1

assuredly, when I spoke of Calvinism, I did not refer either to his particular system, or to that of any other individual. I alluded to the Calvinism which is exhibited in the public symbols of the sect, which is taught to their children, which is blended in their worship. If this gentleman's sentiments do not coincide with those, they were not within my contemplation, nor were they the objects of my censure. What I hold to be Calvinism, or rather what the Calvinists themselves declare to be their own principles, I have stated in my first Letter: and that statement still remains, and I venture to say, that it will remain uncontradicted. Whatever therefore my correspondent may think of the opinion which I entertain of the tendency of Calvinism, he has no right to persist in the charge, that I misrepresent the system.

1

The imputation against the character of Origen is not retracted, and nothing further is offered in support of it, but a quotation from Daille, which brings a general allegation of insincerity against the fathers in their polemical writings, but does not particularly mention Origen.

1

I was

I was curious to learn how my correspondent, with the help of Dr. Jamieson, would set aside the clear and explicit evidence of Tertullian, to the strong prejudices of the great mass of unlearned Christians, against the then novel and offensive doctrine of the Trinity *. Tertullian's words are these. Simplices enim QUIQUE, ne dixerim imprudentes, et idiotæ, quæ major semper credentium pars est-exраvescunt ad æconomiam. This is rendered by Dr. Horsley, "Simple persons, not to call them

ignorant and idiots, who always make the majority of believers-startle at the eco

nomy." Plainly meaning, as the bishop has properly represented it, that the same persons whom he calls simplices, might have been denoted by the harsher epithets of imprudentes and idiotæ, and that these persons, who made the majority of believers, startled at the doctrine of the Trinity. This passage, my ingenious correspondent softens down in the following manner, in the new translation with which he has favoured us. "For SOME Sim

ple persons, not to speak of the uninformed " and ignorant, who always constitute the

* See Lett, iii. p. 49.

" greater

"greater part of believers, tremble at that œco"nomy." To make the good father speak to his purpose, he has reduced a universal term to a particular one, and has translated a clause which was clearly exegetical, and which would admit of no other sense, as if it were excерtive. Such is this acute polemic's method of pressing recruits into his service; whether such recruits will pass muster, must be left to the decision of impartial criticism.

a

I cannot avoid expressing extreme surprize, that the worthy letter-writer has not corrected his interpretation of that passage in Chrysostom, in which, though he has detected misconception of Dr. Priestley, he has himself fallen into a similar mistake. Had he paid the same respect to my advice, which I did to his, and consulted his Chrysostom in the case, he must have discovered his error: for it is too palpable to be overlooked. In the additional note, in which he appeals to the candour of his English reader, in favour of his own interpretation of the clause, he cannot mean to be serious.

This gentleman complains heavily of

"the

"extremely illiberal and angry spirit of his " opponent's

66

opponent's remarks," which, he observes, " that he did not provoke; that he does not "fear; and that he shall not imitate." What the meaning of the word provocation may be in this gentleman's vocabulary, I know not. And there may possibly be some tame and gentle souls, who are not in the least degree provoked, or moved, at being taxed with solemnly asserting the precise reverse of acknowledged facts, or by hearing the friend whom they highly revere, and who is no longer able to defend himself, accused as unworthy of credit in his representations, even of the plainest facts; especially, if these charges are ushered in with solemn professions of candour and personal regard. I confess I am not quite of so milky a temperament. I felt some indignation at the unfounded and unprovoked attack upon my own character; and still more, at the illiberal attempt to blast the unsullied reputation of my venerable departed friend; and not the less, because of the mask of candour, under which the blow was aimed. I am not, however, conscious that I have written under the influence of an improper spirit. But of this, my readers must be better judges than myself. And if in any instance I have been betrayed into unbecoming warmth and asperity

rity of language; if I have exceeded the limits

of true liberality, and of what my learned

friend Gilbert Wakefield used jocosely to

style due christian animosity, I ask forgiveness both of my reverend correspondent, and of my readers.

Hackney, May 16, 1805.

THE END.

C. Stower, Printer, 32, Pater Noster Row,