we fhould have had recourfe to fome other diftinction, as that of greater and lefs, fenior and junior, father and fon, &c. When therefore the apostle Paul faid, that the church at Corinth was Christ's, and that Chrift was God's (and that manner of diftinguishing them is perpetual in the New Teftament) it is evident, that he could have no idea of Chrift being God, in any proper fenfe of the word.

In like manner, Clemens, in this paffage, calling Chrift the Scepter of the majesty of God, fufficiently proves that, in his idea, the fcepter was one thing, and the God whofe fcepter it was, another. This, I fay, must have been the case when this language was first adopted, though when principles are once formed, we fee, by a variety of experience, that any language may be accommodated to them. But' an attention to this circumftance will, I doubt not, contribute, with perfons of real difcernment, to bring us back to the original ufe of the words, and to the ideas originally annexed to them. I am perfuaded that even now, the conftant use of these terms Chrift and God, as opposed to each other, has a great effect in preventing thofe of the common people who read the New Testament more than books of controverfy, from being habitually and practically Trinitarians. There will, by this means, be a much greater difference between God and Christ in their minds, than they find in their creeds.

With refpect to Ignatius, I would obferve, that as you knew the genuineness of his epiftles had been controverted, and by men of learni go and ability, you certainly ought not from the first to have concealed that circumftance. You far, however, p. 34" i fhall 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 Dr. Lardner.-After fuggefting in no very confident language, that even the fmaller

epiftles may have been tampered with by the "Arians, or the Orthodox, or both, he adds, I do "not affirm that there are in them any confiderable "alterations or corruptions. If no confiderable cor"ruptions or alterations, certainly none refpecting a point of fuch importance as the original nature "of Chrift."

This is curious indeed. What then could Dr. Lardner mean by thefe epiftles having been tampered with by the Arians, the Orthodox, or both? If they interpolated them at all, it would certainly be to introduce into them paffages favourable to their opinions concerning the divinity or pre-exiftence of Chrift. How would it be worth their while, as Arians or Orthodox, to interpolate them for any other purpose? If a farmer, hearing of fome depredation on his property committed by foxes, fhould fay, My corn may have been plundered, but as the mischief has been done by foxes, my geese and my poultry are fafe; what would be

faid of his reasoning? Yet of the same nature is yours in this cafe.

These foxes have not refrained from their prey in more facred inclofures than thofe of Ignatius. -Sir Ifaac Newton, among others, has clearly proved that the orthodox, as they are commonly called, have, in this way, tampered with the New Teftament itself; having made interpolations favourable to the doctrine of the trinity, efpecially the famous paffage concerning the three that bear record in heaven, in the first epiftle of John. This I fhould imagine, you yourself will acknowledge;" and can you think they would fpare the epiftles of Ignatius, which were much more in their power?

Jortin fays, "Though the fhorter epiftles are on many accounts preferable to the larger, yet I will "not affirm that they have undergone no alteration at all." Remarks on Ecclefiaftical History, vol. 1. p. 361.

For my own part, I fcruple not to fay, that there never were more evident marks of interpolation in any writings than are to be found in thefe genuine epiftles, as they are called, of Ignatius; though I am willing to allow, on reconfidering them, that, exclufive of manifeft interpolation, there may be a ground-work of antiquity in them. The famous paflage in Jofephus concerning Chrift is not a more evident interpolation than many in thefe epiftles of Ignatius, which you quote with fo much confidence.

You

1

You yourself may believe that every word now found in these epiftles was actually written by Ignatius; but if they have been tampered with, or have undergone alterations, how can you quote them with so much confidence, as if the argument must neceffarily have the fame weight with all perfons? Notwithstanding this, you fay, p. 34. "I will there"fore, ftill appeal to thefe epiftles as fufficiently "fincere to be decifive in the point in difpute. "Nor fhall I think myfelf obliged to go into the "proof of their authenticity, till you have given a "fatisfactory reply to every part of Bifhop Pear"fon's elaborate defence, a work which I fufpect

you have not yet looked through." And I Sir, fhall fave myself that trouble, till you fhall have replied to every part of Larroque's answer to this work of Pearson; a work, which I fufpect you have not looked into. I will, however, favour you with a fight of it, if you will gratify me with the perufal of the works of Zuicker, which, by your account, you have carefully read, though, I have not yet been able to procure them.

I am, &c.

LETTER

LETTER III.

Of the Nazarenes, and Ebionites.

REV. SIR,

YOU ftill infift, p. 38. upon the high ortho

doxy of thofe whom the "chriftian Fathers call Nazarenes. 66 Epiphanius," you fay, p. 38. " con"feffes that the Nazarenes held the catholic doc"trine concerning the nature of our Lord," whereas, I have maintained, that, though, according to him, and fome other ancient writers, there was fome difference between them and the Ebionites, they ftill agreed in afferting the proper humanity of Chrift. The yun which diftinguished the Ebionites, you fay, p. 41. was fomething that they had borrowed not from the Nalaparos, the chriftian Nazarenes, but the Nafareans, a fect of Jews only. "I ftill abide by "my affertion," you fay, p. 176. " that the name "of Nazarenes was never heard of in the church; "that is, among chriftians themfelves, before the "final deftruction of Jerufalem by Adrian; when "it became the fpecific name of the Judaizers, who "at that time separated from the church at Jerufa

lem, and fettled in the North of Galilee: the name "was taken from the country in which they fettled."

I am really astonished that you should have the affurance to affert all this, fo directly contrary to every thing that appears on the face of ecclefiaftical history,

and