ote "There are two other
passages to which Unitarians sometimes refer, but the deduction they draw
from them is, in each case, refuted by the context"--I think I see why the
two texts are not named. Nevertheless, the author is a little more disposed
to yield to criticism than his foregoers; he does not insist on texts and
readings which the greatest editors have rejected. And he writes with
courtesy, both direct and oblique, towards his antagonists; which, on his
side of this subject, is like letting in fresh air. So that I suspect the
two books will together make a tolerably good introduction to the subject
for those who cannot go deep. Mr. Bickersteth's book is well arranged and
indexed, which is a point of superiority to Jones of Nayland. There is a
point which I should gravely recommend to writers on the orthodox side. The
Unitarians in {239} England have frequently contended that the method of
proving the divinity of Jesus Christ from the New Testament would equally
prove the divinity of Moses. I have not fallen in the way of any orthodox
answers specially directed at the repeated tracts written by Unitarians in
proof of their assertion. If there be any, they should be more known; if
there be none, some should be written. Which ever side may be right, the
treatment of this point would be indeed coming to close quarters. The
heterodox assertion was first supported, it is said, by John Bidle or
Biddle (1615-1662) of Magdalen College, Oxford, the earliest of the English
Unitarian writers, previously known by a translation of part of Virgil and
part of Juvenal.[548] But I cannot find that he wrote on it.[549] It is the
subject of "[Greek: haireseon anastasis], or a new way of deciding old
controversies. By Basanistes. Third edition, enlarged," London, 1815,
8vo.[550] It is the appendix to the amusing, "Six more letters to Granville
Sharp, Esq., ... By Gregory Blunt, Esq." London, 8vo., 1803.[551] This much
I can confidently say, that the study of these tracts would prevent
orthodox writers from some curious slips, which are slips obvious to all
sides of opinion. The lower defenders of orthodoxy frequently vex the
spirits of the higher ones.

Since writing the above I have procured Dr. Sadler's answer. I thought I
knew what the challenger meant when he said the respondent had not grappled
with his main {240} propositions. I should say that he is clung on to from
beginning to end. But perhaps Mr. B. has his own meaning of