your objection to the Catholic doctrine, founded on its supposed Platonism, and your argument for what I shall call the Arianism of the Platonizers from Athenagoras, are well entitled to the places which they hold among my specimens of insufficient proof, of which the one is the sixth, and the other the eighth in order.

I am, &c.

LETTER FOURTEENTH.

In Reply to Dr Priestley's eighth.—The archdeacon's supposi tion, that the first Ebionites worshipped Christ, defended.— His supposition, that Theodotus was the first person who taught the Unitarian doctrine at Rome, defended.

DEAR SIR,

Of all my nine specimens of insufficient proof, selected from the first book of your History, the fifth is the only one about which any doubt is likely to remain (except with yourself) that it was properly alleged. For the seventh and the ninth you give up; and the other six have been considered.

2. My fifth specimen was your misrepresentation of Eusebius, a writer of acknowledged veracity and candour, whom you very rashly charge with inconsistency, and even with unfairness; because in his account of Theodotus the hæresiarch, who appeared at Rome about the year 190, he cites another writer, who says, that this Theodotus was the first who taught the mere humanity of Christ; whereas it appears from his own history, that the Ebionites, who held the mere humanity of Christ, were far more ancient than Theodotus. Admitting the antiquity of the Ebionites, I maintain,

It

that Eusebius is so easily reconciled with the author whom he cites, that the difference between them is no just ground to tax the veracity of either. It is very certain, that Theodotus maintained the mere humanity of Christ in the grossest sense: in that gross and shocking sense, in which it is at this day taught by yourself and Mr Lindsey. is not certain that the Ebionites, before Theodotus, had gone further than to deny our Lord's orinal divinity. They probably, like Socinius, admitted some unintelligible exaltation of his nature after his resurrection, which rendered him the object of worship. If this was the case, Theodotus might justly claim the honour of being the first assertor of our Lord's humanity, being indeed the first who made humanity the whole of his condition. By this very natural supposition, that the Ebionites were Unitarians of a milder sort than Theodotus, Eusebius might have been reconciled with himself, had it been his own assertion, that Theodotus was the first who taught the mere humanity of Christ.*

3. But this is not the assertion of Eusebius, but of another writer cited by Eusebius. Now, since Theodotus broached his heresy at Rome, it is very probable, that the writer cited by Eusebius was a

* See Charge I. sec. 16.

Roman, and that he treated of the state of religion in the western church, and especially at Rome; where Theodotus was probably the first, who, in any sense, taught the mere humanity of Christ.*

4. You tell me, in your eighth letter, that the difference which I put between Theodotus and Ebion, is advanced upon my own authority.† Truly, Sir, I think that a supposition, which reconciles a writer of established credit with himself, or which is nearly the same thing, with another writer whom he cites with approbation, should need no great authority to support it; unless it be contrary to known fact, in which case indeed no authority might support it, or in itself improbable. Now, Sir, can you prove, that Christ was not worshipped by the original Ebionites? Can you prove this, I would ask, by explicit evidence? For as for that kind of proof, in which you so much delight, which is drawn by abstract reasoning from general and precarious maxims; it is of no more significance in history, than testimony would be in mathematics. To think to demonstrate a fact by syllogism, is not less absurd, than to go about to establish a geometrical theorem by an affidavit. Excuse me, if I insist upon the difference, in the

Sec Charge, p. 43. + Letters to Dr Horsley, p. 103.

nature of things, between historic certainty and scientific truth. I apprehend an inattention to this distinction hath misled many, and hath been the cause of much fruitless labour in many subjects. Scientific truth can only be established by abstract reasoning. Testimony can in science produce nothing more than probability. In history it is quite the reverse; abstract reasoning can never go beyond a probability: proof must arise from evidence. And the reason of this is plain. The principles of scientific truth are all within the mind itself: the truths of history are the occurrences of the external world. Neglecting this necessary distinction, the great Berkley questioned the existence of the material world, because he found it incapable of demonstration; and I have known many seek a confirmation of geometrical theorems from experiment. Now to return to my subject have you evidence, for that is the only proof to which, in this case, the judicious will attend; have you evidence, that Christ was not worshipped by the Ebionites? If you have none, my supposition is not contrary to known fact. Is it in itself improbable, since all innovations have a progress, and the divinity of Christ was the belief, and the worship of Christ the practice, of the first ages, that presumptuous men would begin to question the ground, on which his right to worship might be thought to stand, before they abandoned the worship to which they had been long

S