God, who was in reality rejected by thofe who r jected bis metenger, though a mere man. As our Lord Simfelf lys, Luke x. 6. He that defpith you, de și lub me; and be that defbrjeth me, cefpifith ba thus on me. On this ground you might rank both the Nazarenes, and all the modern profefed unita many with cellevers in the divinity of Chrift. You might even make them believers in the divinity of the apolles, and that of all the preachers of the gopel. But having no better evidence of the or thodesy of the Nazarenes, you were obliged to make the back of this, which will prove a great deal

I wonder, however, that this mode of interpret

*ing longture does not flagger even yourself. I thought that the mott orthodox of the present day bad believed that the perton characterised by the tde of the Læri of H had been not the Sen, but the Father. If the Lark, i e. Jabotsb, of Hyjis, which is no doubt fconymous to Jebotab, abloNeely to called, be the Son, it will be difficul to And the Futter any where in the Old Teftament.

Thus I have confidered all the evidence, politive cr promptive, that you have produced for the exence of a church of orthodox Jewish chriftians Jerem ter the time of Adrian. I have par curly condered your five gustations from an cient writers, and do not End that fo much as one of them is at all to your purpele.

The

Thus again ends this church of orthodox Jewish christians at Jerufalem, planted by Mofheim, and destroyed by the too copious watering of the Archdeacon of St. Albans.

I am, &c.

LETTER V.

Of the Miraculous Conception.

REV. SIR,

OUR Sermon on the Incarnation ought to be

YOUR confidered as making part of our contro

verly; and indeed it might with more propriety have been entitled a Difcourfe against myself, as you have contrived to introduce into it reflections on every opinion that I have at any time advanced, that you could think would make me appear in an obnoxious light. But for this I am not forry; because the more thofe opinions are kept in view, the fooner will the horror they at first infpire go off. In time mankind will be lefs offended at them, and may come to approve what they now diflike. As to mere abuse, in which light only those reflections can be confidered as they appear in this Sermon, I think

D 2

34

God, who was in rea jected his meffenger, Lord himself fays, L defpifeth me; and be that fent me. On thi the Nazarenes, and a rians, with believers. might even make the the apostles, and that gospel. But having

thodoxy of the N make the best of thi too much.

I wonder, howev ing fcripture does thought that the m had believed that t title of the Lord of. the Father. If the which is no doubt

lutely fo called, be find the Father any

Thus I have co or prefumptive, t existence of a chur at Jerufalem after ticularly confidere cient writers, and

of them is at all to

the commencement of the virgin's made one perfon-Jefus, accordrimitive doctrine, was fo united to ng word, that the very existence of fifted in this union."

u fay, p. 11," clearly the doctrine of d nothing elfe, which the Fathers afms borrowed from the fchools of phin they affirmed, that the very prinfonality and individual exiftence in was union with the uncreated word. n which the miraculous conception been implied, had the thing not been ace a man conceived in the ordinary ave derived the principles of his exthe mere phyfical powers of generaon with the divine nature could not → principle of an existence phyfically Adam; and that intimate union of in in the Redeemer's perfon, which s fo clearly affert, had been a physical

. 13, "On the other hand, it were to fhew, that the miraculous concepdmitted, naturally brings up after it Etrines of the atonement, and the in

ncouth affertions, expreffed in lannintelligible, and equally unwarranted

think my time, and even my in, of two cyc value to be thrown away in moring L

As to the miracalis truetan, to which yor Sermon chiefly relates, I do not pretend to make myfelf a party for or agant it, having only endervoured to fupply materials for fortring a right judgment in the cafe. But I cannot help oberv ing that, instead of new light, you have thrown upon it a great mafs of additional drèngi, and cí a deeper fade than any thing that has been produced by the chriftian Fathers, at leaft till long after the council of Nice.

With respect to the importance of the doctrine you fay, p. 7, that, "as an article of the chion "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 pro

phet. Had the conception of Jefus been in the "natural way, had he been the fruit of Mary's "marriage with her husband, his intercourfe with "the Deity could have been of no other kind than "the nature of any other man might have equally "admitted, and how it fhould differ (p. 9.) "otherwife than in the degree of frequency "and intimacy, it will not be eafy to explain, unless "we adhere to the faith tranfmitted to us from the

primitive 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 na