as it now ftands, it is quite as much for my purpose as that which you fuppofe I have purposely fubftituted in its place. Had you thought me capable of an attempt of this kind, you should not have afcribed to me, as you have done, the greatest purity of intention in all that I have written on this fubject.

I now proceed to remark on what you have obferved from Clemens Romanus, concerning the pre-existence of Chrift.

You think that, through my exceffive zeal for an hypothefis, I make every thing to favour it but I hardly think that you can find any thing in my attempt to fupport the Socinian doctrine, that difcovers more zeal than you manifeft in fupport of the Athanafian one; and I think that exceffive zeal has mifled you in as remarkable a manner as you fuppofe mine to have mifled me. 1 can no otherwise account for your afferting, p. 16, That "the notion of Chrift having had his choice of "different ways of coming into the world, is explicitly expreffed in a book little inferior in authority to the canonical writings, in the firft epiftle of Clemens Romanus, in a paffage of "that epiftle which Dr. Priestley, fomewhat un"fortunately for his caufe, has chofen for the basis "of an argument of that holy Father's heterodoxy. "The fcepter of the majefty of God, fays Clemens, "Our Lord Jefus Chrift, came not in the pomp of

cr

pride and arrogance, although he had it in his power. Clemens it feems conceived that the

"manner

"manner of coming was in the power and choice "of the person who was to come."

Of this I have no doubt, but the question is from whence he was then to come. Clemens does not say that it was from heaven to earth. That is entirely your own interpretation, for which I fee no ground at all; fince the phrafe is fo eafily explained by his entering upon his commiffion, as a public teacher; when, being invefted with the power of working miracles, he never made any oftentatious difplay of it, or indeed exerted it for his own benefit in any respect..

Befides Clemens Romanus, you refer to the epiftles of Ignatius, for a proof of the early knowledge of the doctrine of Christ's divinity. "The

holy Father," you say, p. 19, ' hardly ever "mentions Chrift without introducing fome ex"plicit affertion of his divinity, or without joining "with the name of Chrift fome epithet in which "it is implied." All this is very true, according to our prefent copies of Ignatius's epiftles. But you must know that the genuineness of them is not only very much doubted, but generally given up by the learned; and it was not perfectly ingenuous in you to conceal that circumftance. First prove those epiftles, as we now have them, to be the genuine writings of Ignatius, and then make all the use of them that you can.

II.

LETTER

Of the diftinction between the Ebionites and the

Dear Sir,

Nazarenes.

T has been imagined by fome, that there was

a difference between the doctrine of the Ebionites, and that of the Nazarenes concerning the perfon of Chrift; the former disbelieving the miraculous conception, and the latter maintaining it; whereas I have faid that I can find no fufficient authority for that difference; that which has been thought to have been the peculiar opinion of the Nazarenes, being exprefsly afcribed to one branch of the Ebionites, by Origen, Eufebius, Epiphanius, and perhaps other ancient writers.

And as to any Nazarenes who believed that Chrift was any thing more than man, I find no trace of them in hiftory; fo that it is highly probable that the Nazarenes of the fecond century were the fame people with thofe of the first, or the primitive Jewish Chriftians, and that they were called Ebionites by way of reproach.

To the arguments from Origen and Eufebius you fay nothing, but with refpect to that from Epiphanius your conduct is very particular indeed. On my faying that" Epiphanius expressly

fays that Ebion held the fame opinion with "the Nazarenes," you fay, p. 77, "The only "inference

"inference to be made from this affertion is "this, that Dr. Priestley has never troubled "himself to read more of Epiphanius's account " of the Ebionites than the firft eleven words of "the firft fentence. Had he read the first fen"tence to the end, he would have found that "Ebion, although he arofe from the fchool of "the Nazarenes, and held fimilar opinions, "preached alfo other doctrines, of which he was "the first inventor. Among these novelties, by "the consent of all antiquity, though not with "Dr. Priestley's leave, we place the mere humanity of Christ, with or without the miraculous conception."

I fhall not return your offenfive language, but had you yourself read the second paragraph in this fection, you would have found that your remark had no foundation whatever. For it there appears, that though, according to this writer, the Ebionites and Nazarenes did differ in fome other particulars, it was not with respect even to the miraculous conception, much less with respect to the doctrine of the mere humanity of Chrift.

He fays, in the middle of the first section, "that Ebion," whom, in the 24th section, he makes to be cotemporary with the apostle John, "borrowed his abominable rites from "the Samaritans, his opinion (yun) from the "Nazarenes,

"Nazarenes, his name from the Jews*, &c." And he fays, in the beginning of the fecond fection," he was cotemporary with the former, "and had the fame origin with them; and "firft he afferted that Chrift was born of the « commerce and feed of man, namely Jofeph, "as we fignified above," refering to the firft words of his first fection," when we faid that "in other respects, he agreed with them all, and ce differed from them only in this, viz. in his "adherence to the laws of the Jews with respect

to the fabbath, circumcifion, and other things "that were enjoined by the Jews and Samaritans. "He moreover adopted many more things than "the Jews, in imitation of the Samaritanst," the particulars, of which he then proceeds to mention.

In the fame fection he speaks of the Ebionites inhabiting the fame country as the Nazarenes,

• Σαμαρείζων μεν γαρ και έχει το βδελυρον, Ικδαίων τε το ονομα, Οσσαίων δε και Ναζωραίων και Νασαραιων την γνωμην και Χρισιανων βουλέζαι έχειν την προσηγορίαν. Hær. 30. Sect. i. p. 125.

† Ούτος γαρ ο Εβιων συχρον μεν τέτων υπήρχεν, απ αυτών δε συν αυτοίς ορμάται . τα πρώτα δε εκ παρατριβης καὶ σπερμαία ανδρος, τέλεσιν το Iwonφ, τον Χρισον γεγενησθαι, ελεγεν, ως και ηδε ημιν προειρήθαι, οτι τα ίσα τοις άλλοις εν άπασι φρονών, εν τέλω μόνω διαφενείο, εν τω τω νομω τι Ινδαισμός προσανέχειν, κατα σαβαλισμον, καὶ κατα την περι τομην, και καλα τα αλλα παντα όσα περ παρα της Ιγδαίες ομοίως τους Σαμαρείαις διαπραπίεται. Ib. Sect. ii. p. 125, 126.

and