My ingenious correspondent, however, holds it up as an inexplicable mystery*, and is pleased to be very jocular upon the subject. And to heighten the joke he propounds some hard questions, concerning the locomotive powers of the glorified spiritual body of Christ, and the mode of its presence and action, to puzzle the poor Unitarianst, and to raise a laugh at their expence. For my own part, being too dull to relish a jest upon serious subjects, I cannot but think these "sparkling witticisms" egregiously misplaced, and * To get rid of the stupendous mystery of one person conyersing with another, my correspondent supposes, that the body of Christ is in some distant and unknown region of the universe called Heaven, but that his divine nature is always present with his church. This, to be sure, is very intelligible and satisfactory. See Letters, p. 89, Note. It may be proper to observe, that the unitarian doctrine is not in the least degree compromised in the speculation concerning the occasional sensible intercourse of Jesus with his apostles, after what is called, his ascension. To the generality of Unitarians, the question I believe has seldom occurred, and they have of course formed no opinion about it. For the reasons which I have stated above, I am inclined to believe, that this personal intercourse,which all allow in the conversion of Paul, was much more frequent than is commonly apprehended. To others, a different hypothesis may possibly appear more plausible. too too much in the style "of Voltaire and Paine.” Least of all am I disposed to accept of ridicule in the place of argument. Upon the authority of an evangelist, I believe that Jesus promised to be with his disciples till the end of that age, and upon the testimony of Luke and Paul, I believe that this promise was fulfilled. Against this evidence no objection can be alleged, but that which arises from the puerile and unphilosophical conceit, that heaven is some splendid place beyond the skies, where God has a throne, and where Jesus stands at his right hand: a notion too absurd to need refutation. As to the metaphysical presence and powers of Jesus Christ in his glorified and exalted state, nothing is revealed, and therefore nothing can be known. I am, &c. LETTER LETTER III. Origen's character defended.-Review of the controversy between Dr. Priestley and Dr. Horsley.-Tertullian's unequivocal testimony to the Unitarianism of the great body of unlearned Christians. DEAR SIR, IN the Memoir annexed to my Discourse upon the death of Dr. Priestley, * I have expressed my opinion, that in the controversy with Dr. Horsley, Dr. Priestley was completely victorious and, in a note, I have particularly alluded to the manner in which the bishop evades the direct testimony of Origen, by a groundless and unqualified attack upon the veracity of that celebrated father, and disparages the distinct evidence of Tertullian to the Unitarianism of the majority of unlearned Christians, by representing them "as not only illi"terate, but ignorant and stupid in the extreme." At the close I remark, that "there is an end "of all reasoning from the testimony of ancient writers, if, when a disputant is pressed by au“thorities which he cannot impugn, he is at liberty to represent men whose characters were never before impeached, as idiots and liars." 66 66 My correspondent, as might be expected, does not agree in this judgment of the case, and in his seventh Letter he states his own opinion; and, after having retailed some of the archdeacon's arguments, with as much parade as if they had never been heard of or answered before, he triumphantly concludes with great apparent self-complacency, "Such then is the "COMPLETE VICTORY of Dr. Priestley." This. triumph, however, I hesitate not to say, is somewhat premature. The question concerning the character of Origen has been so thoroughly discussed in the controversy between Dr. Priestley and Dr.. Horsley, and the charge against the character of that virtuous and learned father has been so completely repelled, that I should have no hesitation in leaving the decision to every candid and competent judge of the case, who would compare the evidence on both sides. But as few are willing to submit to this trouble, I D shall 1 shall take the liberty to give a brief review of the charge and the defence. Dr. Priestley* having alleged the unequivocal testimony of Origen, to prove that the jewish Christians were called Ebionites, and that they adhered to the law; Dr. Horsley, in reply, taxes Origen in this instance with “the "wilful and deliberate allegation of a notorious "falsehood t." And affirms that "whatever Ori gen may pretend, to serve a purpose, the ma"jority of hebrew Christians, from the time of Adrian, forsook their laws, and lived in com"munion with the gentile bishops, of the new"modelled church of Jerusalem †.” Of this new-modelled church, and of the sudden conversion of the hebrew Christians, this learned divine details the history with as much confidence as if he had been a contemporary witness and for a confirmation of his account he appeals to the authority of Mosheim, concluding with that historian's severe and unwarrantable reflection upon Origen, that he was not to be believed even upon oath §. * Dr. Priestley's Letters to Dr. Horsley, p. 18. Origen against Celsus, lib. ii. p. 56. † Archdeacon of St. Albans' Letters in reply to Dr. Priestley, p. 160. ↑ Ibid. p. 6. § Ibid. p. 59–62. Never |