aflumed 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 doctrine, 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 (hall keep my 
 word. But Dr. Prieftley's rafh defiance, I may 
 place among the, fpecimens, with which his hiftory 
 and his letters to me abound, of his incompetency in 
 this fubjecl, and of the effrontery of that incurable ig- 
 norance, which is ignorant even of its own want of 
 knowledge. 
 
 D I S,
 
 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 477 
 
 D I S Q_U I S I T I O N FIFTH. 
 
 Of Origin's want of Ferocity. 
 
 THE defence of Origen's veracity, which Dr. 
 Prieftley hath attempted to fet up in the Second 
 of his Third Letters, is in fome parts fo weak, and in 
 others fo difmgenuous, 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 office, to 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 expected of a 
 controverfial writer to fave trouble to the reader, who 
 is bound to no fuch official duty j 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 Majefty's judges of affize, 
 might fafely be trufted to expofe themfelves. 
 
 The work, of Celfus agaihft Christianity 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 Origen, that it was a coni- 
 pofition of much art, and highly laboured. Many 
 
 of
 
 47* t> I S QJJ I S I Tf I O tf b'. 
 
 Dis. V. cf Celfus's objections were delivered in the perfoh of* 
 a Jew, who is fuppofed to addrefs his difcourfe firft to 
 Jefus, and afterwards to the Hebrew ChrifUans. 
 In the difcourfe addrefTed 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 inconfiftent with 
 itfelf in the two different branches *. Firft, he afferts, 
 that the Jews believing in Chrift had not renounced 
 their judaiftn. Upon occafion of this aflertion, he 
 goes into a difcourje 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 extinction of its authority. From this 
 difcourfe he runs into a fecond, upon a faying of our 
 Lord's, which he expounds as an senigmatical allu- 
 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 himfelf forgotten, or might 
 feafonably truft- that his reader would have forgotten, 
 the portion with which this prolix difcourfe began, 
 he enters upon the fecond branch of his defence of the 
 Hebrew brethren ; in which he flatly contradicts his 
 firft aflertion, infulting over Celfus's ignorance, who 
 had not made his Jew diftinguifh the different fets 
 of the converted Hebrews ; two, which obferved the 
 Law, and one, which had to all intents and purpofes 
 abandoned it. I have given this paffage at length in 
 
 * Remarks on Dr. P's Second Litters. P. 2. Chap. I. 
 
 s*. 
 
 my
 
 BIS QJJ ISlTIONS. 479 
 
 my Remarks on Dr. Prieftley's Second Letters , and Bis. v. 
 fhall not tire my reader's patience with a needlefs re- 
 petition of it. 
 
 DR. PRIESTLEY, to vindicate Origen from the 
 charge of felf-contradiction in this inftance, hath rc- 
 courfe to 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 
 flaiifible f. The fame critical fagacity, that ftruck out 
 this diftinclion, might have perceived, that the want 
 of plaufibility, with which Celfus's Jew is taxed, con- 
 fifted in the confounding of diftin&ions, which actu- 
 ally exifted : and that the exifting diftindtions, which 
 Celfus's Jew confounded, were the diftinclions be- 
 tween the Hebrew fec"ls, 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 characters : a negleft of which (lamps a 
 
 * Remarks on Dr. P's Second Letters, P, 2. Chap. I, 
 
 S*. 
 f Third Letters. P. o. 
 
 jnanifcft
 
 4 8o D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S; 
 
 Dis. V. manifeft character of clumfy fiction on what ought to 
 feem reality. As would be the cafe in any ferious 
 play, in which the Maid of Orleans mould be feated 
 on the Delphic tripod or Hugh Peters introduced ; 
 maintaining the divine rights of Kings and Bifhops. 
 This is the want of plaufibility, with which Origen 
 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 character in the 
 fiction of perfons. To ao?.Sov xtc otis xafaTov TOKOV 
 T-K TTpoo-uTTOKoias. 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 fhort here, he would 
 not have himfelf betrayed the want of truth in his firft 
 afiertion, 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- 
 polite, that the entire falfehood of the one were per- 
 fectly 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 OU I S I T I O N S. 481 
 
 the Hebrew Converts, not, as he did, with a general Dn. v. 
 defertion of their law, but with great difagreements 
 among themfelves about the extent and duration of 
 its authority, and the refpeft due to it under the 
 Chriftian difpenfation, he would have made his Jew 
 fpeak more in character j becaufehe would have fpoken 
 more confiftently with what every Jew muft have 
 known to be the real ftate of opinions, among the 
 Chriftians of the circumcifion. Had Celfus's Jew 
 talked like a Jew upon this fubject, he would not 
 have faid rha: all the Hebrew brethren were deferters 
 of their law j 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 expected to pofTefs. 
 Confequently, it appears, that Origen (hould not 
 have faid, that they all adhered to it. And his own 
 teprefentation of the fact, when he comes to ftate it 
 accurately, betrays the falfehood of that firft afler- 
 tion. 
 
 THAT the diftinctions, which Origen fays Celfus's 
 Jew might have put between the Hebrew Chriftians, 
 were differences reajly fubfifting in that body at the 
 time, is ftrongly implied in the form of the expref- 
 fion, Juva/zEvoj smew ; the force of which is very im- 
 perfectly rendered, in my tranflation of the pafTage, by 
 the words " when he might have faid." It had been 
 better rendered, " when he had it to fay." The 
 Greek words Jtatptoo; IITTEIV, like the Englifh " he 
 " had it to fay," are applicable only to fubftantial 
 I i fafts,
 
 48* D I S QJU I S I T I O N S. 
 
 Dis - v fafts, which might fafely be averred without danger of 
 refutation. 
 
 DR. PRIESTLEY indeed feems willing to concede, 
 that Origen, in this fecond branch of his reply to Cel- 
 fus's Jew's reproach, " may allude to a few" of the 
 Hebrew Chriftians, " who had abandoned their an- 
 tient cuftoms *." So that the queftion at laft comes 
 to this ; How many of the Hebrew Chriftians had 
 abandoned thofe cuftoms ? For that fome had aban- 
 doned them, is at laft confefied. Thefe fame were 
 by Origen's account enow to be reckoned a feel:. 
 But Dr. Prieftley hath taken care to fettle the propor- 
 tion to the advantage of his own argument. " There 
 " might be, he fays, a few Jewim Chriftians who 
 " had deferted their former cuftoms, which would 
 " have given Celfus a plaufible pretence for making 
 " fuch a divifion of them as to make thefe one of the 
 " clafles; yet the great body of them had notf." 
 But there is nothing in Origen's expreflioris, which 
 mould imply, that either of the two feels of the He- 
 brew Chriftians which retained the law, was a greater 
 body than the feel, which had abandoned it. Some 
 and Some and Some is the word, by which the men - 
 tion of each clafs i* introduced. In what proportion 
 the firft " Some" might fall fhort of, or exceed, the 
 fecond or the third, it exceeds my fkill in computa- 
 tion to inveftigate. Dr. Prieftley, perhaps, folved 
 the probkm, in that early period of his life, when h 
 was addicted to mathematical purfuits J. 
 
 * Third Letters. P. 10. J Ibid, 
 
 f Second Letters. P. 191. 
 
 BUT
 
 D I S QJJ I 5 I T I O N S. 4J 
 
 BUT I have maintained, that Origen, in the fen- Dis v< 
 tence which follows this divifion of the Hebrews pro- 
 feffing Chriftianity into three clafles, gives us to un- 
 derftand, that of thefe three forts, they only, who 
 had laid afide the obfervation 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, that, in his account of the herefies of the 
 Chriftian Church, he had omitted the Ifraelites be- 
 lieving in Jefus and not laying afide the law of their 
 anceftors. I refer the reader to an exact tranflation of 
 Origen's words in my Remarks upon Dr. Prieftley's 
 Second Letters * 
 
 UPON this, Dr. Prieftley fays to me, in the Firft 
 of his Third Letters, " From this conduction of 
 " the paflage, a perfon might be led to think that 
 " Origen reprefented Celfus as having undertaken to 
 " give an account of the herefies in the Chriftian 
 44 Church, and as having in that account omitted 
 " the Ifraelites believing in Chrift, and not laying 
 " afide the rites of their anceftors ; and upon no 
 ct other ground can your infinuation ftand f". On 
 no other ground, I declare, does my infinuation 
 ftand. But I am confident, that with 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 confirmation of it. 
 Every unprejudiced perfon, who can conftrudl: the 
 
 * P. 2. Chap. i. $ 7. f Third Letters, p. 13. 
 
 I \ 2 paflage
 
 D l S <U U I S I T I O N S. 
 
 v. pafTage for himfelf, will perceive that Origen 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 
 Origen's reply. It mould feem from this paflage in 
 Origen, that Celfus, in fome part of his work, had 
 found it to his purpofe to enumerate the principal 
 . fe&s, 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 feh, 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 defign, he numbered among the herefies 
 of the Church impious feels, which were not to be 
 deemed in any degree Chriftian, and patted unno- 
 ticed, or knew not of, the real herefy of the Judaizing 
 Hebrews. This is in itfelf a very juft and pertinent 
 objection to Celfus's enumeration. But then it is a 
 confefiion, that the Judaizing Hebrews were an he- 
 retical fed ; and of confequence that Origen aflerted 
 what was falfe, when he faid of the Hebrew 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 Ecclefiafticat 
 Hiftory hath ever yet affirmed. 
 
 ANOTHER
 
 D I S QJU ISITIONS. 48.5 
 
 ANOTHER inftance which I produced * of Origen's His. v, 
 difpofition to prevaricate, is his anfwer to Celfus's 
 Jew's objection 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, which the Chriftians, with the old Greek tranf- 
 lators, underftand 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 7rx.fitvo$ in 
 the two paflages in Ifaiah and Deuteronomy, are two 
 different words. And there is much reafon to be- 
 lieve, as I have fhewn in my Remarks on Dr. Prieft- 
 ley's Second Letters f, that the fame two different 
 words occurred in the two paflages in the copies of 
 Origen's time, and that Origen himfelf was apprifed 
 of the difference. The text in Deuteronomy, there- 
 fore, as it ftands in the modern Hebrew text, and as 
 it probably flood in the more antient copies, affords no 
 illuflration of Ifaiah's words ; and Origen's expreflU 
 ons give the greateft caufe to fufpecl, that he well 
 knew the infirmity of his own argument ; and by con-* 
 fequence that in the ufe of fuch an argument he was 
 guilty of prevarication. 
 
 * Remarks on Dr. P's. Second Letters, p. ?, Chap, i, 
 | I. 
 
 f Ibid. 
 
 I i 3 Dr. PRIESTLEY
 
 4.TC D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 
 
 Dis. v. Dr; PRIESTLEY fays to me, in the Firft of his 
 Third Letters, " The queftion 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- 
 u lar 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 queftion was not indefi- 
 nite ; about one or another of different words in diffe- 
 rent plaoes. It was about a particular word, in a par- 
 ticular place. About the meaning of the word na^y 
 in Ifaiah vii. 14. This was indeed, the queftion be- 
 tween Origen and Celfus's Jew. But the queftion 
 between Dr. Prieftley and me, is, by what fort of 
 argument Origen attempted to fuftain 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 victory in a particular queftion. 
 Origen, to juftify the fenfe in which he underftood 
 the word, reforts to a critical argument. He appeals 
 to a paflage in Deuteronomy ; in which he would have 
 it believed that the word was indifputably ufed in the 
 fame fenfe, in which he underftood 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, j>. 14. 
 
 depends;
 
 D I S QJJ 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 ftate 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 nnby but n^iro. Nor did Dr. Kennicott find 
 HD^ in the text cited by Origen from Deuteronomy, 
 in any one of the innumerable copies, which he col- 
 lated. Now I fay, that the confeffed fenfe of the 
 word rftirQ in Deuteronomy can never fettle the dif- 
 puted fenfe of the word no^y inlfaiah. 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 mifreprefenta- 
 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 Jews faid fo^ when he knew that what they 
 " faid was true f ? " Here again we have a beautiful 
 fpecimen of our Greek profeflbrs readinefs 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. a. Chap, i. 
 
 M- 
 
 f Third Letters, p. 14. 
 
 I i nominative
 
 4 S8 DISQUISITIONS. 
 
 ii. V. nominative of the verb Qouri is not the yews^ but the 
 indefinite plural underftood j which is ufually exprefied 
 in the Englifh language by the pronoun They ufed 
 indefinitely, and in the French by On; but in the 
 Greek and the Latin languages is always underftood, 
 never is exprefled : u$ <pacn, ut aiunt. "As they fay" 
 i. e. " As it is generally faid." Origen affirms not, 
 that what was thus generally faid was true. That he 
 fhould fhelter himfelf under the authority of a vagus 
 report, in a point foefiential ;o his argument, in which 
 he was fo competent to judge how the cafe really 
 flood, is a ftrong preemption that he knew, not that 
 this report was true, but . that it was the reverfe of 
 truth. That it was the reverfe of truth, is in the 
 higheft degree probable from the prefent ftate of the 
 Hebrew text. That Origen knew it to be the reverfe, 
 is highly probable, from the fufpicious manner in 
 which he appeals to it. And upon the ground of this 
 ftrong prefumptive evidence, my impeachment of 
 his veracity, in this inftance, ftands. 
 
 Dr. PRIESTLEY, in relating my remark upon* 
 Origen's critical argument, hath taken care to omit 
 that very material part of it, that in our modern copies 
 of the Hebrew Bible, the word, which, by the con- 
 fent of all interpreters, denotes a virgin in the text 
 cited from Deuteronomy, is a different word from 
 that which the 70 with great propriety ^render a vir- 
 gin in Ifaiah. This art, which Dr. Prieftley is fo 
 apt to employ, of reducing an argument, which he 
 Would refute, b'y well-managed abridgements, to a 
 form in which it may be capable of refutation, indi- 
 cates
 
 D I S QJU I 5 I T I O N S. 4 s 9 
 
 cates fo near a refemblance between the charaters of Dis. V. 
 Origen and his Hyper afpi/les^ in the worft part of Ori- 
 gen's, that perhaps I might not be altogether unjufti- 
 fable were I to apply to the Squire, the words which 
 Mofheim fo freely ufes of the Knight, EGO HUIC 
 TESTI, ETIAMSIJURATO, QUI TAM MA- 
 NIFESTO FUMOS VENDIT, ME NON 
 CREPITURUM ESSE CONFIRMO. 
 
 D I S.
 
 4,4 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 
 
 D I S QJLJ ISITION SIXTH. 
 
 Of St. Jerome's orthodox Hebrew Chrijlians. 
 
 VI. TN the Fourth of his Third Letters, Dr. Prieftley 
 * profefles to confider the evidence from Jerome in 
 favour of the exijlence of a church of orthodox "Jewijh 
 Chrijlians at Jerusalem after the time of Adrian *. 
 The learned reader will be pleafed to recoiled, that 
 my proof of the exiftence of fuch a church refts in 
 part only upon St. Jerome's evidence. The entire 
 proof refts upon feven pofitions laid down by me in 
 my Remarks upon Dr. Prieftley's Second Letters, 
 p. 2. chap. ii. and St. Jerome's evidence goes barely 
 to the proof of the laft of thofe pofitions, the feven th : 
 Namely, " that a body of orthodox Chriftians of the 
 " Hebrews was actually exifting in the world much 
 " later than in the time of Adrian f." St. Jerome's 
 evidence is brought for the proof of this pofition 
 finglyj and this, proved by St. Jerome's evidence, 
 in conjunction with fix other principles, previoufly 
 laid down, in the proof of which St. Jerome is not at 
 all concerned, makes the whole evidence of the main 
 faft, which I affirm, that a church of orthodox Chrif- 
 
 * Seethe title of the Fourth Letter. Third Letters, p. 25. 
 t Remarkb, &c. p. 373. 
 
 tians
 
 CIS <XJU I S I T I O N S. 49* 
 
 tians of the Hebrews exifted it JE\h from the final dif- *> vi. 
 perfion of the Jews by Adrian to a much later pe- 
 riod *. 
 
 Dr. PRIESTLEY tells me, that " before I can 
 11 mew that the paflage in Jerome, on which I lay 
 '* fo great a ftrefs, is at all to my purpofe, I muft 
 " prove the three following things. Firft, that the 
 " Hebrews believing in Chrift were different from 
 <l the Nazarenes : Secondly, that the former were 
 " compleatly orthodox : and Thirdly, that thofe or- 
 " thodox Jewifh Chriftians refided at Jerufalem f." 
 
 CERTAINLY it muft bean argument of little fig- 
 nificance, that cannot be applied to the matter in 
 queftion, till the thing to be proved by it hath been 
 previoufly proved from other principles. Dr. Prieft- 
 ley hath confefled, that he fometimes condefcends 
 to amufc himfelf with the fabrication of fuch argu- 
 ments J. But I would not willingly be dete&ed in 
 the ufe of them. I contend that the paflage in St. 
 Jerome's commentary on Ifaiah, to which I refer in 
 my Remarks on Dr. Prieftley's Second Letters, 
 [Part 2. Chap. ii. 8.] which Dr. Prieftley hath 
 given at length in the Fourth of his Third Letters || ; 
 I contend, that this paflage itfelf contains a clear proof, 
 that the perfons there mentioned, under the defcrip- 
 tion of " Hebrews believing in Chrift", and under the 
 name of " Nazarenes," were different perfons. I 
 
 * Remarks, &c. P. II. C. II. f Third Letters, p. 28. 
 J Firft Letters, p. 130. and fee my Letters in Reply, Let- 
 ter ix. || Third Letters, p. 38. 
 
 contend
 
 49* D I S QJJ ISITIONS. 
 
 Pis. VI. contend that this fame paffage affords a ftrong pre- 
 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 facl 
 that they refided at ^Elia, and that fuch a body had 
 been fettled at JEXiz 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- 
 fitionsofthe 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 circumftances, St. Jerome hath 
 defcribed the fame people under different names, 
 meerly for the fake of varying his mode of expreflion ; 
 is to fuppofe, that he hath varied his expreffion, when 
 it ought leaft of all to have been varied j and when a 
 
 * Third Letters, p. 29. 
 
 variation
 
 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N >. 
 
 variation could ferve no purpofe, but to create con- Djs> 
 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 commentary on the next preceeding chapter of 
 Ifaiah's prophecies : the eighth. Upon the paflage - 
 in lapldcm ant em offenjionh et petram fcandali duabus 
 domibus 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 ; 
 " from which fprang the Scribes and Pharifees, and 
 w that thefe are the two houfes that received not the 
 " Saviour, &c." Again upon the paflage at the con- 
 clufion of the fame chapter, cum dixerint ad vos 
 qitarite a Pytbonibns^ he remarks, that the Naza- 
 renes expound this paflage alfo to the difadvantage of 
 the Scribes and Pharifees. Theperfons, whom he 
 mentions under the fame name in his commentary 
 upon the ninth chapter, put, as he affirms, a fimilar 
 fcnfe upon the firft verfes of that : expounding the- 
 darknefs and ftiadow of death, which overfpread the 
 land of Zabulon and Naphtali, of the load of pha- 
 rifaical ceremonies, from which they were delivered 
 by the gofpel. Certainly Ihefe perfons, mentioned 
 by the fame name, as expounding paflages fo near to 
 each other, in the 8th and gth 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~ 
 " nion be bad given above" he refers to that opinion 
 
 of
 
 494 D I S QJU I S I T I O N S. 
 
 JS. vi. of the Nazarenes, which he had actually 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 the 
 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 firft who enjoyed the light of our Lord's 
 own preaching. What fimilitude can Dr. Prieftley 
 find between thefe two expofitions ? What connection 
 between the miferies of the captivity, and the load of 
 pharifaical ceremonies ? To fay, as Dr. Prieftley fays, 
 that the Nazaraean expofition was only " a farther 
 " illuftration*" of this of the Hebrew Chriftians, is 
 as if any one mould fay, that Dr. Prieftley'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 different names. The neceflary in* 
 ference is, that thefe expofitors, differing in their 
 names and in their fentiments, were different perfons : 
 or to fpeak more accurately, fmce they are names of 
 bodies, by which they are feverally defcribed, two 
 different feels. This is St. Jerome's evidence, that 
 the Hebrews believing in Chrift were different peo- 
 ple from the Nazarenes. 
 
 # Third Letters, p. 29. 
 
 DR,
 
 D I S QJJ I S I T 1.0 N S. 4,5 
 
 DR. PRIESTLEY thinks it a prefumptive argu- Dis. 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 paffage 
 " by Aquila and Symmachus, both Ebionites*." 
 Due regard being paid to this circumftance, Dr. 
 Prieftley thinks this paflage of St. Jerome furnifhes 
 *' an argument that in the idea of Jerom," thefc 
 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 fa<3, however, is, that thefe Hebrew Chrif- 
 tians, as it fhould feem from their expofition of 
 the prophecy, in this 'paffage at leaft, followed not 
 the tranflation either of Aquila or Symmachus ; fo 
 far as we know what their tranflations of this paffage 
 were, from the information which St. Jerome hath 
 given. The Hebrew Chriftians took the word Wj 
 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 circumftance, 
 their different interpretations of that fmgle word, with 
 Symmachus 's interpretation of another fingle word 
 in the firft 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 fpeak, as if St. Jerome in his commentary had 
 
 * Ibid. f Ibid, 
 
 given
 
 9 D I S Qjtf I S I T I O tf S. 
 
 i s. vi. gj ven t i ie i r entire translations 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 Chrifti- 
 ans were orthodox, is this : that the character given 
 of them by an orthodox writer, is (imply this, " that 
 " they believed in Chrift;" without any thing to dif- 
 tinguifti their belief from the common belief of the 
 church, without any note of its error or imperfection. 
 This argument acquires great weight from the well- 
 known temper of St. Jerome and his times*. 
 
 Dr. PRIESTLEY thinks it " remarkable; that 
 tc having before maintained, that thofe, whom Jerome 
 " called Chriftians, in his epiftle to Auftin, were or- 
 u thodox, I mould now allow, that by the fame term 
 he here means heretics ; and that the phrafe be- 
 w Uev'ing in Cbrift, mould now be a character 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. Auftin, were orthodox 
 Chriftians. 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 
 
 * Remarks, &c. Part 2. Chap. ii. ^ S. 
 f Third Letters, p. a6. J 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 epiftle to 
 St. Auftin ; and ftill lefs, if at all, heretical. Of the 
 Ebionites, the belief in Chrift is not predicated in 
 that epiftle, (imply, as here of the Hebrews ; without 
 any thing to diftinguifh their belief from the common 
 belief of the church, without any note of its error or 
 imperfection. St. Jerome, when he fpeaks of the 
 belief of the Ebionites, marks and reprobates their 
 mifbelief in the diftindteft 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 mould apply this fame word to Dr. 
 Prieftley, and to the Dean of Canterbury, Profeflbr 
 White, or Mr. Parkhurft. 
 
 IF there be any thing in Dr. Prieftley's Letters, 
 which I receive with particular complacency, it is the 
 kind concern, which he fometimes difcovers, left in. 
 my heedlefs zeal to oppofe his opinions, I mould 
 fuflfer my own foot to flip from the ftrait 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. Hi. \ i. 
 
 K k the
 
 49* D I S QJJ ISITIONS. 
 
 n. vr. the expofition afcribed to them by St. Jerome of 
 If. viii. 13, 14*, by which it clearly appears, that 
 they thought the Saviour of the world defigned in 
 that paflage by the title of niN3!f mn, he tells me, 
 that " he wonders that this mode of interpreting 
 " fcripture, mould not ftagger even myfelf. He 
 " thought that themoft orthodox, oftheprefent day, 
 " had believed that the perfon characlerifed by tfie 
 " title of the Lord of hofts 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 
 paft days. The orthodox of the prefent day well 
 know, that the Son, no tefs than the Father, is often 
 chara&erifed in the Old Teftament, by the word Je- 
 hovah put abfolutely. They hold it one irrefragable 
 argument of the Son's divinity, that the writers of the 
 New Teftament ufually mention Chrift by the title of 
 Kyf<oj " 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 K^IOJ, 
 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 
 know St. John believed it, that (Thrift Jefus is the 
 JEHOVAH, whom the prophet Ifaiah faw upon his 
 throne the year that King Uzziah died ; whofe praifea 
 were the theme of the Seraphic Song, whofe glory 
 filled the temple. 
 
 * Remarks, &c. Part 2. Chap. iii. ^ 7. 
 t Third Letters, p. 34. 
 
 THE
 
 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S, 499 
 
 THE difturbed foundations of the church of ^Elia Dxs. vi. 
 are again fettled. I could wifh to truft then) to their 
 ownfoljdity to withftand any future attacks. I could 
 wim 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- 
 lift. 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 circumfpet in 
 argument, had I not given him reafon to expect, that 
 every aflertion would pafs uncontradi&ed, and every 
 argument uncanvafled. Unambitious, therefore, as I 
 flill remain of the honour of the laft word, be it how- 
 ever underftoodthatifDr. Prieftley mould think pro- 
 per to make any further defence, or any new attack, 
 J am not pledged either to reply or to be filent. 
 
 / N I S.
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed. 
 
 $S' DL <>-URL 
 
 tUtt.-itf o 

 
 A 000 000 660 1