Agreeably to this fcheme, I have annexed to thefe Letters fome Remarks on the ninth number of Mr. Howes's Obfervations on books ancient and modern, in which he has begun his attack upon me. But in this I have been very concife, expecting to have an opportunity of treating the fubjects more largely when I confider what he has farther to produce. Mr. White alfo cannot decline the difcuffion, and I have heard of the threats of others. We We may, confequently, hope that this controversy (to which I find that much attention is given in foreign countries) will foon come to a proper termination, fo that learned men in all nations will not long remain in uncertainty with respect to any thing of importance relating to it.

As this is a controverfy that will probably have lafting confequences, let all who engage in it, on either fide, be careful to acquit themselves in proportion to the character which they apprehend they have at stake; but above all, let truth be our great

object.

object. Our readers will eafily perceive whether it be so or not. We all foozer deceive ourselves than them. And leaft di all can we impose upon that great being who is the God of truth, who fecretly guides all our pursuits, and whofe excellent pur poses will be answered by them, with whatever views we may engage in them.

N. B. Though an account of the State of Celvinifm among the Diffenters, on which Dr. Horley enlarges fo much, has but little to do with the object of our controverfy, I fhould have faid fomething more on this fubject, but that I hear it will be confidered by a perfon who is exceedingly well qualified to inform the public concerning it, and to explain the cause of Dr. Horley's very großs and palpable mistake.

ERRATA.

N. B. (b) fignifies from the bottom of the page.

Page 26, line 2, (b) for 14, read 1.

line 1, (b) for 6, read 16.

28, line 11, note, fer regii, read regio.

TO THE

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.

AN

INTRODUCTORY LETTER.

IN

REV. SIR,

N the course of our controverfy, you maintained that there was a church of trinitarian Jewish christians at Jerufalem after the time of Adrian ; and as the account that Origen gives of the state of things in his time does not admit of the exiftence of fuch a church, you fcrupled not to fay, that "he "had recourfe to the wilful and deliberate allega"tion of a notorious falfehood." This you did on fo little foundation, that I charged you with being a falfifier of hiftory, and a defamer of the character of the dead.

On this article you have thought proper (notwithstanding your previously-declared refolution to the contrary) to make your defence, in which you B

pro

produce five paffages from ancient writers, two from Origen himself, two from Jerom, and one from Epiphanius. In thefe Letters I undertake to fhow that, though you have taken eighteen months to write, and to revife your Remarks you have grossly misunderstood, or misapplied, all the pasfages, fo that not one of them is to your purpofe, and my charge ftill remains in its full force. For the juftness of my interpretation of the paffages in queftion, I appeal to all who have any pretenfions to scholarship, in this or any other country, and in this public manner I call upon you to vindicate your own.

On this article, at least, an article deliberately felected by yourself, let the controversy between us come to a fair iffue. Nothing has been, or shall be wanting to it on my part; and therefore the Public will certainly expect your explicit and speedy anfwer.

LETTER I.

REV. SIR,

A

Of the Veracity of Origen.

my

FTER having indulged your indolence, as you fay, p. 1, eighteen months, I am happy to find, that, notwithstanding your opinion, ib. of manifeft infufficiency as your antagonist (which you obferve, p. 2, "left you at liberty to indulge your"felf without feeming to defert your cause") there was fomething in my Letters to you that has at length roufed you to make a reply. To me this is a very high gratification. For my predominant difpofition not being indolence, I rejoice in any circumstance that contributes to keep the fubject of our controversy in view; being confident that nothing. but a continued attention to it is requifite to a fpeedy decifion in favour of the caufe that I have espoused, which I cannot help confidering as of the greatest importance to the caufe of chriftianity itself.

I should have been more pleafed if you had purfued the difcuffion of every article in debate between us; but as you have thought proper to confine yourself chiefly to what relates to the orthodoxy of the primitive Jewish church, I must do the fame, first confidering what you have advanced in order to impeach the veracity of Origen, and then the teftimonies of Epiphanius and Jerom, as evidences

B 2