REMARKS ON THS OP T H MONTHLY REVIEW^ LETTERS TO Dr.HORSLEYj In which The Rev. Mr. SAMUEL BADCOCK, / T H « Writer of that Review, is called upon to defend what he has advanced in it. By JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, L-L.D. F.R.S. Hb that WALKETH VPRIXlflTtT WALKITR SVRELT. Solomon. BTRMTKOHAM, frlntbd by pearson and r0lla30n, for ], JOHN3ON4 NO. 72, ST. PAVL's CHURCH-TARD, LONDON. , , MDCCLXXXIV. lL-«a [pricb six-pincs.] t H E PREFACE. IN anfwer to fome who, I well know, Will be ready to blame me for replying to charges proceeding from fuch grofs ignorancci and evident malignity^ as thofe contained in the Monthly Review, I would obferve, that many perfons (as I fincerely rejoice to find) are extremely anxious about the progrefs of this controverfy, relating to the general opinion of tbe primitive chrifiians, toncetning thepirfon ofChriJi, as, with them, it will be nearly decifive with refpedl to their believing him to be a man, or fome- thing more than a man j and I think I owe them every affiftance that I am able to give them 4 Maiiy of thefe perfons, not having the proper authoritits at hand, have it not in their boWer to judge between my opponents and me, except by comparing what one writer fliall produce in anfwer to another -, and being themfelvcs earneft fearchers after truth, and A 1 men iv PREFACE. men of upright minds, they cannot ejifily bring themfelvcs to fufpeft any writer of grofs unfairnefs till it js diftinftly pointed out. They are, therefore, ftaggered when they hear things fo confidently afTerted, and fo fpecioufly reprefente4, as they ai'e by my prefent ant^gonift. Now the fmall trouble of writing fuch a pamphlet as this, is a Jrifle, compared to the fatisfadion that I know I flaall give to many perfons of the defcription above- meoitioned. Befides, preparatory to thelargje Hijlorical ^ietV of opinions concerning the ferfofi of Chriji, which I propofe to write, ajid fpr which I am colleding materials, I wilh, by everymeansin my power, to bring every thing of Cdnfequence relating to' it to a thorough ^ifcuffion,and to draw out, if poffible, every latent obje£iion ; that I may have the whole fubjeft, with its proper evidence, fairly be fore me j and cbn'trbwerfy, when a perfon has a proper command of bis temper, is an excellent means to that end. . I acknowJedge, however, that -I flaould nol hawc noticed any thing that has yet been ' advanced PREFACE. v advanced by Mr. Badcock on tbis fubjedf, if it had not been out of regard to the credit which it derives from its publication in the Monthly Review, and the advantage of cir culation which he has by that means fc- cured. Befides, I am not now anfwering an anonymous antagonift; but a man en gaged, by a regard to his reputation, to bring his charges to an iflue, by which means fome advantage will be gained. In deed, as an anonymous Reviewer, the fol lowing declaration binds him to an explicit anfwer to what I here al ledge in my own' juft defence, in reply to his virulent ac- cufations, " When attacked by fo formidable a» *• difputant as Dr. Frieftley, ^ye could not " avoid defending ourfelvcs, as. -the repu- *• tation of our work was at ftake. If we " have obtained any advantage »ver our ** learned opponent, we exult not in. our <• fuccefs, but honeftly declare, that wa " wifh not to be again called to battle iiv ** the field of controverfy, which generally '* produces more briars than laurels. Jt *' behoves us, however, to be always -pre- A 3 •* pared vi P R E B' A C E. ** pared to anfwer every unjuft chairge, and *' to clear ourfelves frtom every afpferfjon.'' Monthly Review far OtStober, 1783, p. 360. That I may not, however, multiply thefe fmall publications unneceiTarily, and more than the pbjedt of them requires, I affure thofe who have confidence in my integrity (for it can fignify nothiqg to addrefs thofe who cpnfider me in the Ught that Mr. Badcock does) that J fhall not write in this manner again, unlefs I receive fome^;- thing froru Mr. Badcock mpre deferving pf a reply than any thing that J have yet feen come from him on this fubjeft ; though I fhall certainly take fome early opportunity of acknowledging any miflake, of the leail confequence, that I fhall be convinced I have fallen into. I fhall, at leaft, do it virhen I next reply to Dr. Horfley, which I hope will not be at a diflant period. In the mean time, I will, in return, have that confidence in my readers^ that they will not be much moved by any future re- prefentations pf Mr, Badcock, unlefs they be more fpecious, . and more impojing, than thofe which I have already fhewn to be merely fo. ¦ T H p. INTRODUCTION. I Had not intended to have taken any notice of the Monthly Review of my Letters to J)r. florfley, feeing nothing in it that, in the fmalleft degree, aifefted my argument, pr that was, on any other account, worthy of notice : but finding jTome perfons (though fufficiendy fenfible of the malevolence with which the charges againft Tne are urged) rather ftaggered with the extreme hold- nefs of the afTertionsy and thofe more ,than in^ply- ing a charge of the grofTeft unfairnefs and infm- ctrify in my conduft, I have, at length, thought proper to make a few obfervations upon it. In doing this, I think myfelf authorized by thc nature, and the almofl: unexampled infolence of the attack, in mentioning (what indeed is no fecret) the name of the Reviewer, viz. Mr. Samuel Bad cock, a difTcnting minifler at South Molton, in Devonfhire ; as (without having dircftly orin- diredtly fought for it) I have been informed fincc the publication of my Letters to DoElor Horfley. It was, indeed, mentioned to me before ; but when I confidered our former friendfhip, I did pot give any credit to the account. His cmt^ A 4 vanity, 8 INTRODUCTION. vanity) I prefume, on his imagined victory, over me, has, led him to betray himfelf. As a writer, no man, I will venture to fay, has been more obfervant of pundtilio than I have been j but when a man's moral tharaSter is arraigned, as mine very materially is, in this publication, he certainly has a right to the name of his acciifer, if "he can come at it. Indeed, no man of honour will ad vance fuch a charge againft another without, at thc fame time, giving his own name. • Alfo, in referring to my former acquaintance \*ith Mr, iBadcockj I Reveal no fecret, for I believe it is as generally known as Mr. Badcock himfelf is. I fhall feledk from this Review the moft plau* fible, and the moft confident of all the charges, as a fj)ecimen of the reft ; and let any impartial ^ribn, of competent knowledge of the fubjeftj JTidgc between us. »^ REMARKS REMARKS ON THE MONTHLY REVIEW. SECTION I. Of the Omiffton of the Sentence in Juflin Martyr. ¦ IHAD obferved that Juftin Martyr treats the unitarians of his age with great tendernefs, at the fame time that he treats thofe-whom he calls he retics, with much afperity; faying, as the Reviewer quotes from me, p. 6i, " There are two pafTages " in this writer, in which he fpeaks of heretics " with great indignation ; but in both the paf- " fages he has evidently a view to theGnofiics only. " He particularly mentions the Marcionites, the " Valentinians, the Bafi)ideans, and the Saturnia- " nians*. He fays, they blafphemed the Maker " of the world, and the God of Abraham, Ifaac, "and * " Kelt HKKoi «».ii) otoiJtanl ( — and others under another •' name" — ) follows in thc original, though unnoticed in Dr. P.'s tranflation. At the fame lime, we mnft obferve, tli:it Dr. P. has mifquotcd the name of thc laft mentioned {e&, by copy. IO REMARKS ON " and Jacob : that they denied the rcfurreftion, " and maintained, that after death the foul went " Immediately to Heaven. Had he confidered " the Unitarians, with whom he appears to have *' been well acquainted, as Heretics, would he not " have mentioned, or alluded to their tenets alfo ".in thofe pafTages, in -which- he fpeakj,-; and **^retty largely, of the Chriftian Heretics in " general ? It is impoflible, I fhould think, " to read thofe pafTages as they ftand in the ori- " ginal, introduced as a fulfilment of our Sa- " viour's prophecy, that there fhould be falfe " Chrifts.and falfe prophets, who fhould deceive " many: and not be fatisfied that, like the apoftje "John, Juftin Martyr had no idea of there being "any Heretics in the. Chriftian ichurgh . in • his ^* titine, befides the Gnoftics." On this the Reviewer remarks as follows : " As Juftin is much cortnedted with our controverfy with Dr. Prieftlcy, we hope Dr. Horfley will ex- cufe us for anticiparing a remark which we are perfliaded ¦ he would of neceffity make on this paifage. The remark might be extended much h.rt\isr, with a long retinue of ' exclamations,* by t our limits obligee us to be as brief as poffible.^— In general, then, we make no fcruple of afiert- oopyiqg from tlic Latin verfion, inriead of the original Greek, where it is Zeilcfji\iaHl, Salurni/iani," This I fuppofewas meant to infinuatethat 1 do not, ptrhips that 1 eannol, read Greek. It would, however, have been pe dantry to ufe the term Salni'iiiiu!, .Salurninus being miich roorc CO mni on both with the ancient^ ^ml nisdernj/ ing, THE MONTHLY REVIEW. n ifig, in the moft direft and' unqualified language (for Dr. Prieftley defires us to iife no ceremony) that in the above reprefentation of Juftin's feotj- ments, we meet with the moft flagrant and unac^- countable mutilation of a plain pafTage, that the difingenuity of a controvertift, who is aetcrmined to ' keep it up,' per fas et nefas, ever prefented us •with. We beg the reader to turn back to Dr. Pricftley's quotation from Juftin, and compare his tranflation with the original. He (i. e. Juftin) fays, ' They blafphcme the Maker of the world, and the God of Abraham> Ifaac, and Jacob.' Now, this is fo put, as to convey to the Englilh reader, or the unlearned {for whom Dr. Prieftley appears chiefly to write, — but how came he to forget that he was writing to Dr. Horfley ?) — the * tranflation is fo managed as to convey no idea of diftindlion in Juftin's mind, between the Maker of the ivorld, and the God of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob. For the fake both of the learned and un learned, we will tranfcribe the original palTage, and annex to it a literal tranflation. AaXo/ y^p »*)' ahhw Tfavoy g>iet9-f«//«iv Taf itoiifjnv la.' c\av KAl TON trs-' Hifjti •BfCifiilivou.ti'ov tKiV(ri«f. foTf In this conncftion) I maintain th.it *w.o< >ap ml af^hav Tfo-o: , &Ci can bear no other fenfe than, For fome ef them (viz. of thofe mentioned, or aLliaded to before, and alfo mentioned by name immediately af terwards) blafpheme the maker ofthewarld,i^e.in one way, and ethers in another ; and will by no means bear to be tranflated as Mr. Badcock does, Others upon another plan, &c, For this I am willing to appeal to any perfon who has the leaft pretOnfioni to a knowledge of thc Greek idiom. Had Juftitl Aid an^ot A, but, inftead of nj^oi >«p, fer, there would have been fomeflig^ colour, for Mr. Bad'' cock's conftruftion of the paffage ; but at prefcrat there is not a fhadow of pretence, either from thd pbrafeologj, or thc general y*«/i of the pafiagc,ra his favour. That Mr. Badcock ihould not hav$ beei) abl^ to undcrftand the Greek of Juftin is the more ex traordinary, . as the idiom of the Latin tongue is thi: very fame with that of the Greek in this refpcft. If he will only look into Ainfworth's Di<3:ionary, he will fee Alius alio modo. Cicero — rendered one after, one fort, another after another. If. Mr. Badcock really thinks, that thefe blaf- phemers of the maker of the world were perfons who THE liiONTHLY REVIEW. 15 tirho blafphemed Jefus Chrift, by lowering hiiiti to the condition of a man, and not-the Gnoftics, of whom there were many diftinftions, as Juftin had juft obferved (and who therefore blafphemed him, fonie in one way, and fome in another^ he is as ig norant of Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, as he appears to be of Greek. I will venture to fay, he has not, as he pretends, anticipated Dr. Horfley in this criti- cifm, and I am willing to appeal' to Dr. Horfley himfelf for it. If the dccifion be in my favour (of which there can be no doubt) I fhall require of Mr. Badcock an acknowledgment as public as his efience, and as /mff as it isr heinous. Writing in the circumftances in which I do, and inviting criticifm from all quarters, if I had had no principle of integrity at all, I certainly fhould- not have concealed any t^ing that I muft have known my adverfkry could not pofTibly overlook/ The oiniflion, therefore, could not, at moft, have been any thing more than either an inadvertence, or have arifen from a mifunderftanding of the paf- ikge and its importance, which a generous adverfary would have treated with tendernefs. To fhew more diftinftly the nature of this QmifHon, on which Mr. Badcock has declaimed fo copioufly, I fhall tranflate the whole pafTage, diftin- guifhing the words omitted} by which it will be feen, thati could hot mean any thing by the omifHon, but to fave myfelf the trouble of writing fo much Greek. Mr. Badcock has alfo made feveral omif- fions,*' ,6 REMARKS ON* fions, I prefume,; for the fame reafon,. in the extra^ from my" letters, p. 4. " There are, and have been, many perfons who, pretending to be chriftians, have, taught to fey and to do atheiftical and blafphemous things, and t^ey are denominated by us from the names of the j)er«> fons whofe dodtrines they hold (for fome of them blaf pheme the maker ofthe univerfe, and hi^whOsWofi^ him foretold to come as the Chrift, ifnd tl^tGp^ "fAH/^* bam, Ifaac, and Jacob*, in. one way, /fp^ pfh§rS:i^ another) with whom we have no comn^unic^tipn | knowing them to be atheiftical,! wicked, and impij ous perfons; who, inftead of reverencing Jefus, con- fcfs. him in name only. They caU thfipfelveR <5htif- tians, in the fame manner as tljpfe aniong. the hea* thens infcribe thq name of God Qn the WQvks of their own hapdfi, and de^le thetnf^lvf a vyitb wicked and atheiftical rites. Some of them are called Mar^ cionites, fome Valiintinians, fome BafUid^ans, fanbt * It is really fomclhing extraordinary, that this opinit)n iiS Juftin Martyr's, that Chrift was the mediuin of all the divina communications to mankind under the qld teflament difpenfa- tion, flrould have been fo readily received, and haveTprcad fo generally as it did, when it not only has no countenance fforfl Dcripture, bnt is fcxpreftly contradiAcd by the aiithor'of thc ^piftletothe Hehrevs, in Heb.i. I. QQdti>ho,>atf^ntirftimesi and in divers maniiers,Jpakc ifl. time paji unlo .th« fathers, hy fhe pro.-} fiiels, has in the/e loft daysJ)>ok(n vnlo us by his fan. ^g?in, chjip. , ii. s,' 3.' JfliieniardfpoUn hy angels ¦wasjtedfajl, be. hituJhaU we' tjfape,ifjiie negleSfi great fabatioA; which at the frft begirt to bf Jj^l^b the Lprd. , What caa be radrtevidejit than ihat ihe vrriter of this epiftleh^ ao jdei if Gbd'h^iy&lg fpgkw to mankiadby his fon before the time ofthe gofpel. .•* ' ' ' Saturnianians, THE MONTHLY REVI.EW. i^ Saturnianians, and others gO by other names, each from their peculiar tenets ; in the fame manner as thofe who addiA themfelvcs to philofophy are de* nomixuted from the founders of their refpedtivc feds. And, as I have faid, Jefus, knowing what would come to pafs after his deatb* foretold that there would be fuch men among his followers." A man who can fatyry there is a reference to. any other perfons than the Gnoftics in this pafTage^ may fancy that he finds the detefted unitarians in any other page of the fame author; or, like Don Quixote, he may take a windmill for a giant. For the difference between the ancient unitarians ^nd the Gnoftics was as great as this. Their opinioos are generally fpoken of aS two oppojite hcrefies. . SECTION II. Of the Creed of Terfultian. TT will be no lefs eafy for me to Ihew the ex/^ -*¦ treme weakncfs,' or unfairnefs of Mr. Badcock's obfervations with ccfped: to the creed, which he quotes from TertuUian, and which he fuppofes I purpofely kept out of fight ; faying, p. 60, " Few, " are fo very courageous as to put fuch a weapon " in die hand of an adverfary, as threateps to dcmo- " lifh them." B Without i8 REMARKS ON Without retorting this obfervation on Mr. Bad cock himfelf, 1 Iball obferve, that in the treatife Tie Pr^fcriptione, &c. from which Mr. Badcock quotes the regula fidei, TertuUian is evidently giving his own glofs, or interpretation, of the creed, and not the creed itfelf, as delivered to the Cate chumens. In writing this work, his great objeft was the Gnoftics, and therefore his glofs is diredted altogether againft them, and does not refpeft the Unitarians at all j as, indeed, the very firft article (omitted by Mr. Badcock) Ihows. Regula fidei-^ qua creditur unum omnino deum effe, nee alium prtfter mundi cenditorem, qui univerfa de nihilo pro- duxerit, &c. i. e. — " by which we are taught to " believe that there is but one God, and, tbis no other *' than the maker of the world, wbo produced every " thing out of nothing, by his own word, then firft " ftnt down, that that word was called his fon, " that he appeared varioufly in the name (i. e. in " the charader) of God, to the Patriarchs, that he " was afterwards conveyed, by the fpirit and power *' of God the Father, into the virgin Mary ; that he " was madeflefh in her womb,' and ftom her (egijfe *' perhaps exiffe) appeared in the perfon of Jefus " Chrift, that he thence preached a new law, an^ " a new promife of the kingdom of heaven, &c." All this is evidendy a glofs, and not a fimple creed. Whereas, in the treatife de Velandis Virginibus, from which I have quoted the creed, he is not oppofing orthodoxy to heterodoxy, but faith to praffice, and was therefore much more likely to give THE MONTHLY REVIEW. 19 give the fimple creed, as it was delivered to the Catechumens in his day. Accordingly, it is nearly the fame that is now generally received. Let the four ancient copies of the creed, viz. thc Vulgar, that of Aquileia, the Oriental, and the Roman be compared, as they are done by Dupin (Ecclef. hift. vol. i. p. 1 2) and it will be feen that none of theni contain any fuch articles as thofe in Tertullian's glofs. If thofe articles ever made a proper part of the creed, how came they to be dropped, and indeed to be found no where elfe ? That Mr. Badcock has entirely miftaken the objeft and real meaning of what he has given as the creed in the time of TertuUian, and that it refers to the Gnoftics only, is evident from every article relating to God and Chrift in it. The Gnoftics maintained that th.-! Supreme Being him felf, thc Father of Jefus Chrift, did not make the world, but that it was the work of a different being, the fame that appeared to the patriarchs and prophets, but entirely different from the Chrift. On the contrary, all the articles above recited from Tertullian's glofs upon the creed, are evidently intended to exprefs, that the imme diate maker of the world, the logos, or verbum dei, was the fame perfon that appeared to the patriarchs and prophets, and was alfo afterwards the Chrift. It appears to me (but I fubmjt the conjedure to the learned) that the Gnoftics, who gave fa B 2 much ii • R E M A RKS O N much alarm to the priniitive Chriftians, had ad-j vanced fo many f]pecious arguments, to proyq that the Supreme Being himfelf was not the im mediate maker ofthe ¦world, ' and ifhe author of the Jewifti difpenfation, that the orthodox were, in fai5t, ftaggered by them ; and fo far conceded to them, as to content themfelvcs ¦with main taining that the being who made the world, and who appeared to the patriarchs and prophets, though not the fuprcm6 God himftlf, was thc word, or power, of that God perfonified ; fo as to become afecond God, really different from the firft ; taking advantage of fome expreflions in the 6ld teftament, and alfo of the language of Johq in the introduftion to his" gofpel. For of the fame logos, or word, which John perfonified figUr . ratively . (as w'fdom is perforvified in the book of proverbs) they made a reai and pfrm^ent pfrfon, Gnofticifm, therefore, as well as Platonifm, was a great means of eftablifhing the dodtrine of th? perfonification ef the logos, which was the firft ftep towards the modern Athanafian doftrine of the trinity. In fa£l, the orthodox, ufed many pf the fame arguments with the Gnoftics, to prove tha? the Supreme God himfelf was not the perfon wI^q appeared to the patriarchs, &c. On the whole, it muft, I think, he evident tq the impirdal reader, that the proper cfced iri the time of TertuUian was that which I p;oduced from him as. fuch in my Letters to Br. fiorftey,^ P, 28 i ¦whereas, that which "bAjc. Badcock bas pro duced THE MONTHLY REVIEW. «j duced exprefTes no more than TertuUian's own faith, which is not the quefUon in debate. In deed, how could TertuUian confider that as the cftabljfhed creed afTented to by every^atechumen, ¦which, according to his own account, was not believed by thofe whom he {out of contempt, Mr. Badcock will fay) rcprefents as the major part of chriftians in his time ? SECTION liL MifieUaneous Articles. \ Am tempted to give a few other fpecimefls of Mr. "*¦ Badcock's mode of reviewing, and fliall begin Iwith his moft extraordinary remarks on the manrier in which I have treated an opinion of Eufebius> ¦p- 59- •' With refpeft to the fuffi-age of Eufcbius to the " ordiodoxy of the primitive church, and particularly «' of the bifljops of Jerufalem, towards the clofe of " the apoftolic age ; a fuffrage fo full and explicit, " that it has been deemed a degifive argument «' againft Dr. Prieftley's hypothefis (viz. that the " primitive Jewijh church, and itsbijhops, werepurt " Ebionites) with refpea to this teftimony, we fay " the Doftor could only find one Way of getring «* rid of it." " It is not," fays be, " to be re- B 3 " garded. et REMARKS ON " garded. What a prodigious advantage this Ihort " and compendious method of decifion gives a " man over his opponent! It faves all the needlefs " expence or criticifm. It ferves inftead of a thou- *' fand arguments, and it has the fingular felicity *' of being fheltered from all reply." After reading this, any perfon would naturally imagine, that I had given no reafon at all why I thought that the affertion of Eufebius was not to be regarded, whereas I immediately fubjoin fuch reafons as I deemed fufficient ; obferving, that the faSls which he himfelf records, are inconfiftent. with it *. The Reviewer has not even quoted the whole fentence, which ends thus, " it is not to be regard- " ed, unlefs they bring fome fufficient proof of " their afiertion." I am truly afliamed to point out inftances of fuch grofs difingenuity, t^&n in an adverfary, and one who pretends that he has given the very pith and marrow, p. 6-5, of my argu- inents. After this with what face can Mr. Badcock charge any writer with concealments ! Dr. Horfley having charged me with borrowing from D. Zuicker, whofe name I had not heard till I faw it in his Charge, Mr. Badcock fays, p. 58, " Dr. Horfley did not happen to hit upon the right ^ " author." Then let Dr. Horfley and Mr. Bad cock guefs. again. As all my arguments muft he ftolen'from fome perfon or other, they may happen to be right at laft. * See Letter te Dr. Hiirjley, p. 24. After THE MONTHLY REVIEW. 23 After this, it cannot, furely, be neceffary to note any other article in this Review, every one of which difcovers nearly equal ignorance, or unfairnefs. Mr. Badcock calls upon me to give a fair and ingenuous anfwer to his former animadverfions. I reply that, befides my own fair propofal, by which I ftill abide, and which will require no more room in the article of Correfpondence, than is frequently given to others (not to fay that their having made my cafe a ftngular one, gives me a claim to peculiar privileges) I have, direftly or indireftly, noticed every thing in it, that I thought worth notice, in my Letters to Br. Horfley. He, as a Reviewer, has an unfpeakable advantage with rcfpeft to publication. My confidence, however, is in the goodnefs of my caufe, and in time; which, I doubt not, will do me ample juftice. Two ardcles on which Mr. Badcock himfelf laid the moft ftrefs at firft, I particularly noticed in the Peftfcript of my Letters to Dr. Horfley. One of them related to a ftrong infinuation againft my in tegrity, in confequence of his own mifconftruftion of a plain fentence of mine. He had defended his mifconftruftion after its bdng particularly pointed out to him -, but being called to look at it a third time, he has, at length, given it up, and afked my pardon ; fo that my integrity has had an efcape for this dme. This, it is to be obferved, relates to the greatefi objeiiion he had againft my Hiftory. He pleads in his excufe, that my expreffion was equivc- B 4 cally 24 R E M A R K S ,0 N tally worded ; whereas it is not poffible to put any other conftruftion upon it, and I am not capable of exprefiing myfelf with greater clearnefs. If Mr. Badcock fails fo much with refpeft to plain Englifh, it is no wonder that (through his ex treme precipitancy, I fuppofe) he fliould make mif- takes mLatin anAGreek. I have fufficiently confider ed what he firft dalled a ftrong reafon for a materid difference between the Nazarenes and the Ebionites, what he afterwards called a conjeSure, and now calls a demonftration ; but I do not think it worth my while to fliew the extreme futility of it. To fuch demonftrations as thefe, I fhall content myfelf with faying, Valeant quantum vdlere poffunt. If Dr. Horf ley chufes this ground, I fhall meet him upon it, and fpeak fully to k. The CONCLUSION. T Cannot fay that I can intirely fatisfy myfelf with refpedt to the caufe (and every effeSi muft have a taufe) of the extreme virulence widi which Mr. Badcock began, and now continues, to urge this attack upon me, fo totally unprepared as he evi dently is to difcufs topics of this nature. I own I fometimes read his former letters to me with peculiar emotion, and am ready to think this « whole THE MONTHLY REVIEW, 55 whole bufinefs a dream ; fo unwilling am I to be lieve that any perfon who once profefied himfelf {a much attached to me, can be fo much at enmity with me, as he now appears to be. Far am I from wifhing that truth fhould ever be facrificed to friendfhip, or any other confideration. I have fhewn an example of the contrary myfelf, in my controverfy with ,Dr. Price, but Mr. Badcock's fituation with refpeft to me fhould have led him to adopt a more decent mode of oppoficion. Time was, when, if it had been fwetold to Mr. Badcock, that he would ever do what he now has done, he would, I am confident, have replied as jiazael did to thc prophet, " What, is thy fervant a dog, that he fhould do this thing?" But as HaKaei did not then know that he would become king of Affyria, fo neither did Mr. Badcock forcfee tliat he would ever be a Monthly Reviewer. The editor of the Monthly Review fhould be cau tious how he fuffcrs his writers to fport with men's characters ; for himfelf, as publijher, is anfwerabic for it. He may not be a judge in matters of litera ture, and therefore he may be deceived by recom mendations, and by perfons who give thsmftdvcs airs, as men of deep learning -, but every man may ice what kind of rcfleftions affeift vKral'cbaraSer, and all know that this is a facrcd thing. Mr. Gritfiths may not have much knowledge of Greek, and therefore would never fufpedfc, that he who, with fo much infolence, treated my Vin dicator with the appellation of Iste G««cui.us, fhould. s5 R E .M A R K S O N fliould, make the miftake that he has done v/ith refpcA to Greek ; but having fome knowledge cf s;:e, he fhould not have inferred fuch refledlions as the prefent Review contains, at leaft without confulting other perfons befides a profefied oppon ent. He wiU hardly be able to juftify himfelf to the public, not for employing a man fo unqualified as Mr. Badcoclc is (I mean with refpe6l to thc fubjeft of the prefent controverfy, in which I do not find that his reading has extended much farther than Bifliop Bull) but for fuffering fuch grofs abufe of a perfon that he muft know could not de- ferve it. As to what he promifes with refpeft to my fu ture publications, I prefume that no perfon, about whofe good opinion I can ever be felicitous, ¦will take a charadter of any performance of mine, or of any thing that relates to me, from a prof effed. adverfary. Dr. Horfley's charge, a work full of the higheft orthodoxy (fuch as certainly would not have paffed without cenfure in this Review fomci years ago) has been recommended with unqualified applaufe, and a careful feledlion has been made from it of almoft every thing in it that is either fpecious in itfelf, or contemptuous with refpedt to me. For this, I am pretty confident, Dr. Horfley will not now thank them; as by this time, I doubt not, he •js himfelf afhamed of the pafiages they have quoted. My friend, Mr. Lindfey, has, in feveral publications, largely infifted upon the unitarianifm of the primi- tive chriftian church (the very fame thing that has routed all the rage ofthe prefent Reviewer) without the THE MONTHLY REVIEW. j; the leaft note of difapprobation from his prede- ceflbrs. I am now expedting Dr. Horfley's reply, and I fhall be much difappointed if it be not more guarded and temperate than his laft work ; fo that I hope we fliall proceed in a calm difcuffion of the fe- rious queftion that is before the public. I alfo ear- neftly wifti to engage fome learned Arian in this dil^ cuffion, as I am defirous to write with the fulleft in formation, and with the greateft impartiality on the fubjeft. At prefent I am well aware that a great majority of learned men are againft me ; but I already per ceive that the minority is increafing, and in time I doubt not the majority will be with me. Not that I can ever promife myfelf to fatisfy every body. Many pei^wis, much fuperior to myfelf, will remain bnconvintSB; as indeed many yet do with refpeft to tranfubftantiation. But the time will certainly come, when all prejudice will give way to the evidence of truth. , ¦" I have much new evidence to produce, as well as many confirmations of that which I have al ready laid before the public, and I wifh to have every part of it thoroughly and publicly difcuffed. Mr. Badcock calls me a difappointed and mortified au thor. How a man really feels, is beft perceived by the temper with which he writes, and not by his own declarations, or thofe of others for him ; and it is much too foon, to ufe any language of this kind.' The %i REMARKS ON Thc controverfy is but juft opened, and wijl ptobi- bly continue a long time ; and We may then fee who are the mortified and difappointed writers. When I read the various modes of fclf-compla* cent exultation, in which Mr. Badcock, and Dn Horfley alfo, infult over me, as over a man whom they have conapletely confuted and filcnced^ I fancy myfelf to be in the cafe of the Irifiiman who talked of hearing his own funeral fermon. But I would advife thefe two antagonifts of mine to tal{£ a Icfibn from £fop, and not to fell the flkin of the bear, dll they have difpatched him, and indeed not till diey have the evidence of other eyes than their own that he is actually dead. I am not, like Partridge^ Jo unreafonable as to expedt to be an evidence foi my own exiftence ; but let it be decided by a fair jury, whether I be alive, or dead. For my part, I fhall fteadily purfue rSy purpofe, and I have experience enough in thefe-matters to be able to confide in my own temper, fo as to avai} ^myfelf of all the new light that fhall be thrown upon the fubjeft, and to corredt my own obfervationSi as far as I fhall fee reafon fo to do. I may be de ceived myfelf •, but 1 believe that even my advcrfa- ries (except Mr. Badcock) wiU not think 1 fliall knowingly contribute to deceive others. There are not many perfons, I hope, who will think of me as Mr. Badcock does, page 63^ " Though it may be poflible for any man to *' make a miftake (efpecially when he rapidly ' glances over a paflagc) yet to perfevere in it " after THE MONTHLY REVIEW, 99 •' after it has been pointed out, fcem? referved ?' to be the diftinguifliing char aft eriftic of Dr, *' Prieftley." .He fhould not, -however, have faid phis in. the. fame publication in which he acknowledges that he himfelf had done the fame thing, and that He did not fee his miftake till i% had been poiiited out to him a third time. Mr. Badcock might have animadverted upon my miftakcs, real or fuppofed, wirh as much fe-- verity as he had pleafed, I fhould not have been much affedted by his cenfures, perhaps, fhould not have taken any farther notice of them j cer tainly fhould not have called upoiyiy name, as I^ now do, if he had not rcprefcnted me as a difhentft pian, wilfully perverting the meaning of the au thors I quote, and determined to keep up this controverfy, as he fays, per fas et nefas. I do not, however, think fo ill of him as not to hope, that, upon cooler refleftion, he will be afhamed of accufations fo violent, and fo ill-founded. Be this as it will, I truft that irt this cohtroverfy, and iti all nrtf writings, as well as in my whoK con- dufl:, I have refp^dfc to a higher tribunal than either that: of the Monthly Review, or that ofthe Public, A CATALOGUE A CATALOGUE of BOOKS WRITTEN BY JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, LL.D.F.R.S. AND PRINTED FOR J. J O HN S O N, Bookfeller, No. 7 2, St. Paul's Church- Yard, London. 1. A N History of the Corruptions of Christianity, XJL with a general conclufion, in two Parts. Part 1. Con taining confidcrations addreffed to Unbelievers, and efpecially to Mr. Gibbon. Part 2. Containing confiderations addreffed to the Advocates for the prefent Eftablilhment, and efpecially tQ BiCiop Kurd, 2 vols. 8vo. price 12s. in boards, or 14s. bouiid. 2. A Reply to the Animadversions on the History of the Corruptions of Christianity, in the Monthly Revievvr for }ane, 1783 ; with Obfervations relating to the Doftrine of the Primitive Church, concerning the Perfon of Christ, Svo. price is. 3. Letters to Dr. Horsley, in Anfwer to his Animadver fions on the Hiftory of the Corruptions of Chriftianity. With Additional Evidence that the Primitive Chriftian Church was Unitarian, price 2s. 6d. 4. A General View of the Arguments for the Unity of God, and againft the Divinity and Pre-exiftence of Chrift, from reafon, from the fcriptnres, and from hiftory, price ^d. 5. An Appeal to the ferious and candid Profeffors of Chrif tianity, on the following fubjefls, viz. i. The Ufe of Reafon in Matters of Religion. 2. The Power of Man to do the Will of God. 3. Original Sin. 4. Eleflion and Reprobation. 5. The Divinity of Chrift ; and 6. Atonement for Sin by the Death of Chrift, a new Edition ; to which is added, a Concife Hiftory of thofe Doflrines, 2d. An Edition in a larger Print, price 6d. 6. Forms of Prayer, and other Offices, for the Ufe of Unitarian Societies, price 3s. in boards, or 4s. bound. 7. A BOOKS fwriwti ly Dr. PRIESTLEY. 7. A View of the Principles and Conduct of the Pro testant Dissenters, with Refpeft to the Civil and Eccle< iiaftic^l Conftitution of England, 2d Edition, is. 6d. 8. A Free Address to Protestant Dissenters, on the Subjefl of Church Discipline; with a preliminary Dif^ courfe concerning the Spirit of Chriftianity, and the Corruptions of it by falfe Notions of Religion, 2s. 6d. 9. A Letter to a Layman, on Mr. Lindfey's Propofal for a reformed Englilh Church, on the Plan of the late Dr. Samuel Clarke, 6d. 10. Three Letters to Dr. Newcome, Bilhop of Waterford, on the Duration of our Saviour's Miniftry, 3s. 6d. fevved. II. Two Discourses, i. On Habitual Devotion. a. On theDuTYof not Living to Ourselves, is. 6d. 12. Disquisitions relating to Matter and Spirit. To which is added, the Hiftory of the Philofophical Dodlrine con cerning the Origin ofthe Soul, and the Nature of Matter; with its Influence on Chriftianity, efpecially with refpeft to the Doc trine of the Pre-exiftence of Chrift. Alfo the Doftrine of Phi lofophical Neceffity illuftrated, the 2d Edition enlarged and im proved, with Remarks on thofe who have controverted the Prin ciples of them, 2 vols. 8s. 6d. in boards, or los. bound. 13. A -Free Discussion of the Doctrines of Materi alism and Philosophical Necessity, in a Correfpondence between Dr. Price and Dr. Priestley. To whichare added by Dr. Priestley, an Introduction, explaining the Nature cf the Controverfy, and Letters to feveral Writers who have animadverted on his Difquifitions relating to Matter and Spirit, or his Treatife on Neceffity, Svo. 6s. fewed, or 7s. bound. 14. The Doctrine of Divine Influence on the Human Mind confidered, is. 15. Letters to a Philofophical Unbeliever. Parti. Contain ing an Ex.-imination of the principal Objeftions to the Doftrines of Natural Religion, and efpecially thofe contained in thc Writ ings of Mr. Hume, 3s. fewed. 16. Additional Letters to a Philofophical Unbeliever, in Anfwer to Mr. William Hammon, 15, 6d. I 17. A BOOKS 'written hy Dr. PRIESTLEY. J-. A Harmony ofthe EvANCBLisTS in Greek: To which ¦re prefixed Critical Dissertations in Engliih, 410. 14s. in boards, or 17s. bound". iS. A Harmony of the ErANfiELisTs in Engliji ; with Notes, and an occafional Paraphrafe for the Ufe of thc Un learned ; to whieh are prefixed. Critical Differtations, and a Let ter to thc Bilhop of Offory,4io. izs. in boards, orijs. bound.— N. B. fbofe •u/i^aarepoJ/eJTid.o/ll/e Greek Hitnaony, Hfay l/ave liit )¦! Englilh luithout the Critical Differtations. Price Ss. in lioardi: N. B. Thc Grftk and Englijh Harmony with-the Critical Dif fertations complete, ll. is, in bqards, or il. 4s. bound. 19. In»titute$ of Natural and Revealra Riuoion, in two volumes, Svo. zd. edition, price loi. 6d. in boards, or 125. bound. ' ' ' N. B. The third Part of this Ifork, contaimng the Doflrines of Rtvcktlon, may be kadahne, priei U. (id.femiei.- zo. A Sermon preached December. 31, 1780, at the New Mceiing.Hoafe, in Birmingham, on undertRking the Piftoral Office in that Place, 11. jtl/o PvMiJhed tmder the DireSion ofOr. Priestley. THE THEOLOGICAL REPOSITORY: ' Confifting of Original Effays,. Hints, Queries, &c. calculated to promote Religious Knowledge, in Three Volumes, 8vo. Price igs. in Boards, or il. la. bound : Among other Articles, too many to be enunierated in aa Advertifement, thefe three - VoJomes will- be fauijd to contain fuch-orjginal and truly va. Iiiable Obfervations on tha Doflrine c^Jtottinunt, the Pre-e*-- , ijletice if Chrif and the Ji/piraiioit oJ thi Scriptures, more efpe cially refpe£kingthe/fpi[iCi^t9.b6. £iHoi»[(toi«^vtec«fna^? Aiat apy^n^in; . iR-Jiisiv^ichfesij fiioqld intend to dietelvt i^fin Ms fiaw^ I Aiuft havel h^^k^GXVf as thi t^-fhacis faid to fcnded^oib co :efckpd by J^idi^g Its kitdi while its Tirhoie body \«!as((e«i't^f^/ ^" - « .._.., , ; ¦.¦•I ¦ ilrrJ £ij :,>: :i;.! • :!/ .. ^ B^c^ gi^ no other jfrofafnbfCItheVanton and perffvef^gj r(Hic0uf ^ ]|l;r;f tl^s Jpeci6us afidi''iiih^afiilg.i«i^ -fentauons, than the extraft which he himfelf has given from a letter of Mr> Wi^\ .in the ttrtide of Qerrefpondencet in the Review for February laft. After APPENDIX. After replying t© fome objedtion, which-dus gentle man appears to have made to his tranflation of the paflage in Juftin Martyr, he adds, ' We join very * fincerely with our corrcfpondent*" in the follow- • ing exclamation ;' *' Pity it is that and writers " that poffefs the confidence of the pubUc, jihould •' be fo ailbnifhinglf unflcilful as they are, for men •* cf reputation i and fo IhamefuHy difingenuous in *' conveying ^to the public the Sentiments of the " ancients." ' ! Now what occafion was there to quote the lattfer partof this ktter< which I dare fay was not intended for publication, when the Review bf^wy work was clofcd? In this manner, by means oS Correfptth- denet, real or pretended, Mn Badcock rriay go on to exhibit me as an example of ignofiinee and dif- it^enueus conduit, as far as the Review circulates, and as long as he himfelf fhall thitik proper. I wife, Jjowever, that this Mr.. Wife would not be quite ¦fo^hafty in deciding againft a cha. rafter, whicdi, : byi his own accdunt; has hitherto been fair and- iiireproacfaabk. "Gvtst' ignorance (or great inattention) is. certainly chargeable to one of us *, but let us both have a full hearing, and efpe cially Mr. Badcock himfelf,> in Teply to this, be fore it be aWpluteiy decided vnth which of us it lies. I fliall be ^ad if he be able to make a better apology for himfelf than I can yet fee lo bepofliWc SiRMiKCHAM, Feb.5, 1784. ( 9002 08561 3447