Wishing that you may possess an abundant measure of the Divine teaching, promised in the sacred oracles,

though the believers in the pre-existence of Christ have a thousand testimonies to appeal to, in proof of their faith, yet this seems to be the last resort of the Socinian, when he is called on to produce authority for his principles in the primitive ages. Deprive the Socinian of this twig of antiquity, and he is ready to make the same lamentable outcry, that was made by Micah in old times: "You have taken away my gods, in whom I trust"ed, and what have I'more?"

"The argument drawn out in form is the following: The first Christians were called Nazarenes. Those who afterwards went by that name, were their genuine followers; but those succeeding Nazarenes did not believe that Jesus Christ had a pre-existent nature; therefore, it was not a doctrine believed by the first Christians, because the later Nazarenes transmitted their opinions (at least on this head) in their original purity, without the adulterations of those who were afterwards called orthodox. "There are many things in this argument which may be doubted, and some which may be denied. If the Nazarenes were the members of the original church of Christ, and the genuine followers of the apostles, how came they so far to counteract the design of the Christian institution, as to mix with the ordinances of the gospel, the abrogated ceremonies of the Mosaic law? Was such conduct, in any respect, authorized by the New Testament? Was it not in direct opposition, both to the conduct and instructions of the apostle Paul? We know what such a Nazarene as Toland would say on this subject; but what would Dr. Priestley say? If the Nazarenes were people of such low and carnal sentiments, so weak in their understandings, and so superstitious in their practices, can we deem them fit authorities to be appealed to, in contradiction to the concurrent testimony of the most eminent lights of the primitive church? If, in points of practice, in which the laws delivered for their direction were so clear and definite, they still pertinaciously adhered to old and exploded customs, which the gospel had rendered totally useless, is it a matter of any surprise, that they should have fallen into some errors of faith, and maintained, with an obstinacy peculiar to their race, some of the false prejudices of the Jews, relating to the nature and qualifications of the Messiah?

"For our part, we are ready to confess, that if the Nazarenes were, with the Ebionites, given up to the Socinians, who are so eager to claim them as their elder brethren, we do not perceive the very great advantage they would gain by such an acquisition. "Dr. Priestley is not always careful to keep clear of gratuitous assertion. It is a compendious method of argument; but unless it comes from an oracle, we have a right to admit, or reject it, just as we please. "No person, says he, can, I think, reflect

to lead you into all truth, that you may have peace in believing, that you may be found in Christ Jesus, not having your own righteousness, which is of the law; and finally, that you may be replenished with the spirit of power, and of love, and of a sound mind, I am, Reverend Sir,

Your most obedient

Oswestry, Feb. 1790.

humble Servant,

EDWARD WILLIAMS.

upon this subject with proper seriousness, without thinking it a little remarkable, that the Jewish Christians, in so early an age as they are spoken of, should be acknowledged to believe nothing either of the divinity, or even of the pre-existence of Christ, if either of those doctrines had been taught them by the apostles." On the same mode of reasoning, and with equal propriety, we might say, It is a little extraordinary, that the Jewish Christians should have continued such adherents to the rituals of the Mosaic law, if they had been explicitly taught, that they were abrogated by the death of Christ. Can we suppose any who owned the truth of the gospel, to have remained ignorant of the grand design of its promulgation, if that design had been properly delineated and explained? Or could they have persevered in an obstinate resistance to it, if it had been enforced by proper authority? These were the standards of ancient simplicity! at least simplicity of Christian doctrine; though the veil of Moses was over their faces, and the yoke of the old law fettered their necks!"

Month. Rev. Vol. Ixix. p. 219, &c.

A

LETTER

ΤΟ

MR. DAVID LEVI;

RECOMMENDING THIS WORK TO HIS CANDID AND ATTENTIVE PERUSAL.

DEAR SIR,

WHAT I observed to your late antagonist, Dr. Priestley, in my preceding letter to him, respecting my principal motive in addressing him in the manner I have done, is applicable also in general to the present address. It is not intended to provoke your polemic pen, but to solicit a favor. Since you profess a sincere love of truth, and an openness to conviction, your candid and attentive perusal of the volumes herewith sent you, is amicably requested.

The epistle here commented upon was originally designed for your nation, the Hebrews; not only for the edification of those who had embraced the gospel, but also for the conviction of such as continued to reject it. This being its primary designation, and it being, as I firmly believe, Divinely revealed, I can no less than importunately and affectionately recommend it to you and your friends, as an instrument chosen by infinite wisdom, admirably calculuted, when rightly understood, to subserve your best and everlasting interest.

The writer of it was a Hebrew of the Hebrews; in the former part of his life zealous for the law, in your view of its import: he was a strict Pharisee, and no small proficient in the learning of the Jews, as well as their religion. Nor did he embrace the Christian faith, 50

VOL. I.

which I venture to call the accomplishment and perfection of the Jewish, but upon the clearest evidence and strongest conviction that the mind of man, in matters of this nature, is, perhaps, capable of. He was well qualified to form an estimate of both; and the result was, upon the most deliberate review, that he counted all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus his Lord. This, it is true, brought upon him the odium of his countrymen, as if he were an apostate from the religion of their forefathers; whereas, in reality, no man, after his embracing the gospel, better understood wherein the life and glory of that religion consisted. No man had a higher veneration for the Divine authority of the Hebrew scriptures, and the exalted character of Moses. What he before thought to be quite inconsistent, the legislation of Moses, and the Messiahship of Jesus Christ, appeared now, as indeed they are, perfectly reconcileable.

His writings in general, as well as this epistle, are characterised not only by a depth, compactness, and force of argument, but also by an admirable spirit of benevolence. So powerfully did this Divine principle operate on his virtuous and holy mind, that it breaks forth into language inimitably strong and pathetic. See Rom. ix, 1-5. Lest any should imagine that his adherence to the Christian cause was the effect of bigotry; that he was only a violent party man, he declares in the most solemn terms, that for the love he bore to his brethren, his kinsmen according to the flesh, he could even submit, were that available, to the same treatment from the Christian church, as he had received from the Jewish.

The subject of this epistle is peculiarly interesting. It treats of a religious controversy of great magnitude; indeed, I may say, the greatest controversy that ever existed in the church of God, and in which you and your brethren are concerned in a direct and immediate manner. This is another reason that induces me to solicit your attention to this work, in your professed capacity of an impartial inquirer.

But there is reason to fear that we are very liable to mistake the true nature of this controversy; and while we labor under that mistake, it is no wonder that our prejudices are strengthened in favor of our own tenets, right or wrong, while affronted truth, indignant, eludes our disappointed grasp. Though the question, Whether Jesus Christ be the true Messiah, be to Jews and Christians, if properly weighed, infinitely momentous; yet, in my apprehension, it is a question too complicated, or not sufficiently radical, for an accurate inquirer to begin with. If I may presume to offer my thoughts on this important subject, the previous question ought to be, not whether any part of the Old Testament ought to be attacked and renounced, as if not given by Divine authority, but, What is the TRUE IMPORT of the Old Testament system? Was it given with a subordinate design; with a view to introduce a dispensation of a more spiritual form, or was it not? Are the Messiah's kingdom, and its grand blessings, as represented in the ancient promises, and by the spirit of prophecy, of a temporary and perishing, or of a permanent and eternal nature? Before we can, therefore, properly agitate the question about the person of the Messiah, we ought, as regular investigators and controvertists, for the sake of lessening the labor, to come to a previous issue concerning, What kind of a Messiah the ancient records hold forth? What is the nature of the work there assigned for him? Do his offices relate only to this transitory life, or do they respect redemption from moral evil and everlasting misery? If the former, you are in the right; but if the latter, we bid fair for being so.

I may here observe, that you stand, in a sense, the representative of your English brethren, while publishing and defending that sense of the Old Testament writings which this epistle undertakes to prove is the wrong sense of them. St. Paul's interpretation of the holy scripture, and your's, are diametrically opposite. This consideration also, in connexion with my idea of Paul's knowledge, disposition, and abilities, induces me to call your closest attention to his different meth