cussion, that reasoning was indulged. From the epistolary form of the Reply, from the personal style it assumes, and especially from the peculiar sentiment it maintains, we may not affect an ignorance of the name with which it might be subscribed. For that name we cherish a great respect, and to the works which it has sanctioned have paid no little attention. Of their theolog. ical value and truly Christian temper we have the highest sense, and rejoice to hear of their rapid circulation and powerful influence. In submitting some differences of opinion from them in the Essay, we did not do it as wishing to be wise "above that which is written," but as supported by the authority of many more than half a hundred texts of scripture.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE CONTROVERSY

BETWEEN DR. PRIESTLEY, DR. HORSLEY, THE MONTHLY REVIEWER, AND OTHERS.

HAVING in the preceding portions of this account gone through with the most important topics of the controversy, I shall in the concluding part, which follows, first state what relates to some topics of minor importance; next notice, as far as I am acquainted with them, all the errors, that have not been previously mentioned, either of quotation, or of translation, or of incorrect statement of facts, which Dr. Priestley has been charged with having committed in works relating to the pres ent controversy, either in his History of the Corruptions, in his Tracts and Defences, or in his History of Early Opinions; and then add a few miscellaneous articles and remarks.

The first topic of controversy which I shall notice relates to the question--who were and who were not considered as heretics in the earlier ages of the church? In no part of the controversy did Dr. Priestley suffer himself to be more led away by his opponents, so as to lose sight of the proper object of discussion; and in no part did he fall into more mistakes and errors, than in that which relates to the present subject. He had none of the arts and little even of the honest skill of a con

troversialist; but, ardent in his cause, and confident in his strength, he met his opponents on whatever ground they were disposed to choose for the encounter.

The present controversy had its origin in the following passage of the Charge of Dr. Horsley, which, as it respects what I have distinguished in the printing, is somewhat singularly expressed: "Episcopius, though himself no Socinian, VERY INDISCREETLY concurred with the Socinians of his time, in maintaining, that the opinion of the mere humanity of Christ had prevailed very generally in the first ages; and was never deemed heretical by the fathers of the orthodox persuasion; at least not in such degree, as to exclude from the communion of the church."* This opinion Dr. Horsley attributes to the charitable temper of Episcopius, who was desirous of recommending general toleration by the example of the ancient Christians. On this account, Dr. Horsley continues, "he gave easy credit to unitarian writers, when they represented the differences of opinion in the early churches, as much greater than ever really obtained; and the tenderness for sectaries, as more than was ever practised; and, while he opposed their doctrine, he vouched their story." The opinion however of Episcopius, he says, was false and groundless, and has been unanswerably refuted by Bishop Bull.

In answer to this part of Dr. Horsley's charge, Dr. Priestley has a letter expressly to prove, "that the primitive unitarians were not considered as heretics." But this proposition, stated in such general terms, follows at once, if the general conclusion of Dr. Priestley from the whole controversy be supported, viz. -that the great body of primitive Christians were unitarians. In this latter proposition the former is of course comprehended. If it can be proved that the doctrine of the trinity was a corruption which commenced in the second century, and that before this time the primitive unitarians constituted the body of the church, and for some time after the majority of its members, it is wholly unnecessary to prove that the primitive unitarians were not considered heretics. Every thing, which Dr. Priestley establishes in proof of his main point, goes to • Charge 1. § 1.

support this included proposition, and thus generally stated, it does not properly admit any separate proof. By advancing this proposition in the manner he has done, Dr. Priestley laid himself open to the following remarks of his opponent:"It should seem," says Dr. Horsley, "that you have some secret mistrust in your own heart of the proof which you pretend to bring, that the unitarian doctrine was orthodoxy in the first age; or you would have been less solicitous to shew, that the primitive unitarians were not deemed heretics. For a proof that confessed orthodoxy was not deemed heresy, or in other words, that the orthodox did never excommunicate themselves, might have been spared. This however is the subject of your third letter."*

In his Second Letters, Dr. Priestley continues the subject, and in support of his proposition produces some of those passages from Origen, which have before been noticed; in which Origen affirms the ignorance of the great body of Christians concerning the sublime and mysterious doctrine of the Logos. These passages in his History of Early Opinions he refers to their proper head, as direct evidence that the Gentile Christians were even in the time of Origen generally unitarians.

In his History of Early Opinions Dr. Priestley has resumed the subject of heresy, and directed his arguments to the proof of a proposition less objectionable in form than that which he had before stated. It is that in the first ages the Gnostics were the only heretics. He has in this work shown that they were those, who were chiefly viewed as heretics, and who, almost alone, engaged attention as such. But in doing this he unnecessarily and unsuccessfully continued, what he had before undertaken, the defence of the Ebionites from the imputation of heresy. It was shown by Dr. Horsley, after the publication of his work, that the Ebionites were considered heretics by Irenæus at the close of the second century. They were thus considered however partly, if not wholly, for other reasons than their belief respecting the person of Christ. According to Jerom they were anathamatized, or excommunicated, merely on account of their rigid adherence to the Mosaic law. That they ⚫ Letters to Dr. Priestley, Let. 10.

were not esteemed heretics was a point very unimportant for Dr. Priestley to maintain.

The part of the controversy, which we are considering, may properly be regarded as relating merely to the accounts given by the early Christian writers of heretics and heresy; and to their accounts of the articles of belief necessary to communion with the church. The main question is whether, from an examination of these accounts merely, laying out of view all other evidence, it might or might not be inferred that Gentile unitarians, those to whom nothing could be objected but the belief of our Saviour's simple humanity, were, during the first centuries, cut off from the body of the church as heretics? These accounts are given by writers, who maintained the doctrine of Christ's divinity, and who were disposed to speak of the unitarians as unfavorable as possible. But it is not after their opinion of the unitarian belief, it is not whether they considered it erroneous and heretical, for undoubtedly they did so, that we are inquiring. It is with regard to the fact, whether unitarians were excluded from the church. And in proof or denial of this having been the case, no other evidence properly belongs to the part of the controversy we are considering than what is derived from the two sources I have mentioned. The direct evidence that the unitarians constituted at first the whole, then the majority, and afterward a great part of the body of Christians, as far as this evidence was matter of controversy, I have before stated. But if merely from the consideration of the early accounts of heresy and heretics, and of the articles of belief necessary to communion, it can be shewn that the Gentile unitarians were, during the first centuries, not heretics, in the sense above-mentioned, that is, were not separated from the church, this will greatly strengthen Dr. Priestley's main argument. As there is no controversy that they were afterward heretics, the different state of things, during the first centuries, will coincide with and confirm Dr. Priestley's supposition of the doctrine of the trinity being an innovation, which gradually acquired strength. It will seem to follow that the trinitarian party, which had its origin among the more learned converts, the philosophers and the writers, and which finally prevailed and

established itself as orthodox, was not at first equal in power or. numbers to what it afterward became. The difference in its mode of treating its opponents is just what we should expect if we admit the truth of Dr. Priestley's supposition. But if on the other hand it could be shewn from the accounts of which I have spoken, that Gentile unitarians were very early heretics, this would of course cast doubt on the whole of the evidence, which Dr. Priestley has adduced to shew that they were originally the body of the church; and if the evidence of their having been heretics, in the sense above-mentioned, were very decisive, and this fact could be traced back to the time of the apostles, it would be decisive of the whole controversy. The proof of the latter supposition however was not attempted by Dr. Priestley's opponents, who, for the most part, contended that the unitarian belief was not held by any among the Gentile Christians before the time of Theodotus, and that as he was the first among them, who, it is pretended, was excommunicated on account of this belief [about A. D. 190], so likewise that he was the first among them by whom it was maintained. They contend that before his time there were no other unitarians except the Ebionites and the Cerinthians, who were both of Jewish origin.

I now proceed to the account of the controversy.

In his History of the Corruptions, Dr. Priestley argues that the unitarian doctrine was no heresy, but the plain, simple truth of the gospel, from what he considers the fact, that the apostle John, though he severely censures the opinions of the Gnostics, passes no censure upon that doctrine, though it is universally agreed that there were unitarians in his time, even if they did not constitute the body of the church. Of the Docetæ, a sect of the Gnostics, who believed that Christ was a man only in appearance, and that his body was a mere phantasm, he speaks in the severest manner; and in the passage where he mentions them, asserts as Dr. Priestley interprets it, the proper unitarian belief in opposition to their opinions:-"Every spirit," says St. John, "which confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, (by which," says Dr. Priestley, "he must have meant, in opposition to the Gnostics, is truly a man) is of God. On the other