even allude to unitarians in either of his two accounts of heretics in general, and that the blasphemy he speaks of respected the Gnostics only.

7. Though Tertullian says the idiota, who were the greater part of christians, were unitarians, and shocked at the doctrine of the trinity, Dr. Horsley asserts that he only meant to include a small number of them in that class, and those so ignorant and stupid as to deserve to be called idiots. I maintain that by idiotæ he only meant unlearned persons, or persons in private life; and I also maintain that even in Origen's time, and long after, a great part of these christians were unitarians, and in communion with the catholic church; that the term heresy was long used as synonymous to Gnosticism, and that the original use of the term frequently occurs even after the unitarians were deemed to be heretics.

8. Dr. Horsley maintains that by the Jews who held the simple humanity of Christ, Athanasius meant the unbelieving Jews only, and that the Gentiles who were by them converted to that belief were unbelieving Gentiles. I say the Jews were christian Jews, and their converts christian Gentiles.

9. Dr. Horsley maintains that the Jews in our Saviour's time believed in the doctrine of the trinity, that they expected the second person in the trinity as their Messiah, and that they changed their opinion concerning him when the christians applied it to Christ. I say that the Jews were always unitarians, that they expected only a man for their Messiah, and that they never changed their opinion on that subject.

10. Dr. Horsley says that the apostles considered Christ as being God, from the time that they considered

him as the Messiah. I say that they considered him as a mere man when they received him as the Messiah, and that we find no evidence in their history or in their writings that they ever changed that opinion concerning him.

11. Dr. Horsley denies that the orthodox fathers before the council of Nice held that the Logos had been an attribute of the deity, and then assumed a proper personality; and says, that all that they meant by the generation of the son was the display of his powers in the production of material beings. I assert that, by this generation, they certainly meant a change of state in the Logos, viz. from a mere attribute, such as reason is in man, to a proper person, and that in their opinion this was made with a view to the creation of the world.

12. Dr. Horsley can find no difference between this doctrine of the personification of the Logos and the peculiar opinions of the Arians. I assert that they were two schemes directly opposed to each other, and so clearly defined as never to have been confounded or mistaken.

13. Dr. Horsley asserts, that it seems to have been the opinion of all the fathers, and is likewise agreeable to the scriptures, that the second person in the trinity had his origin from the first person contemplating his own perfections. I challenge him to produce any authority whatever, ancient or modern, for that opinion.

14. Dr. Horsley maintains that, though the three persons in the trinity have each of them all the perfections of deity, the Father is the fountain of the divinity, and has some unknown pre-eminence. I assert that this pre-eminence is inconsistent with the proper equality, and that if they be properly equal they must necessarily be three gods as well as three persons.

15. Dr. Horsley says, that prayer for succour in external prosecution seems with particular propriety to be addressed to the Son. I say that this is altogether a distinction of his own, and has no countenance in scripture precept or example, nor, indeed, in those of the primitive church.

16. Dr. Horsley maintains that the unitarians do not even pretend that the general tenor of scripture is in their favour, that they cannot produce any text that plainly contains their doctrine, but that they derive it wholly from particular passages to which they give a figurative interpretation. Whereas I maintain that the unitarians have always appealed to the general tenor of scripture, and the plain language of it; and on the contrary, that the trinitarians cannot find their doctrine either in the general tenor or in any clear texts of scripture, but that they deduce it from particular expressions and circumstances, which, when rightly explained, do by no means authorize their conclusions.

17. Dr. Horsley says, that the difference between the unitarians and the Mahometans is so small, and such advances were made towards the Mahometans by the umitarians of the last age, that there is good ground to think that the unitarians will soon acknowledge the divine mission of Mahomet. He also represents christianity, on the principles of unitarianism, as inferior to deism, and, when joined with materialism, as highly favourable to atheism. Such charges as these, I say, can proceed from nothing but ignorance and malevolence, and do not deserve a serious refutation.

These are all the articles of importance on which we hold different opinions, every thing else being of less moment, and subordinate to these.

Ar length you have condescended to gratify my

wishes, and have favoured me with a series of letters in answer to mine. But as they are written with a degree of insolence which nothing in your situation or mine can justify, and indicate a temper that appears to me to be very far from being the most proper for the discussion of historical truth, I shall consider myself in this answer as writing not so much to you, as to the candid part of the public, to whom our correspondence is open; and I have no doubt but that I shall be able to satisfy all who are qualified to judge between us, that your ignorance of the subject which you have undertaken to discuss is equal to your insolence; and therefore that there is no great reason to regret that you have formed a resolution to appear no more in this controversy. "Whatever more," you say, p. 9, " you may find to say upon the subject, in me you will have no antagonist."

I made the proposal to discuss the question of the state of opinions concerning Christ in the early ages in a perfectly amicable, and, as I thought, the most ad

vantageous manner, and my address to you was uniformly respectful. It has not been my fault that this proposal was not accepted. You say, p. 166, "I held it my duty to use pretty freely that high seasoning of controversy which may interest the reader's attention." What that high seasoning is, is sufficiently apparent through the whole of your performance, viz. a violation of all decency, and perpetual imputations of the grossest but of the most improbable kind. This, from respect to the public and to myself, I shall not return; but I shall certainly think myself authorized by it to treat you with a little less ceremony in the present publication, in which I shall take occasion, from your gross mistakes and misrepresentations, to throw some further light on the subject of this discussion.

The reader must have been particularly struck with the frequent boasting of your victory, as if the controversy had come to a regular termination, and the public had decided in your favour. My victory," you say, p. 7, "is already so complete, that I might well decline any further contest." In p. 160 you say, "it would have heightened the pride of my victory if I could have found a fair occasion to be the herald of my adversary's praise." P. 10, you call me a foiled polemic, and p. 8, a prostrate enemy. What marks of prostration you may have perceived in me I cannot tell. I do not know that I have yet laid myself at your feet, and I presume this kind of language is rather premature. It will be time enough for you to say with Entellus, Hic cæstus artemque repono, when the victory, of which you boast, shall be as clear as his, and shall be declared to be so by the proper judges. You ought also to have remembered the advice of Solomon,