tians whose name is come down to us) till he read the books of Plato; and that he was afterwards confirmed in the Catholic doctrine by reading the fcriptures. Conftantine in his oration to the fathers of the council of Nice, fpeaks with commendation of Plato, as having taught the doctrine of "a fecond God, derived from the fupreme God, and fubfervient to his will." Maxim i1.

16. There is a pretty eafy gradation in the progrefs of the doctrine of the divinity of Chrift; as he was first thought to be a God in fome qualified fense of the word, a diftinguifhed emanation from the fupreme mind; and then the Logos, or the wifdom of God perfonified; and this logos was first thought to be only occafionally detached from the Deity, and then drawn into his effence again, before it was imagined that it had a permanent perfonality, diftinct from that of the fource from which it fprung. And it was not till 400 years after that time that this logos, or Chrift, was thought to be properly equal to the Father. Whereas, on the other hand, it is now pretended that the apofties taught the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, yet it cannot be denied that in the very times of the apostles, the Jewish church, and many of the Gentiles alfo, held the opinion of his being a mere man. Here the tranfition is quite fudden, without any gradation at all. This must naturally have given the greatest alarm, fuch as is now given to those who are called orthodox, by the present Socinians; and yet nothing of this kind can be perceived. Befides, it is cer

tainly most probable that the chriftians of thofe times, urged as they were with the meanness of their mafter, fhould incline to add to, rather than take from, his natural rank and dignity. Maxim 9.

X.

Remarks on the article of the Monthly Review for September, 1783, in answer to my REPLY to fome former animadverfions in that work.

A writer in the Monthly Review having made an elaborate answer to my Reply to his former animadversions on my hiftory, it will be expected that I take fome notice of it. On its own account I certainly fhould not have thought it neceffary, any more than I fhould with refpect to his former remarks. But being written in a fpecious and impofing manner, as the former were; and especially having the advantage of going without expence into the hands of almost all readers, I fhall notice an article or two in it, in which he himself evidently thinks that he has the most advantage, and only give my opinion in general with refpect to the reft.

As to the temper with which this controverfy has been conducted, I appeal to our readers, whether my Reply was not candid and temperate, beyond what his firft remarks were entitled to; and whether his anfwer be not extremely uncandid and infolent. I do not pretend to be a judge in my own caufe. I know, however, that, whereas he fuppofes I used the term criticifer by way of contempt, I only used

it for the fake of variety, instead of critic, reviewer, &c. meaning fimply one that criticifes.

After quoting a paffage from Justin Martyr, I added, "This language has all the appearance of "an apology for an opinion contrary to the general "and prevailing one; as that of the humanity of "Chrift (at least with the belief of the miraculous "conception) probably was in his time." This the Reviewer called a very great inconfiftency. “The "Doctor," he fays, "has no right to infert his at "leaft with the belief of a miraculous conception. The "infertion is entirely arbitrary; and those who "know lefs of the author's character than we do, " and may not have the fame well-grounded affur❝ance of his integrity, may poffibly be led to imagine, that he introduced those words only to give "fome colourable pretext to his own principles."

This I fcrupled not to call a groundless and per verfe mifreprefentation of my meaning; that part of the fentence in which mention is made of the miraculous conception being expreffive of an opinion of my own, and for which I make myself only anfwerable. The fentence is therefore perfectly unexceptionable, and very far from giving juft cause for fuch an alarming exclamation as the Reviewer makes ufe of.

This, however, he has the affurance to defend ; and, confident of his advantage in the argument, he even quotes the whole fection in my Reply relating

L3

relating to this fubject; and then fays, p. 245 "We carefully revited what we had written, and

as carefully compared it with the pufige in "Dr. Prieftley's Hiftory which occafioned the re"flection we make. The revital, inttead of con"vincing us that we had mifconceived or mif"reprefented Dr. Prieftiey's meaning, fully con"vinced us that we had done neither; and we

now a fecond time repeat what Dr. Priestley has "been pleafed to call an almoft unparalleled "inftance of groundiefs and perverfe mifreprefent"ation." He refts his vindication on that part of the fentence, in which mention is made of the miraculous conception, being an inference from the paffage in Juftin. “As fuch," he now says, p. 244, "we found fault with it."

Now I affert, as I did in my Reply, that this claufe is no inference at all, but an independent obfervation of my own, in fupport of my inference, or rather of part of it only; and if it be otherwife, I profefs that I have no knowledge of language, and that I am not able to exprefs my own meaning. If I understand myself, the whole fentence may be paraphrafed as follows. "What Justin here advances ་་ appears to me to have the air of an apology for "an opinion of his own, different from that of the

majority of chriftians in his time. The opinion "which he mentions as not his own is, that Chrift

was a mere man, and even the fon of Jofeph as "well as of Mary. Now I will not venture to fay that this opinion was more prevalent than that

" of

"of Juftin; but if we add to thofe who held this "opinion, thofe who believing Chrift to be a mere "man, held that he had no human father, I think "it probable that thofe two claffes of chriftians ta"ken together were more numerous than those "who, with Juftin Martyr, held the doctrine of "Chrift's pre-existence."

This, I will venture to fay, no perfon can doubt was my real meaning; and though it is concifely, it is not, I think, obfcurely expreffed. With a perfon who can misunderstand so plain a sentence, confifting of no more than two members; and perfift in his misconstruction, after its being particularly pointed out to him, and his profeffing to have given all due attention to it; and alfo with one who can think it natural (as he does, p. 228) that Tertullian, or any man, would reprefent his opponents as more numerous than they really were, in order to express his contempt of them; it is abfolutely impoffible for me to hold any argument. We want common language and common principles. It is, as the Reviewer fays, to bring the question to an iffue We have nothing more to fay, and our judges must decide between us.

at once.

He cannot exprefs his confidence more strongly than he has done; and to what I have already said, I will now add, that I not only think he has mifreprefented my meaning; but that, confidering all the circumftances, and especially his perfifting in it, as he now does, it will not be eafy to produce any mif

L 4

repre

།