rii^^^H^tfta^ mm^Mlm M * ..»■> I mm. 4^ (P ::jli ot ^.=^ o^ .i^:^. G^ ^^2^ > r l>HINCKTON, N. J. ijo ;>.■ -^ •!• t <> >■ «»!•- S A M U K L A a N K W , OK P II I I. * UK I. V H 1 A , PA. Q4^o. 1 I \ Case. . Divisior _, c S/l('f/\ Sectic^i- ^. .; No.. 0 eCS^s - '■^■x.^- "^ 0 'W^I^Mlfe^^'* ■V A VINDI CATION OJ THE DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE, AND OF THE PRIMITIVE FAITH ; CONCERNING THE DEITY OF CHRIST : IN REPLY TO DR PRIESTLEY'S HISTORt OF EARLY OPINIONS, &c. IN TWO VOLUiMES. BY JOHN JAMIESON, D.D. i\A.S. S, MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL, FORFAR. VOL. 11. ATHANAS. EDINBURGH: PRINTED BY NEILL AND COMPANY^ FOR C. DILLY, POULTRY, LONDON J AND SOLD BY J. OGLE, PARLIAMENT SQUARE, EDINBURGH. M.DCC.XCIV. €nttxtti in .SfafioneriJ i^aU, CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. BOOK Vc OF THE HISTORY OF THE PRETENDED UNITARIAN DOC^ TRINE AMONG JEWISH CHRISTIANS, PAG, Chap. I. Of the hoEirine of the Apojiohtal Fathers^ i Chap. II. Ofthofe ivhom Vr P. terms men of emi- nence among 'JewifJj Chrifiians, II Chap. III. The Hebrew Chrijiians not Ebionites, 41 Chap. IV. Of the Origin of the Name, -E^io-tfUTES, 47 Chap. V. Of the Na^areries and Ebionitesy - 60 Seel. I. Proving tbat they were not the fame people, ib. Se£t. 2. Reflexions Concerning the Nay.arenes. Of this being ufed as a peculiar name, - ~ 119 Se£l. 3. Of the points in which the Na%are7ies differed from the Ebionites, ~ - 1 39 Chap. VI. That there were Orthodox Jeivs at Jcrifa- lem, fubfequent to the Time of Adrian, 157 Se£l, I. Teflimonies of Origen, Sulpicius Severn s, &.c. ib. iv CONtENTS OF VOL II* PAG, Seft. 2. Of the Edi& of Adrian ; of the Return of the Chriflians from Fella ; and of Aquila's Re- ' fidcnce at JerufaleTn. ObjeBions to the exifi- ence of Orthodox Jews conjideredy - 182 Chap. VII. The Herefy of the. Ehionites real, and not fuppofed, - - - 210 Chap. VIII. Of the Gnojlicifm of Ancient and Modern Unitarians. - - - 231 BOOK VI. OF THE HISTORY OF THE PRETF.NDED UNITARIAN DOC- TRINE AMONG GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 255 Chap. I. Of Dr P,*s Prefumptive Evidence that U' nitarians were the Majority^ - 256 Se£l. I. Unitarians tiot in Communion with the Ca- tholic Church in early times. — They were excluded^ both by the Spirit, and by the Let- ter, of the Creed, - - - ib. Se6l. 2. The Gentile Unitarians had diJiinBive Names, — Of the ALOGI, _ - - - 275 Se6l. 3. Of the pretended Kef peB with which Unitarians were treated, - - - - -288 Se6t. 4. Of the Argumeiit from Teriullian, &:c. - 291 Se6t. 5. Of the Argument from their beifig no Treatifes written againjl them — Of that from the Cle- incntme B.omilies and Recognitions, - 312 Sea. CONTENTS OF VOL. II. V PAG, Chap. II. Of the BireB Evidence in favour of the Gentile Chrifiians having been generally Unitarians^ - - - 327 Seft. I. Of the '^efimonies of Firmilian, Nicephorus, 0- rig en f EufebiuSf Chryfojlom^ &c. - ibv Se£t. 2. Of the 1'ejlimony ofjufiin Martyr^ &c. on the Jame fuhjeBy - - - . - ^60 Chap. III. Examination of Dr P.'s Anfwers to Oh- je&ions, - - - - 385 Seft, I. Of the Tejiimony of Eufebius to the Novelty of the Unitarian DoBrine^ - - - 386 Se£t. 2. Of the Excommunication of Theodotus by Vic tor, ------ 398 Se6l. 3. A Review of the SeBion entitled, " Of the Part " taken by the Laity in the Excommunication " of the Early Unitarians, and other conji' " derations relating to the SubjeB,** - 411 Chap. IV. DireB Evidence that the primitive Chri' fiians were Trinitarians, - 443 Conclufon, - - - 472- ERRATA, VOL. II. N. B. (V) ^igm?its from the hottom of the page. Page 36, line 4, {h.') for Baroea read Beroea ——324, line 18, <7/lfi?/- eternally exited, rad was always pre- fent with the pious through all their particular genera- tions, although fecretly; with thofe, £cc. 339. line 4, {h) after fame infert time - 318, line a, for cafe read caufe 403, line 19, for Unitarian read unknown '— — 438, line 18, for pracflifcd read preached. REFERENCES. Page 13, note ', for avrav read uvtuv — — 24, note*, — 52c), 52i,&:c. 25, *. line 2, -yvyicriui , 5;,, *#*, /-frtiherefianhes « 89, line 8, (^) for ^ixTpiCyn read vocparpiQm " • 107, *, for avaynovvTti read ccvocyvovTH — — 143, — — *, line 4; for cny.aios re^ul Stuaioi •. 152, f, 1, before Hebionita; iufert haeredes ■■ 302, f, for inftrucftiones red inftruftiores 307, *» line I, for isavi '-ead nvai — — 310, t» 2, a-iQ/u-oiSx read atCoju.tBx ' 451, f, 2, fo-;^»icaTJC f(r;^>jxaTC ' 3, ^(fziBx • iiofjit^a =— —458,- *, ——3, depidari — — deputari^ VINDICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE, Eif^. BOOK V. OF THE HISTORY OF THE PRETENDED UNITARIAN DOC^ TRINE AMONG JEWISH CHRISTIANS. CHAP. I. Of the BoSirine of the ApofloUcal Fathers* '\l\ ANY paflages have been quoted from the writings ^ ^ of thofe Fathers called Apojlolical^ and urged as proofs that they believed the deity of our Saviour. But Dr P. fays -, " Their works are not come down to us as they wrote ** them, or rather, except the fingle epiftle of Clemens Ro- " manus, which contains no fuch dodlrines as thofe o^ the " divinity or pre-exiftence of Chrift, the works th it ire " afcribed to them are almoft entirely fpurious ; a.nd the " time of their compofition is not eaiily afcertaiiAe.d '." Hut Vol. II. A fpurwus * Vol. i. p, ^3. a '^he BoHrine of the Book V. fpurious as thefe Writings are, the Do£lor avails himfelf of their teftimony, whenever it can ferve him •, efpecially in attempting to prove that Gnoflics were the only heretics in early times. Indeed, after condemning the epiftles of Ignatius in the grofs, and aflerting that " they cannot be *' quoted with fafety for any purpofe *," he fays, " I am ** willing to allow, on re-confidering them, that, exclufive ** of manifeft interpolation there may be a groimdwork of *' antiquity in them f." Our author, perhaps, thought this recantation neceflary, as, on re-conjiderting his own plan, he forefaw that fome paflages in thefe writings might ferve as a groundwork for part of his fabric ; or be of fome ufe, at leaft, in the progrels of his labour. But there is a faving claufe wifely preferved in the very recantation. It is this ; — " exclufive of manifefl interpo- " lation." Pray, who is to judge when this interpolation is manifeft / Unitarians only. It would be grofs prefump- tion in any Trinitarian, to claim fuch a privilege. Ac- cordingly, when any palTage, undoubtedly aflerting or im- plying the divinity of our Saviour, is produced from thefe ancient writers, it is immediately condemned as a manifeft interpolations becaufe, as the Dodtor fays, " it is hardly ** pofTible to think that it could be ufed by any writer fo *' near to the time of the Apoflles :|:." It is firfl aflumed, for it has never been proved, that the Apoflles on no occafion taught the doftrine of the Deity of Chrift. Thence it is inferred, that the Apoftolicai Fathers could not teach this, as they " lived fo near to the time of the Apoflles.'* Al- though their writings, if they deferve to be mentioned at all, clearly fhew that they did teach this doctrine ; it is of no confequence whatfoever. For when they do fo, the pafTage is not to be accounted genuine ; becaufe it is far * Vol. i.p. io6. f Ibid. p. io8, I Ibid p. 97. Chap. I. Apojlolical Fathers. 3 far more fafe to reafon from fuppq/itions, than from fuBs, The buHnefs of a critic, in examining the work of an an- cient writer, is not to pay any regard to what is there, but to fliew what, according to his own fyftem, ou^^ht to have leefi there. But fome may be apt to fay, why fhould Dr P. quote thefe writings at all ? It were better honeftly to declare, that this, on either fide of the queftion, is vain la- bour •, as he is pre determined to reje6l every pafTage as fpurious, that oppofes his own hypothefis. But Unitarians have not only the privilege of judging what is to be accounted a majiifejl interpolation, but alfo that of interpolating a little themfelves ; at leaft, of doing fomething nearly allied to it. For the Dodor fpeaking of fome paflages in the epiftles of Ignatius, which have been fuppofed to refer to the Ebionites, fays, they " may eafily " be fuppofed to have been altered." Suppofition, indeed, is eafy eiTough. But where is the proof ? It is truly a lin- gular one ; — " becaufe when corrected by an Unitarian, " nothing is wanting to the evident purpofe of the wri- " ter *." This is, indeed, a very fliort procefs, which, could the learned be generally brought to adopt, it would greatly abridge their dlfputations, and free them of much perplexity. Allow me firflito judge, according to my own in- clinations, of the purpofe of the writer^ from whom I bring my evidence. Then^ when 1 find any thing that varies from this, give me leave to correB it, fo as to make it an- fwer my own purpofe : and I will foon prove what 1 wiih. The Dodtor, however, has not favoured the reader with thofe pailages in Ignatius, which would be fo much im- proved " when corrected by an Unitarian." While fuch privileges ai-e claimed, it is»almoft vain to quote any paflages fro.n ihefe writings. But Dr P. admits the genuinenefs of one epilHe of Clemens. There is a palfage in this, which has akeady been the fubjed of confi- ^ 2 der^blc * Vol. i. p. zSi, 4 "^hc Lo&rifie of the Book TT. derable difputation : " For Chrlft is theirs who are hum- " ble, and not who exalt themfelves over his flock. The " Sceptre of the majcfty of God, our Lord Jefus C hrill:, " ccrne not in the fhew of pride, and arrogance, though he '* c u d have done fo ; but with humility ; as the Holy " Ghoil had before fpoken concerning him •." This paf- fage has been urged by the learned Dr Horfley, in hi-, cor- refpondence with our author, as a proof that Clemens be- lieved the divinity of our Saviour. To the moft of rea- ders his reafoning will appear decilive. But to the evi- dence brought to prove that the coming, fpoken of by Cle- mens, refpeds the birth of Chrift, Dr P. replies, *' If we " coniider the prophecies which Clemens quotes, we lliall " find them to be not fuch as defcribe the circumflances of " the birth of Chrift, but only thofe of his public life and " death ; the principal of them being Ifa. liii. which he " quotes almoft at full length. This is certainly favourable " to the fuppofition, that when Chrift was in public life, *' he made no oftentatious difplay of the extraordinary " powers With, which he was inverted, and before he enter- " ed upon it, preferred a low condition to that of a great " prince f ." Here the Doctor evidently changes his groimd in the courfe of tv-^o fentences. In the firft, he underftands the prophecies quoted, efpecially Ifa. liii. only of oiu- Sa- viour's public life and death : in the fecond, of his prinxate life alfo, before he entered on that which was public. It would fcem that this paflage needs to be correBed, fully as much as fome of thofe in the epiftles of Ignatius. He further fays -, " The more ancient reading of Jerom " is evidently favourable to this interpretation of the paf- '* fage. He read 's^avra ^{jvafxsvog, havmg all power, which " naturally alludes to the great power of which he became ** poflefled after the defcent of the Spirit of God upon him ** at •* Sea. Avi. t Vol, i. p. p5. Chap. I. ApoftoUcal Fathers. 5 ** at his baptifm *." But the learned gentleman ferves him- felf of this ancient reading only in fo far. What accord- ing to this, is all power i in Dr P's application is confined to great power. And if Jefus was not poiTciTed of either till after " the defcent of the Spirit at his baptifm," how could he make any oftentatious difplay, " before he enter- " ed upon his public life ?" How could he be faid to *' prefer " a low condition," when he had no other in his choice \ when he had no power to embrace any other ? If either noLmt^ '^mati.ivQ<^ or moLvxa hvafjievo^f have any reference to power be- fore his public life, he did not receive all his extraordinary power by the defcent of the Spirit. But whatever be the particular meaning of the words of Clt-nens. it is denied that Jefus had it in his power to have come other wife, unit fs he was God. For if he was a mere creature, effentially fubjecl to tne divine will, he had no power to come in any way but that in which he adlually came. He could not have come *' in the condition of a "great prince;" for the event certainly (hews that this was not the will of God. Clemen^ would nev-er have faid that he could have do7ie fo, had he notbelieved that Jefub had a fovereign and divine clioice as to the rr^anner of his ro- ming. It is probably the firft time that the term coming has been thought to iignity the circumilances of one's dtath Our Lord himfelf always fpoke of this event undt^r the notion v.i going. Theretbre, altuough Clemens extends his quotyiion to tiiofe parts of llaiah liii. which refpe6l the death ol ChuP, his uling the term under conlideration ihews ''hat he elpecially referred to the beginning of the chapter, as refpedin- liis birth, and perhaps, his firft appearance m a public charac- ter. But there was no impropriety in extendin«j the quo- tation to thefe prediftions that refpeftcd the tenor ot his Jue, and the circumtlances of his death. For thefe predictions A 3 were * Vol. i. p. 95, 55. 6 l^he DoBrine of the Book V. were confirming evidences of what CleniPns had already proved direftly, that according to the teftimony of the Ho- ly Gbojl he was to come in no otiier way. They alfo great- ly enforced the exhortation to humility. P'or our Lord's continuance in a ftate of abafennent fhew.ed that he was in- deed lowlj in heart, and that he did not w^ifh to attrafl the vulgar by falfe appearances, that by their means he might exalt himfelf. Befides, feveral circumftances men- tioned in the prophecies quoted, clearly prove that he was voluntary in the whole of this humiliation. Dr P. may with as great propriety plead, that Clemen^ meant to extend the term coming to our Saviour's exaltation^ as to the whole of his public life and deaths becaule the prophe- cies quoted refer to the latter. For iome of them as certain- ly refer to the former. But although the Do6lorhad a{rerted,that thefe prophecies ** defcribe 07ily the circumftances of Chrifl'i life and death,'* on reconfdering them he feems to retrad.a little; but with evident relu6lance. " Admittmg that fome one circum- " ftance in the prophecies which Clemens quotes, rigorouf- ** ly interpreted, ihould allude to the hirth of Chrift (though '* I fee no reafoa to think fo) \ye are not authorifed to " think that Clemens attended to that in particular, but to ** the general fcope of the whole, which is evidently de- " fcriptive of his public life only *." This fome one civ' cumfiatice which our author has in his eye, is certainly Ifaiah liii. ver 3. I beg leave to alk. Is it a rigorous inter- pretation of thefe words, He fhall grow up before him as a tender plant y to undeiftand them ot the birth of our Sa- viour ? Or what other interpretation would the learned gentleman give of them ? Did our Lord gt-ow up in his public life} The word properly fignifies to fhoot forth y as it is rendered Gen. xl. jo. denoting the firft appearance of a fcion fpringing out of the earth. That this is its true meaning * VcLi.p. 96, Chap. I, Apojlolical Fathers, j meaning here, is evident from the words immediately fol- lowing ; — and as a root out of a dry ground*. The Do6lor indeed, feems much at a lofs what to make of thefe prophecies. He is determined to refufe that they can be viewed, at leaft according to the allufion that Clemens had to them, as referring to the birth of Chrift. Yet he is not certain how to difpofe of them. He does not adhere to any one method of interpretation. For he firft informs us, that they defcribe " only the circum- " ftances of Chrift's public life and death." But in the paflage laft quoted, he fays ; " The fcope of the whole— " is evidently defcriptive of his public life ojily." However this is far from being the cafe. The fifty-third chapter of Ifaiah defcribes the birth, life, death and exaltation of Je- fus. But it is not fo fully defcriptive, either of his coming, or of his public life^ as of his going, or, the circumftances of his death in a public character, as our Surety. Concerning that remarkable paflage, in the fecond fec- tion of the firft epiftle of Clemens, in which he fpeaks of the fufferings of God, Dr P. obferves, that " this is lan- " guage fo exceedingly fhocking and unfcriptural, that it is " hardly polfible to think that it could be ufed by any writer *' fo near to the time of the Apoftles f." This is evident- ly begging the queftion. It may be fhocking to Dr P. who does not believe that God purchafed the church with his own blood. But this will not prove that Clemens would have been fhocked at fuch language. He adds the opinion of Patricius Junius, that " inftead " of TraOniJuxra aura, i. e. 0£», we ought to read fxaSn/xaToc " auTuv." But the learned Grabe has long ago fhewn that this is mere conjedlure, not fupported by any manufcript ; and that it is an improbable conje£lure. For befides the change of aura, which Grabe takes no notice of, he has ob- A 3 ferved * See alfo Ifaiah Iv. 13. Hofeah x. 8. Am. vii. i. f Vol. i. p. 97. 8 '^he DoBrine of the Book V. ferved that " there are fcarcely two letters which diiFer " more, in the bell MSS. than n and M*." But befides thefe pafl'ages, there are feveral others in this epiftle, which clearly ihew that Clemens believed the deity of Chrift. '* Let us fearch," he fays, " into all the ages that " have gone before us ; and let us learn that our Lord has <' in every one of them ftill given place for repentance to *' all fuch as would turn to, him. Noah preached repen- " tance -, and as many as hearkened to him were faved. " Jonah denounced deftm^lion againft the Ninevites f ,'" 'iSc. But how could he imagine that our Lord could have give?i repentance in the ages of Noah and Jonah, unlefs he had believed not only his pre-exiftence, but his title to the character of the God of Salvation ? He declares the thir- ty fourth Pfalm to be the language of Chriii, faying, " He *' Himfelf befpeaks us by the Holy Ghoft : Come, ye chil- " dren, hearken unto me^'* &c %, He alfo ufes the fame dif- tin£lion with Paul ; aflerting that Jefus came of Abraham, according to the fief o §. But fuch a diftinftion muft be an ablurdity in the mouth of an Unitarian. He undoubtedly performs an ad of worfhip to Jefus, when he fays that God is *' good to all, efpecially to thofe who flee to his mercy " through our Lord Jefus Chrift •, to whom be glory and *' m.ajefty for ever and ever. Amen 1|." And again, fpeaking of pardon ; " Now this bleffing is fulfilled in thofe " who are chofen by God, through Jefus Chrift our Lord, ** to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen **." As Dr P. gives feveral quotations from the Epiftle of Polycarp to the Philippians, it can certainly be no more fpurious to us than to him. He fays indeed ; " The man- ** ner in which Polycarp infcribes his epiftle is that of an *' Unitarian ; * Mercy unto you and peace from God Al- * mighty, * Additions tg Bull's Def chap^iij^ fee. 3. ^ f Sedl. 7 % Sea. Z2. § Se- KpaTup, thus diftinguifhing him from our Lord. But our author will not thence infer that he was an Unitarian. The language of Polycarp can no more prove that he did not reckon the Son Almighty^ than that he did not believe the Father to be our Saviour. The very idea that Jefus could give mercy and peace, equally with the Father, neceifarily implies that Polycarp believed him to be equally God Al- mighty. He afcribes the work of eledion to Chrift, as well as to God, faying that '* bonds are the crowns of fuch as are " truly chofen by God and our Lord f." He declares that " the root of faith — brings forth fruit to our Lord Jefus ** Cliiift, who fuffered himfelf to be brought even to the " death for our fms t." Is not this making the glory of Chrift the e?id of religion ? He further afferts that " every " living creature fliall worftiip him ||." And as a proof of his ftncerity in this declaration, he again prays for bleffings from the Son, as well as from the Father. " Now the God " and Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift ; and he Himfelf " who is our everlafting High Prieft, the Son of God, Jefus *' Chrift:, build you up in faith and in truth, and in all meek- " nefe T Vol. i. p. 265. f Sedl. I. t Ib»itoj eI ayyE^nrs, hegotte?i of " hhn that was unbegotten %•" But he might alfo have told us that Athanafius, who lived about a century before Theodoret, read yswrirog nai ayyi]mroi;\\, which fome have tranflated, Made, and not made\. Dr P., fpeaking of the corre£lion of fome paffages in Ignatius, fays that then no- thing would be " wanting to the evident piu-pofe of the ** writer." But the correftion propofed from the reading of Theodoret has not fo much to recommend it •, for it op- pofes this. Here " the evident purpofe of the writer" is to exhibit Jefus in oppofite points of view. There are feveral parts of the fentence, about which there is no difpute, in which the contraft is obvioufiy pointed in the llrongeft manner ; " Flelhly and fpiritual \ — of Mary and of God ; " firft paflible and then impaflible.'* But if you adopt the reading of Theodoret, the contraft is entirely loft. 2 As • Secfl. iz. ' I Elf ticlpoi irjv.. vetpi(.tx.o( rt x«i ^rvfUjaariKOf, ytvvnTOf n.ai ayivvttToc, tvtrapxi ytvo/bctvo^ ©tof, iv a.Qxva.Tu Icjtj «\«0jv>7, xai ix. Mapm;, kui ik Qiv, TtfUTOv Ta6»T0f, VLat toti ocradtif Ad. Eph. f. J. \ Vol. i p. 109. II De Synod. ?p. Smithi Scholia in S. Ignat. Ep. ad Eph. Bull's De- fence, chap, ii fed. 6. § Wake's Tranflation. Chap. I. Apojlolical Fathers, ri As the Dodor was difpofed to correSiy he might have mentioned that inftead of ev aSavarw, Athanafius, Gelafius, and even Theodoret read cv davarw *. This correction has fomething in its favour, which the other has not. " No- ** thing is wanting to the evident purpofe of the writer.'* For the contraft is not loft. Indeed, this reading is abfo- lately necelTary to preferve it. When the Do£lor tranf- lates £v aSavaToj i, in im?nortal life eternal^'h^ mufl be feniible that this is not a proper tranflation ; for the words ought to be rendered. True life in immortaL But this is language without meaning : whereas the meaning is obvious, and the antithelis is ftri6lly preferved, if we read, True life in death. Dr P. adds -, " In other refpefts this paflage is neither ** clear nor decifive." But there is a reafon for this. He does not choofe to apply his critical talents for making it clear. For thus it would be decifve againft his own fy- ftem. C H A P. 11. Of Men of Eminence among yewifjj Chriflians, DR P., in his Hiftory of Corruptions, having aflerted that the ancient Jews expeded merely a human MelTiah, proceeds to fhew that their pofterity, who embra- ced the Chriftian faith, believed in no other. " That the " ancient Jewifh Church muft have held the opinion, that " Chrift was fimply a man, may be concluded from its " being the clear do£trine of the Scriptures, and from the " Apoftles having taught no other ; but there is fufficient " evidence of the fame thing from ecclefiaftical hiftory." The « Vid. Bull, obi fup. I:a Men of Eminence Book V. The firft authority that he quotes is Hegefippus. The Doftor's mode of probation is indeed very fingular. He proves that the ancient Jewilh Church was, in his fenfe, Unitarian, becaule Hegefippus, whom he calls a Jeivijh ChriJliaTi, was fo. Then he proves that Hegefippus was an Unitarian, becaufe he agreed with thofe " who held the <* fame dodlrine that was taught in the law, by the prophets, ** and by our Lord. What could this be," fays our author with an air of triumph, " but the proper Unitarian do6b-ine, " held by the Jews, and which he himfelf had been taught *? His defign in calling Hegefippus a Jewi/h ChriJUan^ is to prove that he was an Ebionite or Nazarene. But it will afterwards appear that the proof is extremely deficient. " It is particularly remarkable," he fays, " that Hegefip- " pus, in giving an account of the herefies in his time, ** though he mentions the Carpocratians, Valentinians, 'and ** others who were generally termed Gnoftics (and who *' held that Chrift had a pre-exiltence, and was man only *' in appearance) not only mak.es no mention of this fup. ** pofed herefy of the Nazarenes or Ebionites, but fays that, ** in his travels to Rome, where he fpent fome time with A- •* nicetus, and vifited the bifhops of other fees, he found that ** they all held the fame dodtrine, that was taught in the *' law," ^^ f. This objedlion had been made by feveral Socinian wri- . ters in former times, and as often anfwered. But our au- , thor, according to the cuftom of this fociety, produces it again, without the leaft attention to the different anfwers formerly given ; as if the world were indebted to him for the important difcovery. Its weaknefs appears from va- rious confiderations. Hegefippus, according to Eufebius, " gives an account of " the beginnings of thofe herefies which fprung up in his ** OW|l * Hifl. Cor. vt)l, i, p. -78. f Ibid, p. 8. Chap. II. among yewijh Chrijlians. 13 *' own tine*." But that there were fome of the Jewifli nation who called themfelves Chriftians, and yet main- tained that Jefiis was a mere man, long before the time of Hegtfippus, is allowed on all hands. Particularly, Cerin- thus was by birth a Jew. Now, if it was the profefled de- sign of Hegelippus to relate the rife of thefe herefies which made their appearance in his own time, it would have been improper to have included thofe that appeared in an earlier age. Although Hegefippus profeffed to mention the fe£ls which fprung from the Synagogue, the Do£lor himfelf mull acknowledge that his lift is not complete. For he takes no notice of the Nicolnitans, who are fo particularly reproved by our Lord himfelf. Should it be faid, that they preceded the age o' Hegelippus j the fame reafon mult certainly fuf- fice for his negled: of the Ebionites. It muil be evident to every attentive reader, that this paffage of Hegelippus is by no means accurate. For when mentioning the feven more recent feds among the J- ws, he reckons the Maft)Otheans as of their number : and when '■ e afterwards gives an account of the more an- cient feiis, th y are alfo introduced. Befides, in this fecond cataioi;ue the Samaritans ire mentioned ; though it is well ki.own that they were not properly of the ftock of Ifrael, that f.ey were anathematized by the Jews, and that the latter Lad no dealings with the?n, Inftead of concluding that Hegefippus, becaufe he does not mention the Ebionites as heretics, was himfelf one o£ them \ . nd thence, that this name was common to all the Jewifti Chriftians •, it would be far more natural to con- clude, t.x..t they were at this time a fed that made little appearan< e, O 7ith Dr Horfley, has acknowledged that, inftead of what is here aflerted, he fliould have faid that "Valefius was of opinion that this hiftory was negle(fled and loft •' on account of the errors which *« it contained, and that thofe errors could not be fuppofed to be any " other than thofe of the Unitarians :" adding, *' If I had confulted the ** paflage at that time, I certainly ihould have expreffed myfelf in that " more cautious manner *.^' But it muft be evident that the learned writer is far more fparing in retradling, than in afferting. In the former work, this hiftory is faid to have been *• negledted and loft by the an- " cients, becaufe it was obferved to favour the Unitarian docflrine." In this, that it was " on account of the errors which it contained." In the fi)rmer, the whole burden is laid on Valefius. But here the Dodlor takes it on his own fiioulders, afliiring us that no other errors could be fup- pofed than thofe of Unitarians. It is ftill taken for granted that the Fa- thers did obferve errors in this hiflory, and that they negiedled it on this account ; although all this refts folely on the mere conje(flure of a wri- ter in the laft century. It is alfo aflumed that tliefe could be no other than the Unitarian dodrines. In the Hiftory of Early Opinions, when this af- fertion appears for tlie third time, it is reduced a little further. The works of Hegefippus were " neglecled and loft, on account of the errors " they -were jitppofed to contain :" and " thofe could h.irdly be^ftny other " than the Unitarian dodlrine f ." It is to be hoped that if this Hiftory be revifed by Dr P., the next ftep will be to throw out the paflage entirely. But indeed, reafoning on mere conje(flure may deferve a place in a Hi- ftory which in general can boaft of no better a foundation. fSccoTid LettfrSy p. 194. f Vol. iii. p. 22p, 23©, B3 22 Men of Eminence Book V. The Doaor adds, that the hillory of Hegefippus " might ** be lefs eftcemed on account of the very plain unadorned ** ftyle in which all the ancients fayit is written." It is difficult to believe that Dr P. could be convinced of the juitneis of this iaference when he deduced it. For he mud haTe ohferved that in thefe very paffages of the ancients, in which the ftyle of Hegefippus is mentioned as being plain iud unadorned^ they commend it on this very account. For this reafon Eulebius feems to ufe the expreffion, a^rAa- \y\ Trapoc^oo-iv^ '* 2ifincere hiflory," if we may apply the Eng- liln >vord in this fenfe : and he connects it with aTry^ararn (TuvTJC^ei y^apyii, '' the moft limple ftyle of writing." But flid this detrad: from his celebrity? On the contraiy, Eu- febius fpeaks of him in the higheft termb', syvco^i^sro *. In- deed, the natural idea fuggefted by the connexion is, th^t he had been encouraged, from this internal evidence of fi- delity, to reft on the teftimony of Hegefippus in the many things which, he lays, he had extrt^dled from him. Jerome alfo teftifies that he had " comprifed his five books in as " fimple a ftyle, as if he had ftudied to exprefs, in the " 77icmner of his writing, the charadler of thofe whofe con- " du6t he imitated f." Gobarus is alfo quoted by Photius, as declaring that Hegefippus was ** an ancient apoftolical " man J." Dr P., in his Hiftory of Early Opinions, goes over the fame ground, with refped: to Hegefippus, only his courfe is fomewhat more circuitous. In reply to the obje6lion, that Hegefippus had omitted the Gerinthians, he fays that he can fee nothing extraordi- nary in '* this, as they were only one branch of the Gno- ** ftics, feveral of whom are in his lift ; and it is not impro- *' bablc that thefe Cerinthians, having been one of the " earlieil * Hlft, lib iv c 8. f Catalog. Scriptor. Ecclef. in Hegefip. i Ap. Bull, ubi Tup. Chap. II. among Jewl/h Chrijliaiis, 23 *• earlieft branches, might have been very inconliderable, •* perhaps extlndl in his time. I do nat know," he fays, " that they are n[ientioned by any ancient writer as exifl- ** ing fo late as the tinie of Hegefippus *." It is juft as extraordinary that the Cerinthians fhould be omitted, as that there fhould be no mention of the Ebionites. Irenseiis was cotemporary with Hegefippus ; and while he reckons the Ebionites heretics, he gives a lefs particular account of them, than of the Cerinthians. According to our author's plan, we may therefore fuppofe that the former were then lefs confiderahle than the latter. His conje6lure, that Hegefippus would be no wife alarm- ed at the doclrine of the deity of Chrifl:, is certainly a moll unnatural one. ** That Hegefippus, though an Unitarian *■* himfelf, fhould fpeak as he does of the flate of opinions " in the feveral churches which he vifited, as then retaining *' the true faith, is, I think, very natural. The only herefy " that difturbed the Apoftle John, was that of the Gnoflics; " and all the eleven kinds of herefies enumerated by this ** writer, are probably only different branches of that one *^ great herefy. If, therefore, the churches which he vifit- *' ed were free from QnolHcifm, he would naturally fay *-^ that they retained the true faith. For as to the doctrine " of the perfonification of the Logos, held then by Juflin " Martyr, and perhaps, a few others, it was not, in its ori- " gin, fo very alarming a thing ; and very probably this *' plain man had not at all confidered its nature and ten- " dency, if he had heard of it f ." The do6liine of the Lo- gos, as held by Juflin, muft have been fully as alarming to an Unitarian as any tenet of the Gnoflics. For, according to his views, it muft have totally changed theperfon of the Saviour, giving him a divine inflead of a human perfon. It muft have changed the whole frame of the Mofaic dif- penfation ; ^ Vol. ili, p. 224. I Ibid. p. 226. 3-4 Men of Eminence Book V. penfation ; for Juftin afcribed it to the Logos. It mull have changed the very nature of worfhip, and in the opi- nion of an Unitarian, have introduced the adoration of more Gods than one. For Juftin exhibits the Logos as the object of woriliip. It muft have given a reprefentation of the Divine Being entirely new, as fubfifting in three perfons, inftead of one. For Juftin maintained the deity and diftincl perfonality of the Holy Ghoft. What fort of Chriftian, then, mufl Hegefippus have been, who found fome who changed the perfon of the Saviour, the whole frame of the Mofaic oeconomy, the nature, and the very objedl of wor- fhip ; and yet gave an exprefs teftimony in their favour, as retaining the true faith ? How could he, as an honefl man, fay, that they *' all held the fame doctrine which was pro- *' claimed by the law, by the prophets, and by our Lor4 *' himfelf .^" In this cafe muft not truth and error, divinity and humanity, have been the fame in his account ? Hege- fippus was a plain writer. But would our author thence infer that he was a fool, a man fo very plain that he could not perceive the dreadful wickednefs of polytheifm and idolatry ? If this was the cafe, why is the Do£lor fo anxious to have the honour of his teftimony ? He fuggefts a doubt as to Hegefippus having fo much as heard of this dodrine. But it drops in very aukwardly at the end of a fcntence, as if afliamed to make its appearance : — *' if he had heard of it." Even fuppofing this do6lrine to have been introduced by Juftin, and that all Chriftians had formerly been Unitarians \ it is totally incredible that they fhould not have been exceedingly and univerfally alarmed at the very mention of what, if they were fuch Unitarians as Dr P., muft have appeared to them the doc- trine of a plurality of Gods. But there is no fymptom of alarm. The Do6lor himfelf, as we have formerly feen, acknowledges that this hfomething extraordinary *. In his Chronology »^ * See above, vol. i. p. 5^9. Chap. II. among Jeunjh Chnjliam, jc Chronology, he does not make Hegefippus iojlourijh, till jfeven years after the death of Juftin. Was the Martyr's doclrine all this time dead and buried with him ? So extremely ill-founded is the Doctor's conjedture, that Eufebius, in one place where he mentions Hegefippus, clearly intimates that he could be no ftranger to the doctrine of Juftin Martyr, whatever it had been. '' But Pius," he fays, " dying in the fifteenth year of his epifcopate at Rome, *• Anicetus fucceeded him in this office. Hegefippus re- *' lates that in his time he came to Rome, and abode till the " epifcopate of Eleutherus. At that time, above all others " flouriflied Juftin, under the habitof a philofopher preach* " ing the word of God, and contending earneftly for the " faith in his writings.— For at that tim&hc dwelt at Rome*." Some have underftood the laft expreflion f as iignifying that he held difpntations there. This is aflerted by Jerom J, and alfo by Photius ||. Eufebius elfewhere informs us that he publicly difputed with Crefcens, a Cynic Phi- lofopher, who accufed him to the Emperor §. But at any rate, he was a perfon efpecially diftinguifhed at Rome. It would feem from the account given by Eufebius, that He- gefipus refided there, before the martyrdom of Juftin. Thus, it is probable that they were both at Rome at the fame time. However this fliould be, it is abfolutely inconcei- vable that Hegefippus could be a ftranger to the do6trine of a perfon fo famous. Before this period, the do£trIne of Juftin muft have been well known through Afia Minor. For it was at Ephefus, the metropolis, that he had his difpute with Trypho **. The Do£tor undoubtedly fuppofes that the church of Ephc- lus, which had been fo lately under the care of the Apoftle John, * Hift. 1. iv. c. II. f Em T>?f P?J rac SturpiCai txeuiTC. i Catalogus in Juftin. I| Bibliotheca in Proleg. ad Op. Juftin. § Hift. 1. iv. c. \6. ** Euf. Hia. I. iv. c. 18. 26 Men ofE?ninence Book V. John, ftill retained its Unitariaii orthodoxy. As Juftin fo fully and freely declared his fentiments to Trypho and the Jews who were with himj they could be no fecret at Epher fus. Indeed, there is not the leall reafon to think that he would expofe them to Jews, and conceal them from his Chriftian brethren there. If the Do«9:or's hypothecs be juft, they muft, therefore, immediately have proclaimed him a heretic, and renounced all connexion with him, as one who betrayed the caufe of Chrillianity to its bittereft enemies, by fetting up new Gods. Juftin, inflead of being afterwards well received at Rome, another Utiitarian church, would have been univerfally fhunned as aperverter of the faith, nay, as a grofs idolater. Inftead of being ho- noured as a Martyr, his name would have been branded with indelible infamy. But Dr P. has fome more conjedrures in referve for us. '■^ Hegefippus," he fays, " as an Unitarian, believed that all ** the extraordinary power exerted by Chrift was that of " the Father, reading in him, and fpeaking and ading by *^ him, and he might imagine that thefe philofophizing ** Chriflians, men of great name, and a credit 'to the caufe, *' held in faft the fame thing, when they faid that this logos *^ of theirs was not the logos of the Gnoftics, but that of "John the Evangelift, or the wifdom and power of God *? himfelf. And though this might appear to him as a *' thing that he could not well underlland, he might " not think that there was any herefy or much harm in it. *.* Had he been told (but this he could only have had from ** infpiration) that this fpecious perfonification of the di- " vine Logos, would, about two centuries afterwards, end '* in the do6lrine of the perfed equality of the Son with the *' Father, this plain good man might have been a little " ftartled." All this is fo extremely fhallow, that nothing but the 2 abfolute Chap. II. among yewiJJj Chrijlians, 27 abfolute indefenliblenefs of the caufe could have forced it from the pen of our learned author. If what he afllrts be true, that " it does not appear that any Jew, of ancient or " modern times, ever deduced" the dodrine of the Trinity from the Old Teftament \ if " the Jews always interpreted " their fcriptures as teaching that God is limply one, with- " out diftindion of perfons ; and that the fame being, that ** is perfon, that made the world, did alfo fpeak to the pa- " triarchs and prophets, v/ithout the intervention of any " other beings belides angels * ; if it would have made a " prodigicus change in the ideas which the Apoftles enter- ** tained concerning Chriil" to pafs *' from that of a ?nan ^' like themf elves — to that of the mojl high God, or one who " was in any fenfe their maker or preferver f ;" can it be once imagined that this fiippofed new dodirine would caufe no alarm whatfoever to Hegefippus, a y^zt;?/^ Chriltian ? Mult he not have known that Jullin and his brethren main-^ tained that this Logos fubfifted from eternity ; that the Fa- ther by him made the worlds ; that it was he who fpoke to the patriarchs, and declared himfelf to be the I am, the God of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob \ that, as a perfon, he Vi^.'ii numerically ^\%.ndi from the Father if •, that he was not an attribute, but begottten ; that he was true God, and equally entitled to religious worfhip with the Father ; that he united the divine and human natures in himfelf? Could Hegefippus, notwithftanding, fuppofe that there was not " any herefy, or much h»rm in it ?" Would he be totally indifferent to what the D06I0 is plea.'ed to c;ill " the rife ** of Ghriltian idolatry §?" Aflertions of this kind are fo grofs an infult to the human underft mding, as fcarcely to deferve an anfwer. If Hegefippus was capable of enter- taining fuch ideas, he did not believe the unity of God ia the * Vol. i. p. 7. f Hift. Cor. vol. i, p. a. \ Juflin. Dial. p. 28^, 5 VoU iii, p. 2. 28 Men of Eminence Book V. the Soclnian fenfe. This certainly is the truth. He faw neither herefy nor harm in the do£lrine of Juftin ; becaufe, as we have proved, it was his own. Dr p. further fays ; ** That Eufebius and others fhould *' fpeak of Hegefippus with refpe^t, (from which it hath *< been argued that he could not poflibly have been an ** Ebionite) appears to me nothing extraordinary, though ** it fhould have been known to them that he was one, con- " lidering that they quote him only as an hiftorian ; and " fuppofing what is very probable, that he did not treat of ** dodrinal matters, but confined himfelf to the afts of the ** Apoflles, 'i^c. — efpecially as he was the only hiftorian of ** that age, and had always been held in efteem *." Al- though it were true that they quoted him only as an hifto- rian, had he been as blind and infatuated as Dr P. f^ppofes, he would have been unworthy of refpe£l in this character. How could he, who perceived no harm in avowedly fetting up another as the God of his fathers, one whom, he muft have believed, they knew not, be qualified to write the hi- ftory of the church, to diftinguifli truth from error, or know one herefy from another ? Had Eufebius known him to be an Ebionite, and yet to write as he did, he never would have reckoned him worthy to be quoted. But Eufebius does not quote him as an hiftorian only. For, as we have feen, according tp the teftimony of that writer, Hegefippus *' had left the moft accurate and full de- " claration of his judgment concerning the faith." There- fore, he calls his work, in connexion with fome others, " the written orthodoxy of the apoftolical tradition of the •* found faith." Can any atteftation be ftronger ? " Can it be fuppofed," the Doctor adds, " that Eufebius, f* in exprefsly quoting ancient authorities againft thofe who °* held the o]:)inion of the limple humanity of Chrift, would "not •* Ibi'd. p. 257. Chap. II. among JewijJj Chrifiians, irt " not have cited Hegefippus, as weJl as Irenseus, Juftin ** Martyr, and others, if he could have found any thing in " him for his purpofe ? This may be coniidered as a proof " that there was nothing in his work unfavourable to the " doclrine of the Ebionites. A negative argument can " hardly be ftronger than this. Had there been any pre- " tence for quoting Hegefippus as a maintainer of the divi- " nity of Chrift, he would certainly have been mentioned " in preference to Judin Martyr, or any others in the lift ; *• not only becaufe he was an earlier writer, but chiefly be- •' caufe he was one of the Jewifh Chriftians, who are well '* known not to h?.ve favoured that opinion *." Although it had been the cafe that Eufebius could not find any thmg in Hegefippus exprefsly againft the* Ebionites, yet this could prove nothing as to the queftion in debate, for the latter was not a polemical writer. He did not enter the lifts againft the heretics in his time like the reft mentioned by Eufebius-, but only in general declared the true faith, according to the apprehenfion of Eufebius. For this plain good man was not one of thofe hiftorians who deal more in arguments, than in fafts. It may with equal propriety be aiked, why Eufebiu:s does not cite him againft the Cerinthians, Nicolaitans, and others ? Nay, with far more reafon, why he is not quoted againft the Simonians, but Juftin and Irenaeus only ? Does not Eufebius exprefsly mention thefe heretics as in the lift given by Hegefippus ? Is it not, therefore, as natural to fuppofe that fome thing particular might be found in his works againft them ? Yet Eufebius, though he fpends a pretty long chapter againft thefe heretics, never once al- ludes to Hegefippus. Why does he not quote this hiftorian againft the Marcionites, a fe6l particularly mentioned by Hegefippus? But Irenseus is preferred |. Why is there not * Ibid, p, 217, 17S, f Zv^^. Hift. l.iv. c. rr. 3-0 Men of Eminence Book V, not a reference to him, in the accounts given by Eufebius of the Menandrians, Garpocratians, Valentiniiuis, Balili- dians, and Saturnilians, though all thefe are enumerated by Hegefippus as heretics * ? When the Dodtor has an- fwered thefe queflions, he may propofe the other with a better grace. When our author fays, -that Hegefippus ought to have been mentioned in preference to Juftin, — becaufe he was an earlier writer ; he quarrels with himfelf. For in his Chronology, he fays that Juitin died A. 163, and that }i^Q' geiippns Jiouri/hed A. 170. Arguments, meant to carry conviction to the mind, demand a little more attention. When he gives it as another reafon of the fame thing, that Hegefippus *' was one of the Jewiih Chriftians, who are *' well k?iown not to have favoured" the do6lrine of our Sa- viour's divinity , he begs what he has ftill to prove. And unlefs more fubilantial evidence be produced, it will never be proved to the fatisfactioa of any unbiafled mind. The Dodor may plume himfelf as much as he pleafes, on the ftrength of his negative proof. It can be of no avail in oppofition to what is pofuive. And we have al- ready demonflrated that Hegefippus, in the eflimation of the Catholic church f, held the orthodox faith. But Dr P. is not done with this article, '' The manner," he fays, " in which Hegefippus quotes the gofpel of the " Hebrews, was fuch as led Eufebius to think that he was " an Hebrew Chriftian. * He quotes fome things from * the gofpel according to the Hebrews, and the Syriac, and * efpecially in the Hebrew tongue, ihewing that he was ** one * Ibid. 1. iv. c. 7. I It needs fcarcely be mentioned, that when tliis phrafe, the Catholic church, is occafioually introduced, it is not ufed in the ienfe in which it is arroga'itly appiepriated by the church of Rome, but in that common with earlv writi-rs, as denoting the ^reat body of Chriftians profeflionally adhe- xinr to the dodrine of our Lord and his Apoflles, in contradillirnflion fiom the variou"; claflcs of heretics. v Chap. II, among Jewi/h Chrijtlans, of " one of the Hebrew Chrifllans *.' We may, therefore, " conclude, that he quoted it with refped \ and this was ** not done except by thofe who were Ebionites, or who " favoured their opinions. As Hegefippus wrote in Greek, " he mufl: have been acquainted with the Greek gofpel, "and therefore mufl: have quoted that of the Hebrews " from choice, and not from neceffity f ." The reafoning here is very fingular. Hegefippus quotes fome things from the Hebrew gofpel ; therefore, he quoted it with re- fpeCl, Therefore, he was an Ebionlte. But we deny the firft confequence ; and therefore, the fecond. His quoting it is no proof as to the defign or manner of the quotation. As little is it any evidence of his being an Ebionite. For by a parity of reafon, it might be urged that Ignatius was not only an Hebrew Chrillian, but an Ebionite ; as he gives a paflage from that gofpel in his epiflle to the church of Smyrna %. Had we as little of the writings of Clemens Alexandrinus as of Hegefippus, the fame conclufion might be formed ; for he exprefsly cites this gofpel ^. Accord- ing to this rule, had we known nothing more of Jerom, than that he tranflated this gofpel, with far more pro- bability might it have been inferred that he was an Ebionite. For furely, the tranflation of a work is a much greater evidence of refpeSi^ than the mere quotation of it." But might not Hegefippus quote this gofpel in regard to fome circumftances not mentioned in the other gofpel?, as Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus and others have done \ without giving it any preference, or even placing it on a level with them? Thus Origen quotes it; '* not for an- " thority," xt))xi. Hid. 1. iv. C. 22. p. 184. f Vol. iii. p. 228. as correfted vol. Iv. p. l^S. i VId. Grabe Spicileg. vol. i. p. z^. 5 Stroniar, lib. ii. p. 278. 32 Men of Eminence Book V, " thority," as he fays, " but only for the manifeflation of " his prefent purpofe *." If all the Hebrew Chriftlans of that age had been Ebion- ites, and if Hegefippus alfo in his work had difcovered his attachment to their do£trine, either as to the perfon of Chrift or the ceremonial law, Eufebius would have had no occalion to mention fo dubious a circumflance, as that of Hegefippus quoting the gofpel to the Hebrews, as a proof of his being one of them. If, as Dr P. infinuates, the prejudice of Eufebius *' a- *' gainft the Unitarians of his own time" was fo ftrong, that he did not incline to difcover the peculiar perfuafion of Hegefippus f, it muft follow that Eufebius had not the re- moteft idea, that his fpeaking of this writer as *' a Jewifli " Chriftian,'* neceflarily implied that he was an Ebionite, Otherwife, our author muft fuppofe that Eufebius was fo filly, as not to be able to keep his own fecret, even when he wiHied to do it. Is it faid that Eufebius could not propofe to conceal the profefHon of Hegefippus, becaufe it mufl have been as well known as his name or writings ; but from his prejudice againfl the Ebionites, did not incline ex- prefsly to mention his connexion with them ? But how did Eufebius dare to defcribe him as an orthodox writer ; when every one who knew the charader of Hegefippus muft have had it in his power to charge Eufebius with a wilful falfe- hood ; when he muft thus have expofed his own character to eternal difgrace ? The words of Eufebius do not imply that, in his appre- henfion, there was any thing peculiar in the Chriftianity of Hegefippus. They feem only meant to exprefs his opi- nion that the ancient hiftorian, by quoting the Hebrew gofpel, ** fhewed that he was a believer of Hebrew ex- *' traft." If any one fliould conclude, from the language of Eufebius, that Hegefippus alfo quoted from the Syriac ver- S fior * Tiacl. 8, in Matth. f Hift. of Cor. vol. i". p. S. Chap. II. among yetvifh Chriilians, 33 fibn of the New Tefta.nent ;• and thence, that he did not, like the Ebionites, confine hiaifelf to the Hebrew gofpel ; it might be difficult for Dr P. to prove the contrary. It is the opinion of the learned, that, before the clofe of the firft century, or at leaft, during the fecond, there was a verfion of the New Teftament in the Syriac language *. This indeed has been afcribed to the Apoftle Thaddeus. But it may afterwards appear, that there is more direc'H: c- vidence that Hegelippus acknowledged thofe books as ca- nonical, which w^ere rejected by the Ebionites. The Dodlor's laft proof of the Unitarianifm of this hi- ftorian is thus exprefled : *' The manner in which Hege- " fippus fpeaks of James the Juil, is much more that of an *' Unitarian, than of a Trinitarian. * James the Jufl:,' fays *' Eufebius, * is reprefented by Hegeiippus as faying, Why * do you alk me concerning Jefus the Son of Man f ?' This *' looks as if both James and the hiflorian were Uiuta- ^* rians X-' J^Lit this proves nothing as to the faith of He- geiippus himfelf. For whatever were the words of James, iUwas his duty, as an hiflorian to relate rhem faithfully. Were any Trinitarian to write the hiflory of Dr P. would it be necelfary for him, in order to avoid the imputation of Herefy, when relating the Doctor's words, to give him the language of Orthodoxy / Some may be 1.: fevere as to inlinuate that our author's own method of writing hiltory is fomewhat fimilar to this. But it has not yet become general. Nor has it the fanction of antiquity. >f, there- fore, there be any Unitarianifm here, the whole charge mufl refl on James. The ufe of this appellation, Soti of Man, can no more prove that James was an Unitarian, than that our Lord Vol. 11. C himfelf * INIichaelis Lectures, fecfl. 4S. 49. Spanheim. Hiftor. Chiiftian. Saec. 2 p. 630. + Hid. 1. ii. c. 23. p. 79. f Vol. iii. p. 229. 34 Men of Eminmce Book V. himfelf maintained this do6lrine. For there is no evidence that the Apoflle denied him a fuperior charafter. Confi- dering his purpofe, it was the molt proper exprelTion that he could ufe. The quelHon immediately propofed to him was ; " What is the door of Jefus who was crucified ?" But the defign of the queftion appears from the preceding part of the quotation. Thence we learn, that " becaufe ** many of the rulers believed, there was a tumult of the " Jews, and Scribes and Pharifees, who cried out that the " whole people were in danger of reckoning that ^efus was ^' the ChriJ} ; that therefore, aflembling together, they faid " to James, Reilrain the people, we intreat thee, as they are '* deceived concerning Jefus, accounting him the Mejjtah,** Now, could there be any language more proper than that which he ufes ? Could there be any proof of Jefus being indeed the Meffiah, more convincing than that which he gives ? *' Why do ye aik me concerning Jefus the Son of " Man ? Even he fits in heaven at the right hand of the *' great Power, and fhall come in the clouds of heaven." He calls Jefus the Son of Man, becaufe. he had himfelf ge- nerally ufed this phrafe to denote his incarnation*, and be- caufe he was foretold, under this name, as the Mefliah, Dan. vii. 13. They afked James concerning Jefus as Mef- fuih ', and he gives them a dired anfwer. To his cruci- fixion, mentioned by them, he oppofes his exaltation, as a proof that thofe who accotinted him the MeJJiah were not deceived. A mere declaration of his deity would not have been in point. But it is materially exprefTed in thefe words, *' He fits at the right hand of the great Power, and ^* fhall come in the clouds." We have formerly Ihown in what ftnfe the Jtws underflood this language '. When Dur Lord exprefTed himfelf in this manner, before the cpunfel, they cried «mt, Blafphemy I Indeed, the language here afcribed to James, is nearly the fame as that oi our Lor^. !|Bock iii. chap. ii. Chap. II. among ^ewifi Chrijiiatis. 35 Lord. Hereafter Jhall ye fee the Son of Manjitti?ig on the right ha?id of poiver^ and coming in the clouds of heavetiy Mat. xxvi. 64. The Jews then reckoned that Jefus was guilty of blafphemy againft God. But when the fame ex- preflions and fentiments are ufed by one of his difciples, they are urged by a Chriftian teacher, as a proof that the fpeaker confidered him as a mere man. The argument derived from the note of Valefius has been already conlidered, as far as it regards Hegelippus. But as Valefius extends his reflection to thofe works of Cle- mens Alexandrinus which are loll, our author, who, like a drowning man, grafps at every twig, endeavours to profit by this circumfl:ance. " Though Clemens," he fays " was "not an Unitarian, yet he never calls Unitarians heretics j " and fince in his account of heretics in general, which are " pretty frequent, he evidently means the Gnoftics only ; " and therefore virtually excludes Unitarians from that de- ** fcription of men ; it is by no means improbable but that " in thofe writings of his which are loft, he might have " faid things diredtly in favour of the Unitarians *." Cle- mens takes as little notice of the Cerinthians ; though they are mentioned by Tei'tullian a writer of the fame age. Is it not enough that Clemens, even in the judgment of our autlior, was not an Unitarian ? Muft his fincerity be doubt- ed, merely becaufe he does not particularly mention thofe as heretics, whofe principles were contrary to his ? His fin- cerity ? I fay •, for no man can truly believe the Deity of Chrift, and not reckon thofe heretics who deny it. Is it not enough, that Clemens maintained a doctrine as oppofite to theirs as light to darknefs ? That the Jews were driven out of Jcrufalem before Cle- mens wrote, is undeniable. Now, Dr P. fays ; " Wliat " became of thofe that were driven out of the city by A- *• drian, docs not appear. — Their numbers, we may fup- C 2 *' pofe, * Vol ill. p. 23c, 36 Men of Eminence Book V . " pofc, were gradually reduced, till at length they became " extinft *." When our author makes fuch a conceflion, he cannot blame us, if we reckon it probable that, in the time of Clemens, they made very little figure. But mere* ly becaufe he does not call them heretics, it is a very iVange inference, that probably he " faid things directly " in their favour," in thofe of his writings which are loft. The amount of this reafoning is ; " It is known that his " principles were the very reverfe. But as he fays no- *' thing direBly againjl them, m one work j it is probable " that he faid fomething direftly ifi their favour in ano- " ther." But after all, the Do.51:or's aifertion is contrary to fa£i/ In the fuUeft lift of heretics given by Clemens we find one clafs mentioned, v/hich does ,not feem to have been gene- rally attended to. After fpecifying thofe who are denomi- nated from the name of their leader, as the Valentiniane, Marcionites and Bafiiidians •, '' others," fays he, " receive " their name from a place, as the Peratici f ." Who tliefe are, we ftiall find by tracing the Judaizing Chriftians after their baniftiment from Jerufalem. Our author fays, that " it is moft probable that they joined their brethren at " Pella, or Bercca in Syria, frpm whence they had come to ** refide at Jerufalem t." Here Dr P. feems to confomid the city with the country in which it lay ; or rather, Pe- raea, a country beyond Jordan, ftriftly comprehending the poflefTions of the tribes of Reuben and Gad, with Barcea, a city of Syria between Antioch and Hierapolis. The re- gions referred to has ftill been called Pcraea by the mo- derns §, and in this tliey are fupported by the authority of the * Vol. iii. p. 232. ■\ At ^i oc-Ko TOTTf, u- at rUe^aliKoi, Stromat. Ub. 7. p. 549. t Vol. iii. p. 23a. § Whitby in Matth. xxiv. 18 Univerf, Hid. vol. i. p. 311. odl, Chap. II. among ^ewi/h Chrzjiiafis, 37 the ancients. Dr P. himfelf acknowledges that Epipha- nius mentions Peraea as the refidence of the Nazarenes *• This region is called Peraea by Jofephus, who fays that Pella is its boundary on the North f . Pella was the name of the city, and Peraea of the country : for it literally fig- nifies the country 'zse^av, beyond the river J. Nothing, therefore, can be more clear than that the ITe- ^oiTiHoif who " received their name from their {ituatioUj" were the inhabitants of TLspMa. Thefe, in the eftimation of Clemens, were heretics : and our author does not refufe that they were Ebionites. Thus he needs not flatter him- felf that Clemens, in thofe wTitings which are loft might have " faid things diredly in favour of the Unitarians •," fince, in thofe v/hich are extant, we find fomething diredlly againfl them. Even our author finds it neceflary to ad- mit, in another place, that it may " be conje6hired that " Clements meant the Ebionites by the Feratici §." In the fame chapter in which Dr P. appropriates Hege- fippus, he introduces Theodotion, Aquila and Symmachus, as men of eminence among Jewifh Chriftians. • There- fore, we may turn our attention a little to them. I need not fay, that by calling them Jewifh Chrijiians he means that we fhould confider them as Unitarians. But although they were configned to him, he could have no great honour by the connexion. The Doctor informs us that, according to Epiphanius, ** Theodotion was firft a Marcionite, and then a Jewilli con- C 3 " vert.'* * Haer. 29. Op. vol. i. p. 123* Earl. Op, vol. iii. p. 165, o^i^ilxi. De Bell Judaic, lib. iii. c. 2. t Vid. Relandi Palaeftina, lib. i. c. 33. p. 197. lib. iii. p. 924. CeU larii Geograph. Antiq. vol. ii. lib. iii. c. 13, p. 551-. § Vol. i. p. 28;, a85- 38 Men 0/ EfNinence Book V. " vert." He alfo quotes Eiifebius, as faying that " Theo^ " dotion and Aquila were both Jewifti profelytes, whom '* the Ebionites following, believe Chrift to be the fon of " Jofeph *." But in what fenfe was Theodotion a " Jewifti " convert," a/* Jewifli profeljte ?" From all the account given by our author, one would conclude that he had join- ed the church of Chriftian Hebrews. But of this there is no proof. After being a Marcionite, he became a profelyte to Judaifm. According to Cave, he totally abandoned Chriftianlty f. However, he has not mentioned his autho- rity for this aflertion. Some of the later Fathers reckoned Theodotion an Ebionite. But the circumftance that feems to have given rife to this opinion, is the aflertion of Ire- nneus, quoted by Eufebius, that the Ebionites were fol- lowers of him and Aquila. As Irenaeus is giving an ac- count of their verlions, he might mean no more than that the Ebionites followed them in their tranflations of thofe paiTages of the prophecies w^hich had been urged, by the generality of Chriftians, as proofs of the miraculous con- ception t. Jerom afferts that this tranflator " continued an *' unbeliever, although fome confidered him as an Ebio- " nite §." Elfe where he lays that he interprets with the poverty of an Ebionite ||. Aquila, having made a profeflion of Chriftianity, was baptized. But not renouncing judicial aftrology, to which he had been addicted from his youth, but devoting him- felf to it more and more, he was excommunicated. Ran- kled at this difgrace, he denied Chriftianity, and joined with the unbelieving Jews i being circumcifed, and becoming a difciple * Hid. lib. 5. c. 8, Earl. Op. vol. lii. p. 319. f Hid. Llterar. vol. i. p. 48. \ Iren. lib. ili. c. 24. § Qui utique poft aJventum Chrlfti incredulus fuit : licet eum quidam dicant Hebionitam qui altero gencre Judsus eil. Prooem. in Dan. \ Theodotio autem vcre qiiafi pauper et liebionlta, &c. In Hah. iii- Chap. II. among Jewipj Chrijlians. .35 difciple of Rabbi Akiba, a moft bitter enemy of the Chri- ftians. He applied himfelf with great diligence to the fliidy of the Hebrew language ; and engaged in a new ver- fion of the Old Teftament, efpecially that he might oppofe the verlion of the Seventy, and pervert the teftlmonies con- cerning Chrift *, Although Jerom, in fome inftances, ap- proves of his verfion, he rejedts it in others, calling him ** a contentious interpreter f ." As Irenaeus calls both him and Theodotion 'Jexmjh profelytesy either he did not conlider them as Ebionites, or he did not confider Ebionites as Chriftians. For the phrafe, Jewijh profdyte, has never been underflood by any but our author, as fignifying a Chriftian of any kind. Epiphanius, giving an account of Aquila, exprefsly contrails the one expreflion with the other ; faying, " He denied Chrijlianity^ — and became a ** 'Jewijh profelyteX''* Jerom exprefsly calls him a Jew §, when, in a lingle inftance, contralting his interpretation with that of Theodotion and Symmachus. The laft mentioned Father feems to admit that Symma- chus was an Ebionite ||. But we are informed by Epipha- nius, that Symmachus was by birth a Samaritan, and in- fligated by ambition, left the religion in which he had been educated, and was circumcifed a fecond time on becoming a Jewifh profelyte ; but afterwards renounced the circum- ciiion, in a very peculiar manner, defcribed on this occa- lion **. It is not eafy to reconcile this account with the C 4 idea • Hieron. in Ifa. viii. Fabricii Bibllothec. Grac. lib. iii. c. 12. f. 8. f Pammach. Epift. Tom. 2. foL 122. ^ Toy H^iTixvKTuov cc^v/iTCifXEtiogy xca rviv oivra ^^riv^ Tr^sojAjiTiw- «, Kcii TTi^iTifjim Oil li-^uiog. De Menfur. fe6l. 15. § Judaeus Aquila interpietatus qI\ u* Chriftianus. In Hab. iii. d Loc. fup. cit. ** De Menf. et Ponder, feft. 16. » 4Q Men of Eminence, lie* Book V. idea of his being an Ebionite , as thofe who bore this name reckoned circumcifion necefTary to falvation. The Dodor obferves that " the greateft account was " made of their veriions of the Hebrew fcriptures by " karned Chriftians of all parties, efpecially that of Sym- " machus, which is perpetually quoted with the great- ** eft refpeft by Origen, Eufebius and others." Eufebius fays that Symmachus became an Ebioirite. But when he quotes this tranflator, he fays that he wrote on the Gofpel of Matthew, to *' fupport the herefy formerly mentioned *" Whether he was right, or not, in calling him an Ebionite, or in what fenfe foever his language be underftood concern- ing this work of Symmachus ; when he tells us that the delign of it was to fupport the herefy of the Ebionites, that interpreter cannot well be faid to be quoted with the great- eft refpefi, by an author who elfe where fays that the Ebio- nites were " under the power of a malignant demon." The verfion of Theodotion was much ufed by the orthodox, but only as it w^as marked with notes of cenfure by Origen, to point out its defeats, redundancies and errors. Jerom fays of thefe three tranflators, that " by a crafty interpretation, " they concealed many of the myfteries of religion f ." The reafon of the attention paid to thefe veriions feems to have been, the force that any argument in favour of the truth acquired, as being derived from a tranflation made by its bittereft enemies. Thus it feems evident that oiy learned author has no claim to Aquila : and his title to Theodotion and Symma- S- adverf. Ruffin. Epift. Tom. .%. fol. 76. Chap. III. ^be Hebrew Cbrijlicuis, i^c. 41 CHAP. III. Tbe Hebrew Cbrijiians not Rhioiiitcs. AS thofe who were called Ebionites denied the deity of Chrift, Dr P. endeavours to prove that all the Jewiili Cliriftians were Ebionites in opinion, and that they all re- ceived this name. It is worthy of notice, that this is the very plan that Toland purfues, in his Na%arenus^ when attempting entirely to fiibvert Chriftianity. But the fallity of this hypotheiis appears from various confiderations. 1. According to Dr P.*s teftimony, Hegefippus was one of thefe Hebrew Chriftians. He has exerted himfelf to the utmofl to prove that this ancient Hillorian was an Ebionite. He has efpecially endeavoured to eftablilh this from the circumilance of his not calling the Ebionites here- tics. This is the very argument ufed by Toland *. But we have feen, that Hegefippus believed tlie fame dodrine with Eufebius ; who has never been fufpedled of any attach- ment to the Ebionites. All the evidence, therefore, that hath been brought to prove the orthodoxy of Hegelippus, as Eufebius exprefles it, with equal force proves that of thefe Hebrews who were properly called Chrijlians, 2. According to Hegefippus, the church of Jerufalem was pure in do£lrine till the time of the martyrdom of Si- meon -|-. If fne was pure in the eftimation of Hegefippus, file muft have been pure in that of Eufebius alfo •, becaufe their faith was the fame. Therefore, fo far was the church of Jerufalem from confifting wholly of Ebionites, th^t there were none in communion with her before this period. Of confequence, the deity of our Saviour was believed by this church * Nazarcnus, ap Moflieim. Vindiciae, p, 157. t F.uf. Hift. lib. iil. c. ^?, ^ 42 H^e Hebrew Chrijlians Book V. church from the earlleft times. But this is not merely to be inferred from the account given by Hegefippus. We have the exprefs teftimony of Eufebius himfelf, a teflimony exhibited after the mod accurate inquiry. " I never yet " could find," he fays, " how long thefe bifhops prefided " at Jerufalem. This only have I learned from the mod " ancient writers, that till the Jews were befieged under " Adrian, fifteen bifhops have in conftant fucceflion pre- *' fided over that church j all of whom are mentioned as " Jews by birth, and as lawfully holding the doBrine of ** Chrifl, fo that they were efteemed moft worthy of the " epifcopal office, by thofe who were mofl capable of ^^ forming a judgment of thefe things *." Is it in the leaft degree credible that Eufebius would have fpoken in this manner of thefe men, had he reckoned them, as he fays of the Ebionites, " under the power of a malignant demon ?" 3. The Ebionites were heretics in the eftimation of the believing Hebrews. They were accounted fuch by the Gentile Chriftians. They are introduced in the heretical catalogue by Irenaeus f , and by Tertullian :|:. But if they were accounted heretics by Gentile Chriftians, they could be viewed in no other light by believing Jews. For the latter held communion with the Gentile churches, as we have feen with refped to Hegefippus. But while the Gen- tiles accounted the Ebionites heretics, there could have been no communion between them and thofe of the Jewiih na- tion, unlefs the latter had been of the fame judgment. 4. The church of believing Hebrews did not maintain the obfervation of the ceremonial law to be neceflary to falvation, nor impofe it on Gentile converts. They belie- ved yr/iutaa-T Kura^i^ocffQac^* u^t* ti^n tt^o^ rut ra Toiat^e tTrm^rjUv dyy«- Twv, KUi mg TbJv iTTicrKOTTUv XuTH^yicci uj^iUi ^oKif/.xer&yivxt, HlU. lib. iv. c. 5. f Adv. haer. lib. i, c. 26. t Tertullian de Praefcrlpt. c. 4*. Chap. III. not Ehionites, 43 ved that God put no difference between the Gentiles and them ; and that it was tempting God, if they put this yoke about the neck of the difciples, which neither their fathers nor them/elves were able to bear, A6ls xv. 9, 10. But the Ebionites maintained that the ceremonial law was obliga- tory on all, and that men could not be faved without it *. Therefore, they rcfufed to hold any communion with thofe Gentiles who did not obferve the law. Thus we find Juflin fpeaking of fome in his time who made a pro- feffion of Chriftianity : " But of thofe, O Trypho, who " are of your nation, and fay that they believe in Chrift, " who force the Gentiles, believing in this Chrift, in all " refpe£ts to live according to the law of Mofes, or elfe de- " prive them of communion in all mutual intercourfe, in " like manner I Ihould rejed them f." The nature of this communion evidently appears from what he had faid be- fore. The language ufed feems to have been proverbial, intimating that they refufed all fort of intercourfe with themt. So far from being one body in y^rr^^ matters, they refufed all civil fellow (hip. They treated them as if they had been formally excommunicated. The Ebionites, in their attachment to the ritual worfhip, carried matters fo far as in fome fenfe to adore Jerufalem. For Trenseus fays; " They adore Jerufalem, as being the houfe of " God II." This they did not do, merely before the de- ftru6tion of that city, and of the temple j but long after, even in the age of that writer. If * Aiiv ci TFUVTUi ccvTcig rr,<; V0fnx.7](; d^TiTy.-ta.g, ojg [ayj af> ^»a /*ov»i? T/.g 6tg rot X^/roy Tr^Ticog y,«< t« xar' uvtt^v ^ta ^w^ijiro/XiVOi?. Euf. Hift. lib. 3. c. 27. •|- H f^v) y.otvciiviiv avTcig rrig rotavT7)g cvvhayuyxi; cct^aj>Txif ou-^.- «; f.ui rouTiiq avK oc7rohx^of/.»i. Dial. p. 266. ^ My,^i r.oivuvstv ott<^»c^? 13 Er>«? to7 yi'wo-jj) reaching to us, reprefents matters-]-." Our author cannot juftly allege that there are no ". particulars " handed down to poilerity" concerning this perfon. He may be unwilling to fuftain the teftimony of Epiphanius ; how much foever he endeavours to avail himfelf of it in fome other inflances. But it muft be ridiculous to reje£l the teftimony of an author, where he is fo exprefs, and to quote it for any thing elfe. From f Haer. ^o. Chap. IV. Na?ne of F.hio?utcs. 53 From T\'liat Eplphanius fays, it would fecm that, in later times, the Ebionitcs afliamed to acknowledge an uninfpired man as the head of theii- party, wilhed to explain away the origin of the name. This they miglit the more readily attempt, becaufe of the little figm-e made by their herefiarch. Ebion is alfo mentioned by name in the larger copy of the Epiftle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians *, by Pamphi- lus, in his Apology for Origen f , by Hilary t, by Theo- doret II, by Augulfin §, \Sc. 'iSc. Jerom, who was better acquainted with Hebrew learning than any of the Fathers, mentions Ebion times almoft with- out number. He feems to have believed his .exiftence, as much as that of any other heretic. He clafles him with Photinus **, with Theodot.us of Byzantiam and Valen- tinus ft, with Praxeas, Cerinthus, and Novatus Xt- He exprefsly calls him the fucceffor of Cerinthus ||||. He in- deed gives a metaphorical turn to his name j but fo as to Ihew that he believed the exiftence of the perfon § §. He di- itinguiflies him from all the friends of his herefy by calling him that here/larch ***, If Socinians will ftill deny the exiftence of that he- retic, who is mentioned by fo many writers, as the father D3 , of * Seel. 6. Cotelerii Pat. vol. 2. p. 82. t Orig. Oper. p. 858. ap. Ittig. de Haeref. fed. r. c. 6. I Lib. 2. de Trinitat. p. 19. lib. 7- P- Si, 8a. ibid. II Lib. z. de Hsret. fabul. c. i. ibid. § De Hasref. c. 10. ibid. Vid. etiam Mofheim Vindic. p. iS6. 187. ** In GaL i. i. Eph. iv. Catalog. Seriptor. No. 117. f f Adv. Helvid. \\ Procera. in Mat. Adv. Luclferian. Illj Cherinthum et liujus fHcccflbrem Hebioneai. Adv. Luciferian. 'cm. 2. f. 49. §§ Judaei et Judaici errorls haeredes Hebionitae, qui pro humilitate fenfus nomen pauperum fufceperunt, '!Sc, In Efai. Ixvi. 19, Siijiul aiat in bove et afino Hebion ; dignus pro humilitate fenfus, panpertate nomi- nis fui, Wr. In cap. i. 2, >'*5tf Hebion llle beicfiarcliem. In Gal. lii. i',. 54 Origin of the Book V- of their do^lrine ; if they will perfifl in lu-ging the language of Origen and Eufebius, in oppofition to pofitive evidence ^ it is at leaft reafonable that they fhould confine themfelves to the interpretation which thefe ancients give of the name. They do not extend it, as Socinians do, to their literal po- verty or want of learning -, but exprefsly reftrift it to their want of underftanding. And what proofs do they give of this ? Not merely their attachment to an abolifhed law, but according to Eufebius at leaft, efpecially the poverty of their faith concerning the Saviour. But if the modern Ebionites claim a right to impofe a fenfe of their own on this name, they renounce that very authority whence alone they can plead that it was given as a fignificative designation « If Origen and Eufebius are not credible witnefTes as to the peculiar fenfe in which it was impofed by the ancients, they can deferve no credit as to the circumftance of its being impofed in any fenfe as a defcriptive name. Dr P. ftarts another objedion to the exiftence of the herefiarch. " The term EbionUCf* he fays, " was long ** prior to that of Ehion. They who firft nfed this term, " fay nothing about the man from others, and they were " too late to know any thing of him themfelves *.'* Here he feems to refer to Irenaeus, the earlieft writer now extant, who ufes the term Ebionite. Toland gives this ob- jedion more exprefsly, taking particular notice of " the fi- " lence of Irenaeus, concerning any fuch perfon as Ebion f.'* In reply to this objeftion, the learned Moflieim obferves, that no more can be concluded, againft the exiftence of Ebion, from the filence of Irenaeus, than againft that . of Cerinthus, from the lilence of fome other waiters who mention the Cerinthians only : and that it is moft pro- bable that he confidered this name as derived from a parti- cular * Vol. iii. p. 177. f Moflieim Vindic- p. iSa-. Chap. IV. Name of Ebionites, ^r cular perfon, who was the father of the herefj, becaufe as he, almoft in every other inftance, calls the fc^ls after the names of their leaders, informing his reader of this circum- i^ance ; had he not followed this method Hfere, he would moll naturally have mentioned the reafon of the variation. Had the name appeared to him as having any particular meaning, it is not fuppofable that he would have over- looked it. Tertullian is the firft writer certainly known to have ufed the term Ebion. He indeed ** fays nothing about the ♦* man from others." But his very filence in this relped is in favour of the exiftence of Ebion. It (hows that he coniidered the fa£t as generally known. Had he attempted to prove it, our author would moft likely have inferred that, even in TertuUian's time, it was a problematical circum- fiance, whether fuch a man had ever exifled. But although in what he " fays about the man" he gives no others as liis authority, he evidently follows the order obferved by Ire- naeus, making Cerinthus the fucceflbr of Carpocrates, and Ebion of Cerinthus. As Tertullian was well acquainted with the writings of Irenaeus, whom he calls " that moft ** prying fearcher into all do£lrines*," had he imagined that the latter had omitted to mention Ebion from any doubt of his exiftence, he would moft probably have adverted to this circumftance, at leaft in his own vindication. But Tertullian wrote " too late to know any thin^^ of ** Ebion himfelf." For the Dodlor's objc£lion muft be pri- marily levelled againft Tertullian, although he is kept in the ftiade •, for he is reckoned the " firft who ufed the term Ebion." A reader, who paid no regard to chronology, would naturally fuppofe, from our author's words, that D 4 they * Omnium do^^rinarum curiofiflimus explorator. Adverf Valent. 5 6 Origin of the Bt)ok V. they " who fiifl ufed this term" had lived at leaft a century after the ufe of the other. But how long was Irenaeus prior to Tertullian ? According to Dr P.'s own chronology, he died juft eighteen years before him *. Thus, " the term *' Ehionite could ngt be long prior to that of Ebiofi." If Irenaeus could have known any thing about the origin of the fe6l, Tertullian could not have known a great deal lefs. Are we to. fuppofe that he knew lefs about the fact than Origen, who died thirty-four, or Eufebius, who died an hundred and twenty years after him f ? The Do6lor, when afterwards fpeaking of the lilence of Irenaeus concerning the Gentile Unitarians, fays \ " It muft " always be confidered that Irenseus lived in Gaul, where *' there were no Ebionites, and perhaps not many Unita- " rians J." Let it then be conJideredh^XQ ; efpecially as he elfewhere attempts to Ihew that the majority in Africa v.'ere Unitarians. According to his own plan of reafoning, whether had Irenaeus, who lived in Gaul, or TertuUian, who lived in Africa, furrounded, as is fuppofed, by Unita- rians, befl accefs to know the real origin of this fe6l ? Whe- ther v/as the former, who fays fo little of the Ebionites, and nothing of the Gentile. Unitarians, and who is fuppofed to have had no trouble from them, or the latter, who v/rote exprefsly againfl thofe whom our author calls Unitarians, — moft likely to inform himfelf accurately on the fubjedl ? But Dr P.'s fj'-ftem, with refpeft to the name of Ehionites, is fo ill-compa6ted that he cannot himfelf adhere to it. In his Hiftory of Corruptions, he gives it every poflible ad- vantage. For he does not confine himfelf to one fenfe of the word ; but, as we have feen, takes in a variety of fenfes, that if one fail, he may have recourfe to another. He, in- deed, overlooks that of the poverty of their ideas concern- ing * Vol.iv. p. 252. 254. t Ibid. \ Vol. iii.p. 255. Chap. IV. Name of Elionites, ^ ^ iiig the Saviour. Bat he fuppofes that they might receive this name from their want of learning, their literal pover, ty, and their rigid attachment to the law. When giving this explanation, he finds it neceffary to fuppofe that this name was given them by Gentile Chriftians. But in his Hiftory of Early Opinions, he quits this ground. He tries, indeed, to reprefent it as the opinion of Jerom. But it is not his own. And it is by no means fuppofable that Gen- tile Chriilians would give thefe people an Hebrew name ; unlefs it be primarily fuppofed that they had a particular excitement to this from fuch a circumftance as that of the founder of the fed having a name, which fome of them knew to be expreflive of the real character of Ebionites. In the work laft mentioned, the Do£lor fuppofes that '* in " the time of Juftin Martyr, the Jewifh Chriilians, thougli " all Unitarians — were not known by any opprobrious ap- " pcllation at all ; and that afterwards they were iirit di- " ftinguiflied by that of EbioTiites *,'* He evidently means that they were thus dijlingiiified by Gentile Chriilians. But he alfo fuppofes that this name was firft given them " by their unbelieving brethren,'* and that the Gentile Chriilians adopted it from them f . He flill quotes the au- thority of Origen concerning the word Ebio?iy as lignifj^ng poo7- %, But by this new hypothefi's, he hot only lofes the conlillency of his fcheme, but all the benefit, both of Ori- gen's explanation, and of his own. In the paiTage referred to, Origen fays that the perfons fpoken of " are named " from the beggarly expectation of the law ||." But on this account they would never be thus named by their un- hcUcuing brethren^ who held the law in the highefl ellima- tion, preferring it to the Gofpel. Nor would thi y call them Ebionites, becaufe they had few people of learning • among * Vol. \ . p. 176, 177. t Ib-.rl. p. 1 7-; \ Ibi.'! T>. 166. 1! Cont. Celf.lib. ii. p. 5(5. 5^ Origin of the Book V. among them. Had this been the reafon of a peculiar ap- pellation, they would have preferred a tefm wliich properly conveyed this idea. But it is by no means a natural fup- polition, that a body of people Ihould be denominated from a circumflance of this nature, when there w^ere fo many others that unbelievers would rather have fixed on. Nor would they give them this name, becaufe of their literal poverty. For after the deftru<5lion of Jerufalem, and efpe- cially after the war of Adrian, their unbelieving brethren would be at leafl as much reduced as themfelves. Our au- thor will never fuppofe that they were called Ebionites for the reafon alligned by Eufebius, their mean ideas of Chrill. Befides thofe already confidered, this is the only one, as far as we know, that has been mentioned by any writer ancient or modern. I Ihall only add, that Dr P. himfelf quotes a pafTage from Grabe, affording a proof of the exigence of Ebion, which it will not be eafy for him ta invalidate. His words are : " Grabe fays that Ebion (by which we mull underfland " fome" Ebionite) v/rote an expofition of the prophets, as " he colle6ted from fome fragments of Irenaeus's works, of " which he gives fome account in his note upon the place *." This filly parenthefis, it would feem, is all that our author can oppofe to what is advanced by Grabe. He accounts his ipfe dixit a fufficient reply to an argument from fa6ls. But had he given the attention of any ordinary reader to this note, he would have feen that Grabe fays quite another thing than what he afcribes to him. That learned writer colle6led this " from fome fragments," — not " of Irenaus's *' works," but of Ebion's. That this h his meaning ap- pears, * Ip''um Ebioneai i^nyntriv ruv ?r/:5^nTi.y fcripfifTe, colligo ex i'rag- mentis hujiis nperis, quae ante paucos dies Parifiis accepi ex MS. Co- dice Coliegii Claromontani defcripto a viro humaniflltno R. P. Michaele Lequien, inter addenda ad fpicilegium i.aereticorum Seculi I. fno tem- poie, Deo volente.pubiicanda. Not. ad Iren. lib. i. c. 26. ap, Aucl:. vol, -i'l p. 21S, Chap, IV. Name of Ehionius , ^^ pears, not merely from the connexion, bui from his de- clared defign of publiflilng thefe among the additions to the Spicilcgium of the heretics of the Jirjl century. But had they been " fragments of Ireneeus's works," they undoubt- edly belonged to the fecond. I need not fay that, had this been the cafe, Grabc would naturally have publiflied them along with the fragments of other works of Irenjeus ; fomc of which he received from the fame Lcquien *. The for- mer had certainly a fuperior claim, had they belonged, as Dr P. fuppofes, to the work agmnjl herejies. But while our author cannot but lament that paucity of ancient Unitarian writers which he confelTes, why is he fo averfe to acknowledge the 'uenerable Ebion as a man ot learning, as an interpreter of fcripture ? Why does he not ilrain every nerve to refcue thefe precious remains from the ravages of time ? Well does he know, that his fyftem requires that they fhould be configned to everlalting obli- vion. He, therefore, by Ebion *' m7ij} underlland fome " Ebionite." But he prefumes too far in impoling the fame cogent necejfity upon his reader. The learned editor of Irenseus does not feem to have known, thac, in what he faid of Ebion's interpretation of the prophets, he was fupported by the teftimony of Jerom. This father quotes the very words of Ebion in his view of that pafTage •, Ciirfed is e'uery one- that hangcth o?i a tree. He quotes them as giving a meaning to the palTage, entirely diiferent from that impofed on it by any of the three tranf- lators who have been reckoned his followers. He quotes them in that language in which Ebion had wrote his ex- polition. '* Thefe words," he fays, " that hereliarch Ebion» *■* half Chrillian, and half Jew, has thus interpreted, Otj, ** Sec. that is, ' He who is hanged is the objecf of divine * contempt." •■* Iren, Op. cur. Grabe, p. 47^ not. 6o NazareJies and Ehionites Book V. * contempt *." Will our author fay, that here alfo *' we " mult underfland fome Ebionite ?" C H A P. V. Of the Na%arenes a?td Ehionites, proving that they were fiot the fajne People. SECTION I. in^R Priestley, after the worthy example of Toland, ■*-^ is very anxious to prove that the Nazarenes and Ehionites were the fame people. He flatters himfelf that if this point be gained, there will remain no other Chri- ftians, of Hebrew origin, to perplex him with their ortho- doxy. But it is of no importance to the principal queftion, whether they were the fame, or not. For it is evident from what we have already feen, and we hope to make it appear more fully afterwards, that there were Hebrew Chriftians, who believed Jefus to be the Son of God, and renounced the obligation of the law. Only, as truth is flill v/orth contending for, we fliall ftate what feems to deferve this name, in reply to what has been advanced by Dr P. He endeavom-s to prove, that " perfons diftinguifhed by " the name of Ehionites and Nazarenes were fuppofed to *' have exiiled in the time of the Apoftlesf." " Irenaeus, he fays, *' who gives no other name to any Jewifh Chri- " ftians, * In eo autem loco ubi Aquila et Theodotio fimlllter tranftulerunt, di- centes ; Quia malediiTlio dei eft fufpenlus; in Hebrxo ita ponitur, Sec. Hzec verba Hebion ille herefiarches, femichriftianus et femijudaeus ita in- terpietatus eft : on vfifK, ©«« o y.ptficcju.(v(yi ; id eft, Qixia injuria dei eftfuf- penfus. — Quod aperiius Symmachus tranftulit dicens ; Quia proptef blaf- phemiam dei fufpenfus eft. In Gal. iii. 13. f Vol, iii. p. 162, 163. Chap. IV. not the fame People, 6i " ftians, befides that of Eblonites, whom he always fpeaks " of as both denying the pre-exiftence and divinity of " Chriil, and likewife the miraculous conception *, objedb " to the Gnoftics, that they were of late date ; but he fays " nothing of the Ebionites in this refpe6l." The unlearned reader would natm-ally fuppofe that Iren?eus had fpoken thus of the Gnoflics in general •, efpecially as the text feems to be fupported by a marginal quotation. But he only re- fers to fome of them, whom he calls reliqiii, the refl ; after particularly mentioning others by name, as the followers of Valentinus and Marcion. He had formerly declared the errors of Simon Magus f , who. was in the fulled fenfe coe- val with the Apollles, and the proper father of the Gno- flics. But here he fpeaks of thofe wIbo were the followers of Menander " the difciple of Simon/' But had the teflimony of Ireuceus been in this inftance conformable to our author's wifhes ; had it really appeared from him that the Gnoftics in general were of late date ; had his affertion neceflarily implied that the Ebionites preceded them ; what would have followed ? Nothing lefs than the total demolition of one principal pillar of our author's fa- bric, nay, of the whole of it. For he has been at great pains to prove, that the Gnoftics were the orify heretics who gave the Apoftles any trouble. But if compared with the Ebionites, they were of late date, furely they did not exift in the time of the Apoftles. For it is not pretended that the Ebionites exifted any earlier. Therefore, the Gnoftics could not be the heretics againft whom the Apo- ifles wrote. Of confequence, they muft have dire6led their cenfures * Tolartd alio attempted to fliew that both Nazarenes and Ebiunites maintained that Jefus was the Son of Jufeph *. The Do(floi-'s plan bears as great a refemblance to his, as if he had propofed it as his pattern. * Nwharen. ap. Mopeim Vindic. />. 99. f Haer. lib. i, c. i».- Gz Na%areties and Ebionites Book V« cenfures folely againft the Ebionites. For, befides the Gno- ftics, no others have ever been mentioned as heretics in the apoflolic age. It is aftonifhing, however, that Dr P. ventures to refer to this chapter, as if it even tacitlj favoured the Ebionites. If he reckons Irenaeus worthy of credit (and if not, why quote him ?) he muft know that this very chapter contains a teftimony, which at once defeats all his laborious attempts to Ihew that the herefy of the Unitarians was the primitive do6lrine. " If," fays Irenseus, " there be a difpute with *' others about any ordinary queftion, ought we not to recur " to the moil ancient churches, which had the fellowihip of " the Apoftles themfelves, and received from them what is "certain and clear concerning the prefent queflion ? But ** what if the Apoftles had not left us any writings, ought we " not to follow the order of tradition, whic*h they delivered *' to thofe to whom they entrufted the churches ? To which " method many nations of Barbarians aflent, who believe " in Chrift ; having fal/ation written in their hearts by the *' Holy Ghoft, without paper and ink, and diligently pre- " ferving the old tradition, believing in one God, the Ma- " ker of heaven and earth, and all things in them, by Jefus '•' Chrijl the Son of God. Who on account of his tranfceU' ^^ dent lo've tj his o^'jon worhmanjhib^ fuhmitted to that gene- *' ration -which was of a virgin, he hy himfelf uniting man *' to God. Thofe who have believed this faith, without *' letters, according to our fpeech are barbarians, but with *' refpect to fentiment, and cultom, and converfation, on ac- " count of their faith, by which they are moft wife, they '* both pleafe God, and live in all righteoufnefs, chaftity and *' wifdom. To whom if any one were to declare thefe "'* things which are invented by heretics^ addrefTmg them in ** their own language, immediately fhutting their ears, they *• would fly farther and farther off, not having patienc- to •a ** hear Chap. V. not the fume People, ^^ " hear the blafphemous addrefs. Thus, in confcquencc of " the ancient tradition of the ApoflleSy they will not even " pafs a thought about the fubjed of fuch monftrous dif- *' courfe *." Is it faid, that after this "he mentions different kinds of Gnoflics only ? This is granted ; but it will by no means prove that his language can apply to them alone. From this quotation, is it not evident to every candid reader, that Irenseus Was perfedVly alTured that the dbdrine, not only of the miraculous conception^ but of the fupreme deity of Chrifl^ and of his being the immediate agent in creation, was that of the ApofUes, delivered by them in all the churches which they planted, and flill adhered to by all that were reckoned churches of Chrift ? Would Trenaeus venture to alTert this, knowing it to be falfe ? Although he had been worfe than any of the heretics confuted or mentioned by him, would he have hazarded his charader in an affer- tion, which, if flilfe, could have been proved to be fo by all thefe churches to which he appealed ? Muft he not have known, that the vai*ious clafles of heretics, whom he at- tacked, would have combined in detedlng his falfehood ? This would have been no difficult taik. He wrote but a iliort time after the Apollolic age : and there was not a church, fcarcely a iingle church-member, but muft have known what the primitive faith was ; and if there had been any change, efpecialiy in do6trines fo fully entitled to the defignation of fundamental ? Is it in the leaft degree fuppofable, that Irenaeus could be deceived as to a faft of this nature ? Therefore, according to the connexion, muft not the terms, heretics, hlafphemous difcourfe, i^c. extend to all who, in any ivay^ oppofed the doflrines of the miraculous con- fepticn and real deity of our Saviour ? Thefe being pro- claim^ * Haer. lib. iii. c. 4. • ^4 Na'zarenes and Ehio?iites Book V. claimed as the articles of apoftolic tradition, whatever par- ticular fefts are immediately mentioned by Irenaeus, he cannot juftly be underftood as excluding others, equally enemies to thefe do6lrlnes. In tlie very palTage under con- iideration, Dr P. acknowledges, that " Irenaeus — always *' fpeaks of Ebionites as denying the pre-exiftence and di- " vinity of Chrift, and likewife the miraculous conception." And can he be fuppofed fecretly to have meant, that the worthy Ebionites were the only men in the world who might have denied thefe do6lrines, without giving any of- fence to the apoflolical churches ? Would error ha\'e been lefs mo?iJirous to them, becaufe it came from the lips of thofe whom our author is pleafed to canonize as the only true Chriftians ? Irenaeus undoubtedly had the befl accefs to know. He is generally believed to have been the difciple of Polycarp, the difciple of John the Apoftle. His teftimony, with re- fpe£l to the primitive faith of all the churches, will weigh fully as much with the generality of readers, as the proba- bilities, negative proofs, and unnatural inferences of a wri- ter in the eighteenth century. From Irenaeus we learn, that the ancient heretics were far more honeft than their fucceiTors. Socinians ftill appeal to the Apoftles, as if they had been all Ebionites. But the ancient heretics, confcious that they could make no fuch appeal, as they paid more regard to the meaning of language, obferved a dif- ferent method. " When we recall them," fays the Bifliop of Lyons, *' to the Apoftolic Tradition, which is preferved *' by the fucceffion of Prefbyters, they oppofe Tiadition, " aflerting that they, being not only wifer than the Pref- " byters, but than the Apoftles themfelves, have difcovered *' the fmcere truth : but that the Apoftles blended the things " of the Law with the words of our Saviour ; nay, that our *-* Lord himfelf lometimes fpoke from the Creator, fome- I *' times Chap. V. -not the fame People, 6^ *' times from a middle power, and again from the Sat *' prcmc *." Whatever prefiiniption there was in this lan- guage, it difcovered more integrity, at leaft, than the con- du6l of thofe who pretend to fubmit to the authority of our Lord and of his Apoftles, and notwithftanding torture their words out of all form, till they have deprived them of the common meaning of language. But there is another weighty argument from the fame ancient. He '* gives no other name to any Jewiih Chri- *' flians,befides that of Ebionites." And what, if he does not? It was his avowed delign and proper work to enumerate the heretical fe6ls, and not the particular bodies of men that adhered to found dodtrine. Is it not enough that he aflerts, in the ilrongeft language, that " all the churches of Afia," the " moft ancient churches," held the fame Apoflolical tradition which himfelf held? But the truth is; Irenaeus does not even fay that the Ebionites were Jewiih Chrifti'^ns, or that they were of Jewiih origin. Shall we thereforv^ conclude that, in his time, there were no Jewiih Chrillians at all ? This w^ould be juft as good an inference from Ire- naeus, as that of there being no Jewiih ChriiHans bcfides Ebionites. If any further proof of the faith of all the churches, and therefore of the Hebrew Chriflians, be necelTary, the fame writer affords it in the mod exprefs terms. ^' For the *' church," he fays, ' although difieminated through the " whole habitable world, to the very boundaries of the *' eaith, hath received, from the Apoltk-- and their difci Ics, ♦' that faith which is in one God the Father Almighty, the *' Maker of heaven and earth, nnd of the fea, and oi all ** things in them, and in one Chriil: Jefus the Son of God, ** incarnate for our falvation, and in tr.e Hoi; Ghoii, who '* by the Prophets hath declai-ed the difpenlations ot (;1 HVXi aV^'^UVTii' iTt Oi KCtl 76V ioV^XlUV VOflOt (WJ TX lovOXiMV WA/}- 9/j ^iovv iS-iXuvra' (^cvToi h ei^^v oi ^cx.A»3(rt2f5 j Cont. Celf. 1. 5* P* 2 7 2. 72 Na%are7ies and Ebioniics Book V. makes no mention of the former. Eufeblus, as tranflated by our author, fays ; " Others, whom a malignant daemon ." was not able entirely to turn aiide from the love of " Chrirt, finding them weak in fome refpe(5ls, he reduced f* into his power. Thefe by the ancients were called E- -** bionites, as thinking meanly concerning Chrift. For ** they reckon him a mere man, like other men, but ap- " proved on account of his virtue, being the fon of Ma- " ry's hu{band. Others called by the fame name, leaving *' the abfurd opinion of the former, do not deny that " Chrill: was born of a Virgin, but fay that he was of the *' Holy Spirit. However, at the fame time, they by no " means allowing that Ghrift was God, the Word and Wif- *' dom, were drawn into the relt of their impiety *." Though we fhould grant that Eufebius, in no part of his writings, referred to believmg Hebrews who adhered to the law, and continued in the dodrine of our Saviour's di- vinity, it woud only amount to a negative proof. But it may be inferred from this paflage, that there had been at Icalt perfons of this defcription. The Do6l:or, indeed, throws his tranilation into fuch a form, as to make it ap- pear that chis lecond clafs of Ebionites fet out with the de- nial of ChriiVs deity, and were afterwards " drawn into " the reit of their impiety," as fomethirg dilHnft. But this is not a juft tranilation. The paflage literally is : " — But others, oji their account^'' or ^^ after them^ receiving *' the fame name, have fled Irom the ftrange abfurdity of *' the * AaAo; ?g TTCt-xA Tcvrov^ rr,s av~f,(; ovn^ •jr^o^yiyefiXCf ryjc [xvj tcii-j vrpQ'j 'icccyz-tii uvTov, &iov Xoyov otra. x.aj cro^ixv cjtAoAoyyvTg?, t») Tan tt^o- np^'v Tit^UT^i-'idiTG ^-j^a-i^ux* fca^Afo. ote xoci TU" a-a^jLaiiKinv TTi^i top V(jfA.oi huTPHxv CfjiOiWs iKlivci^ TTi^ilTniv EcT^f^a^oi', Hill. lib. Jll. Co 2y . p. 121. Ghap. V. not the fame People, /3 " the former, not denying that the Lord was conceived of **a Virgin, and of the Holy Ghoil ; neverthelefs, in Jikc " manner, as thefe (the former), not any longer conleiring *' that he pre-exifled as God, the Word, and Wifdom, they " were carried away by the impiety of the former." The manner in which Eufebius esprefles himfelf evi- dently implies that the latter received their name from the former ; and that they were originally diftind. His mcaninp- in what follows clearly is, that they were fo carried away by the impiety of the former, as no longer to acknowledo-e the divinity of Jefus., He firfl mentions the efFedl, and then the caufe ; although both are in the clofefl connexion. But Dr P. overlooks the prior exigence afligned to the clafs firft defcribed ; their exiftence under the name of E- bionites before they were joined by thofe who received this name from them. Then, he entirely overlooks the particle eS' or erz connefted with a. I need not remind the learned gentleman that thefe e^fa 'usii^ozwa^ thefe winged words, inconfiderable as they may feem, are the nerves, nay, the very foul of language. But as if he meant to make up for the omiffion, he in the clofe of the fentence throws in two words for this one, — the rejl. As to the ojnijjion, it is probable that he was mifled by the tranfla- jtion of Valefms, which takes no notice of the important particle : although it becomes an hillorian to truft to origi- nals only. With refpeft to the addition, the fame apology cannot be made. Dr P. perhaps wiihed the reader to ap- prehend that this fecond clafs at length denied the miracu- lous conception, and that this was the rejl of the impiety of the former. But this is entirely a fupplement of his own. The latter indeed continued to afiert the miracu- lous conception. For Eufebius fpeaks of them as ftill " not denying that Chrift was conceived of a Virgin." The yuy] a^va/jLEvoi is applicable to them at the very fame time 74 Ka%arenes and Ehionites Book V^ time with the 8 sfl' ofMo'Koyiiviz;. Even when they ceafed to confefs the deity of Chrift, they did not deny his miracu- lous conception. Thus the pallage under coniideration, although its proper meaning does not feem to have been hitherto attended to, proves a great deal more than our learned author wiflies. It proves that there was one clafs of Chriftian Hebrews e- ventually named after the Ebionites, who once acknow- ledged the deity of Chrift, as well as the miraculous con- ception, but afterwards renounced the firft of thefe doc- trines. The ancient hiftorian at the fame time mentions the fnare that intangled them. *' They were drawn away " by the impiety of the former ; efpecially as, in the fame " manner with them, they contended for the ftri£l obferva- ** tion of the bodily fervice of the law." From this ac- count it appears that the two parties, according to Eufe- bius, bearing the general name of Ebionites in his time, fo far from being more intimately conneded in preceding ages, had been entirely diftindl ; becaufe they oppofed each other, not only as to the miraculous conception of our Saviour, but with refpeft to his deity. Even fuppoiing that the in- fbrmation of Eufebius was good, this palTage, inftead of proving, as Dr P. imagines, that Nazarenes and Ebionites were the fame people, affords a ftrong prefumption that thofe of the latter clafs of Ebionites had formerly been called Nazarenes ; but that they received the common name of Ebionites, after joining with thefe heretics, and adopt- ing their leading principle. But it will be afterwards iliewn, that only fome of the Nazarenes can be fuppofed to have been thus drawn away. I do not mean to enter into a particular difcuflion of the quotation from Jerom's letter to Auftin j which is the next evidence referred to by Dr P. *. Its meaning has 2 been * Si hoc verum eft; in Cherinthi et Hebionis h^refira dilabimur, qui credentes Chap.V. not the fame People, ^5 been warmly contefted already j and it has been clearly proved by our author's learned antagoniils, that Jerom as really diflinguiflies between the Nazarenes and Ebionites, as between the latter and the followers of Cerinthus. The generality of literary readers will ilill underftand Jifnulant as expreilive of a mere pretence The Dodor fays ; " Had " he meant to defcribe any other clafs of people, he would " naturally have begun his next fentence with Eft et^ or " Eft alia harejis^ and not iimply hcerejis ejt. As to his *' fpeaking of herejy^ in the fecond fentence, and not here^ *' ticst as in the firft, it is a moll trifling inaccuracy of lan- " guage, the ealieft of all others to fall inco, and of no con- *' fequence to the meaning at all ' ." But the reader will judge, whether, if Jerom meant to fpeak ot a difFc^rent ciais of people, it was a greater inaccuracy to fay hcerejis eji^ in- ifead of EJl et, or to connecl Hebionitis with ejl, if he meant to fpeak of the fame clafs. Dr P. alfo ventures too far, efpecially while the reader has the quotation in his eye, in faying ; " Jerom's account ** of thefe two denominations of men is exaBly the fame ; " the Ebionites being believers iji Chrift, but mixing the law *' and thQ gofpel ; and the Nazarenes wijhing to be both ** "Jews and Chrijiians^ which certainly comes to the very " fame thing f . There is ilill fome little difference. For even credentes in Clirifto, propter hoc folum a patrlbus anatheraatizati funt ; qiiod legis caerimonias Chiiili Evungelio mifcuerunt, et (ic nova conftrti funt, ut Vetera non arnitterent Q^}'*^ dicam de Hebionitis, qui Chriftia- nus efle fe (imuiant ? Ufque hodie per totas orientis fynagogas inter Ju- daeos hasrefis eft, qu?e dicitur Priineorum, et a Pharifeis nunc ufque dam- natur, quos vulgo Nazaraeos nuncupanr, qui credunt in Chriftum, filiuni Dei, natum de Virgine M iria, et euni dicuiit eile, qui fub Pontio Pilato paflus elt, et refurrexit in quern et nos crcdimus : fed dum volunt et Ju- dsei eflc, ct Chriftiani, nee Judsei funt, ncc Chriftiani. Opera, Vol, i;: p. 634. ap. Audi. • Vol. iii. p. 171. fibid. p. 172. ^6 Nazarenes and Ehionites Book V. even fetting afide the meaning oi Jimtdant^ believing in Chrijl is not " €xa6lly the fame" with heiiemiig in Chrijl^, the Son of God, — -in ivho7n we alfo believe. The generality of readers will be fatisfied, that Jerom means to mark a ve- ry important diftinftion. Though the writer had limply faid, that they believed in Chrift the Son of Godf it might have been juitly inferred, that they were orthodox belie- vers ; becaufe he uniformly affixes a fenfe to the latter ex- preflion, totally irreconcileable to the idea of the mere humanity of Jefus ; nay, elfewhere exprefsly contrafts it with this idea *. But when he is fo very particular as to add, — in whom we alfo believe, he gives his language fo de- terminate a meaning, as to remov^e every ground of cavil. Our author would not take it well, were it denied that he Relieves in Chrifi, He at leaft pretends to do fo, as Jerom fays of the Ebionites. But he will not carry the matter fo far as to fay, that he believes in Chrifi^ the Son of God, — in who?n Jerom alfo believed ; that is, in the fame fenfe. For undoubtedly, in quern et nos credimns, is equivalent to fiiniliter ut nos credimus ; denoting that thefe Nazarenes had iht faine views of the perfon of Chriil as Jerom and the reft of the orthodox f . But if Jerom does not introduce another clafs of heretics, he has committed a greater miftake than any of thefe men- tioned. Why give the Ebionites new names ? Axcording to our author, indeed, Jerom " obferves that the fame '* people * Illud tie Jud£cis didum fit et haereticis qui fpem habent in homine, in Chriilo videlicet fuo : qiiem non jU:um Dei, iti\ purutn hominem puUnt elle venturum. In Jer. xvii. j. f Jerom ufes the fame kind of language in another plsice, about the ^ncaning of which there can be no difpute. Explaining the prophecy of Malachi concerning the harbinger of Chrift, he fays; Convertat cor pa- :rum ad filic-s, Abraham videlicet, et Ifaac, et Jacob, et omnium patriar- rharum ; iit credant pofleri eorum in Dominuni Salvatorera, in quern ct jlli crcdiderant. Abraham enim vidit diem Domini etla;tatus eft. Cony- ment. in Mai, iv. 6. Chap. V. not the fame People, 77 " people who were called Ebionltes (by the Gentiles) were " called Mificei and Na%arenes by the Jews." Does Jerojn really ohferve this ? " I have not faid fo," may the Doctor reply, " for I have put thefe words, hy the Gentiles, in a *' parenthelis." But has Jerom given any reafon to fuppoTe that this was his meaning ? Not the moft diftant infinuation. Can it be believed that Dr P. really underllood him in this fenfe ? This is entirely beyond the limits of probability. Surely, then, this parenthelis implies that our author himfelf believes, that his predecefTors received the name of Ehio- nites from the Gentiles. This i,? equally incredible. Could he have forgot the pains he had taken, but a few pages be- fore, to prove, from Origen and Eufebius, that this is an Hebrew word, lignifying poverty ? Could he have forgot his interpretation of that phrafe qi tt^wtoj, ufed by Eufebius to denote thofe who firft impofed this name -, *' by whom,'* Dr P. fays, " he mull have meant the ApofUes * ?" Had he no recollection of what he had addreffed to Dr Horfley on this fubjeft ? n}i%. that " the unbelieving Jews called all thofe *' of their race, who were Chriilians, by the name of Ebio- " nites, in the time of Origen :" and that " Origen 's own ** words are too exprefs to admit any doubt of this f .'* We cannot fuppofe that there was any defed of memory. For in the fourth page after that in which he gives Jerom 's ohfer'vation, he informs us that the term Khionitcs was " given them by their unbelieving brethren J." Why, then, does Dr P. give a meaning to the language of Jerom, for which he mull know there is not the leall foundation ? Why does he materially make him fay what no ancient has ever dreamed, what he would not himfelf have believed, al- though Jerom had faid it? The reafon is obvious. W«:e it not for this ufeful parenthefis (hy the Gentiles)^ -he whole of his expoiition of Jerom mu ft fall to the gro. ..iJ. * P. 163, . f Firft Letters, p. iS. \ Vol. iii- p. 17J. *j$ Na%areftes and Ehiomtes Book V. For the moft carelefs reader would inftantly inquire ; " How ** can it be fuppofed that Jerom, after defcribing thefe people '* as called Ehionitesy would proceed to tell us that they " were called Mimei and Nazarenes by the yews ; when " we know that it was from the Jews that they received " the name of Ebiojiites ? Nay, how could he fay that *' they were commonly called Na%arenes by the Jews, when " we are aflured, from the proofs brought by Dr P. that " this very people commonly called them Ebionites .^^' One who writes in this way, may prove any thing. It had been juftly objedted to the Doctor's view of this paffage, that " if the Nazarenes and Ebionites were the •* fame people, it may with equal clearnefs of reafon be in- ** ferred that they were the fame people with the Cerin- " thians likewife •, becaufe the Cerinthians are placed with *' the Ebionites in the preceding fentence." Our author, having mentioned the objedtion, fays ; " I anfwer, they *' were the fame people as far as Jerom confidered themy " becaufe they were equally zealous for the law of Mofes *." This is queftionable, however. It would feem that the Cerinthians were not fo zealous for the law, as the Ebio- nites. For they did not afcribe it to the Supreme Being, but to angels, or fome power inferior to God f . But, even fnppofing the truth of what Dr. P. fays, it deftroys that abfolute identity of Ebionites and Nazarenes, which he has all along been attempting to demonftrate. It is redu- ced to a mere fimilarity in one point. For if this paflage only proves that Cerinthians were the fame people with Ebionites, as to the law ; undoubtedly it can prove nothing more with refpe6t to the Nazarenes. But it is a fingular circumftance that, in this reply, our author has adopted the very reafoning of Dr Horfley againfl his theory. Becaufe Jerom fays that *' Ebion and Cerin- *' thns,-^ * P. 173, 174. • f TertuU. Prsefcript. c. 4R- Chap. V. not the fame People. 79 •* thus, — believing in Chrift, on this account only had been " anathematized by the Fathers, that they blended the ce- ** remonies of the law with the gofpel •," Dr P. had argued, that they were not excommunicated ** on account of their denying " the divinity of Chrift, but only on account of " their rigid obfervance of the Mofaic law *." To this his learned opponent had juftly replied : '* This being faid of " both without diftindion, mult be faid of either in fome " fenfe in which it may be true of both ; and if it acquits " the Ebionites of herefy, except in the fingie article of ** their Judaifm, it equally acquits the Cerinthians." But this learned writer gives it as his opinion, that Jerom here fpeaks of their agreement as to the law, and feems to think that this was the only point which he then had in his eye. For he fays ; '* The Judaic fuperftition was a thing fo cri- ** minal in the judgment of the primitive Chriftians, as ta ** conftitute by itfelf one very fufficient reafon for the ex- ** communication of the fefts which were addi6led to it f ." Our author undoubtedly admits the juftnefs of his copo- nent's ;eafoning; and thus withdraws the only ground of his aflertion, at leaft as far as Jerom is concerned, that " the " doftrine of the iimple humanity of Chrift: was not " thought deferving rf excommunication in early times J. If Dr P. infer, from the language of Jerom, that the Ebionites were anathematized folely on account of their adherence to the law, he muft alfo grunt that the Cerin- thians were fubjeded to the fame cenfure for no other reafon. Now, a^ he allows that the Cerinthians were the firft Gnoftics, all his trouble to prove that Gnofticifm was the * Firft Let. to Dr H p. 34. f The learned and judicious Bifliop Bull has clearly proved, that Jerom did not mean th:it Cerinthus and Ebion, in the opinion of the Fathers, held no other herefy ; but that although they had been ortiiclox in other refpedls, this error alone would have bepn accounted a fufficient grouni! for an ana-ihema. Judt:. Cnth. Church, c. 2. f. 13. t Firft Let. to Dr l\. p. 3-5. So Nazare/ies and Ebionltes Book V. the ofily heyefy in early times, muft be loil. For it necef- farily follows, that the circumflance of Cerinthus being a Gnoftic was of no weight whatfoever in fubje£ting him to excommunication ; and that he would not have been call out of the church, had he not adhered to the law. But from the general ftrain of this epiflle, it is evident that Jerom, in fpeaking of-Ebion, Cerinthus, and the Na- zarenes, had at this time no other hei^efy in his eye but that of Judaiffji. Auguftine had given him great offence by fome things that be had written to him on this fubje6l. Therefore he fays ; " What Chriftian can hear with pa- *' tience what is contained in your epiftle ? * Paul was a * Jew, but having become a Chriftian, he did not abandon ' the facraments of the Jews, which that people properly * and lawfully obferved : and therefore he obferved them, ' even when an Apoflle of Chrift, that he might teach that 'they were not hurtful to thofe who inchned to retain ' them as they had received them from their fathers ?' " Again, I befeech you, that you will indulge me in ex- *' prefling my grief. Behold, I may on the contrary fay, " and although the whole world fhould cry out againft me, <* freely declare, that the ceremonies of the law are both " hurtful and deadly to Chriftians ; and that whofoever " fliall obferve them, whether Jew or Gentile, is fallen in- " to the fnare of the devil." His mind is evidently rankled, fo that he can attend to nothing but this fingle article. For he previously exprefles his fear, left fuch ex- planations as Auguftine had given, fhould *' again intro- *' dace moft villanous herefy into the church j" adding, " But if it were incumbent on us to receive the rites of ** the Jews ; and lawful for them to obferve, in the " churches of Chrift, thefe things which they have per- ** formed in the fyna^ogues of Satan : I will fay what I ^ . " thinkj Clfiap. V. not the fame People* 8i " think, they would not become Chriflians, but they would " make us Jews *.'* The Doctor takes notice of the argument foundi^d ©n Auftin's ahfwer to Jerom, as fhewing that he confidered them as different fe<^s. " But Auftin," he fays, " only " enumerates all the names that Jerom had mentioned, and •* whether the differences were real or nominal, great or " little, it fignified nothing to him f. If Auftin had really enumerated ail the names mentioned by Jerom, the other affertion would have been rather more fpecious. But here our author is miltaken. For Auftin omits Cerinthus. He omits the Minei. But the truth of the obfervation, founded on this fuppofed enumeration, is highly queftion- able. For had Jerom muftered a parcel of names without any real diftinftion, Auftin might jiiftly have objefted to his conduct, as difcovering a ftrong propenfity to blacken his character. In the heat of controverfy, which evidently appears in the courfe of this correfpondence, it is not likely that he would have overlooked fuch a circumftance. It would have given him an handle for reprefenting, either the • Neque enim ejufdem eft criminis. in explan'atione Scripturarum di- verfas majoium (ententias ponere, et haerefim iccieratiffimam rurfai7i fa Ecclefiam intraducere. Sin antem haec nobis incumbit neceflitas, ut Ju- daeo^ cum legitimis fuis fufcipiamus ; et licebit eos obfervare in ecclefiis Chrifti, quod exercuerunt in fynagogis Sathanse; dicam quod fentio. non illi Cbriftiani fient, fed nos Judaeos facient. Quis enim hoc Chriftiano- rum patienter audiat. quod in tiia Epiftola continetur: JuJeeus e'ut Pan lus ; Ch'iftianus antem faStus^ ?ion Jui^conan acrumenta rellqucrat^ qi(.e coflvenienter i/ic popuhn, et l^oitimo tempoi e, que opportehat^ accif' porat ; ideoque lufcepit cdebrania ea, cum jam.' Chrijli ejf t Apo/lohn ; ut doceret non ejfe j'-.-rnichlas iis, qui ta velient^ ficut a parentibus per legem accep-.rant cuftodire ? Rurfum. obrecro te, ut pace tua meam do- l«rem audias.— — Ego e contrario loquar. et reciamante mundo, libera voce pronunciem, ceremonias Judaeorum et perniciofa^ elfe, et mortiferas Chriltianis : et quicunque eas obiervdverit. five ex JuJce-s, five ex gen- tibu", eum in bi^rathrum diaboli devolutum. Hieron, Auguftino^ Opera Aug. vol, li. p zi, f Vol. iii. p. 174. Vol. II. F J2 NaJ5 5roAy«£(paAs T^^a? o(pia)2yi fJt.o^v zv ixvrco uvecrvTroa-xf^tvog^ ^a^^iuv koh Atto^oAwv Trt^i tt/c^^j lyvyKxlx' S«(rov' Trofg' cXtyov tytvofAViv tv yravrt HXKUj fito-Qv iXKX-^crixg Kxt ,'Koig ev aTracri (ppovcov, the relative mruv cannot refpeft " the firfl words of the firfl fedtion ;" becaufe there Epiphanius has not fignified that he agreed with' them all, but with the Nazarenes only. 5. The Dodor offers vio- lence to the language of Epiphanius. For his tranflation of the words lafl mentioned is inadmiffible. Ev uTraai mufl certainly be underftood as denoting, not the perfoTis^ but the refpefts in which they agreed : and tqi^ ax^oig the perfonsy that is, the various feds referred to. But this unnatural verfion feems to have been adopted from a wifh to make it appear that, according to Epiphanius, Ebion agreed with the Nazarenes, in afferting that *' Chrifl was born of the " commerce and feed of man," and that in other refpeds 9nly he agreed with all the heretics formerly mentioned. But we are certain that the Gerinthians and Carpocratians, who are among their number, held this impious dodrine. It is, therefore, inconceiv bk, that Epiphanius fhould in- tend to exclude them. 6. He has not " fignified above," that the Nazarenes held Chrifl- to be the fon of Jofeph. Jt appears that the only fen£e which can be made of this paffage, Chap. V. Tiot the fame People. 0 2 paflage, is to underftand tstcjv as referring in general to the different heretical bodies before-mentioned. This agrees beft with what immediately follows ; — " and in common ** with them he derived his origin from them, that is, from the Jews, who are particularly referred to in the clofe of the preceding fedion. Thus, we can rationally and con- liflently account for his immediately introducing the doc- trine of Ebion with refpeft to the mere humanity of Chrift. This was a doftrine of the infidel Jews. Cerinthus had borrowed it from them ; and Ebion from the Cerinthians. For Epiphanius had declared that he couM not, on good information, charge the Nazarenes with it. In this man- ner he fliews the refemblance of Ebion to the Cerinthians, one of the fe<3:s referred to by rarwy. Having mentioned this doftrine, he puts the reader in mind of what he had already faid, that Ebion " agreed with the others in all "'things." Not one of the exprellions uled is meant to denote a ftri£t and perfect agreement, but merely a con- formity to each of thefe in fome one rcfpedl: or other. He does not refer to " the firft words of the firfl: fe£tion," but to thefe preceding the names of the different parties ; — " he conformed himfelf si; uTraaa^y to all." But it niignt feem, that this general afTertion was con- tradicted by the lajl words of the firfl fedlion ; — that while he " confefTed that he was a Jew, heoppofed himfelf to the " Jews." Therefore, before proceeding to prove his af- fertion, that Ebion conformed himfelf to all the other he- retical fefts, he fhews in what fenfe this exception, with r^fpeft to the Jews, was to be underflood. It was in this, that although Ebion " embraced the law of Judaifm, he <* went a great deal farther than the Jews, in his imitation " of the Samaritans." Thus he " oppofed the Jews," by adopting the pradicejs of a people with whom they would have 94 Na^iarenes and EbioJiites Book V« have no intcrcourfe. In this, indeed, he differed from all the other fects, by mingHng the rites of both. He ilkiitrates this difference nearly to the end of the fe- cond fedion. As a proof that he meant to (hew, in the beginning of it, the conformity of Ebion, in particular iu- ftances, to the other fe6ts formerly mentioned ; he, in the beginning of the third, returns to what he had entered on, as to the conception of our Saviour. He afterwards pro- ceeds to fliow what Ebion borrowed from the OfTaeans, Elcefaites, and Gnoilics. It is worthy of obfervation, that Grotius, although un- doubtedly a Socinian, had too much candour and good fenfe, to avail himfelf of the doubt exprefled by Epipha- nius. He fays ; ** Epiphanius doubts whether thefe alfo ". (the Nazarenes) afferted that Chrift was a mere man, " 'iSc. and alfo declares that he knew not, whether they " cut off the genealogy. But others do not plainly afcribe " any thing peculiar to them, belides the obfervation of *' the Hebrew rites. As Irenseus makes no mention of " them in his account of herefies, we are to judge favoar- " ably of them ; and fo much the more that Auguftine, " who confulted rnore a?icient ivriters, exprefsly affirms ** that the Nazarenes confefled Chrift to be the Son of " God *.'* .This learned man does not feem to have en- tertained a lingle idea as to the pretended identity of Na- zarenes and Ebionites. It appears to me, indeed, that Epiphanius " abandoned "his * Et cum (lubitet Epiphanius, an hi quoque ^iKo't kv^^o-xov (hominem Jnerum) Chriftum dicerent, &c. Sed et nefcire fe dicat an ablcindant getiealogias ab Abrahamo ufque ad Chriftum, Alii vero nihil plane lUis tiibuant proprium praeter Hebrseorum rituum obfeivationem. Ire- resell- vero nullam eoium mentionem tacit in recenfu herelewu, in partem meliorem de iliis judicandum ell, eoque magis, quod Augullinus, qui vetuliiiorcs fcriptores conluluit, dil rte affirmat confiteri Nazavaeos Chriftum efle Dei Filium. Annot. in Matth. Chap. V. not the fame "People, 05 " his doubt" In a manner direftly the reverfe of what Dr P. reprefents as the fa£t. The ancient writer has divided his work into volumes. To every vohime he has prefixed an index, expreffing the names of the herefies defcribed in it, their number, and the principal features of each herefy. Thefe fummaries have evidently been written after the work was finifhed *. In that prefixed to the fecond vo- lume, which contains the account of the Nazarenes, he fays of them ; ** They confefs that Jefus is the Chrift, the *' Son of God, hut live in all refpeCls according to the ** law f." It is evident that? the only thing that he here finds blameworthy in them is their Judaifm. Epiphanius, in the clofe of the fecond fe£lion, fpeaks of oj Na^apwoi oj avofyLOLf " the laxvlefs Nazarenes." This Dr Horfley underflands of that Jewifli fe6l faid to have borne this name. But as the exiflence of this fed is very doubtful, although the expreflion fliould be underftood of the Chriftian Nazarenes, it is no evidence that the wri- ter had a bad opinion of their faith and practice. Avoyt.ci may be merely a parody on the word voyLo:,^ by which the writer might mean to iignify that, by their obftinate at- tachment to the Mofaic la%v^ they were without law ; be- caufe, in this inflance, they renounced the authority of Chrifl, and feparated from his church. I flball only add, that, although Epiphanius had never abandoned his doubt, it could be of no weight in this controverfy. For, as will be fully proved afterwards, it was entirely ground lefs. Dr P. refers to Aii^in as faying, " that the Nazarenes " were by fome called Symmachians, from Symmachus, *' who is not only generally called an Eblonlte, but who ^ wrote exprefsly againil the doctrine of the miraculous '' conception. * Epiph. Refponf. ad Epift. Acacii. f Najcjfao/, 01 Kpirov of^oKoyaa iv lr,a-vv viov Gc«, ttxvtx S; /.xtx vo/xov ^thiT(uo/A^«t. Op. vol. i. p. 53. 95 Na^arenes and Ehionites Book V« *' conception. Ho\\ then," ne fays " could the Nazarenes <* be thought to be different from the Ebionites ? — Auftin ** — does iOL :ay that they were mifcalled *." The Doc- tor feems to refer to a paffage in Auftin 's work againft Crefconius : and in the ufe of this argument he has the honour of following the footfteps of Toland f. But Auftin does not fay that thefe heretics were called Symmachians, from Symmachus. Nor does he even fay, that " the Na- ** %arenes were by fome called Symmachians." Let the good man fpeak for himfelf : " And now there are cer- " tain heretics, who call themfelves Nazarenes, but by " fome they are denominated Symmachians •, and they re- " tain the Jewifti circumcifion, and the Chriftian bap- ** tifm %.** This is not, indeed, the only place in which we find the fame language. Fauftus, the Manichsean, ha- ving faid in his work, *' If any of the Nazarenes, whom " others call Symmachians, Ihall objeft," i^c. Auftin, fpeaking of the decree of the fynod of Jerufalem, replies , ^* This temperate management of the Holy Spirit working '* by the Apoftles, as it difpleafed fome believers of the ♦* circumcifion, who did not underftand thefe things, they *' continued in their perverfenefs, fo as to force the Gen- ** tiles to judaize. Thefe are they whom Fauftus has *' mentioned under the name of Symmachians or Naza- " renes, who continue to our own time, although their " number is very fmall ||." Whoever thefe heretics were, 2 " they * Vol, iii. p. 183. f Nazaren. c 20. ap. Mofheim Vindic. p. 148. I Et nunc funt quidam haeretici, qui fe Nazarenos vocant, a nonnullis 'autem Symmachiai)i appellantur, et circumcilionem habent Judaeorum, et baptifmum Chriftianorum. Cont. Crefconimn, lib. i. p. 168. I Et tavien htc fi miin N.^^arttomm objiceret quifquam quos alii Syt".*vachianos afpellant. quoiijefus dixerity honfe -^le^iijfe fohere Ugem^ &c. Faiift.— Hue igitar temperainentum moderamenque fpiritus fandli per apoftolos operantis, cum Uifplicuiflet quibwfdam ex circumcifione credeniibus, Chap. V, not the fame People * 97 they were undoubtedly the fame referred to in his work againft Crefconius. But the defcription given is that of Ebionites. It is mod probable that thefe heretics, unwilling to acknowledge a name which evidently implied that they had their ori- gin from a particular hereiiarch, wiihed to be called Naza- renes, in common with thofe to whom this name properly belonged ; efpecially as both parties adhered to the law. Thus they might hope to pafs with fome for the genuine fucceflbrs of thofe who were firft called Nazarenes. The learned Valefius, to whofe opinion our author at times pays great refpe6t, fuppofes that " the Ebionites were, in later •* ages, called Symmachians, from Symmachus, who " ftrenuoufly fupported their dodrines *." The account given of them is fuch as applies to Ebionites only. For Ambrofe fays that " the Symmachians, after the manner " of Photinus, aflert that Chrift is not God and man, but " man only f ." The manner in which Auftin fpeaks of the name Nazarenes is a ftrong prefumption that he had the Ebionites in his eye. For he fpeaks as if thefe heretics, had only wijhed to be called Na%arenes. They took this name to themfelves. But it does not appear that it was generally given them by others. How different is this from his language concerning the true Nazarenes, as evi- Vol. II. G dently credentibus, qui haec non intelligebant, in ea perverfitate manferunt, ut et gentes cogerent judaizare. li funt, quos Fauftus Symmachianorura vel Nazaraeorum nomine commemoravit, qui ufque ad noftra tempora jam quidem in exigua, fed adhuc tamen vel in ipfa paucitate perdurant, Cont. Fault. 1. 1^. c. 18. • Porro ab hoc Symmacho Ebionaei poflea di renes. " But the Ebionites, and Theodotians, and Arte- ** monites, and Photinians, have afferted that Chrift is a *' mere man born of a virgin §." However, I do not think that much ftrefs can be laid on this. It is a further proof of his inaccuracy : as he fpeaks of the Ebionites, without diftindion, as believing the miraculous conception. G 4 Ht * Euf. Hlft. 1. 6. c. 12. p. 270. f Ibid. 1. 3. c. 27. I Vid. Moflieira. Tindic. p. 107.— m, § Ibid. p. Ill, 104 Nazarenes and Ebionites Book V. Dr P., before doling this chapter, goes a little farther back, in order to prove the lawful defcent of his ancient friends from the firft Hebrew Chriftians. " The refem- " blance," he fays, " between the chara6ler of the Ebionites, " as given by the early Chriftian fathers, and that of the " Jewifh Chriftians at the time of Paul's laft journey to Je- " rufalem, is very ftriking. After he had given an ac- " count of his condud to the more intelligent of them, " they were fatisfied with it ; but they thought there would ^* be great difficulty in fatisfying others. *' Tboufeejl, hro- " ther, fay they to him, A£ls xxi. 20. how many thoiifancU " ^f y^'^^^ there are ivho believe, and they are all zealous of " the law. And they are informed of thee that thou teachefi ♦' all the Jews who are among the Gentiles, toforfake Mofes; ^^ faying that they ought not to circumcife their children, nei- ** ther to walk after their cufloms. What is it therefore ? ** T^he multitudes mufl needs come together, for they will hear *' that thou art come. Do therefore this that we fay unto " thee ; We haiie four men who have a vow upon them ; " them take and purify thy/elf with them, — that all may ♦' know that thofe thifigs whereof they were i?formed con- *' cerning thee are nothing, hut that thou thyfelf alfo walkefl " orderly, and keepefl the law.'' Here the Dodor ftops fhort ; adding, " So great a refemblance in fome things, • " vi%. their attachment to the law and their prejudices a- " gainft Paul, cannot but lead us to imagine that they were -^' the fame in other refpe6b alfo, both being equally zealous *' obfervers of the law, and equally ftrangers to the doftrine " of the divinity of Chrift * " But why does the learned Gentleman break off at the verfe immediately following what he has quoted ? He had, indeed, fufficient reafon for this. He muft have known that it would fpoil the refemblance. For the Ebionites had a diftin- guilhing feature which thefe Hebrew Chriftians wanted. Di * Vol.iii, p. 187.— I S9. Chap. V. not the fame People, 1 05 Dr P. elfe where acknowledges what he found it impoflible to deny ; that " the E])ionites, at leaft fnariy of them, would have impofed the yoke of the " Jewifh law upon tiie Gentile '** Chriftians, and would not communicate with thofe who • " were not circumcifed *." There is not the leaft reafon for the exception. For according to the unanimous voice of anti- quity, this was the principle of all of them. Was it becaufe Paul taught that the Gentiles were not bound by the law of Mofes,that thefe many thou funds were offended? There is not the leaft evidence of this, from the words quoted. The only ground of offence mentioned, is that he taught the Jews who were among the Gentiles , toforfake Mofes. The conformity advifed by the Apoftles, was only meant as a proof that Paul himfelff being a Jew, kept the law ; and therefore, that he could not be fuppofed to entice others toforfake it. But the v/ords immediately following the quotation, ftiew that they had no wifti to conftrain the Gentiles to obferve the law : ^s touching the Gentiles who believe, we have written and concluded, that they obferve no fuch things, fave only that they keep themfelves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from fir angled, and from fornication, ver. 25. This decree was in full force. The obfervation of the ce- remonial law by the Gentiles was, not only not required, but prohibited by the Synod of Jerufalem. Had this de- cree been oppofed by the multitudes, they would have been rebels againft the Apoftles, nay, againft the Holy Ghoft (chap. XV. 28). But we are under the neceflity of con- cluding that it was agreeable to them, if we grant the truth of the hiftory of the A6ts. For it pleafed, not the Apo- ftles and elders only, but the whole church, ver. 22. Thefe many thoufands of Hebrew believers, though zealous for the law themfelves, and urging its obfervation on all of their own nation, left the Gentiles at liberty, except in the things mentioned. Therefore, they were not Ebionites. And % Vol. iii. p. ao2. lo6 Nazaretics and Ebionites Book V. And lince they did fiot refemble them in this refpe^l, al- though we had no other evidence, we might conclude, ac- cording to our author's own plan of reafoning, that *' they ♦* were not the fame in other refpeds." He concludes this chapter with thefe wor.ds ; *' I have " not met with any mention of more than one orthodox " Jewidi Chriftian in the courfe of my reading; and that " is one whofe name was Jofeph, whom Epiphanius fays " he met with at Scythopolis, when all the other inhabi- ** tants of the place were Arians." It is evidently our author's wifn as much as poflible to re- duce the number of orthodox Hebrews. Had he been as anxious to meet with thofe of this defcription, as with Uni- tarians,'he might have found that this Jofeph had many brethren. Ilad he only looked into the fifth fe£lion of the fame chapter, he mufl have obferved that there was, in that very place, another, a certain young man, *' an orthodox *' believer from among the Hebrews *," who fecretly vifit- ed Epiphanius and his company. Had he only looked through the fame feftion in which Jofeph is firft mentioned, he muft have found that the Patriarch Eilel, the defcendcnt of Gamaliel, when dying, embraced Chriflianity. It is e- vident, that he alfo was an orthodox Hebrew Chriftian. For Epiphanius fays, that when he was baptized by the Bilbop of Tiberias, he was " initiated into holy myfteries." Now, in jiiftice, tliis language maft be underflood accord- ing to the perfuafion of the writer. It is ftrange, that Dr P. fhould fpeak exclufively of Jofeph, when he had the very fame evidence of the exiitence of other orthodox Chriilians, of Hebrew origin, as of his. For in the very page in which Epiphanius enters on his account of Jofeph, he informs us that the Gofpel of John, and the A6ts of the Apoflles, v/ere tranflated into Hebrew, and mofl * ^To E^^ceim cgiu^ THrrevxY, Epiph« Hier. 30, Chap. V. not the fame People. 107 • moft fecretly preferved in the treafuries of the Jews at Ti- berias ; adding, that forae of thofe converted from Judaifni had moft accurately declared this to him. Nay, he further fays, that " thefe Jews, who made this declaration to him, " acknowledged that by this means they had believed on " Chrift*." Our learned author, if he paid the leaft refpe£l to the connexion, could not but obferve that thefe perfons, what- ever their number might be, were of the fame faith with the orthodox Jofeph. For in this manner Epiphanius be- gins to defcribe him : *' But Jofeph was one of them," l^c. It is at any rate undeniable, that the Ebionites rejected both the Gofpel of John and the Ads of the Apofiles. Epiphanius himfelf was a Jewifh Chilftian. He was not only born a Jew, but educated in that religion. In his life, faid to be written by John, -one of his difciples, it is alTerted that after his father's death, one Tryphon a Jew took him under his care, and '* diligently taught him all ** things pertaining to the law and the Hebrew elements; " and that Epiphanius grew in age, and in the wifdom of " the Hebrews f." Dr P. entertains no doubt of the or- thodoxy of this yewijh Chrijiian. I have already made feme remarks on that paflage in Jerom, which has been generally brought to prove, that he did not cofiiider the Nazarenes and Ebionites as the fame people. But I have met with many other palTages in his works, which although they do not feem to have been at- tended to in refped to the queftion at ilTue, ihew in the cleareft manner, that he viewed them as entirely diftinft/ This father has a greater claim to our regard than any o- ther 30. fed. 5. vol. i. p. 129. t Vita Epiph, fed. 5- vol. ii. p. 7.21. 1 ipS Na%arenes and Ehionites Book V. ther writer who has mentioned thefe fe£ls ; becaufe he was much better acquainted with them. He docs not fpeak. ftom report, but from perfonal knowledge. The paflages referred to efpecially deferve our attention, becaufe they exprefe the fentiments of the writer, when he is not agitat- ed by the heat of controverfy, but coolly commenting on the language of infpiration. Although, on one occalion, when alarmed at the idea of the introduftion of herefy into the church, and irritated by oppolition, we have heard him refufe that the Nazarenes were either Jews or Chriftians ; he generally reprefents them in a more favourable light. Referring to one of thefe people, he calls him " an Hebrew of the Nazarene *' fed *." He fays that " they fo receive Chrift, as not to " renounce the legal obfervances f •," and feems to confider this as the only difference between them and other Chri- ftians. He gives them the moderate epithet of errantes ; producing no other evidence of its juftnefs than their " en- " deavouring to preferve the abolifhed rites |." Quoting thefe words, No man putteth new wine into old hottla, *' Such are the Nazarenes," he fays, ** who attempt to a- *' dapt the obfervation of the old law to the grace of the " gofpel ||." In a word, he gives the very fame account of them as of thofe Chriftians, for whofe fake, he fays, Mat- thew wrote his gofpel in Hebrew §. But he exhibits the Ebionites * Legi nuper in qiiodam Hebraico volumlne, quod Nazarenae fedtae mihi Hebrjeus obtulit, Hieremise apocryphum, &c. In Mat. xxvii. 9. f Nazaraei, qui ita Chriftum recipiunt, ut obfervationes legis veteris non amittant. In Efai. cap. viii. 14. \ Nee juxta errantes Nazaraeos, abolitis facrificlis infervient, fed fpiritua- lem cultum fe t)fj.ipoiq, tLai TTipt t»v f.a-7rtpavf rpi. rn( riuepxc oTi ivp^ai. (?rtT(Kn(riv iv rats avruv ■ iivccyuyui(, rTapc^vrai ■:'iToi(, xut avixBif4.UT Invert, facc. /'/vV-'/a terra Zabulon, et terra Neptalim, Scriba- rum et Pharifxorum eft eiroribus liberata : et gravilTimum traditioninu Judaicarum jugum excuITit de cervicibus fuis Pojiea autem per evange- Jiuni apoftoli Pauli, qui novifiimus apoftolorum omnium fuit, ingravata eft, id eft, multiplicata praedicatio • et in terminos gentium et viam uni- verfi maris Chrifti evangelium fplenduit. Denique omnis orbis qui ante anibulabat vel fedebat in tenebris, et idololatrise ac mortis vinculis tene- batur, clarura evangelii lumen afpexit. In Efai. ix. i. Chap. V. not the fan le People^ na brews believing in Chrifl, as diftind from the Nazarenes *. Mofl probably he means thofe who had renounced the bon- dage of the law, and who, although in a ftate of fellowfhip with Gentiles, were known to be of the Hebrew race. They were not Nazarenes, for Jerom not only diftingui flies the one from the other, but their view of the paflage is very different from that of the Nazarenes, which is imme- diately fubjoined. I cannot think that they were Ebio- nites. For Jerom every where elfe defigns thefe heretics in quite another way. This paflage, at any rate, affords an incontrovertible proof that he knew at leafl two claffes of Hebrews profefling Chriftianity. S E C T I O N IL Rtfle&ions concernvig the Na%arenes. Of this heing ttfed as a peculiar name. IT is evident, from the hiftory of the A£ls of the Apoflles, that the unbelieving Jews contemptuoufly beftowed the name of Nazarenes on all Chriltians, in allulion to the place where they fuppofed that our Saviour was born. It was in common ufe with them, when Tertullian wrote. In the time of Agobard, they daily curfed the Chriftians under this name. Nay, it feems to be flill retained by them. For, it is faid, that " there is nothing to this day " more common than to call Jefus by the title of the H 4 '' Not TW tvxyfiXiu iTjcoy Tov Nu^co^xiov xxXutr- 6xiy u<; tCf 01 A'TTOTcXoi (pxcrity Iri^ev rov tJa^upxiov xv^^x ocTTo^iSnyue' »«»— — T«TO TO OtOUX ETTiTlSeJtTIV aVTOiq^ TO iCxXiXIT^Xi NflC^a-ga/tf J, v^i h Na^»^«ttf?, TO i^UTOvtvofxivov rtyix^fztwg. Ibid. f. 5* X OyTo< Oi c» -TT^oif^YifAiva xienm^TXif Trx^ivT.? to aotix ry jr?2 RefleEIions concernhig Book V. If we fuppofe that they took this name entirely from choice, they might prefer it to that of Chriflians, becaufe they knew that their conforming brethren chofe to be thus denominated. By calling themfelves Nazarenes, by appro- priating a name not hitherto acknowledged, they might wilh to diflinguifli themfelves from thofe v/hom they would undoubtedly confider as apoflates from the law. Although given as a term of reproach by the Jews, they might refufe to confider it in this light, becaufe their mafter had been called yefus of Na-zareth* This, indeed, is the reafon af- figned for their condu£l by Epiphanius. Beiides, this name would be already familiarized to them, as they had hither- to received no other from the Jews. Although we fhould underftand the language of Epipha- nius lefs ftridly, and fuppofe that in taking this name they did not a£l quite voluntarily, they might account it the wifefl plan to make a virtue of neceffity. As the Jews had Hill called them, in common with other Chriftians, by this name, they would not expeft to receive any other from them, al- though this had been their wifh. Epiphanius, indeed, in the palTage firft quoted, feems to infmuate that this confideration was of weight with them. They could have lefs reafon to ex- pect a change of name, though they had inclined it, than ei- ther thofe Hebrews who had forfaken the law, or Gentile be- lievers. For they were more intermingled with unbelie- ving Jews. Even fo late as the time of Jerom, they were (Jifperfed through all the fynagogues of the Eaft. By this expreffion, he could not mean that they were members of the fynagogue. For he informs us, in the fame place, that they had an appellation which iignified the very reverfe. They were called Mini?n, which as Dr P. obferves, figni- fies 1>5T», HTi hc-cramg exvrcvg Hix>.y,y.co/W5 n.i^** CoHt. Cclf. loc. fup. cit» Chap. V. the Nazarenes. ^ 133 v/ith them. Epiphnnius indeed fays ; " Since the time of ** Ebion to this day, thofe who have followed his error, " having their minds carried away into abfurdity and con- " fulion, declare fome one way, and fome anot-icr, concern- " ing Chrill." But when he proceeds to explain their no- tions, he fays, that *' fome alferted that Cln-ill: was that A- " dam firll formed by God, that others faid. he came from ** heaven, and was created before all •, and (like the Ceriii- " thians) that the Spirit entered into him, which is the " very Chrift, and was clothed with him who is called Je- ** fus. But," he adds, " great is the darknefs among " them, as they ftate their opinions concerning Chrift In a *' great variety of ways *." None of thefe notions, how- ever, have the leafl; refemblance to the doctrine of the mi- raculous conception. But in proving that the Nazarenes were different from the Ebionites, there is no abfolute neceiTity for fup^^oiing, that Origen meant to incluae all who made a prL'tclfion of Chriitianity, and yet adhered to the law, under the general name oi Ebion iteis. Althoagh it i/iOuld be thought, :hat what he fays concerning the denial of the theology by thofe who believed the miraculous conception, weri. unex- ceptionable ; it cannot be inferred that he knew no oiher Hebrew Chriftians belides thete two claiTes. for it will afterwards be feen, that he fpeaks of fome ( hrillans who retained the law with interpretations^ as diftinct fiopi th9fe who adhered to the letter 07dy. If the former were not Nazarenes, we are certain they were not Ebionites. The learned and judicious biUiop Bull has q^ioted a paf- fage Trom Juftin Mart^^r's Dialorrue, as a prool that tnere were Hebrew Chriilians who beUeved the Deity of Cm ill, and y-t adhered to the Lav. Tryp:^.o fay- \ " Shall thofe '■'' who have lived accordmg to the law enjoined by Mofes, *' live in the refurreclion of the dead, in tlie fame manner I 3 " as * Haer. 30. f. 3. 134 Refle&ions concerning Book V. " as Job, Enoch, and Noah, or not?" To this Juftin re- plies J *' In that law the things which are naturally excel- ** lent, and pious, and jufl, are required to be performed by *' thofe who are obedient ; as other things were alfo enjoin- " ed on account of the hardnefs of the hearts of that peo- " pie, which thofe performed who were under the law. " For thofe who did thefe things which are univerfally, na- *' turally and eternally good, are acceptable to God, and " Ihall be faved by this Chrifl, in the refurredKjn as well as ** their righteous anceftors, Eioch, Nouh and Job, or any ** others, together with thofe who acknowledge the Chrift " this Son of God, who was before the morning liar and " the moon *, and being incarnate by that virgin of the fa- ^^ mily of David, condefcended to be born, that by this dif- *' penfation the ferpent, the original caufe of evil, and his an- " gelb, conformed to him, might be fubdued," i^c, Jullin, having declared that thofe would be faved who conicientiouily lived according to their light under the Old Tellament, and clafled them with thofe under the New, who believe in the deity and miraculous conception of Chrift ; 1 rypho, perhaps apprehending that he meant to exclude all profeiTed Chriftians who did not renounce the Jaw of Mofes, propofes the following queftion to him i " But if fome, even now, incline to live, obferving thefe " things enjoined by Mofes, and believe on this * Jefus " who was crucified, acknowledging that he is the Chrift ^" of God, and that to him is entirely given the judgment " of all, and thnt his kingdom is everlafting, can thefe alfo f* be faved ?" After a little difputation concerning thofe legal inftitutions that could be obferved after the deftruc- tion of the temple, Trypho repeats his queftion, and Juftin replies : * Tarov, according to its ordinary and proper meaning, certainly in» eludes all the preceding deicription given of the Saviour by Juftin ; there- fore, his deity and miraculous conception. Chap. V, the Nazarenes, «35 replies : ** As it appears to me indeed, Trypho, I aflert, ** that fuch a perfon can be faved, if he ftrive not by all " means to perfuade other men (I prefently fpeak of thoCe ** who, from among the Gentiles, hav^ been circunicifed by " Chrift from error) to obferve the fame things with him, " aflerting that they cannot be faved, unlels they do fo ; ** in like manner as thou haft done in the commencement ** of l;his difcourfe, ihewing that I could not be faved, with- ** out obferving thefe things." Then Trypho ; *' Accord- " ing to what you have faid, as I underftand it, fuch a one " Ihall be faved. But are there any who aflert that fuch " fhall not be faved ? There are, I replied, O Trypho, and ** who dare not have any fellowfliip with fuch, either in ^* converfation, or in eating : with whom I do not agree. " But if they, by reafon of weaknefs of mind, incline to ** obferve all the Mofaic inftitutions that are now in their " power, which we know were commanded on account of ** the obduracy of the people, together with hope in this * " Chrift, and the adls of juftice and piety which are eter- '^^ nally and naturally incumbent, and choofe to live toge- " ther with believing Chriftians, as I have faid before, not " perfuading them either to be circumcifed like them, or " to obferve other things of the fame nature, it evidently *' appears necelTary both to receive thefe, and to hold com- " munion with them as men of the fame bowels, and ** brethren f ." Here Juftin Martyr feems to fpeak of the Nazarenes. He does not name them, indeed. But it cannot be pre- tended that they were Ebionites. For they did not force the law on the Gentiles, which, it is undeniable, the Ebio- nites did. Therefore, they were not the fame people with I 4 them.. * Tarov. He carefully preferves a reference to the account formerly given of that faith in tlie Son of God, which he reckoned neceflary tij falvation. t Dial. p. 263.— .26<). 136 "ReJieBtons concerning BookV. them. It will not be faid that they were Gnoftics. Foi they difcover none of their opinions. If, then, Dr P. re- fufe that they were Nazarenes, according to our ideas of that people ; it is incumbent on him to fhew who they were. It csn be no valid objection, that Juftin fpeaks hypothe- tlcally. For when he fays that fome aflert that thofe who themfelves obferve the law, but do not force it on others, Jhall not he faved, adding, with whom I do not agree ; he clearly fhews the real exiftence of fuch believing Hebrews. For how would any one think of judging of their flate, if there were no fuch perfons ? Indeed, the defcription given by Juflin of thefe converts, as " choofing to live together " with" Gentiles, " without perfuading them to be cir- ** cumcifed," i^c. exa6lly correfponds with the account of the Chriftian Hebrews given in the AtSls. When Peter returned to Jerufalem, after his intercourfe with Cornelius, they that were of the circu?nciJion contended zvith him, Jay^ ing, 'T.hou wcntejl in to men uncircumcifed, and didjl eat ivith them. But Peter rehearfed the matter from the beginning. When they heard thefe things, they held their peace, afid glo' rijied God, faying, Then hath God alfoto the Gentiles granted repentatice tmto life, ch. xi. 2. — 16. Had there been any Ebionites here, they would not have held their peace. From the preceding quotation from Juftin, the following things are evident ; that he accounted faith in the deity of Chrift necefrar37- to fulvation ; that he had no hope of the fal- vation of the Ebionites, and reckoned them heretics, becaufe they tried to force the law on the Gentiles ; that there were other Hebrew Chriilians, believing as he did concerning Chrift, and themfelves obferving the law, but not per- fuading the Gentiles to obferve it ; and that fome thought that even thefe could not be faved, and held no communion with them, although Juftin himfelf was of a different opi- nion. As Chap. V. the l>ia%arencs, 137 As far as we know, It is not afTerted by any of the wri- ters who have mentioned the Naziirenes, that they at- tempted to impofe the law on Gentile Chriftiaifs. Thofe who firft bore the name did not, with whom thofe defcribed by Juftin entirely agreed. They communicated with thofe Gentile believers who did not reje£l them. As^/b/;zf ob- jevfted to this fellowfhip, they would afterwards find it ne- celTarv to withdraw. Even thofe who at firft dealt ten- derly with them, from a perfuafion that they might at length difcover the folly of their attachment to an abro- gated law, perceiving that they continued obftinate, would alfo refuie them communion. From this circumftance, many of them feem to have made confiderable approaches to the Ebionites. Thus alone can we rationally account for the appearance of a new clafs of Ebionites in the third century. It is be- yond all probability, that any of the proper Ebionites ihould borrow a doftrine from the Gentile Chriftians whom they hated, rife in their ideas concerning the Saviour, and make an addition to their Gofpel. Though it Ihould be fuppofed that a few individuals fhould have made fuch a tranfition, we cannot imagine that this would have been done by a body fo confiderable as to appear in hiftory as a diftincl clafs. Iren^us fpeaks of the Ebionites, without any exception, as in his time following Theodotion and Aquila, that is, attempting to fupport their doftrine of Chrift being the fon of Jofeph from the verfions of thefe tranflators. Did a great part of them, let us fuppofe the one half, renounce their friends and fupporters, and embrace a doftrine diametrically oppofite to theirs, in the courfe of half a century ? In what manner can this extraordinary, and, all circumftances confidered, unparalleled change be accounted for ? If we fuppofe that thefc were not Ebionites, originally at j^% RefleBions concerning . Book V. at leafl, we have a rational folution of the difficulty. Eu- febius greatly alTifts U6, in the account which he gives of thofe called Ebionites, who believed the miraculous con- ception. For, as we have feeji, he evidently fpeaks of them as being " carried away with the impiety of the for- ** mer, fo as not any longer to confefs that Chrill was God, ** the Word and Wifdom *." This language plainly implies that formerly they were totally diflinft from the reft, who bore the name of Ebionites, He is an unexceptionable witnels, as to this previous circumftance : for he could have no end to ferve in making this latter clafs originally better than the former. As Dr P. charges Eufebius with " pre- " judice agamft the Unitarians/' he cannot fuppofe that hp would have faid any thing in their favour, unlefs a regard to truth had abfolutely required it. This paflage of Eufebius, juflly viewed, throws grejit light on what is aflerted by Epiphanius concernjng the Ebionites and Nazarenes, that " they, drawing near the ** one to the other, communicated their perverfenefs to ** each other f." He makes this obfervation, after men- tioning their relidence in the fame country. As they thus lived together ; as both parties were of Hebrew origin ; as both adhered to the l^w ; as both were in a ilate of fepa- ration from the great body of the- faithful ; as they were equally expofed to reproach for their attachment to beg* garly elements 'y it is very natural to fuppofe, though we had no authority for it, that many of the Nazarenes would ^efert to the Ebionites, or, at leaft, gradually draw nearer to them than they were immediately after they left the communion of the church. Even the faith of the Naza- renes In the divinity of Chrift would, to many, eventually prove but a flender obftacle to this approximation. For their very adherence to fhadows, that were done away, wap * See above, p. 72, &c. f Haer. 30. Chap. V. the Na%arenes, 1 39 was a partial apoftacy from the fubftance. They had re- ceived, from the Spirit of infpiration, a folemn warning to take heed left there JJjould be in any of them an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God. It is evident from the connexion that this character is here j^iven to Chrift And as the great defign of the Epiftle to the He- brews was to fhew, that the ceremonial law was abrogated, as being fulfilled in him ; an obftinate adherence to it was unqueftionably that great temptation to apoflacy, which the infpired writer had in his eye. It is natural to think that many, who only partially rejected this lolemn warn- ing, by mingling the law with the gofpel, would go further ; as thofe engaged in courfes of error generally wax worfe ■ a?id ivorfe, deceiving and being deceived. But we are far from meaning that the great body of the Nazarenes renounced the doctrine of the deity of Chrift^ Though it were uncharitably fuppofed that none were ac-r tuated by a fuperior principle, many would adhere to it from the prejudices of education, and from zeal for the do£lrine of their fathers. And from the teftimonies of Te- rom and Auftin, we know that whatever were their mo- tives, they continued to confefs Chrift as the Son of God. Epiphanius himfelf, even while he fpeaks of the mutual communications of thefe heretics, defcribes them as diftindt bodies. SECTION III. Qf the points in which the Nazarenes differed from the Ebionites, ripHE learned Jones could perceive very little difference -■■ between thefe fefts *. But had he paid the fame at- tention to this fubjeft, as to fome others, he muft have feen that they differed widely. I. The * Method of fettling the Canon, vol. I. 385, 385. 1^0 Differences between the Book V. 1. The Nazarenes believed the miraculous conception. Thofe properly called Ebionites never did; 2. The Nazarenes confefled that Chrift was the Son of God. The Ebionites alTertcd that he was man only*. 3. The Nazarenes acknowledged all the Old Teftament as infpired f . It does not appear that the Ebionites did to. Epiphanius alTerts that they ** held the prophets in ab- " horrence J." This our author reckons improbable, be- caufe both Symmachus and Theodotion tranfliUed the Old Teftament ||. But the argument is not conclulive, unlefs it can be proved that every tranflator has bclievtd the in- fpiration of that work on which he has beftowed his labour. Although Epiphanius is, perhaps, the only ancient writer who fpeaks of their rejedion of the prophets in fuch ftrong" language, it cannot be doubted that they were very early chargeable wita fome error on this head ; and that this was a ftriking line in th^ir chara<^er. For Irenaeus, in the very fliort account he has given of them, fays, that they ^* attempted to explain the prophetical writings in too cu- •' rious a manner §." One would think that, if the teftimony of Epiphanius be worthy ot credit in any one inftance, it is when he fpeaks of the Ebionites as rejetfling the prophets. He is fo particular, that we can fcarcely fuppofe that he erred, un- lefs e had done f wilfully. For after infinuating their reje6lion of a the Old Teilament, except the iive books of M fes he adds ; " But nether do they receive tne Pen- ^* tateuch .-ntirc, but reject certain faynigs. For if you ** objed tiiat concerning animal food, nquiring why Abra- " ham * Juft. Mart. p. 265, 266. Hieron. E.). aH Aug, In Efai. i. 12. xi. 1. xl. 0. Ezek. xvi. i '5.~-''^"g"rt. de Haev. ut fi;p, f Haer. 29. f. 7. \ Haer. 30. p. 139. 11 Vol. iii p 217. § Quae autem funtprophetica, curiofius exponere nitiuitur. Adv. Hsr. L i. c. 2 6. Chap. V. Na%arcne5 and Ehionites, 1^2 " ham fet down a chIF, with milk, to the an^cIs? or why " Noah fed in this manner, and received the divine com- " mand to flaj and eat? and how Ifaac and Jacob offered " facrifice to God, and :ilfo Moles, in the defert? thej indeed " difbeUeve thefe tilings, faying; ' Of what neceffity is •* it for me to acknowledge what is in the law, when the * gofpel is come * ?'* On the contrary, the fame writer ex- prefsly teftifies of the Nazarenes, that they received all the Jewilh fcriptures f . But, befides what is aflerted by Irc- Hctus and Epiphanius on this head, Methodius, bifhop of Tyre, an accurate writer who . flouriflied about the year 29c. fays that the Ebionites " contended that the prophets *' ipake of their own motion ;" that is, they refufed that the prophets fpah as they were ?no'ued hy the Holy Ghoji. The learned Fabricius, who does not feem to have recol- letavTEf. Fabric. Biblioth. Gixc. I 4 c. 5. ' u . I'i. 1). I ^o. If In Catalogo MSS. Conftantini Varini C. PolitanI quern Pofievinu.oyo¥ Bri^iov^ 0H» TH KTicrxvToq xvTUg t« Kxi n: ttxvtx nt^yiTiKMTicov yiyivn'^^cn «j;Si>T£?, Horn. 3. ftidl. 21. p. 65^. J44 Differences between the Chap. V. genealogy, means to exprefs his certain information that it 'w^^ ?noJl entire in other refpeds ; and to contraft it with that of the Ebionites, which, he certainly knew, wanted the genealogy, and to which he refufes this character, becaufe it was not only m^caTYi^iaafxBvco mutilated, but vevU' Gevfxsvu adulterated. The truth of the laft afTertion he im- mediately proceeds to illuflrate by fonie inflances *. Si- mon f, Olearius;!:, and Fabricius||, were fatisfied that thefe were different Gofpels.. although they might have one name.' It is remarkable that the learned Grabe, though he at firft thought that they were the fame, afterwards, on a careful comparifon of the fragments of both, changed his opinion, and candidly acknowledged his miftake }. But w^e Ihall afk no other evidence that they ufed diffe- rent Gofpels, than what our author himfelf affords. He grants that, *' in the Gofpel which Jerom tranflated, there " was the Jecond chapter, if not the genealogy •," becaufe it had thefe words, Out of Egypt have I called my Son ; and, Hejhall be called a Na%arene. *' This," he adds, " I am " willing to explain in the following manner. Originally ** the Jewilh Chriftians did not believe the do£lrine of the " miraculous conception. — Origen is the firft who has no- " tlced two kinds of Ebionites, one believing the concep- " tion, and the other denying it. Probably, therefore, *' their original copies of the Gofpel had not the twojirjl ** chapters, which contained that hiftory ; but after fome ** time, thofe of the Jewifh Chriftians, who gave credit to " the ftory, would naturally add thefe two chapters from " the Greek copies ; and it might be a copy of this kind that Jerom met with J Dr * Haer. 30. f, 13. p. 137. f HI a. Crlt. de N. T. c. 7. \ Obferv. in Matth. x. p. 94. || Cod. Apocryph. N. T. P i. p. 360. § Not. in Irenaeum, 1, 3. c. Ii.p. ^^0. ap. Moflieim Vindic. p. ii.~. ** Vol. iii. p. 215, 216. Chap. V, Ncpzarenes and Ehionites. 145 Dr P. Is uncommonly liberal in his conceffions here. He feems fo to feel the force of that evidence which oppofes his fyftem, that he wifhes to compound on as reafonable terms as poffible. But although he be " wilHng to explain in " this manner," he will find few to join him. He has granted too much for his own hypothefis. Call thefe " two *' kinds of Ebionites," or what you pleafe ; they could not have been the fame people. The Dodor, furely, does not fuppofe that they all admitted of this addition. Thofe who difbelieved the miraculous conception^ would never aflent to fuch an innovation. Religious bodies, how ftrid foever their former agreement, when they begin to differ, inftead of being fo complaifant, generally become warmer in their attachment to the point in difpute, than before. This would be, in hiftory, a folitary inftance of moderation, as to a point of this nature ; indeed, as to almofl any article of faith or pra6lice. This addition, therefore, as the Doc- tor himfelf feems to grant, would be found in fome copies only. But was not the Gofpel read and explained in their churches ? The queftion, then, muft have been, which of them (hould be read ? If the neiv Ebionites thought this a point of fuch importance that, on account of it, they made an addition to their Gofpel ; would they confent that this Ihould be omitted in the Le6lure ? This is totally in- credible. Would the old Ebionites fubmit to hear a thing read as the language of infpiration, which taught a doctrine that they are faid to have denied for more than two centu- ries ? This is equally incredible. Therefore, we cannot fuppofe them to have had different gofpels, even as to this fingle point, without feparate affemblies. But if they had, they were really different feds. Thus, our author has himfelf proved the very point which he fo ftrenuoufly oppofes. From his own conceffions, it appears almoil to a demonftration, that thoCe, whofe Vol. H. K Gofpel 1^6 ^Differences betiveen the Book V, Gofpel had the genealogy, were indeed the Nazarenes. It will naturally occur to the reader, that the difference between their copies of Matthew's Gofpel was not owing to an addition in a later age, but that they were originally different ; or rather, that the true Ebionites were the only innovators. For indeed, it has the confent of antiquity, thai: they cut offtht genealogy. What, then, are we to make of Jerom, when he fpeaks of " the (Tofpel ufed by the Nazarenes and Ebionites ?" Dr P., quoting thefe words in a preceding chapter, declares that " Jerom has fufficiently decided the queftion," and could have had no " other idea than that thefe two fefts " ufed the fame gofpel, when he faid, * In the gofpel ufed * by t!ie Nazarenes and Ebionites, which is commonly * called the authentic gofpel of Matthew, which I lately * tranflated from Hebrew into Greek *," iSc. But, by his conceffions on this occalion, he ruins the force of Jerom's decifion. 1 he copy which he tranflated had the fecond chapter, " if not the genealogy -j-," as Dr P. obferves ; and we certainly know that the one ufed by the Ebionites ivanted bothX- It is therefore evident, that Jerom had tranflated the Gofpel, only as it was preferved among the Nazarenes. Of this he himfelf afllures us ||. But flill he might fpeak of it as alfo ufed by the Ebionites ; becaufe their • In evangelio quo utuntur Nazareni et Ebionitas, quod nuper in Grse- cuni de Hebr^o fermone tranftulimus, et quod vocatur a plerifque Mat- tlisi authentlcum, &c. In Matth. xii, 13, ap. Audt. vol. iii. p. 180., f Ibid. p. iSr. X This is undoubtedly admitted by our learned author. For he fays-; ** It is evident from Epiphanius that the Ebionites did not confider the " two firfl cliapters of Matthew as belonging to it; for their copies were " v^ititout them, beginning with the third chapter." Ibid. p. 213. II Mihi quoque a Nazaraeis qui in Beroea urbe Syriae hoc volumine utuntur, defcribendi facultas fuit. Catal. vir. illuftr. in Matth. Chap. V. Na%arene5 and Ehwnites. 147 their edition, thoui^h mutilated xw^l corrubted^ was originally the fame as that of the Naz.irenes. His lan^^uage doc^. not .neceirarily imply that this gofpel was ufed by both in tlie fameybr/^. It is obfervable that, in every other place, he fpeaks of the Nnzarenes only as ulmg it. By looking into a paiTage of Grotms, 1 find that he ma- terially admits the truth of all that is here afferted. As he was a Socinian, nothing bur the force of truth could have made him exprefs himfelf as he does. His candid decla- ration certainly deferves our author's particular attenuon. ^* There are fome," he fays, " who think that the Gofpel of ^' the Nszarenes alfo was mutilated : bu! of this \. do not find " a7iy fufiicient witncjs. For Epiphanius afferts the contrary, ^' that thefe, vi%. have the Gofpel mofi entire, I know very *' well that Jerom quotes the Hebrew copy of 'V^attliew, in ** fu. h a manner that he may feem to make ii common to " Nazarenes and Ebionites. But it is my judr^ment, that " it was common to them, j.uil as the Gofpel of Luke had "formerly been to Marcion and the Catholics; a few ** things, which difpleafed Marcion, being altered. In like *' manner, the Ebionites deleted the whole of the Genea- ** logy, and what follows to that place where we have an *' account of Chriil being baptized by John, juft as Marcion *' erafed the firfl chapters of Luke, But the Ebionites ** a6ted this part^or their own purpofc, becaufe they wiihed " it to be believed that Jefus was the fon of Jofeph. But *' there was not the leall reafon for the Nazarenes doing *' fo, as it is not proved that they differed from other Chri- *' ftians in what concerns faith, although they obferved *' the Jewifh ceremonies *. The author of the Clementine Homilies aflbrds a ftriking proof of the truth of the K 2 charge * Sunt qui putant et mutilatum fuiffe Evangelium Nazaiaeoru ti, lujus rei nufquatn idoneum re^eriotejtcin. Nam Kpiplianius coiitrariuai thjit, cos 148 Differences between the Pook V, charge exhibited by Epiphanius againft the Eblonites, as to adulterdtng the Gcfpei of Mat hew ; while it is a fur- ther evidence of the hght in which they conlidered the Old. Tefiament. For that pafla e, Te do err, not knowing the Jcripturesy nor the power oj Godf is thus expreffed by him ; 2e do err, not knowing the trjie parts of fcripture, whence ye are a/Jo ignorant of the power of God. He at the fame lime obferves, that Chrift " fpoke this to thofe who were *' deceived by falfe fcriptures, properly pointing out the *' caufe of the deception '." 4. The Nazarenes, although they adhered to the law themfelves, did not impofe it on Gentile Chriflians ; but the Ebionltes did. The latter is acknowledged by Dr P f. He alfo admits that there were Hebrew Chriftians who did not urge the necefTuy of the obfervation of the law by Gentiles. " Juftin Martyr," he fays, *' makes no mention *' of Ebionites, but he fpeaks of the 'Jewijlj Chrijiians, '* which has been proved to.be a fynonymous expreffion ; *' and COS nempe habere Eva^gelium rxnffrarof {^plenijjlvium). Non ignoro Hieronymum ita Hebraeum Aiattliaei exeuiplar citare, ut id commune vi- dcatur facere Nazaiseis et Ebionitis. Sed commune i'.lis arbitror fuifTe, ficut dim Catholicis commune fuit rum Marcjone Evangelium Lucae, paiiois Icilicet mutatis, quae Marcioni difplicebant. Ita et Ebionitae deleverant totam Genealogiam, et quas fequuntur, ad eum locum ubi Chriftus a Johanne baptizatur, plane ficut Alarcio prima Lucae capita induxit. Fecerunr hoc autem Ebionitae. pro fuo inftituto, ut qui Jefum credi vellent natum ex Jofephi concubitu. — Hoc autem cur Nazaraii face- rent nihil erat caufae, qui non probantur in fidei negotio a ceteris Chri- ft ian is difcrepafle, quanquam ritus Judaicos obfervabant, &c. Annot. in •Matth. * K-xi To/s OLTTt ra* "^ivacov y^ct^pav m'Kuvu^ivQi^y o\kiico$ tjj? 7rAa» rav y^et(pa¥* a etvixiv uyvceiTi xai tjjv ^vva^tv m Bm, Hom. 2. fed. 51. p. 633.634. • f Vol. iii. p. 202. Chap. V. Na^arenes and Ehionites, 140 ** and it is plain that he did not confidcr all of them as he- " retics, but only thofe of tliem who refufed to communi- " cate with the Gentile ChrilHans. With rei'ped to the " reft, he fays, that he fhould have no objeftion to hold in " communion with them. He defcribes them as perfons " who obferved the law of Mofes, but did not impofe it on " others. Who could thefe be but Jewiili Unitarians * ?'* Here Dr P. grants that there were two kinds of Hebrew Chriftians : one, that did not impofe the law on the Gen- tiles ; another, that did. In the latter clals he, indeed, in- cludes the Nazarenes as well as the Ebionites ; but with- out any proof, nay, in oppofition to fufficient proof to the contrary. For it has been already fhewn from this very palTage of Juftin, that thefe, whom he defcribes as not for- cing the law on the Gentiles, were entirely different from Ebionites, not only in their practice, but in their faith. For they believed that " Chrift, the Son of God, was before " Lucifer and the moon f ." Who could thefe be but Na- zarenes, as it appears from a variety of other evidence that this was their faith. But at any rate, our author grants that there were two kinds of Jewiih Chriftians. As the one communicated w^ith the uncircumcifed, and the other did notj it certainly follows that they would not communi- cate with each other. For, as things which agree in one third, agree with pach other ; the reverfe of this axiom has always appeared in the hiftory of the church. Thofe who have ditfered as to communion with a third party, have not agreed to communicate with each other. Dr P. may infift to give the name of Ebio lites, or of Nazarenes, to both thefe bodies of Hebrew Cnriftians. But in v/hat way foever they were denominated., it is obvious that they were not the fame people. 5. The Ebionites rejeded, hated and curfed Paul as an K 3 apoftate i Vol. iii. p. 201, %o%. f See above, p. 133, &.c. I jO Differences hetween tJje Book \f\ apoftate from the law *. Nothing of this kind has been charged againft the Nazarenes. It is evident that the firft who bore this name received him. Surely we cannot judge more fafely of the faith of the primitive church, than from the Apoftles. But James, Cephas and John, perceiving the grace of God that was give?! unto Paul, gave him the right hand of fellow/hip. Gal. ii. 9. Nay, it was after that Paul, to^, Horn. lib. 8. f. 2. X Recog. lib. 8. f. i. lib. 10. f. i. ivlyiTui. Horn. xi. f. I. II Horn. X. I. xi. I. ** Haer. 30. H 2. W Omnia gignuntur ex aquis, Recog. lib. 6. f. 8. XX T^ 'rrocvra. ro v\u£^ Tram, — n^WToyoKO? t;^a-T<, Hom. xi. f. 24. ^ajiit ik T«r>f, Hser. ^l- p. 461. Chap. V. ^nzarenes and Ehionites. 15 j bit the mofl flriking refemblance of the Hemerobap- tifts *. We have already feen how bitter the Nazarenes were in their oppofition to the Pharifaical rites, and to the tradi- tions of the elders Is it, then, in the leaft degree fuppofa- ble, that they would join in communion with thofe who urged daily walliing as a neceflary mean of mental purifi- cation ? 9. The Ebionites adopted various errors of the Gno- flics f . No infinuation of this has been given, by any wri- ter, coaceriiing the Nazarenes. But as our learned author is very anxious to prove, that the Ebionites were at the grcateft diflance from the Gnoftics, I fhall afterwards con- iider this article by itfelf. Dr. P., having, as he apprehends, done fuch great things, hopes that he " fnall hear no more of the Nazarenes as an " evidence of the antiquity of the Trinitarian doctrine t.'* But after what we have feen concerning the foul-fubverting Ebionites, we have certainly much more reafon to exprefs our hope, that we fhall hear no more of them as the ge- nuine Hebrew Chriftians. It appears from what we have feen, indeed, that the dlf- pute between Dr P. and the orthodox comes to a very nar- row point He believes that the Ebionites were the only- genuine Hebre.v Chriflians, who immediately received the doftrine of our Lord, and of his Apoftles. Thence, he pleads for the reje61:ion of the do6trine of our Saviour's di- vinity, as it was not acknowledged by them. But if the argument be good here, it muft be equally good in other refpefts, • Epiphan.hir. 17. viJ. Annot. Petavii. Eufeb. Hift. L 4- c.xi~ Apoft. Conftitut. 1. 6. c. 6. Recog. Clement. 1. i. c. 54. Cotelerii Pat, vol. i. p. 499- f Epiph. haer. 30. f. 3. \ Vol. ili. p. a;?2- ^ Vol. iii. p. 190. 155 Differences between the Book V- refpe^ls. To be conliftent with himfelf, he ought to believe that they were the proper judges of the facred canon. But as he does not pretend that they received any part of the New Teftament, but the Gofpel of Matthew, why does he receive any other? He adepts the fyftem of Toland. But why does he not carry it all its proper and natural length ? The infidel had greatly the advantage of our learned au- thor. By narrowing the limits of what he pretended to call the ( iofpel, he gave himfelf a great deal lefs trouble. Did Dr P., after tlie example of the Ebionites, and of this worthy forerunner, obferve the fame plan, he would eafily get rid of a great many troublefome texts, ill-digejled Jlo- ries, and inconcluji'ue reafonings. The true difciples of Jefus, and of the Apoftles, as Dr P. believes, rejected Paul. He receives him, indeed, with an evident grudge, which looks as if it were hereditary. For the reafonings which he reckons often inconclujive are thofe of Paul. But why does he pretend to receive him, or quote him at all ? If rejefted by the genuine members of the primitive and apoftolic church, he mull have been an i/n- pojior. Let our author plainly tell us, if he thinks that Paul was an Apojlle of man^ and hy man ? If he does not, he virtually rejects the Ebionites as heretics. For thofe muft have been heretics, and accounted fuch by the primi- tive church, who rejefted him who was an Apojlle of Jefus Chrijl, afid hy the will of God, If our author really agree with them, he ought certainly to rejc£l Paul, for the fame reafon, becaufe he was an enemy to the law of Mofes. If he fix on any other, he renounces the only pretence they had for rejeding Paul, and denounces them as, in this inftance, rebels '.;^um divine authority. If he eft in this reafon, I would beg leave to afe the learned Gentleman, why he does not, like them, u ctheneceffity ot obfervin the law. For if they did not rebel againft God, in rejedtm^ him who Chap. V. Na%aren€s and E^ionltes, I57 who laid claim to a divine revelation, with refpe6l to the freedom of the Gentiles from that yoke, Paul was indeed a mere pretender. As it is undeniable that the Ebionites aflerted that the law of Mofes w^as binding on all, Gen- tiles as well as Jews, in order to falvati n ; if they were the Pennine Hebrew C riftians, this muft have been the o doftrine of the Apoilles, and therefore of divine autho- rity. If fo, it ought to be ours. Let Unitarians fet the pious example. They cannot be accounted conliftent in pretending that the Ebionites were the genuine difciples of the Apoftles, until they teach the brethren, and fay. Except ye be circumcifed after the manner of Mofes, ye cannot be fanjedy A£ls XV. I. But this is not enough. A pradlical fubmif- lion to this Jewiili rite will be far more winning to their fellow confelfors of the unity, than any mere conformity of dodrine. No letters to the Jews will be fo acceptable, as thofe wTitten in the blood of the Gentiles. CHAP. VI. ^jat there were Orthodox Jews at Jerufalem, fubfeque7it to the Ti77ie of Adrian, S E C T I O N I. Teflimo7nes of Origcn, Sulpicius Severus, i^c. R Priestle.y next proceeds to examine what has been aflerted with refceft to the exiftence of a church of Jews at Jerufalem, believing the divinity of our Saviour, after Adrian had publifhed his fevere edid againft the Jews. •* Moiheim," he fays, " fpeaks of a church of 'I nnitarian " Jews, who had abandoned the law of Mofes, i^c *." Our author • Vol. iii. p. 190, I 138 Orthodox Jews at Book V. author exprefles great di{latisfa6tion with him for faying that " Origen muft have known of this church," and for ** taxing him with alferting a wilful falfehood." The paf- fage from Moflieim is not quoted in this work. But that writer, in his Vindicice, at lead, does not fpeak of a church of orthodox Jews, hut only of " a church chiefly compofed " of Jews *." The paflage referred to in Origert, is that in which he defcribes the Jewilli Chriftians, without diftinc- tion, as called Ebionites., and as not forfaking the law of their fathers. Bu< as to what is really aiTerted by Origen in this place, it would appear that we ought to lay very little flrefs on his teftimony. Much has been already written on this point. But after the mofl impartial examination of the fubjeft, the charge exhibited againft Origen, firft by Moflieim, and cf late by the learned Dr Horfley, feems to me too well- founded. For inde(rd, Origen reafons like a man deter- mined to oppofe his adverfary at all points, and to gralp at any apparent advantage in the argument ; though the truth, to fay no worfe, fliould be concealed. A tranflation of the palTage, in its connexion, will be the fairell mode of trials and afford the moft decifive evidence. It will be remem- bered that Celfus, in the work to which Origen replies, introduces a Jew as the fpeaker. Origen exprefles himfelf in this manner ; " Let us there- " fore attend to what he fays to thofe who from among the *' Jews believe. He aflferts that ' they who have abandon- * ed the law of their fathers, have been allured in their * minds by Jefus, entirely and ridiculoufly deceived, and that ' they have made a tranlition to anotlier name, and to ano- * ther f C^tnm anne HIerofolymitanum ignorabat, qui quum e Judxis maxi- mam partem collecflus eflet, ftatis tamen patrum caemnoniis dudum nun- lium n.ilerat ? — E-^o huic tefli, etiam juiato, fidem habere me aoa pofTe profiteer. Cap. 7. f. 9. p. 204, 205. i Chap. VI. yei'ufakm after Adrian. 1 59 '■ ther mode of life ?' But this he did not underftand, that ** thole of the Jews who have believed in Chrift, have not " left the law of their fathers. For they live according to ** it j being named after the beggarly expectation of the " law. For a poor man is by the Jews called Ehion ; and *' thofe of the Jews, who have received Jefus as Chrifl, are ** called Ehionitcs. And even Peter for a long time feems " to have obfervcd the Jewiib rites, according to the law *' of Mofes, as not having learned from Jefus to afcend from " that which is according to the letter to that which is fpi- " ritual : as appears from the A6b of the Apoftles." . Here he gives an account of the embaiTy of Cornelius, and of Peter's vifion, Ads x. 9. — 15. adding : " Obferve •** here, what plan Peter approves, yet adhering to the " Jewilh rites, with refpe£l to things clean and unclean. *' And from what follows, it appears that he had need of " the vifion, that he might communicate the words of the " faith to Cornelius, who was not an Ifraelite according to *' the flelh, and to thofe with him, (Peter) himfelf being " yet a Jew \ and as he lived according to the Jewifli tra- ♦* ditions, defpiling thofe who lived without Judaifm. Alfo, ** in the epiflle to the Galatians, Paul ftiews that Peter, be- " ing yet afraid of the Jews, refrained from eating with " the Gentiles. James having come down to him, he with- ^* drew himfelf from them, being afraid of thofe of the ** circumcifion. And even the reft of the Jews, and Bar- ^* nabas, acted the fame part. And the confequence was, " that the Apoftles of the circumcifion did not apoftatize ** from the Jewifh cuftoms, when tbof. who feemed to he pil~ ^* iars gave the right handoffellowJJjip to Paul and BarnahaSy " that they might go to the Gentiles ; themfelves departing ♦* to the circumcifion. But why do I fpeak of the mini- " fters of the circumcifion withdrawing and feparating ^* themfelves from the Gentiles, when Paul himfelf to the 3 " Jews l6o Orthodox Jews at Book V. •* Jews became a Jew> that hu might gain the Jews? Where- •' fore, as it is written in the Acb of the x\.poflles. he alfo •* brought an offering to the altar, that he might perfuade *' the Jews that he had not apoflatized from the law. " Had Celfus known all thefe things, he would not have ** introduced a Jew thus addrefling thofe who had been *' converted from Judaifm : * What have ye undergone, O * citizens, that ye have forfaken the law of your fathers,. * and being enticed by him, of whom ye have now fpoken, * have been thoroughly and ridiculoufly deceived, and fled * from us to another name, and to another manner of li- * ving ?' Since I have alre.idy mentioned Peter, and thofe ** who preached the Chriftian do6trine to the circumcifion ; " it feems not improper in this place to produce a certain ** faying of Jefus from the Gofpel according to John, and " its interpretation. / have yet many thi?igs to fay to you^ *' hut ye cannot hear them now. Howbeit, when he, the Spi- " rit of truth is co?ne, he will guide you into all truth : for " he JJjall not fpeak of himfelf ; hut whatfoever he Jhall^ •' hear, that Jljall he J peak. And here we inquire, what *' were thefe many Lhings which Jefus had to fay to his dif- " ciples, which they were not then able to bear ? To the *' Apollles, who were Jews, and educated according to the " letter of the Mofaic law, perhaps he had to fay what the " new law was, and of what fymbols and fliadows of hea- " venly things the Jewifli worlhip confided, and of what good ** things to come, the law concerning meats and drinks, " and feails aad new-moons, and fahbaths, contained a ilia- " dow." After Tome illudration, and giving it as his opinion that this was the truth which the Holy Spirit was to teach, Ori- gin adds ; " And according to the promife of Jefus, the " Spirit of truth came up>.n Peter, faying to him, concern- *' ing the four-footed bcafts and reptiles oi the earth, Arife 2 " Futr Chap. VI. Jerfifaleni tiftcr Adrian, i6t " Peter, Jlay and eat. And it came to him while yet tin- ** der the power of fuperitition. For he even fays to the " heavenly voice, Not fo Lord ; for I ban^e never eaten any " thing common or vnclean. And he taught him the doc- " trine concerning true and fpiritual meats in thefe wdrds ; ** What God hath c/ean/cd, call not thou com?non. And " from the time of that viiion, the Spirit of truth, leading *' Peter into all truth, faid many things to him which he " could not bear, when Jefus converfed with him according *' to the flefh. But indeed, we fhall have another oppor- " tunity of enlarging on thefe things which refpeft the ac- " ceptance of the law of Mofes. It is now propofed to " demonftrate the ignorance of Celfus^, who makes the Jew " fay to his fellow-citizens of Ifrael believing in Jefus : * On account of what fufferings have ye left the law of * your fathers ?' and what follows. But how have they ** left the law of their fathers, who in thefe words chal- *' lenge thofe who do not hear it ; Tell me, ye ivho acknow- ** ledge the law, do je not hear the law / For it is writteji ** that Abraham had two fons, and downwards to, Which *' things are an cdlegory, and fo on. And how have thefe *' forfaken the law of their fathers, w^ho, in their difcourfe, " are conftantly fpeaking of their paternal concerns ? and •* faying ; Saith not the law theje thi?igs alfo ? For it is wi-it- ** ten in the law of Mofes, Thou fJ? alt not mu%%le the ox that " treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen ? *' Or faith he it altogether for our fakes ? For our fakes, no ** doubt, this is written ; and fo forth." And how confufedly does the Jew, *' introduced by Cel- *' fus, fpeak, when he had it in his powder to have faid " with more appearance of truth •, * Some, indeed, have ' renounced our cuftoms under the pretext of interpreta- * tions and allegories : and others alfo interpreting, as you * profefs, fpiritually, while ye nevertiielefs obferve the Vol, 1L L ' cuftoms 1 62 Orthodox Jews ai Book V<^ * cuftoms of the fathers ; and others of you, without any * interpretation, incline both to receive Jefus as foretold, * and to obferve the Mofaic law, according to the cuftom * of your anceftors ; as having all the mind of the Spirit in * the letter.' But how could Celfus clearly diftinguifh thefe *' things, who, in the progrels of his difcourfe, has made *^ mention of herelies the moft impious and foreign to the " do£trine of Jefus, and of others renouncing the Maker of •* the world : but did not know that the Ifraelites, believing " in Jefus, had not left the law of tlieir fathers ? For it was " not his intention, with a fincere love to the truth, to exa- ** mine all thefe things in their proper order, tliat if he found " any thing ufeful, he might receive it : but as an enemy, " and wholly bent on perverting what he heard, he wrote " fuch things. With him, the Jew goes on, addrefTmg the " believers of that nation ? * Yefterday, and the day before, * even when we fuffered punifhment from th-^.t perfon who * drove us away like beads, ye apoftatized from the law of * your fathers :' while, as we have fhewn, he knows nothing * exadlly concerning thefe things of which he fpeaks *." Origcn's Myl\f ^vvccfxivog '/rid»vari^v gi7rg 2 r. ;t, f. 245- I y4 Orthodox Jews at Book Vr leem to denote that almoft all the Jews in Jenifalem were believers. The tranflation is fo managed as to reprefent this as the thing principally alTerted. The evident deiign of this, is to make it appear that Severus fpeaks of Jews and Chrillians indifcriminately, and that it is the Jews, men- tioned in the clofe of the preceding fentence, as driven from Jerufalem, who are here defcribed as alinojl all believing in Chrift. It is fo framed as to obfcure tlie principal afTewion of the hiftorian, which plainly is, that almoft all the be- lievers in that city ftill adhered to the law. In order to ac- complilh this, the Doflor, by the help of a hut, introduces the principal alTertion as if it were a mere exception. It is evident that pdene onmes does not refer to Judaos, in the clofe, but to Chrijliajii, in the beginning of the preceding fentence. That the leading defign of Severus is to aflert that al- moft all the Chriftians retained the law, is evident from the connexion, both with the preceding, and with the following words. For, having declared that Adrian's edid: was of " advantage to the Chriftian faith," he fliows firft how it could be fo. This was by reafon of the attachment of the greateft part of the Chriftians in Jerufalem to the law. Then he proves that it actually was advantageous. This event " was undoubtedly fo difpofed by the Lord's ordina- ** tion, that the bondage of the law might be removed from *' the liberty of the faith, and of the church." He adds, as an illuftration of what he had aflerted, *' Then " was Mark the iirft Gentile bifliop at Jerufalem." Thefe words indeed, are fo rendered by Dr P. as to favour his own hypotheiis. One, who had only the benefit of his tranflation, w^ould naturally fuppofe that Severus had meant to fay, that Mark was the firft biftiop who prefided over the Gentiles as his charge. But his language certainly implies nothing more than that he v/as the firft who was chofen Q from Chap. VL Jerufakm after Adrian, 175 from among the Gentiles, as oppofed to the preceding afler- tion ; " For then tlie church at Jerufalem had no miniftcr, " but of the circumcifion." As this is evidently the principal thing aflertcd by Se- verus, it is flrange that Dr P. ftiould affirm that, " accord- " ing to this account, — nothing is faid of any of them (the " believing Jews) forfaking the law of Mofes *." If no- tiling be faid to this purpofe, nothing is faid at all. Though ,the ancient writer is more particular here than in the mod of liis hiftory, all his language is without a meaning. Does he alTert that Adrian's edicl was *' of advantage to the " Chriftian faith," and fo folemnly introduce the difpoii- sion and ordination of God, with refpecl to the removal of *' the fervitude of the law ;" and yet " fay nothing of any '- of them forfaking this law ?" If, on this occalion, none of t!he Hebrew believers renounced the law, let our author Ihew how the feverity of Adrian was beneficial to the caufc ©f Chriftianity. Was it of any fervice whatfoever, that all the believing Jews were banifhed from Jerufalem, and that they went to fome other place, where they as rigoroufly obferved the law as before ? For, excepting the fuppofed fan6lity of Jerufalem, and of the ground on which the tem- ple formerly ftood, they had the fame opportunity any where elfe ; becaufe, the temple itfelf being deflroyed long before Adrian, they could have no facrifical worfhip. Their banifhment from Jerufalem would rather be hurtful, becaufe it would perplex jhe Gentile believers in thofe countries whither they fled, and fow divifions among them. If, therefore, the language of Sulpicius has any meanings it fignifies that many, formerly attached to the law, conli- dering the providence of God as punifhing them, in confe- quence of the frequent rebellions of the Jews, becaufe of their conformity to them, renounced the legal yoke ; and did that from nece.liry, v/hich they could not be brought to * To!, iii. p. ?p2- 176 Orthodox J'ews at Book Vo to do from choice. If th.s was not the cafe, the whole of the hiilonan's account is a romance. How, otherwife, was the bondage of the law removed from the liberty of the faith ? Did this confifl: in its being removed from Jcrufa- lem, and carried to Pella, or any other place ? But it was not only removed from the liberty of the faith, but a liber- tate ecclejia^ from the liberty of the church alfo. What church was this ? Undoubtedly, though the Chriftian church in general may be meant, that part of it is principally re- fpefted, which had been under this bondage. Could Se- verus mean, that the bondage of the law was removed from the church, in the Hebrew church, together with this bondage, being entirely removed from Jerufalem ; in her members being fold, in common with the rebellious and tinbclieving Jews, for bondmen and bondwomen ? The words inimediately following fliew in what fenfe Severus meant that this expullion of the Jews was of fer- vice to the Chriftian faith. The church, which had been under the bondage of the law, being in this way delivered from it, chofe a Gentile to be their bifhop. Ita tu?7i, Thusj or, in confequence of what has been narrated, at that time Maj-k, i^c. Had he meant that all the Hebrew Chriftians were expelled, and that a new church was formed, con- fifting wholly of Gentiles, he certainly would have ex- preffed himfelf very differently. He would not have men- tioned thQ firft Gentik hijloop, but the firft Gentile church at Jerufaiem. The account here given by Severus perfeftly agrees with that of Celfus, when he introduces his unbelieving Jew as exhibiting this charge againft his countrymen who believed in Chrift •, " When voe recently fuffered punilhment from ** that perfon who drave us away like cattle, ye apoftatized <* from the law of your fathers*." Here he evidently diftin-uifhes the believing Hebrews from himfelf and his unbelieving * S.-e above, p. 162. Chap. V I. ^erufaJem after Adrian, 177 unbelieving brethren \ aflertlng that tlie former, in order to avoid the fufFerings which the latter i'liltained, became apoftates from the law. It has been fcen that Origen was fo fully convinced of the truth of the aiTertion, that he durfl not deny it •, and that he grants that there were Tjrf j, fo7n: who had renounced the law entirely, ufmg no other term to denote thofc who ftill adhered to it *. We may juflly infer from the language of Severus, that, in liis idea, even before the edi*^ of Adrian, there were Jo7ne Hebrew believers who did not acknowledge the ob- ligation of the law. o The Do6lor further fays of Severus ; *• This writer's *' mere afTertion, that the Jewiih Chrillians held Chrifl to " be God, in the proper fenfe of the word, unfupported by " any reafon for it, is not to be regarded f." It is amu- fnig, indeed, that, after giving no quarter to Mofheini for his prefumption in contradidting the teflimony of Ori- gen, the learned Gentleman, before he gets to the clofe of the chapter, fliould obferve the very fame courfe with a writer whofe charafler is fully as unexceptionable. There are fome, who flatter themfelves that they have a right to ufe certain liberties, not only with human, but with divine teflimony, that they will by no means allow to others. But this contemptuous method of treating the teflimony of an author of undoubted credit, however it may pais with the zealots of a party, mufl neceflarily, in the eftimation of any unprejudiced mind, injure the caufe it is meant to fup- port. The aflertion is " unfupported by any rcafons for " it." Why does Dr P. make this demand on Severus ? Is it becaufe Origen has given reafons for what he afferts, as to the Hebrew Chriftians not forfaking the law of their fathers ? Would reafons, equally weighty with his, have carried conviclion to our author's mind? Would he have Vol. II. M had '■* See above p . 167, i6S. \ Vol. III. p. 2oo. 17^^ Orthodox Jews at Book V. had Severus prove that all the Hebrew Chriftians believed Chrift to be God, becaufe they did fo before they were bet- ter inftrudled, or ftumbled upon this do£brine in a moment of temptation, or becaufe a coniid^^rable part of them did not believe it, and of thofe who did, fome underflood it literally, and others allegorically ? Such reafons, indeed, would have been equivalent to thofe of Origen. But had the ingenuous Roman thought it necelTary to give reafons at all, they would have been of a different kind. But he had no occafion to affign any reafons for this ai- fertion. This would have weakened his tellimony. He evidently mentions the circumitance referred to as v/ell- known and unqTieftionable. Dr P. is very willing to adopt tlie teftimony of far later writers, fuch as Theophylacl and CaiTian, with refpe^l to fa£ts as early, when it ferves his own ends ". Where he has no aiTertion, no direct evidence whatfo^tver, he lays the greateft ftrefs on mere probabilities. He can argue from negative proofs, from the very lilence of v/riters. What objection, then, has he to the teftimony of Sulpicius ? Is it not fufficiently exprefs ? It is too ex- prefs i for it flatly contradicts his favourite fyftem. But it has a recommendation, of which the learned Gentleman would have known how to have availed himfelf, had this teftimony been on the other fide of the queftion. It is not, as he wifties to make it appear, the principal aftertion of the paftage, or even of the fentence. It is merely an in- cidental expreflion, ufed by the writer, without any imme- diate defign to prove what it refpefts, but while he is treat- ing of another fubjed. He exprefles himfelf in this man- ner, becaufe the fa£l was univerfally known and indifputable. Jn the ufe of this language, he does not contraft thofe of whom he fpeaks with Ebionites or any kind of heretics, but the members of the church at Jerufalem with unbelieving Jews. It was fo well known that they believed Chrift to 3 • be * Vol. iii. p. 165, i66. Chap. VI. y^rufalem after Adrian. i^cj be God, that he ufes this exprelTion as equivalent to that of Cbrijiiani, in the preceding fentence. The account given by Severus is perfedly agreeable to that of Eufebius, concerning the firfl fifteen bifhops of Je- rufalem, who, he fays " all lavviully held the dodrine of "Chrill*-" We have formerly confidered this teftimony. But there is one thing further worthy of particular atten- tion. Eufebius does not ufe the word ^nv, faith, which might have been urged as admitting of a more general fenfe, but yvacriv, knowledge or doElrine, The force of 7v>i- ' f| aTToxra Bieo^onv ro ttojt^&'ov t^xCpo^y iyy.iXivcrafji.ivH' A^i^av « rieAXaJo? i<^6^n, 8T0 orj TV)^ TToXiMg iig E^Tifjcioiv ra I'i^xiuv thug, xca -TrctneX/i (p6o^xv n-jv tiuXch 6iK-^ro^av iX^aa-A^y s| xXXo(pvX'd n yivac j (^Qopai) completely deftroyed." Thus, it is clear, that if we follow Eufebius here, we muft receive it as a fa£l that all who believed, in Jerufalem, were deftroyed in this war, in common with the unbelieving Jews. Nicephorus, as Dr P, obferves, fays that " Adrian caufed ^* Jerufalem to be inhabited by Greeks only, and permitted " no others to live in it." But it is natural to fuupofe that he would follow Eufebius, as he generally does little more than copy him. Dr P. objeds to Severus, that he is a late writer, although cotemporary with Jerom. But furely this objection comes wiLh far greater force againft Nice- phorus, rai MicoKog, Hift. Lib. 4. c. 6. 5ro^»^0|«;«y«s. Ibid. Chap. VI. of Adrian, iJy phorus, who wrote more than 900 years after Severus. But although the former expreiTes himfelf in the language quo- ted ; from what he fays in the clofe of the chapter, it is impro- bable that he conlidered the believing Hebrews as included in this calamity : " And thus e v^en under him (Adrian) the " Jews paid their lad debt to juftice for their fury againft " Chrift*." Juilin Martyr, in his fecond apology, as it is ordinarily reckoned, takes notice of the exclufion of the Jews from Jerufalem, and of its being " a capital crime for a Jew to " be found there f." But when he fpeaks of the Jews ia this general way, it is in contradiftin^lion to Chriftians, al- though originally of that naticm. Therefore, a few fen- tences below, he fays that *' the Jews, although they " had the prophets, and expet^ed Chrift, not only did *' not receive, but killed him." And afterwards, he feems to coniider their expulfion from their own land, as the pu- nifhment of their unbelief J .This he exprefsly alTerts in his dialogue with Trypho ||. But if ht^ knew that this was alfo the lot of the great body of believing Hebrews, it is not probable that he would have confidered it in this light. For this would have been to fuppofe the innocent to be punilh- ed with the guilty. The fame ancient writer informs the emperor, that, " in " the lail Jewifh war, Barchochebas, the leader of the re- *' bellion of the Jews, gave orders to drag the Chrijlians only *' to the fevereft punifliments, unlefs they would deny and " blafpheme Chrift §." Juilin has been blamed, indeed, by fome moderns, as if he exaggerated matters here.; becaufe f^ctviccg UTTiTia-oiv ^^xjjy. Hift. lib. 3. C. 24. p. 257. f Apol. ii. p. 84. } Ibid. p. 2S. 1 p. 234. § Ibid. p. 72, 1 88 Of the Edia Book V. "becaufe they could not fee why Barchochebas Ihould piinifh the Chriflians only, as if the Martyr meant that he did not wifh to injure the Romans. But what he fays concern- in a- that falfe Chrift, that he gave the Chriflians o/z/y over to fever e 'uengeaiice, is entirely credible- He would be efpecially exafperated againft them, becaufe they w^ere the great enemies of his pretended mijGlon as the MefTiah, and although of the Hebrew race, would not join him againft the Romans. No one could know the ftate of matters betters than Juftln ; as he had lived in Samaria till this time, and is fuppofed to have left that country on account of the Jewifh rebellion *. Eufebius gives the fame teflim.ony in his hiftor}^ in the very words of Juftin. In his Chron{co?i, he afligns the rea- fon of this conduct of Barchochebas, averting that becaufe " he found that the Chiiftians would not join him againft <* the Romans, he caufed them to be put to death with « every kind of cruelty f ." . Adrian, from his inquifitive temper, may well be fuppofed to have made himfelf tho- roughly acquainted with all the circumftanccs of the war, and muft have known that the Hebrew Chriftians, not only adhered to his interefts, but fufFered greater cruelties from the rebel, for their fidelity, than any of his other fubjefts. Is it, therefore, in any degree probable, that he would jiotwithftanding punifh them in common with the aggref. fors? It feems to be generally allowed that the refcript of Adrian, in favour of the Chriftians, was publifhed before the Jewifti war : and there was nothing in their conduct on that occafion, that could difpofe him to withdraw his pro- tedion. Dr P., indeed, that he may remove every thing which feems to oppofe his fyftem on this head, talks con- temptuoufly * Baron. Annal. A^r. A. li. ) Hift 1. 4. c. Sv, p. 152. ap. Baren. Annal. Aclr. A. 12. Chap. VI. of Adrian* iSt^ temptuoufly of this refcript. How far," fays he, " did this " favour to Chriflians extend ?" Then, after mentioniner the words of Adrian, he adds ; " That is, as the hiftorj of '' thofe times enables us to interpret it, thej were not to " be punifhed as Chriftians, till they were proved to be *' fo*-" "But we have reafon to conclude^ that, although the perfecution did not entirely ceafe, it was greatly mo- derated. As the emperor enjoined that they fhould not be condemned " for the hare name of Chriflians," but only on its being " proved that they had committed fome crime " againft the laws •," it fhows that he was inclined to treat them favourably, and renders it improbable that he would afterwards condemn them as guilty of a crime, for oppo- fmg which they had feverel}'- fufFered. Our learned author adds ; " This does not amount to a *' toleration of the Jews at Jerufalem, on condition of their *• embracing Chriftianity ?" Who ever aflerted this ? All that any one would plead is, that it is a flrong prefumption in favour of his tolerating the Chrijlians at Jerufalem, al- though Jews by birth, who were willing to renounce the Jewiih rites ; when there was nothing found in their con- duit againft the laws, nay, when they fuffered for their faithful adherence to them. It is a ftrong prefumption that the believing Hebrews were not banifhed from Jerufalem, that Tertuliian obje6b this to unbelievers of that nation, as the punilliment of their iniquity f . He certainly would not have done fo, had * Letters, part iil. p. cso. f Animadvertimus autem tunc neminem de genere Ifrael in civitata Bethlehem remanfilTe, et exinde quod interditflum e(t, ne in confiiiio i^- fius regionis demoretur quifquam Judceorum, ut hoc quoque eflet adim- pletuin per prophetam : Terra vellra deferta, civitates veftrae igni exuftas, id efl, quod belli tempore els evenerit, regionem veftram in confpe-ap uro^pE^j^avrEf a-rto ^fX^»,' twj TtoXiuz^ x-ai ' xat Xx-' Qwv TO' AyivXocv T8Tev roy Trpoa^rifjiivo)! i^f^vivivrr^Mf EAAryio. uvto., aat^ ecvTH TrsirSsg.'^jjv uTTo StvoiTrij? 2s T)5? TlovTU c^jtt&'/i^gvflv, xocBi^riaiv XV- itv sx-etat iTurulinv Toiq i^yot^ vatv rr,c 'rvb/^iw, x.r,c iJi.o.f/.uv. — O 7oi- ♦ '. y AxvAiZj ^ixyav iv ivi Iggyo-^AjjjiA, x«t o^m xyj //aSjjT^; rwv ^a-Ojj- 6hap. VI. at yerufakfji. 20 1 As it is evident that he received thefe convi£lious at Je- rufalem, by means of the fucceHora of the Apoilles, would not one naturally infer from this narrative, that he had come to Jerufalem on cccalion of his appointment by A- drian ; and thrit it was while he was living in 'Jerufalem^ in confequence of this appointment, that he was thus convin- ced ? If Dr P. fpeak of probability, it furely lies wholly on this lide, Indeed, the particle toivuv, with which this fec- tion commences, is ufelefs, if it do not conneft what fol- lows with the preceding, as expreflive oi: the order and de- pendence of the fa6fs narrated. Is it probable that one, who had made a iraniition from the religion of the Gentiles to Judaifm, would receive fuch a trufl from Adrian? Would a Jew be inltrumental in building a temple to an idol, efpecially in that very place, according to the law, devoted to the worlhip of the true God. But furely our author is not in earnefl, when he throws out this ftrange conjecture. At any rate he gives it a fatal blow with tiis own hand by immediately adding-, *' Yet that (his conver- ** fion to Chridianityj is the only circumftance that proves *' any intercourfe he ever had with Jewilh Chriiticins re- " turned from Pella." The Do£lor helps himfelf to a fad in his account of this interpreter : " It was by ihe difciples of thofe who then re- *' turned, that Aquila was converted to Chriltianity *." He afferts this, in order to prove that the converiion of A- quila *' was probably a conliderable time before the de- *' ftruftion of the Jews by Adrian ■" and that the return of o-iA>v^ Kui clXKu^ ^a.Vfj.ccTuv. HiTX'j yce^ vtso'^p-.-^xvii",, is'c. — O av Axv>.xi Kctruwyitg rnv ^ixvoixv tu ^Pifietn<;u^j tirifiiKriv, Dq Mcnf. c. 14. 15. * Let. P. iii. p. 27. 2.0^ Of Aquila's rcjidence, i^c. Book V of the Chriftians muft have been prior to the reign of this emperor. But Epiphanius, to whom our author refers in the fame fentence, aflerts no fuch thing. 'He does not lay that Aquila faw " the difciples of thofe who returned j" hut " the difciples of the difciples of tne apoftles." Thef6 are the very perfons of whom he immediately adds ; " For " they were retu--nifig from Pella." But at what time foever Aquila became a profelyte to Chriftianity, it is allowed on all hando, that it ivas by means of the Hebrew Chriftians living at Jerufalem, who had left Pella Now, whether this event took place atter the Jewifti rebellion, or before, there is a circumtlance connefted with it, w^iich overthrows the whole of our author's lyftem "with refpedl to thefe Hebrew Chriftians. If Aquila made his profeflion of Chriilianity after the Jewilh war, then there were Chriftians living in x'\elia, Cliriftians who hnd returned from Pella, Hebrew Chriftians, the pro- per fucceftbrs of the apoftles, who admitted Gentiles to communion, without a fubniiflion to the legal rites, and who therefore were not Ebionites. For Aquila, at his ad- miftion, received only " the feal of Chriftianit} *," that is, as Dr P. himfelf explains it, haptijm f . It wa^ not till he apoftatifed to Judaifm, that he was circumcijtd. Now, it cannot be refufcd, that circumciiion was the principal token of adherence to the law\ If, according to Dr P.'s plan, Aquila profelTed himfelf a convert to Chriftianity hcfore the war, the argument, inftead of being weakened: acquires additional Itrength. For then it follow^s, that the Hebrew Chriftians, who returned from Pella, had, even before the publication of Adrian's edi6l, renounced the idea of the necelTity of circumcifion. If Aquila * T>)> £y X^ cc?vi7KfAivog 7r^oc-r,\riTivii y.ui Tri^iJii^HTai iahAoc. De Menf. ibid, f Let. P. iii. p. i6. 4 Owen on the Keb. Vol. i. Exerc. 4, 2«4 OhjeBions Book V, As the Greek, from the time of Alexander the Great, was fpoken through the greateft part of Afia, it is impro- vable that it fhoukl have been unknown in Jerufalem ; ef- pecially when there was fuch a conftant concourfe of the Jews of the difperiion to this city, who were accuftomed to read the Old Teftament, and to '' perform the public of- '''' fices," in the Synagogues, ir. this language ; and were ge- nerally unacquainted with any other. There is every rea- fon to think that the whole of the New Teftament Was ori- ginally written in Greek : although it appears that fome parts of it were afterwards tranflated for the ufe of thefe Jews, who were more attached to that language which was vernacular. James, who was bifhop of Jerufalem, wrote in Greek. His epiftle, indeed, is addrelFed to the twehe tribes fcattered abroad. But it cannot be fuppofed, that he meant to deprive thofe im nedi teiy committed to his charge of any bentfit from it. The epiille to the Hebrews contains various internal evidences that it is not a tranflation. Not only are tlie quotations in the language of the Septuagint, but thefe Hebraifms, which might be expe6led in a inefc tranflation, are not to be found here. Belides, the writer explains the meaning of the Hebrew words which he in- troduces. This he would not have done, had he wrote in that language. It is evident that this was not done by a tranliator, becaufe th.? very argument of the writer is founded on thefe interpretations *". To thefe we may add, although not canonical, the epiille of barnabas, written in Greek, by an Hebrew believer to Hebrews. Arillo of Pella undoubtedly wrote in the fame language, which affords a prefumption that it was underftood by the generality of Chriftians who had their relidence there. Hegelippus, al- though * Owen ur. fup. Glaffii Philol. lib. i, t. 4. f. 2. Pfeifferi Grit. Site, cap. 3. ay. lO. Vol. ii. p. 698. Chap. X^I. anfwered. i4$ though a plain man^ and a Hebrew ChrilHan, alfo wrote is, Greek. At any rate, it was jufl: as poffible for Hebrew Chri- ftians to learn this language in Jerufalem, if their fpiritual interefts required it, as for others of the fame nation, who had made this acquifition in the purluit of commerce or learning, or in confequence of their difperiion. It was fpoken by the Roman loldiers who were ftationed at Jeru- falem, fo early as the time of Paul, A6lb xxi. 37. We find that very early there was a conliderable body of Greeks incorporated into the church of Jerufalem, as con- flantly reliding in that city, chap.'vi. i. The great la- bour of Theodotio n, Aquila and bymmachus, in tranfla- ting the Hebrew lcri|3tures into Gieek, may perhaps be urged as a proof that this language was generally under- ftood by Hebrew Chrillians.. Our author claims all the three as Ebionites : and it is natural to fuppofe, that they principally meant to ferve thofe with whom they were moft nearly conne61ed. Did not the Ebionites make ufe of the Clementines ? This is a ftrong prefumption that they generally underftood Greek. It has been already proved from Jerom, that Ebion himfelf wrote an Expo- fition of fome part of the Old Teftament in this language. 2. The Doctor's next argument is that no ancient wri- ter makes mention of any confiderable body of orthodox Jewifh Chriftians ; and that Jerom, although he fpeaks of his acquaintance with learned Ebionites, by whom he was taught the Hebrew tongue, does not feem to have found any learned orthodox Jewifli Chriitians. with whom it would have been more agreeable for him to afibciate. In the courfe of this ontroverfy, feveral evidences have been produced of the exiftence of fuch Chrillians, much ftronger than thole on which the contrary hypoihefis reds. But. it is not furpriimg that no ancient writer mentions any 2c6 OhjeBions Book V. any confiderable body of orthodox Hebrews, who had re- nounced the law. For the iieceflary confequence of this chancre was their being incorporated with Gentile belie- vers. They could not, like Nazarenes or Ebionites, be found in a body by themfelves \ at leaft, where there were any Gentile Chridians. For thus, they would have been fchifmatics. It is incompetent to reafon from the ftate of matters in the age of Jerom, to that during the reign of Adrian. From that very fyftem mamtained by us, that on the publica- tion of his edid many Chriflians renounced the bondage of the law, and joined with Gentiles, it might natu- rally be inferred, that they would gradually lofe the know- ledge of the Hebrew tongue : whereas thofe who ftill adhered to the law, keeping themfelves diftin£l from o- thers ; and, in confequence of their Judaifm, retaining a greater partiality for that language in which it was writ- ten, would be more likely to preferve it. The orthodox Hebrews being incorporated with Gentiles, would there- fore ufe the Hime language with them. By intermarrying with them alfo, in the courfe of a few generations, they would lofe even the name of Hebrews. We are certain, however, that this was not univerfally the cafe. For it has been already proved, that' Jerom, the very Father mentioned by Dr P., knew Hebrews believing in Chrift, who believed that it was he who gave the law from mount Sinai. 3. Dr P. obferves; " As fo many writers fpeak of E ** bionites, or heterodox N"azarenes, it would furely have " been natural for fome of them to have added, that they " were not the great body, or at leaft not the whole of " the Jewiih Chriftians. — x\nd yet no ancient writer " fpeaks of them." By uiing the term heterodox ^ the learned gentleman Ihews that he is determined to reft- rve the Chap. VI, anfwered, 207 the Na%arenes for himfelf. They are, indeed, fpoken of by ancient writers as heretics^ bccaiife of their adherence to the law. But no one has called them heterodox. But in this argument, Dr P. flill proceeds on tlie miftakc akeady mentioned. How could orthodox Hebrew Chrifti- ans be taken notice of as a hody when they, as individuals only, made a part of the body of the Catholic Church ? Tiie law being renounced, the diltinguilhing character was gone. In confequence of this, there was ?icitber Jew ?inr Greek', for they were all otie in Chn/i Jefus, Gal. iii. 28. Individuals are occafionally mentioned, even fo late as the time of Jerom. But what was the reafon of this .^ They were immediately converted from Judaifm. But joining the Catholic Church, the national dillindtion was lolt. Our author himfelf, when he meets with them in hiflory, docs not knovv^ them. Nothing will fatisfy him, as to the exiitence of fuch orthodox Hebrew Chriilians, unlel^ it can be pro- ved that Epiphan.us, and Jofeph, and others, who were Hebrews by birth, formed a hody by themfelves, dillindl from all other Chriflians. We mull prove that they were fchiJfnaticA, in order to prove that they were orthodox. 4. He fays, " As to a whole church of orthodox Jewiik " Chriilians at Jerufalem, or elfewhere, we hear of no ia- *' tercourfe with any fuch church and other orthodox " churci:es. None of their bifhops, or deputies from them " appear at any council," &-c. The force of this argu- ment entirely confiib in a fallacy in that expreffion, a i^bole church » This mufl lignify a chiuxh wholly compofed of orthodox Jewiih Chriftians. But we know of none wlio have formed an idea of fuch a church exilHni^ at Jerufalem, or elfewhere, after the time of Adrian. For we have feen, that in confequence of * the bondane of the lavv^ being re- " moved from the lil; ? rty of the fciith," they formed one body with Gentile believers. This alio accounts, ia a the 2o8 Ohje&ions Book V. the moft fatisfying manner, for there being no particular mention of Hebrew bifhops. The circumftance of their birth, as was the cafe with Epiphanius, occafioned no di- llinftion ; becaiife there was no diftinftion between Jew and Gentile amon^ their flocks. 5. The Doctor's laft arcniment is j " If there was any " confiderable body of orthodox Jewiih Chriftians, why do " we never hear of any Hebrew gofpels befides that of " Matthew ? If they held the dodrine of the orthodox " Gentile churches concerning the perfon of Chrift, it is pro- " bable tliat they would have had the fame refpe6l for the " other gofpels, and the other books of the New Tefta- *' ment, and yet it is almoft certain that they made little " ufe of them." This is a very flrange kind of argument. The Doftor firft does his utmoft to prove that fuch perfons never exifted, and then adds, that " it is almoji certain that " they made little ufe of" the other books of the New Teftament. If he has any hefitation about the latter, it iurely implies that he is not fully fatisfied xvith refped to the former. For, if there were no fuch Chriftians, one may be rather more than " ahiojl certain that they made " little ufe of" thefe writings. The Nazarenes are pre- fently out of the queftion. For we here fpeak of ortho- dox Chriftians who renounced the law. And as it is ne- ceflarily fuppofed that thefe formed one body with Gentile believers, they muft have had the fame facred canon. We have feen, that it is acknowledged by Origen, that there were Hebrew believers, who entirely gave up with the law. The account that Trypho gives of himfelf to Ju- ftin Martyr, might be m'ged as a proof that he was well acquainted with Hebrews who had renounced the law. * I " am," he fays, * an Hebrew of the circumcilion, who " have fled from that war which has lately taken 2 " plac^.-'* Chap. VI. Anfwered, 209 place *. Why docs he call himfelf " an Hebrew of the ** circurjiciJioTi," if he did not know Hebrews who were not of the circumcifion, Hebrews who had forCaken the law of their fathers ? Clemens Alexandrinus, a writer prior to Origen, and contemporary with Tertullian, fpeaks of it as a circumftance univerfally known, that believing Hebrews and Gentiles were united in one church. Thus he fanci- fully explains thefe words, Where two or three are gathered together^ 'i^c. " There was alfo an agreement of many, " numbered from three, with whom the Lord was, one. *' church, one man, one kind. The Lord was truly with *' one, i7*5Z. the Jew, when he gave the law ; and when he " afled the part of a prophet, and fent Jeremia ' to Babylon, " calling by means of prophecy even thofe of the Gentiles, " he gathered tw^o kinds of people. But the third was of *' two created one, into one new fnan, with whom he walks, " and takes up his refidence in this very church f ." Elfe- where, explaining that promife, Anew co'uenant will I make with you, not accordi?ig to the covenant which I made with your fathers in Horeh, he fays ; " He hath given you a " new covenant •, for the things pertaining to the Jews and " Greeks are old. But ye, who give him new woriliip in ** the third way, are Chriflians. — Truly, from the Grecian " difcipline, and alfo from that of the law, thofe who re- VoL. II. O " ceive Dial. 217. -|- Ei*) ^' av XXI »3 cfjiovoix ruv TcoXT^av wrro rtv i^iuv a^cxXr?r;a, 0 n^ av^puTror, to ysviig to iv, H oi r,or,y xyA rov It^ifxuxv XTro^-iXhuv jjj EchQvamvoi, a "'A* kjh rct>* \z, y.ccTfAy.ii V civTYj in ir-K>.n7-ici, Stromat. lib. 3. p. ^^2, aib Real Herefy Book V. " ceive the faith are gathered together into one kind of *' people that (hall be faved *." But althoiioh there were no other evidence but that of the Chriftian revelation, I cannot fee how it could be cre- dible, if a great part of the believing Hebrews did not e- ventually renounce the law. If thofe who continued to adhere to it were the proper fucceflbrs of the Apoftles, was not one end of the death of Jefus loft ? Did he not aholi/h, in hhJle/Jj, the en?Tiity, even the law of cofnmandments, con- tained in ordinances ? But how did he really do fo, if he did not male in himfelf, of twain, Jew and Gentile, one new /nan, by uniting them in one church, yo making peace. ^ How did he reconcile both unto Godj in one body, hamrig Jlain the enmity ^ Eph. ii. 14, 15. CHAP. vn. ^he Herefy of the Ehionites real and not fuppofed, DR P. devotes a chapter to what he calls the fuppofed herefy of the Ebionites, in order to prove, if pofiible, that they were not accounted heretics by early writers. In a former volume, he has been at great pains to Hiew that Gnoftics were the only heretics in primitive times. If his proof be good, it muft neccfTarily follow, that Ebionites were not accoimted heretics. We ihaU conlider both thefe kinds of evidence together. « I * N£«y afto<, X^i^ixvoi. — Ek y nv r*)gEAr.»jj»i- XJjj vcnae-tet-g 3 a,70\ct >t:ii tK tj;j vofiiKtigf «? to sv ynog m a-u^ofiiva tyv- i/uycvTcii "XciH 9t T.-jy 7r)r«vTic feems to have been the word ufed by Irenaeiis; as, where the fame expreflion is repeated in the old tranflation, a little downwaid, this verb is ufed in the original, as quoted from Thcoduret. t Rurfus autem qui nude tantum horninem eum dicunt ex Jofeph ge-' ueratum, perfeverantes in fervitute prillinae inobedientis moriuntur, nondum 214 ileal Her ejy Book V. to our author's conduct: in this inftance. It is too obvious to need any iUuftration. He informs us that he " had thought that Trenaeus, in " one paflage, had inchided them CEhionites) in that ap- " pellation" (heretics), but on rc-confidering this paiFage, found that he had been millaken in his conftrudion. of ir. Since the Do£lor has made fuch thorough work with this treatife againft herefies, it is pity that he fhould leave one paflage in a fufpicious ftate. He refers to the following : *' All heretics being untaught, and ignorant of the difpen- " fations of God, and efpecially of that which relates to ** man, oppofe their own falvation ; fome introducing a- " mother Father belides the maker of the world \ — others, ^ not knowing the difpenfation of the Virgin, fay that " he (Jefus) was begotten by Jofeph," 'iSc *. Now, what is his proof? *' As Cerinthus, Carpocrates, and o- " ther Gnollics, denied the miraculous conception as well " as the Ebionites, and all the reft of this defcription, ** both before and after this circumftance, evidently be' " longs to the Gnoftics only, and as in no other place ** whatever does he comprehend them in his defuiition of " herefy, it is natural to conclude that he had no view to " them even here, but only to thofe Gnoftics, who, in " common Bondum commixtum Verbum Dei Patris, nequc per Filium pcrcipientci liberutem^ quemadmodum ipfe ait, Si Filius voi manumifeiit, veie li- bcri eritis. Ignorances iiutcm cum qui cr Virgine eft Emmanuel, pn- vtntiir munere fj«5 quod eft vita et«rna : non recipientes autem Verbum incorruptionii, i^crfcTcrant in came mortali, et funt debitores rwor- tii, antidoium vit* non accipientes. Lib. iii. c. 21. * Indomini cotitcmnant, et i' c.trnationcm non recipientcj. Alii autem Turin* igaorantci Virginis difiienfationcm, ex Joseph dicunt eum gene- latum. Lib. t.c. 19. Chap. VIL of the Ehionites, 115 ** common with them, denied the miraculous conception *.'* But this is a moft unnatural conclvL^ion. For as the Ebion- ites denied the miraculous conception as well as Cerin- thus, l^c. and as he mentions thofe who did fo by a mark of diftindlion from others (alii)^ without fpecifying any- other error ; it is certainly far more natural to conclude that he had an eye to the Ebionites, accounting them he- retics for this reafon as of itfelf fufficient. It is, indeed, very evident, that he has previoufly referred to the doc- trine of Cerinthus and Carpocratee, in faying that " o- " thers aflert that the world was made by certain angels." For he has formerly declared that this was the doftrine of Carpocrates, and the account given of that of Cerinthus is not materially different. If the paHage be read according to the older editions, he exprefsly mentions this dodrine of Cerinthus, in thefe words ; " Others ajfert, that he " (tlie Demiurgus) is greatly remote from him, who is " according to them, the father, that he was of him- " felff," iSc. According to other editions this language feems to be referred to that matter of which the world was made. The circumftance of the reft of the paflage refpe^ting the Gnoftics, inftead of being favourable to the Ebionites, is. a proof of his great dijlike of them. For how would he otherwife clals them with fuch grofs heretics ? In the following chapter he refers to thcfe heretics before mentioned, without dilHndion •, faying, " All thefe are *' much later than the bifhops to whom the Apoftles com- " mitted the churches. Thefe heretics before mentioned, *' lince * Vol. i. p, 2S3. t Alii autcm ab Angeh"s quibufdam diccnles facTium efTe mundum, et fubftantiam ejus. Alii quidem, porro et longe feparatum ab eo, qui eft fecandum ipfos, patre, a femetipfo fuifie, et elFe ex fc natum, Iren. Iji. V. c. 19. 2l6 Real Her efy Book V. ** fince they are blind to the truth, are under a neceflitj ** of going out of the right way, taking fome one way and " fome another ; and on this account the veftiges of their " doctrines are difFufed without agreement or connexion. *' But the way of thofe belonging to the Church, furround- " ing the whole earth, has one firm tradition from the " Apoftles, and exhibits to us one and the fame faith as " that of all." Then he refers to a variety of articles men- tioned in the preceding chapter, oppofing the truth to the paiticuiar tenets of the heretics re i erred to ; declaring that they " believe the fame difpofition of the incarnation of " the Son of God, — and expect the fame advent of the " Lord*" Even although Ebionites had not been fo e- vidently pointed out, as one clafs ; from this circumflance, we fhould have been under a neceffity of inferring, that Irenaeus accounted all thofe heretics, who departed from that one doflrine of the church concerning the incarna" tion. To what we have already quoted from Dr P. he fub- joins ; " If there be any other palfage in Irenseus, in which " he calls, or feems to call the Ebionites heretics^ I have " overlooked it f ." There is another paflage, which, in one ftnfe, the Doctor has certainly overlooked. But he knows whether voluntarily or not. He, indeed, mentions thiii * Omnes enim ii vaMe pofleiiorcs qiiam Epifcopi, quibus Apofloli tiadideiunt Ecclefias. — NecetTitatcm ergo habent prcedicli, hseretici, quo- niam fintcaeci ad vevitatem, alteram et alteram ambulare exorbitantes viam : et propter hoc iiiconj'onanter et inconfequentcr difperfa fur.t veftigia dojflii- jiae ipforum. Eorum autem qui ab Ecelefia funt lemita, circumiens mundum univerfuin, qiiippe lirmam habens ab Apoftolis tradilione;n, et vidcre nobis donans omnium unam et candem efle fidem ; omnibus — eandem difpofi- tionem incarnationis Filii Dei crcdcntibus, ct eundem expecflantibus aa •ventum Domini. Lib. v. c. 2o. t Vol. i. p. .83. Chap. VII. of the Ehionites, 217 this palTage. But his extra£l from it is perhaps the fhorteft in the whole work. It confifts in thefe words, Vanl autem et EbioTicei. At the fame time, he fays, " The harfheft " epithet that he appHes to them is that of 'ua7ii, which, " confidering the manner of the ancients, is certainly very " moderate *." This epithet may, i\\ facl, be harlher than that of hceretici; as it feems to exprefs contempt. But there is no occafion for any difpute on this head, as he ap- plies both. Were it not that the bare aflertion of a wri- ter of fuch eminence as Dr P. may pafs with many for ar- gument, I (hould have blulhed at the idea of attempting to prove a thing fo obvious. From the beginning of this chapter, Iren?eus illuftrates the necefTity of the iiicarnation of the Word, becaufe other- wife the Father could not be revealed, we could not imi- tate his example, we could not be redeemed from our cap- tivity, nor could we be delivered from our natural apo- ftacy. Having premifed thefe things, he fays ; " The Lord, " having redeemed us by his own blood, and gi^^v^en his " foul for our fouls, and his flelli for our flefh, (a doftrine *' believed by neither ancient nor modern Ebionites) all " the do6lrines of heretics have periflied." Here he had efpecially four kinds of heretics to oppofe ; thofe who de- nied that Chrift adually came in the flefh*, thofe who refu- fe.d that he came in any other refpecl, thofe who taught that he came into a world not created by him, and thofe who denied one great fruit of his coming, the refurreflion of the body. Thefe are the dodrines of heretics which he has dire6lly in his eye, and which he fays have perilhed. This emphatic language is evidently meant as an introduftion, ex- prcfTive of their general character and common fate ; and it is immediately fucceededby a particular illuilration as to each of them. "For they are vain, who fay that he manifefted himfelf « in * Vol. i. p. 279. ai3 RealHerefy Book V. " in appearance only," ^f. After difplaying the vanity of this fyltem, he fhows whom he had in view, by conclu- ding with thefe words ; " Valentinians, therefore, are vain, ** holding this do6lrine, as they exclude the falvation of ** the flefh, an the redemption of our hody. Before it can be proved that Irenaeus does not here call the Ebionites heretics, it mud be fhewn, that when he pre- vioufly fpeaks of all the do£lrines of heretics, he had one doctrine only in his eye •, that of the Valentinians firil mentioned. For as he defcribes the Ebionites next, then the Marcionites, and lallly thofe who denied the refarredion, all in the clofeft connexion, it would be tampering too far with the patience of the pubHc, to pretend that he meant to iligmatize the iirll, and the two laft as heretics^ but had no defign to extend this charader to the fecond ; but in- troduced them without the leaft propriety. It muft tilfo be proved, that he ufed the term 'uani, concerning the E- bionites, in quite a different fenfe from that in which it is applied to the reft. And irom the whole, it muft be ad- mitted as a native inference, that Irengeus, the difciple of Polycarp, the difciple of John, v/as fo ignorant, or fo wick- ed, as to clafs and cciifovnd thofe with the grofteft heretics, who v/ere the only genuine fucceffors of the apoftles. Juftin Martyr is alfo fummoned to give his evidence. According to Dr P. he * makes no mention of FJnoniteSy but fpeaks of the Jcwijh Chriftians ;— and it is plain that * ' he did not confider all of them as heretics, hut only thofe '* of them who refufed to communicate with the Gentile ** Chriftians. — It is probable, that the Nazarenes or Eblon- " ites, were conlidered as in a ftate of excommunication, ** merely becaufe they would have impofed the law of *' Mofei 22^ Real Her efy Book V. " Mofes upon the Gentiles *.'• Therefore, according to Juftin, Ebionites were heretics, our author himfelf being judge. He, indeed, wifhes to reft Juftin's opiniou of their herefj folely on this point. But from the fame pafl^ige it is evident, that he makes a belief of the pre-exiftence of Chrift a term of falvation. If he accounted it neceflary that thofe, of whom he fpeaks, fliould believe that Jefus exifted " before the morning-ftar," 'iSc. it is natural to think that he would make this point a term of communion alfo. For we cannot fuppofe that thefe fathers imagined that one who avowedly held a do6lrine, the belief of which con- vinced them that he had no fellowfliip with the Head, might, notwithftanding, enjoy the moft intimate fellowfliip with the members. Dr P. obferves that " Ruffinus makes the herefy of E- *' bion to con lift in enjoining the obfervance of the Jewifli " law f ." Here he quotes the language of that expolition of the Creed commonly afcribed to Ruffinus. But one thing is certain. This writer confounds Ebion with here- tics. For he fays, in the preceding fe6\ion ; " And many ** others have aflembled churches, as Marcion, as Valenti- ** nus, as Ebion^ as Manichseus, as Arius, and all the other ** heretics f ." He places him in the very centre of the he- retical groupe. But his only mentioning Ebion's adherence to the law ■will not prove that he reckoned him a heretic yo/^/y on this account ; unlefs it can be demonftrated that he did not account thofe heretics, who, without this legal attach- ment, denied the deity of our Saviour. But immediately before, he mentions it as one branch of the herefy of Mar- cion, * Vol."! i. p. 201. 202. f Ibid, p. 203, % Multi enim et alii ccclefias congregarunt, ut Marcion, ut Valenti- BUS, ut Hebion, ut Manichaeus, ut Arius, et caeteri omnes haeretici. Scft. 37. Oper. Cypriani, p. 575. Chap. VII. of the Elionites. , 221 cion, that he denied " that the Father made the world by " his Son." And a little after, he declares it to be " the " counfel of vanity'' (language commonly applied to he- retics from the time of Irenceus at lead) " which Pauliis " Samofatenus and Photinus held, that Chrifl did not exilt *' before ages, generated of the Father, but had his begin- ** ning from Mary ; and that he was not God born man, ** but of man made God *." But we know that Ruffinus wrote in an age, in which, according to our author, *' the greatell account was made of " the dodrine of the Trinity ; fo that perfedl foundnefs in " that article might be fuppofed to have atoned for defeds " in other things f ." It is, therefore, aftonifhing that he can venture to quote this writer as favourable to him ; when, according to his own principles, he mufl be aflured that Ruffinus could not but think that the want of " found- " nefs in this article," was Ebion's greatefl herefy. The only argument that can be derived from this palTage forci- bly ftrikes againft our author, being a fortiori. If " the " gveateft account was made of this do6lrine," the denial of it mud have been the greateft herefy. As Ruffinus ac- counted Ebion a heretic merely for his adherence to the law, much more mufl he have done fo for his denial of the divinity of Chrift. But he does not mention the latter; either becaufe he fimply confidered Ebion as the father of all who rigidly adhered to the law, whether they denied the divinity of Chrid, or not; or merely, as Dr P. fays of Epiphanius, becaufe he wiftied to diverfify the herefies he was ♦ Concilium vanitatis efl, quod Paulus Samofatenus, et pofl: ejus fuc- ceflbr Phutinus afleniit, Chriuum non fuiiTe ante fecula, fed ex Maria csepifTc : et non eum Pcum hominem natum, fed ex homine Deum ex- iltiuiat fadlum. Exp. Ilf Symb. fedt. 38. f Vol. ill. p. 1 86. 222 Real Herefy Book V. was enumerating. Befides, as this adherence to the law Avas of itfeif a lufficient proof of herely, and as it belonfr- ed to no other in liis liit, he might mention it lingly. Oar author now returns to TertuUian. " There is," he fays, " fomcthing very particular in the conduct of " TertuUian with refpecl to the Ebionites. He fpeaks of •=* the heref}' of Ebion (of which he makes but the flighted " mention in his Treatife againft herefy in general), as " confifting in the obfervance of Jewifii ceremonies, and " yet he fay? tliat ' John, in his epiftle, calls thofc chiefly An- * tichrifts, xvho denied that Chriit came in the flefli, and * who did not think that Jefus was the Son of God,' mean- * ing, probably, a dill)elief of the miraculous conception. * The former,' he fays, * Marcion held, the latter Ebion." There is, indeed, fomething very particular in the conduct of our author here. Undoubtedly what he aims at, is to make it doubtful Vv^hether TertuUian himfelf reckoned the Ebionites heretics, merely becaufe of their denying the deity of Chriil:. In order to prove this, he obferves that TertuUian '* fpeaks of the herefy of Ebion as confiding " in the obtervance of Jewifli ceremonies." But it mull be evident that the ancient writer does not mean this as his only herefy. For it is in the fame fetftion that he men- tions him as one of the Antichrifts whom the epiflle of John refpedls. What he fays is fimply this \ " Paul — " writino- to the Gal.itians, inveighs againff the obfervers " and defenders of circumciilon and the law. This is E^ " bion's herefy *." Nay, Dr P. cannot object to our tranf- latin^^ it, " This is a herefy of Ebion." For he urges this as the true verilon of the fame expreilion in Jerom f » Therefore, • Ad Galatas fcilbens, invchitur io obfervatorf's et defenfores circum- c'.ficnis et legis. Hebionis eft hjerefis De i'lceicrlpt. f. 33. p. 337. f Ufque hodic — inter Judaeos baerfts eft, fee. According to Dr P. j " It is to this very day.— rt herefy among the Jews." Vol. iii. p. 170, 1-71. See above, p. 8«. Chap. VII. of the Ehionhes. 223 Therefore, our author, according to his own rules of conftru6lion, to which he certainly ought to adhere, carries the matter toe far, when he aflerts that Tertullian " fpeaks ** of the herefy of Ebion as confijiitig in the obfervance of Jewifh ceremonies/' But the defign of Tertullian is to fliew the oppofition of the Apoftolical docStrine to particular hcrefies. He afierts that tlie firfl: epiflle of Paul to the Corinthians oppofes thofe who deny the refurreclion, as the Sadducees, Marcion, Appelles and Valentinus. Afterwards he points out the fcope of Paul's Epiftles to Timothy, of the Revelation, and of the firft epiitle of John. As he only exprelTes the fcope and principal defign of each of the epiftles mention- ed, and as that to the Galatians is efpecially le veiled againft the do<^rine of the neceftity of the law ; when fpeaking of this epiftle, he could not with propriety introduce any other herefy of Ebion. But with equal jaliice might it be faid, that he fupp^fed Marcion chargeable with no other herefy than the denial of the refurreclion ; becaufe this is the only- one he mentions in his account of the firft epiftle to the Corinthians. However, he introduces him twice afterwards, in the fame fecl:ion, when the particular fcope of other parts of the New Teftament gave him a proper opportunity of referring to his other hcreiies. His CGndu6i is the very fame with refpect to Ebion. But Dr P. alfo aflerts that Tertullian " makes but the *' flighted mention" of the herefy of Ebion, " in his Trea- " tjfs kgainft herefies in general." What can our author mean hy the flight eft ?netition? Are we to judge of the gi- ' ' of the herefy by the multitude of words employ- e .bout it? Then, furely, in TertuUian's apprehenfton, El'Ou's herefy was greater than that of the Sadducees, of the Nicolaitans, of the Cainites, of Simon Magus ; for in die fcaion referred to tiiey are only once mentioned, hut Ebion '^ twice : 224 Real Her efy Book V. twice : Is it " but the flightefl mention" of this heretic, that, in fo fnort a treatife, his errors are introduced no lefi than four difterent times ? If this be too little, the writer fupplies the defe6t in another work, in which he introduces him again and again ; nay, fpends a whole chapter on him *. The learned Gentleman, indeed, is not ealilj fatisfied as to his proofs of herefy. If a writer enlarge conliderably on the errors of Ebion, and multiply hard names \ " his " hatred, and of courfe his mifreprefentation of them are <« very conipicuous f." Thus his teftimony goes for no- thing, as far as it is unfavourable. If another, in his ordinary way, write concifely, he " makes but the flightefl " mention of" their herefy. Neither of them can be de- pended on. One witnefs is too minute. Therefore, his teftimony cannot be the tale of truth. Another is too ge- neral. Therefore, no certain inference can be drawn. ^ E- piphanius fays too much, and Tertullian too little. A mofl ingenious expedient, indeed, for getting rid of any kind of evidence ! But this is not all. Tertullian mentions Ebion as an cm- tichrijl, becaufe he " did not think that Jefus was the Son " of God." Here Dr P. throws in a happy parenthefis, " meaning, probably, a difoelief of the miraculous con- " ception." I beg leave to alk, if he really thinks this prohahle / Did not Tertullian believe, not only the mira- culous conception, but the real deity of Chrifl ? Did not Ebion deny the one, as well as the other ? Could Tertul- lian be at any lofs to know this ? Does any orthodox wri- ter ever fpeak of Chrill: as the Son of God, meaning to ex- clude his divinity ? With fuch a writer, is not this always the proper and fpccific fenfe of the exprelTion ? Is there * De Caine Chrifli, c. iS. Yid. etiam, c, 14 24. f Vol. iil. p. C105. Chap. VII. cf the Ehij/utiS, 1 2 5 then the leaft ihadow of probability in what Dr P. pretcfids to fuppofe ? It wouid be juli: as natural a conjec- ture, that Tertullian denied the divinity of our Saviour. For here this expreflion, the S'mi of God, muft necelTarily be underftood in Tertullian's own fenfe. Did any writer, meeting with thefe words as nfed by Dr P., 'Jefiis the Son of Godj and knowing the Doctor's principles, notwithllanding remark. •, — " meaning probably ^ " that he is God equal with the Father \* what would he think of the writer's integrity? Tertullian elfe where ex- plains the fenfe he affixed to this expreffion, in the moil unexceptionable manner ; giving Ghrifl the charafters of God and Son of God, in conjundion ; as oppofed to '* the " opinion of Hebion, who held him to be a mere man." Here he (hews that Chriil " could have God for his Father, *' without a human mother *." But our author found it neceiTary to throw a little duft on this teilimony of Tertullian. For he muft have been confcicus that, had he admitted it without helitation, ac- cording to the ordinary fenfe of the writer, he ruined the whole of his own proof as to the nature of herciy. Dr P. at length fums up his evidence. " Upon the " whole," he fays, " the condu61: of Tertullian very much ** refembles that of Irenoeus, who, without claliing the E- ** bionites wath heretics, exprelTcs great dillike of their Vol. II. P " dodlrine * Qiia autem fpiritus Dei et virtus AltilTimi non poteft infra angelos ha- beri, Deus icilicet et Dei Fi.ius. Qjianto ergo duin hon)iiiem geftat, i.iinor angelis fadus eft, tan'o noulum angelum geftat. J'oterat hsec opinip Hebioni c&nvcnire, qui nudum homiuem, ct td.Uum ex leinine David natum, non item et Dei Filium conftituit Jefuiu. De Carne Chrilli, c 14. Vacavit enim viri femen, apud iiabentem Dei I'emen. Itaque ficut nondurn natiis ex Virgine, patrem Deum habere potuit fine homine matre : aequc cum de Virgine nafceretur, potuit matrcm habere hominem fine homine patre. lb. c. iS. ' 2 526 RenlHerefy Book V. " doctrine *.'* What the condad of Irenaeus was we have already feen. Let us now attend to Dr P.'s. He begins this chapter with thefe words ; *' I have obferved that Ter- *' tullian is the firft Chriftian writer who exprefsly calls the *♦ Ebionites heretics^" We thought it was well, if our au- thor would hold to this. But his obfervations feem to make but a very flight impreffion upon himfelf, whatever they make upon the reader. For before he has travelled through four pages, he lofes all the benefit of them. This caufes much unneceffary trouble, not to the reader only, but to hi nfelf. For had he barely remembered that, in page 201, he had recorded it as his own obfervation, that " Tertul- " Han — exprefsly calls the Ebionites heretics," without troubling himfelf to recoUe£l whetlier he was the Jirjl to do fo or not \ there would have been no occafion for iniinua- ting in p. 205, that he does not even " clafs the Ebionites ** with heretics." But as the Doctor fsems to have forgot the paflfages in TertuUian, en which he founded his introductory ohfeV' vation^ we maft endeavour to refrefli his memory a little : Does not Tertullian " clafs the Ebionl'es widi heretics," when, after defcribing the errors of Carpocrales, and ob- ferving that after him the heretic Cerinthus broke forth, he adds ; " His fuccelTor was Ebion ?" Could Ebion be the fuccejfor of Cerinthus in any other fenfe, than as being a heretic? Tertullian ihews, indeed, that they differed confi- derably But he certainly means, that the one fucceeded the other in his heretical charader in general ; and in as far as they agreed, the fucceflion was the clofer. Although it were true, as fome apprehend, that the addition to the Prefcriptions was not the work of Tertullian, we are not dellitute of other evidence that he accounted the Ebionites heretics, 2 F^r •?• Vol. iii. p= 205 r Chap. VIL of the Ebionites. aa^ For he fays in another place ; " What Efaias throws ** out in beating down ihefe heretics, and efpecially, IVo to ** them who make f^Jueet bitter, and darknefs light, denotes " thofe, viz. who do not prelerve words in the light of their " proper meaning ; as that a foul is nothing but what it is " called, and flefh no other than what it feems, and God no " other than what he is declared to be. Thus forefeeing *' Marcion, he fays, / am God, and there is none elfe ; and ** when elfewhere he fpeaks in the fame manner, Before ?n€ " there was no God, I know not what genealogies of the *' lE^ons of the Valentinians he flrikes at. And, He is horn, " not of blood, nor of the will of the fiejlj, and of man, but " of God, he replies to Ebion*." Pray, does Tertullian clafs the Ebionites with heretics here ? It will, perhaps, oc- cur to many readers, that there is one feature of fomc mo- dem heretics as exa6lly delineated by Tertallian, as if they had fat for the likenefs. I need not fay that it is that of not preferving the natural meaning of language. As this has evidently been an original trait, its freflinefs is unim- paired by ihe revolution of ages. Tertullian exprefsly declares that Unitarian do6lrine which excludes a Trinity, to be herefy. " The Devil," he fays, " hath variouily contended againft the truth. He hath *' endeavoured fometimes, by defending, to deftroy it. He P 2 " maintains * Quod enim E'alas jaculatur in fugillatione haereticorum ipforum, et in primis, Vx, qui faciunt diilce amarum,.et tenebras lucem : iftos fci- licet notat, qui nee vocabuia ifta in luce proprietatum fuarura confer- vant ; ut anima non alia fit quam quae vocatur, et caro non alia fit quam videtur, et Deus non alius quam qui piscdicatur. Ideo etiam Marcioneni prelpiciens, Ego (urn, inquit Deus : et alius abfque me non eft. Et cum alias idipfum eodem modo iicit : Ante me Deus nonfuit, ncfcio quas jllas Valentiniancrum iConum genealogias pulfat. Et, Non ex fan- guinc, neque ex carnis ct viri voluntate, fed ex Deo, naf.i* eft, HcbioRi lelpondit. De Came Chiifti, c. 14. 21% Real Her efy Book V. " maintains one Lord, the Almi^.;rtj Creator of the wor.d, ** that even of this one he may make lercfy "." As ^^ lemens Alexandrinus fays tbrt herefy begun in the reign of Adrian, Dr P. attempts to fiiew that he means Gnoltics only •, becaufe '• it is well known that Balilldes and " the moil dillinguiihed of the Gnoilics made their appear- " ance" in that age f . But according to our author's con- ceffion ; " it may be conjectured that by the Peratici Cle- " mens meant the Ehiomtts J.'' Now, as he mentions thefe heretics in that very place where he makes the rife of he- refy coeval with Adrian ; unkfe Dr P. means ro grant that Ebionites were Gnoftics, the attempt to prove that the lat- ter only were meant by Clemens, is unworthy of that can- dour which lie profelTes. It is no objection, that " this is the only paiTage in which " the word (^Feratici) occius." For other heretics are men- tioned here, who do not make their appearance in any ctlier part of the writings of Clemens. But if they are once mentioned under this churader, it is as good as if they had been mentioned a thoufand times. It realiy fhews what they were in the eftimation of Clemens, and of the Catholic clmrch to which he belonged. If Dr P., however, cannot diiprove the title that Ebio- nites had to this name, he will confine it as much as pofiible. " As t!ie ftrid Ebionites," he fays, " held no commimion " with the Gentile Chrifiians, it is very pofPible that Cle- ** mens might infert them in a cat^ogue of heretics, and " allude to them under the name of Peraticz\ without in- *' tending any cenfme of their doctrine concerning Chrid §." But * Vaiie tliabolus asmulatns eft veritatem. Adfec^avit illam aliquando (leiendendo concutere. Unicum Dominum vindicat omnipotentem mun- f\i conditorem, ut et de unico haerefira faciat. Adverf. Praxean. c. j, t Vol, i. p. 285. \ lb. p. 286. S lb. p. jStfo Chap. VII. of the Ehionitest 229 But had Clemens referred to their Judaifm only, he would never have inckided them in a lift of heretics, who had their origin i.i the time of Adrian. For there were Ju- daizing heretics, who refufed commmiion with Gentiles, whatever name Dr P. pleafes to give them, as early as the time of the x\poftle Paul. It is juft as pcfflble that a mo- dern Trinitarian fhould account the Ebionites heretics, only on account of their attachment to the law, as that Clemens fhouM do fo. Tlie Doctor further objcfts that, according to Clemens, " this was a name given them from their place of relidence, " and therefore, did not include the Unitarians among the *' Gentiles." Eat it vv-ould feem that this work of Cle- mens was written before the latter made any conliderable figure. At any rate, as one branch of the Phrygct, here mentioned by him, denied the Trinity, as will be after- wards proved, it will be difficult for Dr P. to fhev*'- that Clemens did not mean to include Gentile Unitarians in this defi '^nation. Er p. has colle6led a variety of pafiTages from Origen, in which he defines herefy, and give* fome general characters of heretics. His defign is to prove that the ancient writer meant Gnoftics only *. But what avails all this ? Does not Dr P. know tliat Origen defcribes the Ebionites as having no connexion with the church ? Does he not know that he exprefsly calls them heretics ? It is impoffible that he can be ignorant of this. For he ellewhere refers to the very paf- fages in which Origen gives tliis account of matters. But this he has either himfelf forgot, or he did not wilh his reader to remember it. We have formerly quoted one paflage exprefs to this purpofe \. But the fame writer elle- where fays -, There are " certain h^refies which do not re- *' ceive the epiftles of the Apoftle Paul, as the Ebionites ot P 3 *' both * Vol. i. p. -jpo. — 293. f See above, p. "/i. 72 a 30 Real Herejy Book V. " both kinds, and thofe who are called Encratites *.*' Dr P. might, with equal juftice and honefty, affirm that Origcn here meant the Encratites onlj as heretics, as endeavour to perfuade the reader, from other palTages, that he confined his ideas of here fy to the Gnoftics. The author of the Apojlolical Conjlitutions, which arc fuppofed to have been written about the end of the fecond, or beginning of the third century, reckons the Ebionites amcngft the wicked Jewifli heretics f. This work muft have been written before the age of Origen. For the au- thor knew none, called Ebionites, who acknowledged the miraculous conception. In attempting to prove that Gnoftics were the only he- retics, our author lays hold of a very trifling circumftance. " Firmilian, writing to Cyprian, on the fubjeft of rebap- " tizing heretics, in anfwer to one Stephanus,*' (he fpeaks of that famous bifhop of Rome, as if he had never been heard of before) happens to mention the names of no heretics but Gnoftics %, But this will not prove that he accounted no others heretics. Cyprian and Firmilian lived in the flri<5!:- eft fellowfhip. Now, in another letter on the fame fub- je6t, the former exprefsly mentions the Patripaffians (whom Dr P. calls Unitarians) as heretics ||. Therefore, they nMill have been viewed in the fame light by Firmilian. But * Eta-» yx^ rivig o/^C(7s»5 ra? riayAj* eTrjfoAotf t» aTra^-oXa fiV) T«i. lb. p. 274. •]• Ei;;^e fiiv av xai 0 IboatKog oy^X9<; xi^'.ffUg x«k««?.— — — ««/ oi sip* xfA-av vvv ^xvivTig tJoimxioif rov t/iov TH ©jtf 4"^*'' ^^^^^^/irov itvxi /SaXofiivoc, e| jj^ovu? av^^og^ x.oci t7rAex»3? laanP KXi Ma^tixg tiVTov yivvcavTiq, Lib. 6. c. 6. Patr. Apoft. vol. i. p. ^^^^ X Vol. i p. 293. Epift Firmilian. f. 4. Op. Cyprian, p. 236- I Patripaffiani,~'et ceterse hcreticorura pedes. Ep. Jubalan. {. 4. J. 219. Chap. Vlt. of the Ebionites. 23 1 But it is a very odd circumLlance that Dr P. fhould fix on Firmilian as favourable to his views : Avhen we iind, from the epiftle of the Synod of Antioch, that this very perfon came twice from Cappadocia to Antioch, for the pur- pofe of enquiring into the dodrines of Paul of Samofata, and condemned them as heretical ; and that he died on his way to that Synod in which Paul was depofed *. Upon the whole, it may be obfcrved, that thofe who write againfl modern heretics would need to be careful as to their language. For although they " exprefs great diflike of " their doftrine," if they do not exprefsly call them here- tics, and give them hard names ; it is an hundred to one, if their fucceflors, a century or two hence, do not plead that Socinian Unitarians were not accounted heretics in this age ; nay, that Unitarianifm was the prevailing do<5lrine in Britain, towards the clofe of the eighteenth century. CHAP. VIII. Of the Gnojlicifm of ancient and modern Unitarians* Tr\R Priestley devotes a great part of hi? firft volume to an examination of the o igin, errors and ' peculiar charafter of the Gnoilics. In this he has a twofold defi^n ; to prove that they were the only heretics in early times, and therefore, that this character did not belong to Unitarians ; and alfo to imprefs his reader with the idea, that the doc- trine of the Holy Trinity in a great meafure owed its ori- gin to their abfurd and heretical tenets. At firit, he works under covert ; but at length, he boldly opens his battery againft Chriilianity. He cannot conceal his defign ,even in the commencement of this inquiry. ♦* The do6lrine of the deification of Chrijl^'* P 4 lie • Euf. Hid. 1. 7. c, 30. vol. i. p. ^Co. 232 Gnoflicifm Book V. he fays, " Vv'liich overfpread the whole Chriflian world, " and which is ftill the prevailiiig opinion in all Chriftiaa " countries, — was preceded by that fyftem of doctrine " which is generally called Gnojlicifm *.'* He profefTes to give " only an outline of this fyflem. But this," he fays, " will contain a view of all their diftinguiihing tenets, " {hewing the dependence they have on each other, and " efpecially their influence wich refpe6l to Chrifldanity, as *' it was held by thofe who were not Gnoflics, and as it con- *• tinues to be held by many at this day f." He exprefles himfeli ftill more fully. *' It appears to me, that the Gno- " ftics had advanced fo many fpecious arguments to prove " that the Supreme Being himfelf was not the immediate " Maker of the world, and the author of the Jewiih dif- " penfation, that the orthodox Chriftians were flaggered by " them, and fo far conceded to their adverfaries, as to allow " that the Being who made the world, and who appeared to " the patriarchs and propliets, was not the Supreme God " himfelf. On this account, they might be the more rea- ** dily induced to adopt the principles of the Platon^fts, " and of Philo, who faid that the world was made, and that " the law was given, by the ulvitie Logos perfoniiied. This " being the So?i of God, they f.ud he muft be the fame with *' Chrijl. In fr.cl, the orthodox ufed many of the fame ar- " guments with the Gnoflics, to prove that the Supreme " Being was not the fame perfon who fpake to the pa- " triarchs t-" How mucii the Do£lor has had this m.atter at heart, du- ring the progrcfs of his work, appears from his conclufion. There he profefTedly points out the i-emains of the Oriental or Platonic philofophy in ?jiodern fyftems of Chriftianity . He confiders the ** lingle dodrine of an immaterial foul in " man, capable of fubfilling, aud of having botli fcnfation «< and * Vul. i. p. III. f lb. p. 146. I lb. p. 173. Chap. VIII. of Unitarians. 233 *' and adion, wheii tlie body is in the grave, — as the foun- " dation on which ahnofl every corruption of Chriftianity " refts." For had this doflrine never been known, " it is *' hardly poflible," he fays, " that the pre -exigence of " Chrift would cvcl have been imagined *." He alfo views the imion of the Soul to God as a Platonic dodlrine which did great hurt. He conliders the dodrinc of the creation of the world by the Son, as derived., partly from the Gno- flics, and partly from the Platonifts f . However diilerent, and in many refpefb oppofite, the Gnoftic and Platonic -fyftenis vrere, Dr P. calls in the aid of both, in order to find a human oiigin for the fundamcnlal doctrines of Re- velation. It muft be acknowledged, however, that he h indebted to neither of thefe fyftems for his do61:rine con- cerning the foul. It claims the honour of derivation from the Sadducees and Epicureans. The learned Gentleman, in his theory with refpecl to the origin of the Trinity, turns the chace. upon the ortho- dox. He is not fatisfied wdth iliewing, as he fondly ima- gines, that Gnoilics were the only heretics, and of confe- quence, that his good friends tiie Ebionites were worthy Chridians. He puHies the matter fartlier. He wiilies it to appear, that the Trinitarian doftrine acknowledges this heretical fource. He cannot prove that its ancient friends were really accounted heretics. But he hopes to prove v/hat is not a great deal worfe, that they undoubtedly de- ferved no better charade r. I have no inclination merely to recriminate. But there are various lineaments in the likenefs of the Gnoftics, as deiineated by Dr P. himfelf, which even to a carclefs ob- ferver, muil forcibly fuggeft the idea of Unitarians^ as the only Chriftians in whom t!ie rcfeniblance is prefervcd •, and others, of which they exhibit, at leaft, the molt perfect li- mihtudc * Vol, iv. p, iSS, 289, - f Ibid. p. 29-^. 234 Gnojiicifm Book V., militude. This charge is not new. It is brought bj Epi- phanius. Our author, indeed, telliiies great diflatisfaftion with his conduct. " Another moii extraordinary and high- " ly improbable allegation of Epiphanius," he Cays," with ** refpe6V to the Ebionites, is his charging them with the " peculiar dodrines ot the Gnoftics \ which is contrary to ** the trftimonj, I may fafely fay, of all other ancient " writers ; ii being commonly faid by them that the he- ** refy of the Ebionites was the very reverfe of that of the *• Gnoftics *." What authority Dr P. has for the latter alTertion, I know not. He has not quoted a fingle ancient writer as laying this : and it might not have been unne- celTary, when contradifting one who faid the contrary. But although the dTcrtion were true, it is no unufual thing for extremes to meet. When ancient writers exprelTed this refemblance be- tween Unitarians and Gnoftics, it is not to be fuppofed that they referred to all to whom the latter name has been gi- ven. For the principles of fome of thefe called Gnoftics were direftly oppoiite to thole of others. Dr P. obferves, that there were two diftind kinds of Gnoftics, the Jews and the Gentiles f. It is, therefore, natural to fuppofe that if the Ebionites, who were a Jewifli fe6t, had any affinity to Gnoftics, it would be efpecially to thofe of their own na- tion. That Tertullian, or the author of the Addition to his Prejcriptions^ was perfuaded of this, is evident from his faying that " Itbion was the fucceffor of Cerinthus :J:." Our author makes no doubt of his being a Gnoftic. He even places him at the head of thefe heretics, granting that " according to the unanimous teftimony of ecclefiafti- *' cal hiftory, the Jewifh Gnoftics appear before any o- " thers §." Dr P., who has brought the fyftem of anti- quity » Vol. iii. p. 2o5. t Vol, i. p. iA%. t De Pracfcript. c. 4S. § Vol. i. p. 143. Chap. VIII. of Unitarians, 235 quity to greater perfeftion than any of his predeceflors, cafts off the Cerinthians, indeed, as heretics. But the So- cinians of the laft century were fo fully convinced of the affinity between them and Ebionites, that they had no fcruple to acknowledge the former as genuine believers. While they confide red the Ebionites as fucceeding tlie Ce- rinthians, they confefled themfelves to be the fucceffors of both *. A Socinian of the laft century, who wrote a Pre- face to Schlichting's Expojition of f.x paffages of Scripture gonccrning the Trinity, in tracing the pedigree of the fe<9:, honeftly carried it up to the Gnoftic Carpocrates, whom he conjoins with Ebion f . Irenaeus feems to have had the fame idea. For he un- doubtedly clajjl's the Ebionites, not only with Jewilh, but with Gentile Gnoftics %» How much foever heretics differ- ed, it was his opinion that they all, Ebionites as well as Gnoftics, originated from the errors of Simon Magus. Therefore, he prefaces the account of his abominations with thefe words ; " As therefore the deteftion and con- " vidtion of all herefies is various and manifold, and it is *' propofed by us to oppofe them all, according to the *' character of each ; we have judged it neceffary firft to '* give an account of their fountain and root, that know- " ing their greateft depth, you may underltand the naiure " of the tree which has been productive of fuch fruits. " For Simon of Samaria,'' 'iSc ||. It * Judgment of the Fathers touching the Trinity, againft Dr Bull's De- Jtnce; Fathers Vindicated, p. 78. I Hoornbeck Socin. Confutat. Vol. i. Apparat. p. 7. -J Lib. i. r. %6. v. c. i, 1^ Cum fit igitur adverfus omnes b^reticos detedlio atque conviclio va- lii* et multifaiia, et nobis propoCtura clt omnibus ii?, recuminm iMlijiuni charaifleiem. 236 Gnojiiclfrn Book Vo It 13 no inconfiderable proof of that intimate connexion fuppofed by the ancients to fiibiifl between thefe bereiies, that while Irenaeus calls the heretic, whom the Apollle John met with in the bath, Cerinthus, Epiphaniiis faj^s it was Ebion. To this w-^ may add, that, whereas fome fay that John wrote his Gofpel in oppofition to the errors of Cerinthus, Jerom affirms that he meant to oppofe thofe of Ebion *. It is undeniable, that the Eblonites and Jewiih Gnoftics did n t differ more from each other, than the Unitarians of the laft, and of the prefcnt century. The difference between \ them was not fo great, as that between fome Gnoftics a;id others, to whom the fame general name was given. I. The primitive Chriftians believed that the worhl wa> made bj the Son of God. They feem to have confidered the Ebionites as on a foot with Gnoftics, becaufe of their opposition to this doctrine. This appears from a paflage in the poetical work againft Marcion, afcribed to Tcrtullian. Even fuppofing that it was not v/ritten by him, it illiiftrcvtes the opinion of the ancients as to this point. " Ebion," the writer fays, " taught that Chrift was born of the feed of ** man, and that men ought to be circumcifed, and ob- " ferve the law \ refuming the legal elements, the fpiritual *' intention being loft. But 1 am unwilling particularly *' to defcribe every kind of wickednels, or to exprefs all " the fources or names. Tvly defign is, by a few fufficientlj *' horrid, to give an idea of many, and of thofe men whofc *^ wickednefs furpaftes defcription, and who are the fell in- " ftruments charatfterem, contiacl'cere, neceiT^iiiim r.rlntrari fumus prius referre fon- tf.Wi ft rauicem eorum, uti fubliniiftimnm ipiorum Bjthum cognjfcens, intelligas arborem, de qua defluxenint tales fiuclu? ; Simon eium Sa- ITiaiites, Stc. Lib. i. c. I9, 20. * De Scilptor. Ecclef. in Joan. Chap. VTII. ofV nit avians . 237 ** ilniTients of the Dragon, vvlio now fccretly utters fo " Riucb villanj, by them who are ftill labouring to cen- " fvre the Maker of the world '." The writer particularly mentions Ebion, though he paffes ove/ many others. Nay, though the work be levelled againft Marcion, and other Gnoftics, Ebion is clajjed with them. He is evidently con- fidered as one of the accufers of the Maker of the world, becaufe he denied the Son by whom it was made. We can afligii no other reafon for this clafTiiication 2. The early Gnoftics and blbionites equally denied the miraculous conception, Carpocrates and Cerinthus are char- ged with this error f. They agreed m aff rting that Jefus was a mere man, only " fu erior to all others in righteouf- " nefe, prudence and wifdcm t." This circumftarice is fully proved, indeed, by the Doctor hmifelf. " It ap- *• pears," he fays, " that t; e carlieft and mod di.^in- " guifhed of the GnoHics agreed with the ancient L'nta- " rians. in difbelieving the miraculous conception §." This Ihews that they had none of that antipathy at matter, which diftinguiihed the later Gnoitics. Dr P. endeavours to account for a circumftance fo extra- ordinary as that of the agreement of Gnoftics and' Unita- rians in this refpe^:, in the following manner : " Now, " what * Hebioni Chriilum fuafit de femine natura, Et ciicumcidi docuit, legiqut v:icarc, Fontibus ami (lis elementa rcfiuncre legis. Extreinum facinus verbis extendere nolo, Aut omnes caufas, aut nomina dicere cunf the Cerinthians. But he cannot fafely fay that this account is contrary to " the teftimony " of all other aiicient writers." For it appears from that of Tertujlian, that Ebion, in fome ftrange manner, confidered Chrill both as a mere man, and as an angel. Speaking of thofe who aflerted that Chrill; fuftained the nature of angels, he fays ; " This opinion might be agreeable to Ebion, who " held that Chrill was a mere man, and only born of tlie " feed of David, and fo not the Son of God, evidently in " fometbing more glorious than any of the prophets, fo " that in foaie refpeds he might be faid to have been an " angel ; as it is faid in a certain place of the .prophecy of " Zecharias, (only it is never faid by Chrift) And the an- *^ gel who /pake in me faid to me X''' r^. * Haer. 30, feft. 3. p. 127. Earl. Gp. Vol. iii, p. 206. t Haer. 30. fe(fl. 34. p. i6a. Earl. Opia. Vol. iii. p, 208 ; Sed angelum, aiunt, gellavit Ciaiftus. — Poterit hsEc opinio .Hebioni convenire, qui nudum honiinem, et tantum ex feminc David natum, non item et Dei Filium, conftituit Jefum, plane prophetis aliquo e;Ioriofiorem, m ita ir nonnullis angelum fuifle dicatur, quemadmodum in aliquo Zach- aria, nifi quod a Chrifto nunquam ed diiflum, Et att mihi angelus qui in me loqucbatur De Came Chrift% c 14. Inftead of h mnuliii, ano^ f.her edition reads //; illo argdus fwJJ":, &c. 4C Gncfiiclfm Book V. Our author, in liis account of the Oriental Philofophj, from which the Gnoflic' doctrine originated, efpeciahy de- pends on the autliority of the Cle-nentiiie HoTiiilies. This work, he fiiys, *' was unqucftionably written by an Unitarian *.'* He thinks that " the Ebionites might be pleafed with it," although he does not reckon it " probable that they would " read it m the public oflices of their churches, or conhder ** it in the fame light with one of the books of Scripture f." As he admits that this work was of fucli conliderable au- thority among primitive Unitarians, and has given fo many extracts from it, how can he charge Epiphanius with mif- reprefenting the Ebio!iites, when the author of the Clemen- tines exhibits their dodrinc materially in the fame point of view ? For the dodrine, which he afcribes to Peter, mufl be conlidered as his own. He introduces that Apoftle as thus defcribing Adam : *' But attend to me concerning the firfl: word *' of truth (or rather, thejirji true logos). For if any one " will not grant to that man, who was formed by the hand ** of God, that he hath the holy Spirit of Chriil: -, how is ** he not chargeable with greater impiety in grantii^g this ** to one horn of an impure Jlock, (moft probably meaning *• the Son of God ?) But he will aft like a man truly pi- " ous, if he will not afcribe this Spirit to another, but to *' him only w^ho, from the beginning of the world, changing *' the forms at the fame time with the names, runs through " that age, till reaching his ov/n times, on account of his " labours, anointed by the mercy of God, he attains to eter- " nal rell. This perfon is invefted with the honour of ad- " ins: as Lord over ail thia<;s in the air, earth and waters. " For this er»(^, he received the breath of him who made " m n, the ineffble garment oi" the fou', that it might be '<• pofTible for iii.a to be immortii. 1. his v^ry perfon, ha- " ving • Vol. i. p. 113. t VjI. li:. l-.ii35«a^ iTco^oe, ^oi }^oyov' txv tu V7ra X'i^^v ©^y xtid^ogTj^ivrt xv6^aj7rctiy to uytov Xgtf« {jlv ^^ tk iX-^tv Trviv- fAOij « To6 fAiyiroe. ot7iZc-i J TU o- p.syi^a tvaiQi]^ ixv in^oo y.iv (/.Vj "^ur} Ep^^stf, exej- yav ds fjLOVov B^nv Aeyoj oj a-Tiic^^rji uicovoi; ai^ac roig ovo^ctcnv [Ao^(pui xcfA-XTHq Qm iXec-i p^^tfTt'-;?, Ug uu i^Bi ty)V avuTTctva-iv, UTog a^^nv T£ xa< y.voiivn* ttuvjov tcov tv ceioi kc<,i y/t^ vDX(riv Tgrt/ix>jrai. Trpr^g rurai oi uvTH 7ri770iriX.oTog Tov uvG^UTTov r/iv TrvoriV itryiVj \vyjig «g^»jTOv ;rf^» CciA/)k, fKug a&wJXTog iivcci ^vvx^y). O'JTO? avT6g fjLdvog aXvt^ng vira^^ctg ^t^6(P>}t>3j, iKUTOi t^oou xxi^ «|;j i? ^n^iv T« 7ra>Tox^i»Tog05 xotrct ««T>i«rtv mxri^uv uvruv, Haer. 30. fecft. 16. \ Haer. 30. fed. 16. p. 140. 248 Gfiofiicijjji Book V. to be only another edition of the Homilies) afferts that " God eflablilhed two kingdoms ; the one, of the prefent, *' the other, of the future time ; and fixed the duration of " both *." In the Homilies^ Peter fpeaking of Adam, fays ; " On this account (the removal of the key of know- " ledge under the law) rifing from his feat, as a father for " his fons, preaching the things which had been fecretly " delivered to the holy from the beginning, extending mer- *' cy even to the Gentiles, and having pity on all fouls, he " did not regard his own blood. For he is accounted wor- " thy to be king of the future age f ." Of the Devil he fays i " Coming, as the king of the prefent ftate, to him " who is king of the future, he faid, All the kingdoms of *' the prefent world are fuhjeB to me ; — wherefore fall down " and worpjip me, a?id I will give them all to thee J." And again, *' The prophet of truth, making his appearance, *' hath taught us, that the Creator and God of all hath dif- *' tributed to two individuals two kingdoms, one to him " who is good, another to the evil one ; giving to the evil " one the kingdom of the prefent world, with the law ; fo '^ tnat he has the power of puniHiing the unjuil. But to " the good, he hath given that eternal age which is fu- *' ture * Duo regna pofuit, pisefentis dico tcmporis, etfiitviri; et tem^ora unique conftituit. Kecogn. Clem. liD i. iecl. 24. P- 492- Xii, (jLiXXovra; yat^ cnuvoq ^na-^Mvg g)(; ruv -Trapoiiuv a>\> plcctriXivg^ xu rcuv f.isXXovTa)v Ilum. viii. fed. 21. p. 678. 3 Chap. VIII. of Unitarians, 24^ *-^ ture *." I might quote a great many other pafTages, which affert or imply the fame do6lrine. But thefe ex- tracts afford a ftrong prefumption in favour of the credibi- lity of Epiphanius, even as to fome circumftances in which he is not fupported by other ancient writings yet extant. He would feem to have borrowed his account of the Gno- flic tenets of the Ebionites from this Unitarian work (which, as the Do£tor obferves, is " happily preferved to " us \ i") efpecially as we know that he was acquainted with it. 6. Irenaeus claiTes Ebionites with Gnoftics, not in gene- ral only ; but as to the circumftance of denying the truth of our redemption J. This great do£lrine was denied by all Gnoftics, however much oppofed to each other ; by thofe who aflerted that Jefus was a mere man, and by thofe who denied his humanity entirely. Ancient and modern Uni- tarians are the only nominal Chriftians who have followed their footfteps in this refped. Arians, indeed, come near- cft to them. For they truft in a created Saviour. 7. The more early Gnoftics and Ebionites agreed as to the facred canon. According to the Dodor's own confeiTionj " the Ebionites made no public ufe of any other gofpel " than that of Matthew : and he quotes Philafter, as teftify- ** ing that Cerinthus admitted the Gofpel of Matthew on- " ly §." The followers of Cerdon and Marcion, who were later Gnoftics, received the Gofpel of Luke -, but remark- ably interpolated. They alfo cut off the genealogy ]|. 8. The J>5/x.<«^yo? Kcii 6io?f 2uTi» TKTiv aTivoiUiv fix(riXeiXi ovOf ayxQn T£ Tov iO-OfA-ivov xi^iQ'j oiiuvcc. Hom. XVI. ktl. J. p. 722. f Vol. i. p. 113. \ See above, p. 220. § Vol. i. p. 233. 234. II Iren. lib. i. c. 29. Tertullian. Cent. Marcion. 1. 4. Epiphan. haer. 42. f. 10, Fabric. Bibl. Grsec. Vol. iii. p. 1^5. 25© Gnojlicifm Book VIII. 8. The Gnoftics denied the proper infpiration of the fcriptures. This is acknowledged by Dr P. " As they did *' not conlider them," he fays, " as written by any proper ** infpiration, they feem to have thought themfeives at li- " berty to adopt what they approved, and to negled the *' reft \ wiuovt difputing their genuinenefs.'* He virtually owns, in the paiVage laft referred to, the agreement of the Ebionites with th.m in this refpeft j adding, " 1 his, in- " deed, was not peculiar to ihem, but feems to have been a ** liberty taken by o^her primitive Chriftians. — Thus^ the ** Ebionites made no public ufe of any other gofpel than " that of Matthew *." One would almoft think that modern Unitarians had propofed the Gnoftics as their pat- tern in this inllance. The Dodor exprefles their fenti- ments as his own, treating all who differ from fuch vene- rable matters with fovereign contempt. "All thofe," he fays, " to whom it can be worth my while to make an apo- " logy, think as I do with refpe6l to the fcriptures^ iji'Z,, " that they were written without any particular infpiration, *' by mtn who wrote according to the beft of their know- *' kdge, and who from their circumftances could not be <* miftaken with refpeft to the greater faBu of which they ** were pioper witjieffisy but (like other men fubjed to pre- ** judice) might be liable to adoj^t a hafty and ill grounded " opinion concerning things which did not fall within the " compafs of their own knowledge f." Thefe Gnoftic fen- timents belong to none who are called Chriftians but Uni- tarians. 9. The Jewilh Gnoftics adhered to the law of Mofes, forcing the Gentilts to obferve it. This Dr P. materially grants. In this refpect they were more nearly allied to E- bionites, than to tliofe who bore tlie fame name among the Gentiles. 10. He » Vol. i. p. 233. f Vol. iv. p. 4, 5. Chap. VIII. of Unitarians, 251 10. He confiders pride as a peculiai* feature of thefe he- retics. They afliimed the name of Gnoltics, from the word yvoiji; •, becaufe they laid claim to a great portion of wif- dom or reafon. It will be difficult to find any fociety of Chriftians who refemble them fo much in this refped as Socinians, who fet up their own reajon as the tefl of divine Revelation, and endeavour to reduce all the doftrines of it to the llandard of philofophy and fcience falfely Jo called'^. Dr P. fays that the Gnollics " boafted of their own know- ** ledge f ." He thinks that the Apoftle Paul fpeaks of them, when he fays, '^he preaching of the crofs is fooliJJj^ nefs to the?n that perifb^ 1 Cor. i. 18 And is not the fame attachment to the wifdo?n of this world confpicuous in thofe who rejeQ: the genuine do6trine of the crois, who trarnph under foot the Son of God, like the unbelieving jews call- ing him a mere man, and account the blood of the covenant a common thing, by denying its atoning efficacy, becaufe they cannot reconcile the dodrines of the incarnation and atonement with the didates of carnal philofophy ? The Gnollics pretended that they were wifer than the apoftles X' But where will you find a parallel to this pre- fumpcion, but among thofe who venture to fay that the A- poftle Paul " often reafons inconclufively ?" Nay, as Ire- naeus alfo teftifies, *' they carried their pride fo far as to fay *' that they were like Jefus §.'* Where ihall we find any refemblance of this blaiphemy, but in the condud of thofe who impioufly affiire us, that Jefus is a mere man, who re- ceived his exiflence in the fame manner, and was fubje6l to the fame corrupt bias, with themfelves ? II. The * '^ev^aivvf^iJ yvu!rta(;, I Tim. vi. 20. f Vol. i. p. 150. \ Iren. lib. iii. c. 2. § Quapropter et ad tantum elationis prove£li funt ad quidam quideui^ firailes fe cfle dicunt Jefu. lb. lib. i. c. 24. -2^2 Cnojlicifni Book V. 11. ?'he eternity of matter was the doctrine of manj Giioftics. Dr P. informs us, concerning them in general, that " crcatio7i out of ?iothing was an idea that they never " entertained *." It appears that this is an idea which the Doctor himfelf does not entertain. For we have elfewhere ieen that, according to him, " what is called the Mofaic *' creation^ — for any thing we know, was only a re-making " or re-conjiituting of the world, out of a former chaos f ." It is, indeed, the general opinion of Socinians, that the world was formed out of pre-exiftent matter. They have been alio charged with believing that this was eternal :|:. They bell know whether the charge be juft. 12. One of the characters of the Gnollics, given by our author, is that they denied the obligation of martyrdom \, Paul gives fuch a defcription of thofe Jews w^ho enforced circmncilion, as will apply to Ebionites equally with Ce- rinthians. As mafiy as dejire to make a fair fhew in the. fleJJj, they conjlrain you to be circumcifed, only leji they fjoiild Juffer perfecution for the crojs of Chriji, Gal. vi. 12. Fear of provoking their unbelieving brethren, is the mo- tive to which he afcribes their apparent zeal for the cere- monial law. 13. The Gnollics denied the jiifice of God. Dr P. fup- pcfes that the principa! fource of their miitakes was " their " fixed perfuafion cencerning the pure benevolence of the ♦* Supreme Being ;" adding, that their idea of this " was ** incompatible with jnfiice ; fo that the very admiffion '* that God vj'sisjuji, was with them a proof that he was not ** that good Being whom they placed at the head of the *' univerf el|." The Do£tor never gave a more natural re- prefentation * Vol. i. p. 120, 121. t Familiar Illu"a:r. p. 42. \ Jurieu Tableau de Socinianifme, Par. i. Let. 3. p. 104. § Vol. i. p. 2CI. \\ lb. p. 123. 124- Chap. VIII. of Unitanans. 253 prefentation of the principles of Socinians, who deny that punithe jnjlice is efiential to God. He can fcarcely find other words for expreffing his own fentiments. " In the *' deity," he fays, '■'■ jiijlicc can be nothing more than a mo- *' dification of goodnefs^ or hene^ohnce^ which is his/o/f go- " verning principle *." This is undoubtedly pure hencuo- Icnce, He obferves afterwards \ *' Admitting that the po- " pular do6irine of atonement fiiould raife our ideas of the '^jujlice, or rather the feverify of God, it muft, in the ^' fame proportion, fink our ideas of his mercy f." He con- fiders it as " now afcertained with refpe£l to the moral cha- " rafter and government of God, that he is a Being purely " good" and " that he Jimply wiihes the happinefs of all " his creatures J." Socinians enjoy an indlfputed fucceflion to the Gnoftics, as to this doftrine. 14. Thefe heretics imagined that the Father of Chrijl \V2.s ?i different Being from Kiva who gave the law » Dr P. feems to think that this was not the opinion of the Jewlfh Gnoftics. But Ireneeus afferts that Ceriiithus held the world to be " made by a power remote from, and ignorant ^' of the Supreme Being ||." In the addition to the Pre- fer iptio?is of TertuUian, it is faid that Cerinthus afcribed the Jewifh law to angels, and held " that the God of the " Jews was not the Lord, but an angel §." This opinion, I acknowledge, is not eafily reconcileable with that of his urging the necefiity of the law. But there is no fufRcicnt reafon to doubt that they really embraced it. I do not fuppofe that any of thofe called Unitarians, have denied .that the law was given by the true God. But it would feem that their doctrine concerning the moral law itfeJf, is a remnant of that of the Gnoftics. They have not adopted this in form. But they have done fo in faft. They have made that God, who gave the law to the Jews, tQ •> Hlft. Corrupt. Vol. i. p. i(J3. \ I bid. i. p. 170, 1 Ibid, p. 277. ' IjLi'). 1. c. 25. 1^^ Cap. 4S, «54 Gnojliclfm, i^c. Book V. to be a changeable, and therefore an imperfect Being; pretending that Jefus came, not only to abolifti the cere- monial law, but to amend the moral. This is the very eflence and fpirit of Gnofticifm. Nay, if poflible, it is rtiore impious and abfiird. For they afcribe that to the Supreme, which Gnoftics afcribed to an inferior being. They virtually accufe him, who alone is good, of that im- perfedion which thefe ancient blafphemers attributed to an evil principle. 15. "All the Gnoftlcs," our author obferves, "with- *' out exception difbelieved the refurreftion ," " Some of " them," he adds, " did not venture to do it in words f .'* This is a jufl account of the conduct of Socinians for two cen- turies paft. They have granted the refurre6tion in words, but denied it in reality ; aflerting that the fame body is not raifed. This is a dodrine, which none called Chriftians, but themfelves, have taught. Dr P., indeed, departs from the proper faith of his church in this inflance. He reafons verv juftly againfl what has been the common faith of So- cinians : " If nothing of that which dies is to appear again, ** in any future period of our exiftence, there may be a " new creation of men, but there cannot be any proper re- ''^ fiirreBion X" 16. '* The Gnoftics," according to our author's account of them, " are faid to have maintained that the greateft part " cf mankind would be ajinihilated-aX the day of judgment §." This is the very doftrine of Socinians with regard to the wicked. For in this fenfe alone they underftand everlaji- ing deJlruBion, 1 know of no Chriftians, who, in this re- fpeft, can vie with them for the honour of fucceeding the Gnollics. A * Vol. i. p. ao8. t lb. p. 209. X Ibid. p. 114. § mn. Corrupt. Vol. i. p.413, VINDICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE, yr. BOOK VI. OF THE HISTORY OF THE PRETENDED UNITARIAN DOC TRINE AMONG GENTILE CHRISTIANS. DR Priestley, " having proved," as he fuppofes, " to " the fatisfa£lion of every impartial reader, that the " great body of Jewifh Chriflians always were, and to the " lafl continued to be Unitarians," flatters himfelf that " it " may with certainty be concluded, that the Gentile con- " verts were alfo univerfally Unitarians in the age of the " apottles, and that, of courfe, the great majority of the ** common people continued to be fo, for a very confidera- ** able time *." But if it be evident to the reader, from what has been oTered in reply, that " the great body of the ** Jewifh Chriftians were not Unitarians," the Dodor's in- ference mult appear totally unfounded. However, * Vol, iii. p. ijj. 2 256 Gentile Unitarians Book Vl. However, he does not reft his aflertlon, with refpe6t to the Gentile converts, on this ground. He endeavours to eftablilh it, firfl:, by whac he calls " the flrongcft prefump- " tions ;" and then, by " the moft direct pqfitive evidence." Both thefe kinds of evidence I ihall examine in their order. CHAP. I. Of Dr P.'s Pre/umptive Evidence that the Majority of Gentile Chrifiiatis in the early ages were Utiitarians* S E C T I O N I. Gentile Unitarians not in communion with the Catholic Church in early times. They were excluded both hy the fpiritf and hy the letter of the Creed. DR Priestley produces fix arguments of the prefmnp- tive kind in fupport of his hypothefis. I. *' That Unitarians," he fays, " mull have been in com- -** munion with what was in early times called the Catholic " churchy is evident from there being no creed, that could ** exclude them. — A creed was formed for the exprefs pur- " pofe of excluding the Gnoflics, v/ho, of courfe, could *' not, and we find, did not, join the public aflemblies of " Chriitians, but formed aflemblies among themfelves, en- <' tirely diftin6t from thofe of the Catholics f ." But though we fiiould i'uppofe this argument to be well founded, it would prove too little. ]t could only prove, that Unitarians were fuffered to continue in communion with the Catholic church. Our author, indeed, feems con- fcious that his argument is defedive. For all that he infers from * Ibid, p. 235. t Ibid, p. %^G. , CJhap. I. excluded frofn the Church. 257 from it is, that the Unitarians " might ftill continue in com- " munion, there being no law, or rule, to exclude them V* But this is not the proper argument. For the very title of the chapter is, Prefumptivc Evide?ice that the Majority of the Ge?itile Chrijiians in the early ages were Unitarians. Now, this argument is far from proving that the Unitarians were the majority. Although it were well-founded, it could only prove the forbearance of the orthodox, the paucity of Uni- tarians, or that they kept themfeives concealed. The firft of thefe inferences would be inadmiffible. For as we have formerly proved, there were, in early ages, ma- ny Gentile Chriftians of difl:in£tion, who reckoned Unita- rians heretics. Therefore, if there v;as no article in the creed, which militated againft them, we would be under a neceflity of fuppofmg, either that their number was fo con- temptible as to create no unealinefs, or that they concealed their ientiments. But the polition, that there was no creed 'to exclude them, is undoubtedly falfe. In order to fupport it, Dr P. ob- ferves that '* there was no creed ufed in the Chriftian " church, beiides that which was commonly called the " apojlleSf before the council of Nice i" and that " this " creed contains no article that could exclude Unitarians f ." Having formerly made the fame declaration, he was re- ferred by the Monthly Reviewers to that form of the creed given by Tertuliian, in his Prefcriptio?is %. Here the rule of faith is, " That God is entirely one, and that there is no " other befides the Creator of the world, who produced all " things from nothing, by his Word fent forth before all : " That that Word, called the Son, appeared often in the " name of God to the patriarchs, was always heard in the " prophets, at length conveyed by the Spirit of God the Vol. H. R ♦^ Father, * Ibid. p. 236. t Ibid. p. 236. t c. 13. •J j8 Gentile Unitarians Book VL " Father, and his power, into the virgin Mary, made flelh *' in her womb," bJ'r. Dr P. infifts, that this was only Tertullian's own expofition, and refers to his work De Velandii Virginibus, where we have the creed, as far as it refpe£ts the Father and Son, ex- prefled more briefly, and in language nearly the fame with that in which* it was afterwards generally received. We do not plead, that the firft is to be confidered as the ordinary form. Nor does this appear with refpe6l to the fecond. The conjedure of Dr Berriman feems molt na- tural, that then " it was not always exprefled in the very *' fame phrafe, but ftill the fame in fubftance *." But though it be fuppofed that TertuUian, in the paflage quoted, gives us only his own expofition •, it will by no means follow, that Unitarians were not excluded by that creed, which, as to its fubftance, was generally ufed in early times. For the meaning of any creed muft be learned from the expofition given of it by that church which claims it ?i5 her's. He who interprets the language of infpiration differently from others, may more plaulibly contend that he has the juft meaning ^ becaufe there is no earthly infalli- ble judge. But the man who affents to a human creed, muft either do it in the fenfe impofed by the generality of thofe who adopt it, if confonant to the plain ir.eaning of language, and if it cannot be proved that it is contrary to the intention of the fraraers ; or he a6ts diihoneftly. Now, the fenfe of the generality is certainly to be learned from that of the public interpreters, if their interpretation be admitted by others. We can have no more certain evi- dence that this is the cafe, than tlrt:ir being generally ac- knowledged in their ofhcial character, and there being no contradidion of their interpretation. Alter a particular declaration. * HLIorical Account, p. 23. Chap. I. excluded from the Church, 2 ro declaration of their faith, if others fubmit to them, it muft be concluded, either that they agree with them in opinion, or that they a" I fhall alk no other proofs than thofe with which Dr P. furnifhes me. The natural conclufion is, if the Ebionites, if ♦ Unicus autem, vel unigenitus, annunciatur et creditor, quiauniisita eft genitus, neque habet in nativitati confortem. Homil. in Syrnbolo t Adv. haer. 1. i. c. 2. \ Dc Virgin. Velan^- c. i. 5 Vol. iv. p. ft}.. II i-ib. iii. c. 24. »» Vol. iv. p. 34. tt I^- P- 8S- n Xb. p. 89. ijo Gentile Unitarians Book VI. if the Gentile Unitarians in the time of Juftin, if, very pro- bably, the difciples of Paul of Samofata, denied the mira- culous conception ; they were all excluded by the creed, as it flood in the carlieft ages. Our author feems to have forefeen this inference, and endeavours to provide againft it. Becaufe both Jewilh and Gentile Unitarians denied this dor- mones in Ecclefias Romanae fymholo non habentur: conftat autem apud nos addito-:, ha:re!eos c^ufa Sabellii, illius profec^o quae a nofliis PaJra- pafllana appellatur. Expof in Symbol, fecft. v:i. 272 Gentile Unitarians Book Vto " took no great care to inculcate this doctrine (of the mi- " raculoiis conception) but chiefly urged articles of greater " moment. Among others, I Ihall give in the margin the " opinion of Bilhop Bull to this purpofe *." All that Bi- ihop Bull fays, is •, " It may be Ihrewdly conjefhired, that " the declaration of this myftery was referved till the " more full expofition of the gofpel, after baptifm f/' Here he is not fpeaking of thofe times when men were not baptifed, till after they had been long in the Hate of cate- chumens •, but of the apoflolic age, when they received this ordinance immediately on their profeffing that Jefus was the Ch7'iji, the Son of God, But from this conceffion, Dr P. prefumes to make the worthy Bilhop join with thofe who aflert that ** the apoftles " took no great care to inculcate this doctrine." This is entirely in the ^le in which he treats Athanalius. Becaufe he fpeaks of the prudence of the Apoftles, in not enlarging on the fubjeft of our Saviour's godhead, when addreffing unbelieving Jews, Dr P. is pleafed to infer, that Athanafius meant that " the Apoftles took no great care," at any time, " to inculcate this do6lrine." He feems refolved to compel both the ancient, and the modern Athanalius, to contri- bute to his fcheme, however relu<5tantly. But we knoiv the mafi, and the manner of his communication » Belides the proof he wilhes to derive from the Creed, he attempts to lliev/ that " all the Unitarians continued in " communion with the Catholic church till the time of *' Theodotus, about the year 200 jij;" becaufe we have no particular * Vol. iv. p. 87, 88. f Hand vane igitur augurari licet, hujus myfterii propalationem pie- niori evangelii expofitioni poft baptiumuii lefervatam fuiffe. Open p. 339. ap. Audi. I \^\. iii. p. 237. \ Chap. I. excluded fro?n the Church. ^ / J particular account of any feparate focietics formed by them. ^ If they did continue in the church, it could only be by a bafe concealment of their principles, and by fyn.bolizing' with others in their fuppofed idolatry. For we have feen, that the letter of the creed excluded all who denied the mi- raculous conception. Thefe, accotding to our author, form- ed the majority of Unitarians. But the fad is •, he cannot prove that there were any Unitarians of another defcription, in this early period. At any rate, the- delign and meaning of the creed excluded them all. If they declaied their fen- timents, and did not retraft them, if they even continued to doubt ; they were denied to be Chriltians, and pronoun- ced heretics. Can it be fuppofed that the perfon, who de- clared thofe to be antichriils that denied Chriil to be the Son of God, who reckoned the Ebionites heretics on this account, and who went fo far as to urge that all heretics ihould be re-baptized, would continue in a communion in which avowed Unitarians were tolerated, without one ef- fort for the vindication of injured truth, or without a linp-le complaint ? Would he dare to fay, that fuch were extra- neous {nojlris ecdejiis) in the eftimation of the various branches of the Catholic church ; if the whole of that church, as well as the heretics of whom he fpeaks, could have given him the lie } But as we learn from Ruffinus, that Ebion afTembled a church diftind from the Apoftolic, it is equally clear, from what he advances, that this was done by " all the other " heretics." Their feparation from the chm'ch, indeed, is the very proof given by that writer of the propriety of the character he had beftowed on her, as being that *' lioly " church which had not fpot or blemifli." He muft alfo be underftood, as declaring the condud of the church, not merely with ref; e6l to heretics in his own time, but with refpeft to all former heretics. This appears, not only from Vol. II. S his 2/4 Gentile Unitariansy &LC, Book Vi, his mentioning them univerfally, but from the particular notice he takes of the moft ancient heretics. It is alfo wor- thy of obfervation, that he contrails all thefe herefies, whe- ther in his own, or in former times, with the unity of the church, as " taught to believe in one God under the my^ " fiery of a Trinity *." Thence it appears, that he had cfpecially thofe herefies in his eye, which are oppofed to this. What Dr P. alTerts feems very probable, that none of the Gentile Unitarians left the communion of the church, before Theodotus. But are we thence to conclude, with him, not only that the church tolerated them, but that they were the majority ? Surely, there never was a more ground- lefs inference. We have feen, that the firft fuppofition is contradifted by all the contemporary accounts of the temper of the church at that time. Therefore, inftead of fuppofing that the Unitarians were the majority, the only idea aat we can form is, that if they had any exiftence in the church, they virtually abjured their principles. Thus, if the Doc- tor's argument prove any thing, it proves that there were no avowed Unitarians in the church, before Theodotus. This muft, indeed, be acknowledged as the fa(9:, if we have the lead refpe£l to ancient hiflory. For Eufebius declares that " Theodotus was the father of this God-denying apo- " Jiacy /'* that is, he was the firft Gentile, in the commu- nion of the church, who thus abandoned her principles. SEC- • Hi ergo qui fupra in uiinm Deum credere dod^i funt, fuh myfterio Trlnitatis, credere hoc etiam debent unam efle ecclefiam fandlam. Ifta eft ergo fandla ecclefin, non habens maculam aut rugam. Multi eniin et alii ecclefias congregarunt, ut Marcion, ut Valentinu?, ut Hebion, ut Manichaeus, ut Alius, et cseteri omnes haerctici. Expof. in Symbol. Chap. I. Gentile Vnitarmns had feparate Names, . 275 SECTION II. The Ge?itik Unitarians had dijlinciive names. Of the Alogi. TTVR P.'s SECOND argument is as flimfj a one as ever was offered to the world. " The very circiimftance," he fays, " of the Unitarian Gentiles having no feparate name, " is of itfelf a proof that they had no feparate afferablies, " and were not dillinguilhed from the common mafs of " Chriltians *." This argument, it muft be evident, does not prefume to approach the limits which our author has prefcribed to him- felf, in the title of this fedion.' Though they fhould have had no feparate name^ would this prove that they were the inajority ? But the learned Gentleman takes his leave of the proper fubjecl for a time, and feems inclined, as in the pre- ceding argument, to confine himfelf to the proving of their feilowfhip with the Catholic church. His proof is, that they had 710 feparate name. What ? were they not called Paulians, Sabellians, Noetians, Artemonites, 'iSc? Had they not thus a variety of feparate names ? This our author acknowledges. But it is not fufficient. It mufl either be proved, that Gentile Unitarians had one feparate name, including them all ; or he will continue to refufe that they were in a ftate of feparation from the church. For " thefc," he fays, " were only names given " them in particular places from local circumftances." Thefe names aretoo particular for our author. He muft have a general one, including all Gentile Unitarians, what- ever were their local cd cumfiances, and how much foever the various parties differed from each other. S 2 But * VqI. iii. p. 237. 276 ' Gentile Unitarians Book VT. But does not 2,feparate name, whether general or parti- cvlcir, imply the idea of feparation ^ Dr P. juflly obferves, that *' when bodies of men are formed, diflinguilhed from " others by their opinions, manners or cuftoms, they ne- " ceiTarily become the fubjefts of converfation and writing, " and it being extremely inconvenient to make ufe of pe- " riphrafes, or defcriptidns, particular names will be given " to them." But will he therefore undertake to prove, that when thefe bodies are not only " diitinguilhed from " others," but diftindl from one another, one ge?ieral name will be given to them all ^ Is it not more natural to fuppofe, that they will receive particular names, diflin- guifliing them not merely from the church they have left, but from each other ? If they not only hold very differ- ent opinions, but appear in different places, and at different times ; is it not ftill more natural to fuppofe that they will be varioufly chara6terized ? From the learned writer's or- dinary mode of reafoning, I perfuade myfelf, that had he found that Gentile Unitarians had received one general de- iignation only, he would have reckoned the circumftancc no lefs favourable to him. " Why," might he have faid, ** had thefe Unitarians been feparate from the church ; ap- " pearing as they certainly did, in different places, and un» " der different leaders, it cannot be conceived that thofe, " from whom they feparated, would have unanimoufly agreed ** to give them one name. This is without a parallel in ** the hiflory of the church. They would have had many " according to the variation of their circumltances. As they *' had not feparate names, while we know that they differed ♦* from one another, we can form no other conclufion, than '* that they were all in communion with the church," Had his argument been thus reverfed, would not the prefumpticjt have been much flronger ? The variety of names given to thefe heretics, is a better proof of their being feparate from the church, than any- one A07&)', ojTa oieij a>j ^r|:affage, While men Jlept the enetny fowed his tares. By f Vol. iii. p, 243. f Letters to Dr P. p. 74. Chap. I. fzot the Majority, 2^3 By this term he feems alfo to point out the qiiorundcwi^ tlie certain pcrfons mentioned a little before. Haviucr ob- fervcd, that " whatever is lirfl: is true, and that what is of ** late date is falle,'* lie adds ; ** But this rule being pre- *' ferved, every where neverthelefs for injlruBht^ and for- " ^^'/w^yow^ certaiTi perfofis, there mull be room left for ** retra«5iations ; left any perverfenefs feem to be condemn- " ed without examination, but rather under the influence " of prejudice ; and this efpecially which thinks that it pof- *' felTes nothing but the truth ; while reckoning that we are " not otherwife to believe in the one God, than if he Called " himfelf the fame Father, and Son, and Holy Ghoft." Now, it is evident that the controverted pafTage is intro- duced as an illuftration of this. What immediately fol- lows is merely a pafling proof of their miftake with refpeci to the unity. Having given it as his opinion jthat " room " fhould be left for retr?i(5lation, for inftru6Hng and fortify- *' ing certain perfons," he proceeds to give his realon for men- tioning thefe, and for the willi he had expreffed concern- ing them, by declaring the matter of fa£t. " For," fays he, " the fimple indeed, (as fleeping in their ignorance of " doflrine) that I may not fpeak of thofe who are impru- " dent aud unlearned," "iSc *. Had he known the majority to be Unitarians, he would not have fpoken of them as fome certain perfons. This is language never ufed with re- fped to a multitude, far lefs the greateft part of any large bo- T 3 The * Ubique tamen propter inflrucflionem et munitionera qnonindam, dan- dus eft etiam retradatibiis locus : vel ne videat&r una^uaeqiie pcrvcilitas, non examinata, fed pracjudicata damnaii, inaxime haec, quae fe exiftimat mcram veritatem poflldere, dum unicum Deutn non alias putat creden- dum, quam (i ipfum eundernque et patiem, et filium et fpiritum ran^um dicat : quafi non fie quoque unus fit omnia, dum ex uno omnia, per fub- ftantije fcilicet unitatem, ^t niliilominos cuftodiatnr r>ncycu.ixi facra- \ juentum, 2p4 Gentile Unharians Book VI . The expreflion, qua major femper credentium pars ejl^ which is our author's ftrong-hold, fo far from being added as impl} ing that the majority were Unitarians, feems de- figned to exprefs the very contrary. It is as if he had faid ; '' When 1 fpeak of certain perfonsy to whom an opportunity " muft be given of retracting their errors, I refer to they?;;/- *' pie, whom 1 have already defcribed as Jleeping in igno- " rance^ and thence, a prey to the enemy, i do not men- " tion the imprudent and unlearned; for in this cafe, I " fhould accufe the greatefl: part of Chrlftians." That the expreilion iniifl be underftood dillindively, is fur- ther evident from the very word credentium* Had Tertul- lian meant to aflert that the imprudent and unlearned^ as well as xhtjimple, were carried away by this error ; and at the fame time, that they always conftituted the majority, it muft have appeared to him the fame as if he had aiTerted that the majority were thus mifled. But in this cafe, would he have called them believers ^ Would that writer who af- ferts mentum, quas unltatem in Trinitatem ciifponit, tres dirigens, patrem, et P.lium, et fpiritum fandum. Tres autem non flatu fed gradu : nee fub- flantia, fed forma : nee poteftate, fed fpecie : unius autem fabftantiae, et unius fiatus, et unius poteflatis : quia unus Deus, ex quo et gradus ifti et fo^mje, et fpecies, in nomine patris et fllii et fpiritus fanci^i depu- tantur. Quomodo niimerum fine divifione patiuntur, procedentes retracfla- tus demonftrabunt. Simplices enim quippe, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotae. (qnze major femper credentium pars eft) quoniam ct ipfa regula fidei a pluribus deis feculi, ad unicum et verura Deum transfert : non in- telligentc! unicum quidem, fed cum fua oixovo/uta elTe credendum, expa- vefcunt ad »f/.c)io/^iav Numerum et difpofitionem Trinitatis, divifionem prasfumunt unitatis, quando unitas ex femetipfo derivans Trinitatem, non deftruatur ab ilia, fed adminil^retur. Itaque duos et tres jam j-acftitant a nobis praedicari, fe vero unius Dei cultores prsfumunt: quafi non et unitas. inrationaliter coUedla hzerefim fiiciat, et Trinitas rationaliter expenfa, veritatem conftituat, fjLoiapx.^a.v (inquiunt) tenemus. Et ita foniim ipfum vocaliter exprimunt etiam Latini, etiam opici, ut putes illos tam bene intelligere /xovxp;^ixv quam enuntiant. Sed fx.ovc(pxi(iv^ fonare fludent Latini, oiKovo/jctav inteliigere nolunt etiam Graeci. Adv. Prax. c. 2. 3. Chap. I. not the Majority* 295 ferts that " thofe who are in a ftate of inquiry, do not hold " faft," therefore, *' have not yet believed," and of confe- quence " are not Chriftians ," who largely proves this, notwithftanding call thofe lelicversy who denied the Tri- nity ? We cannot form this idea, without fuppofing that,, like x\\9;evtes u»icum, 3cc. Ibid* 19^ Gentile Unitarians Book VI. tion on the firfl: claufe, " I believe in one God," urging that by this they were bound to believe in one perfon only. Had Tertullian meant to intimate that the majority had been Jlill Unitarians, he would not have faid, jam jaBi- tant, " they now boaft that two, nay, three are preached " by us." For this mull: have been their outcry from the firft mention of that doctrine ; according to Dr P., from the time of Juftin Martyr at leaft. He, indeed, overlooks this contemptible particle in his tranflation. The very terms, cxpreilive of the 7iovel do^Slrine of Unitarians, were only co- ming into ufe. Thus, even according to our author's own maxim, that " large bodies of people do not foon change their princi- " pies," his eonclufion from TertuUian's language mull be erroneous. For if that do6lrine, which denied the Trinity, was in his time but of yejlerday^ how can we fuppofe that it would be adopted by the majority. There is not one hi- llorical maxim, given by Dr P., more important than this ; That when a writer is introduced as a witnefs of any fad, his teftimony is to be underftood only in its proper connex- ion *, and that unlefs, according to this, it anfwers the pur- pofe for which it is introduced, it is totally inadmiffible as evidence. If we do not deny the ground of the whole difpute, by denying Tertullian's credibility as a writer, we muft be- lieve that this doclrine was unknown in Africa, before the time of Praxeas. How could he otherwife fay ; " His " tares were on all hands diftufed here ?" If the ancient do6lrine was what is called Unitarian, how would he fpeak of the frudtification of thefe tares, becaufe men were a~ Jleep ? Had this do6lrine been really believed by the maj ority, Tertul- lian muft have aiTerted a notorious falfehood, in faying; *' They 5 " were \-\ Chap. T. not the Majority, ^ 299 ** were removed from this quarter, and feemed to be even " rooted out * " Was he fo loll to moral redtitude, nay, to all regard to character, as to aflert what, he mull have known, every reader had it in his power flatly to contra- dia? Did the Latins exprefs the word fjLoyapxio, ? It was only ar; Jludying to pronounce it after Praxeas. Did the Greeks re- fufe to underftand the word oinovofiia ? They were fuch Greeks as had been corrupted by him. For here Tertul- lian fpeaks of both with refpeft to their different languages -, as Greek was then the general language of Alia, w*hile La- tin continued to be that of Rome, and the parts of the Em- pire neareft it. He fpeaks of both as to the prefent influ- ence of the do61:rine of Praxeas. He evidently refers to what he had formerly declared, that " Praxeas was the ** fii-ft who brought this kind of pefverfenefs from Afia ** (where Greek was fpoken) into the Roman foil," the territory of the Latins f . Tertulllan himfelf, how warm foever in the defence of the Trinity, however fully convinced that Praxeas was a heretic, though in gener:d very fevere againft perfons of this defer iption, wilhed that room Ihould be left for re- traBi7igy efpecially becaufe of the weaknefs of thofe who had been enfnared. Would this auftere man, who had now gone the greatefl: length in aufterity, by adopting the prin- ciples of Montanus, ever have expreifed fuch tendernels, had he believed that the fuppofed majority were only em- bracing the opportunity of having a noble and learned per- fon to head them, as the moft proper for maintaining and propagating their ancient and deep-rooted principles, which had * Tradiicloe dchinc, — ctiam evulfae videbantur. Adv. Prax. c. r. f Nam Ifte primus ex Afia hoc genus perverfitatis intuiit Romaiias hu- mo. Ibid, 300 Gentile Unitarians Book VI. had for fome time been rather Icling ground ? The fuppo- lition dire6llj oppofes all the ordinary fprings of human ac- tion. Had TertuUian known this to be the cafe, he would have urged the great eft fe verity, becaufe there was no hope oi retra&ation. He muft have known that this was the very crifis ; and that if time or indulgence was given to U- nitarians, there was every reafon to believe, that the doc- trine which he fo wai-mly efpoufed, being jet in its infancy ^ would foon be entirely overpowered. But he knew that many erred through careleflhefs or ignorance •, that the weak were enfnared by the circumftance of Praxeas hoajling that he had fullered from the heathen as a witnefs for Chrifti- anity, becaufe he had been a fhort time in prifon *. Thence, he indulged the hope, that if fome time was given them, they would return from their error. Eut had he known that they were brought up in Unitarian principles, that they received thefe as their patrimony ; he muft have been con- fcious that he juftly cxpofed himfelf to ridicule, in uttering fo foolifli a thought. " What would you have us to rc- *' traB .<"' might they fay. " Shall we abjure the do£lrine ** we have always believed j the doflrine of our fathers, " of the apoftles, of the Chriftian church in general ? Shall *' we, who are the majority, and who, to the convidion of " all, retain the ancient doftrine, acknowledge ourfelves " to be heretics, by embracing an idolatrous opinion which " was unknown a few years ago ?" To thefe confiderations we may add, that this error feems to have had its origin among the Montanlfts. For both Praxeas and Theodotus are faid to have been followers of Montanus f. Praxeas, indeed, afterwards left this fedl, and was * Ifte — infuper de jacHiation e martyrii i:, flatus, ob folum, et fimplex^ et breve carceris tedium. Tb. c. i. •j- Pacian. ad Sempronian. de Catholico Nomine, ap. Baron. Aanal, A. C. 196. Vol. ii p. 27S. Chap. I- J2ot the Majority* 301 was received into the catholic church. But as he and The- odotus are mentioned together as Montaniils, and as both continued to deny the Trinity ; it is probable that they had imbibed this error in that heretical connexion. As mem- bers of the catholic church, indeed, they would find it ne- ceflary to conceal their falfe doctrine. We cannot fay, however, if Theodotus was received as a member of it. For the teftimony of Pacian feems to refer, not to Theodo- tus the Currievy who is faid to have been of Byzantium, but to Theodotus the Silverfmith ; for he calls him a Phry- :ian. What greatly increafes the probability of their receiving this dodrine among the Montanifts, is, its being adlually maintained among them, in that very form in which it is afcribed to Praxeas. There is no reafon, indeed, to think that Montanus himfelf denied the Trinity : and we are cer- tain that Tertullian continued ftedfaft in the belief of this dodrine. Yet a mukitude of ancient writers charge the Montaniils with this impiety *. But tlie followers of Mon- tanus divided into two parties. One of thefe was named Kata Proclum ; and the other Kata Aefchinem. The firfl did not deny the Trinity : but the fecond alTerted that *' Chrill was himfelf both Son and Father f ." The fame heretics were called Phrygians and Cataphrygians, moll probably from that country where their hcrefy had its rife. As Praxeas had been a Montanifl •, as one of the parties that bore this name, held the fame doctrme with him ; as Tertuiiian wrote that book againit Praxeas, from which our • ^lieronym. Epift. 54. ad Marcell. Socrat. HiO. Eccl. 1. i. c. 23. Suzornen. 1. ii. c. 8. Manus Mercator in Append, ad Contrad. 12. A- nathem Neitorian. a,j. Iitigmm de Herefiurch. Std. ii. c 13. t Illi qui Tunt Kata Aefchinenj — dicant Chridum ipfe eflum filium er patrem. Teituil. dc PiKicrijJt. c. 52. '3^2 Gentile Unitarians Book VI, our author derives his ftrong argument with refped t die faith of the majority, after having joined the Moniani;rs ; it is highly probable that the whole paflage may principally refer to the people with whom he was then connected. One Iwranch of them avowing the very dodrine of Praxeas it is moft natural to think that his tares would more readily ake root among thofe who followed the fame leader Montanus, than among the Catholics, who had excommunicated them. Tliis will fully account for that uncommon tenderneis Ter- tullian difcovered towards thofe who were led altray. He hated the error. But it was held by thofe who, m other refpe6ls, joined in his own herefy, acknowledging Montanus to be the promifed Paraclete *. The Trinity being denied by one branch of the Monta- nifts ; as juftice is feldom done to feparatifts, efpecially du- ring the heat of controverfy, the fame error would be char- ged on all. This was moll probably the reafon why Ter- tr.Uian wrote againfl Praxeas. His work, indeed, has much the air of a vindication •, although he does no. particularly rnention the charge. " But we^'' fays he, *' have always ** belie'ved, and much more do we now believe in one God ; " as being more fully inllruded by the Paraclete, the Leader " into all truth 1 ." It is a ftrong prefumption that this error gained far lefs ground among the Catholics, than among the Montanifts, that Tcrtullian does not charge the former with it. As tiis mind was much exafperated againft them •, as he gives them no other name than that of Pfychici, natural or animal men ; * It would feem that they diftinguiflied between the Paraclete and the Holy Gholt, accounting the foriper a Prophet who was to be emi- rently under the influence of the latter. Vid. Ittig. de Haeref. Moilieim, f Nos vero et femper, et nunc magis, ut kiftnKfliones per Paracletum dedu(florem fcilicet omnis veritatis, unicum quidem Dcuni credimus. Adv. Prax. c. 2. Chap. I. not the Majority, 303 men ; had the majority of the catholic church at that time denied the Trinity, he would not have flipped fo good an opportunity of venting his fpleen. It would have fupplied him with an excellent handle for pretending, that their re- jeftion of the Paraclete was the caufe of their apoftacy from this leading article of truth. Or, could he have faid, that the majority of their church had always denied the Tri- nity, he would have reckoned it a fair recrimination for their calumnies againft the Montanifts. But he had flill a greater regard for truth, than for party. Therefore, he pofitively aflerts the late origin of this error. In thefe cir- cumftances, Tertullian is undoubtedly an unexceptionable witnefs. Before our author boaft any more of his evi- dence, it will be neceflary to obviate thefe difficulties. But though there could be no objedtion from thefe cii*- cumftances, though every thing were true that Dr P. infers from the paflage under coniideration, there would ftill be one obftacle remaining. This fuppofed majority, conlilting of the followers of Praxeas, granted the fupreme deity of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft. Thus, their doctrine was at leafl as remote from the pretended Unitarian, as from ours. And fliould we judge of what was believed in for- mer ages, merely from the fuppofed prevalence of this in TertulHan's time, the probability would be againft our au- thor. It would be far more natural to infer that the Son and Spirit had been always confidered as divine perfons, than that the latter had been reckoned a mere attribute, and the former a mere man. For it is lefs difficult to fup- pofe, that weak minds, vainly puzzling themfelves to ex- plain a myftery, and knowing that the church had always zealoufly maintained Three in One, ffiould fall into the er- ror of aflerting a perfonal unity \ than that they fliould a- dopt this opinion, if the Trinitarian doflrine had never been generally received, or if it had been hitherto believed 3.04 Gentile Unitarians Book VI. bj the great body of Chrillians, that the Father was one in one ienfe, the Son in another, and the Holy Spirit in a third different from both. Indeed, it is mconceiTable that Praxeas, or any other, fliould frame this -error, or that it fhould be received by the majority of the unlearned, without fuppofing that they had previoully believed the deity of the Son and Spirit. How would thefe heretics otherwife have found themfelves under the neceffity of granting, that the Father had really fuffered in the human nature of Jefus ? Nothing could reduce them to embrace fuch an abfurdity, but a belief of the equality of both Son and Spirit with the Father, and a full convic- tion th'it the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, had been procJaimed by the Apoftles to be the one God, equal in power, and in glory. Suppofmg our author's interpretation of TertuUian to be juft, this alone can account for the ftrangc circumftance of Hraxeas having fo many adherents, and Theodotus fo few ; although the latter, by denying the di- vin:ty of Chrift, in every ienfe of the word, is fuppofed to have presched the true apoftolical dodrine, which had been retained in its j&«^?7>;/ by x\\t Jimple and milearned*. Al- though * Since writing^ this, I have obferved that Novatian (who flouriflied A. 251) ufes the fame argument for the antiquity of the Trinitarian iodlrine. *• Here," he fays, '• it will be allowable for me to bring ar- ** guments even from otiier heretics. For that kind of proof, which is ' •• taken from the adverfary himfelf, is {table, fo that the truth may be ** proved by its very enemies. For all along it is fo manifeft that in the " Scri^jtures he (Chid) is revealed as God, that the gre ate ft part of he- " retics, affcded witb the magniturie and truth of his divinity, extending *' his honours beyond meafure, have dared to declare, or to account him, *' not the Son, but God the Father himfelf. Which, althou^^h contrary t» ♦• the truth of the Scriptures, is notwithftanding a very great and fpecial " proof of the divinity of Chrid ; who all along is fo God, but as the " Son of Ood, proceec! ng from God, that, as we have faid, the greatejl " ^urt of 1 eietics have lo ackncwicd-jed his deity, ^s not to reckon that Ghap. L tiot the Majority, ^Oj though the Patripajjlans denied a diilm6i:lon of pcrfons, they as really believed the incariiaLion, ana as rctiJ)' dei^ Jied the Son, as the orthodox did. Dr P. proceeds to anfwer an objediion that might bs made to his proof from Tertullian. It is iuppofed to be founded on the teftimony of JulUn Manyr, ulio, cutcr 1. dik- ing of God, of the Word, of the Spu-it, ana f i.ic as an emblem of divine holincfs and julticc, and obiervin\ aiat the heathen had borrowed their ideas oi liiexe ihui^s nom the church, fubjoms, in proof oi his affcrcion i " vv ah us " you may hear and learn thele tMngs trom thofe v.uo ao " not know the form of the letters, and v*ho ai e rude and " barbarous of fpeech, but wife and underltandmg in " mind *." But Dr P. obferves ■, '* All that we can infer from this " paffage, is, that thefe common people had learned from *' Mofes that the world was made by the power and wif- " dom *' he Hiould be called the Son, but the Father f." He proceeds to prove the iame thing from the error of thofe, who were fo convinced of his dignity, that tbey could not entertain the idea of fuch condelcenfion as that he fliould reall;f become man ; and thence denied the truth of his humanity. t Hoc in loco lirehit mzhi argianenta etiam ex aliorum hxrcticorum parts conquirere. ¥tr})nitn eft genus ptohatttnis, quod etiam ab aJver- Jario funiitur, ut Veritas etiafn ub ipjis inhnicis verjtatis probetur. Nam ufqtte adeo bunc 7}iantfeftum ejl in jcripturis cjfe Deum trad/, tit plerique hx,t cticortim di'vinitatis ipftus magnitjiHne et veritate co7?ivioll ultra, rncdum extendentes Imiorcs ejus^ (lufiffcnt jion Filiu7?7, fed ipjum heum Putrem pro7nere, 'vel putare. ^lod etfi contra fcripturarutn ve- rit.it em e[f,'t-ecruvi Tifiotnu (py(7^£y«» iri^t r». vm Ttf ©rfc", on AtyE', i^ictv »»Sat kJ^a/^ gr/, x«< "^g*— wof avfisygvwo-gwg ov Kcti rjjJLm avToi a'*ayivri^viyt,lVy avetyivoivTxr iTr*' Jt.c-h Xg/5-», uai av^^uireix rxvTcc yiyoyivxi, aXhx ^viXfict Qiii Myi^6xi, Apo., 5 10 Gefifile Unitarians Book VI, " (while he who fpoke to him was the Son of God, who is " alfo called an Angel and MelTcnger), are jurtlj reproved " by the f|)irit of prophecy, and by the Meffiah himfelf, as " knowing neither the Father, nor the Son. For thofe " who fay th;.t the Son is the Father, are convicted of be- ** ing ignorant of the Father, and of not knowing that the *' Father of all hath a Son ; who, being the firft-begotten *' Word of God, is alfo God. And firft he appeared to " Mofes under the form oi fire. &lc *.** Can Dr ?. be fo fanguine, or fo blindly attached to his hypothefis, as to per- fuade himfelf that this writer, who alTerts that thofe who denied that the Son fpake to IMofes, on this very account neither knew the Son, nor the Fatlier, would be fo ex- tremely inconfiftent as to call thefe very perfons " wife and " faithful in mind," and to declare, as we have feen, their wifdom to be the efFedl of the powder of God ; if they did not believe the Logos and Spirit to be diftin6l perfons from the Father ? A little downwards, treating of the Lord's fupper, he fpeaks of all church members, without exception, as taught to conlider the bread and wine in reference to " Jefus Chriil, ■^ made ileih by the Logos of God f ." In the fame apolo-. gy, he fays of himfelf, and of his fellow-Chr-ftians in gene- ral ; " We worfliip and adore the Father, and that Son Avho *' came from him, and the fpirit of prophecy, honouring *' them in word, and in truth, and candidly delivering thefe " things to every one who is willing to learn, as Vv'e our- ^' felves have been taught J." Therefore, whatever honour and * Ibid. p. 95. f Ibid. p. pS. i AAA* iKetvov n, kxi rov tvu^ avr^ viov sXCovTUf — 7rviviJ.oi re lb. p. 56. Chap. I. not the Majority, 31 1 and adoration the primitive Chriftlans, in their afTemblies, gave to the Father, the fame they gave to the Son and Spirit. Therefore alfo, it is falfe that Juftin was the firft who perfonitied the Logos ; for he both fpoke and wor- fliipped, ?.s he, in common with others, had been tauyjjt. In the fhorter Apology, written after this, when he ha» fpoken of the doclrine of the philofopher^, and particui.nly of Socrates as teaching men to feek the ka vvJedge of God b r the Logos, he fums up his difcourfe in this manner : ** Therefore, what things foevtr are rightly expreiTed by *' all others, properly belong to us who are Chriftians, ** For we worlliip and love the Word of the unbegotten *' and ineffable God, who is with God, becaufe for our ** fakes he became man, that being alio a partaker of our fuf- " ferings, he might accoaipliib our cure *" If Chriftians in general did not believe the perfonality and proper deity of the Word, I maintain that the writer, who could give fuch an account of their worfhip, was a traitor to tiie truth, and unworthy of being ever quoted as a witnefs of any circumftance pertaining to Chriitianity. The teftimony of Juihn Martyr would receive abundant confirmation, . did it need any, fiom hat of Irenseus, efpe- cially as this refpe£ls the fame rude and unlearned Chri- ftians, and proclaims, in the m jlt explicic terms, their faith in Chrift as the pre-exiUent Word, and their utter abhor- rence of every contrary dodriae f . But tnis telhmony we have inferted above J. U 4 SECT. * Off-fit m Ttci^ct Traa-ii xuXaq c7ro5 yg^oi-gv, 07ra(; y.ca rofv 7rx6av Tfr'K %y.B7i^ajV TV[/,fliTO^Cg ylVCl^lVOg ^ KXi iXCl9 TTOt/jTr.TCCt* Apol. I. p. 51. t ^dv. haer, L 3. c. 4. t Pag. 71, 7^. Ge fit lie Unitarians Book VL SECTION V. Hxamhiation of the Argument^ in favour of a Majority of Unitarians among Gentile Chrijliam, frotn there being no T^rcatifes written again fl them. Of the Argwnent frotn the Chme?itine Homilies and Kecognitions* T^'tR Priestley's fifth ground of pre fiimption that " the J "^' <' Unitarians were not confidered as heretics, or in- " deed in any obnoxious li^i^ht, and confequentlj of their *' being in very great numbers in early times, is that no " treatifes were written againlt them ;" whereas, *' as foon " as ev^er the Gnollics made their appearance, they were " cenfured with the greateft fsverity; and exprefs treatifes *' were written againft them *.'* Whether it be fact that Unitarians were *' no* conlidered as heretics," will appear from what we have already proved. But the learned gentleman goes farther. " They were not even confidered in any ob- *' noxious light." There is only another flep wanting. It is to be hoped that our author, in his next work on this fub- jeft, will prove to the worli that all, except Unitarians, were obnoxious, and treated as heretics. For it will be no harder for him to prove the one than the other. But the foundatio > of this bold afTertion is, that " in " early times no treatifes were wrote againft them." Ju- ftin Martyr wrote a book againft all herefies : and as he was fo warm in defence of the perfonality and divinity of the Logos, and reckoned thofe who denied him, in this cha- racter, guilty of denying the Father ; it is abfolutely in- conceivable that he fhould not have included Unitarians, of whatever kind. *' No treatife," we are told, <* was written exprefsly againft *' them -a Vol. iii. p. 233. Chap. I. not the Majority. 313 **■ them before Tertullian's againft Praxeas," and The Little Labyrinth of Caius. And none could well be writ- ten earlier ; becaufe Theodotus, their cotemporary, feems to have been the firft Gentile who avowed Unitarian prin- ciples. So ftrange is Dr P. 's mode of reafoning, that the very circumftance which proves the non-exiftence of Gen- tile Unitarians, as far as negative evidence can go, is urged bj him as a prefumption of their *' being in very great " numbers." The learned Gentleman praclically funplies all future hiftorians with a new maxim, which will be of great ufe to them in their labours : " That the lefs that is ** faid by ancient writers of any body of men, from whom *' they differed as far as poilible, (though they had nothing *' to fear) the greater is the evidence of the magnitude of " this body : and that if they take no notice of it at all, it " may be fafely concluded, that it conilituted the majo- « rityr That Gentile Unitarians had no being in the church, in the time of Irenaeus, is as certain as teilimony can make it. For he aflirms in the llrongeft terms that all the churches- were as uniform in doftrine, *' as if they had poffefled bi.t one foul, " one heart, and one mouth *.'* This is a direct proof that Unitarians did not exift in the church •, and a llrong pre- fumption that they had no exiftence at all. For otherwife, from their known temper, they w^ould certainly have trou- bled others with their doftrines. Dr P. fays ; " Ireuccus's treatife agaiiifl herefy fliews, *' that the Gnoftics only were confidered as coming under ** the defcription of heretics." This is the old firing. But its found is fo grateful to our author, th^it he never lofes an opportunity of ftriking it. He adds : " The Ebionites in- " deed are cenfured in it, but no mention is made of the *< Gentilv Unitarians, though they were the majority of the ** common * Lib. i. c. 2, 3. 314 Gentile Unitarians Book VL •* common people among Chriftians a long time after this.** But how could Irenaeus cenfure thofe, whofe exigence he virtually denies, by declaring the abfolute unity of the church ? Dr P. muft either prove that all in her commu- nion, in the time of Irenaeus, were Unitarians, nay, that Ire- naeus himfelf came under this defcription ; or he proves no- thing for his purpofe. For while that writer is acknowledged to be orthodox, he appears as a llubborn witnefs againfi: him. But with refpe f to Irenaeus, he further obferves : " His *' cenfure of Gentile U .itarians is 'at leaft indiredl, as tlicy *' held the fame doclrine concerning Chrift that the Ebio- ** nites did ; and it mull always be confidered that Irenaeus *' lived in Gaul, where there were no Ebionites, and per- *' haps not many Unitarians, as they abounded mofl in thofe " coimtries where Chrilfianity was hrft pla.ited." Here ■we have a llriking proof of the miferable Ihifts to which one is reduced, who prefumptuoufly ftruggles againft the whole current of hiflory. It is a gravelling faft, that Ire- naeus, the biiliop of Lyons, the faithfid Martyr of Jefus Chrift. the diiciple of Polycarp *, the difciple of John the Apoflle, was a Trinitarian. From all that he hath laid, our -author can find nothing for his purpofe. Therefore he ilrives to fetch fomething from what he hath 7iot faid. It cannot be refufed, that he has " cenfured the Ebionites." But he has faid nothing of Gentile Unitarians. The Doc- tor v/ill not pretend, that Irenaeus did not reckon them cen- furable. For " they held," he fays, '* the fame dodrine ** concerning Chrift that the Ebionites did." Therefore, one would imagine, that his not cenfuring them was a ftrong prefumption that they were not fo n imerous as our author makes them. But this point mufl not be given up, at any rate. For '* they were the majority of the common people " a long time after this." But, I Eu^ Hiit. lib. 5. c. 20. Chap. T. not tie Majority, 315 But, by the way, I beg to know where the Do£lor has learned that Gentile Unitarians " held the fame doctrine *' concerning Chriil that the Ebionites did ?" This is cer- tainly meant of the majority mentioned immediately after. But can this be inferred from the pretended proof of a majority from the words of TertuUian, already confidered? Dr P. knows the contrary. For xh^jimplices, the followers of Praxeas, did not believe as the Ebionites did. They be- lieved that the Son was God over all. But if Unitarians were the majority, whatever were their principles, how are they entirely overlooked by Irenaeus ? *• In Gaul," fays our author, *' there were perhaps not ma- •* ny Unitarians. They abounded moft — where Chrifiiani- *' ty was firft planted." But v/ouid Irenaeus therefore reckon it unnecelTary to cenfure tliem? He certainly had as little rea- fon to trouble himfelf with Gnoflics, who mufl have abounded mo(l in the eaftern regions, their do6lrine originating there, and being moft agreeable to the people in thefe countries. Why does he take any no" ice of the Ebionites, of whom, it is granted, there were none in Gaul ? Let Dr P, fuppofe, that there were " not many Unitarians'* there, not any, if he pleafes. Still, Irenneus had far lefs concern with Jewilh heredcs than with them •, and far lefs reafon to dread the inroads of the former, than thofe of the latter. Had he been confcious that this was the original doclrine, he would efpecially have avoided any mention of Jewifti Uni- tarians j becaufe this would neceilarily recall to the minds of thcfe newly weanea from Unitarianifm, that this was the apoftolical faith, as Hill maintanied in that country where the gofpel was lirfl preached. Did Irenaeus firmly believe the doclrine of the Trinity, account it the only true faith, and, to uie the Doftor's own foft language, cenfure the Ebionites ; and yet overlook the jnajority of Gentile Chriftians who were ec^ually ceni'm-a- ble? 3 1 6* Gentile Unitarians Book VT. "ble ? The only fatisfa6tory reafon. that can be aiTigned fof hi!? :ilence, is that the Uiitarian do6lrine had made no ap- pearance amcni^ Gentiles in his time. But why *' not many Unitarians in Gaul ?" Here Dr P. afts very prudently. Irenaeus is the only writer of that a9:e, whofe works are extant, who wrote exprefsly againll lierelies. Therefore, he has him moft to fear : and accor- dinj^ly, kecDs even the Gentile Unitarians as much out of his way as pofTible. This pretence, however, is evidently framed for the purpofe of parrying that mortal thruft, which the very filence of Irenaeus gives to the whole fcheme of a majority of fuch Unitarians. It alfo proceeds on a fuppo- firion, thai: the gofpel was not early preached in Gaul, nay, that the fame gofpel was not preached there, which the reft of the world were 'avoured with. Some aflert that Paul him- felf was in that -country. But from various circumftances, it is natural to think that Chriftianity was planted in Gaul, hy fome of the immediate difciples of the Apoftles. Ac- cording to Dr P., thefe muft have been all Unitarians. Hovv', then, were there fo few in the time of Irenaeus ? Had this difciple of Polycarp perverted the faith of the Gailican church ? Had he weaned her members from their apofto- lical opinions? Why did he not alfo cenfure thefe, that others might be reclaimed ? Dr P. endeavours to invalidate the evidence arifing from the work of TertuUian againft Praxeas, by innnuating that jt proceeded from refentment. " No treatife," he fays, ** was written exprefsly againft them before Tertullian's *' againft Praxeas, with whom he was, on other accounts, " much offended ♦." He undoubtedly refers to the condu^i of Praxeas at Rome, who gave fuch a reprefentation of the principles of the Montanifts to the biftiop of that city, as jinade him recall the letters of communion he had formerly givea 'f Vol iii. p. 25 ;, Chap. I. not the Majority. ^j^ given them. This is, indeed, mentioned by Tertulllan, in the intiodu6lion to his work againfl Praxeas. But there is no evidence that refentment was the motive of his oppoli- tion. Undoubtedly, according to the common principles of human nature, on this account, he would not treat the he- refiarch with more gcntlenels. But had refentment chiefly influenced his mind, jie would moft likely have attacked the charader of Praxeas, and endeavourbd to expofe him from the circumllance of his being himfelf formerly a Montanill, Or, he would efpecially have defended thofe principles which he had newly embraced, the defamation of which by Praxeas is fuppofed to be the reafon of his oppoiition. But, indeed, he had received no perfonal injury from this heretic. When he undeceived the bifliop of Rome, Tertullian was himfelf an enemy to Montanus. He was evidently more irritated againft the Catholics, than againit Praxeas. His new principles had disjoined him from them : and it i- na- tural to fuppofe that he had met with what h*^ would rec- kon perfonal injuries, efpecially as it appears that he was excommunicated *. But although rankled on this account, he does not charge the herefy ot Praxeas on the Catholics. He does not even inlinuate, that they were partial to him, becaufe of his for- mer fervices againft the Montanifts. He maintains their doftrine to be apoftolical. His love to truth overbalanced every private confideration. It was becaufe " the tares of ** Praxeas were difFufed" in Africa, that he wrote againft him. Lang before his own defedion, he had pronounced Ebion to be an antichriji^ becaufe he denied that Chrift was the Son of God. But the blow aimed by our author at Tertullian, is a clear proof of his conicioufnefs of the weight of that writer's teftimony againft him. I'he queftion, in this literary pugiUfm, is, whether to kill, or to be killed ? Dr f Tertwll. (3e Jejun. c. i. \ 3t8 Gentile Unitarians Book VI. Dr P. informs us that, though ** Theophilus wrote a- " gainft herefics, only his book againft Marcion is mention- " ed by Eufebius ;" that " he alfo mentions many of the " works of Melito," but that " none of them were againft " the Unitarians." But to deal fairly w^ith the unlearned reader, he ought alfo to inform him, that the fame Eufebius declares that as Juliin, Miltiades, Tatian and Clement wrote againft herefies, " the divinity of Chrift was aflerted in all " their works ;" and thatfpeaking of Melito, in connexion with Irenseus, he fays, *' Who is ignorant of their writings, ** proclaiming Chrift to be both God and man * ?" Now, as it is undeniable that thefe writers were not Unitarians, we muft conclude, either that they wrote exprefsly againft this herefy, though their works be loft j or, which is more probable, that it had not appeared among the Gentiles, when the moft of them wrote. For, as the Do6tor obferves, " human nature being the fame, the influence of the fame " circumftances will likewife be the fame f." It is, there- fore, incredible that they, believing the Deity of Chrift, would reckon thofe brethren who denied it. Our author would have had more reafon for numbering Melito amorg his friends, than feveral others claimed by him i as he feems to have embraced the material fyftem. Eufebius teftifies that he wrote a book concerning the bo- dily GodX' Some have thought that he had referred to, the incarnation only. But Origen fays that he afcribed bo- dily parts to the Deity ||. There have been many falfe ■witnefles againft modern Unitarians, if this be not their doc- trine. The Do6lor is chargeable with a ftrange mlftake, as to a point of fa61:, in faying concerning Theophilus of An- tioch, that " only his book againft Marcion is mentioned a by * Hi'L lib, J. c 28. f Vol. iii p. 242. I Hill. lib. 4. c. a6. p. 189. ]| In Gen. ap. Not. Yalefii, ibid- 6hap. I. Tiof the Majority, 3 it; '* by Eiifebius.'^ For in the very chapter referred to, he fays ; *• There is extant another work of his, which he in- " fcribed, Againji the herefy of Hermogene^, in which he " ufes teftimonies from the Revelation of John *." Is it afked, Who was this Hermogenes ? Philaflrius replies, that he was a Patripallian f ; that is, according to our author^ an Unitarian. Auflin tefliiiies that Sabellians were by iorae called Praxeans from Praxeas, and that they might be cal- led Hermogenians from Hermogenes ; " as Praxeas and *' Hermogenes, being of the fame fentiments, are faid to ** have been in Africa. Nor are thefe," he adds, " not- *' withftanding, various fe6ls, but various names of rhe " fame fedl, from thofe men who made the greatell figure " in it J/' Hermogenes, and his followers, were alfo cal- led Materialifis ; becaufe they held the eternity ot mat- ter ||. Tertullian wrote a book againft this heretic, ex- prefsly on this head ; fliewing that his do£lrine was new^ and imported from the heathen. But there are two very ancient works againft herefy^ which our author overlooks. The one is the Gofpel of John. Concerning this, in another place, he feems to think that it was aimed againft Cerinthus. Now, though. Dr P. does not include him in his lift of Unitarians, he had the great charafteriftic of the party. He believed that Je- fus was a mere man. To me he feems to have a far better claiii;i * Euf. Hift, lib. 4. c. 24. p. 137. t Hser, 54. ap. Ittlg. de Hscref. p. 266. % Sabelliani autem funt in ore multorutn. Nam et Praxeianos a Praxes ']uidaai vocant, et Hermogeniani vocari ab Hcrmogene potuerunt, qui Praxeas et Hermogenes eadcm fenticntes in Aphrica fiiiflc dicuntur* Nee tamen ift^ plur«s feflae funt, fed unius fedlse plura noaiina ex hi^ horainibus qui in ea maxime innotuerunt. De Hxref. c. 41- if Tertul. Cont; Hermogen, c. 25. ^2d (je?itile Unitanam Book Vl. claim to this honour than Patripaffians, who afcribed fu- preme deity to him who was crucified. Modern Unita- rians are far more nearly allied to Cerinthus, than to them. The other work I refer to, is the firft Epiflle of John. This, if we may credit the teftimony of Tertullian, before he had any ground of olience from Praxeas, was wrote againft thofe ** who denied that Jefus was the Son of God," that is, a- gainft thofe who now call themfelves U?iitarians. Altho' all other; writings againfl them had penfiied, while, thefc remain, all who truly believe the word of God, will ac- know^ledge that whofoever denieth the SoUj the fame hath not the Father, Dr P.'s LAST prefumptive proof is derived from the Ck- mentifie Hofnilies and Recognitions. From thefe, he appre- hends, " it may with confiderable probability be infer- " red that the Unitarian dodrine was very prevalent, even ** among learned Chriftians, in the age which followed that *' of the apoftles, and was. then fuppofed to be that which ** was taught by them *." This fuppcfition mufl appear extremely improbable to every impartial reader. Dr P. thinks that this work was written " probably about the time of Juflin Martyr." Al- though this conjecture were well-founded, of what account could it be, when oppofed to his works. The Do6lor con- fefles that it has been frequently altered ; thac it has been adulterated by Arians, and alfo by Trinitarians fi and that it is only a theological romance X- He might likewife have faid, that according to Epiphanius, it was adulterated by the Ebionites §. Nothing of this kind has been faid of the works of Juflin. But * Vol, iii. p. 234. I Ibid, p. 255. \ Vol. i, p. 115. § Hxr. 30. f. IJ» Chap. li fiot the Majority A i^2l But the very argument employed againft him as a wk- nefs, is here converted to the fupport of the Uaitarian faith. It is objeded to Juftin, that he borrowed his doc- trine from philoC^pliy *. Oi" the author of the Clementines Dr P. fays j *' He appears to have been well acquainted ** with philofopliy, and has evidently bonowed from it a " variety of opinions which are fuificitntly abfurd f ." Where then lies the important difference, in this refpt(^, between thefe writers as witneifes of primitive dodtrme? Is it in this, thiit Juliin has borrowed from the Platonifb ; but the other from the Oriental philofophy, the precious fource of the Gnojiic fyifem ? Our author can produce the work of one learned Unita- rian only. Yet he throwb it into the fcale againft a multi- tude. For he himfelf fays ; " As to the writers that have " come down to us (if we omit the author of the Clemeo- ** tines, who was an Unitarian) they were all, without ex- " ception, from Juftin Martyr to Athanafius, Platonizmp- " Trinitarians %" Is it faid, that Dr P. in his conjedture with refpecl to the prevalence of the Unitarian dodrine, immediately refers to *' learned Chriftians, in the age which followed that of the ** apoftles ?" But he cannot mean to carry the evidence farthei* back, than *' the time of Juftin Martyr," when he thinks that this work was probably written. Others, how- ever, give it a later date. The learned Cave, from various circumftances, concludes that the author of it was Bardefa- nes the Syrian ||, who flouriftied about the year 172 ; and whofe brain contained fuch a ftrange medley of truth and error, that this work feems almoft to plead kindred to him. But Grabe makes it Hill later, as from the nineteenth to the Vol. II. X twenty- * Vol. i. p. 113, n4. Vol. ii. p. 23, Sec. I Vol. i. p. 114. \ Append, vjl. iv. p. 391. I! Hift, Literar. vol . i. p, 47. oaa Gentile Unitarians Book VI. twenty- ninth chapter of the ninth book of the Recognitions, the whole is copied from the Dialogue of Bardefanes con- cerning Fate *. MoHieim judges it to be a work of the third century \. But fuppofing it to have been written towards the clofe of the fecond, its authority is oppofed by an hofi: of learned Trinitarians. As a proof, however, that the do£lrine of the perfouifi- cation of the Logos was not then generally received, we are told that the author of the Clementines makes no mention of it. But although he had mentioned this doftrine, as his work pafled through the hands of Ebionites, who did not fcruple to mutilate the gofpel of Matthew, and to rcjedl all the other infpired writings of the New Teflament ; we need not wonder, although, as Epiphanius aflerts, they cor- rupted this anonymous work. Let us even fuppofe, that the writer took no notice of the do6trine in queftion. What will his filence prove ? That it was not generally received ? By no means. For Dr P. can have no right to infer more from his filence, than from that of Irenaeus ; who makes ?io vimtion of Gentile Unitarians^ though, we are told, they " were the majority long after this." This work is alfo introduced as proving • that Unitarian principles were " fuppofed to be taught by the apollles." But it proves no more than what will readily be granted, that any Unitarian will endeavour to perfuade himfelf that this was the cafe. '* He would naturally c7iclea'uo7/r" it is faid, " to give to every perfon introduced into it fuch opinions *' and arguments, as he thought would pafs for theirs %.'* Though this were true, what would it prove ? Would not Juftin Martyr and Irenaeus do the fame ? But againfl the force of this pretence, our author himfelf has provided us with a fufficient antidote, in the former part * S^)icileg. Patr. vol. i. p. 277, 27S. f Hift. Cent. i. p. i. c. 2. X Vol. i, p. 115. Chap. I, 7i6t the Majority, 323 part of the fame feiiterxe ; " It is evident he has afcribed to Pe- ** ter feveral opinions which he could not have entertained/' Thus it is confelFed that he failed in his endeavour ; \\- though it fhould be fuppofed that he was ferious in it. Might he notalfoerr in putting the fentiinents of an Unitarian in Peter's mouth ? Oar author does not go quite fo far. But he fays, in the beginning of the fentence referred to ; " It is ^^ poffihle that lie riiight be miftaken in his account of the " opinions of perfons who lived about a century before his " time." Since the afcripcion of falfe opinions to Peter was e-jidenty he might have ventured to have called this pro- hahle. But who were thefe perfons who lived '* about a century hefore his time .^" Peter undoubtedly is meant as one of them. For he is mentioned immediately after. And mud we learn the faith of Peter from a fabulous writer who lived a hundred years after him ; and who muft be fuppofed to have rejected the very writings of Peter ? It is a clear proof of our author's want of evidence, that he is obliged to introduce that of an anonymous writer, whofe age can- not be fixed with any certaintjf, whofe work is rejected by Eiufebius as *' of yefterday, and totally unnoticed by an- " cient writers *," which the Doctor himfelf calls a 7-0- ?nancey and in which, he acknowledges, " feveral opinions *' are afcribed to Peter that he could not have entertained." He muft furely be deftltute of proof when he finds it ne- cefiary to oppofe inferences and fuppofitions drawn Irom the filence or errors of a fabulous %vriter, to the direct tefti- mony of a Juftin Martyr, a Theophilus, or an Irena^^us. But this was one of the Sacred books of the Ebionites, the X 2 only * Hilt. lib. 3. c, 3s. lie calls it tlie Dkl^^ucs of Piter .v:d Apkti. But as the latter is mentioned in the Recognitions^ ihcy are fuppoled to be the r.me work. Euicbius might t-afily err as to the name of a work io little attended to. J 24 Gentile Unitarians Book V. onlv one, indeed, our author can difcover, befides the He- brew Gofpel *. Therefore, we muft excufe this humilia- tin / token of refpe£t ; as he owed a compliment to his an- cient friends. But has the author of the Clementines really made no mention of the perfonification of the Logos ? I have not obferved that he ufes this exprefTion. But it has been for- merly proved, that he believed the pre-exiftence of Chrift, and confidered him as the fame perfon with Adam, whom^ for this reafon, he Calls " the firfl: true Logos f ." Is it faid tbat he rauft have confidered him only as an occajional perfon ? But even this fabulous writer does not feem to have gone fo far in abfurdity. For he evidently J peaks of him all along as a perfon continuing to exift. In the Recognitions^ which Dr P. acknowledges to have been ori- ginally the fame work as the HojuiliesX^ Peter is intro- duced as faying ; " Chrifl, who exifted from the be^iin- ** ning, and who eterfially exijled through certain indivi- ** dual generations, always came to the pious, aJthoush " fecretly ; to thofe efpecially, by whom he was e::pi 61- " ed, and to whom he frequently appeared. But it " was not yet the time that there lliould be a refurrec- " tion||." Dr P. quotes the author of the Clementines as faying ; " To hcgct is the property of nruin, but not of God §.*' The manner * Vol iii. book 3. c. 11. I See above, p. 241, 249. \ Vol. iii. p. 254. II driftu':, qui ab initio, et fcmper erat, ])er fingulas quafqiie gene- rationes niis, latenter li,et, femper tamen aderat ; his praecipue, a qu> bus y dlal-iatur, quibufque frequenter apparuit : fed non erat tempns, ui tunc refolutis corporibus, fieret refurredlio. Lib. i. feci. 52. Fat. Apoft Vol', i. n. 49s. § Horn. 19. f, lo. p. 74^^. Ear. Op. Vol. i, p^ 134. Chap. I. not the Majority. 325 manner in which this is quoted would imply, that our au- thor wifhed his reader to imagine that the doctrine of the generation of the Son had no place in this work. But he muH: be confcious that this is merely a pafling expreflion, thrown out in reply to what Simon fays of God's begetting evil. Let it be underflood as Dr P. wifhes. • What would it prove ? Only the lh-;inge inconfiilency of this work, and how little we can depend on it, for giving a jult account of the opinions of the learned of that age, or even of the writer. For our author muft know thrit he elfewherc af- cribes ge?ieration to God ; not paffingly, but deliberately, when recording a difpute on the fubjc«S. For Peter fays; ^ It belongs to the Father to be un begotten, to the Son to " be begotten." He denies, indeed, that he is there- fore God, but feems to admit that he i^ of the fame fub- fiiance with God; though, according to the Gnoitic I'jliem, he extends this honour to all fouls *. In the Rtcogniiions Peter aflerts the generation of the Son in the cleared terms : " The God already fpoken of, wlio had no beginning, be- " got the firft-begotten of every creature, in a way wor- " thy of God ; without any change, converfion, diviiion, " efflux or exteniion on his part f .'* He afterwards fpeaks ef the Son as the luork of God. But it his been often ob- ferved that ^ven Trinitarians exprelled themfelves lels cau- tioufly on this fubje61: before, than they did after, the A- rian controverfy. Our author may tell us, perhaps, that this paflage is interpolated. Hut with equal juftice may he X 3 deny * Ty TTcii^og TO (XYi yiyiHYi<7^xi io-TVij Via Oi vo yiyivyT^T^uu Hom. 10. fedt. 15, 16. p. 728. t Qi'^ ^""g:' ^'f^ "°" inchoavit, praEcllclus Dens, genuit primoiienitum omnis creaturse, ficuti Dtum circuit . non le iu.mu; ns. noi. t ccnver- ten^, non fe dividens, non defiuens, ncn cxtcndens aliquid. Kecug. lib. i.ii. fcfft.S. p. 52c. ^26 Gentile JJjiitcirians Book VT. deny the whole work. For this fmgle fubjecl occupies no lefs than ten fei^ions. Peter afferts the pre-exifl^nce of Chrift as the Son in the Ilrongefl terms \ in reply to Simon's perverfion of the words of our Saviour in Mat. xi. 27. " This teilimony," he fays, " may firft be viewed as directed to all the Jews, " who thought that David was the father of Chrift, but *' did not knov/ that Chrift was both a Son, and the Son " of God. Wherefore it is fitly faid^ No one knoiveth the " Father ; becaufe they all faid that this was David, in *' place of God, And he fubjoins, So neither knoivcth any " one the Son. For they did not know that he was the *' Son. And what follows, To zuhomfoever the Son is " plcafed to reveal, is rightly faid. For he being the Son *' from the beginning, was alone ordained to reveal to " w^homfoever he ;:leafed. And thus Adam, the firfl man *' who was created, could not be ignorant of him, nor E- ** noch, — nor Noah, — nor Abraham, — nor Ifaac, — nor Ja- *' cob, — nor could there be any worthy among the people *' to whom he was not revealed */' I need not fay, that he flill confiders the Son as the Revealer. There is no room for fuppofing that this pailage is an iriterpolation. For Tevj 7raTi(!a vofMi^ovrcig iivui X^ift? t» A^vCfJ, yea uvto'J h rov X^io? ce.Tzrjy.v.Xv'^u.i' op^cJ^ H- QYiTcci* c yvp KTi^ <*^£%H? &'" t"'^$ uovoq enfiT^/iy iva. oig j£ti'AiTai ciTroxat- Xv\i/-A' KX( UTiJg tiV'ja.Ta.1 A^-s^fi o Tr^w'u'ii'Kuaroq tcvrov fzti ciyvonVf tih y^'-'Uf'Xj « iva^icr;;Ta.<; fiY) c-i^£vcii' an Na'J o oiy-etia^ fx./) gjricrTflfcr^iij, yrs AQ^uuu, 0 (ptXog ij.r, (rvvtivxi, ex Icraocu. (ttvj livoy.Kivai, ey, laKcoQ a ttw Xai(TVig fjLY} itiTTia-iivy-ivcciy y,ai Tratviv rots iv rct> Xaa ci^ioig ^% aT^cxiif.- ^xv^.?ai. Hoin. 18. feci. 13. p, 740. Chap. L not the Majority, 327 For Peter's dlfcourfe is in reply to what had been ad- vanced by Simon, who having introduced this text, denied that Chrift was the Son fpoken of, and wiftied to arrogate this honour to himfelf. The argument extends through the greateft part of the Homily ; and Peter is uniformly repre- fented as alTerting, that this Son pre-exifted, that he was the Maker of Heaven and earth, that he knew the heart of every one, and that thence he revealed himfelf to every one whom he knew to be worthy *. Befides, the dodrinc of the writer, in this place, concerning the Son, is analo- gous to what has been formerly quoted with refpe£l to the pre-exiftence of Chrift. From thefe extrads it mufl: be evident that, when Dr P. fays that this work " contains no mention of the perfo- ** nification of the Logos," he either means to impofe on the public a defpicable quibble about words, or to alTert what is dire£lly contrary to the cleareft evidence. Either of thefe muft deeply alfe^l his credibility as an hiftorian. CHAPTER n. Kxa7ninatio7i of the DireEi Kmdence in favour of the. Gentile Chriflians having been generally Unitarians, SECTION T. Of the leflimonies of Firmiliany Nicephorusy Origen^ Eu- fehius, Chryfofiofn, &.c. DR P. fays ; " It appears from the evidence of all hi- " ftory, fo as never to have been queftioned by any " writer of reputation; that the Unitarians had not any X 4 " places * Vid. fea. J. 8. 328 Gentile Unitarians Book VI. *' places of worflilp feparate from thofe of other Chriftians *' in early times. It was allowed bj Mofheim, a zealous " Trinitarian, who fays, (Hi ft. Vol. i. p. 191) * How- * ever ready many have been to embrace this erroneous * do6trine, it does not appear that this fe6l formed to them: * felves a feparate place of worfhip, or removed themfelves ' from the ordinary aflemblies of Chriftians *.* Our author pays very little refpe6l to Moflieim, when he pref'imes to affert the exiflence of Hebrew Chriftians, who obandoned tlie ceremonies of the law. But he eagerly grafps at liis teftimony, when it feems to favour his own hypothefis. However, in the laft part of the fentence, Moiheim fpeaks only in a negative way. All that his language amounts to, is that it did not appear to him. In the fiift pare of the fentence, indeed, he feems to afford our author an important conceflion. But there is a word omit- ted by Dr P., which makes a confiderable difference as to the fenfe. According to the edition before me, Mofbeim fays ; *' However ready many may have been, ^c f." This monofyllable throws the apparent conceflion entirely into the form of a conje^Vure. What is merely ficgativc, on the part of Moiheim, by paffing through our author's alembic, alTumes a pnfitiue ex- iftence. Does it not " he fiys, " alfo follow from the *' famey^/^, that thefe Unitarians were not expelled from '' Chriftian focieties by others, as they certainly would " have bren, if they had been confidered as heretics ?'* From whaty^.i;fjt,tvuv ^^vyut, OvccMtncivuv n kxi Ma^Kicavic-TUV 'ACCl Ylcci/Xiotv^iVy xcci ft Tivig iri^oi i7i^xg vi^v) yiv^tofxivw; oci^s^eiq iTrhifi- ^av. — oicc TUTOir oe Tov vofAOv^ THruv Tuv on^io-iuv oifxut T>jv TFoXXm ei(pe£v tc-Byi'/ai fj.ir,[j.-/iii, £w» /rnv ya^ tuv tt^iv ^affi>.icj)v^ oa-oi to" XpJ- ^ov icTiQoVj ft y.on Ta$ ^o^aq ^n^i^ovro, ergo? rav EXX»)Kf&;v o» xvTOt evojxi^ovro, y.ui xctxug cfAoiuc, iirwr^ov, Sozomen. Hlft. lib. 2. c. 32. p. 90. The original writer carries the matter farther than his copier. For befides the hereHes named, he extends the exclufion to all others already found out. He ufes this language, becaufe, in the time referred to, the Arian herefy was not properly digefted, or even broached. * Vol. iii. p. 259, 260. J E5-&» Oi., rnocg ag iv 7rA>i6ft 'JTiaitvovruVj xa< ^tp^o^sv&'v oix- (P^VlXVj diet TYiV TT^OTriT&tOlV VUOTlha-^CH 70V TwTXPX ftVOSi TC* tlTl TtOLfffi G£6»' Cent. Celf. lib. 8. p. 387. Chap. 11. not the Majority: 337 compofed when he was above fixty ; according to Dr P.'s chronclogy, it could not be written earlier than the year 245, that is, thirteen years before the death of Cyprian. Therefore, though the latter had wrote his epiftle to Jubaia- nus the fame year in which he died, as he fpeaks of Patri- palTians in common with other heretics, as having no com- munion with the Catholic church, it is reafonable to fup- pofe that they had feparated, or been ejeded, from it fome confiderable time before. But Origen himfelf gives no reafon to think that thefe heretics were, as Dr P. fays, " confidered by the orthodox 2S fellow-ChriJ} iajts.'* He fpeaks of them as " fome in the *' multitude of believers, who are fiihjeB to difference." But he gives them this chara6ler, merely as oppofed to thofe who made no profeffion of the faith. He calls the Ebio- nites believers in Jefus *. Did he therefore account them true believers, or mean to iniinuate that they w^ere in com- munion with the church ? On the contrary, he exprefsly calls them heretics \. He conveys a cenfure of thefe Patri- paflians in the very language here ufed. Dr P. gives it in the Greek, but has forgot to infert it in the tranflation. *' Be it fo," he fays, " that there are fome, — who through ^'' their temerity affirm," '\£c. Vv'hen he adds, " But ive do *' not fay fo," does he mean himfelf only. He fpeaks un- doubtedly cf the church in general. It is the ufual lan- iTuage of ancient writers, when they exprefs the common faith of that church of which they were members. But, fiom his anfwer to the next objeclion, it is evident that he accounted this the language of heretics : " Thefe things again, taken '' from I know not Vv^hat mod obfcure herefy, he obje(Sts to '' all Chri/iians J." Vol. H. Y But * Ei$ Tcv 1*5 7CV TritrTi'jo'jTiq, Ibid. 1.2. p. 57» I Ibid. 1. 5. p. 274. X K.3t< IV ryroi; ^yj ■7ra^^v, ovk oiV <«7ro tto** xi^icrnJi ciTnudTiiTr^g 33S Gentile Unitarians Book Vlt But though thefc words had admitted of the fenfe giveja them by Dr P., the proof mufl: have been exceedingly de- ficient. Though this evidence had been more direB than it- appears to be, it would fcarcely have demonfbrated that Gentile Chrijlians were generally Unitarians. Give our aui thor his pleafure of this paffage, it could only prove that there were (xivfj) certain perfons favourable — to his opi- nions ? nay, to thofe direftly oppofite, in the great multi- tude of believers. His next proof is from Eufebius, who^ in his work a- gainft Marcellus, when fpeaking of thofe who denied " the <* pre-exiftence and divinity of Chrift," is fo far from fay- ing that they were out of the church,, that he particidarly complains " that Marcellus, one of them, even prefided vpl *' it, being then bifiiop of Ancyra *." But it cannot be unknown to our author, that the learned are by no means agreed, whether Marcellus was heterodox in his opinions,, or not. He had been in a flate of the ftri£left friendihip with Athanafms. But the latter condemns him as a he- retic, in an Oration fuppoied to have been wrote about the year 357 f. Some, however, contend that fome time before his death he fatisfied Athanafms as to the doubts entertain^ ed by him, with refpeft to his orthodoxy %. Marcellus^had wrote againfl Afterius an Arian. He had alfo withdrawn from that council, which met firft at Tyre, and afterwards at Jerufalem, and which condemned Athanafius : and he refiifed to hold communion with thofe who had affented to this deed. The Arian party were on thefe accounts fo en- raged at Marcellus, that they accufed him as a Sabellian. In thefe circumftances, it is not furprifmg that the word fenfc. *sCont. Marcell. vol. i. p. 33. ap. Audi. f Unum efle Chriftum Oratio, Opera, vol. i. p. 66^. \ Legat. ad Athanaf. ap. Berriman, p. 204. Chap. li. not the Majority^ 339 fenfe (liould be put on his language. Therefore, he was depofcd bj the biihops aflembled at Conllantinople. But his work againft Aflerius being afterwards examined by tlie councils of Rome and Sardica, he was acquitted of thcj charge of hereff, and teftored to his biflio]!ric . F.piphanius was never fufpefted of being too gentle in his fentiments concerning thofe who were accufed of hci efy. But he acknowledges himfelf at a lofs to know whai >. :ie the opinions of Marcellus. *' The fecrets of his mind," he fays, *' were known to God." He acknowledges, that thofe who were named after him denied a Trinity of per- fons ; but alTcrts that they were ignorant of his mind, and *' did not truly exprefs what he thought." This writer goes no farther than to fay, that he feemed to fall into the error of the Sabellians f. If we can credit Epiphanius in any part of his work, it is here. For he was his cotemporary ; and he informs us, that Marcellus had died only two years * before he wrote thefe things. I do not mean to exculpate him from the charge of herefy •, but only to fliew that his own cotemporaries were divided in their fentiments concerning him, that he was pro- tected by fome of the warmeft friends of the Trinitarian dodrine, and accounted by them a martyr to his zeal againft Arianifm. It alfo appears, that he ftill denied thofe opi- nions imputed to him t. The council of Conllantinople, which condemned him, at the fame appointed Eufebius of Neo-Cefarea to refute his errors. It would feem that he was iingled out for this labour, becaufe Marcellus had prefT- ed him very hard, in his work againft Alterius ||. Thence Y 2 it * Socrat. Hift. lib. i. c. 36. p. 73. Lib. z. c. i:>. p. 105. ^ozomcn^ Jib. a. c. 33. p. 92. f Haer. '2. '\ Epiphan. ubi fup. II Vid, Cavij Hift. Literar. vol. i. p. 152. 2^0 GentlJe Unitariah'i' Book VI. it is naturnl to fuppofe that Eufebius would put the worft conftruftion on his modes of expreffion, and might rather wifh to find him a heretic than otherwife. As Marcellus was prote6led in his bifhopric, by thofe who reckoned him orthodox, notwithftanding his depofition by the council; this was the fource of the complaint of Eufebius referred to by our author. But it muft be evident to every reader, that, in thefe cir- cumftances, the continuance of Marcellus in his bifhopric cannot be admitted as a proof that Unitarians were not out of the church ; unlefs it could be fhewn that all thofe called Pai-ripafrians,No. tians and Sabellians, whofe fentiments Mar- celUis was faid to expofe, were alfo fufFercd to remain in communion ; the contrary of which has been proved. In- deed, the hiftory of Marcellus, inftead of being ferviceable to our author, oppofes his defign. It proves that Unitarians were not futfered to continue in the church. For thofe who protected him, did it on this ground only, that, as far as they could difcern, he was not chargeable v/ith the herefy afcribed to them. They never thought of obje£ling that, although the charge had been well-founded, the csnfure was too fevere. Dr P. proceeds in his dire& proof. " That Chryfoflom,'* he fays, " confidered almoit all th Chiiilians as being Uni- " tarians in the age of the apoflles, has been fhewn alrea- " dy *." Our author, indeed, in a former part of this work, has given many quotations from this Father. But he has not produced one, in which Chryfoftom afferts that the generality of Chriftians were Unitarians. This is the Doctor's own inference from the loofe and rhetorical language of th-. bilhop 01 Conflantinople. This inference proceeds on feveral falfe fuppofitions. Firft, it is fuppofed that he real- ly thcu^i^ht that the church, in the apoilolic age, did not be- lieve * VoL iii. p. iGi. Chap, ir, not the Majority, 341 lieve our Saviour's divinity. But the utniofl that candour can collecl from his words is, that, in his apprehenlion, Jefus did not, in his own difcourfes, infifl: fo much on tiiis, as on the doctrine of his being the true Meffiah ; that tlie difciples had only obfcure notions about it, while they enjoyed his bodily prefence ; that the apoifles, in their firft addrciles to imbelievers, more diredly proclaimed his mediatory cha- racter, obferving the fame plan with their mailer in inftruc- ting them, before the elTulion of the Spirit \ and that the three former Evangelilts did not write fo exprefsly on this fubjed as John. That on tlie laft point efpecially the good Father has many expreffions, which will not bear a critical invefligation, is undeniable. Even on the very improbable fuppofition of Chryfoftom being perfuaded, that the church knew nothing of the di- vinity of Chrift till John wrote, our authui's aflertion is not proved. It requires to be propped by another fuppoii- tion ; — a plan of perfecting the fabric of hillory that feems never to have been executed fo completely before. It muft be fuppofed, as the perfuafion of Chryfollom that John did not write his Gofpel, till the lirit generau-n of Chriftians was moftly gone. We have no evidence 1 hat he thought 10 i and this idea leems to be contrary to iac1: Our author's fyltcra itill craves the afliitance of another fnppofition ; — that becaufe Chryfoliom " conlidered aimoft " all the Chriilians as being Unitarians, in the age of the A- " polUes," thev muft reall} have been fo. Were a fuppohoon of the fame kind made by his opponents, the learned Gentleman would treat it with contempt. And as the mat- ter Itanus, this deferves no betier treatment. For although the good Father had been capable oi luch an idea, it couid have had no weight with thofe who had the tcitimonies of* Jufiin Martyr, of Irenacus, and ot Tei tulUun, and above all, that of infpiration itfeil, to op,'OLe to u. Y 3 l^ut 3 4 '2 Gentile Unitarians , Book VT. But there is no occafion for enlarging on this point ; as the learned Dr Horfley has fully anfwered our author's ob- jedtions, both with refped to Athanafius and Chryfoftom. We have ellewhere fhewn, that, whatever the Fathers might have thought, it is clear from the New Teflament, that the Apollles preached, and that Chriftians believed that Jefus was God. But after al], Dr P. cannot agree with his worthy fellow- labourer, Chryfoftom. For he immediately adds to the a- bove alTertion •, *' — and yet he fays that in their time there •* was no herefy *. This, however, could not be flridly ** true, becaufe there were Gnoftics in the times of the A- " poftles : but they were few compared with their num- " bers afterwards. On this account it is faid by feveral of " the ancients, that herefy began in the time of Adrian, " when the moft diftinguifhed of the Gnoftics made their *' appearance." Suppofing this to be Chryfoftom 's mean- ing, as, it would feem, our author wifties to do, it remains for him, either to prove that Chryfoftom accounted the U- nitarian doftrine no herefy, or to retrad his aflertion that the fame writer " confidered almoft all the Chriftians as being " Unitarians in the age of the Apoftles.** It was incautious in our author to quote this paftage •, as it clearly proves his ftrong propenfity to build on mere words, without regard to the meaning of the writer. But if the reader be ftartled at the incoherence of the proof from Chryfoftom, he has only to exercife his pa- tience a little, and he fliall obtain as much fatisfadion as he can reafonably defire. Whatever ftiould be thought of the proof, our author is determined not to lofe light of the pofition. at; vSii/,ta nv. Ser. 6i. Oper. vol. 5. p. 80(7, ap. Auft. Cliap. n. not the Majority. 343 poiition. " That the common people among Chrifllans," he fays, " were actually Unitarians in the early ages, and " believed nothing of the pre-exiftcnce or divinity of Chrift " before the Council of Nice, we have as exprels a teftimo- ** as can be delircd in the cafe. Thefe fubiime doftrines " were thought to be above their comprchenfion, and to " be capable of being underftood and received by the learn- " ed only. This we fee moft clearly in the general lli ain " of Origen's writings, who was himfelf a iirm believer, " and a zealous defender of the pre-exiflence and divinity ** of Chrift. * This,' fays he, ' we ought to underftand, * that as the law was -a fhadow of good things to come, fo * is the Gofpel, as it is underftood by the generality. Bat * that which John calls the everlajling go /'pel, and wliich * may be more properly called X\\Qfpiritual, inftiufts the in- ' telligent very clearly concerning the Son of God. Where- * fore, the gofpel muft be taught both corporeally and fpiri- * tually, and when it is necelTary, we muft preach the cor- * poreal gofpel, faying to the carnal, that we know nothing * i)ut Jefus Chrift, and him crucified. But when perfuns ^ are found confirmed in the Spirit, bringing forth fruit in it, and in love with heavenly wifdom, we muft impart to * to them the Logos returning from his bodily ftate, in that * he was in the beginning with God. *.* If this paflage proves any thing in our author's favour, it proves too much. For if it refpe6ls the generality of Chriftians, it denotes that they knew Jefus in his ftate of humiliation only, and not as exalted " in returning from ^ his bodily ftate." But it is exprejfely denied that Origen here contrafts the common people with the learned. The reader, indeed, may be mifled by paflages quoted without any hint of their con- nexion, or any regard to it. In what precedes this paf- Y 4 i^g^, ' Comment in Joh. vol. ii. p. 9. ap. Au^fl, 344 Gentile Unitarians Book VT. fage, Origen fpeaks of the legal difpenfatlon. He fays that under it there were fome more perfeB, and others whom he calls litth children. The former, as the Patri- archs, Mofes, and the prophets, had far clearer views of the coming of Chrill than the latter, and contemplated his glory. Therefore, they accommodated their difcourfes to puerile minds, as being rightly called pedagogues. " But," he adds, " The Son himfelf, he who is glorified as God <' the Word, had not yet come; waiting, to wit, till thefe *' men of God, who were to perceive his divinity, fhould " make a decent preparation for him." Then he Ihews that this plan of inftru6tion muft ftill be obferved, even under the New Tellament. For he imme- diately adds what is (quoted by Dr P., as above. Accord- ing to the Latin verfion, Origen fays j " Now it is necef- *' fary to know this aljo *." He evidently means, that as this method was obferved under the law, there mult be fomething of the fame kind even under the gofpel. Then he alTigns a reafon for fpeaking in this manner : " As the " hiw contains a fhadow of good things to come, v^hich *' are declared by the law truly explained, — fo is the go- *• ffjel, as it is underjlood hy the generality'* No, Origen hath faid nothing that can bear this fenfe. He does not fo much as mention the generality. This is entirely our au- thor's own glofs. The other part of the contrail, as ftated by Origen, is fomething very different : — " even fo the ^* gofpel, as it is received to be underltood by all who are " coming to be inftrucEfed, teaches a fhadow of the Chri- " flian myfteries f." Here he has no idea of contrafling the • Jam et hoc quoque fciamus necelle eft. ^i'vav' UTa KZt ivuyyiMo's cryAxy ^JLvrTi^^ifv ^Ri(rvii OiaciarMy 10 v9/;a<- Chap. II. ?iot the Majority, 345 the lear?ied with the common people ; but church-memhers with the catechujTiens^ whe were yet to be initiated in the Jirjl principles of the oracles of God. Therefore, it is add- ed ; ** But what John calls the ever la/ling gofpel^ — clearly " places around thofe ivho are knowing, T apparently in al- " iulion to funbeams as oppoled to a ihadow) and before " their eyes, all things concerning the Son of God *, loth ** the myji cries exhibited hy his own difcourfes^ and the things *' of which his a6iions were enigmatical \." Nothing can be plainer, than that the only perfons here contrafted are thofe comings voEnrQaif to be inftrutled, and Toig vosai, thofe alrea ly injiru6ied. After this, the Latin verfioa is deficient. But I fufped that fomething follows, exprelsly refpefting their initiation •■, becaufe thefe words appear im- mediately after the hiatus, Sic Chriftianus fit, et baptifma. The very paflage joined with this by our author, although there is a confiderable difl;ance between the two, according to the original, confirms the view we have given, and evi- dently defeats the defign of the quotation. Having fhewn, in tlie intermediate part of the difcourfe, that Peter conform- ed &JUIVOV VTTO TTSCVTUV TUV VJTVy^XVOVTUV VOZKtSxI. Comment. Ut flip. I can form no other idea of the meaning of the latter exprefTion, than that given above j unlefs it (hould be ren- dered, *' as it feems to be underllood by all who accidentally *• meet with ir/' that is, by thofe who are not church-mem* bers. But the other appears moft natural, and moft agree- able to the connexion. * OJe ipnTiv luavvni (vayyiXiov aiuviov, oixttus «v Xf^^fiJ-ofitvov ?rviu/tta- T{ 7reif>ii-ti " the Logos of God, and the Logos that was with him. But " there are others, who know nothing but Jefus Chrift and *' him ci-ucified, the Logos that was made flefh, thinking '* they have ever}^ thing of the Logos, when they acknow- " ledge Chrift according to the flefti. Such is the muL " titude of thofe who are called Chriftians ." Here, I grant, Origen feems to fpeak of church-members. But the whole context is fuch a mafs of myftic abfurdity, that it is iiiipoffible to know his determinate meaning, almoft ia any one aflertion. A few lines before, explaining a paf- fage in Deut. iv. he fays, that God gave the heavenly bodies to the nations, " that thofe who cannot recur to in- *' telligible nature, might fufped that there was divinity " in bodily and feniiblc thiugs, and not defcend to the ** worlliip of idols ( the work of the hands of men) and ^' daemons." I prefumc, that it would puzzle our author himfelf to make any thing that has the /Jjadow of fenfe, not to fpeak oi x\\t fubftance^ in the greateft part of the ex- pofition of that paiTage which is the pretended text. Are we then to form our judgment of the realftate of the Chriftian church from fuch an unintelligible rhapfody ? Take this expolition as we find it, can w^e fairly conclude that Origen meant to fay that the generality of Chriftians did n^t believe the divinity of Chrift ? The good Father, I am perfuaded, would have llmddered at fuch an inference from his language. Had this been the cafe, he could ne- ver have faid that they " looked at the Word made ilefti," knew the Word in this refped, and *' thouoht they had c- ** very thing of the Word, when they acknowledged Chrift *' according # Ihir!. §5* (^entile Unitarian's fiook Vi. " according to fhe flelh." He v/ould not even have faid, " that they were inftru6ted in the ^fhadow of the Logo5." For the mere humanity of Jefus would not have received this defignation. That he does not mean to defcribe the multitudes, either as Patripaffians, or as Anthropians, (which two names in- cluded all now called Unitarians) is clear from the particu- lar mention made of thefe hereiies a little before, in the following words : '* Hence the difficulty may be folved, ** which difturbs many who profefs that they love God, and " fear to introduce two gods. And therefore, they fall ♦* into falfe and impious doftrines, either denying the pro- " perty of the Son to be diftinft from that of the Father, " confeffing that he is God with the name only, who by ** them is called the Son ; or denying the divinity of the " Son, and alTerting that his property and eflence exift by " a defcription different from thofe of the Father *." What then, does he lay to the charge of the multitude? They did not underftand fo much about the Logos as " Hofea, " Ifaiah and Jeremiah, and any others that fpeak of him," \£c. When they read, in the Old Teftament, that The word of the Lord came to any one, they were fo ignorant as to underftand this language of the word of revelation ; but had not learned that the perfonal Word was meant. This is not our own conjecture. For in the introduction to this difcourfe, addrefied to his friend Ambrofe, and meant to explain that palTage, T^he Word was with God, he tells him that * Et liinc folvi poteft illud quod pcrturbat multos profitentes fe Dei a- mantes efle, ac verpntes duos praedicare dcos. Et propter hoc, in falfa et impia dogmata incidentes, vel negantes proprietatem Filii cfTe aliam a Patris proprietate, confitentes Deum cfTe cum nomine tantum, qui apud jpfos Filius appellator; vel negantes Filii divinitatem, et ponentcs ipfiu* proprietatem, et eflentiam per defcriptionem exiftere aliam a Patrc. Cotnr went. in. Job. vol. ii. p. 173, Chap. IV ndt t/je Majority, ^f£_ that he is to fhew in what fenfe this was true. " There- " fore," he fays, " for explaining this, it will be ufeful to ** attend to the fenfe of that expreflion, t/je Word came to ** certain perfons. For example, "Jbe IVord of the Lord " came to Hofea. — How, therefore, the Word of the Lord ** came to Hofea, and to Ifaiah,— and to Jeremiah, is to be " conlidered, that thus, by comparifon, the truth may be " difcovered, in what refpe6t that Word was with God, " But indeed, the 'vulgar may explain the words of the " prophets more fimply, as refpefting the language of God, " or language made to them. But do thou obferve, left ** perchance our labour be in vain, thai the Son, now *• theologically considered by us, is the Word that came " to Hofea, fent to him by the Father *." Then he fliews that we are to underftand him as coming, in the fame fenfe, to Ifaiah and Jeremiah. When, there- fore, he contrails the knowledge which thefe three pro- phets had of the Logos with that of the multitude, he evi- dently refers to what he had thus faid of them before i and means to depreciate the knowledge of the vulgar, becaufe they did not think of any other Logos, as there meant, than that of revelation. As he explains that expreflion. The Word was with God, of his being fent by God to them, he theace infers, that the multitude did not underftand how he had been with God y becaufe they explained the language of the prophets morejimply. And the warmeft friend to or- thodox * Ergo utile erit ad hoc explicandum, colHgere fermonem qui fcriptu.i eft, Fadlum fuiffe ad quofdam. Verbi gratia, Sermo Domini fartus efl ad Ofee.— Quomodo ergo Sermo Domitii fa<9:us ell ad Ofcam, et Sermo ad Efaiara filium Amos, et rurfus ad Hieremiam, confiderandcni eft, ut ftc coilatione fa iuti fermone Domini, vcl fermone faclo ad ipfos. Tu vero vide, ne fort^^ ut dicimus, hunc ad liunc fieri, fie etiam nunc a nobis theologicc confide- ratus Filius, fermo faif>us fir ad Ofrgtn, miflus ad ip'.bm a Patre. Oj-cr, Vol, ii. p. 173. ^52 Gentile Unitarians Book VI. thodox doctrine will grant, that they might, be very good Chriftians notwithflanding. Dr P., furely, will not pretend that the generality of Chriftlaris in Britain are, at this day, Unitarians (although it would not be furpriiing, though this (hould be aflerted by his fucceflbrs, a century or two hence ;) yet I am perfuaded that the majority, nay, the generality of the multitude, though believing in a Trinity of divine perfons, never once thought that it was the perfonal Word who ca?ne to Hofea, Ifaiah and Jeremiah. Origen alfo fays, that " the multitudes of believers are " lnftru£led in the ihadow of the Logos, and not in the true " Logos of God v/hich is in the open heavens*." As by thejljadoiu of the Logos he means the perfonal Word as in- carnate, by the true Word in the open heaven he refers to the defcription given of our Saviour in Rev. xix. ii. — 16. When he afTerts the ignorance of the multitude as to the latter, he means that the defcription is fo metaphorical and fublime that they did not comprehend it. They knew not in what fenfe heaven was opened^ how ]efus was faid to fd on a "n^hite horfe^ &.c. After all, he fpeaks as if the ortho-^ dox teachers themfelves had not thought it proper to ex- plain fuch fubjefts to them. For he fays \ " The multi- ** tudes oy%{ fxaSy^rsusrai, are not difciplined in the true Lo- Perhaps, becaufe of the groflhefs of their minds, their teachers thought it inexpedient to infifl much on paffages of this kind. For though it fhould be refufed that ixakrEvziai is here ufed in its flricl and proper fenfe, as denoting that this was a part of inftruction that had not been communica- ted, there is full another folution of the apparent difficulty. For Origen defcribes, not the ignorant only, but carnal and worldly profeflbrs, who would not give themfelves the troublf • Corr. in Jean. vol. ii. p. jz. ap. K\x£t. vol. m. p. 2^5, Chap. II. not the Majority, 353 trouble of fearchlng the fcriptures. For, a few fentences before, when fpeakm ^ of heaven beint^ opemd, he fays ; ** Therefore, I apprehend that heaven is fliat to the im- ** pious, and to thofe who bear the image of the earthly ; ** but ope ed to the juft, and to thofe who bear the image " of the heavenly. The things which are more excellent, " to wit, are locked to thofe who are grovelling on the *' earth, and living in the flefh, becaufe they cannot under- " Hand thefe things, nor can they perceive their beauty ** (becaufe they are unwilling) being prone, and not endea- " vouring to elevate themfelves : whereas the juft and ex- " cellent, as enjoying the right of citizens in heaven, " contemplate heavenly things, which are opened by the ** key of David -, the divine Word, to wit, opening and " manifefting thefe things fignified by the words under " confideration j inafmuch as he is carried on a white *' horfe, on account of clear, candid and luminous know- " ledge." After explaining the ^^iih^t faithful^ given to the Word, he proceeds to that of true, *' He is true alfo, with refpedt " to the difference between the fhadow, and the figure, and ** the image ; iince that Word is fuch as he is in heaven *' opened : for the earthly Word is not fnch as the heavenly, " becaufe he was made flefh by fhadows, and fpeaks figures " and images. Therefore, the multitude^'' Sec *. Origen thinks fo little of thefe perfons, that he does not call them believers, as would appear from our author's tran- jlation. For he ufes the fame expreflion with that in the laft quotation : ** The multitudes of thofe who are thought ^* to have believed,*' &:c. He gives Jefus the character of TO) ccSn^irM ^07w, the true Word, in allufion to the difcovery given of him to John, when he Jaw heaven opened. For the * Proinde arbitror, &c. Vol. II. Z 354 Gentile Umtarians Book VI. the Logos was then revealed to him as " faithful and *' (ax>i5/vo0 true." But he is far from meaning that even the^e perfons did not know the Word at all. For he grants that they knew *' the fhadow of the Word." Now, had they believed that Jefus was a mere man, he would never have ufed fuch language , becaufe, as we have feen, huma- nity cannot be even the fhadow of divinity. He does not once inlinuate that they denied the pre-exiftence and deity of the Lo^os ', but fays they had grovelling minds, which hindered them from contemplating that Word whom they acknowledged, in the more lofty defcriptions given of him in Scripture. In our own time, many firmly believe the do6lrine of the Trinity, who, if interrogated what was meant by t/je Word of God riding on a white horfe, would difcover that they had never elevated their minds to the contem- plation of this metaphorical defcription. Nay, there are many, not only earthly and grovelling, but impious in their lives, who, ftiould our author tell them that Jefus was a mere man, would be fhocked at this as the language of blafphemy. I fhall only add with refpe6l to Origen, that perhaps we can reafon with lefs certainty from his writings, than from thofe of any other Father. This is not merely owing to the prodigious variety of his labours, his great rapidity in writing, and the frequent contradictions to be found in the works afcribed to him. But as his authority was of great weight, the force of his genius and extent of his erudition being univerfally admired, many adulterated his works, in order to obtain fomething like a fan61ion for their own errors. This feems to have been done in fome inllances, while he was yet alive. It is well known, how keenly it was difputed in the church, in f^cceeding ages, whether Oiigea himfelf was a heretic •, and that many who hated the C^ap. II. not the Majority. 355 the dodlrines afcribed to him, vindicated him from the charge of herefy, as being perfuaded that thefc had been foilled into his works by others *. Dr P. here recurs to his favourite paffage in Tertullian, concerning xhtJtfnpHces. It ferves the purpofe of fwelling the apparent evidence. For it is ufed both as a prejump- tive, and as a dire6i proof. As we have fully considered it under the former defcription, it can ferve no end to fol- low the learned Gentleman a fecond time over the lame ground. Athanafius is next introduced as a witnefs. " Athana- " fms alio," our author fays, *' like Tertullian, acknow- " ledged that the Unitarian do6trine was very prevalent a- " mong the lower clafs of people in his time, fie calls " them the o< •ttoAAoj, the many^ and defcribes ihem as per- " fons of low underftanding. * It grieves,' he fays, * tnofe * who (land up for the holy faith, that the multitude^ and * efpecially perfons of low underftanding, fhould be infected * with thofe blafphemies f ." The herefy which Athana- fius has in his eye is that of Samofatenus. He indeed fpeaks of the many or the multitude. But he fpeaks of them mere- ly in contradiftin6tion to the learned, or thofe Chriftians who were fuperior in rank. It is denied that he " calls ** the Unitarians the many," He does not even give reafon to fuppofe that many of the multitude were carried away. All that his language amounts to is, that this herefy was getting in among them. It " is hurting the multitude," he fays. Any impartial perfon would underftand his language Z 2 as * Cave Hift. Literar. vol. i. p. 77, rav civTa)v fiXxcr^p/ifAtav ^Xx'tztHctx th? ttoAAou;* ftxXtrac tug YiXarlo}- fAsi/y; 7r;^< tjjv (rvnrtv, De Incarnatlone Verbi contra Paulum Samofacenfem, Opera, vol. i. p. 591. Ear. Opin. vol. iii. p. 26S, 269. 3^6 Gentile Unilarians Book VI. as neceffarilj implying that their faith had been previouflj dL^erent , nay, that the perfons referred to were not con- firmed in herefy. That no more is meant, is undeniable from what Athanafius fuhjoins : " But lince we have heard *' that there are fome among you who are troubled, and *' who wifti for letters from us concerning the common faith, " and that introduced by the Apoftles ; — we counfel you, "as we take the fame counfel to ourfelves, to retain the <* faith which is handed down, but to turn away from the *' vanities which have a new found •, and to enjoin this on " aU, that they be afraid to fearch into fo great a myflery ; " but that th y confefs that God was manifefted in the *' fiejfy, according to the Apoflolical Tradition, and that the f Lord was jiijlijied in the Spirit, that is, not in a human " manner, Lut by' divine purity *." This pp.lTage fliews us how the midtifudc were injurtd by the duftiine of Paulus. SG?7ie of them were troiihled. The followers of that heretic made fuch high pretenfions, and fo many objcftions, that thefe weak perfons were at a lofs to know whether there was any ground for them or not. But Athanalius hoped thit his counfel w^ould be the mean of confirming them in the doftrine of the Trinity, which was the common faith. He was not afraid of being charged by fhefe people with falfehood, when he declared tha^ it was fo, or when he defcribed the oppofite do6h"ine as having a new Jor^nd. Dr y^CtfJUiXTX TflX^' YifJiUV TTilfi TTJJ KOl'.'X';, KUl f| A Clf 0 S" 9 > (W V s«(T04p/ ^siC^ JJf 'Ki'^'Ui'-'^Tra^xiiH^iv $i vfJLiVf om^ x.cct txVToi'; Tra^xiPHtAiVy t/jv tcoc^k^ THTo Tracri r,oi^iy[vxVf (poQucrBcit rr,v Ttipi TV T/jAtxtry ^yr>J5'» 9»)TJX"J'. v ,)lxcXcynv cifc, 0T» 9rg^«jv£giJTat 0so$ iv raced the doflrine of Sabellius. This proof faa^iies Dr P., al- though when he finds all the bilbops of the Catholic church holding the Trinitarian faith, fcarcely with a fm,^le excep- tion, he refufes to admit it as any proof that the m<^jority of their people agreed with ihem. Athanafius evidently defcrijcs this dcfbrlne as new. For fpeaking of the time when Dionyiiu.. bilhop of Alcxaa- dria, wrote to the clero;y of Pentapolis, he fays that * the " herefy of Sabellius had crept in +." It hiis been generAlly believed that th« Sabellians were PatripafTians. Some, however, have reprefented them asf holding, that " a certain e .ergy, proceeding irom the Fa- Z 3 *' ther, Jtiv uriK'Ti n rui^ ly.HXt-rixi: K%cv\L(r^xi JOn ytoi- tu G)xv. De 'Jt n- te[)tl;i Dionyfil, Opera, vol. i. p. 552. Ear. Ophi. voi. ni. p. 321, 322. -j- V.Tnh yx^ u^-riv r, Zx^iXT'.m ui^i^n. Ibid. p. 554. 358 Gentile Unitarians Book VI. <' ther, was united to the man Jefus *." But, from the fcope of the letter of Dionyfius, we may certainly conclude that thefe heretics confounded the three perfons. For he " wrote, in order to demonftrate from the Gofpel the hu- " inanity of Chrift, and to perfuade thofe ignorant perfons " who boldly denied the Son, and afcribed what belonged ^* to him as man to the Father, that it was not the Father, <' but the Son, who became man for our fakes, and that the " Father was not the Son f .'' This, then, being the dodVrine of the Sabellians, our au- thor can have no claim to them. They were Unitarians indeed, as holding only one perfon in deity. But would Dr P. acknowledge as brethren, or receive as church-mem- bers, thofe who would maintain the incarnation and cruci- fixion of the Father? The very extreme to which they went, as has been already proved with refpeft to the fol- lowers of Praxeas, necelTarily fuppofes that the deity of the Son and Spirit was previoufly believed by the church. E- ven the language quoted from Athanafius fuppofes this. The herefy of Sabellius " prevailed fo much, that in a little *' time it was 710 longer neceffary to preach the Son of God '' in the churches." Although this paffage could prove all that prevalence of Unite rianifm aflerted by Dr P., it would flill prove with no lefs force of evidence, that this dodrine was fubftituted for another. " The Son of God" had been " preached in the churches," in that fenfe affixed to the ex- preffipn * Mofheim's Hiftory, vol. i. p 305. J — — As Ttft ctvS^uTrivcc ra Zwtij^o? g« tcjv ivxyyiXiu* Tra^ecSniff' rev 'TTccrip^ WK3V. De Sententia Dionyfil, Opera, vol. L, - Chap. II. 7iGt the Majority. 359 })reIlion by Athanafius. But this was " no longer necef- lary ;" becaiife tlie followers of Sabellius believed " that " the Father was tlie Son." Our author infers, from the complaints of Athanafius, that " the Unitarians w^ere exceedingly numerous in his *' time, or a little before it." Yet it would leem ihai ihefe two are tlie only palVages wliich he could venture to quote from this Fathci", in fupport of his aiTertion ; although the doctrine of the Deity of Chrift is their great fub.ect. Had thefe paflages been much more favourable than they are, they could not have been admitted as prov^mg that ihe majority were Unitarians; becaufe x\thanalius fo often declares the contrary in the plainefl terms. " Who of *' the faithful," fays he, *' will not confefs that God the *' Word — is confubftantial with the Father * .''" Speaking of the do(5lrine of the Trinity, he exprefles himfelf in this ftrong language ; " We fee that this was the tradition, and *' the dodtrine, and the faith of the church univerial irom " the beginning, which our Lord hinifelf delivered, which " the Apoftles preached, and which the Fathers preferved. *' For in this is the church founded, and he wlio falls from " it neither can be, nor can be called a Chriftian .'' Becaufe Jerom fpeaks of fome under the denomination oi Jimplices credentium^ who " did not underftand the fciip- ** tures as became their Majefty |," Dr P. has no right to Z 4 affume oixo'ia-^o<; uj ra Trar^cj ; De Incarnatlone Chriftl, Op. vol. i. p. 622. y.lVf 01 ^i XTTOToK^i £v.>;pv|av, x.ce.i 6i ttocti^i^ i^vXu^Jcv' St TavTri yac^ n ly.v.XYtO-ix Tihu,iXiujToe.i' t^ o rccvTYi^ iKTrtTTTuv, ^t' uv iiT,j ar' ecv 7^iyoiTo XetTiavoi. Ad Serapioiicm, Opera, vol. i. p. 202. ^ lu ir.i, xx.V'i. 10. 3^0 Of the '^eftimony Book VI. ufTume that they were Unitarians. As Jerom himfelf does not fay who they were, this is certainly to beg the queftion. That writer's aflertion with refpeft to thefe perfons might be true in a great variety of ways, without their beincr U- nitarians. To the latter he gives a chara6ler very different from that of fimple believers^ He defcribes them as mere pretenders to faith. SECTION II. Of the TeJlimo7iy of Juflin Martyr and others y -with refpeB^ to Gentile Unitarians. /'~\ U R author next endeavours to prove the novelty of ^ the Trinitarian do£trine from the manner in which it was taught and received in early times. He particularly urges the modefty of Juftin Martyr on this head. He a^ gain produces that paffage from the dialogue with Trypho, the grofs mifapplication of which, in the Hiftory of Cor- ruptions, had been clearly demonftrated in the Monthly Review *. It appears, indeed, in a new form. The Doc- tor, in his former work, had trandated it in this manner : " There are fome of our profeflion, who acknowledge him ** to be the Chrift, yet maintain that he was a man born of *' man. I do not agree v.'ith them, nor Ihould I be pre- ** vailed upon by ever fo many who hold that opinion ; " becaufe we are taught by Chrift himfelf, not to receive " our * Kcci ya.^ eicri rtng^ u ^«^o», iXiyoi, axo m nfAiTi^H yivovq cft.c- XoyavTcg aVTOv X^^foi' £»va», xv^^mtto* di f| xvB-^uttc^v yivof^ivov axc- (pciivofAivo^' 6iOC roig Oicc ruv fAUKu^iu* Tf^oi^nTUv ki^pv^^h- (TJ tcj ^»* avrov h^x^^tKTt, Dial. p. 267. Chap. II. of yujiin Martyr, l^c. 361 " our doftrinc from men, but from what was taught by the *' holy prophets and by himfelf *•" Thence Dr P. infer- red that Unitarians were not accounted heretics by JulHn, and indeed that in his time they W(^re the majority. He alfo conlidertd this languaf^e as ha\'ing " all the appearance " of an apology for an opinion contrary to the general and *' prevailing one." In the Hiftory of Early Opinions, our author advances various arguments in form, to fliew that " Juflin's language " is that of a man who knev/ that he was advancino- a new '* opinioa." The firjl argument is, that he " labours the proof of the *' pre-exiftence of Chrift, (hewing that it is confonant to " the pri;iciples of Platonifm, and alfo deducible from the " writings of Mofes, and other parts of the Jewifh fcriptures, ** without referring to any other writer in fupport of what " he advances f ." Dr P. is armed at all points againft the evidence of antiquity. If any father fays little concerning the divinity of our Saviour, it is a proof that the opinion was not generally received, or not reckoned important. If ano- ther treats the fubject diffufively, and feems to be in earneft, it comes to the fame iiTiie. He labours the proof. Was it not natural for Juftin to enlarge on the dodrine of our Saviour's divinity, when reafoning with a Jew, who denied it, and particularly urged him to the proof? Nor is it. furprifing that he fliould liluflrate the confo- nancy of this doctrine to the principles of Platonifm. For Trypho had addrefled Juftin as a philoibpher, and declared tliat he had learned from Cerinthus, a follower of Socrates, to refpeft men of this charafler %■ Therefore, as Juftin had been a Platonift, as he believed that the doctrine of Plato concerning * Hill, of Corrupt, vol. i. p. 17. f Vol. iii. p. i%\. X Dial. p. 217. f 362 Of the TeJlimoTiy Book VI. concerning the Logos was borrowed from Mofes, and, of confequence, was a collateral proof of the antiquity of this faith among the Hebrews ; it would have been aftoniihing, if he had overlooked fo natural an introdu£lion to the con- fideration of what it taught, on this fubject, in the Hebrew fcriptures. And, indeed, he ufes the Platonic do6lrine merely as an introdu6lion. For when he has fairly entered on the proof from fcripture, he confines himfelf to this. That Juftin refers to no other writings than the Jewifli fcriptures, in proof of the divinity of Chrift, is a Itrange argument. To what others could he, with propriety, refer? Had he referred to thofe of the New Teftament, it would have been of flilllefs effed: with Trypho, than a reference to the apoftolical fathers in reafoning with Dr P. An appeal to any Chriftian work, not canonical, would have been equally vain. He reafoned with the Jew, as our Saviour did with the Sadducees. He referred to the Pentateuch only, in proof of the refurredlion, becaufe they acknowledged no other part of fcripture ; though the other infpired writings af- forded far more direct proofs of this dodrine. Juftin's re- ferring to the Jewiiii fcriptures only, fo far from infmuating the leall confciouinei's of the novelty of his opinion, is a moil unexceptionable evidence that he was fully con- vinced of its anticjuity. Had not this been the cafe, it is natural to think that he would have relied part of his proof on the harmony of the New with the Old Teftament i and that he would have laboured to eftablilh the infpiration of the Evangelical writers, in order to fhew that they had more clearly declared what was obfcurely hinted by Mofes and the prophets. But like a man fully convinced, he is Willing to reft the whole force of his argument on the con- cellions of his adverfary. Had Juftin appealed to any Chriftian writer, from our author's plan of treating evidence, there is reafon to fufpe6t that Ghap.ll. of Juflin Martyr, l^c, 363 that he would have urged it as a clear proof of Juftin's confcioufnefs that he had not a fare enough foundation for his doftrine in the Hebrew fcriptures. " Wliy," might it have been faid, " would he otherwife have referred to evi- " dence, the veracity of which was denied by his oppo- " nent ? A mnn of his judgment would never have adted " fo weak a part, had he not known that he was aflerting a " 7iew doctrine, which could not be fupported, even by a " fliadow of proof, from the Hebrew fcriptures alone." Every reader muft perceive that the argument, by being reverfed in this manner, would have been unfpeakably more plaufible. The fecofid is thus exprefled ; " He does not ufe a lingle " acrimonious expreffion againft thofe who diifered from " him with refpecl to it, which is juft as any man would do " who fhould write in defence of a novel, or not very pre- " valent opinion, and one, of which himfelf was the prin- " cipal abettor." It is, perhaps, the firft time that coolnefs in reafoning has been urged as a proof of the novelty of an opinion. Univerfal experience attefts, that when a new dodrine is taught, efpecially if it oppofes another account- ed of great importance, the fpirits of men on both lides are far more apt to be rankled than afterwards, when the opinions of the adverfe parties have become familiar to each other. The principal abettor of a new opinion, in- ftead of being lefs acrimonious, becaufe of the novelty of his opinion •, in coafequence of contradiftion, commonly feels a forenefs unknown to him who defends a do6lrine fandioned by antiquity and general reception. This is efpecially the cafe, when the rcjeCHon of his dodrine fub- jeds him to the chara£ler of a heretical innovator. Were Dr P. right in his conjedure, Juftin xMartyr mult have felt in this manner. Unlef we fliall fuppoie that the majority • .of Chriitians were far more ignorant in his time, than af- terwards, 3^4 Of the "Tejlimony Book VI. terwards, his fo ftrenuoufl j afTerting the Deity of Chrlft muft have given as great, and as general offence, as it is fuppofed to have done when Tertullian flourifhed. Nay, according to the well-known principles of human nature, its greater novelty and fingularity muft have greatly increafed the cla- mour againft this prel'umptuous individual. To this we may add the circumftance of there being many flill alive, who had heard a dodlrine diametrically oppofite taught by fome of tlie apoilles themfelves. But we need not lofe time in abftracl reafoning. How acrimonious foever Juftin might be in difputing with pre- tended Chriflians who denied this dodlrine, when arguing with an enemy to Chriftianity in general, he had no more reafon for warmth on this, than on any other leading doc- trine. We find the fame coolnefs on the part of Juftin, when Trypho flatly denies that Jefus is the Meffiah. But may it be faid, he fpeaks with great acrimony of the Gnoftics. There was, however, a peculiar reafon for this. As they were called Chriftians, their do6lrines and pradices expofed all who bore this name to great reproach, both from Jews and Gentiles. Trypho exprefsly derives fome of his obje<^ions to the truth of Chriftianity from this quarter. As the Gnoftics denied the God cf the Jews to be Su- preme, as they proceeded fo far in blafphemy as to cairhim an evil being; while Jews might apprehend that they were acknowledged as Chriftians, and might even fufpeft that others were tinctured with the fame impious opinions, it mtift have been a great obftacle to their converiion, and a great reproach to the Chriftian name. It was, therefore, indifpenfably incumbent on Juftin, in the ftrongeft terms to difown all connexion between Chriftians in general and thefe heretics ; and, if poffible, to convince the Jew, that their principles were no lefs odious to himfelf and his bre- thren, than to him. Without this meafure, he could have no Chap. II. of yujiin Martyr, i^c, 365 no rational hope that any thing he might advance in this conference, would make the flighted impredion on the mind of Trvpho, in favour of Chrlftianity. But there was by no means the fame neceflity for ftrong language in fpcaking of thofe who denied the Deity of Chrift. Juftin knew abundantly well that many of the Jews of that age expelled a human Meiliah, and that the contrary do6i:rine was a great obftacle to their believing in Jefus. If nothing, however, but hard words will pleafe our author, in proof of the antiquity and general reception of a dodrine, it may be afterwards in our power to ferve him up a morfel of thefe, prepared even by this gentle !/i:'iovritor. Dr P.'s third argument contains a prefumption flill ftrong- er, if well-founded. *' He (Juftin) talks of not being " overborne by the authority of any number of men, even " his fellow-Chriftians, but would adhere to the words of " Chrift, and the fenfe of fcripture •, which is a ftyle almoft " peculiar to thofe whofe opinions are either quite novel, " or at leaft not very prevalent." The fourth and laft ar- gument rrnay be conneded with this. " The phrafe, * Nei- * ther do I agree with the majority of Chriftians who may *■ have objected to my opinion,' which is nearly the moft " literal rendering of the paffage (though I would not be *' underftood to lay much ftrefs on that circumftance) will " naturally be conftrued to mean that the majority adually *' did make the objedion, or that Juftin fufpeded they *' might make it *." Our author pretends to lay little ftrefs on the circum- ftance laft meniioned, and afterwards informs us that he ♦* can very well fpare the paflage altogether, thinking that ♦* he has evidence enough of his general polition without *' it.'* But many readers will be perfuaded that he lays conftderable * Vol. iii, p, 283, 366 Of the TeJlifHony Book VI. confiderable Jlrefs on it ; as he has fucceffively tortured one particular exprefTion into three different forms, to make it fit the diftorted mould of his own hypothefis. But a few pages before, it is rendered ; " Wil^i them I do not " agree, nor lliould 1 do fo, though ever fo many, being of " the fame opmion, Jhould urge it upon me '," Here it affumes a very different appearance : " Neither do I agree *' with the majority of Chriflians, who may have ohJeBed ** to my opinion.'' The laft, he fays, is " nearly the mofl " literal rendering." Had it been faid, that it is '* nearly *' the moll literal i?z'uer/ion of the meaning," it would have been much nearer the truth. It is allonifhing, that Dr P. fhould obfcrve any word in this claufe, which could fuggeft the idea of ohjeBing. Nor is it lefs aftonifhing that, in the courfe of one chapter, he ihould give two verfions of the fame palTage fo different from each other, that the urging of one opinion is metamorphofed into an ohjeBion to its op- polite ; and that what firll affumes the form of a polfible futurity^ Ihould afterwards appear as poffibly paji. This palfage has been ftrangely mangled by Socinian writers of late. Mr Lindfey tranflates the introduction, Ka< ya^ siai T»ys?, a OiXoij uTco t« r^fAi t5^« ysi-tf?, " There are fome friends ** of mine amongft us Chrillians," i^c f . The Socinians of the lall century, though they begun to nibble at this palfage, did not perceive where the great ilrength of their argument lay. They had not attained to fuch llvill in the ufe of ancient tellimony -, nor could they tranflate with fuch dexterity. It never occurred to them, that the TChua-roiy the majority^ were their own good friends. They feem to have thought tliis the molt literal renderitig : *' To whom I affent not -, no, though very many of the " fame * Ibid. p. 279. f Apology, p. 160. Burgh's Inquiry, p, g6, 97. Chap. II. of Jujlin Martyr, 'i^c. 367 " fame opinion with me fliould fpeak it, fiiice we are com- *' manded," i^c*. By the learned writer in tlie theological department of the Monthly Review, this paffage was rendered ; " To wliom " I could not yield my affent ; 710, not even if the majority " of Chriilians fliould think the fame f :" or in other words, " With whom I do not agree •, neither could /, al- " though the major part had adopted the flime opinion %:* With due refpcd to the fuperior judgment of others, I would beg leave to fuggeft that the meaning of thefe words, fxQi ooiaT-ocvrsg, has not hitherto been fufficiently attended to in this controverfy. The Engliih Unitarians of the la^t century feem to have been fully convinced of their force. They moft probably appeared to them as an unfurmounta- ble obftacle to any claim to the 7rA£»,-o». The following feems to me the moft natural tranflation : " With whom I " do not agree : nor would the majority, who are of the " fame opinion with me, aiTert fuch things," is'c. Thus, Juftin not only gives his own judgment, but that of thofe with whom he held communion ; as it is natural to fuppofe he would, and as he indeed does on other occa- iions, during tliis conference. Thus alfo, his languao-e has a determinate meaning, perfedly in point, without the aid of any fupplement. And furely we ought never to fup- pofe an ellipfis, when it is'unneceiTary, efpecially where the fenfe is more limple without it. This appears to me not 7icarly, but abfolutely, the moft literal reading. Our author, indeed, from his peculiar mode of expreflion, feems confcious that he had left room for fomething * The Faith of One God, who is only the Father: Tra;j >^-tyovtm, Dialo p. 26S. Chap. II. of J lift in Martyr, 3^^^ that he evidently fpcaks of it as nowife uncommon. Therefore, he makes a remarkable tranfition from the plu- ral to the fmgular. Indeed, the latt words of the fentence evidently refer to thofe with which Julliu had concluded the preceding addrcfs. tu,oo^ luv txvtx «7I5^ g>y,^ x-.y^Tx y is un- doubtedly a reduplication upon Jullin's u.i ^.^xc-o^'xui. Both ex- preiTions denote the fame perfons, and both refer to . ^ekt-c./, the great ejl part^ as oppofed to ri^rr, fo??ie. But our autnor feems to have thought it prudent to overlook this fliiking periphrafis. In his Hiftory of Corruptions, he throws a mod unme- rited afperfion on Juftin Martyr, when he fays ; " This " writer even fpeaks of his own opinion of the pre-exid- *' ence of ChriQ, — as a doubtful one, and by no means a " neceiTary article of Chriftian faith *." As a proof of the juftnefs of this affertion, he cites tlie words preceding thefe which we have already confidered : " Jefus may {till be " the Chrift, although I fhould not be able to prove that " he pre-exi(ted as God," ^S'c. It has been ju(lly obfvrved in reply, that we are to underftand the words of Juilin on- ly as a momentary concefTion of what he would not prc- fently urge ; as he was arguing with a Je'.v, " whom he " chiefly aimed to convince of the general dodrine of " Chrift's being the Meffiah," l^c\. It mud l)e evident to any one who will be at the trouble of reading the works^of Juliin, that he frecpently expreffe? himfclf in the language ot" Conceifion, gradually to lead on his antagonill, or liis reader ; when ne has no deli j.n to give up the poirt, but to refume it after proving what is pre-* vioufly neceiTary. Of many inflances I Ihall mcniion one only. When reafoning with Trypho, concerning the dig- nity of Chrill, from his appearing to Abraham with tv«^o Vol. II. A a angels, * Vol. i. p. z'-'/j. ■)• Month. Rer. Se['t. i^jS;,, p. 231. S10 Of the I'ejlimony Book VI. angels, he fays ; " Though 1 fhould not be able to (hew " you from the fcriptures, that one of thefe three is called " both God and Angel, from his declaring, as I have alrea- " dy faid, to whomfoever God the Creator of the univerfe ** pleafes, the things concerning him ; yet it were proper •* for you to think fo of this very one, who appe ired on ** earth in the likenefs of man to Abraham, in the fame *' manner as the two angels who accompanied him, and " who was God before the foundation of the world *.'* Shall we hence conclude that he " fpeaks of his cwn opi- " nion as" in this inftanee '*^ a doubtful one ?" If we do fo, we fliall find that the inference is falfe. For he after- wards re fumes the argument, and proves that Chrill re- ceives the name both of a Meflenger and of God f . Trypho himfelf did not put this violent conflru£lIon on the language of Juftin. For we find him, a little below, propofing a queftion which he mult have deemed entirely prepofterous, had he imagined either that Juftin hefitated in his opinion, or that he did not reckon the dodrine of the deity of Chrift " a neceflary article of the Chriftian " faith." For he fays, " Anfwer me firft, how you can *' prove that there is another God beiide the Creator of this " univerfe," lifr. In this manner he fpeaks of the deity of Chrift. For the objedtion unjuftly derived from the u- nity of the divine nature, as if the dodrine of a plurality of perfons deftroyed it, is no new difcovery, but may be traced up to the earlieft ages of Chriftianity, and claims its origin from thofe who faid they were Jews atid were ?iot^ hut were of the fynagogue of Satan. It is evident from this queftion, that Trypho reckoned Juftin fo confirmed in his opinion as to make it a firft prin- ciple ; and that he could not reafon with him about other things till there was fome folution of the difficulty arifing * Dial. p. 276. f lb. p. i%\. 1^0. 355, 357. Chap. II. ofjuftin Martyr, l^c: 371 in his mind from this dodrine. Therefore he fays, " An- ** fwer vciQfir/l." Strange, indeed, that an unbelieving Jew iliould do greater juftice to the fentiments of this venerable ChriiUan, than a profellbr of the fime religion. But Try- pho could gain nothing, by wilfully niifreprefenting the dodlrine of Juftin. It could eafily be proved that there never was a charge more unjuftly exhibited againft any writer. Not only does Trypho repeat the fame objection in tlie courfe of his reafoning, as being fully convinced that Juftin was confirm- ed in the belief of the deity of Chrift ; but the latter, in his reply, informs him that he could produce arguments for it from Scripture, " which would not require any ex- *' plication, but only a hearing*." Then he proceeds to fhew that it v\as Chrift who appeared to Abraham at Mamre. Indeed, he proves the deity of Chrift by fuch cogent arguments, (the fame that are ftill ufed in the defence of this do6lrine) and with fuch warmth, that one is under the neceifity of concluding, either that Dr P. whc^n he brought this charge againft Juftin, had not himfelf read the dia- logue, or that he flattered himfelf that no other would read it. The inference deduced from the manner iu which Juftin fpeaks of tliofe wh > denied this dodrine, as r.vf^awo Ta^^ae- T£f« 7£i/eo5, " certain of our kind," is as unnatural as it "would be to conclude that becaufe one, in our own time, in addrefting Jews, Mahometans or heathens, fliould fpcalc of thofe who denied the deity of Chrift under the gcncr.il name of Chriftians, he therefore did not confider theip as heretics. Juftin ufes a very general word. Becaule of their profefllon of the Chriftian name, he fpeaks of tii^m as of the fame genus. But he pronounces them to be Ipe- cifically different from the majority. A a 2 But *lUd. p. C.74. D. 3)2 . Of the 'JeJli?nojiy Book VL But this charge againft Juflin is not new. Epiicopius long ago ftepped forth as his accufer ; and the falfity of his accusation was fully proved hy the judicious and learned Biihop Bull. His conje6ture concerning thefe words y,/A«T8g» 7EVE05, feems highly probable. He fuppofes that it ought to ht vfJiiTt^Hj jyour r-ace : firft, becaufe, through the whole of this Dicilogue, 7 vo$ is ufed ftrictly to denote a nation ; and fecondly, becaufe the Ebionites, here defcribed, were ftill Jews, as adhering to the fynagogue. I would prefume to add, that the very expreffion, v«»Ts^a yivioc, is ufed by JuiHn, in the preceding page, to denote the Jewilh nation * : and that Trypho, in his reply, not only prefers the opinion of thofe who believed Chrift to be a mere man, but fpeaks as if the former words had refpetled thofe of his nation -, *' For we all believe that Chrift will be a man born of man. "^ By the way, we may obferve that, from this expreffion, our author even ventures to prediB the future faith of the Jews. It *' Ihews," he fays, '* in what light the Jews will " always conlider any dodlrine which makes Chrift to be more than a man \" As all the unbelieving Jews of that age alfo expelled a temporal Saviour, may not Dr P. with e- qual fafety foretell that thole of this nation will never be- lieve in any other ? Dr P. himfelf, though he formerly tranflated y-voq prafef- fion J, now renders it race. But it is with a delrgn to ex- tend his evidence \ as he underftands it of Gentile Unita- rians, and would thence infer, that the majority of thefe w^ere of a different opinion from Juftin. But this reftric- tion of his language can be of no fervice to our author, as the foundcition is falfe. In his new work, he feems to abandon the idea that Juftin * Trypho ufesthe cxprellion if^Ertpw yivfo; concerning his own nation. Dial. p. 306. C. I Hift, Cor. voli. p. 18, :f Ibid. p. 17. Chap. IT. ofjuflin Martyr, l^c. 373 Jufliii '* fpeaks of his own opinion as a doubtful one." But he flill alTerts that the pafl'.tge formerly coniider- ed " has all the appearance of an -.ipology for an opinion different from that, which in his time was commoniy re- ceived on the fubj eft *. However, this vain imagination refts on thefe grounds, the infuihciency of which we have already proved. , ' But independently of this paflage, the whole of the Dia- logue with Trypho mud, to a candid reader, Ufford the ftrongeft prefumptive evidence, that the doctrine of the divi- nity of Chrift was indeed that of believers in g* neral, that it was conlidcred as fundamenial, and that thofe were not accounted true Chriftians who denied it. We cannot other- wife account for JuHin's enlarging fo much, and reafoning fo earneftly in defence of this dodtrine, (as it is undoubtedly the principal fubjedl of the Dialogue") while he knew that no other could be fo difagreeablt- to Trypho and his friends. But were it true, as Dr P. has aflerted, that JulHn was con- fcious that his opinion was Tiovel, and not received by the generality, that it needed an apology, that he did not rec- kon thofe who differed from him heretics but jomtd in communion with them; we mull fuppofe either thdt he wnlhed to harden them in their prejudices, though he pro- felTes his earneft defire of their converlion. or that he was tot lily unfit for argument, as being dcflitute of the Iciift jhare of common prud-^-nce. Although Dr P. fhould perfift in his own conftrudion of the difputed pafTage, he cannot do fo, without fuppoting that tlie Martyr deliberately told and committed to u riting a grofs falfehood. For in that very pafTage, he plainly af- ferts the Uniti^rian tenets to be *' the dodrines of men," arid oppofes them to " what was taught by the prophets, " and by Chrift himfelf." It cannot be faid that here he A a 3 gives ^ Vol iii. p. 234. 3 '7 4 Of the TeftimoTiy Book VI. gives his own opinion only. For if the do6lrine of Chrill's divinity was novel, efpecially if he had the chief hand in introducing it, he could not well be a ftranger to its novel- ty^ If Chrid, or his apollles, taught another dodrine, he mull have known that this was the cafe. Thus, it muft cither be granted, that the primitive church believed the Son to be God, or the chara61er of a faitliful witnefs muft be denied to this venerable writer, who refjled unto blood. Notwithftanding the clear evidence that has been pro- duced by various writers, that Dr P., in his Hillory of Cor- ruptions, has mifreprefented Jullin Martyr, he again takes notice of the refpeEi with which that writer treats the U- nitarians, and Hill urges his not mentioning thena as here- tics*. On this head, he quotes two paflages. Confidering the texture of our author's arguments, it might be a fuffi- cient reply, that as Juftin mentions a book he had written agalnfi allfcBs and hercjics, it is more than prohahle that he has given them their proper charader there. Bat as the Dodor feems to reft his proof as to Unitarians not being accounted heretics in the time of Juftin, on the two pafTages quoted, it may be necefiary.to confider them. In the firfl: paffage, he replies to an objecition made by Tr}plio to the truth of Chrifti^nity, from the lives of it§ proteilors. '* I know that many," he fays', *' who pre- ** tend to be Chrillians, eat the things lacrificcd to i- *' dois. and affirm that they receive no injury thereby f." AVot.dd it have been in point to have introduced the Unita- rians here ? There was great propriety in Juilin's mention- ing the Gnoftics efpeciidlj •, becaufe at this time their er- rors feem to have been fpreading very extenfively. But we have no evidence that thofe called Unitarians made any con fidei able figure. Dr P., notwithftanding all his violent eftbrts^j * P2ar. Opin. vol. i. p. 269. iii. p. 2S5, \ Dial. p. 253;. fee. audi. 208. Vcl, i. p. 170, Chap. TI. of Jujiin Martyr^ i^c. 375 CiTorts, cannot prove that, in the age of Juftin, they were more than the rti-s?, certain pcrfons . But the GnolHcs con- fidered as heretics, were ^c/^ao<, 77iaiiy-; as Juftin declares in this paflage, according to the Dod;or's acknowledgment. But as Trypho's objection is founded on prciEiice^ not on o- pinion, we have another argument for the more particu- lar mention of Gnoftics ; for all ancient writers charge them with grofs immorality. In this point of view, our author will not pretend that it would have been proper to introduce the Ebionites, though viewed as heretics. Beiides, a particular pra6lice is fpecified by Trypho, which was peculiarly ftumbling to thofe accuftomed to the bondage of the law \ and from which all in communion with the church are faid to have abftained, as long as hea- thenifm was the religion of the empire- Irenaeus exhibits the very charge, which conftitutes Try- pho's objection, againfl: the Valentinians. *' They pretend " that they are no v/ife injured by thofe grofs aftions in " which they are engaged. — Wherefore, without fear they " do all thefe things which are forbidden. For they freely " eat the things offered to idols, .not reckoning themfelves " defiled by them : and they are the firft to run to every " feaft of the heathen, celebrated in honour of idols ; fo *' tliat none of them abftain from the bloody lliews of the *' gladiators, which are hateful both to God and man *." IVIarcion himfelf is faid by Tertullian to have been caft out of the church for defiling a virgin : and his opinions were fuch as tended to fap the very foundations of morality ; for, according to Irenaeus, he aflerted that Cain, the Sodomites, the Egyptians, and others chargeable with the moft: abo- minable fins, were faved j but that Abel, beth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, the Patriarchs and Prophets were exclu- A a 4 ded • Jren. lib. i. a. i. p. a6. 376 Of the Tejlimony Book VL dcd from falvat.ion *. The Baiilideans allowed fornication and polygamy f . Though fome fpeak favourably of Bafi- lides himfelf, it is granted that he " affirmed it to be law- ** ful for Chrlftians to conceal their religion, to deny Chrift *' xvhen their lives were in danger, and to partake of the " feafls of the Gentiles inilituted in confequence of the fa- " orifices offered to idols t«" Saturninus was an enemy to marriage ^■. Thus, all the heretics here mentioned by Juf- ti'i, erred as to morals : and the particular notice Vv'hich he takes of them, correfponds with the nature of Trypho's ob- jection. However much Juftin was convinced that the E- bionites were heretics, it would have been abfurd to intro- duce them here ; unlefs he had meant to exhibit the fame charge againfl them as Epiphanius, that ** virginity and " chaflity were totally prohibited among them ||." The Martyr, it muft be acknowledged, in his reply, takes a more ample range than the Jew : as he mentions fome who taught not only to do, but to /peak things atbe- ijlical and hlafphe?7iQus. But the Doclpr has not yet difpro- ved wJiat was affertcd by his learned critic **, that the cha- racter of thofe that were bkifphemers of the God of Abra- ham., who according to Juftin w^as the Son, naturally be- longs to Unitarians. His own tranOation proves this. For if " fome taught to bl Upheme the Chrift, and the God of " Abraham, Ifaac and Jacob, in one way, and others in " another ; Juftin muft have included Ebioritcs." For while Gnoftics blafphemed the God of Abraham /// one %vay^ masking him inferior to the Supreme, or even calling him an evil being; Ebionites did lb in another, as they blaiphemoufiy denied that Chrift was the God of Abra- ham, and taught that he was " a man born of man/' But * Iren. lib. i. c. 29. f lb. lib i. c. 32. % MoC'ieira, Cent. %. p. z. c. 5. § Iren. lib. i. c. 22. y Hsr, 30. fc(fl. 2. ** Monthly Review for January 17^4. Chap. II. of Jjijiin Martyr, ISc, 377 But 13 there not another character of Unitarians included in this defcription ? — " Enemies to the worihip of Jefus» *' confelTmghim in name only *." As in the Dodor's firft quotation of this paflage, he left out " the Chrift," before " and the God of Abraham," i^c, not affording in his tranflation a fmgle hint to the unlearned reader as to the perfon really meant by Jullin •, he alio, as Dr Hordey ob- ferves, lupprcfled the claufe concerning the worlliip of this adorable Perfon. In his large work, however, both exprcflions appear in their proper place. But ilill he fup- prelTes the true meaning of the lail, rendering it, " who, •' inflead of re^jcrencing Jefus, confefs him in name only." It is evident that Juftin fpeaks of Jefus, as the object of re- ligious worihip. Not to urge that confcjjlon itfelf, when re- fpecting a perfon as its objed\, is a folemn a6l of worihip ; the term, employed by Juftin, is that which he elfewhere ufes to denote " the true worihip of Godf," that " wor- '' iliip of one God which the facred writings teach:};." We do not find, that he ever ufes it to iignify the rei^erejice due to a creature, but always that worihip given, either to the true God, or to idols as falfely believed to be gods. There- fore, with him it feems always to imply the idea of Deity. This, then, is the concluding article of the charge exhi- bited by Jullin againft thefe men of ^ whom he had faid, " With none of whom," icv a^£v< (whether " blafpheming '• the Chrift, the God of Abraham, in one way, or in an- '' other) have we any communion, knowing them to be *' atheifts aiid ungodly, unrighteous and lawlefs, and ene- *' mies f T>j> ^fJTiQuxv iTTiyvovTi?, Dial. p. 337. A. Expof. Fid. p. 372. 378 Of the Tejlimofiy Book VI. " mies to the worfliip of Jefus." How favourable this quo- tation is to the cafe either of ancient, or of modern Unita- rians, let the world judge. Though it were granted, that Jultin had no eye to them, this article, which clofes the indidment, fliews what he thought of fuch men. In that very pafTage in which, according to our author's acknowledgment, Jultin fpeaks of the Ebionites, though he does not exprefsly call them heretics, he gives them the fame charaders with unbelieving Jews. Trypho had faid ; " To aflfert that this Chrift pre-exifled, being God before •* ages, but that he afterwards condefcended to be born, be- ** ing made man, not man of man, appears to me not only "*' parodox, but folly!" To this Juftin replies; "I know *' that this difcourfe feems paradoxical, and efpecially to " thofe of your race, who have never had any inclination, ** either to underftand, or to do the things of God, but ** thofe of your teachers ; as God himfelf exclaims againft **you!" This is the very introdu6lion to that paflage, whence it is inferred that Unitarians were the majority, and that Juftin fpeaks of them with refpeB. This fentence immediately precedes the favourite paflage of our author. It is furely moft; natural to underftand that expreflion, a'uso T8 ysvEoj vfjLsre^Hf as denoting Ebionites, who were confefled- }y of the Jewilh race. if this be refufed, if it be urged that this refers to thofe vrho continued Jews, yet the word, efpecially y fhews that he had an eye to others, to whom this doctrine feemed " pa- *' radoxical and abfurd!" And whoever they were, he formed the fame opinion of them all, that they were fuch as " had no inclination, either to underftand, or to do the " things of God.** This, then, is the great refpeCl with which Juftin mentions thefe men. One would think he could fcarcely have devifed a worfe chara6i:er for the grof- feft heretics. But according to the learned Gentleman's mode Chap. II. of Jujlin Martyr, ^r. 375 mode of reafoning, though a writer of this age occafionally expreffed his abhorrence at the doclrine of Socinians, de- fcribing them as men who had no inclination either to know, or to do the will of God ; if he did not fomewhere exprefs- Ij call them heretics^ it might fafely be inferred that he did not think them fuch, nay, that he treated them with re- fpcB. The other paflage brought by Dr P. to prove that Juflin reckoned Gnoflics the only heretics, can be of as little ufe to him. For it contains a direfl reply to a queftion propo- fed by Trypho, who wijfhed Juftin to tell him truly, if Chriflians believed that Jerufalem would at length be re- ftored, and Jews and Gentiles, with the Meffiah, and the patriarchs and prophets, be gathered together there. Juftin firft declares that this is his own opinion, and that of many others. Then, that it was denied by two kinds of perfons •, firft:, by many true Chriftians, holding *' the pure and god- " ly doftrine ;" and fecondly, by fome who were called Cliriftians, but were in fa6l " atheifl;ical and ungodly he- " retics *." He mentions thefe as the very perfons he had defcribed before, only adding a new chara6ler, that of their denying the refurredion. This he introduces as intimately connedled with Trypho's queftion. For it muft have plain- ly appeared, that no man who denied the refurreftion, could believe that fcheme of reftitution laid down by the Jew. To what purpofe would it have been to introduce new heretics here, whofe doctrines did not, like thofe of the Gnoftics, lay them under a neceflity of difbelieving this? Who, but our author, would have ventured to fay that Juftin accounted none heretics, fave the Gnofl:ics, becaufeno others are mentioned on this occafion ? His * Dial, p, 2p6' 380 Of the Hejlimony Book VI. His lad obfervatlon on this head is, that " it is after gi- " ving an account of Simon, Menunder and Marcion, " known Gnoftics, and without anj alhifion to Unitarians, " that Juftin mentions his writing a treatife againfl all he- " refies *." No one would think of anfwering thefe ob- fervations as arguments, did they not come *from fuch a writer as Dr P., whofe name with many will give weight to what he fays. The argument now mentioned, though confidered in the moft favourable light, will turn either way. A Trinitarian might fay ; " Juflin certainly rec- " koned Unitarians heretics. For though he does not name " them, he fays he wrote a book againft all heiefies. By ** mentioning this to the Emperor, he infinuates that it " was unneceflary fpr him to particularize their names. *' But as he had already given this charafter to the Gno- '* flics, had he accounted none heretics but them, he would *' not have fwid that he had written a book againft all he- *' refies, but againfl thefe which he had already mention- «* ed." But there would have been no more propriety in men- tioning tlie Ehionites here, than in the paiTages aheady confidered. Jullin has a particular defign, in taking notice of the Gnoflics. For he is proving to the Emperor the unreafonablenefs of perfecuting the Chriftians. This he does, firft, from many being permitted to " worfaip trees, *' and rivers, and mice, and cats, and crocodiles •," and from its being the only objedion to Chriftians, that they v/ould not join in fucii impious worfliip. Secondly, becaufe the heathen in general were allowed to worlhip deities of the moft infamous charafter, as Bacchus, Venus, Adonis, i^c. The prevalence of this worfhip he afcribes to the power of devils. Thirdly, becaufe *' after the afcenfion of Chrift, " the devils ufhered men into light, who called themfelves * Vol. i. p. 273. Chap. 11. of Jujlin Martyr, i^c. 3S1 *' gods " "So far," fa^'S he, " are they from being pcr- *' fecLited by you, that they are reckoned worthy of ho- " n^ur." Then he mendons Snnon, who by liis magical arts acquired the honour of deity at Rome -, next, Menauder hib diiciple, who, he lays, was alfo *' under the energy of ** devils, and feduced many by magic." Then, he men- tions IVIarcion as under the fame influent. e. The conchiliou of all is ; '* That tiiey are not perfecuted, nor dellroycd by ** you, for their do^rines, we are well affured." It is not thi deiign of Jullin to fp;;ak of Gnoftics, or any other pretended Chriftians, under the formal idea of kere- tics. But he finglcs them out, becaufe being wicked men, ufing magical arts, and a£ting, as he believed, by diabolical power, they were not only all exempted from fuifering, but fome of them even honoured as gods, by thofe veryperfons who perfecuted true Chiillians *. Here, therefore, Jultin could not have mentioned the Ebionites with any. propriety, unlefs he had meant to fay that they were exempted from perfecution as well as the Gnoftics ; nay, that they were equally devoted to magical arts, and under the agency of devils. Dr P. fums up his evidence in favour of the majority be- ing Unitarians in this manner ; " In llriort, it appears that *' the ancient Unitarians entertained the fame dread of the *' doctrine of the divinity of Chrill, that the Trinitarians " of this day do of that of his fimple humanity ; a proof " that each of them had been brought up in the perfuafion " of the opinions they held, being the do£lrine of their an- " ceiiors, and of the apoltles f ." That they would pre- tend to be cifraid, offended, fcandali^ed^ there is no reafon to doubt \ for confcience has flill been the pretence of the greateft heretics. This proves nothing as to the antiquity 9f their doclrine. xVs little can it prove that they were brought ^ Aj-ol. ii. p. 69, 70. + Vol. iii. p. 294. 382 Of the Tejiimony Bdok VL brought up in it. Doubtlefs, our author feels the fame pious dread at the doftrine of the holy Trinity. He will not, therefore, refufe that he received the education of a Trinitarian, and that he " prayed confcientioufly," and " in the ferious fimplicity of his heart, to all the three per- " fons. without dilHnftion *." One of the proofs on which this theory is founded, is that " Novatian fpeaks of the Unitarians as fcandalized at " the doftrine of the divinity of Chrift." Dr P. quotes part of the fentence in which the word fcandali%are occurs. But^as Novatian calls thofe of whom he fpeaks heretics, aiid aflerts that " they flruggled to draw away the contro- " verfy, in oppoiition to the truth of the fincere tradition " and Catholic faith ;" of what avail is their pretence of being offended^ to prove that the majority of the Catholic church was Unitarian? Novatian reprefents thefe men as flirinking from the teft of antiquity and univerfal confent, and flying to the pitifal refuge of the ofFenfive nature of th& do6lrlne to their minds. But has that writer faid, without any reftriftion, that U- nitarians were " fcandalized at the doftrine of the divinity " of Chrift," as our autlior's language implies? He has mentioned thofe, indeed, who aflerted that Chrift was mere man. But he at the fame time mentions thofe who were fo firmly perfuaded of the divinity of Chrift, as to affirm that he was God the Father, This is evident from the fen- tence immediately following Dr P.'s quotation f . Our learned author is fo candid as to acknowledge that fome of his friends think that *' the evidence he has pro- " duced, * V'ol. i. p. 41. f Tarn enim illi qui Jefum Chriftum ipfum Deum Patrem dicunt, quam etiam illi qui hominem ilium tantuiriiTiodo effe voluerunt, &c. D? Trinitate, c. 30. Chap. II. of Ju/lin Martyr, Uc\ 383 " duced, In order to prove that the bulk of common Chri- " ftians, in the early ages, were fun ply Unitarians, is not " fufficient for the purpofe * ." Particularly, it is their o- pinion that he has not proved, that thofe mentioned by Tertullian were offended at the do6trine of Chrill's pre-ex- iftence. Perhaps, the generality of readers will think that he ought to have paid more refped to the judgment of thefe honeft friends, than to have hazarded, not merely his re- putation as a writer, but the refpe6lability of the caufe he has efpoufed, on fo infufficient a bottom. But Dr P. feems to think that he can invalidate all their objedtions by obferving that, *' if there was any evidence " whatever, prefumptive or politive, of any Chriftians in " thofe ages believing the pre-exiilence of Chrill, and not " believing either with the Gnoftics that he was a pre-ex- " iftent Spirit fuperior to the Creator of the world, or with *' the Platonizing Fathers, that he was the uncreated Logos ** of the Faiher, t/jezr ohjeEiion might haiie fome ijceight* *' But there is no trace of any fuch thing, either among the " learned, or the unlearned." A mighty conceflion, in- deed ! The learned Gentleman will pay fo much rcfped to his friends, as to grant that their objection may have fome weight, if they will infure him that it fliall not be thrown into the oppolite fcale. He muft have a fecurity that thefe common people were not Gnoftics. For not only would they be of no fervice to him, as he has granted that Gno- ftics were always accounted heretics -, but their exiftence would prove that the do6ti ine of the pre-exiftence of .Chrift was not fo pDochuig to plain Chrijiians as Dr P. wilhes it to appear. It would alfo follow, that " the rude and Jimple< " faith., which the learned complained of, was iDt derived *' from the primitive Jewifli converts f," according to the charader * Vol. 17. Append, p. 39O. f lb. p. 391, 592. 3§+ Of the Tefiimony Book VI. character given of the latter by our author, as believing thaf Jefus was a mere mem. It mult alfo be proved that they did not follow the Pla- tonizing Fathers. For, in this cafe, they would ruin his caufe. This is a clear proof, that our author judges of evidence, in this controverfy at leaft, not according to its abftrafl value, but merely according to its particu- lar bias. If it oppofe his own fyftern, it is unworthy of regard. The fact feems to be, that, if his friends can prove that thefe Ji77iple believers were Arians, he will allow fome weight to their objeclion. For he apprehends that tliey could do him no injury. Therefore he adds ; '* They cer- *' tainly did not relifh the notion of Chrifl: being the uncre- " ated Logos, for that was part of the fame fyflem with the " cecono??/y, and I'f^inity, at which they were fo much " fliocked ; and there is no mention whatever of any inter- " mediate kind of pre-exiftence, fuch as that of a created " Logos, till a much later period." But what was the A- rlan do6lrine of a created Logos, but a new modification of that of the Gncflics ? Dr P. has acknowledged their affini- ty *. But though fome traces of Arianifm could be found as early as the age of Tertullian, what could it avail our author ? Muft not this doftrine have appeared to the Jim- plices credefitium, as much oppofed to the perjoncd monar- chy, as the Trinitarian ? Undoubtedly, they would have reckoned it more fo. For while the Trinitarians always protelled that they admitted one God only, the Arians a- vow^ed a created God, elTentially diiferent from his Cre- ator-}-, and yet entitled to worlhip. But why would Dr P. grant that the objedion of his friends might have fome weight, if any common people could * Vol. iv. p. i68. f Ibid. p. 214. Chap. II. of Jiijlin Martyr, l^c» 385 could be found, belonging to that age, neither Gnoftics nor Platonifls, that is, Arlans •, unlefi he were convinced that thei^c Jimp/ices ieem, at lead, to have believed the pre-ex- illence of Chrill in fome fenfe ? By the utmoft {Iretch of charity, I cannot perfuade myfelf that Dr P. is not con- fcious that they did. As he is aflured that there were none ■who held the Arian dodrine tz// a much later period, he ought candidly to give that weight to the obje^ion, which he would allow, if ancient hiftory would bend to his wilhes. For, independently of the convi^lioii implied in his concef- fion, it is incontrovertible, as has been formerly feen, from the connexion of the paffage, nay, from the whole of that work in which Tertullian mentions thefe Jimple ptrfons, that they not only believed the pre-exiftence of Chrift, but held that he was perfonally one with the Father. While anxious to maintain their ideas of the unity, had they not been fully convinced of the true and fuprem^ deity of the Son, they would never have gone to this ex- treme. CHAPTER III. Exa??ii7iatio7i of Dr P.'s Anfwers to Oh/eBions, jT^UR author proceeds, in the next chapter, " fairly to ^ " " Hate every objecbion he has yet met with to any *' part of the evidence produced" to prove that the Gen- tile Chriftians were generally Unitarians. Vol. II. Bb SEC- 3S6' " Of DrP:sAnfwers Book VL SECTION I. Of the Tejlimony of Eufebius to tht Novelty of the Uni- tarian DoBrine, '*T^HE firft obje«Elion Is that founded on the teftimony of Eufebius, when recording the language of Caius the Prefbjter, (as it is generally thought) in anfwer to the claim of antiquity made by Unitarians in his time. " They affirm," he fays, " that all the primitive Chriflians, and ** the Apoflles themfelves both received and taught thefe " things which are fpoken by them : and indeed, that the ** true preaching was preferved even to the times of Vic- ** tor, who was the thirteenth bifliop of the city of Rome *' from Peter ; but that from the time of Ze;:'hyrinus, " who fucceeded Viftor, the truth was adulterated. And " perhaps, what they alTert might appear credible, unlefs, " in the firft place, the holy Scriptures direcftly oppofed ** them. Then, there are the writings of certain brethren, " prior to the age of Viftor, which they have written in " defence of the truth, againft the Gentiles and the here- " tics of their own time. I mean Juftin, and Miltiades, " and Tatian, and Clement, and many others belides ; in " all whofe books the divinity of Chrill is maintained. For " who is ignorant of the writmgs of Irena;us, and Melito, " and the reft, proclaiming Chrift to be both God and man ? ** Of which number are the Pfalms and Hymns compofed ** by the faithful, in the earlieft times, which celebrate- " Chrift the Word of God, afcribing divinity to him. Since ** then, the ecclefiaftical do6lrine was preached fo many ** years back, how can it be that all even to the time of " Vi£tor have proclaimed that dodrine of which they " fpeak^ Chap. III. to OhjeBiom. 387 ** fpeak ? How are they not afhamed to frame fiich falfehoods " concerning Vi6lor, when they certainly know that Vic- ** tor excommunicated Theodotus the currier, the chief ** and parent of this God-denying herefy, being the firft " that called Chrift a mere man ? For if Victor, as they " pretend, was perfuaded of the truth of their blafuhemous *' do6trine, how did he caft out Theodotus, the inventor of " this herefy * ?" That the preteniions of the party have been always abun- dantly high, few will be difpofed to difpute. Many, on the contrary, may be willing to throw, into the fcale of antiquity, a few years more than Unitarians have thought of alking. The firft attack that was made on the Deity of Chrift was, in- deed, moremodeftlyexprefled than many that have been made lince. That ancient herefiarch, to whom we refer, only infmuated a doubt of the do£lrine : // thou he the So?i of God, &.C. All who have followed his plan have virtually- had the fame end in view. He wifhed to fet himfelf up as the objeft of worfhip. And what elfe do Unitarians propofe. They wifh to be as gods. T\\Qy /corn the my- Jlery of godiinefs, God manifejl in the Jlejh, becaule they facrilice to their 6wn reafon. They re)e£t an Omnipotent Saviour, becaufe they idolize their own power, and vamly imagine that they can perform all that work which is pro- per to him. But even in thefe enrly time>, referred to by Eufebius, the pretenfions of the party were confidered as vain bo ift- ings, nay, roundly alTerted to be " impious falfehoods." It is amufing, indeed, to obferve the inconfiftent conduft and retrograde motion of the friends of this herefy. None pour greater contempt on authority and univerfal opinion than they generally do. Yet to ferve their own purpofes, they difcover as great anxiety as ever did the church of B b a Rome * Hifl. lib. 5. c. aS. 388 Of Br P:s Anfwers Book VI. Rome to eflablifh the antiquity and univerfal reception of heir tenets. But in proof of this univerfality, they have ftill found it neceffary to refer back to fome diftant aera, of which the numerous memorials in their favour are — all pe- riilied. Dr P., when, in his former work, referring to this paf- fage of Eufebius, not only charged him with apparent un- fairnefs in his treatment of thefe Unitarians, without ob- ferving that he only quoted the language of another writer^ but called Vi£lor the fucceflbr, inllead of the predeceflbr, of Zephyrinus. Although, in his later work, he has given the latter his proper place, he has refufed him his right name, calling him ViBorinus, This is what an ancient Roman would have called an unlucky paflage to oiu* author. For he ftill ftumbles in limine. Before proceeding particularly to examine the evidence pro- duced by Eufebius, he enfures himfelf againft receiving any damage by it. He ftiews that it can be of no avail, becaufe the writer is prejudged. " It has been feen," he fays, " that, " by the general acknowledgment of the Fathers, and of " Eufebius himfelf, among the reft, the firft do6lrine that *' was taught by the apoftles, was that of the limple huma- " nity of Chrift, and that his divinity was very little " known, till it was publiftied by John, after the death of ** the other apoftles. Eufebius, therefore, denying it in this *' cafe, is not at all to be regarded, — unlefs he had brought " fome fufficient proof to countera6l that evidence *." I. have carefully examined the former part of the wjrk, for this teftimony of Eufebius which difqualilies him from be- ing a witnefs in the prefent cafe. I can find only one pai- fage that can be fuppofed to be referred to. According to Dr P., Eufebius fays, that " John began the do61rine of the " divinity of Chrift, that being referved for him as the " mcft * Vol. ili. p, 29s. 3 Ghap. IIL to Ohje&ioni. 389 " mod worthy *." But this is not what Etifebius really fays. He alTerts. in the preceding fentence, that " Matthew and " Luke having formerly delivered the genealogy of Chrift ac- '* cording to the fleih, this was properly omitted by John." But does he add, that John begem the d^>&rine of the divinity ? His language bears fomething very different. Having in iiis eye the condud of Matthew, in beginning his Gofpd with the genealogy, and of Luke, in making it the preface to his hilfory of Jefus ; he adds concerning John, " But " he began from the theology," or " dodrine of the divi- " nity f ." To fpeak of a writer beginning his book from er voith a particular dodrine, is certainly a very different tiling from faying that he began the dodrine itfelf. Thus, the credibility of Eufebius, as a witnefs, is no wife alfeded by this tellimony, how much foever tliat of Dr P. may fuffer, as an interpreter. He conliders the appeal of Eufebius to the fcriptures as of no weight, becaufe it was merely " matter of opinion " that tliey were againft the Unitarians." But did the caufe left as much on the writings of Juftin or Irenaeus, as on the holy fcriptures, there is no reafon to doubt that Unitarians would labour as eameftly to avert the force of their telli- mony, as they have done to deprive the facred writings of the ordinary fenfe of language. Dr P. has obferved this plan in various inftances ; and his fellow-labourer Mr Lind- fey boldly attempted to fhew that all the writings of the three firil centuries were Unitarian. But Dr P. endeavours to invalidate the teflimony of Eu- febius froin the confideration of his appealing to no writer before Juftin. He conliders this as an evidence that he B b 3 could * Vol. iii. p. 127. -j- E*xoT«5 iii yv Tiif ^£v T>jj aagy.05 T» ^ufTij^o? T^uui ytvixXoyiuy , un Mttr^snu xj«» AoVKot ts^oy^aCpuc-av , omoaioi'ninj-a.i tov lotxi^-^r, Tvig h BioXoyiug U7rat^la<7Bxi, ug ai wj-zoj TV^og ta ©•<» xigv/A«T^ •;« x.^«T%v< 7!-fl!^«7r£i5^. HiA. lib. 3. C. 24. 390 Of LrT.'s Anfwers Book VI. could not carry the antiquity of the doctrine any higher. Our author, howov ihoyyL*Ti(ri ^oyixoi^ xxi ci xtt" uvth cvrx' ^EVTE? Qi'j^oTiccvxif "vJ/f:Ki dicere Cecum invicem. Plm. Epili, lib. lo. ep. 97. The lan- guage ot Pliny ib almotl a commentary on thai of the apjiile ; Sp^ak.;:g H ■jourjelvei, or amoi.g yourj elves j that is, one to mother, in pfniK^j nid hymns and Jpiritual J0T^gs,Jingirig and making mclodj hi )Our he../! to the Lord. Eph v. 19. f Nihil aliud inreni, quaro fuperflitionem pravam et iojmudicam. I- bid. } Vol. iii. p. jo». Chap. III. io Ohje&zofts. 395 divinity hath been often afcribed to the creature, will not be refufed. But that it hath been as often impioufly afcri- bed, will be alfo acknowledged by all who have a juil fenfe of the majefty of God. The quidlihet audendi of a heathen poet is of no avail, when oppofed to the language of the Supreme Being ; My glory wiU I not give to another. He hath at times deigned to dlj^nify creatures with feme of his names ; but always with refpeil: to a delegation of his own authority to then\, and in connexion with other Ian ;uage cxpreilive of their infinite diilance. At any rate, God may ufe a freedom with his own names or titles, which we have no right to ufe. Becaufe fome in the madnefs of their poe- tical ififpiration, have dared to deify the creature, ihall we fuppofe that the primitive Chriflians thought themfelves at liberty to do it ? Can our author imagine that, in com- poiing their facred hymns, becaufe they were " the lan- *' guage of poetry," they would celebrate, as God, one whom they believed to be a mere man \ or make him the object of that worfhip, which, they knew, belonged to God only ? Could they have reckoned all this 'uery innor- ce7it ? If this was the cafe, Dr P. may carry his account of the Corruptions of Chrilliauity, and efpecially of the intro- duction of idolatry, higher than he has hitherto thought of doing. He may carry it back to the firft affemblies of Chrillians. But our learned author fees the fame obje£t in very oppo- fite lights, according to its various connexion. When the Unitarian doctrine is not immediately in his eye, he feems to have the ftridell ideas of the rights of .deity. Thus, when fpeaking of the latter times of the Gofpel, he fays ; '* in this new condition of the world, there may flill be " kifigs, but they will be no longer fovercigns, or fupre?ne " lords, no human beings to whom will be afcribed fuch -' titles as thofe of mojl facred, or moji excellent ?najejly, ** There 39f> OfDrP.'sAnf^viTs Book VI. •* There will be no more fuch a profanaJ:lon of epithets, bc- ** longing to God only, by the application of them to mor- **^ tals like ourfelves *." How can that be "jery innoccizt in ene cafe, which is profanativn in another, when the perfons concerned are on a level as to nature ? Hov/ can Jefus, if a human being y a mortal like ojirfclves, be the objed of praife m God, if even fuch titles as thefe above-mentioned belong to God only /* He further fays ; " As to the antiquity of thefe hymns, " as the hiftorian has not mentioned the age of them, it is ^ very poffible, for any thing that appears to the contrary, *^ that they might have been thofe very hymns which were ** rejeded by Paulus Samofatenfis on account of their no- •* velty," The hiftorian has mentioned the age of tliem in the moll exprefs terms. For he dates them from the leginniiig. This is far lironger than if he had affigiied them to any particular year. I agree with Dr P. in fuppofing that they were ** thofe very hymns which were rejected "■ by Paulus." The Hiftorian gives the fame defcription of them, in his account of this heretic ; " He fet aCde the " pfalms to our Lord Jefus Chrift, as if they had been com- " pofed in later times, and by m.en of no antiquity f." But is his rejedion of thefe, under the pretence of novelty, a va- lid objedlion to their anti^.uity ? With equal propriety might we fuftain the objeftions of infidels to the prophecies of Da- niel, X^c. It was the intereft of Paulus to make this pre- tence. His {Locking pride was one feature, in which he difcovered fo great a refemblance of the father of a lie, that he would be fanguine indeed, who would fubfcribe to his * Dr Prieftley-s Letters to Mr Biuke, Let. 13. p. 74S. c. 30. p. 362. Chap. IIL to OhJeBiom, 35>»p his teftimony. For, like that arch-rebel, he fliowcd the real defign of derogating from the honour due to the Son of God. When he prohibited thefe pfalms addrcffed to Je- fus, he *' employed women to iing p'alms, in the midft of *' the church, in honour of hi.nfelf. — He alfo permitted the " bifliops and prefbyters, who were his fycophantiili adhe- *' rents, to harangue concerning him in their difcourfcs to " the people." Although he " denied that the Son of *' God had defcendcd from heaven, he allowed thofe who " fung thefe pfalms, and preached thefe difcourfes, to de- ** clare that he was hiinfelf an angel fent down from ** heaven *." Whether, therefore, fliall we believe the teftimony of Eufebius, or of this man, who was lifted up with pride T We know that fuch a witnefs is rejedted by the Spirit of God. Behold^ his foul, which is lifted up, is not upright in. him. The queftion, indeed, concerning the antiquity of thefe pfalms, does not lie between Eufebius and Paulus ; but between the latter and all the biihops, prefbyters and others, who joined in his condemnation. For the paflage referred to is an extract from the fynodical epiftle ; as ap- pears both from Eufebius, and from Nicephorus f . Dr P.'s exception to Pliny's account is equally trifling. '* As to this writer," he fays, " if he had been told that " hymns were fung by Chriftians in honour of Chrilt, he " would naturally imagine that they were fuch hymns as " had been compofed in honour of the heathen gods, who " had been men." Pliny's own ideas cannot affeclthe faft. He was not a man who aflerted things on (light gr;)unds. He examined both thofe who were, and thofe who had been, Chriftians. W hatever notions he might entertain concern- ing * Kuf. Hlft. iblJ. I Euf. Hiil. ibid. Niccjih, lib. 6. c. 30. p. 424, 425. 39S or T>r P*s Jnfkven Book VI. ins; onr T,o^^ ^e un^on'-i";^^>7- confidered him as the obje6l of religious worfhip to his followers. He was fatisfied, af- ter the ftri(fleft inquiry, that they funfp a hjmn to Chrift as God. Whether he imaoined that " Chrift was confider- " ed — as the Supreme God, or as t pr'^-exiftent Spirit, the " maker of the world under God *," is nothing to the pur- pofe. What the heathen gods had heen^ is of little avail. Al- though it ftiould be fuppofed that, in Pliny's idea, thefe hymns were fuch as had been compofed in honour of the gods ; it would not alter his opinion of the condu6t of Chri- ftians. Whatever Pliny, or others, might imagine with refpe6l to the former ftate of their deities, they undoubted- ly knew that, as thus addrefled in facred hymns, they were not confidered as any longer men^ but as gods* SECTION II. Of the 'Excommunication of'Theodotus ly ViBor, T^R P. acknowledges that the moft plaulible argument a- ■*-^ gainft the antiquity of the Unitarian dodrine, is drawn from this circumftance. Therefore, he tries every me- thod, which ingenuits^ can fuggeft, to evade the force of it. He finds himfelf fo much at a lofs with this argument, as it refts on the evidence of antiquity, that he firft exprefTes a wifh " that we had a few more particulars concerning this ** excommunication f." The plain meaning of this is; our author wifties that he had a little more room for fo- phiftry, as he is determined to impofe on the public vague fuppolitions, not merely where there is no diredt evidence, but • Vol. iii. p. 305. f Ibid. p. 3O3. Chap. III. to ObjeBions, 39^ but in dire£l contradidlon to evidence of the cleareft kind, and what has been univerfahy received as inch, during the lapfe of manj centuries. • Our author proceeds ftrenuoufly to work on thofe />^r/z*- culurs he has. And firil, he ol)jeds to Eufebius as a wit- nefj. It feems to be an eftabHflied precaution with our author, to enter his protefl againft the teftimony of this hi- ftorian, before he ventures to give him a hearing. " It is " to be obferved," he fays, " that it is not Caius, the writer " q ioted by Eufebius, who fays that he (Thcodotus) was " excommunicated on account of his being an Unitarian, " but Eufebius himfelf * ; fo that, confidering the writer's " prejudices, there may be fome room to doubt, whether he " was excommunicated on that account." The quotation from the Greek, to which Dr P. refers, when viewed by itfelf, does not determine whether thpfe are the words of Eufebius, or of Caius. But viewed in connexion, it ap- pears that they belong to the latter. For the fentence pre- ceding, and that following, are undoubtedly his ; and there is not the leaft intimation that the quotation is interrupted. The reference, in the pafl^^ge quoted, to what the writer had faid before, (w^ i(pw) concerning Viftor as the perfon who excommunicated Theodotus, proves that Caius is the fpeaker. For the whole narrative of this fa£l is in the lan- guage of that writer. Eufebius, in his own perfon, has not faid that it was done by Viftor. But though thefe were the words of Eufebius, it could not aff -ct the proof. If our author could prove that he was 10 much under the pov/er of prejudice as, in other inftances, to give a falfe ftatement of fads refpeding the Unitarians, there might be fome plaufibilicy in this exception. But while it is undeniable that, in other inftances, he has told the truth, it muft appear to any impartial judge, that here the • Hill. lib, 5. c. II. p. »53, 40J3 Of Br P:s Anjweri Book VI. the objeftion is irrelevant. All that can be proved againll Eufebi'us is, that he had a very bad opinion of the Unita- rian fyllem. But if this be a valid objedion, the teftimony of none ought to be admitted, who were not friendly to it. For all honeft Trinitarians, though they may differ as to the manner of ex]^reffing themfelves, according to their pecu- liar tempers, mull have the fame general fentiments of the Unitarian dodrine. Under a limilar pretence, a pannel might have the liberty of objeding to any witnefs, however unexceptionable his charader, when he knew that the evi- dence of this witnefs would deeply affed his caufe. But how great foever the prejudices of Eufcbius may be fuppofed to have been, it is inconceivable that he would have hazarded his character in an aifertion, which, if ground- lefs, could ealily have been difproved by his enemies. For this excommunication took place little more than a century before he wrote. Could he hope that when he had fo keen- ly oppofed Marceilus and others, they would tamely fubmit to a falfe accufation fo very injimous to their caufe. Al- though it could be proved, that thefe were the words of Eu- febius himfelf i all the reft of the account, given by Caius is incoherent and ?nnlap7'opos, unlefs we underftand him as meaning that Theodotus was excommunicated merely be- caufe of his Unitarian principles. Thecdorct, in his teftimony, confirms what we find in Eufebius. For he fays, that *' the moft blefled Vi6lor, bi- *' ihop of the Romans, excommunicated Theodotus, becaufe *' he attempted to adulterate the decrees of the church. *" Our author had good reafon for wifhing to fet afide the evidence of Eufebius. As he meant to avail himfelf of the teftimony of ancient Unitarians to the antiquity of their doftrine, it was the moft prudent plan previoufly to give a finiftiing ftroke to that hiftorian. For the paflage referred to 1 Haeret. Fab. lib. 2. ap. Earon. Anna', vol. ii. p. 275. Chap. III. to OhjeBions. 401 to contains an exprefs and full refutation of this very claim. Having thus cleared his way, Dr P. obferves ; " The Uni- tarians, it has been feen, faid that Vi£lor favoured their doc- " trine." But, confcious perhaps, that it might fairly be Veplied, that there is at leaft as great reafon to objc£l to this claim, becaufe of the prejudices of thefe heretics in their own favour, as to the teftimony of Eufeblus, becaufe of his pre- judice againft them ; om* author wifely provides a cham- pion to fight their battles. ' For it is added ; — ^'' and *' this we lind aflerted in the Appendix to TertuUian's t ea- ** tife, De Prafcriptime, which, whether written by Tertul- *' lian himfelf or not, is probably as good an authority as " Eufebius. He fays, that after the two Theodotus's * Praxeas introduced his herefy into Rome, which Victori- * nus endeavoured to ftre'igthen. He faid that Jefus Chriffc * was God the Father omnipotent, that he was crucified, fuf- * fered and died, l^c. *' Vidorinus, in this palTa.e, Beaii- " fobre fays, it is agreed, (hould be Victor ; and it cannot " be fuppofed that he would have patronized in Praxeas the " fame dodlrine for which he had before excommunicated ** Theodotus. The probability therefore is, that Theodo. " tus was excommunicated on fome other account than that " of his being an Unitarian f.' Dr P. certainly feels the force of this fpiritual fentence ; dr he would not be fo anxious to difprove the real grounds of it. Although the aflertion quoted fhould be reckoned a fufficient evidence that Victor fupported Pr.ixeas, dill it is refufed that it can be of any ufe to our author. Let it be fuppofed that Viftor was deceived by the mode 01 explication adopted by Praxeas. Yet as the laticr llrenu- oufly afferted the deity of Chrift, will it follow that Vi6lor Vol. n. C c would • Sed poll hos omnes ctiam Praxeas quidam haerefim introduxit, quam iclorinus corroborar t Vol. iii, n, 304. 402 Of Br P:s Anfwers Book VI. would be nowife fhocked at the do£trine of Theodotus, who denied that he was more than man ? It is aftonifhing, that Dr p. fliould prefume fo far on the ftupiditj of his readers, as to imagine that they will give him credit, when he aflerts that Vi^ior would thus have ** patronized in Praxeas the fame doctrine for which he had excommunicated Theodotus." lb it the fame thing to fay that Jefus is God, and that he is mere man ? There was a greater difference between the U- nitarianifm of Praxeas and Dr P.'s, than there is between the latter and that of Mahommed. But TertuUian, even after his apoftacy to the errors of Montanus, does not pretend that the dodlrine of Praxeas was known, when his tellimony againft the Montanifts was fo favourably received by the Bifhop of Rome. Though we (hould fuppofe that the addition to the book, De Prar* fcriptionihus, was written by TertuUian, and that Victor was meant, all that could be deiigned by the reflcdlion concern- ing him, is, that by his kind reception of Praxeas, and con- fidence in him, he had virtually ftrengthened his hands. In this view, the language afcribed to TertuUian contains the fame idea exhibited mere fully in his work againft Praxeas, written after TertuUian had left the Catholic church. There he fajs that Praxeas " prevailed with him who was then Bifhop " of Rome, who had already acknowledged the prophecies of *' Montanus, — to recal his letters of peace already fent forth : " — and tliat Praxeas thus got two pieces of the devil's work *' effecled at Rome; as he expelled prophecy, and introduced "herefy; as he banifKed the Paraclete, and crucified the Fa- " iher*." TertuUian, while a member of the Cattiolic church, would not be fo much offended at Victor. But, knowing the fatal influence of the dodrine of Piaxeas, efpecially in A- frica, even then he might believe that Vidor's attention ta him, in other refpedts, was a virtual fupport to his herefy. He * Adv. Prax. c. i. Chap. III. to OhJeSiio7is. 403 He miill have known, however, that Vi£lor, when he en- couraged Praxeas, was a llranger to his heiefy. But as Praxeas boafted of his imprifonment for the fake of Chrift, it is highly probable that, when after- Avards difFufing his errors, he would avail himfelf of the confidence that Vi£lor had put in him, and even pretend that he was no enemy to his fyllem. Could I believe that Tertullian himfelf was the author of this reflection, I would reckon it very likely that it was all the foundadon which the Artemonites had, for pretending that Victor favoured their dodrine. It is the general opinion, however, that this catalogue was added to the work of Tertullian, after the time of Jerora *. It is, indeed, highly improbable, that Tertullian who wrote a book againft Praxeas, or that any one refiding in Africa, where his herefy had diffufed itieif fo much, fhould fpeak of him as Praxe-as quidam, one Praxeas. But will any im- partial perfon, who believes that this addition was made by an Unitarian writer, after the age of Jerom, ihink " that it " is probably as good an authority as Eufebius ?'* It feems moft natural to fuppofe that this writer, whoever he was, had borrowed the reflection from what Tertullian had faid of the Bifhop of Rome, in the paflTage quoted from his work againft Praxeas f . This feems highly probable f' cm that writer's erring as to the name of the Bifliop, as Teitul- lian had not mentioned it. But can a general refle£tion of this kind, concerning one . who, if he was Billiop of Rome, is mifnamed, counterba- lance the direct teftimony of Caius and Eufebius to Ins or- C c 2 thodoxy ? * Cave Hid. Lit. vol. i p. 59. f Nam idem tunc Epilcopum Romanum agnofcentem jam ..rophetias Montani, coegit et literas pacis revocare jam emiflas. — Ita duo nego- tia diaboli Praxeas Romas procuravit, prophetiam expulit, et hxrelim in- tulit; Paracletum fugavit, at Patrcm crucifixit. Adv. Prax. c. i- 404 Of Br P.'s Anfwers ^ Book VI. tbodoxy ? We ""are alfo certain that Irenaeus held commu- nion witli Vi6lor. This appears from the circumftance of Irenaeus writing to him in the name of the churches of G 'ul, and exhorting him not to break up communion with them and others, becaufe of their diiference as to the time of obferving Eafter *. But would Irenaeus have courted his fellowfhip, had he known him to be an avowed friend to what he accounted herefj ? On the whole, it is evident that nothing certain can be inferred from this teftimony. The difference of the names is a more poxyerful obje6lion than the prejudice attributed to Eufebius. Our author cannot prove that another perfon, of whom all other accounts are now loft, is not here meant. There is nothing in the language of this anonymous writer, which {hews that it refpefts a Bifhop of Rome, or any otfier Bifhop whatfoever. Dr P. next obferves that the excommunication of Theo- dotiis " as an Unitarian, is not confiftent with that general *' prevalence of the Unitarian do61rine in the time of Tertul- *' lian f which w^as alfo that of Vi£lor) which," he fays, " we " have Teen that TertulHan exprefsly alTerts." It is not, indeed, confjlcnt with that general prevalence fuppofed : and there- fore, we are perfuaded, is Dr P fo anxious to difprove the real reafon of this anathema. The reader, we hope, is convinced that the Doi^lor fails in his proof, not from TertuUian only, but from the ether writers introduced. Therefore no con- clufion from it can be admitted. But as if he knew that he was venturing on an infecur? ground, when attacking the credit of Eufebius, he is wil- ling to compound matters. He will give up Eufebius to the orthodox, if they will give him TertuUian. " How- " ever," he fubjoins, *' the account of Eufebius, though im- " probdble, may be admitted without denying that of Ter- " tuUian, * Euc. Hift. lib. 5. c. 24. Chap. III. to OhjeBiom, 40J " tullian, when the circumftances attending them are duly " confidered." What are thefe circumftances ? ** Tertul- *' lian Hved in Africa, where there feems to have been a *' griiater inclination for the Unitarian dodrine than there " was at Rome ; as we may colledil from the remarkable " popularity of Sabeliius in that country, and other circum- " fiances." What thele are, we are left to conje6hire. He can make nothing of the only one mentioned. For Sabel- iius did not make his appearance for more than half a cen- tury after the excommunication of Thcodotus : and our au- thor proves nothing unlefs he can fliew that thofe wha fol- lowed SabelHus denied the deity of Chrift. Belides, as the churches of Rome and Africa were then in a ftate of inti- mate fellowfhip, we muft infer that whatever was done at Rome, was approved by the African church ; unlefs me contrary can be clearly demonftrated. But Dr P. inad v'ertently difcovers a remarkable defed in his fyftem, of the Unitarian being the univerfal dodrme of the church, in the earlieft ages. " There feems to > ave " been a greater inclina. ion for it," he fays, in Africa, •• than " at Rome." How does he account for this ? Was not the church of Rome planted in the apoftolic age ? Was fhe not vifi ed by Apoftles ? Whence then this rcludance to the apoftolic AoEkvine,} Will he give us leave to fuppoi'e that, as Xht. faith of this church was fpohen of throughout the whole world *, fhe had hitherto retained it more ftedfaftly than fome other churches, that never had fo h.p^h a charadcr ? But though the Do6lor ihould be ouiiged to lelinquiih his objtciions to ihe character of Eufebius as a witnefs, he is determined to maKe good another attack. For he imme- diately turns his arms againft Viclor himfelf. " We ihould " likewife coniider," he fays, " the p' culi:irlv \iolent Ci\a- " rader of Vidtor, who was capable of doing wiiac few o- C c 3 " thers * Rom, i, S. 4o6 Of Br P:s Anfwers Book VI. " thers would hnve attempted, being the fame perfon who " excommunicated all the Eaftern churches, becaufe they did " not obfer^c Eafter at the fame time that the Weftern churches " did ; toi vvhich he was much cenfured by many bifhops ** even in the we{^." This is indeed a fufficlent proof of the violence of Vic- tor Irenseus, and the many bifhops who cenfured his con- dud, coniidered it as fuch. Hut the prqper queftion is. Was the excommunication of Theodotus viewed in the fame light ? Do we find the Aliatic bifhops employing Polycra- tes, to tefiify their difapprcbation of this fentence, as they did with relped to the other ? Or did Irenaeusa ddrefs him on this fubjecl, in the name of the bifhops of Gaul, as he un- doubtedly did with refpeft to Eafler? Did other churches admit Theodotus, notwithflanding Vidor's fulmination ; as we know that they difregarded it in the other inflance ? So far is this from being the cafe, that his followers were uni- verfally accounted heretics, and called by his name. The violence of Victor's charader proves more than Dr P. wiihes. For if, as has been pretended, he favoured he- retical Unitarianifm, he would undoubtedly have excommu- nicated all who oppofed it. If, on the other hand he was llridly orthodox, had Unitarian principles prevailed as much as our author imagines, the man who excommunicated thofe churches who differed from him, merely concerning the daj of Eafter, would certainly have pointed his anathema agaiufl all who oppofed his dodrine in a matter of unfpeak- ably greater importance. Would io peculiarly 'Diolc?it a man account it an immaterial difference, that, according to his particular view, whatever it was, either new gods were in- troduced by fome, or that thofe perfons, whom the church had always adored as divine, were blafphemed by others? Dr P. has thought of another plan of weakening the force of this fentence. " Such an excommunication as this," he 2 fays, Chap. III. to OhjeElions, 407 fays, " was by no means the fame thing with cutting a per- ** fon off from comnmnion with any particular chmxh ** with which he had been ufed to communicate. Theodo- " tus was a ftranger at Rome.'' This is one of the many dudile arguments employed by this learned writer, which will turn either way. It is more forcible, when reverfed. Had Theodotus been excommunicated by a church of which he had been long a member, as his principles muil have been well known, and his opportunity of diffiifrng them greater ; it would have been a far more dubious proof of their being generally offenfive. But as he was excommuni- cated at Rome, where he was a ftranger, had moft probably refided for a Ihort time only, and during this had little op- portunity of making profelytes, it is evident that, in this early age, the Catholic church held Unitarian opinions iu the greateft abhorrence. " But it is very poftible," Dr P. fubjolns, " that the body *' of the Chriftian church did not ir.terelt thcmfejves in the " affair \ the bilbop and his clergy only approving of it." This, I fuppofe, is becaufe Theodotus was a ftranger : and it is evidently with a delign to retain the cofnmon people, e- ven at Rome, on the Unitarian lide of the queftion. But ftiould another fay, " As Theodotus was a ftranger, it is " very poflible that he was excommunicated, becaufe his " principles gave great offence to the church in general i" the one pojjihility will be fully as good as the other. In- deed, as there is no evidence that Theodotus formed a par- ty at Rome, and not the leaft iniinuation that the laity u ere offended at the fentence ,- it is a ftrong prefumption that, in this iuftance, they univerfally approved of the conducf of the clergy. Dr P.'s reafon for fuppofing that the ckrgy alone appro- ved, contains a very impoitant conceflion in favour ot the antiquity of Trinitarian principles. " For I readily grant," C c 4 he 4o8 Of Br P:s An/iucrs Book VL he fays, " that though there were fome learned Unitarians *' in all the early ages of Chriftianitj, the majority of the " clergy were not fo." '1 he flrudure of this fentence is fuch, that thefe words, all the early ages extend to the nega» tion in th^ lail claufe, as well as to the preceding affirmation, I fnppofe, however, that the Doctor did not mean to include the apoftolic age. He adds, " Theodotus — was a man of fcicnce, and is faid " by the Unitarians to have been well received by Viclor " at firft •, fo that k is very poffible that the latter might " have been iniligated to what he did, by fome quarrel be- " tween them, of which we have no account." Here none of the proofs are produced by which thefe Unitarians might attempt to verify their affertion. It will by no means a- ffree with the m.ofl ancient accounts of the reafon of Theo- o <3otus going to Rome. Epiphanius teilifies, that having de- nied Chriil in his own country, when in danger of fuffering for him, he was fo ailiamed, that he could fray no longen; there, but fled to Rome ; that being known by fome per- fons there, he fell under the fame difgrace, and that when alked, how a man of fuch knowledge had denied thc*truth„ he devifed this as his apology, that he had not denied God, but man *. Dr P. inf(nuates, \X\2X.jealoufy might be Vic- tor's motive. But he mufl be credulous indeed, who can believe that the Bifhop of Rome was jealous of a poor fu- gitive, who had abjured Chriflianity, and who was alhamed to be known. It feems to be true, ns Dr P. obferves, that ** there is no *' inflance of any perfon having been excommunicated *' for being an Unitarian before Theodotus." For the Jevifri Unitarians were never confidered as belonging to the church. But he adds ; *' Had the univerfal church been •'* Trinitarian fi^om the beginning, would not the firft Unita- " rians, *• Ilaer. 54, fcrt. i. Chap. III. to OhJeBions. 409 «* rians, the firft broacheis of a dodrine fo exceedingly of- ** fenlive to them, as in all a-,es it has ever been, have ex- " pv;iienced then utiiiolt indignation, and have been expelled •* from all Chnflian focicties with horror ? We cheerfully admit our author's conciulion, but on premifes very dilfe- rent from his. But it may be previouily obferved that by this lingls liroke, he cuts that Gordian kno. which he has been at fo great pains to tie. -^Vs he feels himielf much embar- rafled by the known orthodoxy of almoll ail the early writers after the apoltuiic age, a great part of his preceding labour is meant to prove tnat Jultin, and the Fathers who followed him, did ;.ot recKon the Unitarian dodrine herefy. He has evidently felt himfeif as much embarrafl'ed in the proof, as by the tadl which it is meant to oppofe. This appears from the itrange fiiifts he hab been reduced to. But tUougn he has wafted fo much labour in attempt ing to fhew that thefe Fathers were mild, peaceable and moderate men, who had no objedion to the moft intimate fellowihip with thofe who blafphemed him whom they worfliipped as God j the truth, after being fo long kept under, at length breaks out fo for- cibly as to hurry along with it a redoubled declaration of univerfality, with refped to the offence given by the Unita- rian do6trine. " In all ages it has ever been — fo exceeding- " ly offenlive to" Trinitarians as to provoke *' their ULmofl: " indignation," and expofe its friends to the certainty of being *' expelled from all Chriftian focieties with horror." Is this the great refpeB with which it was treated even by the keeneft patrons of the Trinitarian fyftem ? Our author cannot difentangle himfeif by pretending, that the violence of individuals was checked by the circum- ftance of the majority being Unitarians. For he has alfo granted that " though there were fome learned Unitarians ** in fl// the early ages, the majority of the clergy were not *' fo j" and admitted that the clergy of Rome approved of the 41® O/DrP.'sAnfwers ' Book VI. the excommunication of Theodotus. He has likewife af- ferted thai the majority of the common people were Unita- rians, for more than a century after the age of Viftor. Therefore, as the clergy of Rome approved of the excom- munication of Theodotus, though the majority of the com- mon people are fuppoied to have adhered to his principles ; if, as Dr P. grants, the majority of the clergy were Trini- tarian, in former ages j if aifo the oppofite doctrine was, as he afleits, '' in all ages fo exceedingly oiFenfive to" fuch *, the Unitarianifm of the common people would have been no greater obftacle to the Trinitarian clergy in the prece- ding age, than it was in that of Vi(!lor, Their horror, ac- cording to our author's principles, muft have been the fame then as afterwards. Peculiarly violent as Vi6lor was in one caufc, there is another in which he does not feem to have exceeded his brethren in violence. For, in this refpeft, a common fpirit is afcribed to Trinitarians in all ages. Becaufe Theodotus was the firft who was excommunica- ted for being an Unitarian, our author concludes that the u- niverfal church was not Trinitarian from the beginning. But according to his own principles already confidered, the reverfe is the native inference. For the majority of the clergy being Trinitarians before this period, they being ever equally offended at the contrary dodrine, and pafling their cenl'ures without regard to the common people ; it muft unavoidably follow that, had any broached this dodrine, they would have ** experienced their utmoft indignation, ** and been expelled from all Chriflian focieties with " horror." • Iherefore, according to the Dover's own prin- ciples, we muft conclude that Theodotus was the " firft *' broacher" of this dodrme within the pale of the church, or in the words of Eufebius, *' the leader and parent of " this God-denying apoftacy.'* SEC- Chap. in. to Obje&ions, 411 SECTION III. A Review of the Se&ion entitled, Of the part taken hy the Laity in the Excommunication of the Early Uni- tariansy and other conjiderations relating to the Juh- jea. " T T is particularly remarkable," Dr P. obferves, " that -■- we read of none of the laiiy having been excommuni- ** cated on account of their Unitarian principles, which they " were well known to hold. And whenever any of the " bifhops were depofed on this account, it is alfo remark- " able that the common people appear to have been their " friends. None of the laity were excommunicated along " with Noetus, about A. D. 220, with Sabellius, about " A. D. 235, Paulus Samofatenfis, A.D. 269, or Photiniis, "A.D.344*.- From the firft of thefe remarkable clrcumftances, our au- thor would moft probably wifh to infer, either that the Uni- tarian herefy was not reckoned fo bad as feme others, or that the number of its friends was fo great, that the coun- cils durft not venture to extend their cenfures to the laity. There is no ground for the iirfl inference, becaufe, in their fynodical a6ts, they exprefs their horror at that do6lrine in the ftrongeft terms, as if every error and blafphemy were concentrated in it. The fecond mull appear equally ground- lefs, unleis it can be proved that it was the general cuftom of councils, in the condemnation of herefiarchs, to particu- larize thofe of the laity who adhered to them. I have not met with any evidence of this having been the cafe. The overfeers of the flock feem to have thought that it was e- nough, * Vol. iil. p, 3j3. 412 (if Dr P:s Anfwers Book VL nough, at flrft, to fingle out the wolves who fought their deftruftion. They might reckon themfelves bound in cha- rity to fuppofe that the laity were deceived by their falfe teachers ; and that nothing more was required of them^ in the firft inftance, than to teftify their fenfe vof this, by de- priving thefe teachers of their official character, and of com- munion with the church.. It might appear that, if they profecuted all who adhered to an heretical teacher before \vt had been formally ejefted, they, by their feverity, might provoke many to go a much greater length than they other- ivife would have done. Before his condemnation, it mud alfo have been difficult to difcover, who were his proper abettors. How great foever his herefy, the church could not with propriety condemn any for fubmitting to his mi- niftrations, while he was not yet deprived of his fundioa by thofe who alone had the right of judging him. They feem alfo, in their fentences, to have denounced an anathema againft all who adhered to the fentimems of the condemned herefiarch \ though without particularizing names. Thus, they propofed a teft, by which it would foon appear, whether the laity had been deluded by the am- biguous expreffions and falfe reprefentations of their corrupt teachers, or were really attached to their errors, when plainly unfolded. If they adhered to the Catholic church, after the ejection of a heretic, it was to be concluded that they abjured his dodrine. If they preferred his miniltra- tlons, they renounced the doctrine and authority of the church, and were thenceforth treated as heretics. As the ancients would not excommunicate the founder of a herefy, without previous admonitions, they could not, accordin- to this rule, proceed againft his followers, till they had been firft admoniftied by means of his condemnation. Auguftine did not reckon him a hetetic, who adhered to the Photi- nian doctrine, believing it to be that of the CathoHc church, having Chap. III. to OhJeBions, 413 having been baptized in this communion ; unlefs he per- lifted in iiis error, afier it had been manifelted to him tliat the Catholic clmrch held the oppolite doctrine *. As foon as any one fubmitted to the miniilrations of an excommu- nicated heretic, he, in confequence of the general anathema, and of bringing himfelf under the laih of it by leaving the communion of the church, was accounted ipfo faBo excom- municated : and thus there was no abfolute neceffity for pro- nouncing the fentence on him individually. It feems to have been cuftomary with councils, when thej excommunicated falfe teachers, to publifh a confeffion of their faith, extending their anathema . to all who adhered to the herefy. But though we do not obierve that ancient hiftoriahs in general have mentioned tke excommunication of particular laymen, in confequence of their attachment to heretical teach- ers, we may fafely prefume that fuch were often formally excommunicated. For according to one of the Apoftolical Canons, if any clergyman, or layman, went into a fyna- gogue of Jews or heretics, to pray, he was to be depofed or excommunicated f. Now, thefe canons are generally ad- mitted, as giving a juft account of the difcipline of the church in the fecond and third centuries. But why all this demur with refpecl to the excommuni- cation of laics, or the part taken by them in the excommu- 3 nication * Conftituamus duos aliqiios iflo modo, unum eorum verbi gratia, id fentire de Chrifto quod Photinus opinatus eft, et in ejus hserefi baptizari extra Lccleliae Catholica; comniunionem : alium vero hoc idem fentire, T'"' ii^cctov xx&oXittyiq ix-xMc-iui aiToy-n^vfiircci, Euf. Hilt. lib. vii. c. 29. Nicephor. Ilia. lib. vi. c. 28. iKy.7.Ytffioe.c, Epift. ap. Thco dcrit. Piift. lib. i. c. 4. X (^pera, V.^l. i. P. i. p. lU. \ Chap. III. to ObjeSiions, 419- fally allowed that ihe was greatly atteched to their princi- ptes. As the Jews denied the divinity of the Mefliah pro- miled, it-would appear that PaiiUis conformed his faith to theirs. For Nicephoriis fiiys that he, *' wifliing to make " court to Zenobia, as (he adhered to the Jewilli opinions, " and ftretching as far as polTible to gain her favour, fell into *' the herefy of Artemon*. " It would feem that Paulus was fo much in her interejl, as to be appointed one of her ordinary judges at Antioch. Therefore, Eufebius fays that he chofe rather to be called a Ducenarius than a Bi- fhop ]. But there is not the leaft reafon for fuppoiing that Aure- lian was " offended at Paulus for his having been in the in- " tereft of his rival." No one would hazard fuch a fuppo- fition, unlefs he were, either a ftranger to the circumftances of this atfair, or unwilling that others fhould know them. Had the Emperor been under the influence of prejudice a- gainft Paulus, immediately on the application made to him by the biihops of the council of Antioch, he would have call him out j eagerly embracing fuch an opportunity of revenge. But he adted very differently. Though attached to heathenifm, he attended to the principles of equity. Knowing that the epifcopal houfe properly belonged to thole who adhered to the dodrine of the univerfal chmch, and D d 2 fearing * n«yA0? WTO? roc TTf 65 Bi^CCTTHOlV iXUvy) Bi>\6)V T^OntD TO. Iti^UlUV i^u)K%iXiy ui^iffii, Hift. lib. vi. c. 27. lib. vi. c. 30. p. 361. The Ducenarii were inferior judges, in the Ronnan empire, who determined in difpiites ;ibout fmaller fums 4-. It is thought that they were fo called, bc- caufe they had each a falary of /u'o /jaW/W fefttrrces, 4- Suiton, Vii. Augujlij Je6i. 32. 420 OfLr P.'s Anfwers Book VI. fearing, perhaps, that.thofe who had condemned Paulus might themfelves be the heretics; he " commanded the " houfe to be delivered to thofe, whom the Italian bifhops, " adhering to Chriftianitj, and the bifhop af Rome, fliould " approve by. their letters." Thefe are the words of Eufc- bius, in that very fentence to which Dr P. refers *. That writer, inflead of mentioning any thing that might infufe a fufpicion that the Emperor a6led from prejudice, commends the impartiality of his decifion. . Whether fhall we fuppofe that the Do6tor had not examined the chapter he quoted, or that he wiflied to conceal the real Hate of matters ? Ei- ther of thefe fuppolitions mufl reflect diihonour on one who pretends to be the hiftorian of Chrillianity. Dr P. further obferves concerning the aid of Aurelian ; *' This could not have been neceffary," if the majority of " his people had not been with him, and therefore, if his '' depolition had not, in fa6l, been unjuft." The firll fup- poiition is^ indeed, the great point our author has had in his eye. But the reafoning is fomewhat lingular. " Paulus could not be expelled from the epifcopal houfe, " without the aid of Aurelian \ " But Paulus was in the intereft of his rival Zenobia, who " had hitherto been in polTellion of x\ntioch ; " Kr-go^ Paulus had the majority of his people with " him." One, who could not boaft much of reafon or philofophy, would be apt to imagine that the only concluiion, deducible from thefe premifes, was that, while Paulus had kept pof- feffion iiXr,(pn' TyTo<5 v&iiAXi tt^o^xtIuv Toy oiKov^ oig oiv ot kcjtcc Tr.v Ira- lib. vii. c. 30. p. 364. Chap. III. to Ohjefiions. 412 feflion of the hoiife, he had t\\Q female head of the " people " with him." But it is ohfcrved by an antiquated writer on the Socinian controverfj, that " a rational divine has " two peculiar privileges and incommunicable properties ; " one, that he may call whom he will irrational; and the " other, that he may canonize what he will for reafon *.'* But our author ieems fo well pleafed with his inference, that he ventures -to try its ftrength by fufpending another from it. From tlie majority of his people being with I au- lus, as the Doctor has fo well proved, he concludes that " therefore, his depofition was, in fad, unjuft." From what principles of ecclefiallical difcipline can it be proved, that an heretical teacher, becaufe he is fo fuccefsful as to pervert the majority of his flock, acquires a right to conti- nue in his office ? Paulus had been admitted Bifhop of An- tioch, only as adhering to the faith of the Catholic church, of which he was a member : and could his fuppofed fuccefs in detaching his people from that faith jullly Ikreen him from the cenfures of thofe who were his proper judges ? Here, undoubtedly, our author will not plead the fanction of an- tiquity. Juftice is as little on his lide. It muft be granted by every thinking perfon, that thofe, from whom he had immediately received his official truft, had a right to recal it, when it was abufed in direct oppofition to the ends for which it was given, and to flipulations exprefsly made at his ordination. But the very reverfe of Dr P.'s inference, with refpedl to the majority being with Paulus, appears from dire6l evi- dence. He was, indeed, the idol of fome women, not of the faireft characters. Some of his prefbyters and deacons adhered to him ; but not all of them. For Malchion, his profecutor, was one of his prefl)yters. According to the language of the fynodical epiitle, as quoted by both Eufe- D d 3 bi\is * Alfop's Antifozzo, p. 89. 422 OfDrP:sAnfwers Book VI. bins and Nicephorus, " he indulged thefe women, and al- " fo his prelLjters and deacons in crimes paft healing, that " he might have them in his power ; that thus, being a- *' fraid for themfelves, they might not dare to accufe him " of the impieties which he fpake and did : — that he al- " fo enriched them ; and that therefore he was beloved and *' admired by thofe who were deiirous of fuch things," that is, of criminal indulgences and of money *. With refpeft to his people in general, it is faid in the fame epiftle ; " On account of thefe things, all groan and " lament in fecret ; but they are fo afraid of his tyranny " and power, that they dare not accufe him f ." But Dr P. feems determined to prove that all the tran- faftions ac^inft Paulus proceeded from malice. Not only h it fuppofed that Aurelian was actuated by prejudice in expelling him, but *' the profecution," our author fays, " was vehemently urged by his prefbyter Malchion, who " had a quarrel with him. Having been difobliged, he " could not be fatisfied, till he was depofed." There is not a fliadow of authority offered for this charge : and we mufl reckon it unjuft, till it be fupported. Malchion was perhaps the only man among the clergy of Paulus, who had honefly and firmnefs enough openly to appear againft him. Therefore, Dr P. concludes, that he had a quarrel with Paulus. This was, indeed, a fufficient reafon with our au- thor : as he feems difpofed to quarrel with every man who has. not treated his venerable predecefTors with great refpeB, Eufebius gives Malchion a high charadcr •, but does not af- ford * Euf. Hift. ib. p. 2>^%. Niceph. Hid. !. 6. c. 30. fcxvt Ibida Chap. III. to OhjeBions, 423 ford the moft diftant hint of his having had any perfonal pre- judice againft his bilhop. Nor does it appear, that any an- cient writer has given the leaft ground for this accufa- tion. But our modern hiftorian has yet fomething new to offer to the world, and totally unknown to thofe who, in early times, wrote the hiflory of Paulus. " He could not be ex- " pelled," it is faid, " in the firft council, in 264, when *' Firmihan of Cappadocia, and Gregory of Neocaefarea " were prefent." If Dr P. claim any conliftency as a wri- ter, his language muft have the fame meaning here, as when it is afferted a little before, that " he cotild nut be expelled *' — till the aid of Aurelian was called in." Only, the expreflion may here refpeft his bifhopric in general ; while it is there rellrided to " the epifcopal houfe." The natu- ral inference from his language is, that Paulus had been condemned, or at leafl, convifted •, but that owing to fome peculiar circumftance, (the attachment of the people, doubts lefs, and the ftrength of his party) his opponents had it not in their power to expel him. But the truth is, the council did not make any attempt of this kind. For before he could be expelled, there was a Hep neceffary, which was out of their power. They could not convid him. But this was not owing to the attachment of his people, or the flrength of his party in the council. For Eufebius fpcaks of the members, without exception, as labourmg to bring to light his herefy and blafpheiiiy a- gainfl ChrilL What then was their hinderance? It was merely the duplicity of Paulus. The language of the hiftorian will indeed bear that, not Paulus only, but alfo his adherents, attempted fall to conceal his herefy *. But this clearly D d 4 fliews 424 OfDvT.'sAnfwcrs Book VI. fliews how weak they were in the council, and affords a ftrong prefumption that they had not the fupport of^ the people. Had the doftrinc of Paulas been generally believed among the people, there would have been no occalion for attempt- ing to conceal it. Eufebius elfewhere fays, that Firmiliim himfelf was deceived by the language of Paulus *. Nice- phorus aflerts that he purged himfelf by cath of the error imputed to him, folemnly declaring that he held no fuch opinion but adhered to the apoftolical decrees and doc- trines. In confequence of this, before the diffolution of the council, they all joined in a hymn celebrating the oaviour as God +. The fecond council was held at Antioch, not that they might expel or condemn a heretic who had been too power- ful in the firfl:, but that they might convidl one who had then impofed upon them. For they at length ailembled a- ^ain, bccaufe *' it was univerfally reported of Paulus, that *' he had del arttd frcm the truth J." Our author next produces the character of Paulus, as drawn by Dr Lardner ||. But that a Socinian iliould view every thing refpe6ling this heretic in a partial light, and afcribe the charges, exhibited againft him by the ancients, to prejudice, is not furpriiing. What though " we have *' his hiftorj," as Dr Lardner fays, " from adverfaries on- " ly?" If it is unfairly related, it is ail onilhing that not one of the friends of Paulus, or of his doctrine, in ancient times, fliould vindicate his charadcr. Should it be faid that fach memorials, though they had or.ce exifted, would be dellroyed -noHifAei&jv, Euf Hill. hb. 7. C. 28. * Eui. Chioriic. lib. vii. c, 24. ap. Baron. Annal. vol. ii. p. 66j. t Hilt. lib. vi. c. 27. t tikcyh. Hilt. lib. vi. c. s?. ;'. Credibility, Veil. iv. p. 644. Chap. III. to OhjeBioHS, 425 deftrojed by the orthodox ; as little credit could be given to this pretence as Dodors Lardner an.l Pneftley theinfelves allow to that of modern infidels, when they affert that the writings of the philofophers againll Chnftianity w-re de- ftroyedj or fuiFered to periCh by the Chriftians. Had fuch vindications of Paulas been written, we would have had the fame proofs of their exiftence, as of the writings of Cel- fiis and others. They would not have palled without any reply : and fome extracts from them, or references to them, would Hill be found in the writings of the ortho- dox. But we have all the evidence that an unprejudiced in- quirer can demand, that the character of Paulus, as tranf- mitted to us, has been jullly delineated. We have it not from any individual, it appears, in its various traits, in the epillle written by that very council which condemned him. If the members of this council knew that he was " well refpecled by the neighbouring bifhops, in efteem *' with the great, and beloved by the common people," as Dr Lardner afferts, and above all, that he had the favour and protecHon of Zenobia, a powerful princefs, to whom Antioch, the very place of their meeting, y^as then fub- iecl i though they had been all men of the moft villanous difpofitions, from regard to their charai^er and intereft, they would aflert nothing that was not well known to be fad. It mud have occurred to them, that a fingle ailertion, lia- ble to contradiction, would ruin their whole fcheme. But, .indeed, the Aliatic bifliops feem to hav^e'acled, in the cafe of Paulus, with the greateft moderation and tendcrnels. Thence were they deceived by his aitilices, in the former council. Had they not been moderate in the extreme, there was enough in his charader, independent of herefy, to ex- clude him from his office, if not from the pale of the ejiurch. 3 '^hey 425 Of Dr F:s.Anfwers Book VI. They defcribe him as riling from the flate of a beggar to great riches, by villany and facrilege, and by exadions from the brethren, under pretence of relieving them from in- juries ; and as preferring fecular to epifcopal dignities. They give many inftances of his unfupportable pride and arro- gance, which greatly prejudiced the interefts of Chriftiani- ty. While, in his difcourfes, he defamed other interpre- ters of the word, he greatly extolled himfelf He kept wo- men of infamous charaders. He was terrible to his people, by reafon of his tyranny. Many other particulars, fome of which have been formerly mentioned, are to be found in the fynodical epiftle. It is a ftriking proof of the great difficulty Dr Lardner had in making out a tolerable chara6ter for this ancient he- refiarch, that a man of his learning fhould argue fo childifli- ly " from what is faid by the Fathers, of his rejecting fome ** hymns as modern, and compofed by moderns." The Bifhop of Antioch " was a critic," forfooth I This, Dr Lardner obferves very fagely, " is a valuable acquifition at " all times, efpecially when uncommon." Paulus muft have been a Phanix indeed. For we hear of no other in that age, who gave a proof of critical powers any \v\{Qjt??ii- lar. In any other cafe, however, Dr Lardner would never have inferred more from fuch data, than that Paulus ^r^- tended to be a critic. But as he was a friend, the good Dodor was difpofed to take his own word for it. Dat 'ueniam cor'vis, vexat cenfura columhas, Juv. I {hall only add that, from the fame fynodical epiftle which contains an account of the depofition of Paulus, it is evident that it was a faft univerfally known, that not only Artemon, whofe error Paulus adopted, but all his followers, whether Chap. III. to OhjeBions* 4^7 whether clergy or laity, were held as excommunica- ted. For the venerable writers of this epiflle, after obfer- ving to Dionyfius and Maximiis, that they had informed them concerning Domnus, whom they had ordained in the place of the depofed biihop, that they might write to him, and receive letters of communication from him, add; '* But " let this man (Paulus) write to Artemon, and let the fol- " lowers of Artemon communicate with him *." Dr P. aflerts that " none of the laity were excommuni- " cated along with — Photinus f ." Whether any of them were formally excommunicated at the fame time with him, I cannot pretend to fay. But it is certain that all his fol- lowers, after he was himfelf caft out of the church, were confidered as excommunicated perfons, nay, formally ana- thematized. For we have the decrees of feveral councils, refpe£ting the manner of their admiflion to the church, in cafe of their return from this herefy. It was enacted by the council of Laodicea, A. D. 365, that the Photinians ihould not be received, unlefs they fhould abjure their he- refy :|:. The council of Conflantinople, A. D. 385, ana- thematized the Photinians in general, and ordained that thofe returning from them fliould not be received, without anathematizing the doctrine they formerly held, and being rebaptized ||. An ordinance of the fame nature was framed, with refpeft to thefe heretics, in the fecond council of Aries, A. D. 3895. Photinus, indeed, retained pofleilion of his bifhopric, af- ter * To; cfE A.or'^^^.(X, urog BTn^-iXXiToi)* koh o( ret A.oTiyi.x (pgoyy»T6j Thru KOivcwjuruo-icv, Ep. Synod. Antioch. ap. iLuf. Hifl, lib., vii. c. 30. p. 363. f Vol. iii. p. 308. J Howel. Synopf. Concil. vol. i. p. 73. {IJttigli Hift. Photin. p. 460. § Howel. Snyopf. vol. ii. p. no. can. itf. 428 Of Br ?:$ Anjwers Book VI. ter being condemned by different councils. But there is great obfcurity in the writings of the ancients, and great diffenfion among the moderns, with refped to the dates and decificns of the different councils, which took cognifance of this herefj. Dr P. fays of Photinus, that ** his folemn " depolition by two councils could not remove him from *' his fee *." Others think, with greater probability, that in the firft council of Sirmium, his opinions only were condemned ; and that it was not till the fecond, that he was depofedf. Cave fixes the firft council of Sirmium to the year 350, and gives the fecond to the follow- ing year %. But though it be uncertain how long it was from the firft condemnation of Photinus to his expulfion, it would feem that his continuance at Sirmium was owing to the attachment of his people. On this fa61: our author makes the following reflexion •, " Had the body of Chri- " ftians in thofe times been generally Trinitarians, the com- *' mon people would, no doubt, have been ready enough to " take an aftive part againft their heretical biftiops.'* He plainly means to infer from the attachment of the people of Sirmium to Photinus, that the majority of Chriftians in general were Unitarians. There is, indeed, fome appear- ance that this was the cafe in the diocefe of Sirmium. But even this certainly cannot be inferred. Thofe of the fame perfoafion with Phrtinus have generally, in every age, dif- covered fo much of the wifdom of the ferpent, that it has been no eafy matter to develope their real principles. We have fcen that even Firmilian, Gregory, and many other great and learned men, were cozened by the duplicity of Paulus. In our own tinges, even in Britain, many congre- gations ni'ay be found, confifting of Trinitarians, while the paftors * Vol. iii. p. 51 r. f Ittig. Klft. Fhotln. feci. 43. ? HiA:. Literar. vol. i. p. 159. Chap. III. to OhjeBionu 429 paftors are Photlnians. In other refpeas, the latter ufe fo many arts to retain the good opinion of the former, that though their real, principles are well known to thofe who can diftingiiifli doctrines, any attempt to perfiiade tlieir peo- ple, that they think differently from themfelves is vain. The fame might happen at Sirminm. Photinus was a man of abilities. He is faid to have had great powers of perfuaiion. He might eafily make xhcjimp/e believe, that malice was the fole motive of the profecution. But let us fuppofe that the majority under his charge be- lieved his do6lrines. Shall we therefore admit Dr P.'s inference ? Becaufe this might be the ftate of matters in Sirmium, a city of Pannonia, muft we infer that it was the fame throughout the Chriflian^ church ? Our author un- doubtedly knows, though he does not wiih to apply the common rule, A particulari ad unherfahm non malet confe- queiitia *. Even the hiflory of Photinus affords a proof dire£tly the reverfe of what Dr P. wiihes to eftabliih. Ancient writers acknowledge that this heretic drew many into his dodlrinef . But even this candid confeflion of his fuccefs implies that his profelytes formerly adhered to another faith. It is uniformly declared that he was admitted as a Catholic, and that he gradually difcovered his errors %, But though he deceived many by his eloquence, others, however much attached to him, when they perceived his errors, deferted his miniftrations. Vincentius Lirineniis fays, that " though " they admired the eloquence of their paftor, they were *• notwithftanding watchful over the Catholic faith ; and *' though they had formerly followed him as the he-goat « of * Particular premifes do not warrant an uni/erfal conclufion. f S>.'Zomen. lib, iv. .c. 6. p, 735. Nicephor. Hill. vol. i. p. 149. I Epiphan. Hjcr. 71. 430 Of Dr PJs Anfiveri Book VL <* of the flock, they afterwards began to fly. from him as a "wolf*." That the do<; T^'^araVf 6Jg Kxircov ^oy^ccruv eicrviyv>Tov, Kcci rov viov t» Qm Xsycura, gx M»- ^jjc Tivai TTggt T8Tjf ^vvrx^ocvTcCy avH'K6QV7i<; it Kft)yr«6i'TH'a7reAn xc»6j." XoVf Hai T505 iy.KXvsThxg e^iQ(t,Xov» Hift. lib. 2. C. 33. p. gi, \ Hift. lib. 4. c. 5. p. 135. Chap. III. to OhjeBmiu 435 " as it were by chance *." But Dr P. feems refolved to in- fer a great deal more from the words of thele hiilo- rians than themfelves meant. For he obferves, concerning them in general, '* that no Unitarian is mentioned,, but he is *' faid to have been the/r/? to have taught the Unitarian " doarine f ." Yet all this reafoning, from the ufe of the term -ne\v, is employed by Dr P. after making the following con- ceifion ; *' But it is poiTible, as I have obierv.d be ore, that *' by 7ioveity, thefe writers might fo . etimes mean nothinp- " more than herefy |." Here it is only poJJihL' that this might be their meaning. But the Doclor was in n:. doubt about it, before he feems to have obferved, that this ufe o^' the term might be converted into a proof of the incort- fiftcncy of thefe hiftorians. For* having faid that Tertul- lian and others appealed to the churches planted by the A- poftles, and defined that to be the true faith, Vv^h'ch was :he moft ancient, he adds ; '* In this manner, however, herefy *' and fiovelty came to be conlidered as fynonymous. T>.us " the term x«j^oTo/:* will natural- " ly be inclined to put a different confl:ru6tion on this paf- ** fage." Before it can appear, that Eufebius knew that Ju- flin had treated the Unitarians " with much refpeft," it muff be proved that he faw with Dr P.'s eyes. Has our author found any Trinitarian, ancient or modern, who can perceive this great refped in Juflin's ti-eatment of them ? Why is Eufebius the only orthodox writer, to whom the liberty of feeing ^differently from Dr P. muff be refufecl ? It is evidently fuppofed, in this affertion, that the ancient hillorian knew the juftnefs of the Unitarian claims. Yet, in the page immediately preceding, fpeaking of Eufebius and other writers, as teftifying that '* the primitive church " was orthodox in their fenfe of the word," Dr P. fays ; ** They were, no doubt, willing to have it thought fo, and, " without conlidering it very particularly, might prefume *' that it was fo" Pray, whether is it the ancient, or the modern hiftoriari, who is chargeable with felf-contradic- tioji ? But this is certainly meant only as the preamble ; though it appears rather out of place. It is immediately added \ — " And to fay notliing of his own teftimony to the Apoille " John having been the firft who taught with clearnefs, and *' with effect, the dodrine of the divinity of Chrift-, he *' himfelf fpeaks of the Ebionites as cotemporary with ^' Cerinthus, who by his own account lived in the time of " the Apoflle John.'' That Eufebius has faid nothing of this kind concerning John, has been already proved f . Dr P. Ee3 fliews, • Vol. iii. p. 284. f Sec above, p. 338, 438 Of Br P:s Anfwers Book VI, fliews, indeed, how much he is at a lofs to prove his charge agaiufl Eufebiu:. It is true that the latter fpeaks of the Kbionites as cotempor-dry with Cerinthus, and quotes Ire- naius as relating the ftory of John n\ceting Cerinthus at the bath. But has Eufebius alfo faid that the dodrine of tht Ebioiites was that of the Apoflles ? Then, indeed, he would have* been liable to the charge of feif contradiftion. Do-s he iiot alTerc that they were " under the power of a ** malignant demon ?" But our aut'ior makes no fcruple of inferring the divine origin of tiic doctrine li om the andquity of the pcrfons ; nor of ch.ir ,ing lAUebius with felf-contradidion for grant- ing the one, though it does not appear, that the poor man was fo Iharp-lighted as to perceive its neceilary connexion' with tae other. With equal cafe it might be proved that the moft ancient herefy, which confifted in denying the threatening of death, was the true revelation. For it was pra6lifed in paradife, the author of it was cotemporary with the firft believers, and his doftrine was preferred by them to the other. Nay, in every age, it has had the allent of the majority. It might eafiJy be proved that modern E- bionites, by denying original fin and eternity of luiTering, ftill reject the threatening in its proper fenfe, and view thi:? mofl ancient herefy as the dodrine of God. As if our author had been apprehenlive that his unnatu- ral inferences from the writings of Eufebius, in proof of the antiquity of the Unitarian doftrine, could be of no a- vail i he feciiis refolved to invalidate, as far as poiTible, his evidence on the other fide. He pretends to account for the 'ui'^'lcnt part which that writer always takes again (1 Unita- rians, frojn his being *' himfelf ftrongly fulpefted.of Arian- *' ifin '' wlien the Athanafian do61rine was prevalent j and ftippoles that he " wotild wiili to .make the molt of fucli " pretenfions €^ap. IIT. . to Ohje&iom, 439 " pretcnfions to orthodoxy as he had, and incline to fliew his ** zeal by inve»ftives againll thofe who were more here- " tical than himfelf *." But ftill this is reafoning from mere fuppolidon ; and the fuppofition made is deftitute of a proper foundation. Eufebius has been thus calumniated by Le Clerc and other modern writers of the Socinian par- ty. Some of the ancients alfo fufpe<3:ed him of Arianifm ; though, it would feem, without fufficient reafon But till it be proved that he lay under this fufpicion by the generality of tjie orthodox in his own time, and knew tliat he was thus fufpeCled, we muft refufe the very foundation of Dr P.'s hypothetical reafoning. He clofes this chapter by endeavouring to anfwer an ob« je6lion which mud have occurred to every unprejudiced reader, in peruiing the preceding part of his work : " It " may be faid, if the majority of Chriilians in early times ** were Unitarians, why did they not excommimicate the *' innovating Trinitarians ?'* To this the Doctor replies ; *' The dodlrine of the Trinity was not in its origin, fuch as ** could give much alarm, as I have already explained." The explanation referred to is, I fuppofe, the account given from Juftin, and others, of the Son as the Logos of the Fa- ther. Our author thinks that Jullin " v/as the firft, or " one of the firft, who advanced the dodlrine of the perma- " nent perfonallty of the Logos f ." Therefore, he feems to date the origin of the do6lrine of the Trinity from his time. Now, Dr P.'s aflertion mufl mean that this dodrine as taught by him, could not " give much alarm." But though we do not find the very term t^/^? (as cor- refponding with Tri?iity) in any of the works afcribed to Juftin, which are generally allowed to be genuine, we have the doftrine clearly enough expreiled. It has been feen that, m various parts of his works, Juftin cxprefsly declares E e 4 that * P. 316. t Vol. ii. p. 53- 440 Of Br ?:$ Anfwers Book VL that he and his fellow Chriftians worfhipped three Perfons ; and this may be yet more fully proved. He declares this to heathens *. He evidently maintains a diftinflion of perfons. He fpeaks of the pei fon of the Holy Spirit as di- flind from that of the Father \ \ and declares that the Soa is numerically diftind from him who made the world J. He acknowledges that the worfhip given to Jefus was ob- jefted to Chriftians by their adverfaries, as a proof that they were fo mad as to prefer a crucified man to the unchange- able and eternal God ihe Father of all §. He, with equal plainnefs, proclaims the fame do£lrine to Jews. Now, as according to Dr P., the primitive Chri- ftians had precifely the fame ideas of the divine unity with the Jews, what objeftions foever were made to the do£lrine of the Trinity, in its origin, by the latter, muft alfo have been made by the former ; and therefore, whatever alarm it gave to the one, the fame it muft have given to the o- ther. But how does Trypho the Jew receive the doctrine of Juflin concerning the Logos ? It appears to him to be the introdudtion of a new God. " Anfwer me," he fays, ^^ how you can prove that there is another God, beiide the " Maker of all," i^c ||. He compares the doftrine of Chrift's divinity to the folly of the Greeks, in aflerting that Perfeus derived his origin from Jupiter by the vkgin Da- Iiae ** . Now, if this doftrine, in its pretended origin, gave fo great alarm to Jews ; according to Dr P.'s fyftem, the pri- mitive Chriftians muft have been alarmed in the fame man- ner * Apol. ii. p. 5(J, 60. ^ ATTGX^iviTai avroig to vrvivux to «yio>, ij aTro Trpoa-UTtH th n«Tg65, tca^ UTTO T»»^»i?. Dial. p. 255. t Ibid. p. 176. S Apol. p. 60, [I Dial. p. 269. ** Ibid. p. 167, Chap. III. to OhjeSlions, 441 ner and degree. Though it were true, in his fenfe, that Juftin and the other Ante-Nicene Fathers held the Son and Spirit to be inferior to the firft perfon ; it would not in the lead invalidate our argument. For flill they afcribed to them the honours of deity, and gave them religious wor- fliip. Inftead of giving lefs alarm in what is called its origin, it may eaiily be proved that this dodlrine mufl have given more, than in any fubfequent period. For univerfal expe- rience teftifies that any do6lrine, which at firll view ftnkes at the root of long-eftabliihed opinions, (as this, according to Dr P.'s hypothefis, muft undoubtedly have done) excites moft horror when firft broached. As Poly carp, and mofl: probably, many others, who had heard the truth from fome of the apoftles themfelves, were alive, when Juftin began to write ; their alarm muft have been in proportion to the force of the impreffion made by fuch indubitable evidence. The facred Scripture is, indeed, the more Jure word of pro- phecy. But thofe who immediately heard the apo.tles, could appeal, as to the doftrines they held, to one kind of evidence unknown in fucceeding ages. They had heard %vith their ears. Dr P. adds, that this dod^rine " was not obtruded on ** the common people, as an article of faith necefTary to ** their falvatlon, or mdeed as a thing which they Vvcre at " all concerned to know *." That the contrary is the truth, appears from the very writings of juibn Martyr. For he evidently makes the divinity of Chrilt a fundamental article in the whole of his Dialogue. Trypho, indeed, is fuppofed to have been a Rabbi. But Ihall we thence con- clude that thofe, who are faid to have introduced this doc* trine, thought that one faith w^s rctpucd of tlie learned, and an<5!her of the unlearned ? What * Vol. iii. p. 317. ^^ Of Dr P:s Anfwsrs Book VI, What Dr P. further obferves is equally infufficient to folve die difficulty :— ** And before it became very formi- « dable, there was a great majority of the learned and phi- " lofophizing Chrillians on its fide." But it has been feen, that it was fully as obnoxious and alarming at iirft, as it could ever be ; becaufe even Jmlin urged the worihip of Jefus, and the adverfaries of Chiiftians, both Jews and keathens, charged tliem with the worfnip of a man. ^ If ^ofe who were without the church were fo well acquaint- ed with this doftrine ; if Jews were fo much alarnnd at it as to make it the great objection to Chriflianity, (as Try- pho undoubtedly d'oes) can it be fuppofed, with the leaft tiadow of reafon, that the whole body of Chriitians, fted- fallly adhering to the apoftolic dodrine of the fimple huma- mtf, ll)ould take no alarm whatfoever ? Were they not alarmed, when many of theii' teachers preached the deity of Chrift, as the only fcriptural doarine. Not at all, our au- thor virtually replies. They gave themfelves no ^trouble, till it had " the majority of the learned on its fide." Then, indeed, like wife men, they raifed a great outcry. They were not afraid of the difeafe, though its fymptoms were Hill mortal, till it was evidently paft remedy. But when this was the cafe, they tried various methods for efFedrng a cure. Some left the church. Others kept their own truly orchodox biihops, though condemned by all their brethren. But as for their predeceffors, though mighty good men, they were fo very peaceable, and fo different from thofe who followed them in the fame faith, that they patiently fubmitted to their teachers, while they, to their conviaion, held forth a pluraUty of gods. They were even willing to join with them in the worfhip of a mere man, if they were themfelves fuffered to contiime in the church. When one man, Theodotus by name, was fo ho. neil ^^^P- "^- to OhjeBions, neft as to conum earnejlfyfor the faith one. delivered to the fmnts, he. ns far as can be learned, ftood alone. Though he was fo uajuftl^ treated as to be excommunicated, ^^ for holding what the great majority knew to be the apo J hcadotone we have no evidence that he had any adhe- rents. For Dr P. obferves, that " we have no certL aC count of any feparatefocieties of Unitarians, tUl the ex- communication of Paulus," fifty years after. CHAPTER IV. Blrea Evidence that the ]»-imitive Chrijiians ^^en Trini. taruim; with fome other Confiderations. J^^RLiKDSEr attempted to prove that all the Father, of the three firft centuries were Unitarians. The ex travagance of this claim has been fo clearly demonftrated" efpecially by Mr Burgh, that our learned author, the fS low-labourer of the gentleman formerly mentioned in the glorious work of derogating from the Saviour, has found it f 7 t ' " '" ''^"='"''^- ^^ "°*-g can be made ofthe Fathers he wiU be content with the'childre . He has granted that the learned, f,om the time of Juftin al leaft, were almoft all believers i„ the divinity of Jefu His attempts to fl.ew that the majority of the coimon peo! ^ e were Uniun.is, I have fully coniidered ; and lliall n "v A variety of palTages might be quoted from the Apollo: ^Fat^rs, direaiy proving that the primitive fwh was Trinitanan. But our author holds himfelf i„ readinefc . to objea to any evidence from them, unlefs it be in his own favoiu'. 'r[},e primitive Chriftians Book VI. favour. However, I ftiall beg leave to infert a proof or two from the Epiftle of the Church of Smyrna, concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp; as its authenticity is attefted by Eulebius. From this Epiftle we learn that Polycarp, when he was at the ftake, addreffed a prayer to God, which he concluded with this doxology ; " For all things, I praife « thee, I blels thee, I glorify thee, together with the eter- « nal and heavenly Jefus Chrift, with whom, unto thee » and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and for ever. " world without end. Amen »." As Bingham obferves +, although this be read, as it is recorded by Eufebius, it makes no alteration in the fenfe. For the prayer ftiU concludes with a doxology to the three divine Perlons -,— " By whom, " to thee, together with him and the Holy Spirit, be glory " both now and for ever. Amen %:' In the fame Epiftle, the Church of Smyrna informs the other churches to which (he wrote, that the Jews fuggefted to the Roman Proconful, and infifted on it, that he Ihould not deliver up the body of Polycarp to be buried, left the Chriftians, " leaving him who was crucified, ftiould wor- « fliip the other.-' Not knowing,' fay they, " that we « can never either forfake Chrift, who fuffered for the fal- " vation of the whole world of them that are faved, the juft " fortheunjuft, or worfhip any other. For we worfli.p » him, as bemg the Son of God. But we love the mar- « tyrs, according to their defert, on account of their infu- •' " perable Smyrnenfi. ap. Cotekr. Patr. Apoft.l. Vol. 2. p. 199- t Antiquities of the Chiiftian Church, Bosk jiii. c. ». Chap. IV. ivere Trinitarians, 445 " perable regard to their own King and Maftef *.'* Here they diftinguifh, in the cleareft manner, between that worfhip which they gave to Chriil, and that afFeftion which they had for his mofl eminent difciples. Hence alfo it appears that, even in this early age, it was well known to the enemies of the Chriftians, that they woriliipped their Lord. It has formerly been proved from Juftin, that faith ia the Trinity was required of the mod rude and illiterate, in order to their admiflion to baptifm f. In one of his Apo- logies, he fays ; '* We adore and love the Word pf the un- begotten and invifible God |." In the other, he replies to the charge of Atheifm in the following manner 5 " Him (the Father of righteoufnefs) and that Son who hath pro- ** ceeded from him, and taught thefe things to us and alfo " to that armv of others v/ho are his fervants and conform- ** ed to him, vi'z,. the good angels, and the prophetical *' Spirit, we worlhip and adore, honouring them in word " and in truth, and candidly deUvering thefe things to e- " very one who is willing to be inftruded, as we ourfelves ** have been taught §.** If all who were acknowledged to be xoti Tocvrx ftwev, v7roQxh>^ovTUv y.«* anT^vcvrav Iaoa«wv, o» koci ettj- "jfefv a-u^of^tvur o-arYi^ixg 7r«vovT«, a/AW/AOf utte^ uixx^TtttXeiiVf ovTi STt^»v ro^e 'j-'iQia-Sxi, tsjtisv fAiv yti^, vtcv «vv* ts Oia, «r^ocrxyv «/*«>* tj^j $i fAX^Tv^x^f Ui f^x^vfrag r.xi f4.iu.rnxq Tit Kvoiy^ fi-yxTTUtAiv x^iMg^ svixfls ivvoixg avvTri^Q'A-nrii r7}<; tig rov <^ny Qxaihix Jt«» «i^x7KX- Mv, Epift. Eccl. Smyrn. Cotelcr. Patr. Vol. i. p. 20c. f See above, p. 307. X Tov yx^ XTTO ayttviiTH t^ u^^nxa Qm hoycv f^irtc ray Bitv v^ot- xvtbfjkiv nCj xyxTTUfjiiii, P. ^I. 44^ ^^ Primitive Chrijiians Book VI. l>e Chriftians did not worftiip the Son and Spirit as well as the Father, there was an impious fallacy in the anfwer to the accufations of their enemies, totally unworthy of the character of Juftin, nay, of any fincere Chriftian. Befides, this holy Martyr declares that the worfhip of the Father, Son and Spirit, was inculcated by him and his brethren on every one inclining to learn, that is, on all who wifhed to qualify themfelves for admiffion to the privileges of Chri- ftianity. And they inculcated this, not as an innovation of their own, but as what they had themfelves been taught. Afterwards, in anfwer to the fame charge, when Juftin has obferved that they rationally " (^la hoyn) celebrate the " Maker of all things," he adds, " And having, in the fe- " cond place, him who hath become our inftrudor in thefe " things, and for this end been born Jefus Chrift, and been " crucified under Pontius Pilate, being taught that he is tru- " ly the Son of God himfelf, — and the prophetical Spirit " in the third order, we fhall ihew that we honour them " rationally. For herein they charge us with madnefs, af- " ferting that we give the fecond place, after the un change- " able and eternal God, to a crucified man ; being igno- " rant of the myftery which is in this, which, while we " explain to you, we beg your attention *." Juftin here feems to fpeak of the order of fubfiftence, as generally regulating the order of addrefs, and not of differ- ent kinds or degrees of worlhip. But this is of no confe- quence to the argument j as Dr P. denies that the gene- rality Vtiji.ct,<; nravroij /.oil T«> ro-v ecXAiWy iTTOf^tvsitv »«i ;|o«o;H/:A£y&'v etyocScJV uyyiXov jov o-iQojx-JUf x.xi TT^ogy-vva- ^zv, Xr^yu KofA xXvihicc T v^t.iTl^ai x.ar.\ct9 (x.7rtxovi\/tf 0 0£O5 u(p^ v^/Luit TO ^y>«ff-^«i viiit T^.v rofPictY rr.' it 75.o'yoi a^xKivxt Toy Qeov iv a^^Vf i^H A^oty. ysyoi/gv ac, aq f| Vii/.uy, to ^«, &>? £<; i% T,uoiv^ nxi uvra oc^i^fxa ht'Xcjriy.ov i5, Kat fitx. evvuyoiyrty xa< (aio, £xxA7j . n//.iii St, r» ©fa tu y.eii ^vtov Twrov rroitjo-avTO XctrpivTcti ovtk* w J"»^f9ct rvif o^o^oyttii «vt¥, wXi t>)J a-fa- ry.v\r}j5-»v ty^ovrvvf fed za-fiiv B-^fitrxivTui folius Dei qui eft ante omnia, et in omnibus, ut eji ivi TB X^JCTK uvTHy avTcoi ©sjf Aayu tt^o run uiuvuv. Chron. A* lexandr. Olymp. ccxxxvi. p. 259. Ed. R. ap. Spanheim* Hift. Chrift. p. 610. %t9lf ' Chap. IV. laere Trinitarians. 453 Athenagoras, who flourlllied A. 177. refutes the charge «f the heathen, in the fame manner as Juftm Martyr. " Who '* is not filled with admiration," he fays, ** that we who " declare God the Father, and God the Son, and the Ho- ** ly Spirit, fhewing both the power of their unity, and " the diftindion of their order, Ihould be called perverfe " atheirts * ?" " We are not atheifts, who reckon as God ** the Maker of the univerfe, and his Word who proceedeth •* from him f." We have formerly confidered the various atteftations gi- ren by Irenaeus, as to the faith of the univerfal church in his time ; from which it clearly appears that Jefus was ac- knowledged as the obje<9: of worlhip. There is no occafion to prove that Clemens Alexandrinus was a Trinitarian. This is undeniable. But it is evident that he had no idea of the majority of Chriftians in the Ca- tholic church being Unitarians, or of perfons, known to be of this principle, being fuifered in her communion. .He floiu-ifhed towards the latter part of the fecond century ; iHid he, in the ilrongeft terms, declares the wiiiy of the church, in his time. " From thefe things," he fays, " it ** is" evident, in my opinion, that the true church is one, ^' that which is truly primitive, to which thofe belong who " are jult according to pre-ordination. For as there is one ** God, and one Lord, therefore alfo that which is honour- F f 3 " able Ssov £v av^^uTH (Jf-o^^n yeyovevat xara^ygA^ovTcj. Tatian. cont. Graecos, p. 159. * T/j wv «)c «» arofitKrai, Xtyovras ^t«v rrxTtpu xo< viot 3-iov xa< xvtv fia. ayiov, SnnvvvTas avruv xai rnv (v t» (vu'tru ivvufjuv, xai thv (v m •X«|u J'jaifSff-jy, axuo-ay aOuj xaAvy^ivuwf ; Atheuator. Legatio, p. il. •j" Ot'x ia-fx.lv aSjo», $£ov ccycvTt 'TO. TFOcvrat* ^j* cv ret ttocvjo, iv' o< o* to uh, a fiiXn irxvTe<;' a ^o^cty xtuvic,' ■^xvTu Tw xyada)f ttxptx ru xxXciff Ttxvrx tw iov li^?w)f . ^wi «»o»ov, Ibid. p. J95, 196. iMHi TFtiyVIt Chap. IV. were 7nniiana;is, 45^ " fhipped by all the nations above enumerated ; he reigns ** every where, he is adored every where ; he is alike " to all, a king to all, a judge to all, and to all a God and " Lord *r Again, after fpeaking of the fufferings of Chrifl, and of the deftrudion of Jerufalem, he fays ; ** Behold all nations " henceforward emerging from the gulf of human error, to ** the Lord God the Creator, and to God his Chrifl: f." And afterwards ; *' For this day thefe nations invoke " Chrifl who did not know him J." Would Tertullian have ventured to aflert fuch things, whatever fliould be thought of his probity, and to make fuch appeals to the Jews, the moft bitter enemies of Chrifti- nity, and well acquainted with its doftrines ; had they not been well-founded ? Had thefe nations, or the majority of Chriftians among them, believed Jefus to be a mere man ; would the Jews have been at any lofs for an anfwer ? If Tertullian proceeded on falfe grounds, it not only deftrovs his credibility as a writer, but is totally inconiifl;ent with the acknowledged ftrength of his underfl;anding. The fame wrirer, in his Apology addrefl'ed to the Ro- man Emperor, fpeaking of the prejudices of the heathen againfl; Chriftianity, fays •, " But the vulgar alfo are now " taught to confider Chrifl: as fome man whom the Jews " condemned, that they may more eafily conlider us as *' worfliippers j * Chrifti autem regnum et nomen ubiqwe porrigitur, ubique creditur, | ab omnibus gentibus fupr^ enumeratis colitur, ubique regnat, ubique a- doratur : omnibus equalis, omnibus rex, omnibus judex, omnibus Deus ct Dominus. Adveif. Judaeos, c. 7. p. 139. f Afpice univerfas nationes, de voragine erroris humani exinde emer- gentes ad Dominum Deum Creatorem, et ad Deum Chriftum ejus. Ibid. e. la. p 145. i Chriftum enim invocant nafiones, qui eum non fciebant. Ibid, zi *». p. 148. 45^ T^he Primitive Chrijlians Book VI. ** worihippers of a man. But we are neither afhamed of " Chrift, as it is our delight to' be debafed and condemned " for his fake ; nor do we entertain anj other apprehenlions *' of God. It is therefore neceflary to fay a few things ** concern 'ng Chrift, as the whole refpects God *." Hence, it is evident that the Chriftians were traduced to thofe in power as worihippers of a man ; and that this ca- lumny was fo generally fpread, as to gain credit even among the vulgar heathen. If the worfhip of Jefus had not been general among Chriftians, TertuUian, whatever might be the ideas or practice of a few, would have denied the charge as affefting the body He was bound in juftice to declare, that the bulk of Chriftians believed him to be a mere man, and that, for this good reafon, they did not worfhip him. But when he fays, *' we do not blufli for Chrift," he plainly means that they were not afliamed of worftiipping him. He only denies the charge as founded upon the idea of Chrift being a mere man. For he Immediately proceeds to vindicate this worfliip by Ihewing that he is God. Minucius Felix, who flourifhed A. 220. takes notice of tlie fame calumny. " Ye are greatly miftaken," he fays, *' in afcribing to our religion the worftiip of a guilty man " who was crucified ; and in thinking, either that a guilty *' man ft^ould, or that a mere man could, be acknowledged " by us as God. He is miferable indeed whofe hope is *' wholly in a mortal man ! For his help perifhes, with the *' deftruftion of tlie mortal nature f .*' The * Sci et vulcus jam fcit Chriftum, ut aliquem hominem qualem Ju- dsci judicaverunt, (juo facilius quis oos hominis ciiltores exiiiimaverit. Vejurn r.cque oe Chrifto eiubeiciinus, quup lub ncmitie ejus depidari et damnari juvat, neque de Deo aliter piaefuniiir.us. Necefie eft igitur pau- cade Chrifto, ut de Deo totum, Apolog. c. ai. p. 50. f Nam quod religioni noilva; fccir.inem noxium, ctcruccm ejus afcribi- tis, 'Chap. IV. were Tri;ntaria?ts, 455 The faith and worfhip of Chriftians in general, in the days of Origeh,may be certainly learned from his workagainflCcl- fus. We have already given feveral extra6ls from this work, on the fame head * ; and therefore, fliall add a few only. Celfus ha^^s•^^)C■ %-ecc-n trl'Ki^iviTa.i ©so? jt««y yy,v6:7c(g ixvm «Tt Epill. Epilbop, Synod. Antioch. ap. Labbjti Concll. vol. i. p. 481. Vid. Burgh's Inquiry, p. 369. ij64 T/&^ Primitive Chrijiians Book Vt. depofitlon, in confequence of the flrengtli of his party) we have the clearefl evidence of the concurrence of the multi- tude in the fentence of their fpiritual rulers. For from the introdu6tion to the Synodical epiftle we not only learn that all the bilhops, prefbyters and deacons, alTembled at An- tioch, (including thofe of the neighbouring cities and villa- ges') concurred in the condemnation of Paulus ; but the churches of God are joined with them, as undoubtedly ligni- fying that all the churches, of which thefe clergy were the overfeers, firmly believed the deity of the Son, and believed him to be perfonally diftinft from the Father *. Arnobius Afer, who flouriihed A. D. 303, like Other writers before him, replies to the hereditary calumny a- gainfl; Chriftians. Thus he ftates the obje£tion of heathens. •* But the gods are not offended at you, becaufe you wor- " Ihip the Omnipotent God ; but becaufe you urge that he " was born a man, and which mull be infamous to the vileft,- " that he was crucified, and that he was God, and believe ** that he ftill furvives, and adore him with daily fupplica- *' tions." He grants the truth of the charge ; but fhews, that he who is adored is God in tlie fullefl; fenfe of the word f . Dr I * Ka; o» XoiTrai TrxvTi; o» a-vv\ yifAiv Tu^oiK^VTig rag ly^vg 'KcXaq tu l6\in iTTia-KOTTOt, KXt TT^iaQvTl^Olf Kj OiaX-OlOi* x) «» £X.>:^)3criflC» T« G£«, ayocTTYiToig a^tX. Euf. Hiil. lib. vH. c. 30. p. 360. f Sed non (inqait) idcircodii vobis infefti funt, quod omnipotentemcola- tis Deum ; fed quod hominem natum, et(quod perfonis infameeft vilibus^ ciucis fupplicio interemptum, et Deum fuilTe contenditis, et fupcreiTe ad* hue creditis, et quotidianis fupplicationibus adoratis. Ergone, inquiet aliqiiis fuian% iratus et pcrcitus, Ueus ille eft Chriftus ? Deus, relpon- dinius, et interiorum potentiarum Deus. — Deus ille fublirais fuit, Deiis radice ab intima, Deus ab incognitis regnis, et ab omnium principe D«uS' SOSPITATOR elt miffus. Arnob. cent, Gjntej, Ub. i. Chap. IV. ivere ^rmitaridns* 465 Dr P. lays great ftrefs on fome loofe exprefTioiis concern- .ing the 01 ttop^Xoi, the multitude. In later ages. But Eufebius informs us that Pilate, who condemned our Lord, after- wards wrote to Tiberius an account of his miracles, and de- clared his refurre£tion from the dead, and that he " was al- *' ready believed by roic ttoaaok, the multitude to be God*." Eufebius appeals to Tertullian, who fays that " Tiberius ^^ had received accounts from Paleftine of the things which " manifefted the truth of his (Chrifl's) divinity." Perhaps, our author may, with Mr Gibbon, ridicule the whole account of the ads of Pilate. Without entering in- to the controverfy, I ftiall only obferve, that it is inconcei- vable that fuch writers as Juftin Martyr and Tertullian jQiould appeal to thefe acls, when addrefling the Roman Em- perors, if they had never exifted ; and equally fo, fuppo- fmg them to have exilted, had they not certainly known their contents f . Various heathen writers, beiides thofe mentioned, have left their teilimony to the nature of the Chriftian faith and ti'orfliip in early times, ^lius Lampridius relates, that the Emperor Alexander Severus deligned to dedicate a temple to Chrift and to receive him among the Gods ; and that A- drlan is faid to have intended this, when he ordered temples, without images, to be erefted in every city ; but that he was prohibited by thofe who confulted the oracles, becaufe they found that if this was done, all men would become Clniflians, and that the reft of the temples would be de- VoL. II. G g ferted, * Vi^Yt Qio", iivxi Trance to»5 9r&A>>o3s-w»Toci, to* h ai^fo-xoAoTrir- Ti, De Morte Peregrini, ap. Burgh, p. 407. f Vol. ii. p. 444. } Jbid.p. 441. !| Ibid, p. 444^ 468 The Primitive Chrijiians Book Vf . Antioch, where there was a famous church, which had been planted bj the apoftles. The Chriftian dodrine of the Trinity mull have been generally known, elfe it could not have been matter of ridicule to heathens. When its form was fo perfect in the days of Lucian, we cannot fuppofe tb^t it was then " in its origin." It could not be known to hea- thens, in the form delivered by Lucian, without being at leaft equally well known, in this very form, to Chnftians in general. It could not be thus known to Chriftians, with- out being either firmly believed, or being held in the great- eft abhorrence by them. For our author accounts for the lllence of the multitude of believers, in early ages, as ta this do£lrine, by fappo.ing that it ** was not in its origin, " fuch as could give much alarm," and acknowledges that it did give ** very great alarm, as it began to unfold it- *'felff." Obferve the confiftency of this writer ! When attempt- ing to fliew that the Unitarian was the original do6trine, he finds it neceffary to aflert that the other *' was not in its o- " ri gin, fuch as could give much alarm :" for he can dilco- ver no alarm that it did give to Chriftians. Now, when does he date its origin ? In the time of Juftin Martyr, whom he confiders as the firft who broached the dodrine of the deity of Chrift. Yet when hurried away by his en- mity at the do6lrine of the Holy Trinity, he aflerts that, in the time of Lucian, who was cotemporary with Juftin, the idolatrous innovator, nay, that '"''from the very hegifming, " the orthodox were charged with making more gods than *' one." He even affirms that " this appears by the apo- *' lo^uies which all the orthodox writers make on this fub- " je6l X'" Thus he acknowledges the force of the argiv- ment from the Apologies of Juftin, Tertullian, &.c. Was the dcdlrine of the Trinity, even in that early pe- riod^ t Vol. iii. p. 317. J Vol. ii, p. 441. ' I Chap. IV. were Trinitarians, 469 riod, fo plain to heathens, and cox/ti it or did it s;ive no a- lann 10 Chriilians? We have fecn that in Lucian's ti'ne, it was not merely beginning to unfold itfelf. but that it was fully u ifoMed i.i its mofl: exceptionable form, fo as to exci e the ridicule of heathens, and to prove the occasion of the charge of polytheifm, Dr P. himfelf being judge. Had it been in any degree ofFenJive to Chriilians in that age, th.y muft have had the fame views of the do6lrine which -Unitarians now have, which Jews and heathens then had. It muft have been accounted ridiculous and abfurd. It muft have been condemned as polytheifm. The church mull have ejecled her idolatrous members. At any rate, this doctrine mufl have kindled a violent fl : le. Lucian muft have known that it was believed by a few only \ and that thefe were confidered by the reft as merely baptifed heathens. Therefore, he would have availed himfelf of the contentions among Chriftians, as to the very object of worfhip. He would have urged that, zealous as the igno- rant were for unity, the learned itili retained their primitiv'e hcathenifm. We muft, therefore, conclude that this do£lrine was ge- nerally received and avowed by the church of Antioch. It mull have been taught not by Theophilus only, but by his predeceflbr. For it would fcem that Lucian had remo- ved from tliat city, be tore rheophilus was biftiop. This carries us back within half a century of the apoftolic age. Can it, therefore, be fappofed that a cluirch, conlifting of fo many membeis as that of Antioch, would univerfally agree in changing the very objed of w^rftiip, in the courfe of fifty years ? Let \jt P. apply his own maxim j " Great *' bodies of men do not foan change their opinions." How- ever Theophilus and others might qualify the dodrine of the Trinity, as it fubjecled them all to the charge of poly- tbeifm, and mult have appeared an unfurmountable obftacle Gg 3 to 470 Ihe Primitive Chrijiiuns Book VL to the converfion of the heathen, the church would never have born with the mere found of it, had it not been univer- fally believed that this was the very doftrine received from the apoftles. By Dr P.'s own confeflion alfo, Julian the Apollate ac- knowledges that John dared to call Jefus God *. This cir- cumftance is mentioned with the fame delign as the former, to prove that the do£trine of the Trinity was a reproach to the Chriftians. But he inadvertently fupplies his oppo- nents with no inconfiderable argument againfl his view of the Introduction to John's Gofpel, and his fyftem of the latQ origin of the do£lrine of the Trinity. The Doftor, indeed, tranflates no more of the language of Julian, than to ferve his own purpofe. His quotation from the Greek is more full than the tranflation, which is in thefe words ; " You " are fo unfortunate as not to abide by what was taught •^^ by the apoftles, but have added things that are worfe and " more impious to thofe that were held before. For nei- '* ther Paul, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark dared tp " call Jefus God, but only that good man John." What the Doftor tranflates, *' but have added," i^Cc ought to be rendered, " and the things which are worfe " and more impious have been accomplilhed by thofe who ** fucceeded them." For it is clear from what follows that Julian refers to their immediate fucceflbrs, nay, to the a- poftle John, who wrote after the other Evangelifls : " But " that good man John, knowing that there was a/ready a ** great multitude^ in moji of the cities of Greece and Italy, ** under this difeafe ; and hearing, as I apprehend, that the ** commentaries of Peter and Paul were held in great ve^ " neration, although fecretly, was the firft who dared to J' affert this," i)i%, that Jefus is God*. Julian alfo fays that, * Vcl. ii. p 446. |- AAA' 0 X.fe*'^*5 luccvvviif Uiff$of^iio^ wJ>i 7re7\v wAjj^cf, ix>UKO? iv Chap. IV. zvere Triuitarians, 471 that, accordmg to this Evangelifl:, John Baptill " teftihed ** concemmg Jefus Chrill, that it is he whom we (houLl " believe to be God the Word *.'* We need not wonder that this inveterate enemy of di- vine truth Ihonld aflert tlie fame thing of the three fir it E- vangelifts, and of Paul, that is now alTerted by fome who call themfelves Chriftians. But he was fo fidly convinced of the contrary with refpecl to John, that he is a reki6lant witnefs of the plain meaning of his language. Such a te- llimony from a bitter adverfary, univerfally allowed to have been a man of great ability and learning, is a ftriking proof of the abfiu'dity of any Socinian interpretation of the In- troduftion to the Gofpel of John, and of its dire6l contra- riety to the common fenfe of mankind. As Julian could not deny that John had aicribed deity to Chrift, as little could he deny that this dodrine was be- lieved by the great multitude of Chriftians, even during the life of this apoflle. Had not this been an indifputable fail, he would have aiTerted the contrary with ds much boldnefs as any modern wi iter. For Julian being as bitter againft the deity of Chrift as any Unitarian, it was no lefs his in- tereft to prove that tliis was an innovation among Chriftians : becaufe it ferved his defign, which was, to the utmoft of his power, to expofe the Chriftians. It was correfpondent with his general policy. For he foftered the diiieniions a- mongft them, that they might ruin the caufe in general. His fixing the origin of this do6brine at fo early an a^ra, clearly Ihews that he durft not venture to mention one more recent. G g 4 THE UKtiuv dif otfixtf K^ Tot f/^v/iiAocru TTiT^a y.c'A •nuv'hUy T^xS^cc /xsv, ax.- aav 01 cfxa'^ avra Qi^XTnvofAivcCf Tr^cuTci iToXfy.YiTiv n-^nt* Juhari ap. Cyrill. hb. 10. Vid. Lampe Froleg. iu Joan. Vol. i. p. 231. * ibid. 47^ ^'^^ Conclujlon. '") •,^•1 THE CONCLUSION. TN that work which has been the fuhje6l of the preceding •*- review, Dr P. has efpecially laboured to prove, that the Jews never expeded any other than a human Meffiah ; that our Lord, in the courfe of his miniftry, never claimed any fuperior chara6ler ;, that the Apoftles, and their fellow-labour,- ers, gave no evidence whatfoever that they viewed him i^ any other light ; that all their immediate difciples, and all their fuc'ceiTors of the Hebrew race, coniidered him as a mere man \ nay, that, for feveral centuries, the majority of Gentile ChriiUans w^ere of the fame opinion. He has endeavoured to eftablifh the fitft of thefe politions, which is indeed the balls of his whole fyftem, by appealing to thofe paflages of the Old Teftament that declare the unity of the divine ejfefice, taking it fpr granted that they necef- farily imply ^^r/o;M/ unity i to thofe teftimonies of the fa- thers which refpe6l the opinicns of fuch Jews as, being un- beheyers, neither knew Chrift, nor the Father who fent him ; and to the alTertions of fome later Jews, who, perfift- ing in the infidelity of their nation, have done every thing in their power to blacken Chriflianity,- and to exhibit their own religion as eflentially different. Finding the do6lrine of Philo, concerning the Logos, an infurmountable obflru6lion to the eAabli'liment of his fy- ilem, he has {trained every nerve to get rid of it< Fcr a while, he humbly plodded in the beaten path of Socinians ; ?:eprefenting the doclrine of that ancient Jew as allegory, or as a modification of Platonifm : But confcious that, after all his efforts, the evidence of Philo IHII impeded his pro- 3 S^'^'fe I TJje Conchjion. 473 grefs, and that he could not perfift in refufmg that this wri- ter exhibits the Logos as a perfon •, he has hit upon an ex- pedient, the honour of which is wholly his own. He bold- ly aflerts tliat Philo confidered the Logos merely as an oc cajlonal -^tvion ^ ; and that, in his idea, he had no more re- lation to the Meihah than to any other prophet. The fame difficulty arifing £ro:n the dodtiine of the Chaldee Parar phralls, concerning the Logos under the nome of Mcmra \ our author, defpifmg the cumberfome fetters of confiflency, denies that thefe interpreters meant to afcribe to him di- ftinft perfonality of any kind, whether permanent or occa- fional. In reply, it has been proved, that Philo was not indebt- ed to Plato for his doclrine, that Plato himfelf was not the inventor of it, that the heathen in general entertained fome notions • The following paragraph, which ought to have been niferted, vol. i. p. 41. at the end of chap. iii. but was omitted in the trautciibing, may be here introduced as a note. After all the pains that Dr P. has taken to flew that Philo afcribed only an occafional perfonality to the Logos, after proclaiming his fucrefs in this attempt; by the time he has got a little farther in his work, he entirely forgets that he has made fo important a difcovery. He at once ilings away all his well-won laurels. He has told us, in Vol. ii. p. 3. that Philo ** vi'as far from advancing fg far as the platnnlzing Chri- *• ftians ;" for '♦ he did not, like them, make a p.ermaiicnt intelligent <« perfon of the divine Logos.*' But, as if the Doctor meant that the public fliould interpret his writings by the rule of contrariety, he fays, jn Vol. iii. p. 34. " It has been feen that Philo perfonified the Logos us ** v/uch as the Chridian Fathers, and that they probably learnt of him the *• do(flrine of a divine Logos being the medium of all the communications ** of God to the patriarchs, and of this principle occafiofially ajfumir.g a Vi- " fible form." Here the truth burfls forth involuntarily, notwithftandingf all Dr P.'s endeavours to fupprefs it; and the convicftion of his own - mind feems to force its way, notwithftanding all the falfe colours that have been hung out. The whole of Philo's fyflem of the occafioual per* Jonality of the Logos, vaniflics into his " occafional njfumption of a viGble " f;)i'm/* Can fiich lucubrations be feilDuny entitled an Hiflory i 474 ^^ Conclujion* notions concerning the Trinity ; that Philo was an entire flranger to the idea of occaiional perfonality ; that he appro- priated to the Logos all the fcriptural attributes of the Mef- fiah, while he does not feem to have known any other to whom this character belonged; and that the Paraphrafts mud necefTarily be underftood, as defcribing the fame di- vine perfon. It has been feen, that fome of the Jews, even in a later age, have explained the divine unity as involving a perfonal plurality, and have afcribed fuch chara£lers to one Angel as are proper to God only ; nay, that, indepen- dently of all uninfpired teftimony, there is the cleareft evi- dence from fcripture, that he, who was the God of the pa- triarchs, and of their believing poflerity, was revealed to them, and acknowledged by them, as the meffenger of an- other divine perfon, and that he was at the fame time known as the perfonal Word and Wifdom of God. In oppofition to Dr P.'s hypothefis, that the Logos pro- claimed by the Apoftle John is a mere attribute, it has been proved that the charadlers of his Logos are fuch as can only apply to a perfon •, and that this defignation, fo well known to the ancient church as the name of a divine perfon, and the characters connefted with it, are in fact appropriated to Jefus, not only by John, but by other writers of the New Teftament. From what has appeared in the courfe of this inveftiga- tion, every impartial reader mud be convinced that, ac- cording to the gofpel hillory, our Saviour, in the plained terms, claimed elfential equality with the Father -, that he appealed to his works in fupport of this claim ; and that thefe works, confidered in all their circumftances, were in- conteftibie proofs of the divinity of the agent. We have found his Apoflles and other difciples unanimoufly confef- ling, worfhipping and announcing him to others as an al- fimighty Saviour. A blaze of divine glory has been feen to break The Condujion, 475 break forth from that fmgle charadler, the Son of God, as iinderflood by the church under the Old Teftament, pro- claimed by the Father, appropriated by the Son, as ac- knowledged by holy angels, and by the difciples ; nay, as applied by devils, and interpreted by thofe Jews who cru- cified the Lord of glory. It has been proved that the claim of deity contained in the appropriation of this character, was the very ground of his condemnation ; and that, if he was not a divine perfon, he was jnftly condemned by his enemies as a blafphemer. The futility of thofe arguments advanced by Dr P., a- gainfl the divinity of Chrill:, has been evinced. It has ap- peared that the general tenor of fcripture, fo far from be- ing adverfe to this dodlrine, is entirely in its favour ; that it is vain to reafon from the pretended difficulty of tracing; the time when it was firft divulged to the Chriftian church, as it beams on the face of Revelation in the wliole of its extent ; that it is diredlly contrary to fa6l that Chrift is not exhibited in Scripture as the objeft of prayer ; that the doc- trine of the Trinity implies no contradidlion ; and that, however ufelefs it may feem to our author, it is of mani- fold advantage to the fincere Chriftian. The fictitious charadler of Dr P.'s hiftory of Jewifh Chri- ilians muft be evident. For it has been proved, that the believing Hebrews were not Ebionites ; that the Nazarenes were entirely diftinft from the latter, although attached to the law i and that there were many Chriftians of this na- tion who entirely renounced the ceremonial yoke. It has been (hewn, that he labours in vain to prove that Gnoftics were the only heretics ; that this chara<3:er was impofed on the Ebionites by the univerfal confent of the primitive church ; and that, inllead of being removed as far as pof- fible from Gnoftics, their doflrine and condud have uni- formly demonftrated the greateft affinity. The 47^ '^^^s Condufion, The evidence brought to prove that the majority of Gen- tile Chriftians, in the firil ai^^es, was Uaitarian, has been tried and found extremely defe6liv^e. We have heard the harmonious voice of antiquity denouncing Unitarians as he- retics, and fmgling them out by every mark exprefTive of this character. Tliey were excluded by the creed. They xvere fligmatized by dil1in£tive names, derived from their leaders, their tenets, or their fituation. The arch-heretics V'cre excommunicated ; :md all who adhered to them were cither formally or virtually included in the fentence. The validity of their ordinances was denied. They were not even accounted Chriftians. In a word, it has been proved by th^ clearell evidence, that, in primitive times, the univerfal church held the doc- trine of the Trinity, and worfliipped the Father, Son and Iloiy Ghoft as one God. 1 have not particularly confidered what our author advan- ces with refpeO; to the prevalence of Unitarians after the Council of Nice \ becauie he does not pretend that they hence- forth conftituted the majority. Jjr P. could fcarcely obferve a more direct courfe, d- though it were his fixed defign to betray Chriftianity into the hands of its enemies. He virtually vindicates the Jews in ejefting and crucifying Jefus for making himft If equal with GqcL He prefers the M-ihommeddan idol to the deity of Chriftians. He rcprefents the worftiip of a Trinity as on a level with that of heathens. He meets infidelity more than Jiaif way. He joins with Toland, in exhibiting a mife- rable band of heretics as the only genuine difciples of Chrift. To Collins and his fucceflbrs he abjures the doftrine of pof- JcJJionsy and thus cripples the argument from miracles •, nay, ^ives a fufpicious air to all this kind of evidence. Not fa- tisfied with liibjeding Revelation to the authority of th^t Reafra "The Condujion, 4^77 Rcafon which It is meant to recllfy ; lie unhinges the whole frame of Revelation, by denying a plenary, or any pay-tictt^ lar iiifpiration. He grants a difpenfation for fcepticifm, and for indifference with refpc^l to oar holy reli:Tion •, by lea- ving it as a donbtful matter, whether the author of it was himfelf infallible, or even free from lin. Partially, at leaft, does he adopt the atheiftic fyftem, by denying the exigence of a foul. Our author may pleafe himfelf wnth the idea of tlie uti- lity of his labours in recommending Chriitlanity to infidels. But by them he is undoubtedly viewed as a traitor to its mtereOs ; if the jud^^rnent of that acute and fubtlle adverfary, Mr Gibbon, may be admitted as a jufl indication of the fentiments of his brethren. " The pillars of revelation," he fays, " are lliak.cn hy thofe men Vv^ho preferve the name *' without the fub fiance of religion, who indulge tiie licenfe *' without the temper of philofophy.*' In fupport of his ob- fervation, he refers to Dr Prieftley's Hiitory of Corruptions ; evidently confidering it as " the ultimate tendency of iii!5 " opinions," totally to fubvert the Chriflian faith *. Is it lurprifmg that one who has treared revelation with fo little ceremony, ihould ufe the greateft freedom with hu- man teflimony ? Our author, indeed, has broken down or overleaped all the barriers of hiflory, and managed this fpe- cies of evidence, as if it were intentionally en^ lowed with fo pliant a form that it would bend any way, according to the hui-nour or intereft of the reader. In various inftances has he treated It, as if it w^ere tneant to be underltood in. direft oppofiticn to the plain fenfe of the language, and ta the obvious defian of the writer. o * Hiftory of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. IV. p. 540. QjarLO Edit, UpoiJ 47^ ^^Je Conclufioiu Upon the whole, it muft be evident to every unpreju- diced reader, that the work which firft appeared as an Jiiflory of the Corruptions, whether in its original or in its enlarged form, would be far more jiiflly entitled, Corrupt iions of the Hijlory of Chrifiianity , ACCOUNT ACCOUNT OF THE EDITIONS OF THE ANCIENT, AND OF SOME OF THE MODERN WRITERS, QUOTED IN THIS WORK. FOLIO. Athanasii Opera, 2 vol. Gr. et Lat. Colon. 1686^. Auguftini Opera, 9 vol. Lugduni, 1586. Barorrii Annales Ecclefiaftici, 11 vol. Antwerp. 1589. Bafnage's Hiftory of the Jews, tranflated by Taj^Ior, Lond. 1708. Biblia Hebraica Buxtorfiana, cum Paraphr. Chaldakis et Comment. Rabbinicis, 2 vol. Balil. 1620. Cameronis Opera, b'rancof. 1642. Cave Hifloria Literaria, 2 vol. Lond. 1688. Clementis Alexandrini Opera, Gr. et Lat. cura Sylbur- gii et Heinlii, Lugd. Bat. 1616. Cypriani Opera, apud Le Preux, 1593. Dion CafTius, Gr. et Lat. Leunclavii, Hanov. 1606. Eplphanii Opera, cura Petavii, 2 vol. Gr. et Lat. Co- lon. 1682. Eufebii, Socratis, Sozomeni, Tlieodorili Evagrii, et Phi- loflorgii HiftoritTS, 3 vol. Gr. et Lat. per Reading, Cantab. 1720. GufTetli 480 Account of the Editions of Writers Guffetii Veritas Salutifera, cum R. Ifaaci Chlzzouk Emounah, Amftel. 17 12. Hieronymi Opera, 9 vol. Bafil. 1537. Hiftoriae Auguftae Scriptores fex, Parlf. 1620. Howel Synopfis Conciliorum, 2 vol. Lend. 1708. Irenaei Opera, Gr. et Lat. Feu-Ardentii, Colen. 15960 cura Grabe, Oxon. 1703. Juftini Martyris, item Athenagorae, Theophili Antio- cheni, Tatiani et Hermiae Opera, Gr. et Lat. Parif. 1615. Kidder'b Demonrtration of the Meffias, Lond. 1726. Martini (Raymundi) Pugio Fidei, cum Annotat. Jof. dc Voifm, Parif. 1651. Nicephori Callifli Hiftoria, 2 vol. Gr. et Lat. Parif 1630. Origenis Opera, 2 vol. Lat, Parif. 1619. Owen on the Spirit, Lond. 1674. Patres Apoftolici, per Cotelerium et Clericura, 2 vol. Gr. et Lat. Antwerp. 1698. Pearfon on the Creed, Lond. 1701. Philonis Judsei Opera, Gr. et Lat. Colon. Allobrog. 1613. Prideaux's Connections of the Old and New Teftament. 2 vol. Lond. 1720. Slichtingii Commentaria, Irenopoli, 1656. Spanhemii Hifloria Sacra atque Ecclefiaftica, Lugd. Bat» 1701. Tertulliani Opera, cura Pamelil, item Novatiani Libeir de TrinitatC; Parif. 1616. QJJARTO. Alting (Henrici) Loci Communes, Amftel. 1646. Avoda Sara, e Gemara Babylonica, G. El. Edzard^, Hamb. 1705. Bifterfield quoted in the preceding Work, 481 Bifterfleld de Uno Deo, contra Crellium, Lugd. Bat. E639. Bocharti Phaleg et Canaan, Francof. 168 1. Cellarii N"otitia Orbis Antiqui, 2 vol. LIpf. 1731. Cudworth's Intelle6lual Syftem of the Univerfe, Lend, 1743- Deylingii Obfervationes Sacrae, Lipf. 1720. Fabricii Bibliotheca Graeca, 14 vol. Hamb. 170S, &c. Faith of one God, who is only the Father ; or a Collec- tion of Socinian Trails, Lond. 1691. Gale's Court of the Gentiles, 2 vol. Oxf. 1672. Glafiii Philologia Sacra, Lipf. 1705. Heideggeri Hiftoria Sacra Patriarcharum, 2 vol. Amftel. 1689. Hoornbeck Socinianifmus Confutatus, 3 vol. Ultrajedi* 1650. Ignatii Epiflolfe, cum Annotat. Pearfon et Smith, Gr. et Lat. Oxon. 1709. Ittlgii DifTert. de Herefiarchis, Lipf. 1690. Appendix DifTert. de Herefiarchis, cum Heptade DiiTertationum, et Vita Photini, Lipf. 1696. Lefslie's Socinian Controverfy difcufled, Lond. 1708. Maimonidis More Nevochim, five Dodtor Perplexorum, cura Buxtorfii, Bafil. 1629. Origenes contra Celfum, Gr. et Lr.t. cura Spencer, Can- tab. 1677. Owen's Vindicioe Evangeiicte, or Confutation of Bid- die's Catechifm, Oxf. 1655. Pfeifferi Opera Philologica, 2 vol. Ultrajed. 1704. Rclandi Palaeftina Illuftrata, 2 vol. Traj. Batav. 17 14. Schickardi Jus Regiura Hebraeorum, Argent. 1625. OCTAVO Vol. IL H h 4^2 Account of the Editions of Writers ^ Sec. OCTAVO AND DUODECIMO. Ancient Univerfal Hiftory, 21 vol. Lond. 1747. Bedford's Sermons at Lady Moyer's LecTure, Lond. 174I. Berriman's Hiftorical Account of the Controverfy con- cerning the Trinity, Lond. 1725. Bingham's Origines Eccleiiafticae, 10 vol. Lond. 1708. Bull's Vv^'orks concerning the Holy Trinity, tranflated by Holland, a vol. Lond. 1730. Burgh's Inquiry into the Belief of the Chriftians of the firft three Centuries, refpeding the Trinity, Lond. 1778. Dodweil Diflertationes in Irenaeum, Oxon. 1689. Fabricii Codex Apocryphus Novi Teftamenti, 2 voL H^mb. 1719. Fathers Vindicated, touching the Trinity, Lond. i6gj, Grabii Spicilegium Patrum, 2 vol. Oxon, 1714. Jones's Method of fettling the Canonical Authority of the New Teilament, 3 vol. Lond. 1736. Jurieu Tableau de Socinianifme, a la Haye, 1690. King's Hillory of the Apoftles Creed, Lond. 1703. Minucii Felici€ Octavius, et Liber Julii Firmici de Er- rore Profanarum Gentium, Lugd. Bat. 1672. Molheiin Vindiciae contra Tolaudi Nazarenum, Hamb. 1722. . Mofheim's Ecclefiaflical Hiftory, 6 vol. Lond. 1782. Orofii ( Pauli) adverfus Paganos Hifloriarum Libri fep- tcm, Colon. 1542, Pf.ifTii Differtatio de Genuinis Librorum Novi Teda- snenti Leelionibus, Lugd. Bat. 1716. Flinii Secundi Epiftolae, cura Boxhornii, Oxon. 1660, Stehelin's Tradition of the Jews, 2 vol. Lond. 1742. Suetonius Tranquillus, cura Graevii, Amftel. 1697. Sulpicii Severi Opera, cura Clcrici, Lipf. 1709. Wake's Genuine Epiltles of the Apoftolical Fathers^ lond, 17x9. BB TABLE or •TEXTS OF SCRIPTyRE; MORE OR LESS TLLUSTRATS» IN THIS WORK. N. B. Thofe referred to as in Vol. II. have the nume* jrals (ii.) prefixed to the page. Ch. Page. Gen, V. Xi. XV. Xvi. 2. x6. 27. 8. Is- aa- I, a 7- I.— 7. 7- 9 II. 13- Gen. 5. -8.494 537 S3 495. 58. 61. 89. 537- 494 119, 120. 54- 100. 101. I30, lOI- 84 398. Ch. XIX. v«r. Pag«. 13. 47a. 19 80. 174. ai -14 ^1^. 34. .89. 42. 355. 33- 55- II. la, io2. 103. J 5. 17. 103. 104. sxviii. 15. XXI. xxu. xxx'i. xlii. xliv. II. 13- 1. 24. 29. 6. I. 256. 105. 70. io5« J06, 10^, 104. 107. 105. 87- 271. xWiii. J5; iQ. 105, io5. Ceo, 484 A Table of Texts. Gen. Exod. Deut. Deut. Ch. VI. ver« 36. 4- xiii. xviii. xxiii Jofli. Judg. 21. a8. 6.-10. 15.-18. 4- 12 .15. xxxii. 4 -^— :. 39- xxxiii. 7,7' V. 13- 14. 15. vi. 2. xxiv. 24. Levit. V. I. 387. xxiv. 10. -16. ;ig6, — - 14-16. 335- Kxvi. 8.12. 57.58. Num. V. 18.-22. 387. vi. 25 - 272. xiv. 14. 271. XX. 6. 70. xxii. 3^-35- 108. iv. 7- 55- 11. 39^- 11. I. 2. 8. I2.-I7. 22. 3« 9- 18. 19-^3. Page. 272. 103, 75.7^- 507- 70. 363- 33S- 496.-501. 3H 155.-272. 3H- 279. 359' loS. 70. 109. 109. 363- 109. IIQ# 273- ' 90. III. III. 112. 1X2. 196.353- 112. I Sam. Kings XXIV. 20. iii. 21 vii. 21. xvii. II. xxii. 51. 1 Chron. xvii. 10.-I2. 39. 4t.-43- 24. 27. 26. 12. 19. 16. 14.-16. 18. 30. 20. 92. ii8. 117.118. 271. 81. 39'^' 209. 220. 54. III. 258, 259. 210. 211. 210. 2H» 118. io3. 282. 282. 2S2. 416.417. Job. iii. 28.-33. 55S. vi. 10, 322. Job A rahle Jdb PAiL Ch. ver. Pas;e. ix. 8. 44S. xix. 25- 84 X14. a6. ^\ XXV. 4- 496. xxxiii. ^3. 156. ii. 7' 79- 348. 547- 12. 87- 34S. X. I. 86. xiv. a. 240. xviii. II. 393- 30- 120.275. ,, 1 . 51- Si. XX. I. 534. 4. 501. xxi. I. 81. 3-S- 82. xxiv. I. 80. I. 2. 468. xxxiii. 6.9. 7,66. xxxiv. 7. 282. xliv. 20. ^l. 209. «lv. 10. i . 450,451. II. 79- xlvi. 5.-7. 255. 1. 6. 3i3-4°3- Iv. 19. 359- Ixvii. 2. ^75- 4.6. 330. Ixviii^ 17- 525. 18. 299 312. — — 34- 39^- Ixxii. 17- 81. Ixxx. 3- 3^9. 7- 272. ■ 17- 274. Jxxxii. 1. 85- 6. 383. Ixxxiii . 18. 217. Ixxxiv 9- ^73- Ixxxv. 10, '51- Ixxxis • 9- 230. xc,^ 2. 3^0. xcili. I. 7^. .s. 74- yt vii. 2. 303- 7. 19^.480 cu. 27 28. CI.'. ! . 82. . 3- 393. 6, 7. 230. CVl. 9. 230. CA, I. (>i. 79. 5/TrA ^ts. 485 Ch. ver. Page. Pfal. ex 3- 88. cxxxv. 6. 232. Prov. i. aft. 23. 124. 44c. viii. 14. 123 22. 23. J23- 359* 360 561, 25- 123- 349 30- ■ 133- 429^ ix. 28. u. 454. xviii. 10. 81 • 3.3I' Xxx. 4- 196. 349 Song i. Ifa. 80. 86. 320. 523. iv. 3- 3^4- T ^ 364. 440. " 5- 272. vi. 6.7. 440. vii. II. . 205. . 14. 89. 205. 15- 88. 16. 206. viii. 8. 10. 106. 13. H- 207. 217, ix. I. 141. 6. xi. I. 76. „^— 16." 114. xii. 6. ^55- xix. I. 393- xxiv. 16. 323- XXV. 9. 2>9y' xxviii • 5- 83. — 9- 68, 69. xxk. 21. 276. XXXV. ^•5- 175, i7^» 8. ^75, 276 xl. 3. 216. 5- 54- 9.~:ii. 175- 25. 322: xlu 4- 176. '}^ 267. ■xiii- 1. 303. 8. 64.65. 217 H- 80. xlui. II. 330. 458 r3. 277. xiiv. 3- 320. -i— . 6..S. '^77- Hh3 Ifa. ■)fis A TalU tf tiKls, m. ^. Xan. ZHiB. Ch. Xliv. Xlv. xlvi. ver. «4. 11. xlix. li. Hi. liii. Iviii. Ix. Ixii. Ixiif. Ixv. IXYI. xivin. 9. XX. 13- — — Id. 9- I. 3-S- I. II. 5- 9- I. 5- i5. 9- •3- 9* 10. VI. xiv. xvi. xvii Xxiii. .^. xxix. 14. zxxi. 18. — — 20. ■' 22. zxxiii. 16. i. 1 6. Page. 45S. 3^3- 45«. 260. 458. j^d. 474. 537- 120. 276. 254. 25o 276, &c. 276. 200- 275- 72. 3^5- 175. a6i. 278. 261. 365- 88 520- 520. ii' 6. 1 86. a54- 54- PS- PS- 90. 175. 458. 70. 272. 273. 282. a6i. aao. 275. 81. 209, 210. 81 329- 491. 90. 90. 495. 496. 65. 204. 81. xxxvn. 13. 14. 404. 11. 22. 8r. 25.18. 113. Ch, Dan. vii. ix. X. Hof. Joel. Mic. Hab. Zeph. Hag. Zech. JV. Xi. xii. xiii. ii. Mai. 111. vi. IX. Xiv. II. iii. 9 '3- »4' '3- 21. I. 2. 9- 9- 3-4- 5- 4* Pager 73- 79- I7S* 393 " 34- 452- SO»» 50a. 113- 113- 113.-11S. "5- 55- 322. 104, 105.. 64. 105. 458. 27. 299. 17. 28. 255. 31^ 85. 36c. 361. 357- *c. 4. 114. 4. 6. 361. 13- 1-3 2. 12. 359, 3- 175- 3- 322. ii. 113- 15- '35- 260. 120.-128:; 260. 6.-7. 122. 13- 4.-5. "0- 281. 8.-13. i'5- 11^' 5. 440. 8. 116. 8.-11. 279, 289 10. 4- 12. 47,48.81^ 88. 321. 391- 13- 321. 9- 3^3- 4. 85. 2. 3^3- I. 70. ^i. ii5. 117. 121. 273« ». 274. Mtt. I Tahie of Texts. 487 Mat. Ch. ver. Page. CK. ver. Pape. i. 20. 364- Mat. xxviii . 9. 22r. ai. 176. 18. 418. i3- 203.-208. 19. 41S &c. 25. 208. 20. 256, &c. ii. 2. 215. 419. iii. 3- 216. II. 439. 440. Mark i. I. 435- la. 44=- 443- 24. 367. 17- 36i--3^3- - 25- 230. iv. 3- 231. 366. ii. I. -4. 247. *<^. 9- t22. 528. 7- 249. 10. 215- iii. II. 367. viii. a. 232. iv. 39. 229. 3. 22S. 232. 41. 2"^0. 8 13. 232. V. 6. 367. 16. 228. 2«. 221. 22a. ap. 366. 34. 23'. 31- 23r vi. 50- 267. ix. i.-(5. 225 244. vii. 25. 221. &c. viii^ 29. 435. 3- 248. xii. 0. 399. 40«V — — 8. 247. 248. xiv. 35. 223. 18. 222, 62. 2>93' 19. «53- XV. ^9- Z99' X. 37. 219. 64. 388. xi. 35. 176. XV i. 17- 226. 229. 12. 173- -■ ' ■ 20. 233. 19. 126. 172. 27. 400. 401. Luke i. 2. 198. 308. ii. 326. 16,17. 216. 2S, 29. 273. 276. 18. 145. xii 21. 214. 3^- 356, 357. xiv. 26. 30Z. 35. 363.-365- 27. 267. . 76, 217. 274, 23. 219. 78. 48. 33- 446. 44S. ii. 30- 3*- 95- Jivi. 13,14. 433- , 34- 217. »- — 16. 433-436. 49- 51- 94. — — 17- 434- iii. 16. 318. 439, 21, 22. 96. 97. 440. 442* ;ivii. 5- 362. 38- 491, 18. 230. iv. 34' 367. Xviii. 6. 219. ■ ■ • 16. 228. — — . 20. 250, Sec. 3S. ^9- 230. 26. 478. V. 21. 249* Xix. 29. 220. vi. 22,23. 223. xxii. 32- 549- viii. 31- 366. 37- 39- 2.9. 48 49. 245. 43- 3-4-4SO- ix. I. 229. 46. 3. 4- 20. 435- Xxiv. 21, 22. 114. 115. X. n- 226. Xxvl. 63,64. 3S7.i=-35. 19. 228. 64. 391- 394- 21. 400, 401* 65.67. 3S8. 1 xi. 49. 127. XxvVi. 44 398. 1 1 xiv. -xi. ^^^•..... Luke Jit 4 488 A Table of Texts: Ch. ver Luke John Page, ^,08. I. z. 15- 16. 30- 420. 2X. V. 22,23. 407..413. ' 23- 403. 25. 404. ■■ ' ■ 26. 238.404.- 406. 546, 547, 27. 405- 546. 547- 35. 141, 142. 37- 272. 46. 305. vi. 2. •^iZ- aa. 267. 21. 446. 41,4a. 94. 45. 4oi. 6r. 209. 63. 257. 68, <)p. 431- 43^ vii. 27. 95- 39- 97. 309. viii. 14. 95. 262. 1 5. 191. 262. iS. 261. 19. 262. 457. 24. 262. 28. 278. 38. 156. 47- 3^3. -53- 263. 5S. 262. a&5. 57- 333, &c. Aas Rora, I Cor. Ch. ver. Page, rif. 60. 338. viii. 18. 317- — — 23- aoS. 33- 341- 37- 34'- ix. 5.^. 34*- 13, 14. 342. 17- 317- 342, 343. 20. 215- 343 344- 21- 215.336,337 ■ " 22. 344- X. 25- 223. " - 26. 215- 223. 38. 15^. xi. 15. 317. 26. 337. xii. 5-11. 530. xiv. 3- 228. XV. 9.-10, "• 43. 17. 33(^. 22.-24. 11. 44. xvi. iS. 229. 25- 530. xvii. 3- 344. 26. 451- 537. 31- 450. six. I--3. 426. 1I.-12. 231. 232. XX. 28. 344-34^- " 32. 198. xxi. 14. 530.-532. 20, &C. 11. 44«Jo4. 25- ii. 105. XX ii. I4.-16. 343. 427- xxvi. I6.-I8. 343- i. 3.4- 312.450.- 454- viii. 17- 491. ■- — 32. 324- X. 12. 338. I3>l4. 337- xi. 5- IIS- x\\ 3- 565. \.' 2. 335. 33^ 13- 420. iS. ij. 251. 24. 127. 363. iii. 9- 48b. iv. 9- 297. VI ii^ 6. ^93- 5^5- I Cor. 490 ^ Tfl-d^ oj ^ Texts. Ch. ver. Page. Ch. ver. Tage. vCor. z. 2. 420. Heb. i. 2. 459.-464. Xii. lO. 208 209. 3. 473-'47^' II. 320. 4^1. — — 4- 460, 461. xiv. 22. 300. 6. 193 476'' XV. 21. 509. 481. 27- 377- 8 4S1..484. — . ■ 45. 1 1 4. lO.-IJ. 484. xvi. 13- 438. 12. 13- 278. 391-485.- 36 Cor. V. i6. ^57- 4S7. xii. 8,9. 533. ii. 2. 3. 523- 278. 523. Gal. i. 7- ii. 44. 9- 504. 505- iii. 10. 553- 10. 3^. iv. 3» 496. 14. 172. 4. S- 449- iii. 3 487. V. i. 3- 1'. 44. 4- 488. 12. ii. 44. 5.<5 154. 487. vi. 12. ii. 252. iv. Ii, 13 126. 199, 200. 209. Eph. i. 19,20. 404. V. 8 454. 455« ii. I. 404. vi 17 18. 559- 10 466. ix 14. 452. - 14.15. ii. 210. X. 5. 174. iii. 19. 488. 20. 276. iv. 8. 428. 37- 175. 13- 488. xi. I. 562. 18. 192. . 3 464. 467. ▼. 19. n. 394. xii. 6. 2. 552. 324. fhlV. iii a.-y. £64, 565. — — 18.-24. 501. 5- 372. 25- 178. 279« m 7- 172. xiii. 26, 27. 8. 122. 260. 278^ Col. i. 15,16. 464.-471. 12. 317. 18; 471. 472. 20. 176. 19. 472 547- James ii. 7- 336. ii. 2,3- 566. 5^7- 6. 276. iPet. i. II. 3C9' 520. 18. 193. 21. 4'5. iii. »3- 445. ii. iii. 8. 18. 207. 218-, 452. zTbef. ii. 16, 17. 529. 530. iv. V. 19. 4- 529. 176. I Tim. i. 16. 344- 10. 529- ii: 5- 504. 2 Pet. ii. I. 182. iii. 15. 434. 16. 166. 364. I John i.. I. 134» 135- 45^ 456 ii. 356. 164. 198. a Tim. ii. 22. 337- ii. 2. 13.14- 166. 192. Tit. iii. .S.^. 317- , i, 18. 20. 177. 167. 17©. Hcb. i. X^ 5^3, 524- 1^2. J Joha. J liable of Texts. 491 Ch. John ver. Page. 22. 177.-180. 182. i3- iSo. 014.-26. iSi. ^7- 170 I. ^' i8i, iS^. 2. 489.491- 5- 456 8. 176. 45^- 24. ^93 I. r^%. » 3- 169. &c. 9- 169. 455- 10. 565 14 457. 458. I. 1S3. 5. 183 &c. 6. 1S4. 7- 560. 8. 1S5. 9 560. 10, II 183. II, la. 186, 1S7. ^3- iSc, i«o. John Ch. vcr. raRC. V. U, '5- i8-». iS7* 16. iSS. 7.0. 194- 21. 193-195- i. 4- »3'- 8 131. 26V 269, ir. 153. 'T- 277- IS. aoo- ii. ^3- 314. iii 7- 194- 12. 419. V. 13- 481. xii. 7 114. XIX. lO. C23. 4S«' 12. 191. 19s*' ,9*. " 13- 144. J 95- 198,199^ 15- 109. 28s. xxii. 3- 39 1: 39-^ XT'. IS . i7<^- xrar INDEX T O BOTH VOLUMES. Abrjham, his faith as much beyond the ordinary line of reafon as faith in a Trinity, i. 563. Chrill appeared to him, attended by two angels, according to Juftin Martyr, "• 3<^9» 370- jd&i of the Apojlles^ — Deity of Chrift taught in this book, i. 313. — 346; faid to have been tranflated into Hebrew, ii. 106, 107. Adrian^ his edift did not exclude believing Hebrews from Jerufalem, if they renounced the law, ii. 187, i^c*\ his refcript in favour of Chriftians in general, 188, 189. Aelia^ Jerufalem fo called, when rebuilt by Adrian, ii. 196. 199. Aeons, the Gnoftic do6lrine of, i. 159. Alexander Severus, the Emperor, deligned to dedicate a temple to Chrift, ii. 465. Allegorical method of explaining Scripture, ii. 347, 348. Alogi, origin of the name, ii. 283, 'iSc. they rejeded all the writings of the Apoftle John, ib. Amen, amen, the meaning of this expreilion, as often ufed by our Lord, i. 264. 387. Angel of the Lord, or Angel-Jeho'vab, i. 99, ^r. 380, ISc, J agreement between his character and that ox Chrift, 280, m INDEX. aSo 283. Angel that appeared to Mofes, the Son of God, 268, i^c. 280.— 283. Arigcliy doctrine of Philo concerning them, 1. 41. — 44. Dr P. reckons it probable, that they are merely temporary appearances, the organs of the Deity, 39, 40. Not per- ji:iitted to affume the Name of God, 283, 284. Anthropians^ thofe who denied the deity of Chrift fo •called, ii. 277. A?itiQch, the firft council of, could not get Paulus Samo- fatenui convifled of herefy, ii. 423, 424. Second council of, Paul condemned by it, 424. Apojiles, their plan in preaching Chrifl, i. 294, \^c. their great work was to prove that he was the promifed Meffiah, 305. — 308 ; compared to reapers, 306, 307. A poJloUcal Fathers, their writings faid by Socinians to t)e interpolated, yet quoted as authorities by them when it ferves their own ends, ii. I. — 4. Apojiolkal Conjlitutiom, when written, ii, 230. Ebio- jiltes heretics, in the eflimation of the author of thi? woik, ih, Apojlollcal Camm, their antiquity and ufe, ii. 413. Aqniia, the tranflator, not an Ebionite, ii. 38, 39. The time of his refidence at Jerufalem, 1^8, 'iSc. Some parti- \ culars concerning him, ih, Aquihia, creed of, ii. 271. Arian doEirine^ contrary to Scripture, i. 138, 139. De- , rived from the Gnoftics, ii. 384. Paved the way for the jeccption of that of Photinus, 430. Arijlo Fellaeits, his tcftimony recorded by Eufebius, ii. " 1^5. Wrote in Greek, 204. Artemojiites, confidered as excommunicated, ii. 426, 427. ^ Athanafim, his teftimony concerning the conduft of the Apoftles with refpeft to the doflrine of Chrift's deity, i. ^85.-293. Does not acknowledge that the multitude wej;j? INDEX. 495 were Unitarians, ii. 357. — 359. Aflerts that the Trinita- rian was the common faiih, ihid, AthenagoraSy his teftimony to the general belief of the Trinity, ii. 453. Atonement^ do£lrine of Socinians concerning it, i. 533, Neceflity of that which is perfect, 554, 555. Aureliariy the Emperor, gave his I'entcnce for the expul- fion of Paulus Samofatenus from the Biihop's houfe, ii. 416, i^c. Raptifm, the inftitutlon of, a proof of the Trinity, i. 418, \£c. Whether meant as a form, 421, X^c. The confef- fion required in order to admiiTion to this ordinance, in the time of Juftin Martyr, ii. 308, 309. To be adminiikred a fecond time to thofe heretics whom Dr P. calls Unitarians, according to the decree of an Airican council, 265, 266. Baptised into the Nainey the meaning of this exprellion, i. 420, 421. Barchochebasy his cruelty to Chriftians, and the reafon of it, ii. 187, 188. Bardejanes, the Sytian, fuppofed to have wrote the Cic* mcntineSf ii. 321. Bafdideansj their tenets, ii. 376. Believing on the Name, the meaning of this language, i« 185, 186. 414, 415. BerylluSf Bifhop of Boflra, introduced heretical do6trines, ii. 432. Bether, a town in Judaea, where many thoufand Jews periflied, when it was befieged under Adrian, ii. 196, 197, Called Bitter by Eufebius, and Bethel in Jerom's works, ibid, Blafphemy, the ideas of the Jews on this head, i. 248.— 250. 388, iSc, Bodily prefence of Chrijl, held both by Papifts and b/ 5ocinians, i. 257. 3 Cfl^Wy 495 INDEX. Caim, the Prefbyter, his teftimony to the antiquity o£ the Trinitarian do6lrine, ii. 386. CalUd, the meaning of this term as frequently ufed in Scripture, L 208. 352. 363, 364. Carpocratians, their doftrine concerning Chrift, i. 168* ii. 14, 15. Cataphrygians, their tenets, ii. 301. 331. Catechumens, conduct of the church with refped to them, ii. 346. Celfus, the Epicurean Philofopher, afferts that the primi- tive Chriflians believed the deity of Chrift, ii. 179. — 182 ; and worHiipped him, 459, 460. Cerinthus^ the Gofpel of John faid to be written in oppo- iition to his errors, i. 162. Said to have taught the wor- fhip of angels, 193. Afcribed the creation of the world to them,ii. 14, 15. 215. Cerinthians^ tlieir dodrine concerning our Lord, i. 168. ii. 244. — 246. Afcribed the law to angels, 78. 253. Were acknowledged by the Socinians of the laft century as their predectfTors, 235. Chaldee Paraphrajis, their do6lrine concerning the Memra, i. 48, 6'c. Chrift, the Son and Lord of David, i. 3,4. The Light, 1^0. — 142. The Word of God, 130, X^c. 195. — 200. The objed of faith, 214.414; — 418; of worfhip, 214, 215 ; of fupreme love, 219. His deity to be inferred from his mediatory charader, 2C2, 203. 310, 311. Both proved by the fame arguments, thid. 235, 236. The I AM, 230, l£c. The Face of God, 277. — 280. Called the Way, in the Old as well as in the New Teftament, 274. — 276. The Holy One, 321, 322. The Ju[t One, 323, 324. The Prince of Life, 325, 326. The ever- lafting Father, 353, 354. The Brightnefs of Glory, 473. The exprefs image of the Father's Perfon, 473. — 475. Called God, 481, ^ofr. The Church is his, 345. 442. 487, 488. INDEX. 497 4^8. Appeared to Abraham, attended by two angels ii. 269, 370. Not free from lin, according to the blalphe- jny of Socinians, i. 328, 529. ii. 430, 431. Muft be God, even from what Socinians afciibe to him as Me- diator: the work of the new creation, i. 466. 5291 of giving an underllanding to know the true God, 192; of Providence, 475, 476 i of judgment, 4 ',2, 403. They admit that the deity dwelt in him, 143 ; that he knows the thoughts, 214; that baptifm ought to be admmiltered in his name, 427 ; that he is the laft end, 472. Chrzyiia/iSf generally known, in the apoltolic age, by a periphrafis, expreflive of their being worlhippers of Chrift, ^' 335— 337- Chryfojlom^ what may be inferred from his language con- cerning the dodtrine of the iirit Chriltians, ii. 340, 34 1» Clemens Romanus afferts the deity of Chrift, ii. 3. — 8. Clemens Alexaiidrinus^ his account of the faith and woiv ihip of the church, ii. 433. — 456. Clementine Homilies^ faid by Dr P. to be the work of an Unitarian, ii. 240. When compofed, 321, 322. Con- tain no proof of the prevalence of the Unitarian doc- trine among the learned, 320, X^c, The pre-exiftence of the Logos aflerted in this work, 324, \^c» And the gene- ration of the Son, ibid. Cloudsj an eftablifhed fymbol of the divine prefence, i, 392, 393. in what fenfe coming in or with them is afcri- bed to Chrift, ihid. Coming in the flejhy meaning of the phrafe, i. 169.— 177. Creation^ myliery in the fcriptural account of it, acknow- leged by the later Jews, i. 5. — 8. Dr P.'s idea of this T^'ork, 467. According to him, poilible to a creature, 326, 527. The work of Chrift, 461. — 473. The work of the «^if , afcribed to him by Socinians, a proof of his deity fore- told in prophecy, 462, Dr P.'s ftrange account of this work, 464, 465. Vol. II, \\ Cyprian 498 I N D E X. Cyprian avows the worflilp of Chrlft, ii. 462, 463. Dependence of the creature on God, not merely ultimate, but immediate, i. 243. Devz7, his exiilence denied by modern Socinians, i. 367. 515. 528. Devils, their teflimony concerning Chrift, i. ^6^. — 367. Dionyfius^ of Alexandria^ his account of the mode of pro- ceeding with heretics, ii. 414, 415. Btfcerning offpiriti^ the nature of this gift, i. 208, 209. DucenariuSf the nature of this office, li. 419. Ehion, the truth of his exiflence proved, ii. 48, \Sc. was an expofitor of fcripture, 38 — 60. A fdmple of his work, ibid. Ehionites, John wrote his Gofpel efpecially again ft them, according to Jerom, i> 162, 163. The Hebrew Chriftians not Ebionites, ii. 41, l£c. Origin of the name, 47, \^c. The time of their appearance, according to Epiphanius, 68. Accounted heretics by Irenteus, 217, l^c. By Juftin Mar- tyr, 219. By Tertullian, 222. — 228. 266, 267. ^y Cle- mens Alexandrinus, 228. By Origen, 71. 229, 230. By Ruffinus, 220, 221. How charadterized by Jerom, 108. — 110, Not conlidered by early writers as Chriftians, 44. 109, 392. AfTerted that circumcifion was neceflary to fal- vation, 43. Impofed the ceremonial law on the Gantiles, 43. 105. 148. Adhered to the Pharifaical walliings, 114. 153. — 155. Adopted fome of the rites of the Samaritans, 152. — 154. In what fenfe it is faid that they revered wa- ter as a god, ihid. Rejecled the Apoftle Paul as an apoftate, 45. n8. Their great affinity to the Gnoftics in a variety of refpc<5fs, i. 1 78. ii. 23 1 , l£c. Their gofpel different from that of the Nazarencs, 143. — 148. Denied the infpiration of the Old Tcflamcnt, charging it with many falfehoods, 140. — 143. Held the pre-exiftence of Chrift, 240. — 243. Two claiTes of them according to Oiigen, 71. 130. and Eufe. bius^ INDEX. 499 bius, 71* — 74. The one of which apoftatized from the be- ief of the divinity of our Saviour, ibid, and feems to have confifted of degenerate Nazarenes, 145, 146. Elcefaites^ Ebionites conne6led with them, ii. 154. Elohim^ this term faid to be ufed by the Jews to denote perfons, i. 1 1 . Emanations^ Gnollic doftrine of, held by Ebionites, ii. 238. — 244. Encratite3Tt]Q^zdL the epiftles of Paul, ii. 229, 230. Epiphanius, a Hebrew Chriftian, li. 107. His account of Nazarenes, 87, 88, AiTerts that they believed Chrift to be the Son of God, 95. His account of Ebionites, 87, Ethiopian Eunuch, his converlion, i. 307. His confeffion of the deity of Chrift, 341, 342. Eufebius, his teftimony concerning two claffes of Ebion- ites, one of which apoftatized from the faith of our Savi- our's divinity, ii. 71. — 74. Whether inconfiftent with himfelf, 432. or felf-contradidory, 436, 437. Dr P.'s eagernefs to invalidate his teftimony, i. 388. 391. 399. 438. The reafon of this, 432. 433. Excommunication of heretics, how condu£ted by the church in early times, ii. 411. — 414. Face of the Lord, one of the names of Chrift, i. 271, i^c* Faith, Chrift the object of it, i. 214 In what refpedl, 414. — 418. Its various aftings, 417, 418. How diftin- guiftied as to its objed by Socinians, 415. Fathers, the ufe and value of their teftimony, i. 8. 9. 293. 294. Finnilian, his teftimony concerning the Patripaflians, ii, 331, 332. His zeal ^gainft Paulus Samofatenus, Z31. Forgiving fin, the work of Chrift, and a proof of his dciiy, i. 244, l^c. I i 2 Genealogy joi INDEX Genealogy ofChriJl, cut off from the Gofpel of Matthe\r by the Ebionites, ii. 143. — 148. From that of Luke bj Marcion, 147. Glory of the Lord, one of the titles of Chrift, i. ^^^ 54. GnoJlicSi origin of the name, ii. 251. Jewifti and Gentile, 234. Some of their tenets, 236. A great reproach to the Chriftian name, 364. Their immoral doftrines and prac- tices, 374. — 376. John did not mean efpecially to oppofe them in the introdu6lion to his Gofpel, i. 157. — 163. Nor in his firfl epiftle, 163, i^c. Their agreement with Ebionites in various refpe£ls, 178. ii. 231, tifr. Dr P. endeavours to Ihew that the doftrine of the Trinity partly owed its origin to them, 231. — 233. ' God^ diftinguiftied from all creatures by certain criteria^ i. ICO. 283, 284. Gofpel of Matthew, mutilated and adulterated by Ebion- ites, ii. 143, 144. Said to be prefer ved entire by Naza- renes, 143. 147- Gofpel according to the Hehrewsy conjecture concerning it, ii. 45. Go [pels, three firfl, contain various proofs of the deity of Chrift,!. 201, l^c, Greek language, fo well known in Judea that it is faid ta have been called the vulgar, ii. 203, Grotius, although a Socinian, fo candid as to admit the orthodoxy of the Nazarenes, ii. 94. 147. Thinks that their gofpel v>ras entire, 147, 148. Hagar, the Angel who fpoke to her the Word, according to Philo and the Paraphrafts, i. 54, 35. Her own faith on this head, 100. — 102. Heathen 'writers, their teftimonies concerning the worfhJp of Chrift, and the dodrine of the Trinity, ii. 459, 460. 466. —468. 470, 471. Heanjifi INDEX. SOX heaven, f peaking fro77i, a proof of deity, i. 103. Hebreiu Chrijlians, three clalTes of them mentioned by Origen, ii. l6i, 162. 164. Some of whom believed the deity of Ch rift, iii. — 113. Some who renounced the ce- remonial law, t6i, 162. 164. Hebrews, Epijlle to the, originally wrote in Greek, ii. 204. Hebrews, Go/pel according to the, ufed by Chriftians of that nation, ii. 45. Tranllated into Greek by Jerom, 146, Hcrejippus, not an Ebionite, ii. 12, ^f. His character as an hirtorian, j8. 22. Hermogenes, a Patripaflian and a Materialift, ii. 319. Ter- tullian wrote againft him, ibid. Hierocles, his charader of Chriftians, ii. 466. Holy One, Chrift fo called, i. 321, 322. Homuncionites, thofe who afTerted that Chrift was a mere man thus diftinguiftied, ii. 277. I AM, one of the titles of Chrift, i. 250, Mc, Equiva- lent to Jehovah, 279. 1 am he, the meaning of this expreflion, i. 277, 278. 'James the Jujl, account given of him by Hcgefippus, iz» 33— -SS- Icomum, council of, Patripaflians condemned in it, ii. 331- Jehovah, this name not given to any creature, i. 64, 65. 82, 83. no. III. Doctrine of the Jews concerning it, 62. —66. Jerom, his zeal againft Judaifm, ii. 80. — 82. His good information concerning the Nazarenes, 107, 108. Ac- quainted with Hebrews who believed the deity of Chrift, diftinct from the Nazarenes, 113. 118, 119. Excelled the •tber Fathers in learning, 123. Jejus, the import of this name, i. 207, 208, 331. 1 i 3 Jswi/h 502 INDEX. yewijh rebellion, under Barchochebas, caufe of it, ii. 19^^ Sufferings of the Jews in coniequence of it, 197. Expelled from Jerulalem and not fuffered to look on their country, but at a diftance, 183. — 193. 'Jews, fometimes called Phenicians by heathen writers, i. 23. Acknowledge myfteries in the fcriptural hiftory of the crearion, 5. — 8. Their diflimulation in expounding the do6lrines of fcripture, and the articles of their creed,, ihid. 93. Their fear of giving any fupport to Chriftianity, the reafon of this, 8. Believed that the Mefliah fhould be the adorable God, 9. In later times admit, that Jefus was ac- knowledged by his difciples, and' that he declared himfelf to be God, 501. Dr P.'s fyftem concerning their dodrine of the divine unity overthrown by his own principles, 52 1». Ignatius aflerts the deity of Chrift, ii. 10, il. Image of the Father, Chrifl is, i. 473. — 475. Immanuel, this name explained, i. 203. — 208. Indian Bramins, have fome notions of a Trinity, i. 27, 28". Inl'piration of fcripture, agreement of Ebionites and Gno- ilics in the denial of this, ii. 250. Denied by Dr P, ihid. John Baptiji, difference between his chara£^er and that of Jtfus, i. 141, 142. 153, 154. 318. His do6lrine concern- ing Jefus, i. 438. 443. John, the apoflle, of the Introdu£Uon to his gofpel, i. 129, \£c. Did not mean efpecially to oppofe the Gn"lfics in it, 158, int of Go^i bearing wltnefs to Chrift, i. 309. The Spirit of Chrift, ibid. Poured out by him, 3 16. — 320. This e. (Iriking proof of his deity, ibid. Spirit ofholincfsy denotes the divine nature of Chrifl, i. 431,452. Stephen^ the pvotomartyr, a worfliippf r of Jefus, i. 333. Sulpicius Sevenis, his teftimony concerning the faith of Hebrew Chriliians, ii. 172. — 178. Swearing) the Jcwifh mode of, i. 264. 387. SymmachianSf the account given of them by Auftin, ii. 95. — 98. 128, i2g,; by Ambrofe, 97. Said to derive their origin trom the Pharifees, ibid, Symmachus, his chara£ter, ii, 39, 40. A MS. work of his on all the books of the Old Teftament faid to be Hill extant, 141, 142. Syriac^ the New Teflament fai^ to have been early tranf* lated into this language, ii. 33. ^atian fpeaks of the belief of the deity of Chrift as gene- ral among Chriftians, ii. 452. Terttill.an, the motive afcribed to him in writing againli Praxeas, ii. 3 1 6. Afikrts that Chrift was generally adored in his time, 456. — 458. ^beodoret, his teftimony concerning the Nazarenes, ii. 102. Theodqiian herefy^ in what fenfe a branch of that of the ■Ahgi) ii. 393. Theodcjiioity the tranflator, fome account of him, ii. 37, 38. V^beodotuSi the xurrier, feems to have been the iirll Gen- tile who avowed the principles called Unitarian, ii. 313. j therefore defigned the leader and parent of this apoftacy, 392. Occafioa of his apoftacy, 393. 408. Excommuni- €ated by Vidor, 387. ^^^, ^eodotuh INDEX. 513 TheodotuSf the Silverfmitb, a follower of Montanus, ii. 3C0, 301. Theo l)bilus y oi A.n\\oc\\y alTerts the dodrinc of the Tri- nity, ii. 452. Wrote againft Hcrmogenes, 319. Thomas, his confeflion, i. 514. Thoughts, the hnowleage of, peculiar to God, yet afcribed to Chrill, i. 2c8. — 214. Toland, his plan of reafoning againft Chriftianity in ge- neral adopted by Dr P., in oppofing the dodrine of the deity of Chrift, ii. 41. 47, 48. 54. 60, 61. 96. Trinitarmnsy all the early writers that have come down to us, except one, according to the conceflion of Dr P., ii. 321. Trinity, materially taught by Philo, i. 15. By other Jews, 73. — 78. Hints, of this dodrine in the writings of heathens, 24. — 28. No contradiction, 534. — 547. The ufe ot this do6liine, 551, .'•,AJS^ ^jW ■^'1*^ ■■ ^ V