life." John v. 20. See alfo Titus ii. 10. 13. &c. &c. And the following are applied to Jefus, as expreffive of his divinity; because they strongly allude to characters applicable to the Supreme Being only, as John xii. 41. alludes to Ifaiah vi. 5. Rev. i. 8, 11, 17. and ii. 8. to Ifa. xli. 4. xliii. II. and xliv. 6. John xxi. 16, 17. and Rev. ii. 23. to 1 King. viii. 39. Pf. vii. 9. Jer. xi. 20. and xvii. 20. Rev. xxii. 12. to Ifa. xl. 10.

Thefe expreffions, give me leave to tell you Sir, evidently inculcate the doctrine of the divinity of Jefus, and his pre-exiftent ftate, in the most clear and explicit manner. Hence it is manifeft, that your doctrine cannot be that of Christianity, nor the profeffors thereof intitled to the appellation of Chriftians in the ftrict fenfe of the word: this I fubmit to the judgment of all candid and impartial perfons.

Thus much I was obliged to say in vindication of my character against your charge of my want of candour, as it fully juftifies the expreffion I made use of in my anfwer to your first letters; and which naturally arose from the subject in 'difcuffion. For as you invited the Jews to embrace what you called Chriftianity, for the truth of which you referred us to the Gospel, and at the fame time afferted the fpurioufness of part of the faid Gofpel, I confequently had a juft right to examine a doctrine that appeared fo inconfiftent: the refult of which was, that it appeared to me to differ fo widely from the Chriftianity taught in

the Gospels, that I found it utterly impoffible to reconcile the one with the other: and in confequence thereof, pronounced that, the profeffor of that doctrine could not be intitled to the appellation of a Chriftian.

This Sir, is the want of unanimity among Chriftians, that I complain of *; for if according

* And what is still a greater proof of the want of unanimity among Chriftians, is, their charging each other with being guilty of impiety. This, I perceive, by your own words; for in your letters to Dr. Horfley, in answer to his animadverfions on the history of the corruption's of Christianity, you obferve, (page 103,)" You here fpeak of the impiety of the "Unitarians. Before you repeat any expreffions of this kind, "I beg you would pause a little, and confider how fuch language might be retorted upon yourself. If it be impiety "to reduce a God to the state of a man, is it not equally im"pious to raise any man to a state of equality with God, that "God who has declared that he will not give his glory to "another, who has no equal, and who in this respect ftiles

can

himself a jealous God? This you fay refpects the gods of the heathens. But what were the heathen gods, but either "the fun, moon, and stars, or dead men, all creatures of "God, and deriving their power from him? And if Christ be not God, he must be a creature of God too; for there be no medium between creature and creator." The truth and propriety of your reasoning, is fufficiently confpicuous, and I must freely acknowledge that, the force of it made fo great an impreffion on my mind at the time of reading it, that I was firmly perfuaded that, this mutual upbraiding, and want of candour, muft for ever remain an insuperable bar to the Jews, (although they had no other objection) and effectually prevent the reception of Christianity among them. For let them embrace which fide they will, still will they be accounted impious by the other.

And

to your hypothefis Jefus was only a mere man, and did not abrogate the law of Mofes, but came only as a prophet, though at the fame time he did not admonish our nation to return to God, and repent of their fins, otherwise punishment would follow, as was the cafe with the other proC 2 phets :

And, this seems also to be the opinion of a certain writer* (who appears to be of your fect, and whofe writings you have not thought unworthy a place in your excellent Repofitory) for the decay of Chriftianity; for he has put the following words into the mouth of one of his characters+. "But exclufive of

this, may we not fay, that there are fo many feeming contradictions, and a multiplicity of obfcure paffages in it, "that it looks as if it could not be in its present condition, a rule of faith: and that Chriftians differ fo much about the meaning of the texts of their Bible, that reason knows not what to say to a religion fo variously reprefented. It is "not only the two great camps, papift against proteftant, and proteftant against papift, who make the religion as different as black and white: that the reformed miffion at Malabar tell " the Indians they must not hearken to the Jefuits if they ex"pect falvation; and the Monks at Coromandel declare, on the

contrary, to thofe Indians, that they will be damned to

eternity, if they are converted to what the Danish ministers "call Christianity: which made the famous Bramin Padma, "naba fay, that it was impoffible for him to become a Chrif

tian, till the learned Chriftian priefts had agreed among "themselves what Christianity was; for he had not erudition and judgment enough to decide in the intricate controversy; but, exclufive of this, proteftants are fo divided among "themselves, even the church of England against the church "of England-Diffenters against Diffenters-and give fuch * John Buncle.

Life of John Buncle, Vol. II. page 200.

"different

phets; I cannot perceive for what purpose he came, or had a divine miffion*; or what you would

different accounts of the revealed fyftem, that it requires "more understanding, and ftrict, ferious enquiry, than the generality of people have, or can fpare, to be able to de"termine in what party of the celebrated critics and expofi"tors true religion is to be found; and where the controverfy "is fo dark and various, and the authorized professors can"not agree among themselves, what can a man of plain un

derstanding say to it." Examples without number might be produced in fupport of my pofition; but I forbear citing any more to avoid prolixity. And now Sir, give me leave to ask you, whether you look upon the Jews to be fuch idiots, or fo infatuated, as to give up, notwithstanding your falvo, which is a mere fallacy, as I fhall presently fhew, the religion given by God himself in the most folemn manner, the like of which was never heard, (Deut. iv. 34. and v. 23.) for fuch manifeft contradictions? If you do, I can affure you, you will find yourfelf greatly mistaken: for they are fully convinced, that the Gofpels teach that doctrine, the manifeft abfurdity and impiety of which, you yourself acknowledge, muft prevent the reception of Christianity, among those that are not Chriftians. (Letters to Horfley page 109.) This doctrine they never can receive, confiftent with their idea of the true unity of God, but which must nevertheless be embraced by Chriftians if the Gofpels be true: for till you can clearly and fatisfactory prove the fpurioufnefs of ALL thofe parts of the Gofpels which teach that doctrine, they must remain in their full force, notwithstanding any thing that you can fay to the contrary. But, when you have once proved that, why then, there is an end of Christianity, and confequently of all difputes between Jews and Chriftians about it.

* Perhaps, you or fome others may tell me that he came to teach the refurrection; but to this I anfwer, that the doctrine of the refurrection of the foul with the fame body, was well

known

would have us embrace when we become what you call Chriftians. In your first letters to the Jews (page 54) you observe, "There is no oc

cafion for you Jews to connect yourselves, "with any clafs of Chriftians. On the contrary, "fince you are ftill to be diftinguished as Jews, "no less than as Chriftians, it will be more con"venient for you to form a feparate church, and "to keep your Sabbath as you now do." But dear Sir, why the Sabbath only? are not all the precepts of the Mofaical difpenfation, held by us to be equally binding? Of this I think you ought to be fully fenfible. But fuch a church as you have here defcribed, I think never was heard of, as I verily believe it is neither Jew, nor Christian, and for which I am really at a lofs to find a proper name; however, this is what you call Chriftianity.

Now on the other hand, the Gospel teaches the divinity of Chrift, his pre-exiftent ftate, and divine miffion as already fhewn; and alfo his power to abrogate the ceremonial law. See Ephef. ii. 15. 2 Cor. ii. 7, 11. Acts xiii. 39. and xv. 10, 11. Rom. vii. 6. Gal. iii. 24, 25. and iv. 3. to 8. Heb. viii. 7. &c. &c. Nay, fo far do the Gofpels teach the divinity of Chrift, that it informs us, that it was on account of Chrift's arrogating to himfelf

that

known to and taught by the Jews for almoft a thousand years before Chrift was upon earth, as I have clearly proved against the opinions of Dr. Prideaux, (See Levi's Ceremonies of the Jews, page 261) it confequently, cannot be faid that he came for that exprefs purpose.