"cepted by Adrian from the prohibition to con"tinue at Jerufalem. They were obliged to go "out with the reft. But the Jews being then

obliged to abandon Jerufalem, that church "began to be compofed of Gentiles; and before "the death of Adrian, in the middle of the year "138, Marc, who was of Gentile race, was esta"blished their bishop." He does not fay with Mofheim that this Marc was chosen by the "Jews who abandoned the Mofaic rites." Hift. vol. I. p. 172.

Fleury, I find, had the fame idea of that event. He fays, Hift. vol. I. p. 316. " From this time "the Jews were forbidden to enter Jerufalem, or "even to fee it at a diftance. The city being "afterwards inhabited by Gentiles, had no other "name than Elia.Hitherto the church of "Jerufalem had only been compofed of Jewish "converts, who obferved the ritual of the law "under the liberty of the gofpel; but then as "the Jews were forbidden to remain there, and "guards were placed to defend the entrance of "it, there were no other christians there befides "those who were of Gentile origin; and thus the remains of the fervitude of the law were "entirely abolished.”

Thus ends this church of orthodox Jewish chriftians at Jerufalem, planted by Mofheim, and pretty well watered by the Archdeacon of St.

Albans ;

Albans; from which you have derived fuch great advantage to your argument. But what evidence can you bring that the ancient Jewish church at Jerufalem, even before the time of Adrian, was trinitarian? If they were Nazarenes, Epiphanius reprefents them as unitarian when John wrote; and who was it that converted them from unitarians to trinitarians, and what evidence have you of any fuch converfion?

What became of the chriftian Jews who were driven out of Jerufalem by Adrian, does not appear. It is most probable that they joined their brethren at Pella, or Beræa, in Syria, from which they had come to refide at Jerufalem, and, indeed, what became of the whole body of the ancient chriftian Jews (none of whom can be proved to have been trinitarians) I cannot tell. Their numbers, we may fuppofe, were gradually reduced, till at length they became extinct. I hope, however, we shall hear no more of them as an evidence of the antiquity of the trinitarian doctrine.

I cannot help, in this place, taking some farther notice of what you fay with respect to this charge of a wilful falfehood on Origen. "Time was," you fay, p. 160. "when the practice" (viz. of ufing unjustifiable means to ferve a good end) "was openly "avowed, and Origen himself was among its de"fenders." This, Sir, as is ufual with you, is much too strongly stated, and as you mention no authorities, you might think to escape detection.

I believe,

I believe, indeed, you went no farther than Mofheim for it. Jerom, in his epiftle to Pammachius, Opera, vol. I. p. 496. says, that Origen adopted the Platonic doctrine (and you, Sir, are an admirer of Plato) of the fubferviency of truth to utility, as with refpect to deceiving enemies, &c. as Mr. Hume, and other fpeculative moralifts have done; confidering the foundation of all focial virtue to be the public good. But, Sir, it by no means follows from this, that fuch perfons will ever indulge themfelves in any greater violations of truth than thofe who hold other fpeculative opinions concerning the foundation of morals.

Jerom was far from faying as you do, that "he re"duced his theory to practice." He mentions no instance whatever of his having recourfe to it, and is far, indeed, from vindicating you in afferting, p. 160. that the art which he recommended he fcrupled not to employ; and that, to filence an "adverfary, he had recourse to the wilful and de"liberate allegation of a notorious falfehood." Here, Sir, is much more in the conclufion than the premises will warrant. Many perfons hold fpeculative principles, which their adverfaries think muft neceffarly lead to immorality; but those who hold them fhould be heard on the fubject; and the conclufion will not be juft, unless they themselves connect immoral practices with their principles. I find, Sir, that the characters of the dead are no fafer in your hands than thofe of the living. I am unwilling to say a harsh thing, and I wish to avoid it the more,

left

left I fhould be thought to return railing for railing; but really, unlets you can make a better apology for yourself, than I am able to fuggeft, you will be confidered by impartial perfons, as a falfifier of biftory, and a defamer of the character of the dead, in order to ferve your purpofe.

I am, &c.

LETTER V.

Of Herefy in the earliest times.

REV. SIR,

[Afferted that the unitarians were not ori

ginally confidered as heretics, and for this I have adduced a variety of arguments, one of the principal of which is, that the apostle John, though, according to all the evidence of antiquity, he could not but have known that unitarians were numerous in his time, never cenfures them; whereas he writes with the greateft indignation against the tenets which belonged to the oppofite fyftem of Gnofticifm. I obferved the fame with respect to Hegefippus, Juftin Martyr, and Clemens Alexandrinus. I now find the fame to be true of Polycarp and Ignatius, and

that

that even Irenæus, Tertullian, and Origen, did not treat the unitarians as heretics.

You infift upon it, however, that John does cenfure the unitarian doctrine; which is curious enough, when, according to your account, there were no Ebionites or Nazarenes, that is, none who denied the pre-existence of Chrift, till long after the time of John. But, paffing this, you acknowledge that the phrafe coming in the fle alludes to the proper humanity of Chrift, and therefore refpects the Gnoftics; but you maintain that it likewife alludes to a prior ftate; fo that we may neceffarily infer from it, that he was a being of a higher rank before his coming ia the flesh..

You fay, p. 27. "The attempt to affign a rea"fon why the Redeemer fhould be a man, im

plies both that he might have been, without "partaking of the human nature, and by confe

quence that, in his own proper nature, he was originally fomething different from man; and "that there might have been an expectation that “he would make his appearance in some form "above the human." But it is certainly quite fufficient to account for the apostle's using that phrafe coming in the flesh, that in his time there actually exifted an opinion that Chrift was not truly a man, but was a being of a higher order, which was precisely the doctrine of the Gnoftics. That before the appearance of the Meffiah, any

perfons