gery, The letters confidered as genuine papers were unknown when they ought, and could not fail to have excited the greatest noife and ferment. When confidered as a forgery their appearance was in the exact moment of propriety. For the confpirators having completed the ufurpation of the government, were in a fituation, where it was abfolutely neceffary for them either to acknowledge their own tranfgreffions, or to impeach the Queen. Their crimes and rebellion, the neceffities of their fituation, and her impeachment, are all correfpondent and explanatory. They are the parts of a whole, and throw mutually a light to one another.

In this act of council the confpirators discover the greatest anxiety for their pardon and fecurity. Now, if the letters had been genuine, this anxiety would have been moft unnaturai; for, the notoriety of her guilt would have operated most completely their juftification and pardon. In this act of council they betray the utmost folicitude to establish the criminality of the Queen. Yet, if the letters had been real, her criminality would have been established from the moment of their difcovery. This anxiety therefore for themselves, and this attempt against the honour of the Queen at a juncture fo particular, are more than fufpicious. They appear to be obviously the fuggeftions of their guilty fears; and the steps by which they thought to accomplish their purposes are a new evidence against them, and a fresh intimation of their guilt. It was with a view to the approaching convention of the Eitates, that this act of council had been formed and managed. It was a preparation for the parliament, in which the confpirators had fecured the fulleft fway; and where they propofed to effectuate their pardon and fecurity, and to establish the letters as decifive vouchers against the Queen.

Accordingly upon the xv, day of December, DLXVII. the three Eftates were affembled. The confpirators invited no candid or regular enquiries or investigation. The friends of the nation and of the Queen were overawed. Every thing proceeded in conformity to the act of council, The confpirators by a parliamentary decree received a full approbation of all the feverities they had exercifed against the Queen. A pardon by anticipation was even accorded to them for any future cruelty or punishment they might be induced to inflict upon her. The letters were mentioned as the cause of this fingular law; and this new appeal to them may be termed the fecond mark of their dittinction. But amidst the plentitude of their power the confpirators called not the Estates to a free and honcit examination of them. This, indeed, if the letters had been genuine, would have annihilated for ever all the confequence of the Queen. Upon this measure, however, they ventured not. They apprehended a detection of their forgery, and a proteftation against it. The letters were neither read, nor examined, nor recorded. The Queen was not brought from her confinement to defend herself, and no advocate was permitted to speak for her. By a ftrong and unwarrantable exertion of authority, the parliament fuftained them as vouchers of her guilt without infpection, fcrutiny, or debate. The confpirators who were themselves the criminals, were here her accufers, and her judges,

G4

There

"There was yet no actual exhibition or difplay of the letters. 1 was, however, neceffary to defcribe them in the act of council, and in the ordination of the parliament; and thefe deeds having fortuna, tely defcended to pofterity, it is most remarkable that from a comparison of them, it is to be obferved that the letters must have undergone eflential alterations under the management of the confpirators. In the act of council the letters are defcribed expressly as written and subscribed by the Queen. But in the act or ordination of the parliament, they are faid to be only written with her own hand, and there is no intimation that they were fubfcribed by her. Under one form they had been appealed to as vouchers of her guilt in the privy council. Under another form they were mentioned as vouchers of it in the parliament. Now if the letters had been genuine, they would have appea ed uniformly with the fame face. These variations are therefore ftages in the progrefs of the forgery. The keenness of the confpirators engaged them at firft to adhibit to them the name of the Queen. But a maturer confideration of the grofs impropriety of their contents difcovered to them, that her fubfcription would communicate to them an air of extravagance and improbability. They accordingly rejected this method, and adopted the form of executing the letters without her fubfcription. With this fashion of them in fact they were finally fatisfied; and it is un der this afpect that they were actually to be produced, and to be known.

"They were now as complete as the confpirators wifhed them to be; yet in this state, while they were unfubfcribed they wanted other formalities which are ufual in difpatches. They were without any direction; they had no dates; and they had no feal. They muft have been fent by the Queen to Bothwel as open and loofe papers. They yet contained evidence against herself and against him of the moft horrid wickednefs; and Nicholas Hubert the perfon who is faid to have carried them, was of the lowest condition, and indiscreet. These are most incredible circumstances on the fuppofition that the letters are authentic; and even when the letters are confidered in the light of a forgery, they feem to intimate that the confpirators did not intend any more than to appeal to them in their defence, to keep them from obfervation, and to rest for their authority on the parliamentary fanction to be communicated to them.

To the clear and decifive account exhibited by Dr. Stuart, of the letters he has edded notes that affift and fubftantiate the hiftory as it goes along.

As the account of the evidence in the caufe of the Queen of Scots is not only important, but long, we beg to recommend it to the particular reflection of our readers; and in our next Review, we fhall pursue the history before us without interruption, and exhibit what fhall further occur to us upon

it.

ARTICLE

ART. VI. Letters from the Archdeacon of St. Alban's in Reply to Dr. Priefiley. With an Appendix, containing fhort Strictures on Dr. Priestley's Letters by an unknown Hand. 8vo. 3s. Robfon. 1784.

ART. VII. Remarks on the Monthly Review of the Letters to Dr. Horley; in which the Rev. Mr. S. Badcock, the Writer of that Review, is called upon to defend what he has advanced in it. By Jofeph Priestley, LL. D. F. R. S. 8vo. 6d. Johnson. 1784. ART. VIII. A Letter to Dr. Priestley; occafioned by his late Pamphlet, addreffed to the Rev. Mr. S. Badcock. 8vo. 1s. Exeter, Thorn. London, Baldwin. 1784.

H

AVING in our laft number laid down the plan we intended to purfue in our account of this controverfy, we fhall proceed without farther preface to the business we propofed to ourselves for the prefent article. We fhall" state the arguments by which the value of Dr. Prieftley's authorities is attempted to be undermined, as well as the pofitive evidence, that has been adduced on the orthodox party." And as our defign is to furnish a general summary of the evidence on both fides fo far as it has been brought before the public, and as each of Dr. Priestley's antagonists, whatever be their comparative merits, have made fome figure in the eye of the public, we shall not in delineating the ftrength of the orthodox caufe, think it neceffary to confine our attention to the ar guments of Dr. Horfley. Atthe fame time to conciliate this plan as much as poffible with the feparate attention we owe to the qualifications of each of these gentlemen, we will afcribe the extracts as we go along to their respective authors; and we will wind up this article, as we did our former, with fome fpecimens of the fpirit in which they write, and the style af their compofition.

The fubjects of difquifition as enumerated in our January review were as follow. "I. Whether the more ancient Unitarians were regarded as heretics? 2. Whether they were the majority of unlearned Chriftians? 3. Whether the fathers have not invented a particular hypothefis refpecting the preaching of the apoftles to account for their being fo 4. Whether the ancient Jewish church were Unitarian? 5. When, and by perfons of what defcription among the fathers the pre-existence of Chrift can be proved to have been earlieft taught ?"

I.

"to

1. "The word "to come" is ufed by metaphor I be lieve in all languages to fignify either a man's birth, or firft entrance into public life. He came into the world; he came into life; he came into bufinefs. But is the phrase come in the flesh" no more than equivalent to the word to come?" Are the words in the flesh" mere expletives?

"You

186

You fay, that this phrafe of coming in the flesh" refers natu rally to the doctrine of the Gnoftics." I fay the very fame thing. But I fay, that in the fenfe in which the Church hath ever underfood it, this phrase refers to two divifions of the Gnostics; the Doceta and the Cerinthians; affirming a doctrine, which is the mean, between their oppofite errors. The Docete affirmed, that Jefus was not a man in reality, but in appearance only: the Cerinthians, that he was a meer man, under the tutelage of the Christ, a fuperangelic being, which was not fo united to the man as to make one perfon. St. John fays, " Jefus Chrift is come in the flesh;" that is, as the words have been generally understood, Jefus was a man, not in appearance only, as the Docete taught, but in reality; not a meer man, as the Cerinthians taught, under the care of a fuperangelic guardian, but Chrift himself come in the flesh; the Word of God incarnate.' 'Cerinthus was much earlier than Ebion; and Ebion, in his notions of the Redeemer, feems to have been a mere Cerinthian.' Epiphanius fays, that he held the Cerinthian doctrine of a union of Jefus with a fuperangelic being.' Dr. Horfley.

6

2. "The inference Dr. Priestley would draw from the filence of Hegefippus is equally indefenfible. Only fome very fcanty and imperfect fragments of this hiftorian have been tranfmitted to us; and from them it is impoffible to make out any thing like a lift of the heretics of his age. It is as remarkable, that he should have omitted the Cerinthians as the Ebionites."-" It is very improbable, that Hegefippus fhould have been himself an Ebionite; fince Eufebius, who fpoke of this feet with great contempt and afperity, speaks of him in the fame terms of refpect as he doth of the other and moft orthodox fathers of the primitive church. Hegefippus too fpeaking of Jude, the brother of Chrift, calls him his reputed brother according to the flesh." Mr. Badcock.

4. Granting that the Ebionites are omitted by Clemens in his lift of heretics, is it, Sir, a confequence, that Clemens thought their opinions indifferent? I cannot fee the neceffity of this conclufion, unlefs indeed it had been of importance to the argument of Clemens, that he should make an exact enumeration of all the fects, which he deemed heretical. But this was not the cafe. A few inftances fufficed for the illuftration of his reafoning; and thefe, in a difcuffion with Greek philofophers, which was the object of his Stromata, he would naturally felect from thofe herefies, which, for fomething of fubtlety and refinement in their doctrine, were the most likely to have attracted the notice of the Gentiles. A fect, which lived in obfcurity in the North of Galilee, of no confideration for number, learning or abilities, was likely to be the last that he would mention.' Dr. Horfley.

To the arguments, by which Dr. Priestley's authorities have been parried has been fubjoined fome original evi, dence on this head, among which is the following.

(1.) The apoftles creed, whofe antiquity is unqueftionable, and which is quoted or defcribed by Tertul

lian

lian (A.D. 192) and other fathers, as an univerfal rule of faith, has a claufe," born of the virgin Mary," exprefsly exclufive of the Ebionites. Mr. Badcock.

(2). "There are indeed many, who make a profeffion of Chrifti06 anity, who avow atheistical and blafphemous tenets, and act accord"ing to the influence of fuch doctrines. Amongst us they are deno"minated by the names of thofe from whom they derived their refpec"tive principles. Some therefore in one way, and others in another, "teach their own peculiar method of blafpheming the maker of all "things, and Chrift, who was to come from him as foretold in pro"phecy, and who was the God of Abraham and Ifaac and Jacob. "With perfons of this defcriptionwe hold no communion; convinced "that they are atheistical, impious, unjust and licentious; and who, "instead of worshipping Chrift, only confefs him by name. They "call themselves Chriftians with just the fame propriety as the heathens "infcribe the name of God on works conftructed by human kill; and mix in impious and impure rites. Some of thefe are called Marcio"nites, fome Valentinians, fome Bafilideans, fome Saturnilians: and "there are alfo others who are diftinguifhed by other names according 66 to the different denominations of their refpective leaders." Juftin, Dialogus cum Tryphone, A. D. 140. Mr. Badcock.

་་

(3) The vain Ebionites."-" A fect that diffolved, as "far poffible, the most important difpenfation of God, and "nullified the predictions of his prophets." Irenæus. A. D. 167. Mr. Badcock.

The

(4) In this epiftle St. John chiefly calls those Anti chrifts, who denied that Chrift was come in the fleth, "or who did not believe him to be the Son of God. "former was the error of Marcion; the latter of Ebion." "We believe, that Chrift was the Word, by whom God "made the worlds, and who at various tiines appeared to "the patriarchs and prophets :-This is the rule of faith, appointed by Chrift, and which admits of no difpute among us, but fuch as heretics raife, and fuch as make men heretics. Tertullian, de Præfcriptione Hereticorum. A. D. 192 Mr. Badcock.

46

ELTOLEY.

II.

6." The most important claufe of this authority stands thus in the original; os συντιθεμαι, ουδ' αν πλείστοι ταύτα μοι δοξάσαντες Which ought to be rendered, "To whom I could "not yield my affent, no not even though the majority of Chriftians fhould think the fame," or perhaps ftill more accurately, though the majority who have hitherto "thought as I do, fhould affert it." Mr. Badcock.

7. Let the words of Tertullian be attended to, and you will find in them neither complaint, nor acknowledgement, of a general prevalence of the Unitarian doctrine among Christians of any rank. The father alleges, that what credit it obtained was only with the illiterate. To preclude the plea of numbers, he remarks that the illite

Cate