selves with condemning the dangerous tenet of the unitarians in no more than one clause of a single sentence, which likewise contains the condemnation of the Gnostics? Would they not have thought the unitarian the more dangerous heresy of the two; and therefore have bent their chief force against it?

It is remarkable, however, and really curious, that before the unitarians were considered as heretics, we find a very different account of the reasons that induced John to write both his epistles and his gospel; Ignatius says it was solely with a view to the Gnostics, and so does Irenæus, again and again. This, therefore, was the more ancient opinion on the subject; and I doubt not, the true one. And it was not till long after this (Tertullian, I believe, is the first in whom it occurs) that it was imagined that the apostle had any view to the unitarians in any of his writings. This is a circumstance that well deserves to be attended to.

You imagine, Sir, what appears very extraordinary indeed to me, that the Jews will be easily reconciled to the doctrine of the trinity, and will even more readily embrace christianity on the trinitarian than on the unitarian principle. "For the Jews," you say, p. 151, "whenever they begin to open their eyes to the evidences of our Saviour's mission, they will still be apt to consider the New Testament in connexion with the Old. They will look for an agreement in principle, at least, between the gospel and the law. When they accept the christian doctrine, it will be as a later and a fuller discovery. They will reject it if they consider it to be contradictory to the patriarchal and Mosaic revelations. Successive discoveries of divine truth may differ, they will say, in fullness and perspicuity, but in

principle they must harmonize, as parts of one system. They will retain some veneration for their traditional doctrines; and in their most ancient Targums, as well as in allusions in their sacred books, they will find the notion of one godhead in a trinity of persons, and they will perceive that it was in contradiction to the christians that the later Rabins abandoned the notions of their forefathers. The unitarian scheme of christia nity is the last, therefore, to which the Jews are likely to be converted, as it is the most at enmity with their ancient faith."

So different, Sir, are your ideas and mine on this subject, that one would think we had never read the same authors, or lived in the same world. Our different views of things must have arisen from the different influences to which our minds have been exposed; but where you have been, or with whom you have-lived, I cannot trace. Who those later Rabins were who abandoned the notion of their fathers, and from expecting the Messiah to be God adopted the idea of his being a mere man, (a process which I should think not very natural,) I cannot find. Late as they are they must have been earlier than Justin Martyr; and indeed of this memorable change of opinion on so fundamental a subject I find no trace whatever. Really, Sir, one cannot read such a shameful perversion and absolute making of ancient history, with respect to this doctrine concerning the Messiah, as well as to the church of Jerusalem, without a mixture of contempt and indignation.

I shall content myself on this subject with appealing to two testimonies. One of them is that of Basnage, and the other of later date.

Basnage, I suppose, you will allow, had sufficiently studied the history and opinions of the Jews. He has written largely on the subject; and yet, though a trinitarian himself, he has exploded all the pretences of Cudworth and others to find the doctrine of the trinity either among the ancient or the modern Jews. "The christians and the Jews," he says, 66 separate at the second step in religion. For, after having adored together one God absolutely perfect, they find the moment after the abyss of the trinity, which entirely separates them. The Jew considers three persons as three Gods, and this tritheism shocks him. The christian, who believes the unity of one God, thinks that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit should all be called God, and have the same worship. It is impossible to reconcile opinions so contrary. There are, however, divines bold enough to attempt it*." You, Sir, are one of those bold divines, or, if not bold yourself, at least a follower of the bold.

This writer also says that the "Jews consider themselves as bearing their testimony to the unity of God among all the nations of the world t." Deny these facts if you can. What ought or what ought not to offend the Jews is not the question. The doctrine of

* "Les chretiens s'ecartent des Juifs des le second pas qu'ils font dans la religion. Car apres avoir adoré ensemble un Dieu, souverainement, parfait, ils trouvent un moment apres l'abime de la trinité, qui les separe, et les eloigne souverainement. Le Juif regarde trois personnes comme trois dieux, et ce tritheisme lui fait horreur. Le chretien, qui croit l'unité d'un Dieu, veut a meme tems qu'on donne ce titre au pere, au fils, au Saint Esprit, et qu'on les adore. Il est impossible de concilier des opinions si contraires; cependant il y a des theologiens hardis, qui ont tenté de le faire." Hist. des Juifs, lib. iv. cap. iii. s. 1.

+ "Les temoins de l'unité de Dieu dans toutes les nations du monde." Ibid. lib. vii. cap. xxxiii, s. 15.

the trinity does in fact, and from the time that it was started always did, offend the whole body of the Jews, and is, no doubt, one of the greatest obstacles to their

conversion.

My second testimony I shall give in the postscript of a letter from a correspondent in the West of England, in the year 1774, containing the opinion of a learned Jew, whom we may presume to be now living, and in this country. At that time he must have been in the neighbourhood of Barnstable in Devonshire. An event, which then gave me much concern, occasioned the discontinuance of my correspondence with the writer of that letter; and though desirous of knowing the issue of the business, I have not learned it. If this publication should be the means of bringing me acquainted with it, I shall think myself happy. If the learned Jew himself should meet with these letters, I shall be very glad to hear from him, whatever may be his present thoughts on the subject. In the mean time I would recommend it to you, Mr. Archdeacon, to enquire of any Jews now living, and not to argue from suppositions when facts are within your reach.

My correspondent's postscript is as follows: "I have lent your Institutes to a sensible and religious Rabbi, bred at the university of Halle. He has read them with great care, and taken curious extracts from them. The clergyman of this parish warned him of the danger of your works, and abused me for lending them to a Jew. The latter had sense enough to despise him, and told him, that as long as christianity was thought contradictory to the first law of Judaism, the conversion of his brethren would be impossible. The parson wanted to baptise him. The Rabbi said reli

gion was a serious matter, and he would be a convert in reality before he would be one in profession. He has been much with me. I hope to be able to send you a pleasing account of him."

I am, &c.

LETTER XII.

Of the Personification of the Logos.

REV. SIR,

You still deny that the christian fathers were acquainted with any such thing as the personification, that is, the making a real intelligent person of the logos, or wisdom of God; whereas, absurd as I acknowledge the notion to be, it was most indisputably the real doctrine both of Philo, the platonizing Jew, and of those who were called orthodox christians, who platonized likewise. I speak within compass when I say that I can produce hundreds of passages which prove in the clearest manner that the divinity which they ascribed to Christ was the very same principle which had constituted the wisdom and other powers of God the Father; and that the generation of the Son was the commencement of the state of actual personality of the logos, whether in time, as some thought, or from all eternity, as others, which latter was afterwards received as the established doctrine.

This was evidently agreeable to the principles of those platonists, from whom Philo and those christian fathers derived their opinion; and if you deny this, a child, as you call me in platonism, p. 15, (which how