15. Dr. Horsley says, that prayer for succour in external prosecution seems with particular propriety to be addressed to the Son. I say that this is altogether a distinction of his own, and has no countenance in scripture precept or example, nor, indeed, in those of the primitive church.

16. Dr. Horsley maintains that the unitarians do not even pretend that the general tenor of scripture is in their favour, that they cannot produce' any text that plainly contains their doctrine, but that they derive it wholly from particular passages to which they give a figurative interpretation. Whereas I maintain that the unitarians have always appealed to the general tenor of scripture, and the plain language of it; and on the contrary, that the trinitarians cannot find their doctrine either in the general tenor or in any clear texts of scripture, but that they deduce it from particular expressions and circumstances, which, when rightly explained, do by no means authorize their conclusions.

17. Dr. Horsley says, that the difference between the unitarians and the Mahometans is so small, and such advances were made towards the Mahometans by the unitarians of the last age, that there is good ground to think that the unitarians will soon acknowledge the divine mission of Mahomet. He also represents christianity, on the principles of unitarianism, as inferior to deism, and, when joined with materialism, as highly favourable to atheism. Such charges as these, I say, can proceed from nothing but ignorance and malevo. lence, and do not deserve a serious refutation.

These are all the articles of importance on which we hold different opinions, every thing else being of less moment, and subordinate to these.

Ar length you have condescended to gratify my wishes, and have favoured me with a series of letters in answer to mine. But as they are written with a degree of insolence which nothing in your situation or mine can justify, and indicate a temper that appears to me to be very far from being the most proper for the discussion of historical truth, I shall consider myself in this answer as writing not so much to you, as to the candid part of the public, to whom our correspondence is open; and I have no doubt but that I shall be able to satisfy all who are qualified to judge between us, that your ignorance of the subject which you have undertaken to discuss is equal to your insolence; and therefore that there is no great reason to regret that you have formed a resolution to appear no more in this controversy. "Whatever more," you say, p. 9, you may find to say upon the subject, in me you will have no antagonist."

66

I made the proposal to discuss the question of the state of opinions concerning Christ in the early ages in a perfectly amicable, and, as I thought, the most ad

vantageous manner, and my address to you was uniformly respectful. It has rot been my fault that this proposal was not accepted. You say, p. 166, "I held it my duty to use pretty freely that high seasoning of controversy which may interest the reader's attention." What that high seasoning is, is sufficiently apparent through the whole of your performance, viz. a violation of all decency, and perpetual imputations of the grossest but of the most improbable kind. This, from respect to the public and to myself, I shall not return; but I shall certainly think myself authorized by it to treat you with a little less ceremony in the present publication, in which I shall take occasion, from your gross mistakes and misrepresentations, to throw some further light on the subject of this discussion.

The reader must have been particularly struck with the frequent boasting of your victory, as if the controversy had come to a regular termination, and the public had decided in your favour. My victory," you say, p. 7, " is already so complete, that I might well decline any further contest." In p. 160 you say, "it would have heightened the pride of my victory if I could have found a fair occasion to be the herald of my adversary's praise." P. 10, you call me a foiled polemic, and p. 8, a prostrate enemy. What marks of prostration you may have perceived in me I cannot tell. I do not know that I have yet laid myself at your feet, and I presume this kind of language is rather premature. It will be time enough for you to say with Entellus, Hic cæstus artemque repono, when the victory, of which you boast, shall be as clear as his, and shall be declared to be so by the proper judges. You ought also to have remembered the advice of Solomon,

Prov. xxvii. 2. Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips. On the contrary, I cautioned my reader (Preface, p. xiv.) not to conclude too hastily in my favour, but to wait till you had made your reply. You have now done it; and I hope they will do me the justice to hear me again in return, especially as this will probably be the last time that I shall trouble them in this way.

Though this controversy has not come to what I think its proper and desirable termination, I rejoice that it has proceeded thus far; and upon the whole I derive great satisfaction from the opposition that my History of the Corruptions of Christianity has met with, both because a more general attention has been excited to the subject, and also because, having by this means been led to attend to it more than I should otherwise have done, I have discovered a variety of additional evidence in support of what I had advanced, and such an abundant confirmation of the evidence before produced, as gives even myself a greater degree of confidence in it than I could otherwise have had. And when my readers in general shall see, as they cannot but see, with what extreme eagerness the most insignificant oversights have been catched at and magnified, and the readiness with which I have acknowledged such oversights, notwithstanding the gross insults with which this candour has been treated, and also that every objection has brought out new evidence in my favour, it cannot but beget a persuasion that the most sharp-sighted adversary will not be able to detect any mistake of real consequence; and from this will be derived a degree of credit to my work that nothing else could have given it. Your object, you say, p. 8, was

to demolish the credit of my narrative; but I am much mistaken if, instead of that, your weak though violent opposition has not greatly contributed to strengthen it. You will perhaps be struck with the change in the style of my address to you, when you observe me beginning with Rev. Sir, instead of the Dear Sir of my former letters, an appellation to which our personal acquaintance gave a propriety, and which you have returned; but when I consider how ill it corresponds to the spirit of your letters, and the stress you lay on your Archidiaconal dignity, which appears not only in the title page of your work, but at the head of many title-page of your letters, and which you intimate, p. 158, that I had not sufficiently attended to, I thought the style of Rev. Sir, and occasionally that of Mr. Archdeacon, both more proper, and also more pleasing to yourself; and therefore I have adopted it. And if by any accident I should wound your feelings, p. 159, you will find the proper balm in my running title.

While persons who have some personal acquaintance treat each other with decent respect, and are uniform in doing it, as I have been to you, the usual style of Dear Sir is natural and proper; but when you charge me with numerous instances of the grossest artifice, and imposition on the Public, you in fact give me the lie; and therefore ought yourself to have dropped all terms expressive of affection and regard. I renounce all particular respect for the man who has treated me in this manner; and in the outset of this second part of our correspondence I subscribe myself, merely because custom authorizes the form,

Rev. Sir, your very humble servant,

J. PRIESTLEY.