SEP  1%  1981 
 
 337/ 
 
s^ 
 
 o-*- 
 
A  N 
 
 ILLUSTRA  T  J  O   N 
 
 '^^^Olu,  • 
 
 O  F    T  H  E 
 
 METHOD    OF   EXPLAINING 
 
 THE 
 
 NEW    TESTAMENT 
 
 B  Y    T  H  E 
 
 EARLY  OPINIONS  OF  JEWS  AND  CHRISTIANS 
 CONCERNING  CHRIST. 
 
 By    W.    WILSON,    B.D. 
 
 FELLOW  OF  ST.  JOHN'S  COLLEGE,  CAMBRIDGE. 
 ^=S5s^;^35^^- 
 
 CAMBRIDGE, 
 
 PRINTED   BY   J.  BURGES    PRINTER    TO    THE   UNIVERSITY; 
 
 AND   SOLD    BY     F.  &:   C.    RIVINGTON,    ST.   PAUL's    CHURCH' 
 
 YARD,    AND    R.   FALDER,    BOND-STREET,  LONDON} 
 
 AND    J.     DEIGHTON,    AND    J.    NICHOLSON,    CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 MDCCXCVII, 
 
 PRICE  SEVEN  SHILLINGS, 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAP.    T. 
 
 1.  Importance  of  the  inquiry  into  the  grounds  of  Jesus  Christ's 
 Condemnation.  2.  Expeiflations  of  the  Jewish  nation.  3.  Their 
 principal  reason  for  believing  Jesus  an  impostor  would  be  their 
 principal  motive  for  condemning  him  to  death.  4.  Inquiry  into  the 
 grounds  of  his  condemnation.  p.  t. 
 
 CHAP.    ir. 
 
 t.  Different  significations  of  the  phrase  "  Son  of  God."  Proposal  of 
 the  question;  In  what  sense  it  is  applied  to  Jesus  Christ  in  the  New 
 Testament?  2.  Argument  to  prove  that  it  implied  his  divinity, 
 from  considering  the  probable  objecSl  of  his  trial.  3.  Second  argu- 
 ment from  considering  the  nature  of  the  crime  for  which  he  suffered. 
 Opinions  of  Grotius  and  others  on  this  subjet't.  4.  Third 
 argument  from  considering  the  Law  by  which  he  was  condemned, 
 Jesus  Christ  condemned  by  the  law  of  Moses.  No  Law  in  the 
 Pentateuch  or  Mischna  against  any  one  declaring  himself  the  son  of 
 God,  unless  the  phrase  be  supposed  to  imply  divinity.  Whether' 
 Jesus  was  condemned  by  the  Law  in  the  i8th  Chap,  of  Deuteronomy. 
 The  opinion  of  Grotius.  Opinions  of  others.  5.  Objeii^ion  against 
 the  miracles  of  Christ  considered.  The  Jews  suppose  Christ  to  have 
 been  condemned  by  the  Law  in  the  13th  Chap,  of  Deuteronomy. 
 Inconsistency  of  two  obje(5lions  against  the  Christian  mir.acles. 
 6.  Fourth  argument  from  comparing  the  proceedings  of  tlie  Sanhe- 
 drim with  the  conduit  of  the  Jewish  people  on  difl'erent  occasions. 
 Whether  the  Fathers  have  denied  that  Jesus  Christ  taught  his  own 
 divinity  and  preexistence.  The  reason  assigned  by  them  for  tlie 
 caution  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles  satisf3(5lory  :  and  affords  no  pre- 
 lumption  against  the  reality  of  these  docStrines.  Apparent  inconsis- 
 tency in  the  condud  of  the  Jewish  People  accounted  for.  p.  iz. 
 
 C  HAP.    III. 
 
 OTHER  REASONS,  WHICH  HAVE  BEEN  ASSIGNED 
 FOR  THE  JEWISH  REJECTION  AND  CONDEMNA- 
 TION OF  CHRIST,  EXAMINED. 
 
 I.  The  prejudices  against  the  humble  bitth  of  Christ,  and  his  want  of 
 external  splendor  not  to  be  assigned  as  the  principal  causes  of  his 
 percesulion  by  the  Jews,  unless  it  can  be  discovered  from  the  New 
 Testament  that  they  produced  this  effe<5l.  2.  Effect  of  the  prejudice 
 against  his  birth.  3.  Effedl  of  the  prejudice  against  !iis  want  of 
 temporal  power  and  splendor.  4  The  etfedl  of  these  iirejudices  in 
 a  considerable  degree  destroyed  by  the  intluefice  of  his  miracles. 
 The  real  grounds  of  his  persecution  by  the  Jews  how  to  be 
 dletermineJ.  p.  62. 
 
 u.  CHAP. 
 
 e 
 
n  CONTENTS; 
 
 CHAP.    IV. 
 
 WHETHER  THE  TERM  "  SON  OF  GOD"  WAS  ONE  OF 
 THE  APPROPRIATE  TITLES  OF  THE  MESSIAH 
 WITH  THE  JEWISH  NATION  IN  THE  TIME  OF 
 CHRIST. 
 
 t.  Foundation  of  the  opinion  that  Jesus  was  condemned  for  simply 
 declaring  himself  the  Messiah.  Tliree  combinations  of  opinions 
 relating  to  this  subjedt  noticed.  Proposal  of  the  Question.  2.  Theory 
 of  Allix.  3.  Evidence  from  the  New  Testament  to  prove  that  the 
 Jewish  Messiah  was  called  the  son  of  God.  Examination  of  this 
 evidence.  What  is  proved  by  it.  4.  Opposite  evidence  from  the 
 New  Testament.  Testimony  of  Origen.  Conclusion.  5.  Applica- 
 tion of  this  conclusion  to  the  History  of  Jesus  Christ's  trial.       p.  74. 
 
 CHAP.    V. 
 
 WHETHER  THE  JEWISH  SANHEDRIM  REALLY  BE- 
 LIEVED JESUS  CHRIST  GUILTY  OF  THE  CRIME 
 FOR  WHICH  THEY  CONDEMNED  HIM. 
 
 I.  Regularity  of  their  proceedings,  length  of  the  trial,  their  earnestness 
 and  unanimity.  2.  Tlieir  conduit  on  the  second  trial.  3.  Tliey 
 had  no  material  objedt  to  gain  by  pronouncing  Jesus  guilty  without 
 being  persuaded  of  his  criminality.  4.  Their  sincerity  appears  from 
 the  silence  and  conduiSl  of  Clirisi,  5.  And  St.  Peter's  address  to  his 
 countrymen.  6.  From  a  general  view  of  the  condudt  of  the  Jewish 
 people.  p.  lOi. 
 
 CHAP.    VI. 
 
 ON  THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  WORDS  OF 
 JESUS  CHRIST  BY  HIS  CONTEMPORARIES  AND 
 COUNTRYMEN. 
 
 I.   The    general  opinion  of  readers  of  tlie   New  Testament  on   the 
 meaning    of   the   passages  in    it  relating    to   the   nature  of  Christ. 
 Did'erent    meiliods  of    explaining    difficulties   in    ancient  Authors. 
 The  sense,  in  wliicli  an  Author  has  been  understood  by  subsei}uent 
 writers  not  far  removed  from  his  own  age,  important.    The  sense,  iii 
 which  the  New  Testament  was  understood  by  Celsus  and    other 
 ancient  Jieathens,  probably  just.     The  general  concurrence  of  the 
 Christian  v.riturs  of  the  first  Centuries,  in  any  one  opinion  relating 
 to  the  sense  of  certain  passages  in  Scripture,  affords  a  strong  pre- 
 sumjition  of  the  truth  of  that  opinion.     2.    Interpretation  of  the 
 words  of  a  speaker  by  his  hearers.     Concurrence  of  different  bodies 
 of  hearers  in  the  same  interpretation   proves  the  interpretation  just. 
 Dr.  Priestley's  opinion  of  tlic  importance  of  the  interpretation  of 
 words  by  thost ,  to  whom  they  are  addressed.     His  method  of  col- 
 ic6U»g  the  liilcrprctauoa  of  the  New  Testament  by  the  first  Gentile 
 
 Christians. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Ill 
 
 Christians.  3.  Concurrence  of  several  bodies  of  Jews  anJ  of  the 
 Roman  Governor  in  annexing  the  same  sense  to  the  words  of  Christ. 
 Their  interpretation  confirmed  by  the  acquiescence  of  Christ  himself 
 and  the  Evangelists.  4.  Whether  the  Jews  supposed  Christ  to 
 aliiide  to  the  dodrine  of  iransubstantiation.  p.  114. 
 
 CHAP.    VII. -XIII. 
 
 THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 
 BY  THE  FIRST  JEWISH  CHRISTIANS,  COLLECTED 
 FROM  THEIR  RELIGIOUS  OPINIONS. 
 
 CHAP.    VII. 
 
 J,  The  opinions  of  the  first  Jewish  Christians  might  be  inferred  from 
 those  of  the  unbelieving  Jews.  Their  opinions  may  be  determined 
 by  historical  Testimony.  2.  Dr.  Horsley's  statement  of  the  testi- 
 mony in  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas.  "  The  Author  a  Christian  of  the 
 Hebrews — a  believer  in  our  Lord's  Divinity  —  writes  to  Christians 
 of  the  Hebrews  concurring  in  the  same  belief."  p.  141, 
 
 CHAP.    VIII. 
 
 J.  —  2.  Misstatements  of  the  testimonies  of  Justin  Martyr  and  Irenseus 
 on  the  subjedt  of  the  Jewish  Christians  corredted.  p.  150. 
 
 CHAP.    IX. 
 
 I,  Importance  of  determining  the  opinions  of  the  primitive  church  of 
 Jerusalem.  The  opinions  of  this  church  identified  with  those  of 
 Hegesippus.  Hegesippus  supposed  by  Dr.  Priestley  to  have  been  an 
 Ebionitish  Unitarian.  2.  This  opinion  refuted  by  Lardner.  3. 
 Reasons  assigned  for  supposing  Hegesippus  an  Unitarian.  4.  Exami- 
 nation of  these  reason?.  5.  Whether  Eusebius  would  speak  favour- 
 ably of  an  Ebionite.  Positive  testimony  of  Eusebius  to  the  religious 
 opinions  of  Hegesippus.  Hegesippus  proved  by  this  testimony  to 
 have  been  a  believer  in  the  divinity  of  Christ.  6.  Testimony  of 
 Hegesippus  to  the  purity  of  the  faith  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem. 
 
 p.  ijiS. 
 
 CHAP.    X. 
 
 I.  Testimony  of  Eusebius  to  the  priority  of  the  opinions  of  the  church. 
 Claim  of  Marcellus  to  the  priority  of  his  opinions.  Claim  of 
 the  Artemonite  Unitarians  to  the  priority  of  their  opinions.  Refu- 
 tation of  these  claims.  Inconsistent  with  one  another.  Refuted  as 
 soon  as  they  were  advanced  by  Caius  and  Eusebius.  2.  Credibility 
 of  the  testimony  of  Eusebius  on  the  subjeft  of  the  primitive  church 
 of  Jerusalem.  Appeal  to  his  testimony  and  that  of  Sulpicius  Severui 
 on  the  subjedl  of  the  Jewish  Christians  by  Dr.  Priestley.  Eusebiui 
 not  disposed  to  speak  highly  in  favour  of  Ebionites.  His  testimony 
 to  the  faith  of  the  primitive  church  of  Jerusalem.  3.  Testimony  of 
 gulpicius  Severus.   4.  Collateral  testimony  of  other  writers,  Eusebius, 
 
 iia  *  TheodoTtr'., 
 
iv  CONTENTS. 
 
 Theodoret,  Epiphanius,  The  author  of  the  Alexandrian  Chronicle. 
 The  oris;\n  of  the  Ebionltes  universally  allowed  to  have  been  at  the 
 end  of  the  iirst,  or  the  beginning  of  the  second  Century.  5.  Summary 
 view  of  the  evidence  to  prove  that  the  primitive  church  of  Jerusalem 
 believed  in  the  divinity  of  Christ.  p.  183. 
 
 CHAP.    XI. 
 
 I.  The  anciept  testimonies  to  the  opinions  of  the  fint  Jewish 
 Christians  unopposed  by  any  evidence,  except  an  argument 
 founded  on  the  opinions  of  Ebionites  in  the  third  Century  as  de- 
 icribed  by  Origen.  Examination  of  this  argument.  Its  weakness 
 virtually  allowed  by  Dr.  Priestley;  who  contends,  that  the  opinions 
 of  one  part  of  the  Jewish  Christians  changed  between  a.  d.  170,  and 
 130.  Origen's  testimony  not  inconsistent  with  that  of  Hegesippus, 
 jtusebius  and  Sulpicius.  2.  Disappearance  of  Jewish  Cliristians  in 
 most  pf  the  churches  in  the  second  Century.  Their  extindtioa 
 accounted  for  from  the  cqmbined  influence  of  several  causes. 
 Judaism  had  been  abandoned  by  some  members  even  of  the  church 
 pf  Jerusalem  before  the  time  of  Adrian.  It  would  probably  bo 
 abandoned  by  the  greater  part  of  them  after  the  edidl  of  Adrian. 
 Most  of  them  would  probably  have  ceased  to  be  Jews  (properly  so 
 called)  before  the  time  of  Origen.  Had  Origen  declared,  that  all 
 the  7'wi  professing  the  Christian  religiop  in  ^listime  were  Ebionites, 
 his  testimony  would  npt  be  inponsistent  with  that  of  Hegesippus, 
 Eusebiusand  Sulpicius.  p.  JOj. 
 
 CHAP.    XII. 
 
 I. — 1  Opinions  of  Petavius,  Tillcmont,  Mosheim,  Horsley,  Priestley 
 on  tlie  meaning  of  two  passages,  in  the  opening  of  the  second  Book 
 of  Origen's  treatise  against  Celsus,  on  the  subje<5l  of  the  Christians  of 
 Jewish  extra<flion  in  the  third  Century.  3. — 4.  Explanation  of  these 
 passages.  Both  Celsus  and  Origen  bear  testimony  to  the  existence  of 
 Christians  of  Jewish  extracftion,  who  had  abandoned  the  observance 
 of  tlie  Mosaic  law.  5.  General  view  of  Origen's  reply  to  the  first 
 charge  of  Celsus  against  the  Christians  of  Jewish  extracflion.  6. 
 Testimony  of  Celsus  to  the  belief  of  the  great  body  of  Christians  of 
 Jewish  cxtradion  in  the  divinity  of  Christ.  This  testimony  con- 
 lirmfd  by  the  acquiescence  of  Origen.  How  far  Origen  has  denied 
 the  truth  of  the  charges  of  Celsus  in  the  opening  of  the  second 
 Book.  p.  :i6. 
 
 CHAP.    XIII. 
 
 J.  Testimorjy  of  Sulpicius  Severus  to  the  desertion  of  the  Mosaic 
 by  Jewish  Christians.  Testimony  of  Basil  to  the  con- 
 formity, in  faith  and  manners,  between  Jewish  and  Gentile 
 Christians.  2.  The  observance  of  the  ritual  la\y  prohibited  in  the 
 churches,  whiph  were  partly  composed  of  Jev.-s  and  partly  of  Gen- 
 tiles, about  the  end  of  the  first  Century.  Judaism  probably  aban- 
 doned by  most  of  the  members  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem  about 
 A.  i).  136,  3.  Opinions  of  the  Jcwiih  Christians  in  the  fir»t  Cen- 
 tury 
 
 <-/■■ ' 
 
CONTENTS.  V 
 
 tury  on  the  subjeel  of  the  nature  of  Clirist.  Their  ini2rpreta:ion  of 
 the  New  Testament  collefled  from  their  opinions.  Thjy  must  have 
 thought  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  divinity  very  clearly  taught  by 
 .himself  and  the  Apostles.  p.  2j6. 
 
 CHAP.    XIV, 
 
 THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 
 BY  THE  EBIONITES  COLLECTED  FROM  THEIR 
 RELIGIOUS  OPINIONS. 
 
 I.  Whether  the  Ebionites  and  Naznrieans  of  the  second  Century  were 
 two,  or  three  sefts,  a  subje6t  of  dispute.  Singular  hypothesis  of 
 Dr.  Priestley,  that  they  were  only  'jne  setfl  till  after  the  age  of 
 Irenxus,  and  that  secft  entertaining  the  same  opinions  with  himself 
 on  the  subjedt  of  the  nature  of  Christ.  Dr.  Priestley's  method  of 
 colledling  the  sense  of  the  New  Testament  on  this  subjecfl  from  the 
 opinions  of  the  Ebionites.  The  principle,  by  which  their  inter- 
 pretation of  the  New  Testament  is  coUedled,  false.  Those  among 
 the  Ebionites,  who  had  read  the  New  Testament,  probably  thought 
 it  to  contain  doctrines  relating  to  the  nature  of  Christ  opp'-.^ite  to 
 their  own.  Their  opinions,  the  representation  of  dodtrines  taught  in 
 their  own  canonical  books,  and  not  of  those  of  the  New  Testa- 
 ment.—Consequence  of  appealing  to  the  opinions  of  the  Ebionites 
 as  the  just  representations  of  the  doctrines  of  Christianity.  Conse- 
 quence of  appealing  to  their  opinions  in  order  to  discover  the  sense  of 
 the  New  Testament.  2.  Toland's  attempt  to  destroy  the  authority 
 of  the  New  Testament,  and  Dr.  Priestley's  method  of  explaining 
 it,  compared.  Summary  view  of  the  interpretation  of  the  Nevr 
 Testament,  i.  By  the  Jews.  j.  Primitive  church  of  Jerusalem. 
 3.  Ebionites.  3.  The  greatest  part  of  the  New  Testament  not 
 received  by  the  Ebionites.  Summary  view  of  the  evidence  on  thit 
 jubjeft.  p.  Z/S* 
 
 CHAP.    XV. -XVIII. 
 
 THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 
 BY  THE  FIRST  GENIILE  CHRISTIANS  CQLLECTED 
 FROM  THEIR  RELIGIOUS  OPINIONS. 
 
 CHAP.    XV. 
 
 I.  Observations  on  the  interpretation  of  the  words  of  the  New 
 Testament,  i.  By  the  Jews  2.  The  great  body  of  Jewish  Chris- 
 tians. 3.  The  Ebionites.  4.  The  Gentile  Christians.  2.  Claim  of 
 Simon  Magus  to  identity  with  Christ.  To  support  this  claim  he 
 judged  it  necessary  to  assert  his  own  divinity.  The  first  Gnostical 
 secits  denied  the  human  nature  of  Christ  altogether.  Corred^ion  of 
 their  errors  by  the  sacred  writers  and  the  apostolical  fathers.  In 
 correcting  thp  errors  of  those,  who  contended  for  the  simple  divinity 
 of  Christ,  the  Apostles  and  primitive  Fathers  must  sometimes  have 
 asserted  tjiat  Christ  was  a  man  only,  if  they  had  intended  to  teaclx 
 tl)e  doctrine  of  his  simple  humanity.  No  declaration  to  this  u-ffedt 
 is  to  be  found  in  the  New  Testament,  or  in  any  Christian  writing  in 
 the  first  Ceptury  after  the  establishment  of  Christianitv.  p.  306. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
vi  CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAP.    XVI. 
 
 I.  Observations  on  the  authority  of  the  apostolical  fathers,  and  Dr. 
 Priestley's  use  of  them.  2.  The  divinity  of  Christ  taught  by  Barnabas. 
 3.  By  Hernias  4.  By  Clemens  Romanus.  External  testimony  to 
 the  religious  opinions  of  Clemens.  5.  The  divinity  of  Christ  taught 
 in  the  genuine  Epistles  of  Ignatius.  Summary  view  of  the  contro- 
 versy relating  to  these  Epistles  from  Parkhurst.  Wakefield's  argu* 
 ment  to  prove  them  corrupted.  Examination  of  this  argument.  6. 
 Dr.  Priestley's  objedlion.  7.  Pearson's  arguments  not  invalidated  by 
 the  answer  of  Larroque.  Larroque  refined  by  other  writers.  Ac- 
 knowledgement of  Le  Clerc.  8.  Ignatius  a  believer  in  the  divinity  of 
 Christ  — proved  by  external  and  internal  evidence.  9.  The  religious 
 opinions  of  Folycarp  identified  with  those  of  Irenaeus,  his  scholar. 
 
 p.  316. 
 
 CHAP.     XVII; 
 
 I.  Opinions  openly  professed  and  continually  taught  by  the  learned 
 will  be  received  by  the  great  body  of  the  people.  2.  Popular 
 opinions  in  any  age  how  coUedled  from  contemporary  writings, 
 3.  The  opinions  of  the  Christians  of  Philippi  coUeifled  from  the 
 epi&tles  of  Polycarp.  4.  5.  6.  7.  The  religious  opinions  of  the 
 Ephesian,  Magnesian,  Trallian  and  Roman  Christians  identified 
 with  those  of  Ignatius.  8.  The  religious  opinions  of  part  of  the 
 Christians  of  Philadelphia  the  same  with  those  of  Ignatius.  No 
 evidence  that  the  others  belived  in  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ. 
 9.  Statement  of  Dr.  Priestley's  negative  evidence  to  prove  Unita- 
 riani.sm  the  faith  of  Polycarp  and  Ignatius,  and  of  Christians  in 
 general  of  their  age.  E.\amination  of  this  evidence.  View  of  the 
 ancient  testimonies  on  the  subjedl  of  the  antiquity  of  the  different 
 Unitarian  sefts.  P-  343- 
 
 CHAP.     XVIII. 
 
 t.  Hymns,  in  which  the  divinity  of  Christ  w.as  celebrated,  appealed 
 to  A.  D.  220.  as  compositions  of  the  first  age  of  Christianity. 
 Hymns  used  in  the  religious  assemblies  of  Christians,  a.  d.  260. 
 discarded  by  Paul  of  Samosata  as  modern  compositions.  The  dis- 
 pute between  Christians  of  the  third  Century-  on  this  subjeft  decided 
 by  the  testimony  of  Pliny.  View  of  this  testimony  in  conneaion 
 Tiith  other  evidence  to  the  opinions  of  the  first  Christians  on  the 
 subjea  of  Christ's  nature.  2.  General  view  of  the  testimony  of  the 
 writers  in  the  second  and  following  Centuries  on  the  same  subje<a. 
 The  claims  of  the  Unitarians  in  the  third  Century  to  superior  anti- 
 quity, contradidtory  and  false  —  immediately  refuted  by  other 
 writers.  3.  Statement  of  Dr.  Priestley's  three  arguments  to  prove 
 Unitarianism  tlie  religion  of  the  first  Christians.  Examination  of 
 the  last.  Ciiristian  writers  before  Justin.  Gnostics.  Apostolical 
 I-athers.  4.  5.  6.  7.  Testimony  to  the  religious  opinions  of  Aristides, 
 Agrippa,  Quadratiis,  Papias,  and  Aristo  of  Pella  8.  Only  one 
 I'nitarian  ivriur  before  the  time  of  Justin.  All  the  others,  e.xcept 
 Cennthus,  cither  believed  in  the  simple  divinity  of  Christ,  or  enter- 
 tained opinions  corresponding  to  the  orthodo.\y  of  the  second  and 
 third  Centuries.  P-  3<><>- 
 
 C  H  A  R 
 
CONTENTS:  vii 
 
 CHAP.    XIX. 
 
 EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  PRIESTLEY'S  PRESUMPTIVE 
 EVIDENCE  TO  PROVE  THE  GENTILE  CHRISTIANS, 
 IN  THE  SECOND  AND  THIRD  CENTURIES,  GENE- 
 RALLY UNITARIANS. 
 
 1.  Statement  of  his  presumptive  evidence  to  prove  Unitarianism  the 
 religion  of  the  cmmon  pe'iplc  in  the  second  and  third  Centuries,  i. 
 Observations  on  a  part  of  this  evidence.  3.  Jewish  and  Gentile 
 Unitarians  censured  as  Heretics  in  the  first  writings  of  Christians 
 professedly  on  the  subjedl  of  Heresy.  4.  The  age  of  the  first  Alogians 
 determined.  5.  Origin  of  a  new  system  of  Unitarianism.  Unita. 
 rians  considered  as  Heretics  by  Clemens  Alexandrinus  and  Ter- 
 tullian.  If  Unitarians  were  on  any  account  considered  as  iieretics 
 in  the  second  Century,  they  were  few  in  number.  6.  Recapitulation. 
 Unitarians  of  every  description  considered  as  heretics  in  the  second 
 Century.  p.  390. 
 
 CHAP.    XX. 
 
 EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  PRIESTLEY'S  "DIRECT  EVI- 
 DENCE" TO  PROVE  THE  GENTILE  CHRISTIANS, 
 IN  THE  SECOND  AND  THIRD  CENTURIES,  GENE- 
 RALLY UNITARIANS. 
 
 I.  Dr.  Priestley  colle<5ts  the  opinions  of  the  Apostolic  age  from  the 
 opinions  of  unlearned  Christians  very  remote  from  that  age.     2.  He 
 negledts  the  testimony  of  heathen  writers  to  the   opinions  of  the 
 great  body  of  Christians  in  the  second  and  third  Centuries.   3.  State- 
 ment of  his  testimonies  from  Orlgen,  TertuUian,  Athanaslus  and 
 Jerom.     4,  Examination  of  these  testimonies.     Origen,  Athanaslus 
 and  Jerom  are  speaking  of  a  want  of  knowledge  in  tlie  common 
 people,  not  of  any  error  in  their  faith — The  Fathers  of  the  second] 
 third  and  fourth  Centuries  have  not  asserted,  that  St.  John  was  the 
 first,  who  taught  the  dodtrine  of  Christ's  divinity.     5.  Examination 
 of  TertuUian's  testimony.     View  of  the  two  kinds  of  Unitarianism 
 in  TertuUian's  time,     Corredlion  of  Dr.  Priestley's  misstatement- 
 The  Unitarians  of  TertuUian  are  represented  by  him  ^%  followers  of 
 Praxeas,  as  Monarchists,  not  believers  in  the  simple  humanity  of 
 Christ.     View  of  the  circumstances,  which  occasioned  TertuUian's 
 treatise  against  Praxeas,    The  Unitarians  mentioned  in  this  piece  are 
 the  common  people  of  the  Christians  In  Carthage,  not  the  world  at 
 large:  not  ancient,  but  converted  to  this  faith  in  TertuUian's   time, 
 TertuUian's  testimony  to  the  belief  of  Christians  in  general  in  the 
 divinity  of  Christ,  p.  419. 
 
 CHAP.    XXI.— XXIII. 
 
 THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 
 BY  THE  FIRST  GENTILE  CHRISTIANS,  COLLECTED 
 
 FROM  THEIR  RELIGIOUS  OPINIONS. 
 
 I.  The 
 
viii  CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAP.   xxr. 
 
 r.  The  usual  praiflice  of  Histurian;  t()  determine  the  state  of  opinion 
 in  any  age  by  the  general  spirit  of  its  writmjjs.  2.  lieasonablenes* 
 of  this  method.  If  tiie  great  body  of  Christians  in  the  second  and 
 third  Centuries  had  been  Unitarians,  many  writers  would  have  been 
 Unitarians  also.  3.  The  rulers  of  the  cluirch  could  not  be  professed 
 Trinitarians,  while  the  people  were  Unitarians,  from  the  natvire  of 
 the  church  government:  4.  and  from  tlie  severity,  with  which 
 Unitarians  were  treated.  5.  The  writings  of  learned  Christian* 
 in  tlie  second  and  third  Centuries  would  have  been  of  a  different 
 cast,  if  ilie  com.nion  people  h.id  been  Unitarians,  6.  Theodoret's 
 testimony  to  the  influence  of  the  bishops  with  the  common  people, 
 before  the  council  of  Nice.  7.  The  divinity  of  Christ  taught  in 
 hymns  used  in  the  religious  service,  in  which  learned  and  unlearned 
 Christians  joined.  8.  The  doiflrine  of  Christ's  divinity  proved  to 
 have  been  the  prevailing  opinion  in  the  second  and  third  Centuries, 
 by  comparing  the  different  pretensions  of  Unitarians  and  Trinitarians 
 in  those  ages.  9.  Unitarians  proved  to  have  been  inconsiderable  in 
 nuajbcr  by  the  first  adi  of  Constantine  after  his  conversion,     p.  450. 
 
 CHAP.     XXII. 
 
 1.  General  testimony  of  the  heathens  in  the  second  and  third  Centurie* 
 to  tlie  belief  of  Christians  in  the  divinity  t>f  Christ.  Never  denied 
 by  the  learned  or  unk.irned  Christians  2.  Testimony  of  Adrian. 
 3  Testimony  of  the  Heathens  and  Jews  mentioned  by  Justin.  4. 
 Testimony  of  Celsus  and  Lucian.  5.  Testimony  of  the  Heathens  in 
 general  mentioned  by  Minutius  Felix.  6.  Testimony  of  Porphyry, 
 7.  Testimony  of  Hierocles  and  anotlier  heathen  writer  noticed  by 
 LaCt.'tntius.  8.  Testimony  of  the  heathens  in  general  as  described 
 by  Arnobius.  9.  The  gener.al  testimony  of  the  heathens  on  this 
 subjecl  unopposed  by  any  individual  among  themselves.  —  Effedt, 
 wliich  the  objection  of  the  heathens  would  have  produced  on  tlie 
 Apologies  of  the  learned  and  unlearned  Christians,  if  it  had  been 
 without  foundation.  p.  470. 
 
 CHAP.     XXIII. 
 
 I.  Testimony  of  Justin  Martyr  to  the  belief  of  Christians,  particularly 
 0/  the  common  people,  in  the  divinity  of  Ciirist.  His  obligation  to 
 relate  the  truth  as  descr.bcd  by  Lardncr.  2.  Testimony  of  Athena- 
 goras.  3.  Tatian.  4.  Theophilus.  5.  Hegcsippus  and  Irensus. 
 6.  Tertul!i.:n.  7.  Testimony  of  Origcn  to  the  belief  of  Christians, 
 particularly  of  the  comomn  people,  in  the  divinity  of  Christ.  He 
 complains  of  the  conmioii  people  offering  up  pra\  eis  to  Christ,  at 
 tl;c  lime  tli.it  he  retuininends  tliem  to  pr.iy  to  God  the  Father  only 
 through  Christ,  His  obligation  to  relate  the  truth  as  described  by 
 Dr.  Priestley.  Testimony  of  Novatian.  8.  Arnobiusand  La<5tantius. 
 9.  Gener.il  view  of  the  evidence  on  this  siibjeCl.  Inference  respect- 
 ing the  opinions  of  Christian.s  in  the  )js(  Century  from  the  opinions  of 
 ilic  learned  and  iinle. lined  Christians  in  the  second  and  third.  Their 
 intcipretation  of  the  words  of  Chiist  and  hi*  .-^j-'ustles  c<jlle<ile4 
 t'lvm  their  rvlijiott*  opinion;.  p.  jq^, 
 
 A  N 
 
AN 
 
 ILLUSTRATION,    &c. 
 
 CHAP.     I. 
 
 I.  Importance  of  the  Inquiry  into  tlie  grounds  of  Jesus 
 Christ's  Condemnation.  2.  Expeftations  of  the 
 Jewish  nation.  3.  Their  principal  reason  for  believing^ 
 Jesus  an  impostor  would  be  their  principal  motive 
 for  condemning  him  to  death.  4.  Inquiry  into  the 
 grounds  of  his  condemnation, 
 
 1.  X  HE  crucifixion  of  Jesus  Christ  by 
 the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  is  the  most 
 important  event  that  the  world  has  ever 
 witnessed ;  not  only  because  the  eternal 
 happiness  of  a  future  life  was  to  be  effedled 
 by  it ;  but,  because  it  has  already  been 
 followed  by  a  total  change  in  the  senti- 
 ments and  manners  of  a  great  and  increas- 
 ing portion  of  the  human  race.  On  these 
 accounts,  a  regular  investigation  of  the 
 causes  and  circumstances  of  this  event 
 would  not  only  be  a  proper  employment 
 for  the  theological  writer,  whose  duty  is 
 to  explain  and  "vindicate  the  ways  of  God 
 
 A  to 
 
.    .     (      s      ) 
 
 to  man ;"  but,  for  the  historical  inquirer 
 also,  who  purposes  to  develope  the  efficient 
 though  distant  causes  of  great  revolutions 
 in  the  affairs  of  mankind,  and  to  scrutinize 
 the  motives  of  the  agents,  by  whose 
 instrumentality  they  are  brought  about. 
 
 II.   To  form  a  just  notion  of  the  motives 
 of  the  Jews,  it  will  be  necessary  to  attend 
 to   one    of  the    national   opinions  ~at    the 
 period  when  Jesus  announced  his  chara6ter 
 and  office.      Tliey    were    then    subje6l    to 
 the  Romans:  but,  on  the  authority  of  some 
 of  their   ancient  prophecies,  written    in  a 
 language,    which   had   long   ceased   to  be 
 familiar  to  them,  and  therefore  more  easily 
 misunderstood,  they  expec^ted  the  appear- 
 ance of  a  deliverer  to  overturn  the  Roman 
 power,  and  to  place  them  at  the  head  of 
 all  the  nations  of  the   earth.      This   great 
 personage  was  described  in  their  own  lan- 
 truao:o  under  tlie  title  of  Messiah,  and  in 
 Greek  under  tlie  synonymous    appellation 
 of   Christ.      Whether    they    looked   for  a 
 mere   man,  distinguished  above  all  others 
 by  the  favour  and  supernatural  assistance 
 of  God,  or  a  being  more  than  human,  has 
 in  modern   times  been   a  matter  of  some 
 dispute.       The    earliest    Christian  writers 
 
 after 
 
(     3      ) 
 
 after  the  Apostolic  age  have  informed  us, 
 that  the  Jews  of  those  times,  like  their 
 posterity  in  succeeding  ages,  expe61ed, 
 for  their  Messiah,  a  human  King  and 
 Prophet:  and  the  single  testimony  of  Justin 
 Martyr,  a  Samaritan,  only  a  Century  after 
 the  death  of  Christ,  might  be  thought 
 sufficient  to  preclude  all  disagreement  and 
 doubt  on  the  subje(51*.  The  question 
 however  became  much  agitated  in  the  last 
 Century  :  and  the  names,  more  than  the 
 arguments,  of  Pearson,  Bull,  Pococke, 
 Allix  and  Kidder,  ^vho  maintained  that  the 
 Jews  expe6led  the  second  person  in  the 
 divine  Trinity,  give  some  authority  to  the 
 opinion  of  Dr.  Horsley,  Mr.  Howes  and 
 Mr.  Whitaker  in  our  times.  After  the 
 elaborate  disquisitions  of  Bull  and  Allix ; 
 Basnage,  in  his  history  of  the  Jews,  was 
 necessarily  led  to  examine  carefully  into 
 the  ancient  opinions  of  their  nation  relating 
 to  the  Messiah  -f ;  his  arguments  are  con- 
 clusive ;  and  he  thus  expresses  the  result 
 of  his  inquiry.  ^*  The  means,  which  the 
 Jewish   church  had  to  know  the  Messiah, 
 
 had 
 
 *  Trypho,  the  Jew  in   the  dialogue,  says,  Kai  ya^  ■nraxTf? 
 
 "We  all  cxpe<5l  that  Christ  will  be  a  man  born  of  human 
 pajrents."  p.  235,  Edit.  Thirlby. 
 
 t  Book  4.  C.  24. 
 
 A  2 
 
C     4     ) 
 
 had  been  more  cfFe6tual,  if  the  divinity  of 
 the  Messiah  had  been  a  constant  tenet 
 among  the  Jews,  as  some  learned  men  have 
 endeavoured  to  prove.  As  their  arguments 
 have  a  great  shew  of  reason,  we  have 
 thouglit  them  worth  mentioning.  But, 
 notwithstanding  it  is  our  interest  to  be  of 
 their  opinion ;  which  besides  strongly  con- 
 cludes against  the  antitrinitarians  ;  yet, 
 we  could  not  be  induced  to  father  on  the 
 Jews  a  tenet,  w-hich  they  never  received, 
 and  thereb}^  make  their  incredulity,  which 
 is  but  too  deplorable,  more  criminal  than 
 it  really  is  */'  The  decision  of  Basnage 
 is  sanclioned  by  the  concurrence  of  many 
 critical  scholars  before,  and  since  his  time: 
 and  a  living  writer,  though  baffled  in  his 
 great  attempt  to  prove  the  do61:rine  of 
 Christ's  divinity  a  corruption  of  Christia- 
 nity, has,  however,  succeeded  in  confirming 
 Easnage's  sentence  by  additional  evidence. 
 Jur^tice  must  allow  to  the  two  first  chapters 
 of  his  third  Book +,  what  candour  cannot 
 admit  in  most  of  his  history,  that  he  has 
 fully  proved  his  point. 
 
 III.  Such 
 
 *  JBasnage  Fref.  p.  7.  Taylor's  tianslal.Ion. 
 
 -f  History  of  early  opinions  concerning  Jesus  Christ  by 
 Dr.  Priestley. 
 
(     5     ) 
 
 III.  Such  were  the  expeclations  of  the 
 Jews,  when  Jesus  appeared  among  them 
 to  assert  the  title  and  chara6ler  of  the 
 Messiah,  and  to  corre6l  their  errors  on  that 
 subje61.  He  appealed  to  miracles,  and  to 
 the  completion  of  prophecies  in  his  person, 
 to  confirm  his  claims  :  the  condu6l  of  a 
 numerous  body  of  followers  fully  proved 
 tlieir  belief  in  the  existence  of  his  miracles : 
 which  appear  not  to  have  been  doubted  by 
 the  unbelieving  Jev^^s  themselves.  Yet  he 
 was  rejected  as  a  false  Messiah,  and  put 
 to  death  as  a  blasphemer.  From  the  consi- 
 deration of  the  unrelenting  severity  of  his 
 persecutors,  an  argument  has  been  formed 
 against  their  belief  in  the  Christian  mira- 
 cles *  :  but,  the  objedlion  has  only  arisen 
 from  extreme  inattention  to  the  motives, 
 by  which  their  condu6l  was  influenced. 
 Their  principal  reason  for  believing  Jesus 
 an  impostor,  would,  undoubtedly,  be  also 
 the  great  motive  for  condemning  him  to 
 death :  and  to  ascertain  this,  we  are  natu- 
 rally led  to  examine  all  the  accounts  of  his 
 trial,  which  have  come  down  to  us.  Here 
 the  materials  are  abundant.  Four  con- 
 temporaries and  followers  of  Christ  have 
 
 written 
 
 *  See  "  The  Jewish   and  Heathen   Rejeftion  of  the 
 Christian  Mirac'es"  by  Dr.  Edwards,  p.  8 — lo. 
 
(  6  ) 
 
 written  at  large  on  the  same  subjec>  :  where 
 the  account  of  one  is  abridged,  that  of 
 another  is  diffuse ;  where  one  is  obscure, 
 some  of  tlie  others  are  clear  ;  and  the  truth 
 may  be  colledted  with  ease  and  certainty 
 by  a  comparative  view  of  these  ample 
 documents. 
 
 IV.  He  was  arraigned,  it  appears,  before 
 the  two  different  tribunals  of  the  Jewish 
 ■Sanhedrim,  and  the  Roman  governor.  In 
 the  latter  he  was  accused  of  sedition,  and 
 acquitted^:  in  the  former  he  was  accused 
 of  blaspliemy,  and  condemned  *f :  and 
 though  the  judicial  power  of  the  Jewish 
 court  was  at  that  time  much  abridged,  the 
 Koman  governor  was  prevailed  on,  by  the 
 importunity  of  the  Jews,  to  ratify  and 
 e.\ocute  the  sentence  of  the  Sanhedrim. 
 The  conducl  of  the  Jews  on  this  occasion 
 appears  to  have  been  determined  by  the 
 different  claims,  which  Jesus  had  advanced. 
 He  had  sometimes  simply  declared  himself 
 Christ  or  Messiah,  viz.  the  King  of  Israel 
 foretold  by  their  prophets  ;  and  sometimes, 
 Christ  the  son  of  God.  The  assumption 
 of  the  first  of  these   titles   combined  with 
 
 another 
 
 *  John  xviii.  38  and  xix.  4. 
 
 t  Matthew  xxvi,  65,  66.    Sec  also   the  concsjwnding 
 accounts  of  Mark  and  Luke. 
 
(     7     ) 
 
 another  circumstance,  that  of  being  some- 
 times followed  by  great  multitudes  of  people, 
 ■might  seem  treason  against  the  sovereignty 
 of  the  Romans  :   and  of  this    combination 
 of  alledged   guilt  he  was    accused  before 
 Pilate.    *'  We  found  this  fellow  perverting 
 the  nation,  and  forbidding  to  give  tribute  to 
 C^sar,  saying,  that  he  himself  is  Christ  a 
 King" — "  He  stirreth  up  the  peope,  teaching 
 throughout  all  Judea,  beginning  from  Gali- 
 lee to  this  place  *".     But,  to  discover  what 
 they  conceived  tobehisreal  offence,  we  must 
 refer  to  the  proceedings  of  their  own  tri- 
 bunal.    There,  we  are  informed,  after  the 
 court  had  in  vain  attempted  to  prove  him 
 guilty  of  blasphemy  by  the  rules  of  evidence 
 laid  down  in  the  Mosaic  law,  that  a  con- 
 fession   of  his  supposed  guilt  was  drawn 
 from  him  by  the  High  Priest's  examination. 
 With  respecl  to  the  examination  of  wit- 
 nesses, St.  Matthew  has  related  that  "  the 
 Council     sought     false     witness     against 
 Jesus  to  put  him  to  death:   yet  found  they 
 none,  though  many  false  witnesses  came^-." 
 According  to     St.     Mark,    "  the    Council 
 sought  for  witnesses  against  Jesus  to  put 
 Jiim  to  death:   but,  found  none:   for  many 
 
 bare 
 
 *  Luke  xxiii.  2.5.  f  Matt.  xxvi.  (^g,  60. 
 
(     8     ) 
 
 bare  false  witness  against  him  :  but,  theif 
 witness  agreed  not  together*/'  The 
 obscurity  of  the  first  Evangelist  is  well 
 explained  by  the  second.  The  Sanhedrim, 
 it  appears,  sought  for  witnesses  to  convi6l 
 Jesus  of  a  capital  crime  :  on  examination, 
 they  proved  to  be  false  witnesses  either  by 
 the  inconsistency  or  the  weakness  of  their 
 evidence ;  and  therefore,  by  the  Law  of 
 Moses,  could  have  no  weight  with  the 
 court.  By  the  Mosaic  law,  the  concurrent 
 testimony  of  two  or  three  witnesses  was 
 necessary  to  convi<5l  any  one  of  a  capital 
 crime-f;  and  at  last  "came  two  witnesses" 
 to  testify  that  Jesus  had  threatened  to 
 destroy  the  temple,  and  build  it  again  in 
 three  days :  but,  either  a  slight  disagree- 
 ment in  their  testimony  annulled  the  force 
 of  their  evidence  ;  or,  what  is  more  probable, 
 the  faft  substantiated  was  not  thought 
 to  amount  to  a  capital  offence.  Testi- 
 mony sufficient  to  convi61:  a  culprit 
 might  be  said  to  be  true,  insufficient 
 testimony  false  in  the  eye  of  the  Law. 
 In  this  language  St.  John  remarks,  "  It  is 
 written  in  your  law,  the  testimony  of  two 
 
 men 
 
 *  Markxiv.  5c:,  56.  \cxi  a»  /xajrifiaiyx  naecv.  Perhops,  the 
 true  translation  is  "their  testimonies  were  insufficient." 
 See  Giotiuson  the  teim  »c-ai. 
 
 t  Numbers XXXV.  00.  Dcut.  xvii.  6. 
 
(  &  ) 
 
 men  is  true*:"  and  it  must  be  accordino- 
 to  the  same  sort  of  phraseology  that  these 
 witnesses  are  called  *'  false  witnesses  •/'  for 
 the  only  fa6l  mentioned,  to  which  they 
 deposed,  appears  to  have  been  stri6llytrue, 
 but  not  sufficient  to  prove  the  crime  of 
 blasphemy*.  Having  failed  in  establishing 
 this  charge,  the  High  Priest  asks,  however, 
 for  a  reply,  expedling,  perhaps,  to  meet 
 with  some  obje6lionable  matter  in  a  long 
 defence -f.  Having  failed  in  this  also,  he 
 proceeds  to  examine  Jesus,  in  order  to 
 draw  from  him  an  acknowledgment  of  his 
 Supposed  guilt:  and  this  he  efFefted. 
 According  to  St.  Luke,  our  Saviour  was 
 asked  two  questions  :  In  Matthew  and 
 Mark  these  are  expressed  in  one,  probably 
 for  the  sake  of  brevity  :  and  from  these 
 two    Evangelists   it   cannot  be    certainly 
 
 known, 
 
 *  "Ideo  falsi  testes,  quia  quae  vera  fortassis  eranttanquam 
 crimina et  maleficia  objiciebant."  Estius  in  Matt.  xxvi.  6 1 . 
 See  also  Wakefield's  note  on  this  passage  ;  and  Grotius  on 
 Mark  xiv.  55. 
 
 t  "Videbat  Calaphas  ne  illud  quidem  faftum,  quod 
 maxime  ad  invidiam  Christi  pertinebat,  sufficere  ad  dam- 
 nationem :  quod  Marcus  dixit,  i^-at  di  f^ci^Tv^txi  nx  -/laay. 
 Nihil  enim  mali  Templo  ominabatUr,  etiam  qui  demoli- 
 turum  se  dicit,  si  et  restituturum  se  addat:  neque  polli- 
 citatio,  utcunque  vana,  capite  erat  luenda.  Itaque  testi- 
 moniis  aliorum  diffisus,  quaerit  ex  ipsius  ore  aliquid  ehcere 
 quod  ipsum  oneret.  Sperabat  enim  in  prolixa  defensione 
 facile  aHquid  repertum  iri  ev^ic<.QxY,Tov.  Grotius  in  Matt. 
 %x\'i.  62.     See  also  Hammond  on  Mark  xiv,  56. 
 
 B 
 
{      lo      ) 
 
 known,  whether  he   was    condemned    for 
 declaring  himself  the  Christ,  or  the  son  of 
 God,  or  for  asserting  that  he  should  after- 
 wards appear  with  glory  at  the  right  hand 
 of  God.      The  doubt,  however,  is  removed 
 in  the  narrative  of  Luke.      "  As  soon  as  it 
 was  day,  the  elders  of  the  people,  and  the 
 chief  priests  and  the  scribes  came  together, 
 and  led  him  into  their  council,  saying,  Art 
 thou  the  Christ.?  Tell  us.   And  he  said  unto 
 them.  If  I   tell  you,  you  will  not  believe ; 
 and,  if  I  also  ask  you,  you  will  not  answer 
 me,  nor  let  me  go.      Hereafter,    shall  the 
 son  of  man  sit  on  the  right  hand  of  the 
 power  of  God.      Then   said  they  all ;  Art 
 thou  then  the  son  of   God  "^  And  he  saith 
 unto  them,  Ye  say  that  I  am.     And  they 
 said.  What  need  we  any  further*  witness  ^ 
 for  we   ourselves   have  heard  of  his  own 
 mouth-f".       "The    High    Priest  rent  his 
 clothes,  saying,  he  hath  spoken  blasphemy  : 
 what  further  need  have  we  of  witnesses  ? 
 Behold,  now  ye  have  heard  his  blasphemy : 
 what  think  ye .?  They  answered  and  said, 
 
 he 
 
 *  From  this  expression  it  appears,  consistently  with  the 
 whole  account  of  the  trial,  that  till  then  further  evidence 
 was  thought  necessary.  This  may  also  be  collefled  from 
 the  silence  of  St.  Luke,  no  less  than  by  his  testimon)^  : 
 he  has  not  even  mentioned  the  examination  of  the  wit- 
 nesses. 
 
 t  Luke  xxii.  66 — 7 1  ■ 
 
(  11  ) 
 
 he  is  guilty  of  death*/'  The  real  ground 
 of  his  condemnation  also  appears  from  a 
 circumstance  mentioned  by  St.  John  in 
 his  account  of  the  second  trial.  The  Jews 
 exclaimed  to  Pilite  "  We  have  a  Law,  and  by 
 our  Law  he  ought  to  die,  because  he  made 
 himself  the  son  of  God  •f."  It  appears  then 
 by  very  full  and  decisive  evidence  that  Jesus 
 was  accused  by  the  Jews  before  the  Roman 
 governor  for  assuming  the  title  of  the 
 Christ,  or  Messiah,  a  King ;  and  that,  in  a 
 Jezvish  court,  he  was  adjudged  guilty  of 
 the  capital  crime  of  blasphemy  by  the 
 Mosaic  Law  for  simply  declaring  himself 
 the  son  of  God.  His  claim  to  this  title 
 was  not  set  aside  by  any  additional 
 evidence:  but  the  simple  assumption  of 
 the  title  not  only  invalidated  his  preten- 
 sions to  the  chara6ler  of  the  Messiah,  but 
 was  in  itself  the  crime  for  which  he  suffered. 
 If  then  it  can  be  clearly  accertained  in  what 
 sense  these  words  were  understood  by  the 
 Jews ;  the  only  ground  of  his  condemna- 
 tion, and  the  principal  cause  of  their 
 reje6lion  of  his  claims  will  be  at  once 
 determined. 
 
 *  Matt.  xxvi.  6^.  f  Joh.  19.  7. 
 
 B  2  CHAP. 
 
12 
 
 CHAP.     II. 
 
 1.  Different  significations  of  the  Phrase  "  Son  of  God." 
 Proposal  of  the  question;  In  what  sense  it  is  appHed  to 
 Jesus  Christ  in  the  New  Testament?  2.  Argument  to 
 prove  that  it  imphed  his  divinity,  from  considering  the 
 probable  objefl  of  his  trial.  3.  Second  argument  from 
 considering  the  nature  of  the  crime  for  which  he  suffered: 
 Opinions  of  Grotius  and  others  on  this  subje6t.  4.  Third 
 argument  from  considering  the  Law  by  which  he  was 
 condemned.  Jesus  Christ  condemned  by  the  Law  of 
 IVJoses.  No  Law  in  the  Pentateuch  or  Mischna  against 
 any  one  declaring  himself  the  son  of  God,  unless  the 
 phrase  be  supposed  to  imply  divinity.  Whether  Jesus 
 was  condemned  by  the  Law  in  the  i8th  Chap,  of  Deute- 
 ronomy.    The  opinion  of  Grotius.  Opinions  of  others. 
 
 5.  Objc6tion  against  the  miracles  of  Christ  considered. 
 The  Jews  suppose  Christ  to  have  been  condemined  by 
 the  Law  in  tlie  13th  Chap,  of  Deuteronomy.  Inconsis- 
 tency of  two  objections  against  the  Christian  miracles. 
 
 6.  Fourth  argument  from  comparing  the  proceedings  of 
 the  Sanhedrim  with  the  conduit  ot  the  Jewish  people  on 
 diiierent  occasions.  Whether  the  Fathers  have  denied 
 that  Jesus  Christ  taught  his  own  divinity  and  pre- 
 cxistence.  The  reason  assigned  by  them  for  the 
 caution  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles  satisl"a<5tory :  and 
 affords  no  presumption  against  tlie  reality  of  these 
 do61rincs.  Apparent  inconsistency  in  the  condu6t  of 
 the  Jewish  People  accounted  for. 
 
 I.  X  O  discover  in  what  sense  the  phrase 
 "  Sen  of  God"  is  applied  to  our  Saviour  in 
 the  Kew  Testament,  it  has  sometimes 
 been  thcuiilit  sufficient  to  search  the  Old 
 
 and 
 
(      13     ) 
 
 and  New  Testament  for  passages,  where 
 it  is  used  to  signify  a  prophet,  a  virtuous 
 man,  an  Israelite,  a  Christian,  or  any  man 
 like  ourselves  ;  and  tosele6l  a  meaning  that 
 suits  best  with  the  writer's  preconceived 
 opinion.  Others,  because  the  term  admits 
 of  various  significations,  seem  to  have 
 thought  it  impossible  to  determine  in  what 
 sense  it  is  actually  applied  to  Jesus  Christ. 
 But,  this  important  question  is  neither  to 
 be  so  summarily  decided,  nor  so  indolently 
 abandoned.  The  Jews  pronounced  Jesus 
 guilty  of  a  capital  crime  by  their  law,  be- 
 cause he  had  declared  himself  the  son  of 
 God:  and  we  shall  in  vain  search  for 
 any  written  statute,  or  any  traditionary 
 maxim  making  it  blasphemy  and  death  for 
 any  one  to  declare  himself,  in  metaphori- 
 cal language,  a  virtuous  man,  an  Israelite, 
 a  man  favoured  by  God,  or  a  mere  man 
 like  ourselves.  No  one  acquainted  with 
 the  state  of  opinion,  at  that  time,  in  Judea, 
 or,  who  has  attended  to  the  evanoelical 
 history  of  John  the  Baptist  and  our  Saviour, 
 will  affirm  that  the  Jews  would  condemn 
 any  man  to  death  for  simply  declaring  him- 
 self, in  metaphorical  language,  a  prophet 
 inspired  and  commissioned  by  God.  All 
 knew  John  to  be  a  prophet:   Christ,  in  the 
 
 opinion 
 
(      H     ) 
 
 bpiiiion  of  some,  was  John  risen  from  the 
 dead :  according  to  others,  he  was  one  of 
 the  ancient  Prophets :  When  the  chief 
 priests  and  Pharisees  sought  to  seize  him, 
 they  feared  the  multitude  ;  because  they 
 believed  him  to  be  a  prophet :  he  appears 
 to  have  been  publicly  called  "  Jesus  the 
 prophet  Nazareth:"  and  what  was  very 
 commonly  believed  and  publicly  declared, 
 it  could  not  be  blasphemy,  and  a  capital 
 crime  for  him  to  speak.  Without  giving 
 any  attention  then,  where  none  is  neces- 
 sary, to  those  other  acceptations,  of  which 
 the  expression  will  merely  admit:  it  will 
 be  sufficient  to  enquire,  whether  the  phrase, 
 when  applied  to  our  Saviour  in  the  New 
 Testament,  was  supposed  to  express  his 
 divine  mission,  or  his  divine  nature; 
 whether  it  was  used  as  the  title  of  an 
 office,  synonymously  with  the  word  Christ 
 or  Messiah  ;  or  whether  Jesus,  in  an- 
 nouncing himself  the  son  of  God,  was  not 
 understood  to  speak  of  his  own  divinity. 
 
 II.  If  we  try  to  explain  the  condu(5l  of 
 the  Jewish  magistrates,  by  comparing  it 
 with  the  opinions  then  prevalent  of  an 
 cxpefted  Messiah,  and  by  considering  the 
 probable  object  of  the  trial  in  their  court ; 
 
 it 
 
(    u    ) 
 
 it  is  difficult  to  suppose  our  Saviour, 
 under  all  the  disadvantages  of  an  humble 
 appearance,  condemned  for  acknowledging 
 himself  to  be  the  Messiah,  either  in  direct, 
 or  indire6l  terms.  They  were  prejudiced 
 against  him,  it  is  allowed,  on  several 
 accounts  :  after  a  slight  deviation  from  the 
 rigid  observance  of  their  sabbath,  they  had 
 even  consulted  by  what  means  they  might 
 put  him  to  death  * :  but,  after  a  tedious 
 and  fruitless  examination  of  many  wit^ 
 nesses,  it  was  only  by  the  declaration 
 drawn  from  him  at  his  trial,  that  they 
 were  enabled  to  accomplish  their  purpose : 
 this  acknowledgment  alone,  without  any 
 further  evidence  whatever,  according  to 
 the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  supreme 
 court  of  judicature,  consisting  of  seventy- 
 two  persons,  constituted  in  itself  a  capital 
 crime  :  though,  it  might  be  expecled  that 
 the  objedl  of  the  trial  would  be  to  prove 
 the  falsehood,  not  merely  the  existence  of 
 his  claim.  His  judges  w^ould  probably 
 think  it  necessary  to  prove  to  their  own 
 satisfa6lion,  and  that  of  the  people,  whom 
 they  feared  -f ,  either  that  he  wanted  some 
 of  the  chara 61  eristic  marks  of  the  true 
 Messiah,  or  that  he  was  distinguished  by 
 
 some 
 
 *Johnv.  lO.  t  Matt.  xxi.  46. 
 
(      16     ) 
 
 some  positive  tokens  of  imposture.  A  few 
 centuries  later  indeed ;  when  the  Jews  had 
 been  disappointed  by  a  succession  of  pre- 
 tenders, who  had  brought  on  tliem  many 
 grievous  calamities ;  worn  out  with  vexa- 
 tion, they  at  length  pronounced  a  severe 
 anathema  against  any  one,  who  should 
 presume  to  utter  any  predi6lion  on  this 
 subje61:*:  and  in  the  temper  of  mind, 
 which  disappointment  of  exalted  hopes,  and 
 the  pressure  of  excessive  suiferings  natu- 
 rally produce,  it  would  not  have  been 
 wonderful,  if  they  had  made  it  a  capital 
 offence  for  any  one  to  declare  himself  the 
 Christ.  But,  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour, 
 their  hopes  were  fresh;  their  disappoint- 
 ments had  scarcely  commenced :  and  it  is 
 hardly  conceivable  that  their  supreme  court 
 of  justice  should  refer  all  his  guilt  to  the 
 assumption  of  the  title  of  a  personage, 
 whose  appearance  they  not  only  thought 
 possible,  but  ardently  expelled  ;  and  not 
 place  it  to  the  account  of  those  other  parts 
 of  his  conduft,  which  might,  in  their 
 opinion, provehis  claim  groundless.  Would 
 no  individual  of  this  court,  of  whicli 
 Nicodemus  and  Gamaliel  were  members, 
 have  asked   the  Galilcean  stranger,    what 
 
 credentials 
 
 *  Buxtorf.  Synag.  Judaic,  xxxvi.  442. 
 
■(     17     ) 
 
 credentials  he  could  produce  to  justify  his 
 high  pretensions  ?  Would  no  one  think  of 
 examining  witnesses  for  the  purpose  of 
 proving  those  pretensions  groundless  ? 
 Would  none  of  them  think  it  necessary  to 
 shew  either  by  evidence,  or  his  own  con- 
 fession, that  his  birth-place,  or  condu61:, 
 or  do6lrines  were  inconsistent  with  the 
 character  assumed?  Would  they  all  be 
 satisfied  with  hearing  him  simply  declare 
 himself  the  Messiah,  and  that  not  diredlly, 
 but,  by  means  of  a  synonymous  term  ?  and 
 could  they  all  immediately  pronounce  him, 
 on  this  account,  worthy  of  death  ?  Is  it 
 likely  that  the  Sanhedrim  should  speak 
 with  concern  and  inquietude  of  his  miracles 
 at  one  of  their  meetings*,  and  not  adduce 
 evidence  to  set  aside  their  effe6l  at  another? 
 It  is  very  improbable  that  the  Jews  of  that 
 age  should  either  so  far  misinterpret  their 
 law,  or  establish  such  a  precedent:  it  is 
 not  likely,  at  a  time  when  they  expected  a 
 Messiah,  that  they  would  be  satisfied  with 
 proving  Jesus  to  have  only  arrogated  to 
 himself  that  charaaer.  It  is  more  probable 
 that  the  tribunal  would  proceed  further,  by 
 attempting  to  prove  him  a  false  Messiah, 
 and  producing   evidence  either  from   the 
 
 examinatioii 
 *  John  xi.  47. 
 
 c 
 
(      i8      ) 
 
 examination  of  witnesses,  or  his  own  con- 
 fession, sufficient  to  convince  both  them- 
 selves and  the  people,  before  they  condemned 
 him  to  death.  And,  if  they  considered 
 Jesus  to  have  asserted  his  divine  nature  in 
 calling  himself  the  son  of  God,  they  actually 
 took  this  course.  Some  leading  men  ainong 
 the  Jews  had  before  endeavoured  to  per- 
 Ksuade  the  people  of  the  futility  of  his  claim  ; 
 because  he  had  broken  the  Sabbath*:  and 
 the  Sanhedrim  would  probably  have  re- 
 ceived some  imperfeil,  and  perhaps  incon- 
 sistent reports,  that  he  had  called  God  his 
 father  in  a  more  stri6l  and  proper  sense 
 than  was  consistent  with  the  notion  of  his 
 simple  humanity;  that  he  had  claimed  the 
 privilege  of  forgiving  sins,  of  judging  the 
 world,  and  of  dispensing  with  the  observe 
 ance  of  the  sabbath;  that  he  had  spoken  in 
 express  terms  of  liis  own  omnipotence  and 
 eternity,  and  that  all  these  claims  were, 
 in  fa6l,  comprized  in  one,  that  he  was 
 *'  the  son  of  God."  The  obje6l  of  the 
 trial  would  therefore  be  to  establish  the 
 falsehood  of  one  claim  by  the  supposed 
 blasphemy  of  the  other :  they  would  at  once 
 satisfy  themselves  and  the  people,  that  he 
 "Vvas  a  false  Christ,  and  merited  death,  be- 
 cause 
 *  John  ix.  i6. 
 
(     19     ) 
 
 cause  ill  declaring  himself  the  son  of  God, 
 they  conceived  him  to  have  claimed  divi- 
 nity, and  on  that  account,  and  that  only, 
 to  be  convi6led  of  blasphemy. 
 
 On  this  supposition,  that  unison  in  their 
 condu6l  and  sentiments  in  different  ages 
 is  observable,  which  in  Jews  might  be 
 expe'5)-ed.  In  modern  times  they  accuse 
 Christians  of  blasphemy  and  idolatry  for 
 denominating  their  Christ  the  son  of  God: 
 in  the  7th  Century  they  urged  the  same 
 accusation*:  in  the  5th  Century  they 
 ur^ed  the  first  commandment  in  the 
 decalogue  against  Christians  -f :  in  the 
 fourth,  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  ||  relates,  that 
 they  would  not  admit  the  possibility  of  the 
 existence  of  a  son  of  God:  in  the  begin- 
 ning of  the  third  century,  according  to 
 Origen,  who  had  conversed  very  extensively 
 with  Jews  on  this  particular  subject  J,  they 
 refused  to  admit  the  application  of  the 
 term  son  of  God  to  the  Messiah  §  :  and,  as  it 
 
 has 
 
 *  "Leontius  (Episcop.  Neapoleos  Cypri.  5  Seimcne 
 pro  Christi  Tlieologia  contra  Judaeos  Concil  Nic.  2.  A61:  4. 
 p.  23<,  &c.)  nlledges  that  the  Jews  ought  to  be  con- 
 founded with  shame  to  accuse  Christians  of  Idolatry.", 
 Basnage,  B.  6.  c  21. 
 .    t  See  Priestley  Hist  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  3.  p.  28, 
 
 II  Demon.  Evang.  Lib.  iv.  c.  r. 
 
 X  Origen  cont.  Celsum,  p   79.  Ed.  Spcnc. 
 
 §  Origen  cont.  Cels,  p.  38.  Ed.  Spcnc, 
 
 C    2 
 
(        20        ) 
 
 has  been  somewhere  observed  by  Basnage, 
 the  compiler  of  the  Mishnaindire6lly  attacks 
 Christians  on  the  same  account  in  the  trea- 
 tise, of  which  Maimonides  has  given  us  a 
 summary  :  in  the  middle  of  the  second  Cen- 
 tury, the  fictitious  Jew  of  Celsus  continually 
 attacks   Christ  for   calling    himself    God, 
 and  son  of  God  ;   and  ridicules  the  Chris- 
 tians   for  believing  his  claims*:    in    the 
 beginning  of  the  second  Centur}^,  the  Jew 
 in  Justin  Martyr  objecls  against  the  divi- 
 nity of  the  Messiah,  as  a  doctrine  peculiar 
 to  Christians,  and  repugnant  to  the  notions 
 of  his  countrymen -f :  and  a  Century  before, 
 the  Jews  at  different   times  attempted  to 
 stone  Jesus  for  alluding    to   his    divinity, 
 and  preexistence,  and  actually  condemned 
 him  to  death  for  declaring  himself  the  son 
 of  God. 
 
 A  further  consistency  in  the  condu6l  of 
 the  Jews  towards  Christ  and  Christians  in 
 difierent  ages  may  also  be  observed.  When 
 they  only  appealed   to  their  own   law,  the 
 
 authority 
 
 *  See  Origeii,  p.  22,  30,  51,  62,  71,  79,  fii,  no,  loi, 
 136,  &c. 
 
 t  P-  '235.  Ed.  Thirlbv.  Before  Justin  \\iote  his  Dia- 
 logue, the  Jews  had  calumniated  the  iii'.pious  st6t,  A<^-(c-»f 
 T»s  ccdioc,  which  acknowU'dged  Jesus  as  Messiah,  and  a 
 teacher,  and  son  of  God,  X^Krrov  xca  ^teaaxaXoj  y.ui  MCi  0£a,  p; 
 
(        SI        ) 
 
 authority  of  which  was  acknowledged  by 
 Christians  as  well  as  themselves;  they 
 have  urged  the  charge  of  blaspliemy  and 
 idolatry:  and  they  condemned  Jesus  to 
 death  for  the  crime  of  blasphemy,  in  de- 
 claring himself  the  son  of  God.  But,  when 
 they  addressed  themselves  to  the  Roman 
 Emperors  before  the  time  of  Constantine, 
 they  accused  Christians  of  a  species  of 
 treason  in  acknowledging  and  expecting  a 
 great  King  called  Christ,  to  overthrow  the 
 Roman  empire,  and  to  rule  the  whole 
 earth  *  :  and  they  accused  our  Saviour  to 
 the  Roman  governor  of  Judaea,  because  he 
 made  himself  Christ  a  King,  and  therefore 
 spoke  against  Caesar. 
 
 III.  To  discover  the  sense  izi  which  the 
 Jewish  Sanhedrim  understood  our  Saviour 
 to  call  himself  the  son  of  God,  it  may 
 not  be  improper  to  bestow  a  little  attention 
 on  the  nature  of  the  crime,  for  which  he 
 was  condemned. 
 
 The  Jewish  notions  of  blasphemy  and 
 idolatry  appear  to  have  been  so  nearly 
 allied,  that  by  one  of  the  maxims  of  their 
 oral   law,  the  punishment  of  both  crimes 
 
 was 
 
 *  Mosheim  Hist.  Ecc.  p.    go.  and  Alb,    Fabricius  in 
 luce  Evangelii  orbi  universo  exoriente.  C.  7.  p.  153. 
 
(        22        ) 
 
 was  in  every  particular  the  same  :  accord- 
 ing   to  this  maxim,    the    blasphemer  and 
 idolater  were  the  only  criminals  affixed  to  a 
 cross  after  having  been   stoned   to  death. 
 "Lapidati     omnes    suspenduntur.       verba 
 R.  Elieseris.     At  sapientes  aiunt :  non  sus- 
 penditur  nisi  blasphemus  et  idoloiatira  */' 
 Maimonides,  who,  in  the  32th  Century, 
 undertook    to  explain    the   digest  of    the 
 oral    law   agreeably   to  the    spirit    of  the 
 Talmud,    observes    on    this,  "The    blas- 
 phemer  alone   was    affixed  to  a   cross  ;'' 
 and  adds,  "  And  an  Idolater  is  also  called  a 
 blasphemer/'      These  notions  of  the  anci- 
 ent Jews  on  the  near  affinity  of  blasphemy 
 to  idolatr}^  perfectly  accord    with    the    re- 
 presentation of  these  crimes  in  their  sacred 
 book.      The  one  seems  to  consist   in  cer- 
 tain aftions  committed,  the  other  in  words 
 spoken,  immediately  against  the  majesty  of 
 God :   and  so  slight  is  their  difference,  that 
 the  word  commonly  used  in  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment to  denote  one  crime  seems  to  have 
 been  sometimes  applied   to  tlie  other-f. — 
 But,  the  assumption  of  tlie  title  of  the  Mes- 
 siah, a  human  king  and  prophet,  could  have 
 no  relation  to  either  of  these  crimes  ;  it  might 
 
 be 
 
 *  Mishna  Tract,  de  Synedriis,   Vol.  iv.    p.   235.  Ed. 
 Surenhusii.  •)-  bee  liaiali  Ixv.  7. 
 
(      23      ) 
 
 be  considered  as  an  instance  of  great  pre- 
 sumption or  gross  imposture  ;  but,  with 
 Jews,  it  could  be  neitlier  idolatry  nor  blas- 
 phemy to  aspire  to  any  human  character 
 however  exalted  :  and  when  the  Sanhedrim 
 immediately  and  unanimously  pronounced 
 our  Saviour  guilty  of  blasphemy  for  calling 
 himself  the  son  of  God,  he  must  have  ap- 
 peared to  them  to  have  afFe6led  a  higher 
 nature  than  any  human  being  could  possess. 
 To  this  conclusion  we  have  been  led 
 by  comparing  the  Jewish  notions  of  a 
 Messiah  and  of  blasphemy  together,  as  they 
 are  to  be  colle6led  from  their  own  ancient 
 records.  There  is  also  strong  negative 
 evidence  in  the  New  Testament,  that  it 
 was  not  accounted  blasphemy  by  the  Jew- 
 ish magistrates  to  acknowledge  Jesus  as 
 the  Christ.  If  he  blasphemed,  in  the  eyes 
 of  the  Jews,  by  indiredly  declaring  himself 
 Christ,  the  same  guilt  must  have  attached 
 on  others,  who  honoured  him  with  that 
 invidious  title:  whereas,  when  the  two 
 blind  men  cry  out,  "  Jesus,  thou  son  of 
 David  ;"  they  are  simply  rebuked,  not 
 stoned  as  blasphemers.  At  one  time,  five 
 thousand  men  affirm  Jesus  to  be  that  pro- 
 phet, who  should  come  into  the  world  :  at 
 another,  the  multitude  hails  him  with  Ho- 
 
 sannus 
 
(      24      ) 
 
 sannas  into  Jerusalem  as  the  Messiah :  yet 
 none  of  these  are  stigmatized  with  the 
 name,  or  suffer  the  severe  penalty  annexed 
 to  blasphemy. 
 
 Let  all  the  different  siocnifications  of  the 
 phrase  "  Son  of  God"  be  enumerated  :  it 
 is  only  in  one  of  them,  that  the  application 
 of  it  to  any  individual  could  amount  (in  the 
 opinion  of  the  ancient  Jews)  to  the  crime 
 for  which  Jesus  suffered.  But  if,  accord- 
 ing to  its  most  obvious  meaning,  it  be 
 thought  to  imply  divinity  ;  the  Jews,  it  may 
 easily  be  supposed,  would  pronounce  Jesus 
 a  blasphemer  for  claiming  a  property,  which 
 they  admitted  in  the  one  Jehovah  only. 
 
 It  would  be  easy  to  fortify  this  reason- 
 ing and  conclusion  with  a  croud  of  autho- 
 rities :  1  shall  be  content  with  a  fev^ :  first 
 producing  the  opposite  opinion  of  Grotius  ; 
 who  with  Erasmus,  Limborch  and  others, 
 supposed  Jesus  to  have  been  condemnec| 
 for  i ndi re 6lly  declaring  himself  the  Messiah 
 or  Christ. 
 
 "  BAa(r(p>;pai/  vocat  Pontifex  quod  Jesus  se 
 Christum  profiteretur:  et  sane  erat  ni 
 Christus  fuisset.'*  Observe  his  reason, 
 "Nam  qui  sibi  eam  potestatem  falso  arrogat, 
 in  Deum  est  contumeliosus*/' 
 
 <*  Non 
 
 *  N.  in  Matt.  xxvi>  65, 
 
(     25     ) 
 
 "Non  intelligit  filius  Dei  adoptionis 
 excellentia,  qualem  credebat  fore  Chris- 
 tum ;  sed  filius  Dei  generatione  divina, 
 qualem  non  credebat  quidemfore  Christum; 
 sed  intellexerat  (sc.  Pontifex)  Jesum  et 
 se  esse  dicere,  et  a  discipulis  haberi.  et 
 quidem  duo  rogat  Jesum,  prout  confessio 
 Petri  et  discipulorum  duo  continebat,  an 
 sit  Christus,  et  an  sit  natura  filius  Dei*/' 
 
 "  Oui  filium  Dei  natura  se  facit,  alium 
 Deum  invehit  contra  legem  -f ,  et  blas- 
 phemiae  reus  est  J." 
 
 "  Princeps  sacerdotum  duo  interrogat ; 
 unum,  an  esset  Christus  nam  Christum 
 Judaei  expeclabant  ;  alterum,  an  esset 
 filius  Dei ;  quod  quidem  Judceis  scripturas 
 non  intelligentibus  longe  erat  odiosius :  Nam 
 mysterium  Trinitatis  nesciebant,  et  qui 
 filium  Dei  proprie  intelligebant,  scilicet, 
 naturalem filium:  ideo,  exeo  quod  Christus 
 diceret  aut  significaret  se  filium  Dei,  colli- 
 gebant,  quod  aequalem  se  faceret  Deo.  Hinc 
 statim  exclamavit  pontifex  '  Blasphemavit/ 
 i.  e.  dixit  injuriam  Deo,  qui  se  fecit  sequa- 
 lem,  affirmando  se  filium  Dei.     Nam  illud 
 
 *  Blas- 
 
 *  Lucas  Brugensis  in  Matt.  xxvi.  65.  f  Deut.  vi.  4. 
 
 X  Lucas  Brugen.   Annot,  in  Joh,  xix,  7. 
 
 D 
 
(      26      ) 
 
 *  Blasphemavit,*  noii  puto  referendum  ad 
 illud>  quod  se  Christum  fateretur ;  vere 
 enim  Christum  expe6tabant  Judaei ;  sed 
 quod  se  fateretur  esse  filium  Dei.  Nam 
 Christum  purum  hominem  existimant,  et 
 fihum  Dei  omnino  negant*/' 
 
 "  They  conclude  Christ  guilty  of  blas- 
 phemy, and  consequently  of  death,  because 
 he  stiled  himself  the  son  of  God,  not  in 
 their  sense,  in  which  they  allowed  that  of 
 the  Psalmist  to  belong  to  him-f,  but,  in  his 
 own :  i.  e.  because  being  a  man,  he  made 
 himself  God  J.  Whence  it  is  manifest, 
 1.  that,  in  the  sense  of  the  Jews,  to  own 
 himself  the  son  of  God,  and  to  make  him- 
 self God  was  the  same  thing.  2.  Hence 
 also  it  is  certain,  that  the  Jews  of  that  age 
 did  not  think  the  Messiah  was  to  be  God, 
 but  only  a  man,  who  could  not  challenge 
 to  himself  divinity:  seeing  they  never 
 conclude  him  a  blasphemer,  because  he  said 
 he  was  the  Christ,  but  only  because  he 
 said  he  was  the  son  of  God ;  by  that 
 making  himself  equal  with  God||/' 
 
 IV.  To 
 
 *  Estius  in  Matt.  xxvi.  65.  t  Psalm  ii.  7,  12. 
 
 l  Job.  X.  33:  II  Joh.  V.  18.  Whitby,  note  on  Lukexxii.70. 
 
(     27     ) 
 
 IV.    To    prove  that   Jesus    Christ  was 
 tried  and  condemned  by  the   Mosaic  law, 
 It  is  sufficient  to  observe  that  his  trial  was 
 before  a  Jewish  court.      Their  proceedings, 
 however,  as   described  by  the  three   first 
 Evangelists,  and  a  declaration  of  some  of 
 their  people  as  recorded  by  St.  John,  would 
 place  the  matter  beyond  all  question,  were 
 there  any  preceding  doubt.   They  evidently 
 proceeded    by    the    rule  of   evidence   laid 
 down  in  Numb,  xxxv,  30.  and  Deut.  xvii.  6. 
 Afterwards,  indeed,  before  Pilate,  his  pro- 
 secutors did  not  bring  forward  at  first,  the 
 crime  of  which  they  really  believed  him 
 guilty ;  because  it  was  not  likely  to  en- 
 fluence  a  Roman  governor ;    who   might 
 have  no  respedl   for  Jewish  laws.     They 
 accused  him,  at  first,  of  sedition  for  declar- 
 ing   himself  Messiah,    a  King:     but   the 
 governor  perceived  this  to  be  an  invidious 
 charge:  he  knew  that  ^^  for  envy"  they  had 
 accused  him  of  this  crime  :  and  they  were 
 at  length   compelled  to  advert  to  the  real 
 grounds  of  their  prosecution.    "  JVe  have  a 
 Law,   and   by  our  Law  he  ought   to  die, 
 because  he  made  himself  the  son  of  God." 
 Happily  for  the  cause  of  religion  and  truth, 
 their  Law  has  come  down  to  our  times  :  and 
 it  is  hardly  necessary  to  observe,  that    it 
 
 D  2  is 
 
(      28     ) 
 
 is  not  a  capital  crime  by  any  statute  in  the 
 whole  Mosaic  code  to  assume  the  title 
 and  charafter  of  the  Messiah.  The 
 oral  law,  in  the  time  of  Christ,  may 
 be  said  to  have  had  nearly  the  same  rela- 
 tion to  the  Pentateuch,  in  the  opinion  of 
 the  Jews,  that  our  common  law  bears  to  our 
 statutes  :  they  supposed  both  to  have  the 
 same  origin  and  equal  authority :  and 
 some  parts  of  the  one  were,  unquestionably, 
 useful  as  an  explanation  and  supplement  to 
 the  other.  The  traditionary  maxims,  which 
 constituted  the  second  law  were  digested 
 and  published  by  a  learned  and  zealous  Jew 
 about  one  hundred  and  eighty  years  after 
 the  trial  of  Christ*;  at  a  time  when 
 Christianity  had  diffused  itself  into  every 
 part  of  the  vast  extent  of  the  Roman  em- 
 pire ;  when  the  Jews  had  pra6lised  every 
 art  to  defame  the  new  religion,  and  to 
 apologize  for  their  own  condu6l  towards 
 Christ  and  Christians :  no  precept  or  rule, 
 therefore,  in  the  oral  law,  however  incon- 
 siderable, that  might  in  any  way  tend  to 
 
 justify 
 
 *  The  Mishna  was  published  by  R.  Juda  about  the 
 year  two  hundred  and  twenty:  but,  the  Jews  had  em- 
 ployed themselves  in  colle6ting  the  traditions  and  customs, 
 which  form  the  body  of  this  second  law,  from  the  timeof 
 their  second  destru6tion  under  Adrian.  See  Allix  Judg- 
 ment of  tlie  Jewish  Church,  C.  xxiii.  p- 30S' 
 
(       29       ) 
 
 justify  their  condu6l,  would  be  left  out  of 
 this  colle6lion,:  it  is  not,  however,  a  capi- 
 tal crime,  or  any  crime,  by  any  rule  found 
 in  the  Mishna,  to  assume  the  title  and  cha- 
 ra6ler  of  the  Messiah  :  and,  as  the  Sanhe- 
 drim condemned  Jesus  by  their  Law,  and 
 the  Jewish  people  approved  the  sentence, 
 -because  he  professed  to  be  the  son  of  God, 
 they  must  have  conceived  him  to  have  laid 
 claim,  in  these  words,  to  some  other  title 
 and  characSler,  against  which  their  law 
 was  really  dire6led.  But,  if  the  Penta- 
 teuch and  Mishna  be  examined  with  the 
 utmost  care,  no  statute  or  maxim  will  be 
 found  in  either,  which  the  Jews  could 
 mistake  so  far,  as  to  conceive  it  capable  of 
 application  to  this  case,  unless  they  sup- 
 posed Jesus,  in  declaring  himself  the  son  of 
 God,  to  claim  Divinity  :  none  of  their  laws 
 appear  to  have  any  relation  to  this  case, 
 on  any  other  supposition.  If,  indeed,  our 
 Lord  was  understood  to  have  advanced 
 this  claim  ;  having  then  generally  lost  all 
 notion  of  a  trinity  of  persons  in  the  divine 
 unity,  and  having  never  entertained  the 
 idea  of  the  son  of  God  invested  with  human 
 flesh,  they  would  probably  believe  him 
 guilty  of  a  breach  of  the  first  command- 
 ment; and  his  case  would  be  supposed  to 
 
 fall 
 
(     30      ) 
 
 fall  under  the  operation  of  some  of  the 
 penal  laws  in  the  Pentateuch  ena6ted  to 
 enforce  its  observance. 
 
 To  express  the  whole  argument  in  a 
 few  words :  Jesus  Christ  was  condemned 
 to  death  by  the  Jewish  law  for  acknow- 
 ledging himself  the  son  of  God  :  the  phrase 
 "son  of  God"  admits,  and  merely  admits  of 
 several  different  acceptations  :  the  declara- 
 tion must  have  been  thought  innocent,  in  the 
 eye  of  the  law,  in  any  of  these  significa- 
 tions, except  one :  in  that,  it  was  liable 
 to  be  accounted  a  capital  crime ;  it  might 
 be  thought  a  breach  of  the  first  command- 
 ment :  in  that  sense  it  must  therefore  have 
 been  understood  by  the  Jews. 
 
 It  will,  perhaps,  be  objected  that  he, 
 whom  they  accounted  a  false  Messiah,  would 
 undoubtedly  be  tried  and  condemned  by 
 the  laws  in  the  Pentateuch  against  false 
 Prophets  in  general.  Allowed.  This  is,  in- 
 deed very  probable.  Let  these  laws  then  be 
 examined,  not  with  the  distracted  attention 
 and  cursory  reference  of  most  of  the  com- 
 mentators ;  but  with  the  care,  which  a 
 distinct  and  important  subje6l  of  historical 
 
 disquisition 
 
(     31      ) 
 
 disquisition  requires.  These  laws,  as 
 Maimonides  has  remarked,  are  dire6led 
 against  false  prophets  of  two  kinds  :  those, 
 who  teach  the  worship  of  false  gods;  and 
 those,  who  falsely  pretend  to  inspiration 
 from  the  true  and  only  God.  Those  of 
 the  latter  description  are  to  be  convi6led 
 of  imposture  by  the  failure  of  their  pro- 
 phecies, and  put  to  death  *  The  others  are 
 to  be  considered  as  false  prophets  and  put 
 to  death  for  simply  teaching  the  worship  of 
 false  gods  -f. 
 
 With  the  narratives  of  our  Saviour's  trial 
 by  the  several  Evangelists  before  us,  is  it 
 possible  to  doubt  by  which  of  these  laws  he 
 was  condemned  ?  The  failure  of  his  prophe- 
 cies, we  are  well  assured,  made  no  part  of 
 the  ground  of  his  condemnation  :  it  was  for 
 simply  professing  to  be  the  *'sonof  God''; 
 i.  e.  (as  the  Jews  themselves,  on  another 
 occasion,  interpreted  this  expression)  for 
 making  himself  God  J,  that  he  suffered  : 
 both  the  crimination  and  the  sentence 
 point  to  the  law  against  false  prophets  in 
 Deut.  xiii.  "  If  there  arise  among  you  a 
 prophet,    or   a   dreamer   of  dreams,    and 
 
 give 
 
 *  Deut,  xviii,  21.  22.  f  Deut  xiii.  i — 11. 
 
 +  John  X.  33.  36. 
 
(       32       ) 
 
 give  thee  a  sign  or  a  wonder :  and  the 
 sign  or  the  wonder  come  to  pass,  whereof 
 he  spake  unto  thee,  saying,  Let  us  go  after 
 other  gods,  which  thou  hast  not  known, 
 and  let  us  serve  them :  thou  shalt  not 
 hearken  to  the  words  of  that  prophet,  or 
 that  dreamer  of  dreams :  for  the  Lord  your 
 God  proveth  you,  to  know  whether  you 
 love  the  Lord  your  God  with  all  your 
 heart,  and  with  all  your  soul  —  and  that 
 prophet,  or  that  dreamer  of  dreams  shall 
 be  put  to  death/'  &c. 
 
 Thus,  whether  we  affirm  Jesus  to  have 
 been  condemned  as  a  false  Messiah,  a  false 
 prophet,  or  a  blashemer ;  we  are  still  com- 
 pelled to  conclude  that  he  was  proved,  in 
 the  opinion  of  the  Jews,  to  be  a  false  Mes- 
 siah, a  false  prophet,  or  a  blasphemer, 
 because  he  claimed  divinity. 
 
 To  shew  what  confused  and  inaccurate 
 notions  Grotius  entertained  on  this  sub- 
 je6t ;  it  is  enough  to  observe,  that  he  sup- 
 posed our  Saviour  condemned  for  indire6lly 
 declaring  himself  the  Messiah  by  the  law 
 in  the  eighteenth  Chapter  of  Deuteronomy 
 against  false  prophets.  On  the  expression 
 **  Son  of  God*"  he  observes,  i.  e.  Messiam : 
 
 ut 
 
 *  John  xix.  7. 
 
(     S3     ) 
 
 lit  notavimus  supra  Joh.  i.  49.  et  x.  36.  Si 
 mori  debet  qui  prophetam  se  dicit,  cum 
 non  sit,  mori  multo  magis  debet,  qui  Mes- 
 siamse  dicit,  cum  non  sit,  (per  legem  Deut. 
 xviii.  20.)  cum  Messias  et  propheta  esse 
 debeat  et  plusquam  Propheta. 
 
 Some  other  commentators,  however,, 
 have  explained  the  reasoning  of  the  Jews, 
 in  their  judicial  proceedings  against  Christ, 
 with  the  utmost  accuracy.  "Si  tu,  Pilate, juxta 
 leges  C^esareas  et  Romanas  nullam  in  eo 
 mortis  causam  invenis,  nos  juxta  divinam 
 legem  invenimus  maximam.  In  scripturis 
 enim  passim  docemur  non  esse  nisi  unum 
 Deum  :  atqui,  hie  finxit  se  esse  naturalem 
 Dei  filium,  et  talis  semper  haberi  voluit : 
 ercro,  nobis  introducere  tentavit  secundum 
 Deum :  nam  filius  Dei  naturalis  necessario 
 est  Deus.  Jam  vero  lexjubet  pseudopro- 
 phetas  et  blasphemos  omnes  morte  ple61:i 
 (Levit.  xxiv.  16.  et  Deut.  xiii.  5.)  ergo 
 et  hie  morte  pledlendus*/' 
 
 Another  commentator  has  also  express- 
 ed the  reasoning  of  the  Jews  nearly  in  the 
 same  manner.  "  Secundum  leges  Romanas 
 causam  non  invenis,  at  secundum  nostram 
 
 causa 
 
 *  Tirinus  Annot,  in  Joh.  xix.  7. 
 
 E 
 
(      34      ) 
 
 causa  maxima  est,  blasphemia  in  Deum. 
 Sibi  dignitatem  filii  Deiarrogavit,  sc.  natu- 
 ralis  (nam  adoptivos  se  etiamipsi  dicebant: 
 'unum  patrem  habemus  Deum'  inquiunt 
 Joan.  viii. )  unde  alibi,  tu,  homo  cum  sis, 
 facis  te  ipsum  Deum*." 
 
 V.    A     modern     objection   against   the 
 reality  of  the    Christian    miracles  may  be 
 viewed  in  connexion  with  the  law,  which 
 I  have  just  cited.     The  reje61:ion  and  cru- 
 cifixion  of  Christ,  it  is  intimated,  prove 
 that  the  Jews  discredited  his  miracles :  for 
 the  united  force  of  their  prejudices  "  would 
 have  been  irresistibly  borne  down  by  the 
 natural  influence  of   an  undoubted    mira- 
 cle i%"     In  answer  to  this,  we  have  simply 
 to  point  to  the  law  in  Deut.  xiii.  it  is  one 
 of  that  system  by.  J  which    their    opinions 
 were  partly  formed,  and  their  ecclesiastical 
 o-overnment    conducted    in   the    time    of 
 Christ  J:    it  is  dire6ted  against  the  parti- 
 cular case  of  miracles  wrought  in  support 
 of  false  do51rines  :  and  it  is  even  probable, 
 
 that 
 
 *  SA.  in  John  xix.  7. 
 
 t  Jewish  and  Heathen  RcjC(5lion  of  the  Christian  Mira- 
 k-\es,  by  T.  Edwards,  p.  10. 
 
 ;{;  Basnage,  B,  5.  C.  ii. 
 
(     35      ) 
 
 that  the  case  of  Jesus  Christ  was  brought 
 under  the  operation  of  this  very  law. 
 
 "Orobio  the   Jew,  in  his  friendly  con- 
 ference with  Limborch,  has  thus  stated  the 
 topic,  which  we  are  at  present  considering. 
 It    can    scarcely   be   imagined    that    the 
 whole  people   would  exercise  their  malice 
 and  hatred  against  a  man,  who  raised  the 
 dead,  gave  sight  to  the  blind,  healed  the 
 sick,  and  wrought  numberless  miracles  */' 
 Owing   to  some   temporary  oversight,  to 
 which   any   writer   is  liable,   this  learned 
 and   candid   Jew  has  certainly  intimated, 
 that  his  ancestors  could  not  have  persecuted 
 and  crucified  Jesus,  had  they  credited  his 
 miracles:   and    this  thoughtless  assertion 
 has  been  expanded  into   a   regular  argu- 
 ment, and  urged  in  a  tone  of  as  high  con- 
 fidence, as  if  it  were  decisive  of  the  fate  of 
 Christianity  itself.      But,  whatever  autho- 
 rity  the  objeftion    may   derive   from  the 
 name  of  Orobio,    or  whatever    additional 
 importance  it  may  acquire  in  consequence 
 of  its  adoption  and  improvement  by  any 
 Christian  of  our  own   time;     its  original 
 author  will  be  driven  from  his  ground  by 
 
 an 
 
 *  Jewish    and  Heathen    Rejedion    of    the  Cbristi:;in 
 Miracles,  p   8, 
 
 5  3, 
 
(      36     ) 
 
 an  armed  host  of  his  own  tribes ;  each 
 individual  of  which  will  bring  into  the  field 
 a  higher  name  and  more  force  than  this 
 champion,  who  has  been  most  injudici- 
 ously drawn  out  to  defy  the  armies  of 
 Israel.  It  must  be  a  matter  of  common 
 notoriety,  that  this  objetlion  is  totally  in- 
 consistent with  the  usual  reasoning  of  the 
 Jews  against  Christianity.  It  is  implied 
 in  the  objedlion,  that  the  contemporaries  of 
 Christ  discredited  his  miracles,  because  he 
 was  rejected  and  crucified :  whereas  Jews 
 of  every  age  have  contended,  that  miracles 
 afford  no  proof  of  the  divine  mission  of  a 
 prophet,  who  teaches  false  do61:rines  ;  such 
 as  they  suppose  Jesus  to  have  taught:  and 
 consequently,  according  to  their  notions, 
 he  might  have  been  persecuted  and  cruci- 
 fied by  their  ancestors,  while  the  reality 
 of  his  miracles  was  fully  admitted. 
 
 He  asserted,  as  they  believe,  his  own 
 divinity:  and  his  case,  in  their  opinion, 
 fell  under  the  law  against  the  false  prophet, 
 (in  the  isth  Chap,  of  Deuteronomy)  who 
 should  teach  the  worship  of  false  gods. 
 They  even  go  farther  than  to  assert  our 
 Lord's  case  to  have  been  provided  for  by 
 this  general  law :  they  believe  it  to  have 
 
 been 
 
(     37     ) 
 
 been  framed  against  the  individual  case  of 
 Jesus  Christ.  He  is  particularly  pointed 
 out,  they  contend,  in  one  of  the  clauses. 
 "If  thy  brother,  the  son  of  thy  mother  en- 
 tice thee  secretly,"  &c.  "This  is  Jesus," 
 say  they,  "  who  denied  his  father,  saying 
 that  he  had  a  mother,  but  not  a  father ; 
 that  he  was  the  son  of  God,  and  God*." 
 Fagius  remarks  "  Caec'i  Judsei,  maxima 
 impiissimus  nebulo  author  Libri  Nizahon 
 de  Christo  unico  ac  vero  salvatore  nostro 
 hsec  Verba  exponit,  quasi  Moses  ipsum 
 proprie  hie  notarit,  eo  quod  ipse  se  ex  muliere 
 tantum,  non  ex  viro  natum  dixerit,  atque 
 filius  tantum  matris  suae,  non  etiam  patris 
 esse  voluerit." 
 
 Maimonides  may  speak  in  the  name  of 
 the  generality  of  the  Jews  since  the  12th 
 Century :  and  he  maintains  that  the  mira- 
 cles of  a  prophet,  (whose  claim  is  set  aside 
 by  certain  rules,  which  are  pointed  against 
 those,  who  recommend  the  worship  of  other 
 gods)  are  no  proof  of  the  truth  of  his 
 pretensions.  His  reason  would  make  no 
 inconsiderable  figure  in  the  metaphysics 
 of   Malebranche,    Des    Cartes,  or   Locke. 
 
 *^  Because 
 
 *  See  Fagius  on  Cliald.  Paraph.  Deut.  xiii.  inthe  Critici 
 Sacii.     See  also  his  note  on  Deut,  xviii,  J5.inCrit.  Sac, 
 
{     S8     ) 
 
 "  Because  the  testimony  of  the  understand- 
 ing, which  proves  the  falsity  of  his  profes- 
 sions, is  of  more  weight  than  that  of  the 
 eyes,  which  see  his  miracles*." 
 
 The  case  of  Christ,  though  not  expressly 
 mentioned,  is  clearly  enough  alluded  to  ; 
 and  the  general  scope  of  his  reasoning  is 
 founded  on  the  principle  of  the  law  in  the 
 13th  Chap,  of  Deuteronomy  ;  to  which  he 
 refers,  and  observes  that  the  cause,  why 
 God  permits  such  miracles,  is  assigned  in 
 that  Chapter.  "  Because  the  Lord  your 
 God  trieth  you." 
 
 Maimonides  then,  who  affirms  miracles 
 to  be  no  proof  of  the  truth  of  a  prophet's 
 pretensions,  will  never  admit  the  position 
 of  Orobio  and  his  advocate  ;  who  contend, 
 that  the  united  force  of  the  Jewish  preju- 
 dices must  have  been  irresistibly  borne 
 down  by  the  natural  influence  of  an  uu^ 
 doubted  miracle. 
 
 The  sentiments  of  Maimonides  respect- 
 ing the  force  of  the  evidence  of  miracles 
 in  general,  and  the  reality  of  those  of 
 Christ  in  particular,  were  those  of  the  more 
 
 ancient 
 
 *  Maimonidis  PiafaUo  in  Misnam,  p.  3.  Ed.  Surcnliusiri. 
 
{     39     ) 
 
 ancient  Jews  at  large :  on  this  subjetl,  they 
 have  entertained  the  same  opinions  from 
 the  time  of  Christ  to  the  present  day :  they, 
 at  that  time,  held  miracles  insufficient  to 
 justify   the  claim   of  divinity:    they  have 
 maintained  the  same  opinion  in  subsequent 
 ages ;  and   therefore  could  never  imap^ine 
 that  the  reje6lion  and  punishment  of  our 
 Saviour,  vv^ho,  as  they  strenuously  contend, 
 advanced    this    claim,    afforded   any    pre- 
 sumption against  the  belief  of  contempora- 
 ries in  the  reality  of  his  miracles. 
 
 The  Jewish  author,  who  has  unaccount- 
 ably found  an  advocate  in  a  learned  Chris- 
 tiaa,  when  it  might  have  been  reasonably 
 supposed  that  Jew,  Gentile  and  Christian 
 would  have  been  unanimous  in  exploding 
 this  extravagance,  is  not  only  refuted  by 
 whole  tribes   of  his  own    people:   he   has 
 actually  refuted  himself.   In  one  part  of  his 
 writings  (I  quote  them  on  the  authority  of 
 Limborch)  he   affirms,  in   the  fullest  and 
 most    dire6l     terms,    that    our     Saviour 
 laid  claim  to  divinity  *  ;   in  another  place 
 he  asserts,  that  "  if  a  Prophet,  or  even  the 
 
 Messiah 
 
 *  *'  Jesum  in  se  ipsum,  ut  veium  Deum  Israelis,  fiilem 
 exegisse,  Dei  omnipotentiam  sibi  arrogasse,  se  Deo  ceqna- 
 lem  praedicasse,  etquidem  f^lso."  Orobio  apud  Limborch. 
 Amica  Collatio,  p.  252.  Ed,  Goudae.  1688. 
 
(      40      ) 
 
 Messiah  himself,  the  acknowledged  Mes- 
 siah, had  proved  his  divine  mission  by  mi- 
 racles, but  claimed  divinity  ;  he  ought  to 
 be  stoned  to  death  */'  By  this  acknow- 
 ledgment,—  one  of  the  claims  of  Jesus 
 constituted  in  itself  a  crime,  for  which  no 
 miracles  could  atone,  and  deserved  a  punish- 
 ment, which  they  ought  not  to  prevent:  the 
 writer  therefore  admits,  in  full  and  decisive 
 answer  to  himself,  that  the  rejection  and 
 punishment  of  that  claim  afford  not  the 
 slightest  presumption  against  the  belief  of 
 the  Jews  in  the  Christian  miracles  :  he,  in 
 fa(5l,  grants  that  the  Jewish  nation  might 
 have  first  received  Jesus  as  the  Messiah 
 on  account  of  miracles,  and  afterwards 
 have  destroyed  him  for  claiming  divinity. 
 Orobio  himself,  if  it  be  thought  neces- 
 sary, will  seal  Orobio's  condemnation. 
 But,  we  are   not  reduced  to  rest  on  the 
 
 authority 
 
 *  "Quin  imo  Vir  Docl.  ad  Quaest.  3.  Num.  8.  p.  1C9, 
 1 10,  III,  contendit  Froplietam  (imo  ipsum  Messiam) 
 si  sei[)suin  Deum  Israelis  esse  affirmasset  (quod  hie  Do- 
 mino Jesu  adscribit)  et  plurimis  confirmaret  miraculis,jure 
 esse  lapidiinduin."  P.  252.  *'  Sed  quo  tandem  nacc 
 viri  dotX.  machina  tendit  ?  Ut  evincat  Dominum  Jesitm 
 Deum  Israelis  sub  idea,  diversd  ab  ed  quam  Dens 
 Israeli  revelavcrat,  colendum  proposiiisse,ac perinde  alienum 
 dociiisseDeum :  Licet  itaque  plurimis  do&nnam  istam  con- 
 firmaret miracidis,  quod  secundum  legem  Deut,  ^m.  jure 
 lupidandusforcl,"  Sec.  p.  295. 
 
(     41     ) 
 
 authority  of  an  adversary  in  order  to  prove 
 that  the  Jewish  reje6lion  of  the  claims  of 
 Christ  affords  no  presumption  of  their  dis- 
 belief of  his  miraculous  pov^er.  On  one 
 side,  they  saw  his  miracles,  which  Jews  of 
 that  age  and  of  every  age  have  thought 
 might  be  effe6ted  by  the  agency  of  evil 
 spirits,  permitted  by  God  to  try  the  firmness 
 of  their  faith  and  the  constancy  of  their 
 obedience  to  the  Mosaic  law  :  on  the  other, 
 they  heard  him  assert  his  own  divinity. 
 The  union  of  the  divine  and  human  na- 
 tures they  conceived  to  be  impossible,  the 
 claim  of  divinity  impious :  the  supposed 
 impiety  and  impossibility  of  one  of  his 
 claims,  in  their  opinion,  overturned  the 
 weaker  evidence  of  undisputed  miracles 
 wrought  in  its  support:  they  weighed  what 
 to  them  appeared  opposite  evidences,  and 
 the  preponderance  of  that  side,  on  W'hich 
 their  prejudiced  opinions  had  placed  the 
 greater  weight,  decided  the  condu6l  of  the 
 magistrates  and  the  infidelity  of  the  people. 
 
 Christians  have  had  to  oppose  two  very 
 different  classes  of  adversasies  ;  who  ought, 
 on  their  ovvii  account,  to  have  concerted 
 some  consistent  plan  of  operation,  before 
 they  commenced  their  attacks.    AVhile  one 
 
 F  party. 
 
(        42        ) 
 
 party,  with  tlie  Jews,  thinks  h'ghtly  of  the 
 miracles  of  tlie  New  Testament,  and  the 
 other  contends  that  their  force  must  have 
 been*' irresistible/'  had  they  been  credited ; 
 we  might  withdraw  from  the  contest,  and 
 leave  them  to  settle  the  dispute  between 
 themselves.  "  Enfindes  Ecrivains,  qui  re- 
 garden  t  les  miracles  comme  autant  d'ab- 
 surdites  et  qui  en  nient  non-seulement 
 I'existence,  mais  la  possibilite,  ne  nous 
 paroissent  pas  fort  capables  de  decider  de 
 leur  pouvoir  sur  le  coeur  des  hommes, 
 Aussi  ces  grands  opposants  a  la  revelation 
 sont-ils  peu  d'accord  entr'  eux  sur  Ce  sujet. 
 Si  quelques-uns  se  persuadent  que  les  mi- 
 racles auroientune  force  irresistible,  d'autres 
 en  jugent  tout  difFeremment.  *  Redresse 
 les  boiteux,'  dit  Fun  d^entr'eux,  fais  parler 
 les  muets,  resusciteles  morts,  je  n'en  serai 
 point  ebranle.  Remarquez  la  belle  harmo- 
 nic qui  regne  entre  ces  Messieurs.  '  On 
 ne  resisteroit  point  aux  miracles,'  dit  Tun  ; 
 'je  n'en  serois  point  ebranle,'  dit  I'autre, 
 c'est  ainsi  que  s'accordent  ces  sages  */' 
 
 VI.      The   question  before  us,  it  must 
 be  remembered,   is  this:   Whether  Jesus, 
 
 under 
 
 *  Lettres  de  quelqucs  Juifs,  Ed,  a^e,  ^  Paris,  p.  147, 
 
(     43     ) 
 
 under  the  external  disadvantages  of  an 
 humble  birth  and  appearance,  was  con- 
 demned by  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim  for  pro- 
 fessing to  be  their  Messiah;  or,  for  claiming 
 a  higher  nature  than  they  attributed  to  the 
 great  personage,  whom  they  expe6led  under 
 that  title  ?  Whether  he  was  condemned  for 
 indirectly  declaring  himself  the  Christ,  the 
 son  of  David  and  King  of  Israel;  or  for 
 asserting  his  divinity  ?  And,  in  the  dis- 
 cussion of  this  question,  it  seems  reasonble 
 to  judge  of  the  motives  of  the  Sanhedrim 
 by  those  of  the  Jewish  people;  to  explain 
 the  condu6l  of  one  body  of  Jews  by  the 
 condu6l  of  others,  and  to  form  our  opinions 
 on  a  conne6led  and  comparative  view  of 
 the  whole.  If  the  magistrate  and  the  sub- 
 je6f,  the  learned  and  the  ignorant,  the 
 inhabitant  of  the  city  and  of  the  country, 
 at  different  times,  and  in  various  situations, 
 appear  to  have  been  incensed  against  our 
 Saviour  for  asserting  his  divinity,  without 
 shewing  equal  displeasure,  when  they  con- 
 ceived him  to  speak  of  his  divine  mission 
 only  as  Messiah  ;  we  are  then  furnished 
 with  a  forcible  reason,  in  addition  to  those 
 already  stated,  for  believing  that  this  was, 
 at  least,  the  principal,  if  not  the  only 
 ground  of  his  condemnation.     And,  it  may 
 
 F  2  be 
 
{      44      ) 
 
 be  added  that  such  a  perfect  uniformity  in 
 the  interpretation  of  his  words  by  several 
 different  bodies  of  men  of  his  own  time 
 and  country,  who  all  spoke  the  same  lan- 
 guage, were  conversant  about  the  same 
 obje61s,  to  whom  his  figures  of  speech  and 
 modes  of  instruction  would  be  familiar, 
 such  uniformity  in  the  interpretation  of 
 his  words  by  so  many  different  bodies  of 
 contemporaries  affords  a  decisive  proof,  that 
 his  meaning  was  not  misunderstood. 
 
 In  order  to  judge  whether  the  Sanhe- 
 drim would  condemn  Jesus,  appearing  as 
 he  did  appear,  for  teaching  the  doctrine  of 
 his  divinity,  or  for  simply  declaring  him- 
 self the  Messiah  ;  we  may  first  appeal  to 
 the  condu6l  of  a  body  of  Jews  of  Jerusalem 
 described  in  the  fifth  Chapter  of  St.  John. 
 It  is  there  related  that  he  spoke  of  his 
 divine  mission  as  Messiah;  "Ye  sent  unto 
 John  ;  and  he  bare  witness  of  the  truth  : 
 but,  1  have  greater  witness  than  that  of 
 John ;  for  the  works,  that  I  do,  bear  wit- 
 ness of  me  that  the  father  hath  sent  me." 
 And,  no  mention  is  made  of  any  disapproba- 
 tion expressed  on  this  occasion.  But,  a  short 
 time  before  this,  v>'hen  he  had  appeared  to 
 the  same  people  to  call  God  his  father  in  a 
 
 more 
 
(     45     ) 
 
 more  strict  and  proper  sense  than  was 
 consistent  with  the  notion  of  his  simple 
 humanity,  the  sacred  historian  has  recorded 
 that  they  sought  to  put  him  to  death. 
 "Therefore,  the  Jews  sought  the  more  to 
 kill  him,  not  only  because  he  had  broken 
 the  sabbath,  but  said  also  that  God  was  his 
 proper  father ;  narsoci  i6'.qv  zXzys  rou  Qsov  ; 
 making  himself  equal  with  God  */' 
 
 Some  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  according 
 to  this  account,  sought  to  kill  him,  because 
 he  called  God  his  father  in  such  a  sense  as 
 to  make  himself  equal  with  God  :  and,  he 
 was  afterwards  condemned  to  death  by  the 
 magistrates  of  Jerusalem,  because  he  made 
 himself  the  "  son  of  God/'  We  may  judge 
 of  the  interpretation  of  the  latter  phrase  by 
 that  of  the  former;  one  being  equivalent 
 to  the  other,  and  conclude,  with  consider- 
 able probabilit}^  that  he  was  on  both 
 occasions  understood  to  call  God  his  father 
 in  such  a  sense  as  to  claim  divinity  ;  that, 
 on  this  account,  they  at  one  time  sought 
 to  kill  him,  and  afterwards,  on  the  same 
 account,  and  not  because  he  called  himself 
 the  Messiah,  condemned  him  to  the  cross. 
 
 In 
 
 *  John  V.  18, 
 
(     4^     ) 
 
 In  order  to  explain  the  concIu6l  of  the 
 Sanhedrim  by  that  of  the  Jewish  people, 
 our  second  appeal  may  be  to  a  body  of 
 Jews  colle6led  in  one  of  the  courts  of  the 
 temple  of  Jerusalem  *.  In  the  conference 
 of  Christ  with  the  Jews  on  this  occasion, 
 after  having  openly  spoken  of  his  divine 
 mission;  and  having  alluded  to  his  divine 
 nature  without  being  understood  by  his 
 hearers  -f  ;  he,  at  length,  addresses  them 
 in  these  remarkable  words.  "  Verily  I  say 
 unto  you.  Before  Abraham  was  I  am." 
 This  sentence  seems  to  contain  no  allusion 
 to  the  office  of  the  Messiah  :  but,  he  directly 
 claims  in  it  eternity  of  existence,  an  attri- 
 bute of  God  alone  :   and,   that  the  Jewish 
 
 interpretation 
 
 *  John  viii. 
 
 t  In  this  conference  with  the  Jews  he  declares  himself 
 a  teacher,  "the  light  of  the  world;"  and  appeals  to  his 
 miracles  to  confirm  this  and  his  other  claims  ;  he  speaks  of 
 his  father,  that  sent  him,  bearing  witness  of  him,  and  ad- 
 dresses the  Jews  in  these  words,  "Ye  neither  know  me, 
 nor  my  father:  if  ye  had  known  me,  ye  should  have 
 known  my  father  also."  Here,  it  will  perhaps  be  said, 
 is  a  plain  allusion  to  his  divine  origin  ;  and  yet  no  violence 
 was  offered  to  him  by  the  Jews.  The  Evangelist  has 
 observed  it,  as  if  it  were  a  remarkable  circumstance, 
 "while  Jesus  spake  these  words,  no  man  laid  hands  on 
 him,"  viii.  20.  and,  he  soon  after  even  adds,  "  As  he 
 spake  these  words,  many  believed  on  him."  v.  30.  But, 
 lie  has  solved  the  difficulty  v.  27.  "  They  understood 
 not  that  he  spake  to  them  of  the  father,"  i.  e.  of  God  being 
 his  father.  They  believed  him  to  speak  of  one,  who  was 
 strictly  and  properly  his  father;  but,  had  no  conception, 
 on  this  occasion,  that  he  intimated  this  Father  to  be  God. 
 
(     47     ) 
 
 interpretation  was  the  same  with  ours 
 appears  not  by  any  obscure  and  ambigu- 
 ous words  let  fall  on  the  occasion,  but  by 
 a  speaking  a6Hon  too  expressive  to  be  mis- 
 understood. ''  Then  took  they  up  stones 
 to  cast  at  him."  Our  Saviour  asserts  his 
 preexistence,  and  certain  Jews  immediately 
 attempt  to  destroy  him.  Consistently 
 with  this  claim,  he  afterwards  on  his  trial 
 professes  to  be,  not  merely  the  Messiah, 
 according  to  the  Jewish  notions  of  their 
 Messiah,  the  son  of  David,  but  the  son  of 
 God :  and  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim  in  per- 
 fe6l  consistency  with  the  preceding  con- 
 du6l  of  the  people  unanimously  pronounce 
 him  worthy  of  death. 
 
 To  account  for  the  conduft  of  the  San- 
 hedrim by  comparing  it  with  that  of  the 
 people,  we  may  appeal,  in  the  third  place, 
 to  another  body  of  Jews  coiledted  in  tlie 
 temple  *.  "  And  Jesus  walked  in  the 
 temple,  in  Solomon's  porch :  then  came  the 
 Jews  round  about  him,  and  said  unto  him  : 
 *  If  thou  be  the  Messiah,  tell  us  plainly/ 
 Jesus  answered  them ;  /  told  you,  and  ye 
 believed  not:  the  works,  that  1  do  in  my 
 father's  name,  they  bear  witness  of  me: 
 
 but 
 
 *  John  X.  23. 
 
(     48     ) 
 
 but  ye  believe  not  :  for  ye  are  not  of  my 
 sheep.  My  sheep  hear  my  voice,  I  know 
 them,  and  they  follow  me:  and  I  give  unto 
 them  eternal  life,  and  they  shall  never 
 perish,  neither  shall  any  pluck  them  out 
 of  my  hand :  my  father,  which  gave  them 
 me,  is  greater  than  all,  and  none  is  able 
 to  pluck  them  out  of  my  father's  hand. 
 I  and  my  father  are  one/' 
 
 "Then  the  Jews  again  took  up  stones  to 
 stone  him.  Jesus  answered  them.  Many 
 good  works  have  I  shewn  you  from  my 
 father :  for  which  of  these  works  do  ye 
 stone  me  ?  The  Jews  answered  him.  For  a 
 good  work  we  stone  thee  not,  but  for 
 blasphemy,  and  because  thou,  being  a  man, 
 makest  thyself  God." 
 
 In  this  narrative,  two  circumstances 
 claim  our  notice.  When  Jesus  remarks 
 that  he  has  already  declared  himself  the 
 Messiah,  the  observation  appears  to  have 
 made  no  uncommon  impression  on  his 
 hearers  ;  so  far  from  being  reckoned  blas- 
 phemous, it  seen]s  to  have  been  heard 
 M'ithout  exciting  more  emotion  than  a  com- 
 mon remark :  and  it  is  not  till  he  declares 
 himself  one  with  his  father,  that  they  take 
 
 up 
 
(     49     ) 
 
 up  stones  to  stone  him.     Their  words,  in 
 this  case,  are  no  less  significant  than  their 
 a6tions.     They  do   not   say,  "  We  stone 
 thee,  because  thou  being  a  humble  Gali- 
 lean makest  thyself  the  Messiah;"  but  "we 
 stone   thee   for    blasphemy,    and    because 
 thou,  being  a  man,  makest  thyself  God/' 
 The  motive  of  the  Jews,  on  this  occasion,  is 
 avowed  in  dire6l  and  explicit  terras.    They 
 attempt  to  stone  him,  because,  in  asserting 
 his  own  divinity,  he  was  guilty  of  blasphemy, 
 and  in  their  observations,  and  his  answer,  we 
 distindfly  see  the  two  claims,  the  combina- 
 tion of  which  they  conceived  to  form  his  guilt. 
 The  first  and  principal,  according  to  our 
 Saviour^s  account,  was,  that  he  called  him- 
 self the  son  of  God  :  "  Say  ye  of  him,  whom 
 the  father   hath    sanftiiied  and    sent  into 
 the  world  *thou  blasphemest ;'  because  I 
 said,  I  am  the  son  of  God  ?"    The  second, 
 and  that  which  fixed  the  meaning  of  the 
 other,  was,  that  he   professed   to   be   one 
 with  God,  whom  he  had  called  his  father. 
 Both  were  combined  in  the  afhrmation,  "  I 
 and  my  father  are  one/'     The  people,  on 
 this   occasion,  attempt   to   stone   him  for 
 blasphemy  ;  and  he  was  afterwards  con- 
 demned   by  the  Sanhedrim  for  the   same 
 crime.     The   people  attempt  to  stone  him^ 
 
 G  because, 
 
(      50      ) 
 
 because,  he,  as  they  alledged,  being  a  man 
 made  himself  God,  by  calling  himself  the 
 son  of  God,  and  professing  to  be  one  with 
 his  father :  and  the  Sanhedrim  also  con- 
 demned him  to  denth,  because  he  declared 
 himself  the  spn  of  God.  This  narrative 
 of  the  proceedings  of  the  people  contains  a 
 just  exposition  of  the  motives,  which  after- 
 wards influenced  their  magistrates,  and 
 forms  a  valuable  comment  on  the  history 
 of  our  Saviour's  trial. 
 
 The  subsequent  condu6l  of  this  same 
 body  of  people  is  also  not  unworthy  of 
 attention.  Our  Saviour  reproves  them  for 
 considering  him  as  a  blasphemer  in  declar- 
 ing himself  the  son  of  God ;  when  in  their 
 own  writings  princes  and  rulers  are  some- 
 times, on  account  of  their  office,  called 
 Gods  :  and,  applying  the  argument  a  for- 
 tiori, he  intimates  that  the  appellation 
 would  be  given  with  a  more  stri6l  propriety 
 to  him,  who  was  sayidiified  afid  sent  by  the 
 Father.  So  for  in  this  expostulation,  his 
 language  was  doubtful.  When  he  inti- 
 mated, that  the  appellation  would  be  applied 
 with  more  propriety  to  him  than  to  others, 
 he  might  be  supposed  eitlier  to  allude  to 
 his  divine  nature,  or  to  assert  only  his 
 
 divine 
 
(     51     ) 
 
 divine  mission :  and  so  far  he  was  suffered 
 by  the  Jews  to  proceed  without  interruption. 
 But,  when  he  adds,  "  If  I  do  not  the  works 
 of  my  Father,  beheve  me  not :  but,  if  I  do, 
 then  though  ye  beheve  not  me,  yet  beheve 
 the  works,  that  ye  may  know  and  beheve 
 that  the  Father  is  in  me,  and  I  in  him,"  The 
 Evangehst  then  relates,  that  "again  they 
 went  about  to  take  him  ?''  The  strain  of  this 
 expostulation  appeared  to  them  the  same 
 with  that,  from  which  they  had  just  con- 
 cluded, that  he  being  a  man  made  himself 
 God :  and  though  he  knew,  that  this  was 
 their  interpretation,  he  neither  on  this,  nor 
 any  other  similar  occasion,  complained  of 
 any  mistake. 
 
 In  order  to  judge  whether  the  Sanhedrim 
 would  probably  condemn  Jesiis  to  death 
 for  declaring  himself  the  Messiah,  or  for 
 asserting  his  divinity,  we  may  make  our 
 fourth  appeal  to  the  condu6l  and  language 
 of  a  body  of  Jews  in  Gahlee,  described  in 
 the  6th  Chapter  of  St.  John.  Five  thou- 
 sand men,  who  had  witnessed  his  miracles, 
 a6lually  acknowledged  him  as  "  that  prophet 
 that  should  come  into  the  world,"  and  were 
 preparing  to  invest  him  with  the  kingly 
 office  ;  consistently  with  their  notions  of  a 
 
 G  3  Messiah, 
 
(  53  ) 
 
 Messiah.  The  next  day,  the  same  persons 
 murmured  disapprobation,  when  he  inti- 
 mated in  metaphorical  language  that  he 
 was  of  more  than  human  nature.  "  The 
 Jews  then  murmured  at  him,  because  he 
 he  said,  I  am  the  bread  which  came  down 
 from  heaven/'  That  they  understood  him 
 on  this  occasion  to  allude  to  his  divinity 
 and  preexistence,  appears  further  from  their 
 own  observation  :  "  Is  not  this  Jesus  the 
 son  of  Joseph,  whose  father  and  mother 
 we  know?  How  then  saith  he,  I  came 
 down  from  heaven?"  i.  e.  We  know  his 
 father  and  mother ;  we  know  that  he  was 
 born  of  human  parents  :  how  then  can  he 
 be  of  heavenly  origin,  as  he  affirms  ? 
 
 If  this  case  be  viewed  in  conne6lion 
 with  the  history  of  our  Saviour's  trial ; 
 we  may  ask ;  whether  it  is  probable  that 
 he  would  be  condemned  to  death  by  Jews 
 for  advancing  that  claim,  which  five  thou- 
 sand Jews  had  admitted  ;  or  that,  at  which 
 tliey  had  expressed  their  displeasure  by 
 murmurs  ?  After  he  had  been  judged 
 guilty  by  the  Sanhedrim  for  professing  to 
 be  the  son  of  God  :  had  the  question  been 
 proposed  to  these  five  thousand  people : 
 had  they  been  asked  ;  what  they  conceived 
 
 were 
 
(     53     ) 
 
 were  the  grounds  of  his  condemnation  ? 
 Would  they  have  declared  it  their  opinion, 
 that  Jesus  was  condemned  for  professing 
 to  be  that  prophet,  who  should  come  into 
 the  world,  or  for  the  higher,  and,  as  they 
 thought,  the  more  extravagant  claim  of 
 divinity?  Their  language  and  condu6l 
 have  obviated  the  question :  they  have 
 virtually  given  their  suffrages;  and  their 
 opinion  must  have  great  weight  in  deciding 
 ours. 
 
 It  is  on  one  occasion  related  by  St. 
 John  *,  that  when  Christ  was  speaking  of 
 his  father,  the  people,  who  heard  him,  un- 
 derstood not  that  he  spoke  of  God :  and  it 
 may  be  reasonably  supposed,  that  when  he 
 indire611y  or  obscurely  advanced  the  claim 
 of  divinity,  his  meaning  would  be  sooner 
 discovered  by  men  of  learning  than  by  the 
 common  people.  Let  the  condu6l  of  the 
 Sanhedrim  then  be  compared  vvith  that  of 
 a  body  of  scribes  and  pharisees  assembled 
 from  every  town  of  Galilee  and  Judsa  and 
 Jerusalem  itself  "f.  Before  this  assembly 
 of  men  of  education,  as  well  as  a  great 
 multitude  of  the  common  people,  he  as- 
 sumed and  exercised  the  power  of  forgiving 
 
 sins. 
 
 *  Chap.  viii.  27.  f  Luke  v.  1 7. 
 
(     54     ) 
 
 sins.  Tlien,  certain  of  the  scribes  said 
 within  themselves,  "Who  is  this  that 
 speaketh  blasphemy  ?  Who  can  forgive 
 sins  but  God  only?"  When  he  asserted 
 the  power  of  forgiving  sins,  on  this  occasion, 
 it  was  at  least  suspe6led  by  some  of  the 
 scribes,  that  his  words  amounted  to  blas- 
 phemy, the  crime,  for  which  he  was  after- 
 wards condemned  by  the  great  national 
 tribunal;  which  was  probably  for  the  most 
 part  composed  of  priests  and  scribes.  The 
 power  of  forgiving  sins,  far  from  being 
 allowed  to  their  expedled  Messiah,  was 
 considered  by  the  scribes  as  appropriated 
 to  God  alone :  and  he  was  afterwards  con- 
 demned by  the  Sanhedrim  for  claiming  a 
 higher  nature  than  they  admitted  in  the 
 Messiah,  in  declaring  himself  the  son  of 
 God*. 
 
 A  very 
 
 *  "  They  were  offended  at  him,  because  in  his  discourses 
 to  them  he  sometimes  gave  them  hints,  that  hcwasamucli 
 greater  person  than  they  imagined,  upon  which  they  called 
 him  a  blasphemer,  who  made  himself  God,  and  equal 
 witliGod;  that  is,  who  assumed  to  himself  divine  honours 
 and  more  respcdt  than  was  due  to  a  prophet;  for  the 
 Jews  had  no  notion  that  their  Messias  should  be  any 
 thing  more  than  mere  man. 
 
 Ihe  Jews,  as  it  appears  from  Justin's  Dialogue  with 
 Tiypho,  objciStcd  to  the  Christians,  that  they  worshipped 
 more  Gods  than  one,  and  ascribed  divine  perfc6tions  to 
 Christ.  To  this  Justin  (See  Index  to  Thirlby's  Edit; 
 Chnsfus)  and  other  Christians  answered,  that  frequent 
 
 mention 
 
(     55     ) 
 
 ■  A  very  distinguished  Philosopher  of  the 
 present  age  has  made  the  following  obser- 
 vation on  the  result  of  his  own  inquiries  on 
 this  subje61.  "  I  have  shewn  that,  by  the 
 confession  of  all  the  Christian  fathers, 
 neither  Christ  himself,  nor  any  of  his 
 Apostles  before  John,  taught  his  preexist- 
 ence  or  divinity  with  clearness,  and  that 
 the  chief  reason  which  they  assigned  for  it 
 was,  that  the  prejudices  of  the  Jews,  in 
 favour  of  their  Messiah  being  a  mere  man, 
 were  so  strong,  that  their  minds  zuould  have 
 revolted  at  it*."  A  slight  correilion  of 
 the  language  of  this  remark  will  introduce 
 a  considerable,  but  a  necessary  alteration 
 of  the  sentiments  conveyed  in  it.  Christ 
 inculcated  not  the  do6lrines  of  his  divinity 
 and  preexistence  with  clearness,  on  ail  oc- 
 casions, on  account  of  the  prejudices  of  the 
 Jews  in  favour  of  their  Messiah  being  a 
 mere  man;  this,  and  no  more  than  this, 
 
 has 
 
 mention  is  naade  in  the  Old  Testament  of  a  person  who  is 
 called  God  and  is  God,  and  yet  is  distinguished  from  the 
 God  and  Father  of  all.  ©.=3;  xaXstrai  y.xt  ©so?  en  ■■-xt  ex-cn. 
 Justin,  p.  261.  Trypho  says  to  Justin,  It  is  written,  "  I 
 am  the  Lord — my  glory  I  will  not  give  to  another."  This 
 objeftion  Justin  answers  by  observing  that  God  speaks  in 
 opposition  to  false  gods  and  Idols,  and  not  to  his  word  and 
 his  son.  Jortin's  first  Discourse  on  the  Christian  Religion, 
 p.  17.  Edit.  1768. 
 
 *  Priestley's  Letters  to  Candidates  for  Orders,  p.  82. 
 
{     66     ) 
 
 has  been  granted  by  the  Cliristian  fathers : 
 he  so  frequently,  however,  and  so  plainly 
 spoke  of  his  divinity  and  preexistence,  that 
 their  minds  did  revolt  at  it :  on  this  account, 
 they  consulted  how  to  put  him  to  death ; 
 on  the  same  account  they  at  different  times- 
 took  up  stones  to  stone  him ;  for  this  rea- 
 son, the  magistrates  judged  him  guilty 
 of  blasphemy,  and  at  last  prevailed  on  the 
 Roman  governor  to  crucify  him. 
 
 « If  we  look  into  the  gospel  history," 
 observes  this  writer,  "  we  shall  find  that  all 
 our  Saviour  himself  taught  or  insinuated, 
 were  his  ^divine  mission  in  general,  or  his 
 being  the' Messiah  in  particular;  with  the 
 doctrine  of  the  resurre6lion,  and  that  of 
 himself  coming  again  to  raise  the  dead  and 
 judge  the  world.  These  do6lrines  accom- 
 panied with  moral  instru6lions,and  reproofs 
 of  the  Pharisees  for  corrupting  the  law  of 
 God,  made  up  the  whole  of  his  preaching. 
 He  never  told  his  disciples  that  he  had  pre- 
 existed, or  that  he  had  any  thing  to  do, 
 before  he  came  into  the  world  ;  much  less 
 that  he  had  made  the  world,  and  governed 
 it;  and  there  is  abundant  evidence  that  this 
 was  admitted  by  the  Christian  fathers*."    In 
 
 seeming 
 
 *  History  of  early  Opinions,  B.  iii.  c.  iii. 
 
(     57     ) 
 
 seeming  contradi6lion,  however,  to  a  part 
 of  this  remark,  he  observes  in  the  next  page, 
 "  The  Fathers  say,  that  whenever  our  Savi- 
 our said  any  thing  that  might  lead  his 
 disciples  to  think  that  he  was  of  a  nature 
 superior  totliat  of  man,  they  were  offended, 
 and  that  he  concihated  their  esteem,  when- 
 ever he  represented  himself  as  a  mere  man, 
 such  as  they  expe6led  a  prophet  and  the 
 Messiah  to  be."  Witli  the  same  incon- 
 sistency he  has  afterwards  cited  and  alluded 
 to  several  passages  in  the  Fathers,  in  which 
 they  assert  that  Christ  taught  his  own  divi- 
 nity ;  though  he  informed  not  his  disciples 
 that  he  was  the  creator  of  the  world.  Of 
 these  passages  it  will  be  sufficient  to  select 
 the  two  following. 
 
 "  Christ  did  not  reveal  his  divinity  imme- 
 diately, but  was  first  thought  to  be  a  propliet, 
 and  the  Christ,  simply  a  man  :  and  it  after- 
 wards appeared  by  his  works  a7id  sayings,  ^io, 
 rcov  ioym  y.ociTuv  ov^^ocrcov ,  what  he  really  was*.''" 
 
 "At  Athens,  Paul  calls  him  (Jesus) 
 simply  a  man,  and  nothing  farther,  and  for 
 a  good  reason:  for  if  they  often  attejnpted 
 to  stone  Christ  himself ,  when  he  spake  of  his 
 
 equality 
 
 *  Chr}^sostom  ap.  P nestle}',  Hist,  of  early  Opinions, 
 B.  iii.  C.  iii.  p.  74. 
 
 H 
 
(     58      ) 
 
 equality  with  the  Father,  and  called  him,  on 
 that  account,  a  blasphemer,  they  would 
 hardly  have  received  this  dodlrinc  from 
 fishermen  *,"  &c. 
 
 On  opening  the  New  Testament,  two 
 difficulties  at  first  occurred  to  the  Fathers, 
 as  well  as  to  the  readers  of  the  present 
 day.  1.  Why  Jesus  Christ,  intending  to 
 deliver  such  do61rines  as  those  of  his  own 
 divinity  and  preexistence,  should  not  openly 
 teach  them  at  first  to  his  disciples  and 
 others  on  all  convenient  occasions.  This 
 difficulty  they  soon  found  to  be  imaginary : 
 having  an  opportunity  of  personal  inter- 
 course with  Jews  only  a  few  ages  after  the 
 time  of  Christ,  and,  probably,  having 
 access  to  Jewish  writings  of  our  Saviour's 
 age,  which  are  now  lost,  they  must  have 
 been  able  to  colle6l  the  opinions  of  that 
 people  on  the  subject  of  their  Messiah 
 with  the  utmost  certainty.-  The  Jews, 
 they  found,  expe6led  a  mere  man  in  the 
 person  of  their  Messiah ;  and,  it  was 
 necessary  for  our  Saviour  gradually  and 
 cautiously  to  oppose  this  prejudice  -f,  that 
 
 he 
 
 *  Chrysostom,  op.  Priestley,  p.  114. 
 
 f  An  instance  ot  the  caution,  with  which  he  opposed 
 the  prevaihng  opinion  on  this  subie6l  is  recorded,  Matth. 
 xxii.  42.   ''  Wliat  think  ye  of  the  Messiah?  Whose  son  is 
 
 he  ? 
 
(      59     ) 
 
 he  might  not  be  destroyed  as  a  blaspliemer, 
 before  the  purpose  of  his  mission  was  ac- 
 complished ;  it  would  obviously  be  neces- 
 sary for  the  disciples  also  to  address  the  Jews 
 with  the  same  sort  of  caution,  and  for  the 
 same  reason :  the  Fathers  *  have  declared 
 that  they  did  so  :  but  how  it  should  follow 
 from  this,  that  the  divinity  of  Christ  was 
 neither  taught  by  himself  nor  his  disciples, 
 it  is  not  easy  to  discover.  2.  On  look- 
 ing into  the  New  Testament,  a  difficulty 
 also  occurs  to  account  for  the  seeming  in- 
 consistencies in  the  condu6l  of  the  Jewish 
 people  towards  our  Saviour:  at  first,  indeed, 
 we  are  astonished  at  a  succession  of  ap- 
 parent contradictions.  At  one  time,  we 
 see  five  thousand  men  acknowledging  him 
 
 as 
 
 he?  They  say  unto  him.  The  son  of  David.  He  saith 
 unto  them;  how  then  doth  David  in  spirit  call  him  Lord? 
 If  David  call  him  Lord,  how  is  he  his  son?" 
 
 *See  History  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  3.  p.  50 — 123. 
 Dr.  Priestley,  B.  3.  c.  3,  clearly  proves  that,  according 
 to  the  opinion  ot  the  Fathers,  Christ  taught  his  own  divi- 
 nity, though  with  some  caution.  Yet,  the  running  title 
 of  that  Chapter  is  "Christ  f//(i  ;?o/ teach  his  own  divinity!" 
 Because  the  Fathers  affirmed  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  divi- 
 nity to  have  been  taught  with  caution,  Dr.  Priestley  con- 
 cludes that  it  was  not  taught  at  all;  though  they  have 
 assigned  a  reason  for  that  caution,  which  he  must  allow  to 
 be  sufficient. 
 
 H   2 
 
(     6o     ) 
 
 t 
 
 as  the  Messiah,  and  preparing  to  make 
 him  king :  the  day  following,  the  same 
 persons  murmur  at  the  fancied  extrava- 
 gance of  his  claims'* :  on  one  occasion 
 **  many  believed  on  him;"  and  immediately 
 after,  they  took  up  stones  to  cast  at  him't*. 
 Before  his  trial,  he  is  hailed  as  the  Messiah 
 with  Hosannas  through  the  streets  of  Jeru- 
 salem ;  and  soon  after  the  people  cry  out, 
 *'By  our  law  he  ought  to  die."  On  a 
 further  inspection  of  the  Evangelical  his- 
 tory, the  whole  difficulty  vanishes.  They 
 believe  on  him,  they  seek  to  proclaim  him 
 King,  they  hail  him  with  Hosannas,  as  the 
 Messiah  only :  they  murmur  when  he  al- 
 ludes to  his  divine  origin,  they  take  up 
 stones  to  stone  him,  when  he  declares 
 that  he  existed  before  Abraham,  and  when 
 he  makes  himself  equal  with  God :  and 
 they  exclaim  ;  ''We  have  a  law,  and  by  our 
 law  he  ought  to  die,  because  he  made  him- 
 self the  son  of  God." 
 
 According  to  Dr  Priestley's  acknow- 
 ledgement, the  Fathers  accounted  for  the 
 apparent  inconsistency  of  the  disciples  in 
 the  same  manner. 
 
 ^ , 
 
 «  The 
 
 *  John  vi,  15,  44;  t  John  viii.  30,  59. 
 
(     6i      ) 
 
 "  The  Fathers  say,  that  whenever  our 
 Saviour  said  any  thing  that  might  lead 
 his  disciples  to  think  that  he  was  of  a 
 nature  superior  to  that  of  man,  they  were 
 offended ;  and  that  he  conciliated  their 
 esteem,  whenever  he  represented  himself 
 as  a  mere  man." 
 
 tr^^?^ 
 
 CHAP, 
 
(        62       ) 
 
 CHAP.     III. 
 
 OTHER  REASONS,  WHICH  HAVE  BEEN  AS- 
 SIGNED FOR  THE  JEWISH  REJECTION  AND 
 CONDEMNATION    OF    CHRIST,  EXAMINED. 
 
 ,  The  prejudices  against  the  humble  birth  of  Christ,  and 
 his  want  of  external  splendor  not  to  be  assigned  as  the 
 principal  causes  of  his  persecution  by  the  Jews,  unless 
 it  can  be  discovered  from  the  New  Testament  that  they 
 produced  this  effeft.  2.  Effe6lof  the  prejudice  against 
 his  birth.  3.  Effe6l  of  the  prejudice  against  his  want 
 of  temporal  power  and  splendor.  4.  The  efre6l  of 
 these  prejudices  in  a  considerable  degree  destroyed  by 
 the  influence  of  his  miracles.  The  real  grounds  of  his 
 persecution  b}^  the  Jews  how  to  be  determined. 
 
 I.  VV  HEX  HER  the  humility  of  our 
 Saviour's  birth  and  appearance  will  be  suffi- 
 cient to  account  for  his  reje6lion  and  con- 
 deinnation  by  the  Jews,  after  they  had 
 witnessed  his  miracles,  is,  I  think,  decided 
 in  the  preceding  chapters.  Might  not, 
 however,  the  case  stand  thus.f*  Jesus 
 announced  himself  as  Messiah  :  the  Jewish 
 nation  at  large  convinced  themselves  of  his 
 imposture,  from  the  circumstances  of  his 
 humble  birth  and  external  appearance : 
 and  the  magistrates,  irritated  against  him 
 
 on 
 
C    63    ) 
 
 on  several  accounts,  at  length  condemned 
 him  to  death  for  indirectly  preferring  this 
 claim  on  his  trial.  In  such  a  representa- 
 tion as  this,  there  is  certainly,  previous  to 
 inquiry,  nothing  incredible:  still,  it  is 
 necessary  to  examine  the  Gospel  history, 
 to  see  whether  it  be  just,  or  not.  He  was 
 the  obje6l  of  Jewish  censure  on  many  ac- 
 counts :  this  cannot  be  denied  :  sometimes 
 he  was  reprehended,  because  he  sat  down 
 to  eat  with  publicans  and  sinners;  some- 
 times they  murmured  at  him  for  assuming 
 the  power  of  forgiving  sins ;  and  some- 
 times they  consulted  how  they  might  put 
 him  to  death,  because  he  had  broken  the 
 Sabbath  :  in  the  opinion  of  some,  he  could 
 not  be  a  prophet,  because  became  from  Ga- 
 lilee ;  and  others  maintained,  that  he  could 
 not  be  the  Messiah,  because  all  men  knew 
 whence  he  came.  Their  several  prejudiced 
 opinions,  which  were  alarmed  and  assaulted 
 by  his  condu6l  and  do6irines,  have  been 
 enumerated  by  Christian  writers*:  but, 
 whenever  men  are  said  to  be  led  to  any 
 course  of  aftion  by  the  joint  operation  of 
 many  reasons  ;  there  is  commonly  some 
 one  leading  motive  paramount  to  the  rest, 
 
 which 
 
 *JortIn,   first  Discourse  concerning  the  Truth  of  the 
 
 Christian  Rehgion. 
 
(     64     ) 
 
 which  gives  efficacy  to  the  combination, 
 to  which  the  others  are  only  subsidiary, 
 and  without  which,  they  would  have  little 
 efFe6l.  In  assigning  the  principal  motive 
 of  the  condu6l  of  the  Jews  towards  our 
 Saviour;  both  ancient  and  modern  writers 
 have  advanced  the  most  opposite  opinions. 
 Some  of  these  authorities  would,  undoubt- 
 edly, demand  great  attention,  if  they  were 
 not  opposed  by  others  of  equal  weight ;  or, 
 if  it  appeared  that  their  opinions  had  been 
 the  result  of  careful  and  accurate  investi- 
 gation. 
 
 The  reason,  which  principally  induced 
 the  Jews  to  persecute  and  destroy  Jesus 
 Christ,  must  be  determined  by  the  common 
 rules  for  deciding  any  historical  question. 
 It  probably  was  expected  by  a  part  of  the 
 nation,  that  the  birth  of  their  Messiah 
 would  be,  in  some  degree,  correspondent 
 to  the  splendor  of  his  characler :  the  birth 
 of  Jesus  was  mean :  but,  we  must  not  hastily 
 conclude  that  this  was  his  great  offence ; 
 unless,  on  examining  the  Gospel  history, 
 we  can  distinctly  trace  out  the  operation 
 of  this  cause,  and  see  that  it  essentially 
 and  preeminently  contributed  to  produce 
 this  elled.     It  certainly  was  expected  by 
 
 the 
 
(      65      ) 
 
 the  nation  at  large,  that  the  Messiah  would 
 manifest    himself  in    the  full  glory  of  a 
 great  king  and  conqueror:   Jesus,  without 
 any  of  the  expe6led  brilliancy  and  magni- 
 ficence, appeared  in   the  meek  dignity  of 
 an  humble  teacher :    and  the    disappoint- 
 ment of  the  Jews  in  such  a  material  article 
 of  their  hopes  would  probably  so  far  coun* 
 tera6l    the    effe6l   of  his    miracles,   as   to 
 induce   many   of  them  to   suspend    their 
 assent  to  his  claims,  to  prevent  them  from 
 immediately     acknowledging      him,     and 
 crowning  him  king,    or,  even    to  create  a 
 strong  presumption  against  the  reality  of 
 his  divine   commission  :   but,  it  must  not 
 thence  be  concluded,  that  the  decided  na- 
 tional reje6tion  of  his  claims,  their  con- 
 sultations how  to  put  him  to  death,  the 
 execution  of  this  bloody  purpose,  and  their 
 continuance  in  incredulity  after  the  great 
 miracle  of  his  resurre6lion,  are  to  be  attri- 
 buted   to   this   cause.      This   supposition 
 cannot  be  admitted,  unless  on  an  examina- 
 tion of  the    Gospel  history,  the  prejudice 
 against  his  humble  appearance  should  be 
 found  to  have  a6lually  effected  this  exten- 
 sive and  complicated  operation.     The  con- 
 trast  between  the  humility  of  Christ  and 
 the  exalted  expe6lations  of  the  Jev/s,  sug- 
 
 I  gests 
 
(     66      ) 
 
 Chests  itself  to  every  one,  on  first  opening 
 the  New  Testament,  as  likely  to  be  one  of 
 the  causes,  perhaps  the  principal  cause,  of 
 the  Jewish  persecutions:  but,  he  will  not 
 be  satisfied  with  probable  conjefture,  when 
 by  a  continuation  of  his  inquiry,  he  can 
 easily  discover  what  was  the  matter  of  fa6l. 
 
 II.  On  looking  over  the  Gospels  with  a 
 particular  view  to  this  question,  it  is  found 
 that  the  inhabitants  of  Nazareth^  were 
 offended  at  the  meanness  of  our  Saviour's 
 birth  and  family,  and  this  prejudice  is  the 
 cause  assigned  by  the  two  first  Evange- 
 lists for  their  incredulity.  This,  as  far  as 
 I  can  discover,  is  the  only  historical 
 eividence,  which  has  ever  been  adduced,  to 
 prove  that  the  humility  of  his  birth  was  the 
 great  stumbling  block  to  the  Jews.  But 
 this,  it  ought  to  be  observed,  was  an  ex- 
 treme, and  extraordinary  case :  it  was 
 noticed  as  such  by  Jesus  himself:  he  mar- 
 velled because  of  their  unbelief,  and  inti- 
 mated tliat  he  was  not  without  honour, 
 except  in  this  petty  city. 
 
 It 
 
 *  Luke  iv.  16,  24. 
 
(     67     ) 
 
 It  is  ojice  mentioned  in  the  Gospel  that 
 some  of  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  drew 
 conchisions  unfavourable  to  his  claims, 
 because  he  came  from  Galilee*,  and  it  is 
 once  mentioned  that,  some  of  them  of  Je- 
 rusalem said,  "  We  know  this  man,  whence 
 he  is  :  but  when  the  Messiah  cometh,  no 
 man  shall  know  whence  he  is-f."  Imme- 
 diately after  this,  when  he  declared  his 
 divine  mission  only ;  they  sought  to  take 
 him ;  but,  no  man  laid  bauds  on  him." 
 These  are,  I  thinkj  the  only  instances  on 
 record  in  the  New  Testament,  where  pre- 
 judices of  any  sort  respe6ling  our  Saviour's 
 birth  are  pointed  out  as  an  efficient  cause 
 of  the  incredulity  of  any  part  of  the  Jewish 
 people  :  and  these  could  neither  have  been 
 extensive  nor  violent :  for,  in  the  last  case 
 it  is  mentioned,  that  many  of  the  people 
 believed  on  him,  and  said,  "  When  Christ 
 cometh,  will  he  do  more  miracles  than  this 
 man  hath  done  V  Many  of  the  people  said, 
 "Of  a  truth,  this  is  that  prophet;"  others 
 said,  "  This  is  the  Messiah ;"  and,  the 
 officers  of  the  high  priests  and  pharisees, 
 who  were  sent  to  apprehend  him,  returned 
 without  having  executed  their  office,  and 
 reported  to  their  employers  ;  "  Never  man 
 spake  like  this  man/' 
 
 III.  The 
 
 *  John  vii.  41.  f  John  vii.  27. 
 
 I  a 
 
(     68     )  . 
 
 III.  The  prejudice  against  his  appear- 
 ance in  the  chara6ler  of  a  teacher,  instead 
 of  a  king  and  conqueror,  is  still  less  suffi- 
 cient to  account  for  his  persecution  b}^  the 
 Jews.     Sometimes  they  murmured  at  him; 
 sometimes  they  consulted  by  what  means 
 they  might  put  him  to  death ;  and  some- 
 times they  took  up  stones  to  destroy  him. 
 Without  a  separate  examination  of  each  of 
 these  cases,  in  which  their  displeasure  was 
 shewn,  in   a   greater  or  less  degree ;   it  is 
 enough  to  observe,  that  the  cause  of  their 
 indignation,  on  all  these  occasions,  is  either 
 expressly  mentioned  by  the  Evangelists,  or 
 may  be  clearly  inferred  from  circumstances, 
 incidentally   related    in   their    narratives : 
 and,  no  instance  can  be  produced,  in  which 
 our  Saviour's  claim  to  the  chara(51er  of  the 
 Messiah,  combined  with  the  Jewish  preju- 
 dice against  his  humble  appearance  only, 
 drew    down   their   persecution   upon  him. 
 On  that  single  occasion,  when  they  sought 
 to  take  him,  after  he  had  affirmed  that  he 
 was   serit   by  God,  their  disbelief  of  his 
 claim    is    not  ascribed    to   their  prejudice 
 against  his  want  of  external  splendor  and 
 temporal  power,  but  to  the  notoriety  of  his 
 parentage  and  country.    "  When  the  Mes- 
 siah cometh,  no   man  shall  know  whence 
 
 he 
 
(     69      ) 
 
 he  is/*  A  few  days  afterwards,  when  some 
 declared  him  the  Messiah  ;  it  was  objecrted, 
 not  that  he  appeared  as  an  humble  teacher, 
 instead  of  a  king  and  conqueror  ;  but,  that 
 he  was  not  born  in  Bethlehem"*;  and  could 
 not,  on  that  account,  be  really  invested 
 with  the  charadter  which  he  afie6led. 
 
 IV.  Ecclesiastical  writers  have  enu- 
 merated most  of  the  prejudiced  opinions  of 
 Jews  and  Gentiles,  which  caught  alarm  at 
 the  person  and  do6trines  of  Christ  :  in 
 this  they  have  a6led  like  rational  inquirers : 
 they  have  not  indeed  taken  for  granted 
 that  the  reasoning  of  either  Jews  or  Gen- 
 tiles would  "stand  the  test  of  a  rigorous 
 examination  ;"  but,  they  have  endeavoured 
 to  discover  the  moral  causes,  which  led 
 them  into  error:  and  if  their  labours  have 
 been  in  some  respests  defective,  they  have, 
 at  least,  been  judiciously,  and  not  unsuc- 
 cesfully  dire6led.  They  have  enumerated 
 prejudices  siifficiejit  to  account  for  the 
 conduct  of  the  Jewish  nation  :  but,  they 
 have  not  attempted  to  shew  how  far  eacii 
 of  them  a61;ually  operated  ;  which  was  the 
 leading  and  most  efficient  motive  with  the 
 
 Jews, 
 
 *  John  vii.  42. 
 
(     70     ) 
 
 Jews,  and  which  were  only  suhsidiary 
 and  suhordinate ;  whether  some  of  their 
 most  inveterate  opinions  were  not,  in  a 
 considerable  degree,  subdued  by  the  force 
 of  our  Saviour's  miracles,  and  whether  some 
 of  them  continued  not,  on  all  occasions,  to  a6l 
 with  unabated  influence.  It  has  been  some- 
 times asserted  that  "  the  united  force  of 
 all  their  prejudices  must  have  been  irresis- 
 tibly borne  down  by  the  natural  influence 
 of  an  undoubted  miracle."  A  slight 
 attention  to  the  opinions  of  the  ancient 
 Jews  convinces  us  of  the  weakness  of  this 
 position  :  but,  it  deserves  to  be  considered 
 whether  .  some  very  powerful  prejudices 
 were  not  a6tually  borne  down  by  the  influ- 
 ence of  Christ's  miracles  among  a  consi- 
 derable part  of  tlie  Jewish  people.  The 
 Messiah  was  expedled  to  sliine  forth  in  the 
 power  and  splendor  of  a  conquering  mo- 
 narch :  A  poor  Galilcean  appeared  teaching 
 the  mysteries  of  a  spiritual  kingdom  in  a 
 future  life  :  his  miracles  induced  five  thou- 
 sand men  to  acknowledi2,e  him  as  the 
 Messiah  :  and  it  was  not  till  he  had  alluded 
 to  his  divine  origin,  that  they  murmured. 
 Notwithstanding  the  force  of  the  same 
 delusive  expe6lations,  on  another  occasion, 
 he  was  hailed  with  Hosannas  as  the  Mes- 
 siah 
 
(     71     ) 
 
 siah  by  the  people  through  the  streets  of 
 Jerusalem :  and  it  was  not  till  after  he  had 
 professed  himself  the   son   of  God,    that 
 they  clamoured  for  his  crucifixion.      Im- 
 mediately before  his  trial,  such  multitudes 
 were  disposed  to  receive  him  as  a  prophet, 
 and  the    Messiah*    that  the   magistrates 
 judged  it  expedient  to  apprehend  him  apart 
 from  the  people ;   and  a  great  reward  was 
 given  to  one  of  his  followers  for  the  sole 
 purpose  of  pointing  out,  how  he  might  be 
 seized  when  retired  from  the  city.      The 
 magistrates  "feared  the  people:"  on  this 
 account,    probably,    he   was   apprehended 
 in    the     night:     and    it     was     probably 
 to  overawe  their  own  people,    that    they 
 anxiously  strove  to  make  his  punishment 
 appear    the  aft  of  the  Roman   governor 
 instead  of  their  own  f.     Allow  the  preju- 
 diced   opinion    of  the  Jewish  people,   in 
 favour  of  a  brilliant  and  conquering   mo- 
 narch in  the  person  of  their  Messiah,  to 
 have  been  very  great,  as  it  undoubtedly 
 
 was: 
 
 *  See  Matthew  xxi.  4^. 
 
 t  ''Pilate  said  unto  them,  Take  ye  him,  and  judge  him 
 according  to  your  Law.  The  Jews  therefore  said  unto 
 him,  It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  any  man  to  death. 
 John  xviii.  31 .  -  When  the  chief  priests  and  officers  saw 
 him,  they  cried  out,  saying.  Crucify  him,  criicity  him.  . 
 John  xix.  6.-Crvicifixion  was  a  Roman  pumshmeut. 
 
(     73     ) 
 
 was :  the  influence  of  his  iniracles,  then, 
 was    great,    in   subduing    this    prejudice. 
 It  is  no  where  to  be  found  in   the  New 
 Testament  as  an  a6live  cause  of  incredu- 
 lit3%  much  less,  of  persecution :  it  appears 
 to  have  been  so  far  counteracted  by  the 
 effect  of  his  miracles,  that,  \vhen  another 
 of  their  prejudices  was  not  awakened,  the 
 Jewish  people  were   strongly  disposed  to 
 acknowledge  him  as  the  Messiah.     What 
 then  was  the  great  cause  of  their  incredulity 
 and  cruelty?  Let  this  be  determined,  like 
 any  other  historical  question,  by  an  impar- 
 tial examination  of  original  and  authentic 
 documents:   without  a  bias  to  any  theolo- 
 gical system,  or  prejudice  against  it.      Let 
 the  testimony  of  the  Evangelists  be   col- 
 le61ed  by  the  same  rules  of  common  sense, 
 as  those  by  which  we  discover  the   sense 
 of  profane  historians  on  a  subje6t  of  mere 
 history.       Examine    the    Gospels    in  this 
 manner:  and  it  is  found,  that  nearly  all  the 
 attempts    and    consultations    against   our 
 Saviour's  life  were  occasioned  by  the  claim 
 of  divinity,  which   the  Jews  believed  him 
 to  have  advanced'*.      Forming  our  opinion 
 o{  i\\Q  principal  motive  of  the  Sanhedrim  by 
 the  general  conduct  of  the  Jewish  people, 
 
 it 
 
 *  See  the  preceding  Chapter. 
 
(   1^   ) 
 
 it  appears  highly  probable,  that  he  would 
 be  condemned  to  death  for  asserting  his 
 divinity  :  and,  on  attending  to  the  history 
 of  his  trial,  it  is  found,  as  might  be  pre- 
 viously expedled,  that  he  was  condemned 
 for  declaring  himself  the  son  of  God. 
 
 .^ 
 
 (10 . 
 
 K  C  H  A  P. 
 
(     74     ) 
 CHAP.     IV. 
 
 WHETHER  THE  TERM  "SON  OF  GOd"  WAS 
 ONE  OF  THE  APPROPRIATE  TITLES  OF 
 THE  MESSIAH  W^ITH  THE  JEWISH  NATION 
 IN   THE  TIME  OF   CHRIST. 
 
 1.  Foundation  of  the  opinion  that  Jesus  was  condemned 
 for  simply  declaring  himself  the  Messiah.  Three  com- 
 binations of  opinions  relating  to  this  subje6l  noticed. 
 Proposal  of  the  Question  2  Theory  ofAllix.  3. 
 Evidence  from  the  New  Testament  to  prove  that  the 
 Jewish  Messiah  was  called  the  son  of  God.  Examina- 
 tion of  this  evidence  What  is  proved  by  it.  4.  Op- 
 posite evidence  from  the  New  Testament.  Testimony 
 ofOrigen.  Conclusion.  5.  Application  of  this  con- 
 clusion to  the  History  of  Jesus  Christ's  trial. 
 
 I.  VV  HEN  our  Saviour,  on  his  trial, 
 applied  to  himself  the  title  of  the  "son  of 
 God ;"  he  intended,  as  some  have  imagined, 
 only  to  acknowledge  himself  as  a  human 
 Messiah  :  the  circumstances  of  his  humble 
 birth  and  want  of  temporal  power  con- 
 vinced the  Jewish  Sanhedrim  of  his  impos- 
 ture ;  and,  on  this  account,  they  condemned 
 him  to  death.  In  support  of  this  opinion 
 it  is  sometimes  asserted,  that  the  expedled 
 Messiah  of  the  Jews  was  called  "the  son 
 
 of 
 
(      15     ) 
 
 of  God"  in  the  time  of  Christ,  that  custom 
 had  generally  appropriated  this  appellation, 
 as  well  as  that  of  "  the  son  of  David,"  to 
 the  designation  of  his  character  and  office  : 
 this,   when  not   formally   declared,  is   the 
 silent  supposition,  the  covered  foundation, 
 on     which     the    whole    superstructure   is 
 supported.      If  the  Sanhedrim  condemned 
 Jesus    for    professing    to    be   the    human 
 Messiah,    whom  the}^  expe61ed,  when   he 
 acknowledged  himself  the  son  of  God ;   it 
 must   have   been,  because  custom,  which 
 always  determines  the  signification  of  lan- 
 guage, had  connected    this  meaning   and 
 this   term  together.      Having    shewn   the 
 fabric  itself  to  be  without   solidity,  it   is 
 not  necessary,  indeed,  for  my  purpose,  but 
 it  will  not  be  altogether  useless  to  enquire 
 into  the  soundness  of  the  foundation. 
 
 Three  different  combinations  of  opinions 
 on  this  subje6l  may  just  be  mentioned. 
 
 1.  Accordins:  to  one  class  of  writers, 
 the  terms  Christ  or  Messiah,  and  son  of 
 God,  were  commonly  used  by  the  Jews  of 
 our  Saviour's  age  in  the  same  sense  :  who 
 also,  in  the  opinion  of  these  writers,  ex- 
 pe6led  a  divine   being   as   their  Messiah. 
 
 K2  If 
 
(      76     ) 
 
 If  both  these  opinions  he  just;  when  Jesus 
 declared  himself  the  Christ  without  excep- 
 tion or  limitation  ;  he,  at  the  same  time 
 claimed  divinity:  and  the  dispute  between 
 trinitarians  and  unitarians  is  at  an  end  at 
 once. 
 
 2.  Unitarian  Christians  set  out  with  the 
 first  of  these  opinions ;  but,  contend  that 
 the  Jews  expelled  a  human  Messiah  ;  and 
 that,  when  Jesus  declared  himself  the  son 
 of  God,  he  laid  claim  to  no  higher  nature 
 than  was  admitted  in  the  Jewish  Messiah. 
 
 2.   A  third,  and  most   numerous    class, 
 supposes  also  the  terms  Messiah  or  Christ, 
 and    son  of  God,  to  have  been  commonly 
 used  by  the  Jews  to  denote  the  same  idea : 
 the  writers  of  this  class  likewise  maintain, 
 that  the  Jewish  Messiah  was  expected  to  be 
 a  mere  man;  but,  insist,  at  the  same  time, 
 that  Jesus  declared  himself  th.e  son  of  God  in 
 a  higher  sense  than  was  consistent  with  the 
 notions  of  the  Jews,  and  that,  unless  they 
 had  conceived  him  to  have  claimed  divinity 
 by  the  application  of  this  title  to  himself, 
 and  by  his   other  declarations,  they  could 
 net  liave  condemned  him  as  a  blasphemer. 
 
 The 
 
(     77     ) 
 
 The  opinions    of   this    class  of  writers 
 are  not  often  so  clearly  and  distinctly  ex- 
 pressed as  in  the  following  note  of  Cocceius. 
 "  Re  vera  constat  eum  habitum  fuisse  blas- 
 phemum,    quod    divina     videretur    de    se 
 dicere.  Johan.  v.    18.  et   x.   33.  ubi  clare 
 explicatur  quod   ea  causa   reputandi  cum 
 blasphemum   fuerit,    quod  *  Deum   dixerit 
 patrem  propjiu7n,  se  aequalem  Deo  faciens/ 
 Ouare  et  hoc  loco  (sc.  Joh.  xix.  7.)  verbum 
 hoc  'se  ipsum    filium   Dei    fecit'    non  ad 
 hunc    modum   intelligendum    est,  quo    et 
 Messiam  vulgo   dicebant  filium   Dei ;   sed 
 secundum  ilium  modum  la-orvjTog  cum  Deo. 
 Et  ita  accepit  Pilatus,  ut  ex  interrogatione 
 ejus  apparet ;  quum  quserit  "  Unde  tu  es  V 
 Cocceius  in  Joh.  xix.  7. 
 
 If  we  agree  with  all  these  three  descrip- 
 tions of  writers,  that  the  terms  Messiah 
 and  son  of  God  were  commonly  used  as 
 marks  of  the  same  idea  by  the  Jews  of  our 
 Saviour's  acre ;  Vv^e  are  still  forced  to  con- 
 elude  with  the  last,  that  Jesus  offended 
 many  of  the  people,  and  was  condemned 
 by  the  magistrates  for  asserting  his  divi- 
 nity, for  professing  to  be  the  son  of  God 
 in  a  higher  sense  than  they  thought  appli- 
 cable  to   the  Messiah.       This   has    been 
 
 proved 
 
(     78     ) 
 
 proved  at  large  in  the  preceding  Chapters : 
 and  here  the   matter  might   rest.      But,  it 
 will     not    be    uninteresting     to    examine 
 whether  the  appropriation  of  this  phrase  to 
 the  Messiah  had  really   any  place  in   the 
 language  of  the  Jews  of  our  Saviour's  age. 
 They  might  indeed  have  found  the  divinity 
 of  the  Messiah   clearly  taught   in  the  Old 
 Testament :   and   they  might   have   learnt 
 from  the   same  source  that  he  would  also 
 be  called  the  son  of  God :  but  our  question 
 is,    whether  their  expe6ted    Messiah  zvas 
 actually  called  the  son  of  God  among  the 
 great  body  of  the  Jewish    people  of  that 
 age  ?  This  is  not,  it  must  be  remembered, 
 a  question  whether  they  thought  the  second 
 psalm    applied    to    their    Messiah:     they 
 might  admit,  that  God  is    represented  in 
 that   psalm  calling  the  Messiah  his  son ; 
 (as  he  in  other  places  calls  the  whole  peo- 
 ple of  Israel  his   son,  Exod.    iv.  22.  Hos. 
 xi.   1.)   and    yet   the   term   "son  of  God'' 
 might  not  be  among  the  titles,  by  which 
 their   expe6led  deliverer  was   then  com- 
 monly described.     The  Messiah  was  called 
 in  their  ancient  prophecies,  "  Wonderful," 
 "Counsellor,"    "The    mighty  God,"  "the 
 everlasting  Father,"  "the  prince  of  peace." 
 Yet  none   of  these  appear  to   have  been 
 
 commonly 
 
(     79     ) 
 
 commonly  used   as   his  appropriate  titles 
 in  the  time  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 
 II.   One  class  of  evidence  on  this  suh- 
 je6l  I   propose  to    dismiss   without  much 
 examination.     Some  divines  of  great  repu- 
 tation in  the  last  and  preceding  century,  by 
 comparing  certain  passages  in  Philo  with 
 others   in    the    Targums    and    Rabbinical 
 v>^riters,  were    enabled   to   produce   many 
 plausible  reasons  for  supposing,  in  direct 
 opposition  to  the  united  testimony  of  Jew- 
 ish and  Christian  antiquity,  that  the  Jews 
 of  our  Saviour's  age  expe6led  a  divine  being 
 as  their  Messiah.     By  a  few  of  these  same 
 reasons,  and  only  by   a   few,  it  was   at- 
 tempted to  prove  that  this  divine  personage 
 was  also  then  called  the  son  of  God.    Rit- 
 tangelius  and  Snelneccer  were  among  the 
 first,  if  they  were  not  the  very  first,  authors 
 of  this  visionary  scheme ;  which  has  since 
 received  much  celebrity  from  the  ingenious 
 pen  of  Allix.      Though  it  has  not  been  with- 
 out advocates  of  real  and  high  respedlability 
 in  the  present  age;  the  great  position  in  it 
 respe6ling  the  national  opinion  of  the  Jews 
 will  probably  be  thought  untenable:   but 
 the    part   of  it   relating   to   the  language, 
 
 rather 
 
(      8o      ) 
 
 rather  than  tlie  opinion  of  the  Jews,  which 
 their  unitarian  opponents  will  be  found  to 
 be  most  interested  in  defending,  stands  on 
 still  weaker  grounds.  I  will  not  insist  on 
 the  incompetency  of  the  Rabbinical  writers 
 and  some  of  the  Paraphrasts ;  because  if 
 it  be  proved  from  their  works  and  those  of 
 Philo*,  that  their  expelled  Messiah  zvas 
 called  by  the  Jews  the  son  of  God,  in  the 
 time  of  our  Saviour,  it  is  only  because  his 
 divinity  was  acknowledged  in  that  age : 
 the  only  arguments  in  favour  of  the  first 
 of  these  opinions  rest  on  the  supposed 
 truth  of  the  second,  as  a  necessary  medium 
 of  proof  "f . 
 
 If  then  this  class  of  evidence  be  admitted 
 to  prove  the  phrase  "son  of  God"  to  have 
 been  one  of  the  common  titles  of  the 
 Jewish  Messiah,  eighteen  hundred  years 
 since  ;  the  divinity  of  their  Messiah  must 
 incontestably  have  been  one  of  their  tenets 
 at  the  same  time  ;  and  when  Jesus  declared 
 himself  Christ,  he  at  once  asserted  his  own 
 divinity. 
 
 III.   The 
 
 *  Though  tlieterm,  son  of  God,  is  found  in  Pliilo  both 
 ill  a  more  literal  and  a  more  allegorical  sense,  it  is  no 
 where  applied  to  tiie  Jewish  Messiah. 
 
 t  See  the  Ciiapters  in  AHix  on  this  part  of  his  subjeft. 
 
(      8i      ) 
 
 III.  The  only  appearance  of  legitimate 
 evidence  in  favour  of  the  opinion,  which  I 
 am  considering,  is  to  be  colkaed  from  the 
 New  Testament ;  and  is  very  fully  stated 
 by  Limborch.  "  Ut  pressius  respondeam, 
 dico  2.  Ouando  exigitur  lides  in  Jesum 
 Christum,  nusquam  in  toto  Novo  Testa- 
 mento  exigi,  ut  credamus  Jesum  esse 
 ipsum  Deum,  sed  Jesum  esse  Christum 
 seu  Messiam  olim  promissum,  vel  quod 
 idem  est,  essefiUum  Del,  quoniam  appella- 
 tiones  Christi  et  Filii  Dei  inter  se  permutan- 
 tur.  Cuidenominationi  occasionem  dedisse 
 videntur  verba  Davidis,  Psal.  ii.  7.  'Filius 
 meus  es  tu,  ego  hodie  genui  te  •/  st  Dei, 
 0  Sam.  vii.  14.  '  Ero  illi  in  Patrem,  et 
 ille  erit  mihi  in  Filium.'  Ouse  sensu 
 sublimiore  Messis  applicata  sunt.  Inde 
 fa6lum  ut  denominatio  ilia  Christi  seu 
 Messise  et  Filii  Dei  inter  Jud^os  et  dis- 
 cipulos  Christi  pro  eadem  habita  fuerit : 
 quod  variis  locis  Novi  Testament!  eviden- 
 ter  comprobari  potest.  Ouando  Philippus 
 Nathanaeli  dixit  ;  '  Invenimus  quem 
 scripsit  Moses  in  Lege  et  Prophb'tis,'  &c. 
 postea  Nathanael,  viso  domino  Jesu,  inquit, 
 *  Tu  es  filius  Dei,  tu  es  rex  Israel'  Johan. 
 i.  46.  50,  Petrus  omnium  Apostolorum 
 nomine  respondens  quxstioni   Domini  in- 
 
 L  terrogantis 
 
(        83        ) 
 
 terrogantis  quern  seesse  dicerent,  ait,  *Ta 
 es  Christus  Filius  Dei  vivi/  Matt.  xvi.  16, 
 qu35  verba   Marcus   recensens  solummodo 
 habet ;    '  Tu  es    Christus/  c,  viii.    29.    et 
 Lucas,   *  Tu    et  Christus   Dei/   c.   ix.    20. 
 Sic  Matt.  xiv.  33.     Discipuli  dicunt  Jesu 
 no6lu  ad  ipsos  super  mari  ambulanti,  post- 
 quam  in  navem  adscendisset ;  '  Vere  Filius 
 Dei  es  tu/  et  A61  viii.  q"/.  eunuchus  reginas 
 Candaces :   *  Credo  Jesum  Christum     esse 
 Filium  Dei.'     Et,  quod  om?iem  dubitatiojiem 
 tollit,    Pontifex    Dominum    Jesum    coram 
 tribunali    suo    stantem    adjurat  per  Deum 
 vivum    ut    dicat,    '  si    sit    Christus   Filius 
 Dei.'  Matt.   xxvi.  63.      Quod  clarius  apud 
 Lucam  exprimitur,  c.  xxii.  nam  postquam 
 V.  66.     Seniores    et  principes   sacerdotum 
 interrogant,  *Si  tu  es  Christus,  die  nobis/' 
 eandem  qusestionem  repetentes,   ver.    70. 
 quaerunt,  *  Tu  ergo  es  Filius    Dei?'  Mani- 
 festo   indicio    Messiam  seu    Christum    et 
 Filium  Dei  esse  idem  plane  significasse." 
 
 "Et  ne  forte  virdo6l.  excipiat  banc  esse 
 nieam  peculiarem  explicationem ;  operje 
 pretium  est  ostendere  etiam  praestantissi- 
 mos  et  maxime  eximios  inter  Christianos 
 Theologos  loca  hai?c  in  eandem  mecum 
 sen tentiam  explicare.     Non  hic  producam 
 
 explicationes 
 
(      83     ) 
 
 explicationes  Episcopii,  cum  mels  plane 
 easdem,  sed  duorum  maxime  eximiorum, 
 et  cum  quorum  eruditione  et  ingenii  acu- 
 mine  vix  ulli  inter  erudites  comparari 
 merentur,  Desiderii  Erasmi  et  Hugonis 
 Grotii  */' 
 
 Notwithstanding  the  subtilty  with  which 
 this  evidence  is   stated  by  a  professed  dis- 
 putant ;  on  attending  to  the  several  argu- 
 ments,   they  will   be  found   to  fall    short 
 of  the  obje6l,  which  they  are   brought  to 
 establish.      They,  in  fa6l,  prove  only  that 
 Jesus  had  declared  himself  Messiah  the  son 
 of  God,  instead    of   Messiah   the   son    of 
 David,  and  that  he  had  also  been  announced 
 under     this    title    by   John  the     Baptist: 
 but,  from  them  no  inference  can  be  drawn 
 relating  to  the  only  point  in  question,  the 
 popular  use  of  the   phrase   "  son  of  God" 
 as  a  title  of  the  Jewish  Messiah.    As  great 
 stress  however  continues  to  be  laid  on  these 
 arguments  by  several  men  of  learning ;  a 
 separate  examination  of  each  may  be  ne- 
 cessary. 
 
 1.  And  first,  with  respe6l   to  the   two 
 questions  of  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim  to  our 
 
 Saviour 
 
 *  Amic.  Coll.  p.  218. 
 L   2 
 
(     84     ) 
 
 Saviour  recorded  in  St.  Luke:  to  affirm 
 that  one  of  these  is  a  mere  repetition  of 
 the  other,  that  they  are  the  same  question 
 ("  eandem  quaestionem  repetentes")  in 
 different  words,  is  taking  for  granted  all 
 that  the  learned  writer  is  attempting  to 
 prove.  I  have  endeavoured  to  shew  in  the 
 preceding  Chapters,  in  opposition  to  this 
 gratuitous  supposition,  that  the  two  ques- 
 tions must  have  been  essentially  different; 
 (as  they  are  supposed  to  be  by  many  others) 
 and  that  Jesus  was  not  condemned  for 
 simply  professing  to  be  the  Christ,  either 
 in  diredl  or  indire6l  terms. 
 
 But,  according  to  St.  Matthew  and  Mark, 
 the  high  priest  asked  our  Saviour,  *'  Art 
 thou  the  Messiah,  the  son  of  God  :"  and 
 the  question,  it  is  contended,  proves  that 
 custom  had  set  apart  both  these  terms  to 
 denote  the  same  idea.  Not  to  mention 
 that  this,  which,  in  the  abridged  accounts 
 of  Matthew  and  Mark,  appears  as  one 
 question,  was  in  facl  two  ;  as  may  be 
 inferred  from  St.  Luke's  narrative ;  it  is 
 sufficient  to  observe,  that  the  questions  of 
 the  Sanhedrim  would  be  regulated  by  the 
 accounts,  that  they  had  received  of  the 
 nature  of  our  Saviour  s  claims,  not  by  their 
 
 own 
 
(      85      ) 
 
 own  opinions  on  the  subje6l  of  their  Mes- 
 siah :  nor  would  their  questions  be  confined 
 to  language,  which  custom  had  sanctioned  ; 
 when  their  only  obje6l  was  to  discover 
 what  terms  Jesus  had  a6lually  applied  to 
 himself,  whether  custom  had  justified  their 
 use,  or  not.  They  would  ask  him  about 
 his  do6lrines,  not  about  their  own ;  about 
 language  which  he  had  applied  to  himself, 
 not  about  language  which  they  thought 
 applicable  to  their  Messiah  :  and  the  only 
 inference  from  their  questions  is,  that 
 Jesus  had  previously  professed  to  be  the 
 Christ  the  son  of  God,  instead  of  Christ 
 the  son  of  David,  and  that  the  high  priest 
 had  received  information  of  the  circum- 
 stance :  but,  whether  these  titles  had  ever 
 been  combined,  or  used  synonymously,  in 
 that  age,  except  by  Christ  himself,  by 
 John  the  baptist,  who  first  announced  his 
 nature  and  office,  and  by  their  disciples 
 and  followers,  by  no  means  appears  from 
 these  questions. 
 
 2.  When  Nathanael  acknowledged  Jesus 
 as  the  son  of  God  and  king  of  Israel,  before 
 he  became  a  disciple,  it  is  concluded,  that 
 these  must  have  been  the  established  titles 
 of  the   Messiah  among   the  Jews  of  that 
 
 age. 
 
(     86     ) 
 
 age.  Two  contending  classes  of  Theolo- 
 gians have  united  in  insisting  strongly  on 
 this  point.  On  examining  the  whole  ac- 
 count, however,  it  is  found  that  Nathanael 
 uttered  this  declaration  two  days  after  our 
 Saviour  had  been  announced  as  the  Messiah 
 and  son  of  God  at  the  baptism  of  John  ;  he 
 seems  also  to  have  been  near  the  place, 
 and  to  have  had  the  means  of  being  in- 
 formed of  the  circumstances*  attending 
 the  baptism  from  one  of  John's  disciples  : 
 and  a  knowledge  of  these  circumstances, 
 acquired  in  this  manner,  combined  with 
 the  proof,  which  our  Lord  immediately 
 gave  of  a  foresight  more  than  human,  pro- 
 bably induced  him  to  exclaim;  "  Thou  art 
 the  son  of  God,  thou  art  the  king  of  Israel/' 
 Thou  art  really  possessed  of  the  divine  na- 
 ture and  invested  with  the  royal  office,  which 
 John  has  just  proclaimed  f .  The  applica- 
 tion 
 
 *  "  Lo,  a  voice  from  heaven,  saying,  This  is  my  beloved 
 son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased,"  Matth.  iii.  17. 
 
 "  I  saw,  and  bare  record  that  this  is  the  son  of  God." 
 Johni.  34. 
 
 t  Dr.  Horsley  and  Dr.  Priestley  have  attempted  to 
 support  two  opposite  opinions  by  the  declaration  of  Na- 
 thanael. So  far  as  they  believed  in  Jesus  as  the  Mes- 
 siah, in  the  same  degree  they  understood  and  acknowledged 
 his  divinity.  It  was  in  Nathanael's  very  first  interview 
 with  our  1  ord  that  he  exclaimed,  Kabbi,  thou  art  the  son 
 of  God:  thou  art  the  king  of  Israel:  and  the  declaration 
 
 is 
 
(     87     ) 
 
 tion  of  the  first  of  these  titles  to  the  Mes- 
 siah by  a  disciple  or  follower  of  John  or  of 
 Jesus,  after  the  former  had  appeared  to 
 prepare  the  way  for  the  new  oeconomy, 
 affords  not  the  slightest  proof,  that  the 
 title  was  acknowledged  among  the  Jews  at 
 large. 
 
 To  remove  old  prejudices,  and  to  prepare 
 the  minds  of  some  of  his  hearers  for  the 
 reception  of  new  and  sublime  truths,  would 
 be  the  great  obje6ls  of  the  preaching  of 
 John.  And,  if  the  prejudices  of  the  great 
 body  of  the  Jews  were  always  alarmed, 
 whenever  our  Saviour  professed  to  be  the 
 son  of  God,  the  aversion  to  his  claims  and 
 doctrines  might  have  been  universal,  had 
 not  some  of  them  been  previously  informed 
 
 by 
 
 is  drawn  from  Nathanael  by  some  particulars  in  our 
 Lord's  discourse,  which  he  seems  to  have  interpreted  as 
 indicationsof  omniscience.   Letters  to  Dr.  Priestley,  p.  loy." 
 
 "  With  respeft  to  Nathanael's  calling  Jesus  the  son  of 
 God,  this  phrase  was  in  the  mouth  of  a  Jew  synonymous 
 to  the  Messiah,  or  son  of  David :  and  it  is  fully  explained 
 by  the  subsequent  expression  of  Nathanael  himself,  viz. 
 "King  of  Israel."  Letters  tothe  Archdeacon  of  St.  Albans. 
 P^  2'^.  p.  107.  '•  Nathanael  confessed  Christ  as  a  man, 
 when  he  addressed  himself  to  him  by  the  title  of  son  of 
 God,  as  appears  by  his  adding  the  king  of  Israel."  Chry- 
 sostom.  ap.  Priestley,  Hist,  of  early  Opinions,  V.  3.  p.  67. 
 
 It  will  be  sufficient  to  refer  Dr.  Priestley  to  the  testi- 
 mony of  Origen  on  this  subje6t,  whose  veracity  he  has 
 very  ably  and  successfully  defended, 
 
(      88     ) 
 
 by  John,  tliat  the  Messiah,  whose  kingdorrr 
 was  at  hand,  was  to  be  in  some  very 
 eminent  and  peculiar  manner  the  son  of 
 God,  and  not  a  mere  descendant  of  David. 
 
 3.  When  "  they  that  were  in  the  sliip 
 came  and  worshipped  him,  saying,  Of  a 
 truth  thou  art  the  son  of  God."  When 
 Martha  declared ;  "  Lord,  I  believe  that 
 thou  art  the  Messiah,  the  son  of  God,  which 
 should  come  into  the  world  ;"  and  when 
 the  Eunuch  of  Candace  answered  Philip, 
 "  I  believe  that  Jesus  Messiah  is  the  son 
 of  God  *  ;"  these  persons  must  have 
 known  that  Jesus  had  assumed  these  titles 
 which  they  admitted  ;  but,  from  this  no 
 inference  can  be  drawn  in  favour  of  the 
 general  prevalence  of  this  sort  of  language 
 in  the  Jewish  nation.  Their  answers 
 amount  only  to  this ;  "  Jesus  is  really  the 
 being  which  he  professes  to  be.'' 
 
 4.  The  accounts  of  Peter's  answer  in 
 the  three  first  Evangelists,  at  first  sight, 
 seem  to  prove  something  more.  In  St. 
 Matthew,  Peter  says  "  Thou  art  the  Mes- 
 siah the  son  of  the  living  Godf:''    in   St. 
 
 Mark, 
 
 *  Matthew  xiv.  33.  John  xi.  27.  and  A6ls  viii.  37. 
 t  Matthew  xvi.  16.  Mark  viii.  29.  and  Luke  ix.  20. 
 
(      89     ) 
 
 Mark,  "  Tliou  art  the  Christ  :'*  in  St,  Luke, 
 "  Thou  art  the  Christ  of  God/'  When 
 these  answers,  separated  from  their  respec- 
 tive contexts,  are  compared  together  ;  it 
 might  seem  that  the  terms,  Messiah  and 
 son  of  God,  were  used  synonymously  by 
 the  Apostles  in  the  early  part  of  Christ's 
 ministry ;  and  the  probable  inference  would 
 be,  that  they  were  so  used  by  the  Jews  at 
 large.  This  conclusion  would  be  inevita- 
 ble, were  it  true  that  the  same  subje6t 
 matter  is  always  to  be  found  in  all  the 
 Evangelists,  set  forth  only  in  different 
 language.  If  one  Evangelist  never  omitted 
 to  relate  what  is  mentioned  by  another ; 
 the  words  of  Peter,  as  described  by  St. 
 Matthew  would  unquestionably  convey  no 
 further  meaning  than  his  answer,  as  it  is 
 found  in  St.  Mark.  But,  on  comparing 
 the  three  Gospels,  it  is  found  that  several 
 material  circumstances  in  the  conference 
 of  Christ  with  his  disciples  are  mentioned 
 at  length  by  St.  Matthew,  which  are  either 
 wholly  or  partially  omitted  in  the  others. 
 
 By  what  reasons  the  Evangelists  w^ere 
 sometimes  led  to  omit  the  recital  of  some 
 of  the  words  and  adlions  of  our  Saviour 
 and  the  Apostles,  can  now  only  be  a  matter 
 
 M  of 
 
(     90     ) 
 
 of  mere  conje6lure.  In  the  present  in- 
 stance, the  case  might  possibly  be  thus. 
 During  our  Saviour's  ministry,  and  before 
 it,  the  terms  Messiah  and  son  of  God  had 
 not  been  generally  used  by  the  Jews  in  the 
 same  sense  :  but  after  he  had  applied  both 
 these  titles  to  himself,  they  would  in  a  few 
 years  be  used  by  Christians  indifferently 
 the  one  for  the  other ;  as  they  are  at  pre- 
 sent. Luke  and  Mark  who  wrote  princi- 
 pally for  the  information  of  Greek  and 
 Roman  Christians  about  A.  D.  ^g  and  65, 
 think  it  superfluous  to  employ  both  terms, 
 when  custom  had  brought  one  to  be  implied 
 in  the  other, when  to  be  acknowledged  as  the 
 Christ  was  to  be  acknowledged  as  the  son  of 
 God.  But  Matthew,  who  wrote  his  Gospel 
 for  the  use  of  Jewish  Christians,  only  a  very 
 few  years  after  our  Saviour's  crucifixion, 
 might  judge  it  necessary  to  impress  on 
 their  minds  a  truth,  of  which  they  had 
 but  lately  been  informed.  It  was  neces- 
 sary to  teach  them,  that  their  Messiah  w^as 
 not  merely  a  descendant  of  David,  but  the 
 son  of  God, 
 
 None 
 
 *Cave  Hist.  Literaria,  p.  14.  15. 
 
(     91     ) 
 
 None  of  these  indire6l  testimonies  (and 
 no  others,  I  believe,  can  be  produced)  tend 
 to  prove  that  the  Jewish  Messiah  was 
 commonly  described  under  the  appellation 
 of  the  son  of  God  in  our  Saviour's  asre. 
 The  evidence  against  this  opinion  will 
 perhaps  be  thought  conclusive. 
 
 IV.  1.  One  circumstance  rather  in 
 favour  of  the  opposite  opinion  has  been 
 already  noticed.  Whenever  Jesus  openly 
 declared  or  indire6lly  intimated,  that  he 
 was  the  Messiah  only,  without  teaching 
 any  new  doftrines  respecting  his  nature 
 and  origin,  his  words  gave  no  offence  to 
 the  great  body  of  his  hearers :  on  one  oc- 
 casion, indeed,  after  a  general  declaration 
 of  his  divine  mission,  some  of  them  enter- 
 tained thoughts  of  apprehending  him  ;  but, 
 others  at  the  same  time  believed  him  to  be 
 the  Messiah  :  and  not  a  single  case  is 
 recorded,  in  which  they  attempted  to  destroy 
 him  for  simply  assuming  that  chara^ler. 
 Some  heard  him  advance  this  claim  without 
 emotion ;  by  others  he  was  eagerly  desired 
 to  declare  himself  more  openly ;  and  by 
 many  he  was  a6lually  acknowledged  as  the 
 Messiah.    But,  when  he  professed  to  be  the 
 
 M  2  son 
 
(      92      ) 
 
 son  of  God,  or,  by  an  equivalent  phrase,  call- 
 ed God  his  father,  they  believed  him  to  have 
 incurred  the  guilt  of  blasphemy.  Had  they 
 been  accustomed  to  combine  the  terms  Mes- 
 siah or  Christ  and  son  of  God,  or  to  use  them 
 in  the  same  sense,  they  would  probably 
 not  have  heard  the  first  applied  to  our 
 Saviour,  sometimes  with  patience,  and 
 sometimes  with  approbation,  and  have 
 burst  forth  into  sudden  and  vehement  ex- 
 pressions of  rage,  when  he  appropriated  to 
 himself  the  second. 
 
 Great  stress,  however,  it  must  be  ac- 
 knowledged, cannot  be  laid  on  this  argu- 
 ment. Their  Messiah  might  be  commonly 
 described  under  the  appellation,  "son  of 
 God  \"  and  yet  they  might  perceive  that 
 Jesus  applied  the  title  to  himself  in  ^ 
 higher  sense  than  they  thought  applicable 
 to  their  expe6led  deliverer. 
 
 2.  When  our  Lord  asked  the  scribes 
 and  Pharisees  their  opinion  of  the  nature 
 and  origin  of  their  Messiah ;  "  What  think 
 ye  of  Messiah?  Whose  son  is  he*?''  had 
 this  great  personage  been  at  that  time  de- 
 nominated, in  any  sense,  the  son  of  God  ; 
 
 this 
 
 *  Matthew  xxii.  42. 
 
(     93     ) 
 
 this  question  must  have  drawn  from  them 
 a  declaration  tothatelie6l ;  and  they  would 
 not  have  been  satisfied  with  answering, 
 "  He  is  the  son  of  David/'  They  would 
 probably  have  replied,  "  He  is  a  descendant 
 of  David,  and  is  also  the  son  of  God 
 by  adoption/'  He  next  asks  them, 
 **  How  then  does  David  call  him  Lord  ?" 
 they  do  not  add;  "The  Messiah  will 
 be  so  highly  favoured  of  heaven  as  to 
 be  named  in  a  peculiar  sense  the  son 
 of  God  /'  but.  they  are  silent  ;  as  if  they 
 understood  not  the  nature  and  force  of 
 his  question.  Their  answer  in  one  case, 
 and  silence  in  the  other,  militate  strongly 
 .against  the  supposition  of  the  Messiah 
 being  then  commonly  distinguished  by  this 
 title. 
 
 3.  When  Peter  said,  ^*Thou  art  the 
 Messiah,  the  son  of  the  living  God  *," 
 our  Saviour  replied,  "Flesh  and  bloodbath 
 not  revealed  this  to  thee,  but,  my  Father, 
 which  is  in  heaven."  A  divine  revelation 
 was  necessary  to  convey  this  important 
 truth,  immediately  or  mediately,  to  the 
 mind  of  Peter,  it  being  contrary  to  the  re- 
 ceived opinions  and  above  the  comprehen- 
 sion 
 
 *  Matthew  xvi.  16. 
 
(     94     ) 
 
 sion  of  a  Jew.  Had  the  two  terms  been 
 synonymous,  in  the  public  opinion;  had 
 Peter,  in  using  these  two  terms,  simply  de- 
 clared that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah ;  the 
 remark  of  our  Saviour  would  have  been 
 inapplicable;  for,  before  that  time,  five 
 thousand  men  had  declared  him  to  be  that 
 prophet,  who  should  come  into  the  world; 
 and  it  was  only  his  subsequent  intimation 
 of  a  divine  nature  and  origin,  which  had 
 caused  them  to  murmur. 
 
 I  have  already  observed,  that  in  two  of 
 the  Evangelists  the  latter  part  of  Peter's 
 declaration  is  omitted;  and  in  omitting 
 our  Saviour's  remark  at  the  same  time, 
 they  have  pointed  out  more  plainly  than 
 by  language  the  two  parts  in  St.  Matthew's 
 narrative,  between  which  the  conne6lion 
 subsists.  St.  Mark  has  only  recorded  a 
 part  of  the  answer  of  Peter,  "  Thou  art  the 
 Christ:"  St.  Luke,  "the  Christ  of  God," 
 they  have  not  added  the  term  "son  of  God:'* 
 ^nd,  consistently  with  this  omission,  they 
 have  both  left  out  our  Saviour's  observa- 
 tion, "Flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed 
 this  to  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in 
 heaven." 
 
 4.  The 
 
(     95     ) 
 
 4-  The  profession  of  the  Eunuch*  is  so 
 far  from  proving  the  two  terms  to  have 
 been  commonly  considered  as  synonymous, 
 that  it  rather  tends  to  invahdate  the  sup- 
 position, w^hich  it  has  been  brought  to 
 support.  From  the  very  stru6ture  of  the 
 sentence,  it  seems  as  if  an  additional  and 
 a  higher  conception  were  implied  in  the 
 idea  annexed  to  the  term  son  of  God ;  as 
 if  this  (and  not  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus) 
 formed  the  great  objed  of  the  speaker's 
 faith. 
 
 He  neither  says,  «  I  believe  that  Jesus  is 
 the  Messiah;"  nor,  "I  believe  that  Jesus  is 
 the  son  of  God;''  nor,  "  I  believe  that  Jesus 
 is  the  Messiah  the  son  of  God:"  but,  "  I 
 believe  that  Jesus  Messiah  is  the  son  of 
 God." 
 
 5'  It  appears  to  have  been  one  of  the 
 objects  of  Origen's  researches  to  gain 
 information  on  the  opinions  of  the  Jews 
 respe6ling  the  nature  and  character  of 
 their  expeaed  Messiah.  No  individual 
 had  ever  greater  opportunities  of  gratify- 
 ing his  curiosity  on  this  subjedl,  by  a 
 continual  residence  among  multitudes  of 
 Jews  in  Alexandria  and  Palestine:  and  no 
 
 ,  one 
 
{     96     ) 
 
 one  probably  ever  gained  more  copious  or 
 more  accurate  information.  The  greatest 
 scholar  of  the  age,  whose  knowledge  of 
 yewish  literature  in  particular  was  unusually 
 extensive,  unquestionably  knew  whether 
 the  phrase  "  son  of  God"  had  been  applied 
 to  their  Messiah  in  any  of  the  Jewish 
 writings  near  the  time  of  our  Saviour,  less 
 than  two  hundred  years  before  his  own 
 age.  He  had  endeavoured  to  gain  infor- 
 mation on  this  particular  subject  by  con- 
 versing with  many  well-informed  persons 
 among  that  people* :  and  the  result  of  his 
 inquiries  would,  without  any  other  evi- 
 dence, be  sufficient  to  decide  on  this 
 question.  Celsus,  who  lived  little  more 
 than  a  century  after  the  time  of  Christ's 
 crucifixion,  had  introduced  a  fi6litious  Jew 
 asserting,  that  his  Prophet  had  predi6led 
 the  coming  of  a  son  of  God  to  judge  the 
 virtuous,  and  punish  the  wicked.  Origen, 
 in  answer,  directly  accuses  his  antagonist 
 of  ignorance,  in  making  his  imaginary  Jew 
 speak  out  of  chara6ler:  and  one  part  of 
 the  obje61:ionable  language  is  the  phrase  in 
 question.     A  Jew,  he  affirms,  would  not 
 
 acknowledge 
 
 iTVfjiQaTviDY,  tt^£vo?  af.r.xoot  eTa»»aFTo?  to,  Myoi  (»>«»  T9>  v»o»  0£a,     L..  2> 
 
 Cont.  Cels.  p.  79.  Ed.  Spenc. 
 
(97) 
 
 acknowledge,  that  any  prophet  had  predi6le(l 
 the  coming  of  a  son  of  God  :  it  was  the 
 expression,  the  Christ  or  Messiah  of  God, 
 on  which  they  insisted.  "  What  they  say 
 is,  that  the  Christ  of  God  will  come,  and 
 they  frequently  inquire  of  us  immediately 
 about  a  son  of  God  ;  as//  no  such  personage 
 existed,  or  had  been  predi6led.  We  do 
 not  say  this,  that  a  son  of  God  is  not  pre- 
 dicted by  the  prophets  ;  but  that  he  has 
 improperly  put  the  expression  in  the  mouth 
 of  a  Jew  in  his  prosopopoeia,  who  acknow^ 
 ledges  no  such  thing  *." 
 
 Origen,  instead  of  allowing  the  pro-* 
 priety  of  the  expression,  and  only  explaining 
 its  mea*ning,  affirms  it  to  be  altogether 
 unsuitable  to  the  character  of  a  Jew. 
 Had  the  term  really  been  appropriated  in 
 any  sense  to  the  Messiah  among  the  Jews, 
 either  in  the  age  of  Celsus,  or  a  hundred 
 years  earlier,  Origen  must  have  suppressed 
 his  objection  :  which  was  of  no  use  what- 
 ever in  forwarding  the  great  design  of  his 
 work,  the  defence  of  Christianity. 
 
 When 
 
 *  iH^ato?  h  ay.  oc*  oixrAoyn^xi  oTi  -c^c^kt*;?  t<;  eivtv  »:|:»*  Gen  tJcv* 
 
 •K-^o?  r.iy^cic  IvQecoi;    ■we^J    vm  ©£»  w«  m^ifo;    o^Tc<;  Totavf,    ads    t!7(^o<pr,7i\.- 
 
 V^   a^uw^oiTw;  TW  Iy^*(xw  •zn^ot^uTTU  y.r,  ouoMyHyri    to  toisto  -crt^isSr,)!* 
 TO    "  £i5r;v   E;t/,c?   -arrocJrT'/if  «  l£^.oo-c>.vp.ois    -sstcte,    tr»   z^u   (Bta    i/io?. 
 
 L   I,  p,  38.  Ed.  Spenc. 
 
 N 
 
(     98      ) 
 
 Upon  the  whole;  with  no  dire6t  testi- 
 mony whatever  on  one  side,  and  with  the 
 testimony  of  Origen  supported  by  a  strong 
 body  of  probable  evidence  deduced  from 
 the  New  Testament  on  the  other,  it  seems 
 necessar}''  to  conclude,  that  custom  had  not 
 appropriated  this  title  to  the  Messiah  of 
 the  Jews  near  the  time  of  Jesus  Christ, 
 
 V.  To  connect  this  conclusion  with  the 
 history  of  our  Saviour's  trial:  Is  it  possible 
 that  he  should  be  condemned  by  the  Jewish 
 Sanhedrim  for  claiming  the  office  of  their 
 Messiah,  because  he  applied  a  term  to  him- 
 self, which,  among  them,  had  no  further 
 relation  to  the  Messiah  than  to  any  other 
 being  who  was  favoured  and  prote6led  by 
 God  ?  Is  it  credible  that  they  themselves 
 in  their  questions  should  use  an  old  term, 
 which  with  them  was  not  exclusively  ap- 
 propriated to  any  individual,  in  a  new  and 
 a  definite  sense,  on  so  serious  an  occasion 
 as  a  trial  for  a  capital  oljence,  without  any 
 previous  explanation  or  notice?  It  is  hardly 
 probable  that  they  should  convict  him  of 
 this  olience  by  his  own  confession ;  unless 
 lie  had  direcJly  declared  liimself  the  Mes- 
 siah.    The  term  "  son  of  David"  appears 
 
 to 
 
(      99      ) 
 
 to  have  really  heen  an  appropriate  title  of 
 their  expe61ed  deliverer:  but, had  our  Lord 
 even  declared  himself  "  the  son  of  David/' 
 the  declaration  would  probably  not  have 
 been  admitted  as  a  proof  that  he  claimed  the 
 office  of  the  Messiah  :  much  less  could  they 
 have  so  considered  the  assumption  of  a  title, 
 by  which  their  Messiah  was  not  distin- 
 guished from  themselves. 
 
 They  expelled  a  Messiah  the  son  of 
 David :  they  knew  that  Jesus  had  assumed 
 his  name  and  office,  and  that  he  had 
 moreover  claimed  a  higher  nature  than 
 they  admitted  in  the  great  king  and  pro- 
 phet, whom  they  expected  under  that 
 title  :  they  could  not  have  totally  misun^ 
 derstood  the  purport  of  his  former  ques- 
 tions to  the  scribes  ;  when  he  had  raised 
 difficulties,  which  they  had  not  removed, 
 against  the  received  opinion  of  the  Messiah 
 being  a  mere  descendant  of  David.  They 
 had  probably  received  intelligence,  that  he 
 had  spoken  of  his  own  omnipotence  and 
 eternity  in  terms  too  plain  to  admit  of 
 much  doubt,  that  he  had  claimed  the  pri- 
 vilege of  forgiving  sins,  and  of  judging  the 
 world  at  the  general. resurrection  ;  powers 
 >Yhich  they   admitted   not  their  expected 
 
 N  3  MQ§siah 
 
(        ,10        ) 
 
 Messiah  to  possess,  and  which  they  held 
 impioLis  in  any  individual  to  claim.    Consis- 
 tently with,  what  they  thought,  these  new 
 and  too  exalted   pretensions,  they  would 
 also  probably  have  been  informed   that  he 
 had  appropriated  to  himself  a  new  language 
 (though   he    had,   in   reality,  only  revived 
 the    language   of  the  Old    Testament)   at 
 once  signiiioitive  of  his   high   nature   and 
 power ;  that  he  had  not  only  called  himself 
 the  Christ,  the  son  of  David  ;  but,  that  he, 
 had  also  called   himself  the  son    of  God ; 
 that  he  had  called  God  his  father  in  a  more 
 stri6l  and  proper  sense,  than  was  consistent 
 with  the  notion  of  simple  humanity;   that 
 great  PiUmbers  of  his  countrymen,  who  had 
 heard   him  speak  of  his  divine  mission  as 
 Messiah    without    emotion,    or   who   had 
 ardently  expelled  him   to   declare  himself 
 openly,  and  who  had  even  acknowledged 
 him  in   that   character,   were  immediately 
 alarmed,  and  enraged  at  language,  which 
 indicated  his  divine  nature  :   the   circum- 
 stances of  his   baptism   might  have   been 
 obscurely  related  to  them  ;   when   he  was 
 first  announced  as    the  son    of  God,  and 
 after  which,  some  of  his  disciples  had  ac- 
 knowledged him  not  as  the  Christ  the  son 
 of   David,  but   as   the   Christ   the   son  of 
 
 God. 
 
C      101      ) 
 
 God.  The  great  objecl  of  the  trial  would 
 not,  therefore,  be  to  ascertain  whether  he 
 had  professed  to  be  the  Messiah  simply, 
 either  in  direil:  or  indire6l  terms ;  but  to 
 prove  him  a  false  Messiah;  to  prove  the 
 falsehood  of  one  of  his  claims  by  the  sup- 
 posed extravagance  and  guilt  of  his  other 
 pretensions  ;  and,  in  their  opinion,  he  was 
 proved  to  be  a  false  Messiah,  and  to  merit 
 death,  by  declaring  himself  the  son  of  God, 
 
 'S^^ 
 
 CHAP. 
 
102        ) 
 
 CHAP.     V. 
 
 WHETHER  THE  JEWISH  SANHEDRIM  REALLY 
 BELIEVED  JESUS  CHRIST  GUILTY  OF  THE 
 CRIME  FOR  WHICH  THEY  CONDEMNED 
 HIxM. 
 
 I.  Regularity  of  their  proceedings,  lengtFi  of  the  trial, 
 their  earnestness  and  unanimity.  2.  Their  condu6t 
 on  the  second  trial.  3.  They  had  no  material  objc6t 
 to  gain  by  pronouncing  Jesus  guilty  witjiout  being 
 persuaded  of  his  criminality.  4.  Their  sincerity  appears 
 from  the  silence  and  condu6l  of  Christ.  5.  And  St, 
 Peter's  address  to  his  countrymen.  6.  From  a  general 
 view  of  the  conduct  of  the  Jewish  people. 
 
 I.  X  ROM  the  history  of  our  Saviour's 
 trial  compared  with  other  parts  of  the 
 Gospels,  and  the  known  opinions  and 
 laws  of  the  Jews,  it  appears  that  he  was 
 pronounced  guilty  of  blasphemy,  and  con- 
 demned to  death  for  asserting  his  own 
 divinity.  But,  it  may  be  objedled  that 
 those,  who  accused  him  of  sedition  before 
 the  Roman  governor,  knowing  the  charge 
 to  be  groundless,  and  who  suborned  false 
 witnesses  against  him  before  Caiaphas, 
 were  capable  of  condemning  him  to  death 
 without  being  convinced  of  the  reality  of 
 liis  guilt. 
 
 Aud, 
 
(      103     ) 
 
 And,  it  certainly  might  admit  of  dispute, 
 whether  the  supreme  national  court  of 
 justice  consisting  of  seventy-two  persons, 
 were  capable  of  immediately  and  una- 
 nimously *  pronouncing  the  sentence  of 
 death  on  Jesus  Christ  without  believing 
 him  guilty  of  the  crime  for  which  he  suf- 
 fered :  but,  the  question  is  not;  what 
 degree  of  wickedness  that  tribunal  was 
 capable  of  committing  ;  but,  whether  un- 
 equivocal marks  can,  or  cannot  be  disco- 
 vered to  prove  the  reality  of  their  belief  in 
 his  guilt.  If  prevarication  be  a  proof  of 
 the  insincerity  of  his  accusers  before  Pilate, 
 consistency  and  unanimity  will  probably 
 be  thought  no  less  marks  of  the  sincerity 
 of  his  judges  in  the  court  of  Caiaphas. 
 
 With  respe£l  to  the  witnesses  it  may  be 
 observed,  that  those,  who  are  called  false 
 witnesses  by  the  Evangelists,  were  consi- 
 dered as  false  witnesses  by  the  Sanhedrim  ; 
 with  whom  their  evidence  had  no  weight. 
 In  the  proceedings  of  the  court,  the  rules  of 
 evidence  in  the  Mosaic  law  appear  to  have 
 been  stri61Iy  observed :  v/hereas,  had  it 
 been  determined  to  put  Jesus  Christ  to 
 death   vv'ithout   establishing   his  supposed 
 
 crimi-» 
 
 *  Mark  xiv.  64. 
 
(      104     ) 
 
 criminality  by  their  law,  they  would  pro- 
 bably have  been  satisfied  with  the  first 
 witness,  who  could  attest  any  faft  suffici- 
 ently strong  for  their  purpose ;  without 
 risking  the  danger  of  annulling  the  force 
 of  his  testimony  by  introducing  the  con- 
 tradi6loryevidence  of  others.  When  "two 
 witnesses  at  last  came/'  no  sentence  is  yet 
 pronounced,  either  because  of  inconsis- 
 tency in  their  testimony  also,  or,  as  com- 
 rnentators  on  St.  Mark  have  supposed, 
 because  they  thought  the  fa6l  not  suffici- 
 ently strong  to  convi6l  him  :  la-oa  ui  fj^a^rv- 
 ototi  ^'A  %<ToQ)y  because,  their  evidence  was 
 inadequate,  not  because  it  was  false,  or 
 contradictory :  and  his  defence  is  next 
 called  for,  in  order,  as  Grotius  thinks,  that 
 they  might  at  last  succeed  in  entangling 
 him  in  his  own  words,  after  having  failed 
 in  establishing  his  guilt  by  means  of  wit- 
 nesses :  or  perhaps,  to  hear  how  he  ex- 
 plained his  own  words;  to  hear  satisfa6lory 
 reasons  w^hy  some  inferior  punishment 
 should  not  be  infli6i:ed,  proportioned  to  his 
 apparent  temerity,  as  proved  by  the  two 
 last  witnesses.  Having  made  no  reply  ; 
 the  high  priest  endeavours  to  draw  from 
 him  a   confession   of  his  alledged  crime  : 
 
 and. 
 
(      105     ) 
 
 and,  immediately  afterhe  had  acknowledged 
 himself  the  son  of  God,  and  not  before, 
 the  high  priest  rends  his  clothes  with  the 
 exclamation;  "  Ye  have  heard  his  blas- 
 phemy \"  and  the  members  of  the  court 
 immediately  and  unanimously  pronounce 
 him  worthy  of  death. 
 
 The  regularity  of  these  proceedings,  the 
 earnest  manner  of  the  high  priest,  and 
 the  promptitude  and  unanimity  of  the 
 whole  court,  bear  as  strong  marks  of 
 sincerity  as  can  accompany  any  public 
 act  whatever.  Had  they  previously  de- 
 termined to  declare  him  criminal,  without 
 believing  him  to  have  offended  against 
 their  law,  it  is  unlikely  that  they  would 
 have  proceeded  by  any  method  so  cir- 
 cuitous and  tedious:  if  they  at  length 
 pronounced  him  guilty  by  their  Law, 
 knowing  their  sentence  to  be  just ;  how 
 is  it  that  they  should  have  gone  through 
 the  lingering  process  of  a  long  examina- 
 tion of  "  many  witnesses,''  attending  to 
 their  inconsistencies,  and,  at  length,  on 
 account  of  these  inconsistencies,  setting 
 aside  their  evidence  ? 
 
 O  II.  If 
 
(      io6      ) 
 
 II.  Iftheir  backwardness  ill  pronouncing 
 the  sentence,  before  they  had  heard  our 
 Lord's  own  confession,  be  an  argument  in 
 favour  of  their  sincerity;  the  presumption 
 Will  gain  additional  strength  by  the  con- 
 sideration of  their  perseverance  after  the 
 first  trial. 
 
 In  the  second  trial,  they,  at  first,  en- 
 deavour to  persuade  Pilate,  that  he  is  guilty 
 of  treason  against  the  Roman  government : 
 but,  the  great  offence,  they  at  last  acknow- 
 ledge, is  against  their  own  law.  "  By  our 
 Law"  he  ought  to  die:  and  the  reason 
 assigned  is  not  that,  which  they  had  just 
 given  to  prove  him  guilty  of  treason, 
 because  he  had  called  himself  Messiah,  a 
 King;  but,  consistently  with  their  conduct 
 on  the  preceding  trial,  "  because  he  made 
 himself  the  son  of  God.'* 
 
 III.  Another  reason  for  believing  the 
 Saniicdrim  to  have  been  sincere,  when  they 
 judged  our  Saviour  guilty  of  the  capital 
 crime  of  blasphemy  by  the  Mosaic  law, 
 suggests  itself  in  this  consideration:  They 
 had  no  material  object  to  gain  by  pronounc- 
 ing him  guilty  of  this  crime,  without  being 
 
 persuaded 
 
(      107     ) 
 
 persuaded  of  the  justice  of  their  sentencci^ 
 He  was  arraigned  before  them  on  the 
 charge  of  blasphemy,  tried,  and  declared 
 guilty  by  their  unanimous  suffrages,  for 
 professing  to  be  the  son  of  God  :  and  had 
 the  punishment  in  this  instance  been  in 
 their  hands,  they  would,  on  this  account, 
 have  stoned  him  to  death.  But,  this  proof 
 of  his  supposed  guilt  was  not,  as  in  com- 
 mon cases,  at  first  intended  as  an  inter- 
 mediate step  to  lead  to  his  punishment. 
 His  accusers  suggested  other  reasons  to 
 Pilate,  which  might  be  supposed  to  have 
 more  weight  with  a  Roman  than  the  crime 
 of  blasphemy  as  ascertained  by  the  Mosaic 
 law.  They  endeavoured  to  convince  Pilate 
 of  his  treason  against  Csssar,  in  declaring 
 himself  king  of  the  Jews,  and  in  stirring 
 up  the  people  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem  ; 
 and  it  was  not,  till  the  governor  had  ac- 
 quitted him  of  this  charge,  and  shewn 
 great  disinclination  to  surrender  him  to 
 the  Jewish  cruelty,  that  they  were,  at  last, 
 led  to  exclaim,  "  By  our  law  he  ought  to 
 die,  because  he  made  himself  the  son  of 
 God."  His  supposed  crime  of  blasphemy 
 was  not  intended  to  be  the  ostensible 
 ground  for  putting  him  to  death,  or,  to 
 form  the  matter  of  their  accusation  before 
 
 o  2  Pilate: 
 
(      io8      ) 
 
 Pilate  :  and  therefore,  as  they  had  no  object 
 in  solemnly  asserting  our  Saviour  guilty  of 
 this  crime,  knowing  it  to  be  groundless  ; 
 it  seems  not  merely  the  easiest,  but  the 
 only  method  of  accounting  for  their  con- 
 duel,  to  suppose  that  these  unhappy  men 
 were  sincere,  when  they  unanimously  pro- 
 nounced their  sentence. 
 
 If  the   real  object   of  the   trial  before 
 them  was   to  discover  whether  Jesus  had 
 committed  actions,  or  uttered  words,  which 
 their  law  made  blasphemous ;   their   sen- 
 tence would  express  their  real  thoughts  :  and 
 if  that  was  not ;  we  are  totally  at  a  loss  to 
 discover  what  was  the  obje6l  of  their  in- 
 vestigation. They  must  have  gone  through 
 the  tedious  process  of  a  long  trial,  without 
 any  proposed  end ;  and   at   last,  have  so- 
 lemnly uttered    a  falsehood    without   any 
 discoverable    motive,    and    to    answer  no 
 purpose.      Setting   aside  this  extravagant 
 supposition ;     which,    indeed,     is     almost 
 without  an  advocate;  the  real   object  of 
 the  trial   before  the  Sanhedrim,   we  may 
 certainly    conclude,   was    to   discover  the 
 nature  and  extent  of  our  Saviour's  supposed 
 crime ;  after  a  long  process,  they  convinced 
 themselves  of  his  criminality  ;  not  thinking 
 
 it 
 
(      109     ) 
 
 it  possible  for  Jesus  to  be  the  son  of  God  *: 
 the  a6lion  and  the  words  of  Caiaphas,  and 
 the  sentence  of  the  whole  court  expressed 
 their  real  thoughts  :  and  it  was  principally, 
 if  not  solely,  on  account  of  their  convidlion 
 of  his  guilt,  that  they  endeavoured  to  pre- 
 vail on  Pilate  by  any  reasons,  which  they 
 thought  likely  to  be  ef!e61ive,  to  put  him 
 to  death. 
 
 IV.  It  appears  not  only  from  their  own 
 proceedings,  but,  from  the  condu6l  of 
 Jesus  himself,  that  they  understood  the 
 phrase  "  son  of  God''  in  the  same  sense, 
 in  which  he  spoke  it ;  without  any  wilful 
 misrepresentation.  Had  he  used  the 
 expression  in  one  sense,  and  perceived 
 that  it  was  misunderstood  or  wilfully 
 perverted     to    another ;     he    would    have 
 
 cor- 
 
 *  They  might  have  learnt  from  their  sacred  Books  that 
 Jesus  was  placed  above  the  Law  by  which  he  was 
 fondemned.  "  The  Lord  thy  God  will  raise  up  unto 
 thee  a  Prophet  in  the  midst  ot  thee,  of  thy  brethren,  like 
 unto  me;  unto  him  ye  shall  hearken,"  Deut.  xviii.  15. 
 The  resemblances  between  Moses  and  Jesus  Christ  are 
 pointed  out  at  great  length,  by  Jortin  (Vol.  j.  p.  \()b. 
 Remarks  on  Ecclesiastical  History,  1751)  and  Sherlock 
 (Disc.  2.)  From  other  parts  of  their  sacred  writings 
 they  might  have  known  that  their  Messiah  v.ould 
 be  difiercnt  from  Moses  in  one  particular,  in  being  the 
 $on  of  God  and  God. 
 
(      no      ) 
 
 corre6led  the  mistake,  or  have  animad- 
 verted on  tlie  wilful  perversion.  This 
 may  be  collcdted  from  the  second  trial  r 
 after  he  had  been  interrogated  by  Pilate^ 
 and  had  acknowledged  himself  a  King; 
 to  prevent  any  erroneous  impression  from 
 the  use  of  this  term,  he  immediately  ex- 
 plained his  meaning,  and  declared  that  he 
 was  not  an  earthly,  but  a  heavenly  king. 
 "  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world/'  Since, 
 therefore,  he  was  desirous  to  be  rightly 
 understood  ;  had  he  only  intended  to  an- 
 nounce himself  as  the  Messiah,  according 
 to  the  Jewish  notions  of  a  Messiah,  a  mere 
 man,  when  he  declared  himself  the  son  of 
 God ;  he  would  have  informed  the  tribunal 
 that  he  merely  intended  to  declare  himself 
 the  earthly  Messiah,  whom  they  expected. 
 
 The  notions  of  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim 
 are  fully  expressed  in  the  language  applied 
 by  St.  John  to  another  body  of  Jews  :  they 
 believed,  that  "  he  being  a  m.an  made  him- 
 self God,"  and  not  knowing  that  it  \va^ 
 possible  for  him  to  be  invested  with  divinity, 
 they  thought  him  criminal.  The  language  of 
 his  benevolent  prayer  is  rather  more  con- 
 sistent with  this  opinion,  than  with  the 
 notion  of  a  wilful  perversion  of  his  meaning 
 
 by 
 
(   111   ) 
 
 by  the  Jewish  court.  "Father,  forgive  them, 
 for  they  know  not  what  they  do." 
 
 V.  A  belief  that  he  claimed  divinity, 
 and  an  ignora?ice  of  the  possibility  of  the 
 truth  of  this  claim,  are  also  more  consistent 
 with  the  language  of  St.  Peter's  address  to 
 his  countrymen,  than  a  wilful  perversion  of 
 our  Lord's  meaning.  '^  Ye  denied  the 
 Holy  One  and  the  Just,  and  killed  the 
 Lord  of  life,  whom  God  hath  raised  from 
 the  dead.  And  now,  brethren,  I  know 
 that  through  ignorance  ye  did  it,  as  did 
 also  your  rulers  *."  That  is,  ye  did 
 it,  not  through  a  wilful  perversion  of 
 his  meaning,  but  through  ignorance  of  his 
 divme  nature,  which  placed  him  above  the 
 law,  by  which  he  was  condemned. 
 
 Vr.  Before  one  of  the  assemblies  of  the- 
 Jewish  people  Jesus  called  God  his  Father: 
 and  it  fully  appears  from  the  relation  of 
 St.  John  f ,  that  they  siiicerely  believed  him 
 to  call  God  his  Father  in  such  a  sense  as 
 to  claim  divinity,  and,  in  consequence  of 
 their  conviction,  sought  to  put  him  to  death. 
 
 To 
 
 *Aasiii.  14.17.  tJohnv. 
 
{        112       ) 
 
 To  another  body  of  the  Jews  he  said  ; 
 "  Before  Abraham  was  I  am  ^."  And  that 
 they  sincerely  believed  him  to  have  claimed 
 in  this  assertion  more  than  simple  huma- 
 nity, appears  by  an  instantaneous  attempt 
 to  destroy  him.  Before  a  third  body  of* 
 Jews,  he  called  himself  the  son  of  God, 
 and  declared  himself  one  with  hisFather-f: 
 and  they  evinced  the  sincerity  of  their  belief 
 of  his  blasphemy  (according  to  their  notions 
 of  that  crime)  by  taking  up  stones,  in  a 
 paroxysm  of  rage  to  destroy  him.  Soon 
 after,  when  he  had  said,  "  The  Father  is  in 
 mc,  and  I  in  him  ;"  the  same  people  again 
 went  about  to  take  him.  A  fifth  occurrence 
 is  related  ;  which  also  shews  that  the  Jews 
 really  believed  our  Saviour  to  have  claimed 
 a  divine  origin.  •'*  Is  not  this  Jesus,''  they 
 exclaimed,  "  whose  father  and  mother  we 
 know  ?  how  then  saith  he,  I  came  down 
 from  heaven  %  ?"  On  a  sixth  occasion ;  the 
 reality  of  their  belief  of  his  blasphemy, 
 that  is,  of  what  they  thought  blasphemy,  is 
 also  recorded  by  the  Evangelists,  who  have 
 mentioned  that  certain  scribes  said  zvithin 
 the?nselves,  *'  Who  is  this  that  speaketh 
 blasphemy  ||  ?'*  On  the   seventh  occasion  ; 
 
 when 
 
 *  John  viii.  t  Ch.  x.  t  Ch.  vi. 
 
 11  Luke  V.  17.  and  Matthew  ix.  3. 
 
(      113      ) 
 
 when  he  had  declared  himself  the  son  of 
 God  before  that  body  of  Jews  called  the 
 Sanhedrim  ;  the  president  immediately  rent 
 his  clothes,  and  exclaimed,  "  ye  have  heard 
 his  blasphemy ;"  and  they  all  immediately 
 pronounced  the  sentence  of  death.  A  con- 
 nected view  of  the  six  preceding  cases 
 enables  us  to  decide,  with  moral  certainty, 
 were  there  any  preceding  doubt,  on  the 
 sincerity  of  the  Sanhedrim  in  the  seventh. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
CHAP.     VI. 
 
 ON  THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  WORDS  OP 
 JESUS  CHRIST  BY  HIS  CONTEMPORARIES 
 AND   COUNTRYMEN. 
 
 I.  The  general  opinion  of  readers  of  the  New  Testament 
 on  the  meaning  of  the  passages  in  it  relating  to  the  na- 
 ture of  Christ.     Different  methods  of  explaining  diffi- 
 culties in  ancient  Authors.     The  sense,  in  which  an 
 Author  has  been  understood  by  subsequent  writers  not 
 far  removed  from  his  own  age,  important.     The  sense, 
 in  which  the  New  Testament  was  understood  by  Cel- 
 sus  and  other  ancient  heathens,   probably  just.     The 
 <reneral  concurrence  of  the  Christian  writers  of  the  first 
 Centuries,  in  any  one  opinion  relating  to  the  sense    of 
 certain  passages  in  Scripture,  affords  a  strong  presump- 
 tion of  the  truth  of  that  opinion.     2.  Interpretation  of 
 the  words  of  a  speaker  by  his  hearers.     Concurrence 
 of  different  bodies  of  hearers  in  the  same  interpretation 
 proves  the  interpretation  just.     Dr.  Priestley's  opinion 
 of  the  importance  of  the  interpretation  of  words  by  those 
 to  whom  they  are  addressed.     His  method  of  collecting 
 the  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament  by  the  first 
 Gentile  Christians.     3.  Concurrence  of  several  bodies 
 of  Jews  and  of  the  Roman  Governor  in  annexing  tlie 
 same  sense  to  the  words  of  Christ.     Their  interpretation 
 confirmed  by  the  acquiescence  of  Christ  himself  and  the 
 Evangelists,     4.  Whether  the  Jews  supposed  Christ  to 
 allude  to  the  do6lrine  of  transubstantiation. 
 
 I.  THE 
 
(      115      ) 
 
 I.  A  H  E  opinion  of  the  Jews,  respe^l- 
 ing  the  nature  and  extent  of  our  Saviour's 
 claims,  evinced  on  many  occasions  by 
 their  words  and  a6lions,  is  of  some  import- 
 ance in  confirming  one  of  the  leading  doc- 
 trines of  the  New  Testament,  which  has 
 sometimes  been  called  in  question.  Though 
 the  divinity  of  Christ  seems  to  have  been 
 frequently  taught  both  by  himself  and  his 
 Apostles,  in  terms  too  plain  to  be  easily 
 misunderstood  ;  Christians  have  not,  hov/- 
 ever,  been  perfectly  unanimous  in  this 
 opinion.  Jew5,  Mahometans,  and  perhaps 
 all  men,  Vs'ho  have  read  the  New  Testa- 
 ment, a  small  though  respedlable  body  of 
 Christians  excepted,  have  found  this 
 amonsfst  its  other  doctrines.  The  Jews 
 insist  on  this  point  with  just  confidence, 
 and  on  this  ground  offer  their  most  plausi- 
 ble apology  for  the  conduct  of  their 
 ancestors :  Mahometans  contend  for  the 
 same  thing;  but  adventurously  assert  that 
 our  Scriptures  contain  not  the  tenets  which 
 Christ  taught;  and  refer  to  apocryphal 
 works  for  the  genuine  representation  of 
 Christianity  *.     If  the  readers  of  the  New 
 
 Testament 
 
 *  Mahomet  himself  took  hfs  account  of  Christianity 
 from  the  Gospel  of  Christ's  infancy,  the  Prot-evangehum 
 
 of 
 
 P    o. 
 
(   "«  ) 
 
 Testament  be  divided  into  two  classes,  be- 
 lievers in  Christianity  and  unbelievers  ;  it 
 might  be  proposed  as  a  question  ;  whether 
 any  individual  in  the  latter  class  ever  per- 
 suaded himself  that  the  New  Testament 
 contains  no  such  do6irine  as  that  of  Christ's 
 divinity :  and  were  it  not  from  respect  to 
 that  body  of  Christians,  to  which  I  have  just 
 alluded  ;  it  would  be  superfluous  and  idle 
 (as  it  appears  to  all  but  Christians)  to 
 prove  the  existence  of  a  Christian  doftrine, 
 which  is  almost  universally  admitted. 
 
 Let  all  the  passages,  hpwever,  on  this 
 subject  be  supposed  so  obscure,  that  their 
 meaning  cannot  be  colle6led  with  certainly 
 by  an  immediate  comparison  with  the  con- 
 text, and  that  recourse  must  be  had  to  the 
 usual  means  for  solving  difBculties  in  com- 
 inon  authors. 
 
 When  difficulties  occur  in  an  ancient 
 writer  ;  a  commentator  sometimes  endea- 
 vours to  explain  different  parts  of  his 
 writings  by  comparing  them  with  one 
 another;  and  sometimics  he  discovers  the 
 
 sig- 
 
 of  James  and  other  spurious  works.  See  Jones  on  the 
 Canon,  p.  584.  and  589.  Th.e  Gosj)el ot" Barnabas,  v.hich 
 niodern  Mahometans  have  used,  is  a  forger)-  of  later  date. 
 
(     117     ) 
 
 signification  of  adoiibtfiil  word  or  phrase  in 
 his  author  by  comparing  it,  in  the  same 
 manner,  with  passages  collected  from  the 
 works  of  others,  who  hved  in  or  near  the 
 same  age.  In  this  way  the  Gospels  have 
 been  explained  by  tliemselves,  by  one 
 another,  by  the  acts  of  the  Apostles,  by 
 the  epistles,  by  Fhilo,  and  by  Josephus. 
 And  thus,  most  writings  of  nearly  the 
 same  age  refle6t  mutual  light  on  each 
 other. 
 
 Sometimes  ancient  authors  are  eluci- 
 dated by  comparing  them  with  others  of 
 higher  antiquity ;  whose  language  and 
 train  of  thought  they  may  sometimes  have 
 taken  up.  To  understand  the  scope  of 
 their  reasonins;  and  the  force  of  their  allu- 
 sions,  it  is  frequently  necessary  to  compare 
 their  writings  with  the  originals,  which 
 they  had  in  view.  It  is  thus  that  the 
 industry  of  our  divines  has  been  rationally 
 and  successfully  exerted  in  explaining  the 
 New  Testament  by  the  Old. 
 
 It  is  of  some  importance  also  to  know 
 in  what  sense  a  passage  in  an  ancient  author 
 has  been  understood  by  subsequent  writers 
 not  far  removed  from    his   own  age;  or 
 
 what 
 
(      118     ) 
 
 vvliat  design  they  discovered  in  his  writings, 
 on  a  general  view  of  their  contents.  If 
 we  knew  in  what  sense  an  expression  in 
 Virgil  was  interpreted  by  Ouintilian,  or 
 what  Columella  conceived  to  be  one  of  the 
 ©bjecls  which  the  poet  has  pursued  in  his 
 Georgics  ;  their  opinions  would  have  great 
 weight  in  deciding  ours.  On  this  account, 
 the  opinions  of  the  more  ancient  Christian 
 jvriters  after  the  Apostles,  and  of  learned 
 and  philosophical  heathens  respetling  the 
 do6lrines  of  the  New  Testament,  as  well 
 as  their  interpretations  of  particular  pas- 
 sages in  it,  are  circumstances,  which  it 
 requires  much  self-importance  to  despise. 
 
 When  Celsus,  a  heathen  Philosopher, 
 little  more  than  a  century  after  the  event, 
 of  which  he  speaks,  declares  that  Christ 
 asserted  his  own  divinity*,  his  testimony 
 would  deserve  great  credit,  though  he 
 had  not  mentioned  his  authority  :  and 
 when  we  know,  that  Celsus  found  the 
 divinity  of  Christ  acknowledged  in  the 
 Gospel  of  St.  Matthew-j^,  it  is,  07i  this  accoimt, 
 
 highly 
 
 *  Qtov  uvTov  eciiY^yo^ivt.       CclsUS  ap.    Oligcn.  L.  I.  p.  22, 
 •'    "t  Ch.   il.    II.       Mera    TJCfTa  o  ■lEra^a  tw    KcXctw      lyaxjo?    avri 
 
 fmrnovuiQw."     Orig.  cont,  Cels.  L,  i.  p.  45. 
 
(     "9     ) 
 
 highly  probable,  that  this  clo6lrine  has 
 really  a  place  in  that  Gospel.  A  commoa 
 passage*  ill  a  Greek  book,  written  about  a 
 century  before  his  own  age,  would  hardly 
 be  misunderstood  by  Celsus, 
 
 If  both  the  heathens  *  in  a  very  early 
 age,  and  the  whole  body  of  Christian 
 writers  in  the  three  first  centuries,  almost 
 without  exception,  agree  in  representing 
 this  do6lrine  as  taught  in  the  New  Testa- 
 ment ;  and  have  quoted  a  multitude  of 
 passages  from  it  relating  to  the  divinity  of 
 Christ,  which  were  understood  by  them  as 
 they  are  understood  by  us ;  the  concur- 
 rence of  so  many  competent  judges,  so 
 near  the  time  when  it  was  written,  whose 
 views,  interests  and  opinions,  were  so  vari- 
 ous, the  concurrence  of  so  many  and  such 
 men  in  any  one  opinion  creates  a  strong- 
 presumption  that  the  opinion  is  just.  It 
 is  important  to  know  in  what  sense  the 
 Fathers  understood  the  New  Testament, 
 not    because   they    were    Christians,  but 
 
 because 
 
 *  The  lieathens  asserted  that  the  disciples  of  Christ  wore 
 guilty  of  ialsehood  in  declaring  him  God.     "  Discipulos 
 ■ejus  non   solum    de   illo  fuisse  mentitos   dicendo  illura 
 Deum,  per  quern  fa6ta  sunt  omnia.     Augustin.  de  con- 
 sensu Evang.  L.  I.  c.  xxxiv. 
 
(         120        ) 
 
 because  they  lived  near  tlie  time,  when  it 
 was  written,  and  had  read  it  with  attention. 
 Those  who  live  only  a  century  or  two  after 
 the  age  of  an  Author,  must  sometimes 
 enter  into  the  design  and  spirit  of  his 
 work,  when  they  are  not  so  well  compre- 
 hended fifteen  hundred  vears  later.  When 
 we  allow,  and  it  cannot  be  denied,  that 
 they  frequently  shew  themselves  injudici- 
 ous and  ill-informed  commentators  on  the 
 New  Testament ;  we  grant  that  the  opinion 
 of  any  one,  or,  even  of  a  considerable 
 number  of  them  respe6ting  the  do6frines 
 of  this  book,  ought  not  to  have  any  very 
 great  weight.  But,  the  concurrence  of 
 the  whole  body  of  Ante-nicene  Fathers 
 almost  without  exception,  in  any  one  senti- 
 ment, when  they  differ  from  one  another,  or 
 are  inconsistent  with  themselves  on  most 
 other  subjects,  is  surely  of  some  import- 
 ance. Th.e  scriptures,  in  their  opinion, 
 taught  the  coexistence  and  consubstan- 
 tiality  of  the  Sion  with  the  Father:  yet,  it 
 is  always  acknowledged  that  they  generally 
 contended  for  a  sort  of  inferiority  in  the 
 son*:   and  "the  inferiority  of  the  son  to 
 
 the 
 
 *  "You  argue  against  our  Lord's  divinity  from  the 
 manner  in  wiiicli  lie  spcnks  of  himself,  saying,  •  My 
 Father  is  greater  than  1.'     If  from  such  expressions  you 
 
 would 
 
(  121  ) 
 
 tlie  Father  shewn  to  have  been  tlie  doc- 
 trine of  all  the  Ante-nicene  Fathers"  is  the 
 title  of  one  of  the  chapters  of  Dr.  Priestley's 
 history  of  early  opinions.  Here,  however, 
 they  apparently  differed  from  tliemselves  : 
 attempting  to  explain  a  subje6l  beyond  the 
 reach  of  the  human  mind,  they  naturally- 
 fell  into  inconsistencies.  "  It  is  remarkable 
 "that,  though  all  the  Ante-nicene  Fathers 
 "  were  of  opinion  that  the  son  derived  his 
 "  being  from  the  substajice  of  the  Father,  and 
 "  before  his  generation  was  even  his  own 
 "  proper  wisdom,  power  and  all  his  other 
 **  essential  attributes,  they  uniformly  assert- 
 "  ed  that  he  was  inferior  to  the  Father,  and 
 "  subje6l  to  him.  This  v/as  certainly  un- 
 "  natural  and  a  real  inconsistency.  For, 
 "  admitting  the  son  to  be  zvhat  they  repre- 
 "  sented  him,  he  was,  to  say  the  least,  fully 
 "  eqical  to  every  thing  that  could  Constitute 
 "  the  Father -j^.''  Respe6ling  the  equality 
 of  the  son  to  the  Father,  they  dilfered,  in 
 
 lanp'uacre 
 
 would  be  content  to  infer,  that  the  Almighty  Father  k 
 indeed  the  fountain  and  the  center  of  divinity,  and  that 
 the  equahty  of  God-head  is  to  be  understood  with  some 
 mysterious  subordination  of  the  son  to  the  Father;  you 
 would  have  the  concurrence  of  the  antient  Fathers,  and 
 of  the  advocates  of  the  true  faith  in  all  ages."  Hor;iley's 
 J5th  Letter  to  Priestley,  p.  145.     1784. 
 
 t  History  of  early  Opinions,  B.  2.  C.  iv.  p.  145. 
 
 2 
 
(        122        ) 
 
 language  at  least,  from  themselves,  but, 
 their  very  inconsistencies  on  this  subject 
 prove  the  uniformity  of  their  belief  in  the 
 divinity  of  Christ  as  a  doctrine  of  scripture: 
 they    were   inconsistent    with   themselves, 
 and  disao;reed    with    one    another,  about 
 matters  of  comparatively  little  moment : 
 they  agreed  in  the  main.      It  was   one  of 
 Origen's    singularities    to    maintain,   that 
 prayer  ought  not  to  be  offered  to  the  son, 
 but  to   the  Father   through   the  son:   yet, 
 Origen  was   a  strenuous  vindicator  of  the 
 doftrine  of  Christ's  divinity.     The  extra- 
 ordinary concurrence  of  these  early  readers 
 of  the  New    Testament,   strengthened  by 
 the    united    opinion    of  their   adversaries 
 among  the  heathens,    forms  altogether   a 
 body  of  authority,  which  a  man  of  sound 
 reason,  tolerable  information,  and  common 
 modesty  cannot  overlook. 
 
 II.  Another  method  of  determining  the 
 meaning  of  difficult  passages  in  ancient 
 Authors,  though  not  totally  negle6led,  has 
 not  been  apphed  witli  much  success  to  con- 
 firm or  refute  the  commonly  received 
 interpretation  of  tlie  parts  of  the  New 
 Testament  relating  to  the  nature  of  Christ. 
 
 The 
 
(      123      ) 
 
 The  method,  to  which  I  allude,  is  that  b}^ 
 which  the  sense  of  a  passage  is  colle6led 
 from  the  interpretation  of  persons,  to  whom 
 it  was  immediately  addressed,  of  the  same 
 age    and    country   with    the    speaker    or 
 writer.       When     Demosthenes   addressed 
 the  Athenian    people   in   terms,  some   of 
 which  are  not  perfe611y  intelligible  to  us  ; 
 had  history  been   so  minute  as   to  inform 
 us  in  what  sense  they  were  understood  by 
 his  hearers,  we  should  probably  submit  to 
 have  our  opinions   on  the  meaning  of  ex- 
 pressions in  the  Greek  language  regulated 
 by  theirs.       And   were  We    informed   on 
 good  authority,  that  the  same,  or  equiva- 
 lent expressions   of  the   Athenian  orator, 
 were  understood  in  the  same  sense  by  two 
 different  bodies  of  the  Athenian  people,  at 
 different    times;    and    that  the   court  of 
 Areopagus  had  unanimously  agreed  to  act 
 in  conformity  to  the  same  interpretation  : 
 such  a  coincidence  would  raise  probability 
 into  certainty  ;  and  we  should  be  sceptical 
 indeed  not  to  submit  to  such  a  combination 
 of  authorities,  without  the  slightest  fear  of 
 heing  misled. 
 
 A   remarkable   coincidence,    similar   to 
 this,  in  the  interpretation  of  the  same  or 
 
 ^  2  equivalent 
 
(      124      ) 
 
 equivalent  plirases  by  different  bodies  of 
 people,  is  recorded  in  the  Evangelical  his- 
 tory. On  one  occasion,  when  our  Saviour 
 called  God  his  Father,  a  body  of  Jewish 
 people  sought  to  stone  him,  because  he 
 professed  to  be  the  son  of  God,  in  such  a 
 sense  as  to  make  himself  equal  with  God. 
 On  a  second  occasion,  another  body  of 
 Jewish  people  exclaim.ed  ;  "  We  stone  thee 
 for  blasphemy,  and,  because  thou,  being  a 
 man,  makest  thyself  God/'  And  it  appears 
 by  the  context,  that  this  was  because  he 
 had  called  him seU  the  son  of  God,  and  pro- 
 fessed to  be  one  with  his  Father.  After 
 this,  the  Sanhedrim  also,  the  Areopagus 
 of  Jerusalem,  unanimously  pronounced 
 him  guilty  of  the  capital  crime  of  blasphemy 
 for  teaching  his  divinity  in  professing  to 
 be  the  son  of  God, 
 
 Admitting  then  that,  when  Christ  calls 
 God  his  Father,  or  himself  the  son  of 
 God,  these  phrases  (which  are  equivalent) 
 appear  of  doubtful  signification  to  us :  had 
 only  one  body  of  his  countrymen  and  con- 
 temporaries shewn  the  sense,  in  which  they 
 understood  them  ;  our  doubts  would  be, 
 in  a  great  degree,  removed :  but,  when 
 different  people,  in  different  situations,  con- 
 cur 
 
(      125      ) 
 
 cur  in  proving  both  by  words  and  a61ions 
 their  decided  conviftion  of  the  real  existence 
 of  his  claims  to  divinity  ;  we  have  all  the 
 certainty  on  the  subject,  that  history  can 
 afford. 
 
 When  we  read  any  author,  our  purpose 
 is  to  know  the  state  and  train  of  his 
 thoughts,  when  he  wrote  or  spoke  the 
 words,  which  fall  under  our  consideration. 
 If  the  words,  by  reason  of  any  obscurity 
 or  ambiguity,  fail  of  leading  us  to  this 
 obje6l ;  the  best  medium  for  discovering 
 his  thoughts  is  the  sense  (when  it  can  be 
 clearly  ascertained)  in  which  he  was  un- 
 derstood by  his  hearers,  or  by  those,  to 
 whom  he  wrote,  of  his  own  age  and  country. 
 
 If  in  one  of  Cicero's  letters  to  Atticus 
 expressions  occur,  which  to  us  appear 
 ambiguous  ;  had  history  incidentally  re- 
 corded any  minute  circumstance  pointing 
 out  in  what  sense  they  were  understood 
 by  Atticus ;  we  should  have  little  doubt  of 
 what  the  writer  intended  by  them.  The 
 contemporaries  and  countrymen  of  any 
 writer,  who  speak  the  same  language,  and 
 are  conversant  about  the  same  objedls,  are 
 the  best  judges  of  the   train  and  state  of 
 
 his 
 
(      126      ) 
 
 his  thoughts:  and  his  words  when, 
 erroneously  or  imperfectly  understood  by 
 others,  would  to  tliem  mostly  appear  in 
 their  real  and  adequate  meaning. 
 
 A  Philosopher  of  the  present  age  has 
 considered  the  interpretation  of  contempo- 
 raries as  a  means  of  discovering^  with 
 certainty,  whether  the  divinity  or  sim- 
 ple humanity  of  Christ  be  taught  in 
 the  New  Testament*;  and  has  com.pleated 
 a  controversial  History,  and  an  historical 
 controversy  of  several  thousand  pages, 
 for  the  purpose  of  determining  in  what 
 sense  the  historical  and  epistolary  parts 
 of  the  New  Testament  were  under- 
 stood by  the  Christiafis  to  whom  they  were 
 addressed.     His  purpose  in  these  works  is 
 
 best 
 
 *  '*  But  this  historical  discussion^  when  the  nature  of 
 it  is  well  considered,  cannot  but  be  thought  to  decide 
 concerning  the  whole  controversy:  for,  if  it  be  true,  as  I 
 have  endeavoured  to  prove  by  copious  historical  evidence, 
 not  only  that  the  proper  Unitarians  were  in  communiort 
 with  the  establisl'.ed  Church,  aud  were  not  classed  with 
 Heretics  ;  but,  that  the  great  body  of  unlearned  Chris- 
 tians continued  to  be  simply  Unitarians  till  the  second  and 
 third  century,  it  will  hardly  be  doubted,  but  that  their 
 instru61^ors,  viz.  the  AjxDstlcs  and  first  disciples  of  Christ 
 were  Unitarians  also,  and  therefore  that  no  other  inter- 
 pretation  of  the  scriptures  than  that  of  the  Unitarians,  as 
 opposed  to  that  of  the  Trinitarians  or  Arians,  can  be  the 
 true  one."     Pref,  to  Letters  to  Dr.  Home. 
 
(      127      ) 
 
 best  stated  in  his  own  words,  "  The 
 proper  object  of  my  work  is  to  ascertain, 
 what  must  have  heen  the  sense  of  the  books 
 of  Scripture,  from  the  sense,  in  which  they 
 were  actually  understood  by  those,  for 
 whose  use  they  were  composed,  and  to 
 determine  what  must  have  been  the  senti- 
 ments of  the  Apostles  by  means  of  the 
 opinions  of  those,  who  received  their  in- 
 stru6tion  from  them  only*." 
 
 Could    the   interpretation   of  the   New 
 Testament  by  the  very  first  Christians  be 
 clearly  ascertained ;  its  importance  would 
 be  fully  admitted.     The  sense  in   which 
 they  understood  language,    most  of  which 
 was  addressed  first  to  the  Jews,  and  next 
 to  the  world   at  large,  would    be   highly 
 valuable,    not   because  they  were  Chris- 
 tians indeed,  but  because  they  were  con- 
 temporaries  of  Christ   and   his  Apostles  ; 
 and  more  particularly,    because  many  of 
 them    were  Jewish  contemporaries.     But, 
 this  interpretation  has  not  been  discovered 
 by  Dr.    Priestley :  and  the  legitimacy  of 
 every  part  of  the  prescriptive  argument,  by 
 which  he  has  attempted  to  ascertain  the 
 religious  opinions  of  the  first   Christians, 
 
 and 
 
 *  Letter  to  Parkhurst,  p.  2. 
 
(      128      ) 
 
 and  througli  them,  the  sense  in  wliich 
 the}^  understood  the  books  of  Scripture, 
 may  reasonably  be  called  in  question.  If 
 the  language  of  Scripture  be  not  clear  on 
 this  subje6t ;  he  has  fallen  into  a  common 
 fault  of  commentators  by  attempting  to 
 explain  what  is  obscure  by  a  greater  ob- 
 scurity. 
 
 When  a  reader  tries  to  discover  the 
 sense  of  an  ancient  book  by  means  of  cer- 
 tain mediums,  the  mediums  themselves 
 ought  to  be  clear;  or,  it  will  be  safer  to 
 apply  without  their  intervention  dire6lly 
 to  the  original.  A  very  ancient  Greek 
 translation  of  the  Old  Testament  is  extant 
 at  this  day  :  we  have  also  some  ancient 
 paraphrases  of  the  same  book  ;  very  an- 
 cient versions  of  the  New  Testament  in 
 different  lano-uarres  ;  and  Latin  translations 
 of  some  common  Greek  Autliors  have 
 likewise  reached  our  times  ;  but,  no  critic 
 would  think  of  explaining  passages  in  the 
 originals  by  means  o^  obscure  and  ambiguous 
 sentences  in  the  versions.  It  is  only  when 
 the  original  is  doubtful,  that  we  need  the 
 assistance  of  the  version  ;  and  it  is  only 
 >vhen  the  version  is  clear,  that  we  can 
 aVtiil  ourselves  of  its  assistance. 
 
 To 
 
(      129      ) 
 
 To  apply  a  similar  remark  to  the  subje6l 
 in  question :  several  passages  in  the  New 
 Testament  appear  to  a  vast  majority  of 
 Christians,  and  perhaps  to  all  its  other 
 readers  to  teach  the  divinity  of  Christ : 
 some  of  them  are  generally  thought  to  con- 
 tain this  doilrine  very  clearly.  But,  sup- 
 pose them  all  doubtful:  we  should  not 
 attempt  to  discover  their  meaning  by  the 
 sense,  in  which  they  were  understood  by 
 the  first  Christians;  unless  their  interpre- 
 tation of  them  were  clearly  and  decisively 
 made  out. 
 
 Dr.  Priestley  has  adopted  the  following 
 method  of  proving  the  interpretation  of  the 
 first  Gentile  Christians.  He  first  fully 
 admits,  that  the  rulers  of  the  Christian 
 church,  and  the  learned  in  general  in  the 
 second  and  third  centuries,  believed  in  the 
 divinity  of  Christ:  and,  guarding  against 
 the  conclusion,  which  results  from  the 
 usual  method  of  colle6ting  the  popular 
 opinions  of  any  age  from  the  general  spirit 
 of  the  writings  of  that  age ;  he  supposes, 
 and  endeavours  to  prove,  by  the  testimo- 
 nies of  Tertullian  and  Origen,  that  the 
 great  body  of  the  common  people  at  the  end 
 of  the  second   century  and   the  beginning 
 
 R  of 
 
(      J30     ) 
 
 of  the  third  were  Unitarians ;  that  they 
 maintained  opinions  dire6lly  opposite  to 
 those  of  the  learned  in  that  and  some  fol- 
 lowing ages  ;  that  the  teachers  were  of 
 one  opinion,  and  the  people  taught  of 
 another*. 
 
 On  this  hypothesis,  the  opinions  of 
 either  the  learned  or  the  unlearned  must 
 have  undergone  a  total  change  :  then,  rea- 
 soninp"  on  this  supposed  principle  of  human 
 nature,  that  the  common  people  are  less 
 liable  to  change  than  the  learned;  he  con- 
 cludes, that  Unitarianism  was  the  universal 
 religion  of  the  very  first  Christians  about 
 a  hundred  and  fifty  years  before  the  age 
 of  Tertullian ;  and  thence  next  infers,  that 
 no  other  do6lrine  can  be  taught  in  the  New 
 Testament  "f . 
 
 Without 
 
 *  "  The  distindlion  of  the  opinion  of  the  early  luriters from 
 that  of  the  common  people, -was  never  before  observed  by 
 any  one  ;  and  being  u  thing  wholly  unknown  to  the  first 
 Socinians,//;^3'  were  exceedingly  embarrassed  in  the  defence 
 of  their  sentiments,  in  point  of  antiquity."  Lindsey  Vin- 
 diciae  Priestleiana.\  p.  3^1.  Dr.  Priestley's  discovery  has 
 effeftually  relieved  them  from  the  embarrassments,  in 
 which  history  and  common  sense  had  involved  them. 
 
 t  "  Tertullian  represents  the  majority  of  the  common 
 or  unlearned  Christians,  the  Idiotac,  as  Unitarians ;  and 
 it  is  among  the  common  people  that  we  always  find  the 
 oldest  opinions  in  any  country,  and  in  any  se6l,  while  the 
 learned  are  most  apt  to  innovate.     It  may  therefore  be 
 
 presumed 
 
(     131  ) 
 
 Without  examining  the  several  steps, 
 which  lead  to  this  conclusion;  it  is  obvious, 
 that  the  interpretation  of  the  first  Chris- 
 tians established  only  by  such  circuitous 
 and  uncertain,  not  to  say  false,  reasoning, 
 can  never  be  admitted  as  a  medium  for 
 discovering  the  true  sense  of  passages  in 
 the  Scriptures,  or  any  other  book.  A 
 similar  attempt  to  ascertain  the  true 
 meaning  of  any  sentence  or  colle6lion  of 
 sentences  in  Homer  would  not  be  ansv/ered 
 by  serious  argument,  but  would  be  in- 
 stantly exploded  with  just  ridicule.  The 
 interpretation  of  contemporaries,  by  which 
 Dr.  Priestley  has  endeavoured  to  ascertain 
 the  sense  of  scripture,  is  of  very  consider- 
 able importance ;  but,  he  has  not  succeeded 
 in  discovering  it:  his  fundamental  principle 
 is  just ;  but  he  has  failed  in  its  application. 
 
 It  may  not  be  uninteresting  to  consider 
 whether  his  own  principle  may  not  be 
 successfully  employed  in  defence  of  the 
 opinions,  which  it  was  intended  to  over- 
 turn ;  and  whether  his  Theological  system 
 
 will, 
 
 presumed  that,  as  the  Unitarian  dodrine  was  held  by  the 
 common  people  in  the  time  of  Tertullian,  it  had  been 
 more  general  still  before  that  time,  and  probably  universal 
 in  the  Apostolic  age.".  Letters  to  Dr.  Horsley,  P^.  i. 
 p.  146. 
 
 R   3 
 
(      132      ) 
 
 will,  in  its  turn,  stand  the  test  of  his  own 
 Canons  of  Criticism. 
 
 III.    The  Jews    of  our  Saviour's    age 
 spoke  the  same  language  that  he  spoke : 
 he  had  read   tlieir   sacred   hooks,  he  had 
 submitted  to   their  laws  ;  their    manners 
 and  customs    were   familiar  to   him  :   the 
 objefts,  about   which  he  was  conversant, 
 natural,  moral,  religious  and  political  were 
 continually  presented  to  their  minds  also. 
 If  we,  by  deliberately  comparing  different 
 parts  of  the  New  and  Old  Testament  with 
 one  another,  are  sometimes  enabled  to  dis- 
 cover his  meaning,  when  they  comprehended 
 it  but  imperfeclly,  it  would  more  frequently 
 happen  that  his   countrymen  and  contem- 
 poraries  would  see   the  full  force   of  his 
 words,  when  they  are  not  so  fully  under- 
 stood by  us.     We  are  not  to  appeal  to  the 
 Jews  of  his  time  as  the  best  judges  of  the 
 truth  of  his  do6frines :   but,  we  may  con- 
 fidently appeal  to  them  as  competent  inter^ 
 preters   of  words    spoken    in    their    own 
 language,    addressed    to   them,    intended 
 first  for   their   information,  and   next,  for 
 that  of  the  whole  world  :   of  the  meaning 
 of  these  words  our  Saviour's  contempora- 
 ries 
 
(      133      ) 
 
 lies  and  countr3^men  were  unquestionably 
 the  best  judges :  and  his  contemporaries 
 and  countrymen  were  convinced,  that  he 
 claimed  divinity.  This  circumstance  is  not 
 notified  tons  in  general  terms  only,  nor  are 
 we  left  to  deduce  it  by  doubtful  inference 
 from  a  supposed  state  of  public  opinion  a 
 hundred  and  fifty  years  after  his  age  :  but, 
 his  words  on  different  occasions  are  dis- 
 tinctly related  by  four  historians  of  his  own 
 age,  who  were  themselves  Jews,  and  some 
 of  whom  were  eye-witnesses  of  the  events 
 which  they  have  recorded.  At  the  same 
 time  that  they  have  recorded  his  words, 
 they  have  sometimes  expressly  mentioned, 
 and  sometimes  strongly  marked,  by  the 
 relation  of  incidental  circumstances,  the 
 sense  in  which  they  were  understood  by 
 different  bodies  of  the  Jewish  people. 
 
 The  Evangelists  have  not  left  the  Jewish 
 interpretation  of  our  Saviour's  words  to 
 rest  solely  on  their  own  assertions  ;  though 
 these  would  have  been  decisive :  they  have 
 mentioned  also  at  the  same  time  the  words 
 and  a61ions  of  the  Jews,  from  which  we 
 may  draw^  the  same  conclusions,  for  our 
 own  satisfaction. 
 
 They 
 
(      134     ) 
 
 They  have  related,  that  the  high  priest 
 rent  his  clothes  and  declared,  that  Christ 
 had  spoken  blasphemy  ;  that  the  supreme 
 court  of  judicature  of  Jerusalem  unani- 
 mously pronounced  him  guilty  of  a  capital 
 crime;  that  one  body  of  the  Jews  attempted 
 to  stone  him  for  making  himself  equal 
 with  God  ;  and  that  another  body  of  Jews 
 also  took  up  stones  to  stone  him,  aliedging 
 as  a  reason  for  their  attempt,  that  he, 
 being  a  man,  made  himself  God  :  and,  the 
 words  of  our  Lord,  to  which  this  sense 
 had  been  annexed  by  the  Jews  on  all  these 
 occasions  were  contained  in  the  declaration, 
 that  God  was  his  Father,  or  in  the  equiva- 
 lent assertion,  that  he  was  the  son  of  God* 
 
 The  concurrence  of  several  bodies  of 
 Jews  in  annexing  the  same  sense  to  the 
 words  of  Christ,  independently  of  any 
 further  consideration,  falls  little  short  of 
 a6lual  demonstration.  But,  the  truth  of 
 their  interpretation  is  also  confirmed  by 
 the  silence  of  the  Evangelists  with  respe6l 
 to  any  perversion  or  mistake  of  the  Jews 
 on  this  subje6f.  Had  the  Jews  always 
 misunderstood  our  Saviour,  when  he  called 
 God  his  Father,  or  himself  the  son  of  God, 
 when  he   declared   himself  one  with  the 
 
 Father, 
 
(      ^^B     ) 
 
 Father,  or  when  he  assumed  the  power 
 of  forgiving  sins  ;  had  they  conceived  him 
 to  have  claimed  divinity,  while  he  only 
 professed  to  be  the  Messiah,  a  prophet, 
 a  man  favoured  of  heaven,  a  just  man,  or  a 
 mere  man  like  themselves ;  the  writers  of 
 the  New  Testament  must  have  frequently 
 and  strongly  animadverted  on  so  remark- 
 able a  mistake  :  and  their  silence  on  the 
 subje6l  is  a  proof  that  no  such  mistake 
 existed.  This  remark  will  have  the  more 
 weight,  when  it  is  recolle6led  that  the 
 Evangelists  have  adverted  to  less  important 
 occasions,  on  which  the  Jews  errone- 
 ously or  imperfe6lly  comprehended  their 
 master's  meaning. 
 
 It  is  not  by  their  silence  only  that  the 
 Evangelists  have  confirmed  the  truth  of 
 the  Jewish  interpretation  :  On  one  occasion 
 the  language  of  St.  John's  narrative  clearly 
 proves  that,  in  his  opinion,  their  interpre- 
 tation was  just.  He  describes  one  of  their 
 attempts  or  consultations  in  these  words  : 
 "  Therefore,  the  Jews  sought  the  more  to 
 kill  him,  not  only  because  he  had  broken 
 the  sabbath  ;  but,  said  also  that  God  was 
 his  proper  Father.      'ot<  »  f^ovov  eXi/e  to  a-a,^- 
 
 ^oiTov,    uXXoc    KC61    TtTOiTSpa    i^iov    sXsys    Toy    QsoV 
 
 making  himself  equal  with  God.'' 
 
 Had 
 
(     136     ) 
 
 Had  St.  John's  interpretation  of  the 
 words  of  Christ  been  different  from  that 
 of  the  Jews  ;  this  sentence  must  have  had 
 some  qualification  to  point  out  the  differ- 
 ence. He  would  not  have  affirmed  that 
 Jesus  actually  *' called  God  his  proper 
 Father,  making  himself  equal  with  God  \* 
 but,  that  the  Jews  mistakenly  believed  him 
 to  have  done  so :  whereas,  as  the  passage  now 
 stands,  it  contains  a  positive  declaration 
 from  St.  John  himself,  that  Christ  called 
 God  hisFather  in  such  a  sense,  as  to  make 
 himself  equal  with  God.  This  single  testi- 
 mony would  fully  prove  the  divinity  of  Christ 
 to  be  one  of  the  dodrines  of  our  religion. 
 
 Had  only  a  single  individual  among  the 
 Jews,  or  one  body  of  people,  shewn  the 
 sense  in  which  they  understood  the  lan- 
 guage of  Christ  relating  to  his  own  nature, 
 we  should  not  be  perfe6lly  free  from  sus- 
 picions of  a  mistake  :  but,  the  same  in- 
 terpretation of  his  words  is  to  be  observed 
 among  several  different  bodies  and  differ- 
 ent classes  of  men.  He  was  understood 
 in  the  same  sense  by  the  common  people, 
 the  scribes,  the  pharisees,  and  the  great 
 national  tribunal.  The  magistrate  and 
 the  subject,  the  learned  and  the  ignorant, 
 
 the 
 
(     ^S7     ) 
 
 the  inhabitant  of  the  city  and  the  country, 
 the  Jew  and  the  Roman  *,  unite  their 
 suffrages  in  deciding  this  question.  Their 
 interpretation  is  determined  by  the  conjoint 
 evidence  of  their  words  and  a6lions,  it  was 
 acquiesced  in  by  Christ  himself,  and  is 
 confirmed  by  the  manner,  in  which  it  is 
 recorded  by  the  Evangelists. 
 
 IV.  The  interpretation  of  our  Saviour's 
 words  by  one  body  of  the  Jewish  people  is 
 colle6led  from  the  conference  in  the  sixth 
 Chapter  of  St.  John.  In  the  opinion  of 
 some  Christians,  the  dodrine  of  transub- 
 stantiation,  as  well  as  that  of  Christ's 
 divinity,  may  be  proved  from  the  interpre- 
 tation of  the  Jews,  as  described  in  the 
 account  of  the  same  conference.  In  answer 
 to  this  we  may  observe, 
 
 1.  The  divinity  of  Christ  is  proved  to 
 be  a  do6lrine  of  the  New'  Testament,  not 
 by  the  interpretation  of  one  body  of  Jews, 
 
 but 
 
 *  It  has  frequently  and  justly  been  observed,  that  th( 
 interpretation  of  the  phrase,  "  son  of  God"  by  F*ilate  the 
 
 le 
 IS 
 Roman  governor  is  determined  by  his  question  ;  '*  Whence 
 art  thou  ?"  after  the  Jews  had  informed  him,  that  Jesus 
 had  "made  himself  the  son  of  God." 
 
(      138     ) 
 
 but  by  an  immense  mass  of  various  evi- 
 dence. 
 
 2.  When  he  declares  himself  "the  bread 
 of  life,"  "the  bread  which  came  down  from 
 heaven,"   "except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the 
 son  of  man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no 
 life  in  you."     "  My  flesh  is  meat  indeed, 
 and  my  blood   is   drink   indeed,"  Sec.   the 
 question  is  simply;  whetlier  this  and  simi- 
 lar  language    is   literal    or  metaphorical. 
 We,     who    know   that    Christ   afterwards 
 tausfht    the     do61rine    of  his    atonement, 
 supposing  this   language  figurative,    find 
 the  metaphors  harsh  indeed,  but  perfectly 
 intelligible.       This   is     one     of    the    few 
 instances,  where   we    have   an  advantage 
 over    his    hearers.       His    Jewish    hearers 
 would   mostly  have   a    thorough  compre- 
 hension of  his    meaning,    when   it  is   not 
 quite  so  fully  seen  by  us :   here,  for  want 
 of  a  key,  which  we  possess,  tliey  would  be 
 unable  to  understand  liim  :   the  doctrine  of 
 his  atonement  was  unknown  to  them  :   and 
 tlierefore  to  most  of  them  this  language 
 must  have  been  unintelligible. 
 
 But,  his  Jewish  hearers  understood  him 
 to  speak  literally :   and  this  was  the  cause 
 
 of 
 
{      139     ) 
 
 of  their  murmurs,  (ver.  14)  their  strife, 
 (ver.  52)  and  the  secession  of  many  of 
 his  disciples,  (ver.  60.) 
 
 If  this  be  really  so,  let  their  interpreta- 
 tion   have    all   the  weight,  v^^hich,  under 
 their  circumstances,  it  deserves.     Let  the 
 fa6t,    however,    be  first   examined.       He 
 informed   them,  that  he  was   "  the  bread 
 which   came  down  from   heaven  ;"     and 
 they  asked  in  murmurs,  "  how  is  it  that  he 
 saitii,  /came  down  from  heaven?"    They 
 were    not   offended    becaus.e    he   declared 
 himself  "the  bread,"  but  because  he  affirmed 
 that  he   came   from  heaven  :   that  is,   they 
 understood  that  part  of  his  language,  which 
 some   suppose  to  relate  to  the  do6lrine  of 
 transubstantiation,  figuratively;  that  part, 
 which  is  commonly  believed  to  refer  to  his 
 divine  origin,  literally.      After  this,  it  only 
 appears    that    his    metaphorical    languao-e 
 seemed  to  them  harsh  and    unintelligible* 
 *'  Many  of  his    disciples,  when  they   had 
 heard  this,  said,  this  is  a  hard  saying,  who 
 can  hear  it?    (ver.    60.)     How   can   this 
 man  give  us  his  flesh  to  eat  ?"  How  ^  i.  e. 
 In  what  sefise  can  he  give  us  his   flesh  to 
 eat?   In  what  metaphor  is  he  speaking? 
 Their  decisive  interpretation  can  never  be 
 
 s  %  colle6ted 
 
(     140     ) 
 
 collected  from  a  question  which  seems 
 only  to  express  their  doubts  :  it  cannot  be 
 concluded,  that  they  understood  him  lite^ 
 rally,  from  language,  which  only  proves 
 that  he  was  not  understood  at  all. 
 
 :^< 
 
 CHAP. 
 
(    m    ) 
 
 CHAP.     VII. 
 
 THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA- 
 MENT BY  THE  FIRST  JEWISH  CHRISTIANS, 
 COLLECTED  FROM  THEIR  RELIGIOUS 
 OPINIONS. 
 
 I.  The  opinions  of  the  first  Jewish  Christians  might  be 
 inferred  from  those  of  the  unbeheving  Jews.  Their 
 opinions  may  be  determined  by  historical  Testimony. 
 2.  Dr.  Horsley's  statement  of  the  testimony  in  tlie 
 Epistle  of  Barnabas.  "  The  Author  a  Christian  of  the 
 Hebrews  —  a  believer  in  our  Lord's  Divinity — writes 
 to  Christians  of  the  Hebrews  concurring  in  the  same 
 belief." 
 
 I.  X  H  E  unbelieving  Jews  were  fully 
 convinced,  that  Jesus  claimed  divinity  ; 
 on  this  account,  they  at  different  times 
 attempted  to  put  him  to  death,  and  at 
 length  carried  their  bloody  purpose  into 
 execution.  It  is  therefore  perfe6lly  in 
 character,  that  the  urbelieving  Jew  in 
 Celsus  is  continually  accusing  Christ  for 
 declaring  himself  God  :  and  Origen,  con- 
 stantly on  the  watch  for  errors  of  any  sort 
 in  the  work  of  his  antagonist,  has  given 
 no  intimation  of  the   impropriety  of  this 
 
 language. 
 
(      142      ) 
 
 language.      All    descriptions   of  the  Jews 
 believed  Christ  to  have  asserted  his  divine 
 nature.       And,    since  there   could  be  no 
 medium  between  rejecling  him  as  an  im- 
 postor, and    admitting    all  his    claims ;   it 
 seems  a   necessary  consequence,  that  the 
 great  body  of  Jewish  converts  to  Christi- 
 anity, in  the  first  age  of  the  church,  would 
 believe  in  his  divinity.   We  need  not,  how- 
 ever, in  this    instance,  form  our  opinions 
 by  deduclions  either  from  a  preceding  or 
 a  subsequent  fa 61.    We  are  not  necessitated 
 to  conclude,  from  the  opinions  of  the  un- 
 believing  Jews   respe61ing  the   claims  of 
 Christ,  what  were  the  religious  opinions  of 
 the  first  Jewish  Christians;  nor  must  we, 
 with  Dr.  Priestley,  colle^l  the  tenets  of  the 
 great  body  of  Jewish  Christians  of  the  first 
 century,   from    those  of   a  small  part    of 
 them  under  the  name  of  Ebionites  at  the  end 
 of  the  second  ;  because   in  points  of  mere 
 history,  when   positive  testimony  is  to  be 
 had,  it  would  be  idle  to  be  satisfied  with 
 doubtful  or  even  probable  reasoning. 
 
 In  considering  this  like  any  other  histo- 
 rical question,  the  first  remarkable  circum- 
 stance is  the  total  want  of  testimony  on 
 one  side.    No  ancient  writer  has  recorded, 
 
 thtit 
 
(      H3      ) 
 
 that  the  great  body  of  Jewish  Christians  in 
 the  first  century  disbelieved  the  divinity  of 
 Christ.  But,  the  testimon}^  on  the  other 
 side  will  deserve  great  attention. 
 
 II.  It  has  long  been  decided  by  the 
 almost  unanimous  suffrages  of  the  learned, 
 that  the  Author  of  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas 
 wrote  in  the  first  century.  His  design 
 seems  to  have  been  the  same  with  that  of  St. 
 Paul;  to  convince  the  Jewish,  and  probably 
 Gentile  Christians  also,  to  whom  he  ad- 
 dressed himself,  of  the  inutility  of  the 
 ceremonial  law.  This  he  endeavoured  to 
 prove  by  pointing  out  to  them  in  what  the 
 true  spiritual  law  of  Moses  consists  ;  shew- 
 ing that  different  parts  of  the  Christian 
 system  contain  the  substance  of  which  the 
 Mosaic  ceremonies  are  only  types. 
 
 Whether  his  Epistle  was  intended  for 
 the  use  of  some  one  church,  or  more  than 
 one,  as  the  title  (Catholic)  prefixed  to  it 
 by  Origen  intimates ;  whether  it  was 
 addressed  to  Gentiles  only,  or  to  a  miscel- 
 laneous body  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  such  as 
 constituted  most  of  the  primitive  churches, 
 or,   to  an    unmixed    assembly   of  Jewish 
 
 Christians ; 
 
(      144     ) 
 
 Christians;  it  appears  with  as  much  pro- 
 bability as  is  often  attainable  in  matters  of 
 ancient  History,  that  they  were  believers 
 in  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
 
 The  ancient  Latin  Version,  which  is 
 mutilated,  seems  to  have  been  taken  from 
 a  purer  text  *  than  that  of  the  Greek  copy 
 
 now 
 
 *  "To  say  nothing  of  the  doubts  entertained  by  many 
 learned  men  concerning  the  genuineness  of  tliis  Epistle, 
 the  most  that  is  possible  to  be  admitted  is,  that  it  is  genuine 
 in  the  main.  For,  whether  you  may  have  observed  it  or 
 not,  it  is  most  evidently  interpolated,  and  the  interpola- 
 tions respe6t  the  very  subjcc:!:  of  which  we  treat.  Two 
 passages  in  the  Greek,  which  assert  the  preexistence  of 
 Christ,  are  omitted  in  the  ancient  Latin  version  of  it. 
 And  can  it  be  supposed  that  that  version  was  made  in  an 
 age  in  which  such  an  omission  was  likely  to  be  made  ? 
 Both  the  interpolations  are  in  sect.  6.  where  we  now 
 
 lead    thus  ;      ?.iyu    yu^    ri     yu^f-n     'EJ-£ji     r,y.u.-j,      u<;    hiyn    tcj    viu.-^ 
 
 the  Scripture  says  concerning  lis;  as  he  says  to  the  son. 
 Let  US  make  man  according  to  our  image  and  our  likeness." 
 But,  the  ancient  Latin  version  corresponding  to  this  pas- 
 sage is  simply  this,  Sicut  dicit  Scriptura,  faciamus  homi- 
 nem,  &c.  i  e,  "  As  says  the  scripture.  Let  us  make  man." 
 
 Again,  in  the  same  seftion,  after  quoting  from  Moses, 
 *  Increase  and  multiply,  and  replenish  the  earth,'  the  Greek 
 copy  has  tchtu.  isrfi,(;  Tov  v^ov.  Thcsc  things  to  ike  Son  ;  but 
 in  the  old  Latin  version  the  clause  is  wholly  omitted  ; 
 and  certainly  there  is  no  want  of  it,  or  of  the  similar 
 clause  in  the  former  passage,  with  respe£l  to  the  general 
 obje6l  of  the  writer.  These,  Sir,  appear  to  me  pretty 
 evident  marks  of  interpolation. 
 
 The  passage  on  which  you  lay  the  chief  stress,  is  only 
 in  the  Latin  version;  that  part  of  the  Greek  copy,  to  which 
 it  corresponds,  being  now  lost;  and  all  the  other  expfes- 
 
 ;>ions 
 
(      145     ) 
 
 now  extant,  which  is  also  much  mutilated. 
 The  Author's  belief  of  the  divinity  of  Christ 
 is  clearly  colle6led  from  passages  found  in 
 both  :  and  his  opinion  on  that  subje6l  is 
 identified  with  that  of  the  Christians  to 
 whom  his  letter  is  addressed.  1  shall  state 
 the  evidence,  from  which  this  inference 
 may  be  drawn,  in  the  words  of  Dr.  Hors- 
 ley,  without,  however,  being  convinced, 
 that  the  great  body  of  people,  to  whom  the 
 Epistle  was  addressed,  consisted  of  Jezvish 
 Christians. 
 
 *' I  suppose,  however,  that3^ou  will  allow, 
 what  all  allow,  that  the  book  is  a  produc- 
 tion of  the  apostolic  age :  in  the  fifth 
 section  of  your  history  of  the  do6lrine  of 
 atonement,  you  quote  it  among  the  writ- 
 ings of  the  apostolic  fathers.  I  think  it 
 fair  to  remind  you  of  this  circumstance, 
 lest  you  should  hastily  advance  a  contrary 
 opinion,  when  you  find   the  testimony  of 
 
 this 
 
 sions  that  you  note  are  such  as  an  Unitarian  will  find  no 
 difficulty  in  accommodating  to  his  principles.  On  these 
 accounts,  your  evidence  irom  this  Epistle  of  Barnabas 
 will  by  no  means  bear  the  stress  that  you  lay  upon  it." 
 Letters  to  the  Archdeacon  of  St.  Albans,  P^  2.  p.  7. 
 
 The  reason  assigned  by  Dr.  Priestley  for  supposing  the 
 Latin  version  interpolated  will  never  be  admitted  by  the 
 critifs.  *' Can  it  be  thought  at  all  improbable,"  he  asks, 
 *'  that  if  one  person  interpolated  the  Greek,  another  should 
 make  as  frpe  with  the  Latin  version  ?" 
 
(      H-6     ) 
 
 this    \vriter    turned    against    you.        You 
 allow  him  a  place  then  among  the  fathers 
 of  tlie   apostolic   age :   and    will  3^ou   not 
 allow  that  he  was  a  believer  in  our  Lord's 
 divinity  ?   I  will  not  take  upon  me,  Sir,  to 
 answer  this  question  for  you  ;  but  I  will 
 take  upon  me  to  say,  that  whoever  denies 
 it,  must  deny  it  to  his  own  shame.      *'  The 
 '*  Lord,  says  Barnabas,  submitted  to  suf- 
 "  fer  for  our   soul,    although  he   be   the 
 *'  Lord  of  the  whole  earth,  unto  whom 
 "  he    said,  the   day  before  the  world  was 
 "  finished,  Let    us   make   man    after   our 
 "  image  and  our  likeness  *."     Again,  "  — 
 *'  for  if  he  had  not  come  in  the  flesh,  how 
 "  could  we   mortals  seeing  him  have  been 
 *'  preserved  ;   when   they  who  behold  the 
 *'  sun,   which  is  to  perish  and  is   the  work 
 "  of  his  hands,  are  unable  to  look  direclly 
 "  against  itsrays-f."  Compare  Deut.  xviii. 
 16.    Exod.  xxxiii.  20.    Judges  vi.  23.  and 
 
 xiii.  22.      Again  '' if  then  the  Son 
 
 *'  of  God,  being  Lord,  and  being  to  judge 
 "  the  quick  and  dead,  suffered  to  the  end 
 
 "  that 
 
 *  Dominus  sustinuit  pati  pro  anima  nostra,  cum  sit  orbis 
 terraruni  dominus,  cui  dixit  die  ante  constitutionem  sacculi 
 *'  Faciamus  hominem  ad  imasinem  el  similitudinem  no- 
 stram."     §  v. 
 
it 
 a 
 
 (         147         ) 
 
 1*  that  his  wound  might  make  us  alive; 
 "  let  us  believe  that  the  Son  of  God  had 
 no  power  to  suffer  had  it  not  been  for 
 us  *■/'  And  again,  "  Mean  while  thou 
 "  hast  f  the  whole  do6Lrine]  concernino- 
 *'  the  majesty  of  Christ;  how  all  thinp-s 
 "  were  made  for  him  and  through  him ; 
 "  to  whom  be  honour,  power,  and  glory, 
 "now  and  for  ever*/'  He  who  penned 
 these  sentences  was  surely  a  devout  be- 
 liever in  our  Lord's  divinity.  It  is  need^ 
 less  to  observe,  that  he  was  a  Christian  ; 
 and  almost  as  needless  to  observe  that 
 he  had  been  a  Jew.  For  in  that  age  none 
 but  a  person  bred  in  Judaism  could  possess 
 that  minute  knowledge  of  the  Jev/ish  rites, 
 which  is  displayed  in  this  book.  In  the 
 writer  therefore  of  the  epistle  of  St.  Bar- 
 nabas, we  have  one  instance  of  a  Hebrew 
 Christian  of  the  apostolic  age,  who  believed 
 in  our  Lord's  divinity. 
 
 "  But  this  is  not  all.      They  must  have 
 been  originally  Jews  to  whom  this  epistle 
 
 was 
 
 iri  0  njo?  T»  Ssa  ay.  l^vvuro  'VTccQeiv,  U  p.»)  ha  r,u»i;.       S  vii. 
 
 _  t  Habes  interim  de  majestate  Christi,  quo  modo  omnia 
 in  ilium  et  per  ilium  faaa  sunt :  cui  sit  honor,  virtus 
 gloria  nunc  et  in  ssocula  soeculorum.     §  xvii. 
 
 T    2 
 
t   148  ) 
 
 "nas  addressed.  The  discourse  supposes 
 them  veil  acquainted  with  the  Je^^^sh 
 rites,  which  are  the  chief  subjefl  of  it : 
 and  indeed  to  any  not  bred  in  Judaism  the 
 book  had  been  uninteresting  and  unintelli- 
 gible. They  were  Hebrew  Christians 
 therefore,  to  whom  a  brother  of  the  cir- 
 cumcision holds  up  the  do6h"ine  of  our 
 Lord's  divinity.  He  upholds  it,  not  barely 
 as  his  own  persuasion,  but  as  an  article  of 
 their  common  faith.  He  brings  no  argu- 
 ments to  prove  it  —  he  employs  no  rhetoric 
 to  recommend  it.  He  mentions  it  as 
 occasion  occurs,  without  shewing  any 
 anxiety  to  inculcate  it,  or  an}' apprehension, 
 that  it  would  be  denied  or  doubted.  He 
 mentions  it  in  that  unhesitating  language, 
 which  implies  that  the  public  opinion 
 stood  with  his  own.  So  that  in  this  wTiter 
 we  have  not  onlv  an  instance  of  an  Hebrew 
 Christian,  of  the  apostolic  age,  holding 
 the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  divinity;  but 
 in  the  book  we  have  the  clearest  evidence, 
 that  this  was  the  common  faith  of  the 
 Hebrew  Christians  of  that  age,  or  in 
 other  words,  of  the  primitive  church  of 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 *( 
 
 This 
 
(      U9     ) 
 
 **  This,  Sir,  is  the  proof,  which  1  had  to 
 produce  of  the  consent  of  that  church  with 
 the  later  Gentile  churches  in  this  great 
 article.  It  is  so  dire6l  and  full,  though  it 
 lies  in  a  narrow  compass,  that  if  this  be 
 laid  in  one  scale,  and  your  whole  mass 
 of  evidence  drawn,  from  incidental  and 
 ambisfuous  allusions  in  the  other, 
 
 "  The  latter  will  fly  up,  and  kick  the 
 beam  *." 
 
 *  Letters  in  reply  to  Priestley,  p.  66 — 68, 
 
 «M* 
 
 CHAP. 
 
(   150  ) 
 
 CHAP.  VIII. 
 
 XHE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  NEWT  TESTA- 
 
 'V  - 
 
 MENT  BY  THE  FIRST  JEWISH   CHRISTIANS 
 |.     COLLECTED       FROM       THEIR       RELIGIOUS 
 OPINIONS. 
 
 #■ 
 
 i.— 2.  Misstatements  of  the  fcstimonics  of  Justin  Martyr 
 and  Irenaeus  on  the  subje61:  of  the  Jewish  Christians 
 correfted. 
 
 I.  1h 
 
 E  testimony  of  Justin  Martyr,  a 
 native  of  Samaria,  who  was  converted  to 
 Christianity,  a.  d.  133,  would  be  valuable; 
 had  he  left  any  regular  account  of  the 
 religious  opinions  of  the  Jewish  Christians 
 even  of  his  own  time.  And  liad  he  any 
 where  declared  what  were  the  tenets  of 
 the  great  body  of  this  people  in  the  first 
 Century,  his  testimony  would  be  conclu- 
 sive. But,  he  has  neither  described  the 
 tenets  of  the  great  body  of  Jewish  Chris- 
 tians of  his  own  time,  nor  mentioned  those 
 of  the  first  Century  :  and  it  is  not  without 
 the  utmost  surprize  that  we  find  his  name 
 
 and 
 
(      151      ) 
 
 and  that  of  Ireneeus*  brouo-ht  forward  to 
 coLiiiteiiance  a  most  unwarranted  assertion 
 on  this  subjefl. 
 
 "  Originally  \he.  Jewish  Christians  did  not 
 believe  the  doilriue  of  the  miraculous  con- 
 ception. Both  Justin  Martyr  and  Irenseus 
 represent  them  as  disbelieving  it,  without 
 excepting  any  that  did-j^/'  The  use  of  this 
 language,  without  any  citation  or  reference, 
 is  extremely  obje6lionable,  because  it  might 
 create  a  belief  in  common  readers  that  Jus  tin 
 and  Irenseus  had  described  the  tenets  of  the 
 original  Jewish  Christians.  Irenaeus,  how- 
 ever, has  written  nothing  on  the  subje6l.  In 
 his  account  of  the  heresies,  which  preceded 
 thatofValentinus,he  mentions  the  Ebionites, 
 who  disbelieved  the  miraculous  conception 
 and  divnity  of  Christ,  and  has  stigmatized 
 them  as  heretics  :  but,  when  they  arose, 
 and  whether  they  formed  a  large  or  a  small 
 •portion  of  the  Jewish  Christians,  on  these 
 topics  he  is  totally  silent. 
 
 The 
 
 The  assertion  relating  to  the  testimony  of  Irenseus  is 
 repeated  in  the  fourth  \'olume  of  the  History  of  early 
 Opinions.  "^//  the  Jewish  Christians  are  by  Irenseus 
 called  Ebionites,  and  he  always  describes  them  as  believ- 
 ing Jesus  to  have  been  the  son  of  Joseph,"  p.  318,  It  IS 
 curious  that  this  should  have  been  affirmed  of  Jiena-uc, 
 when  he  has  treated  on  the  Jewish  Cerinthians  in  the  very 
 same  chapter  with  the  Ebionites. 
 
 t  History  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  3.  p,  202. 
 
(      152      ) 
 
 The  whole  testimony  of  Justhi  relating 
 to  this  subject  may  soon  be  collected. 
 In  one  part  of  his  Dialogue  he  observes  % 
 "  There  are  some  of  our  race  who  acknow- 
 ledsfe  him  to  be  Christ:  vet  maintain  that 
 he  was  a  man  born  of  human  parents,  with 
 whom  I  do  not  agree,  nor  should  I,  if  very 
 many,  who  entertain  the  same  opinions 
 with  myself,  were  to  declare"  for  this  doc- 
 trine "f.  The  xj^sreosv  ysvc;  of  Justin  is  sup- 
 posed by  some  to  mean  Jetvs  and  Samari- 
 tans T:  bv  Dr.  Priestley  and  his  Vindicator 
 
 "T*  fc  *^ 
 
 it  is  considered  as  referring  to  Gentile  con- 
 verts :  (on  which  supposition,  the  testimony 
 has  no  connection  with  the  present  subject 
 of  inquiry)  and  it  may,  consistently  witli 
 the  language  of  Justin,  stand  for  Christians 
 in  general.      In  another  place,  speaking  of 
 
 Christians 
 
 *  Kat   7«$  ««■»  T»»t?  acaro  ra  r,u.iTi^ii  7£»«j  ofu>XoyarTti;  avrnt  X^rot 
 «>ai,  a:9^i-'B-o>    y    fl    uii^to'tauf   yiioy-ivat'    oi,-    »    <rv»T»6£^Aai,    a^'   av 
 
 x£X£>.£ti(Ta£6a  V7r    ecvra  X^ira  •BTEjGfo-Gai,    ct>,Xx  tck;   oia  rut  //.stKa^iur 
 <c^o<fx7u»  KYi^vx^eta-i,  xai  Si  xvth  cJa;>j;&£»r».      Dialog,  p.  235. 
 
 +  'Ok  «  5-t'>Ti6£/xa»,  a^',    at   «rX£»ro»,  ratra  fto*    co|aKrarT£f,  £tn-a>£» 
 soil.  UV70*  X^iro  £»>a»,  a»9^-i'3ro»  0  '  t|  a»9;4.W4;»  7=»oft£»o». 
 
 I  have  read  rdvTu,  with  the  Paris  Edition,  instead  of 
 TavT«.     The  phrase  Ta^ra  |L<,o»  ao^xc-xmc  may  perhaps  be 
 
 explained  by  Ov  to.  «vt«  «»  V^c  aXXoi?  lo^a.^r.j.n^  a.X>.  oi  -sraiTi,-  ra 
 
 r;/x£T£5*/x./xot7/^»:.X£y«-k.  Apol.  p.  88.  Ed.  Thirlby. 
 
 +  Bingham,  Vindication  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Church 
 of  England,  p.  23. 
 
(      ^53      ) 
 
 Christians  at  large,  he  observes,  la-^oi'/iXinxov 
 
 yoca  TO  cx,X'/i9ivou  'srvsuuxTiX.ov — ysvog  yjy^si; — str^tei/  *, 
 
 111  this  case  also,  nothing  could  be  con- 
 cluded respe6ling  the  tenets  of  all  or  any 
 part  of  the  Jewish  Christians  in  particular. 
 
 Whichever  supposition  we  take,  whether 
 he  be  speaking  of  Samaritan  and  Jewish, 
 or  Gentile  Christians,  or  Christians  in 
 general,  we  are  compelled  to  conclude 
 from  this  sentence,  and  other  parts  of 
 Justin -f,  in  opposition  to  the  interpretation 
 of  Dr.  Priestley  j  and  his  Vindicator,  that 
 so?ne  of  them  were  Unitarians,  but  that  the 
 great  body  were  of  another  opinion.  He  is 
 speaking  also,  it  must  be  observed,  of  per- 
 sons of  his  own  time,  a .  d.  1 40,  not  of  the  0/7- 
 gi?ial  Christians  whether  Gentiles  or  Jews. 
 He  is  so  far  from  representing  *'  the  Jewish 
 Christians  as  originally  not  believing  the 
 doctrine  of  the  miraculous  conception,  with- 
 out excepting  any  that  did  ;"  that  he  never 
 mentions  the  faith  of  the  original  Jewish 
 
 Christians 
 
 *  P.  159.  Ed.  Thirlby. 
 _  t  For  Justin's  testimony  to  the  faith  of  Christians  in  his 
 time,  see  the  last  Chap,  of  this  Vol. 
 
 X  "  By  my  Vindicator  rendered  more  literally".  '  There 
 are  some  of  our  race,  viz.  Gentiles,  who  acknowledge  him 
 to  be  the  Christ,  and  yet  maintain  tiiat  he  was  a  man  born 
 in  the  natural  way,  to  whom  I  do  not  assent,  tliough  the 
 majority  viay  have  told  me  that  they  liad  been  of  the 
 same  opinion."     Letters  to  Dr.  Horslcy,  P^.  j.  p.  127. 
 
(      154     ) 
 
 Christians  at  all  :  and  he  has  no  where 
 intimated  that  all,  or  any  considerable  part 
 of  those  of  his  own  time  disbelieved  the 
 divinity  of  Christ. 
 
 II.  Another  misrepresentation  on  this 
 subje6l  must  not  be  unnoticed.  Justin 
 has  been  made  to  give  evidence  relating 
 to  a  matter  on  which  he  has  said  nothing 
 whatever.  His  evidence  is  brought  to 
 prove  that  all  Christians  of  Jewish  extrac- 
 tion were  both  Unitarians,  and  observed 
 the  Mosaic  ritual. 
 
 "  Justin  Martyr  makes  no  mention  of 
 Ebionites,  but  he  speaks  of  the  Jewish 
 Christians,  which  has  been  proved  to  be  a 
 synonymous  expression  ;  and  it  is  plain 
 that  he  did  not  consider  all  of  them  as 
 heretics,  but  only  those  of  them,  who  re- 
 fused to  communicate  with  Gentile  Chris- 
 tians. With  respect  to  the  rest,  he  says, 
 that  he  should  have  no  obje6lion  to  hold 
 in  communion  with  them.  (Dial.  p.  231.) 
 He  describes  them  as  persons  who  observ- 
 ed the  law  of  Moses,  but  did  not  impose 
 it  upon  others.  Who  could  these  be  but 
 Jewish   Unitarians  ?   For  according  to  the 
 
 evidence 
 
(      -^55     ) 
 
 evidence  of  all  antiquity,  and  what  is  sup-^ 
 posed  by  Justin  himself,  all  the  Jewish 
 Christians  were  such.  It  is  probable, 
 therefore,  that  the  Nazarenes  or  Ebionites, 
 Were  considered  as  in  a  state  of  excommu- 
 nication, merely  because  they  would  have 
 imposed  the  law  of  Moses  upon  the  Gen- 
 tiles, and  refused  to  hold  communion 
 with  any,  besides  those,  who  were  circum- 
 cised ;  so  that  in  fa 61,  they  excommunicated 
 themselves  *." 
 
 in  answer  to  this,  it  is  sufficient  to 
 give  a  brief  account  of  that  part  of  the 
 Dialogue  from  which  these  inferences  have 
 been  drawn. 
 
 Trypho  asks  Justin -f  whether,  if  a  Jew 
 were  to  be  so  far  converted  to  Christianit}^, 
 as  to  admit  Jesus  to  be  the  Christ  of  God, 
 but  to  retain  the  Mosaic  ritual,  he  mia:ht 
 hope  for  salvation.  Justin  gives  his  opi- 
 nion, that,  if  a  Christian  of  such  a  descrip- 
 tion were  neither  to  attempt  the  imposition 
 of  the  same  burden  on  others,  nor  avoid 
 the  communion  of  other  Christians,  he 
 might   be   saved.       Others,    however,   he 
 
 observes. 
 
 * 
 
 History  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  3.  p.  201. 
 t  P-  23c,  and  seq. 
 
 U   3 
 
(      156     ) 
 
 observes,  were  not  so  charitable:  and, 
 with  respe6l  to  the  historical  fa6ts,  whether 
 all  or  a  great  part  of  the  Christians  of 
 Jewish  extraction  either  retained  the  obser- 
 vance of  the  Mosaic  law,  or  were  Unitarians, 
 he  has  made  no  declaration  or  intimation  of 
 any  sort. 
 
 Though  Justin's  evidence  is  wanting, 
 it  is,  notwithstanding,  highly  probable 
 that  the  Christians  of  Samaria  and  Judaea, 
 who  had  fallen  under  his  observation, 
 before  his  conversion  to  Christianity  and 
 journey  to  Rome,  were,  for  the  most 
 part,  followers  of  the  law  of  Moses. 
 They  would  be  the  obje6ls  of  his  notice  a 
 few  years  before  the  destrucSlion  of  Jerusa- 
 lem and  the  dispersion  of  the  Jews  under 
 Adrian,  and  till  that  lime  we  know,  on 
 other  authority  *,  that  the  church  of  Jeru- 
 salem joined  the  observance  of  the  law  of 
 Moses  with  the  religion  of  Christ. 
 
 The  general  opinion  respe61ing  the 
 debasement  of  the  Christian  religion  by 
 an  intermixture  with  Judaism  will  explain 
 the  passage  in  Justin's  first  Apology  ;  in 
 which   he  mentions  that  he   had  noticed 
 
 more 
 
 *  Euscbius  and  Sulpicius  Severus; 
 
(      157     ) 
 
 more  and  truer  Christians  from  among  the 
 Gentiles  than  from  among  the  Jews  and 
 Samaritans. 
 
 UXsiovag  rs  xxt  ccXTiQeg-s^ng  rag  s^  sQvuv  run  utto 
 
 Here  closes  the  testimony  of  Justin.  A 
 reader  of  this  Father  must  be  surprized  at 
 finding  it  affirmed  by  a  modern  writer,  that 
 all  or  the  greater  part  of  the  Jewish  Chris- 
 tians either  of  his  own  age,  or  before  it,  are 
 either  declared  or  "supposed"  by  him  to  be 
 Unitarians. 
 
 *P.  78. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
(      ^58     ) 
 
 CHAP.     IX. 
 
 THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA- 
 MENT BY  THE  FIRST  JEWISH  CHRISTIANS 
 COLLECTED  FROM  THEIR  RELIGIOUS 
 OPINIONS. 
 
 i.  Importance  of  determining  the  opinions  of  the  primitive 
 church  of  Jerusalem.  The  opinions  of  this  church 
 identified  with  those  of  Hegesippus.  Hegesippus  sup- 
 posed by  Dr.  Priestley  to  have  been  an  Ebionitish 
 Unitarian.  2.  This  opinion  refuted  by  Lardner. 
 3.  Reasons  assigned  for  supposing  Hegesippus  an  Uni- 
 tarian. 4.  Examination  of  these  reasons.  5.  Whether 
 Eusebius  would  speak  favourably  of  an  Ebionite, 
 Positive  testimony  of  Eusebius  to  the  religious  opinions 
 of  Hegesippus.  Hegesippus  proved  by  this  testimony 
 to  have  been  a  believer  in  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
 6.  Testimony  of  Hegesippus  to  the  purity  of  the' 
 faith  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem, 
 
 I.  JL  N  examining  the  opinions  of  the 
 first  Hebrew  Christians,  our  inquiries  are 
 naturally  dire6ted  to  the  church  of  Jeru- 
 salem ;  because  it  was  founded  before  any 
 other;  and  because  it  was  the  only  church 
 which  entirely  or  principally  consisted,  for 
 any  length  of  time,  of  Jews  only.  All 
 the  others   were   soon   composed,  for  the 
 
 most 
 
{      ^59     ) 
 
 most  part,  of  Gentiles:  and  in  them,  after 
 the  first  struggle  about  the  obligation  of 
 the  law  of  Moses  had  ceased,  all  distin5lion 
 seems  to  have  been  at  an  end.  The  Jew 
 seems  to  have  been  soon  lost  in  them  bv 
 a  compleat  assimilation  of  himself  to  the 
 Gentilism  of  Christianity  ;  or  rejected 
 from  them  by  excommunication. 
 
 The  great  attachment  of  the  Christians 
 of  Jerusalem  to  the  law  of  Moses  is  first 
 mentioned  in  the  New  Testament*;  and, 
 from  the  testimony  of  two  ecclesiastical 
 Historians,  it  is  known  to  have  continued 
 till  the  dissolution  of  their  church  under 
 Adrian.  On  the  respedlable  authority, 
 by  which  we  know  that  these  Chris- 
 tians remained  a  full  century  in  the  pro- 
 fession of  Judaism,  we  are  informed  also 
 that  they  were  believers  in  the  divinity 
 of  Christ. 
 
 Eusebius  and  Sulpicius  Severus  are  the 
 only  writers  of  antiquity,  in  whose  works 
 the  religious  tenets  of  the  primitive  church 
 of  Jerusalem  are  expressly  mentioned. 
 The  former  has  happily  preserved  a  few 
 fragments  of  Hegesippus  the  first  Chris- 
 tian 
 
 *  Ads  xxi.  20. 
 
{     i6o     ) 
 
 tian  historian  after  the  writers  of  the  New 
 Testament,  in  which,  while  relating  some 
 particulars  of  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem, 
 he  takes  occasion  to  mention,  that  the 
 church  continued  unpolluted  with  heresy- 
 till  the  death  of  James  the  Just,  at  the 
 end  of  the  first,  or  the  be2;inning  of  the 
 second  century.  The  opinions,  therefore, 
 of  the  first  Hebrew  Christians  are  iden- 
 tified *  with  those  of  Hegesippus ;  what 
 he  conceived  to  be  the  purity  of  the  Chris- 
 tian faitli  was,  by  his  testimony,  the  faith 
 of  his  Jewish  brethren.  On  this  account, 
 to  ascertain  with  certainty  the  religious 
 opinions  of  this  ancient  historian  is  a  mat- 
 ter of  considerable  importance. 
 
 The  Ebionitism  of  this  writer,  and 
 consequently  his  testimony  to  the  pure 
 Unitarianism  of  the  ancient  Christians  of 
 Jerusalem,  is  a  notion  of  a  very  late  date. 
 The  reasons  lately  assigned  for  this  sup- 
 position 
 
 *  The  opinions  of  other  Churches  are  also  identified 
 with  those  of  Hegesippus,  tind  hence  he  lias  been  biouglit 
 forward  by  Dr.  Priestley  as  a  voucher  for  the  prevalence 
 of  Unitarianism  in  those  churches.  '*  He  moreover  says, 
 that  in  travellin";  to  Rome,  where  he  arrived  in  the  time 
 of  Anicctus,  he  found  all  the  churches  that  he  visited  held 
 the  faith,  w  hich  had  been  taught  by  Christ  and  the  Apos- 
 tles, which,  /;/  his  opinion,  was  probably  that  of  Christ 
 being  not  God,  but  man  only.''  History  of  early  Opi- 
 nions, Vol.  4.  p.  308, 
 
(      i6i    ) 
 
 position  would  be  too  trifling  to  require 
 the  slightest  notice ;  were  they  to  rest  on 
 their  own  merits,  instead  of  the  authority 
 of  their  patrons.  And  even  this  consi- 
 deration will  not  entitle  most  of  them  to 
 more  than  a  summary  answer. 
 
 II.  It  may  first  be  noticed,  that  the 
 writer,  who  has  lately  attempted  to  prove 
 Hegesippus  an  Ebionite,  has  also  main- 
 tained, that  only  one  sort  of  Ebionites 
 existed  in  his  age*  ;  those  who  disbelieved 
 the  miraculous  conception  and  divinity  of 
 Christ,  and  whose  Gospel  was  without  the 
 two  first  Chapters  of  St.  Matthew. 
 
 Were  this  all  that  we  had  to  refute ; 
 were  it  only  necessary  to  prove,  that  Hege- 
 sippus was  not  one  of  those  Ebionites, 
 who  denied  the  miraculous  conception,  and 
 rejected  the  two  first  Chapters  of  St.  Mat- 
 thew, Dr.  Lardner  would  decide  on  this 
 subje6l. 
 
 "  The 
 
 *  Dr.  Priestley  supposes  that  all  the  Hebrew  Christians 
 disbelieved  the  miraculous  conception  till  after  the  age  of 
 Irenaeus,  A.  d.  lyo.  "  Originally  the  Jewish  Christians 
 did  not  believe  the  do^lrine  of  the  miraculous  conception. 
 Both  Justin  Martyr  and  Irenaeus  represent  them  as  disbe- 
 lieving it,  without  excepting  any  that  did."  History  of 
 early  Opinions,  Vol,  3.  p.  215. 
 
 X 
 
(      i62     ) 
 
 "  The  next  fragment  of  this  writer  con- 
 tains   an   account   of  Domitian's    inquiry- 
 after  the  posterity  of  David.      At  that  time, 
 says    he,   there   were  yet   remaining  of  the 
 kindred  of  Christy  the  grandsons  of  Jude, 
 who  was  called  his  brother  according  to  the 
 flesh.      These  some  accused  as  being  of  the 
 race  of  David;  and  Evocatus  brought  them 
 before  Dotnitianus  Ccesar.      For,  he  too  was 
 afraid    of  the  coining  of  CJirist  as  well  as 
 Herod  *.       "  This   passage    deserves  to  he 
 remarked.      It  contains  a  reference  to  the 
 History  in  the  second  Chapter  of  St,  Mat- 
 thew, and  shews   plainly  that  this  part  of 
 St.  Matthew's  gospel  was  owned  by  this 
 Hebrew   Christian.      But,  Epiphanius  in- 
 forms us,  tliat  the  gospel  of  the  Ebionites 
 begins  thus  :   It  came  to  pass  in  the  days  of 
 Herod  the  king  of  Judcea  that   'John  ca?ne 
 baptizi?ig  zvith  the  baptism  of  repentance  in 
 the  river  Jordan  :  which  is  the  beginning 
 of  the    third  chapter  a  little  altered,  and 
 he  there   expressly  says,  that  their  gospel 
 called  according  to  St.  Matthew  is  defeUlive 
 and  corrupted.     It  is  plain  from  this  pas- 
 sage, that  Hegesippus  received  the  history 
 in  the  second  Chapter  of  St.  Matthew ;  so 
 that  he  used  our  Greek  gospel,  or,  if  he 
 
 use^ 
 
 *  Matthew  ii. 
 
(      163      ) 
 
 used  only  the  Hebrew  edition  of  St.  Mat- 
 thew's gospel,  this  History  must  have  been 
 in  it*/' 
 
 ni.  The  first  reason  assigned  for  sup- 
 posing Hegesippus  an  Ebionite  is,  that  he 
 has  ffiven  "  a  list  of  all  the  heresies  of  his 
 time,  in  which  he  enumerates  a  consider- 
 able number,  and  all  of  them  Gnostics, 
 without  making  any  mention  of  the  Ebio- 
 nites  ;"  though  they  were  at  that  very 
 time  in  full  vigour  -f. 
 
 "  It  is  remarkable  that  Hegesippus,  in 
 giving  an  account  of  the  heresies  of  his 
 time,  though  he  mentions  the  Carpocra- 
 tians,  Valentinians  and  others,  who  were 
 generally  termed  Gnostics  (and  who  held 
 that  Christ  had  a  preexistence  and  was 
 man  only  in  appearance)  not  only  makes 
 no  mention  of  this  supposed  heresy  of  the 
 
 Nazarenes 
 
 *  Lardner  on  Hegesippus,  Vol.  2.  p.  140.  Ed.  of 
 Kippis. 
 
 t  History  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  3.  p.  222.  "  Pleo-e- 
 sippus,  the  first  Christian  histoiian,  himself  a  Jew,  and 
 therefore  probablv  an  Ebionite,  enumerating  the  heresies 
 of  his  time,  mentions  several  of  the  Gnostic  kind,  but  fwt 
 that  of  Christ  being  a  mere  man."  Letters  to  Dr.  Horslcy, 
 P^  1.  p,  144. 
 
 X  2 
 
(   ICJ.  ) 
 
 Nazarenes  or  Ebionites,  but  says,  that  in 
 liis  travels  to  Rome,  where  he  spent  some 
 time  with  Anicetus,and  visited  the  bishops 
 of  other  Sees,  he  found  that  they  all  held 
 the  same  do6lrine  that  was  taught  in  the 
 law,  by  the  Prophets,  and  by  our  Lord. 
 What  could  this  be  but  the  proper  Unita- 
 rian do6trine  held  by  the  Jews,  and  which 
 he  himself  had  been  taught*?" 
 
 2.  Eusebius  is  stated  to  be  silent  respe6l- 
 ing  the  tenets  of  Hegesippus  ;  ("  That 
 Eusebius  doth  not  expressly  say  what 
 this  faith  was,  is  no  wonder,  considering 
 his  prejudice  against  the  Unitarians  of  his 
 own  time  -f  ;")  and  not  to  have  quoted  him 
 among  other  ancient  authorities  against 
 those  who  held  the  opinion  of  the  simple 
 humanity  of  Christ  [f. 
 
 3.  It  is  stated  that  Hegesippus  has 
 quoted  the  gospel  according  to  the  He- 
 brews, and  in  the  Hebrew  tongue. 
 **  Shewing,  as  Eusebius  observes,  that  he 
 was  one  of  the  Hebrew  Christians.  We 
 may  therefore  conclude  that  he  quoted  it 
 
 with 
 *  History  of  Corruptions,  Vol.  i .  p.  8. 
 fVol.  i.p.  8. 
 'I  History  of  early  Opinions,  V^ol.  3.  p.  227. 
 
(     i65     ) 
 
 with  respe6l :  and  this  was  not  done, 
 except  by  those,  who  were  Ebionites,  or 
 who  favoured  their  opinions  */' 
 
 4.  "  Had  there  been  any  pretence 
 quoting  Hegesippus  as  a  maintainer  of  the 
 divinity  of  Christ;  he  would  certainly 
 have  been  mentioned  in  preference  to  Jus- 
 tin Martyr,  or  any  others  in  the  list  "  (of 
 the  ancient  writer  in  Eusebius)"  not  only 
 because  he  was  an  earlier  writer,  but  chiefly 
 because  he  was  one  of  the  Jewish  Chris- 
 tians, who  are  well  known  not  to  have 
 favoured  that  opinion -j-." 
 
 5.  Hegesippus  has  related,  that  James 
 the  Just  uttered  this  exclamation :  "  Why 
 do  you  ask  me  concerning  Jesus  the  sou 
 of  Man  X  r 
 
 6.  Valesius,  a  learned  Commentator  on 
 Eusebius,  has  intimated  a  suspicion,  that 
 the  works  of  Hegesippus  were  negle61:ed 
 and  lost  on  account  of  the  errors  in  them, 
 "  Ob  errores  quibus  scatebant  ||." 
 
 IV.  How 
 
 *  History  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  3,  p.  228. 
 
 t  lb.  p.  228.  +  P.  229.  —  Euseb.  Hist.  L.  2.  c.  23. 
 
 jl  P.  229, — Valesii  Annot.  in  Euseb,  L.  5.  c,  n. 
 
(     166     ) 
 
 IV.  How  extremely  trivial  these  reasons 
 are,  were  we  even  to  admit  all  the  fa6ls, 
 on  which  they  are  founded,  must  be  obvi- 
 ous to  the  commonest  reader. 
 
 The  "  errores"  of  Valesius  are  probably 
 only  historical  blunders,  instead  of  hereti- 
 cal errors :  and  were  we  to  admit  hint  to 
 decide  on  the  opinions  of  Hegesippus, 
 Hegesippus  was  a  Trinitarian.  An  ex- 
 pression in  a  fragment  of  this  Historian, 
 preserved  in  Eusebius,  tj  ^u^u  m  ivjany  is 
 explained  by  Valesius  to  mean  Fides  in 
 Patrem  et  Fihum  et  Spiritum  San61um*. 
 
 "  Son  of  man"  is  used  in  Scripture  as 
 one  of  the  appellations  of  the  Messiah  : 
 the  great  obje6l  of  Dr.  Priestley's  history 
 is  to  demonstrate,  that  the  simple  humanity 
 of  Christ  is  taught  in  Scripture:  but,  when 
 he  previously  supposes  any  one  of  its  ex- 
 pressions to  imply  this  doctrine  ;  he  takes 
 for  granted  all,  that  he  proposes  to  prove. 
 
 The  fourth  reason,  not  to  mention  that  it 
 is  trivial,  is  partly  founded  on  a  mistake 
 of  Eusebius  copied  by  Jerom,  which  Euse- 
 bius himself  corrc61ed  in  another  part  of 
 his  History.     Justin  Hved  about  a.  d.  140: 
 
 Hegesippus 
 
 *  History  Ecc.  L.  2.  c.  23. 
 
(      ^67     ) 
 
 Hegesippus  a.  d.  160,  or  170.  as  Valesius, 
 Lardner  and  Cave  have  shewn  *. 
 
 From  the  narrative  of  Eusebius  it  can- 
 not be  inferred,  whether  Hegesippus  quoted 
 the  gospel  of  the  Hebrews  with  respe6l  or 
 not :  much  less  can  we  discover  that  lie 
 acknowledged  its  authority.  "  Let  this 
 passage/'  says  Lardner,  *'  be  ever  so  ob- 
 scure; I  think  it  affords  proof,  that  there 
 was  a  Hebrew  gospel  in  the  time  of  Hege- 
 sippus, and  that  he  made  use  of  it;  but, 
 hozv  far  we  cannot  say-f." 
 
 The  first  and  principal  reason  assigned 
 fortheEbionitism  of  Hegesippus,  is  founded 
 on  the  misstatement  of  an  historical  fa6l. 
 He  never  professed  to  give  a  catalogue  of 
 all  the  heresies  of  his  time:  it  can  only  be 
 inferred  from  Eusebius  that  he  had  left  an 
 account  of  the  "  original  stocks''  from 
 which  the  heresies  of  his  time  had  ramified, 
 
 Tuv  KUT    aVTOV  cii^£(rBcov    Tccg  cx.o-)(ixq\.       He    has 
 
 only    mentioned   eleven   heresies,    one   of 
 which  is  that  of  the  Carpocratians.  Irenseus, 
 
 his 
 
 *  Valesius  on  Euseb.  L.  4.  c.  viii.  and  L.  2.  c.  xxiii. 
 and  Lardner  and  Cave  on  Hegesippus. 
 
 t  Lardner  on  Hegesippus,  Vol.  2.  p.  144. 
 
 \  History,  L;4;  c.  xxii. 
 
(      i68     ) 
 
 his  contemporary,  has  mentioned  the  names 
 of  ijfteen,  observing  at  the  same  time,  that 
 there  were  many  others  *  ;  and  this,  before 
 lie  came  to  the  different  se6ls  of  the  Vaien- 
 tinians,  against  whom  lie  professedly  wrote, 
 
 Hegesippus  has  only  given  an  account 
 of  the  origin  of  Unitarianism,  without 
 specifying  each  of  the  se(!rts  of  his  time, 
 which  professed  it.  The  appendix  to 
 Tertullian's  Praescription  is,  in  this  case,  a» 
 sippendix  also  to  Hegesippus.  The  writer 
 is  supposed  by  Pagi  to  have  been  of  Ter- 
 tiillian's  age ;  and  Dr.  Priestlej^  observes 
 **  the  appendix  is  probably  as  good  an 
 authority  as  that  of  Eusebius-f .''  In 
 tins  work  also,  Carpocrates  is  mentioned 
 as  the  first  Unitarian  :  and  *'  after  him 
 Cerinthus  arose  teaching  similar  doctrines, 
 and  his  successor  was  Ebion,  not  agreeing 
 ill  every  respe6l  with  Cerinthus  J/' 
 
 Hegesippus 
 
 *  **  Ab  his  autom,  qui  pra'dldi*  sunt,  jam  multse  propa- 
 gincs  multarum  hacrcsiuni  fatJta;  sunt."  Irenaeus,  L,  i. 
 c,  ;-sxviii. 
 
 t  History  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  3.  p.  304.. 
 
 ^_  "  Post  luuic  (i.  e.  Carpocratem)  Cerinthus  hacreticus 
 erupit  similia  docens :  ct  luijus  successor  Ebion  fait  Ceria- 
 tho  non  in  omni  parte  conscnticns. 
 
(      »69     ) 
 
 Hegesippus  wrote  a  slight,  and  perhaps 
 inaccurate  sketch  of  the  origin  of  heresies, 
 and  in  them  of  Unitarianism  in  particular: 
 others  have  followed  him,  and  traced  them 
 further.  Some  have  made  Carpocrates 
 the  first  Unitarian,  others  have  placed 
 Cerinthus  before  him.  Hegesippus  was 
 probably  one  of  the  first  class  of  these 
 ancient  historians. 
 
 To  shew  that  Hegesippus  did  not 
 consider  Unitarians  as  heretics^  and 
 thence  to  infer  that  he  was  one  himself,  a 
 very  whimsical  fi6lion  has  been  brought 
 into  a6lion.  By  some  inadvertence  or  other, 
 it  has  been  a6lually  taken  for  granted, 
 that  the  Carpocratians,  one  of  his  heretical 
 se6ls,  were  believers  in  the  simple  divinity^ 
 of  Christ,  instead  of  the  simple  humanity-f-. 
 "  Though  he  mentions  the  Carpocratians, 
 Valentinians,  and  others,  who  w^ere  gene- 
 rally 
 
 *  "  Hegesippus  the  first  Christian  historian,  enumerat- 
 ing the  heresies  of  his  time,  mentions  several  of  the 
 Gnostic  kind,  but,  not  that  of  Christ  being  a  mere  man." 
 History  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  4.  p.  307. 
 
 f  *'  Carpocrates  praeterea  hanc  tulit  se6lam.  Unam 
 esse  dicit  virtutem. —  Christum  non  ex  virgine  Maria 
 natum,  sed  ex  semine  Joseph,  hominem  tantummodo 
 genitum.  Appendix  ad  Tertull.  Praescrip.  adv.  Haeret. 
 Carpocrates  autem  et  qui  ab  eo  dicunt  Jesum  e  Joseph 
 natum,  et  cum  similis  reliquis  hominibus  fuerit,  8cc.'' 
 Irenaeus,  L.  j.  c.  xxv. 
 
(     170     ) 
 
 rally  termed  Gnostics  (and  who  held  that 
 Christ  had  a  preexistence  and  was  man 
 only  in  appearance)  not  only  makes  no 
 mention  of  this  supposed  heresy  of  the 
 Nazarenes,"  &c.  This  is  one  of  the  most 
 incredible  mistakes,  that  ever  was  com- 
 mitted. 
 
 In  order  to  prove  Hegesippus  an  Unita- 
 rian, it  was  also  necessary  to  suppose  that 
 Eusebius  is  silent  respe6ling  his  tenets.  And 
 the  passages  in  which  he  has  expreslsy  zvritten 
 on  the  tenets  of  this  ancient  Historian 
 have  been  unaccountably  overlooked.  It 
 is  necessary,  however,  to  attend  to  the 
 real  testimony  of  Eusebius,  instead  of  de- 
 ducing preposterous  conclusions  from  his 
 fidlitious  silence. 
 
 V.  To  see  the  full  force  of  the  testi- 
 mony of  Eusebius,  it  will  be  proper  to 
 keep  in  view  the  general  spirit  of  the  ruling 
 members  of  the  Christian  church  against 
 Unitarianism  in  his  age.  Theodotus,  one 
 of  the  first  Unitarians  among  Gentile 
 Christians,  was  excommunicated  by  Vi61or 
 at  the  end  of  the  second  Century  *.      Paul 
 
 of. 
 
 *  Eusebius,  Ecc.  Histosy,  L.  5.  c.  xxi; 
 
(     171     ) 
 
 of  Samosata,  one  of  the  few  believers  in 
 the  simple  humanity  of  Christ  in  the  third 
 Century,  was  deposed  from  his  Bishopric  *. 
 Marcellus  of  Ancyra,  if  Eusebius  may  be 
 credited,  had,  in  his  time,  formed  an  in- 
 congruous mixture  of  two  different  systems 
 of  Unitarianism,  Sabellianism,andthe  faith 
 of  Paul  of  Samosata  f.  Eusebius  wrote  a 
 treatise  against  him,  which  is  still  extant : 
 and  his  religious  opinions  formed  the 
 principal  ground  of  the  persecution,  which 
 he  suffered  for  many  years. 
 
 Had  Eusebius  been  disposed  to  speak 
 highly  of  any  Unitarian  Christian,  the 
 spirit  of  the  times  would  have  prevented 
 him ;  especially,  if  it  be  true,  that,  "  though 
 a  learned  man,  he  was  not  of  the  firmest 
 tone  of  mind  J/'  Had  Hegesippus,  while 
 treating  on  the  subjedt  of  the  first  Chris- 
 tians of  Jerusalem,  related  that  the  church 
 continued  in  the  virgin  purity  of  Ebionitism 
 till  the  end  of  the  first  Century,  and  that 
 all  the  churches  which  he  had  visited  held 
 the  same  do6lrine ;  Eusebius  would  have 
 been  prevented,  by  prudential  reasons  from 
 
 com- 
 
 *  L.  7.  c.  xxix.  XXX, 
 
 t  Eusebius  cont.  Marcellum,  L.  3.  c.  vi. 
 +  History  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  3 .  p.  3 1 6. 
 
 Y  3 
 
(      172      ) 
 
 commending  a  writer,and  citing  his  words, 
 after  he  had  pubhshed  such  a  relation. 
 
 If  the  prevaihng  bias  and  temper  of 
 mind  of  Eiisebius  be  considered;  it  is  as 
 unlikely  that  he  should  be  disposed  to 
 launch  out  into  praises  of  an  Ebionite,  or 
 Unitarian  of  any  class,  as  that  he  could  sup- 
 pose his  contemporaries  would  endure  to  hear 
 them.  It  cannot  be  supposed  that  "he  who 
 speaks  of  Ebionites  with  hatred  and  con- 
 tempt*/' should  pronounce  an  unnecessary 
 encomium  on  an  Ebionitish  writer.  "  That 
 Eusebius  should  take  so  violent  a  part,  as 
 he  always  does,  against  the  ancient  Unita- 
 rians is  not  difficult  to  be  accounted  for-f." 
 "  With  what  rancour  does  Eusebius  treat 
 this  class  of  Christians  both  in  his  history 
 and  in  his  treatise  against  Marcellus  of 
 Ancyra  J  ?"  These  observations  are  per- 
 feclly  just;  and  conformably  to  their  spirit, 
 we  may  venture  to  declare  it  impossible, 
 that  he  should  zealously  take  the  part  of 
 any  ancient  Unitarian.  Eusebius,  however, 
 lias  not  simply  spoken  of  Hegesippus 
 *'  with  respe61:,''  and  been  silent  about  hiy 
 tenets,  as   has  lately  been  stated  :   he  has 
 
 borne 
 
 *  History  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  3.  p:  222; 
 tVol.  3.P.316.  J  P.  287. 
 
(    ^1^   ) 
 
 borne  the  fullest  testimony  to  his  orthodoxy ; 
 and  has  assigned  him  a  distinguished  place 
 among  a  class  of  writers,  who  are  the  subr 
 je6l  of  his  panegyric. 
 
 In  the  seventh  and  eighth  Chapters  of 
 the  fourth  Book  of  his  History,  after  having 
 mentioned  that  the  reputation  of  the  Chris- 
 tian church  suffered  severely  in  the  second 
 Century,  by  the  miscondu6l  of  the  sedlaries, 
 and  of  one  se6i:  in  particular,  which  had 
 disgraced  the  profession  of  Unitarianism*  ; 
 he  observes,  that  in  time  the  truth  cleared 
 itself,  and  shone  brighter  after  its  tempo- 
 j'ary  obscurity  :  the  se6ls  split  into  parts 
 of  various  sorts,  and  their  old  opinions 
 died  away,  or  were  lost  in  new  ones :  the 
 calumny  became  confined  to  those  se6ls, 
 to  which  it  properly  belonged;  "the  splen- 
 dor of  the  catholic  and  only  true  church 
 was  magnified  \'  and  the  superiority  of  its 
 doftrines  became  universally  acknow- 
 ledged. He  then  immediately  observes; 
 ^*  Truth  brought  forward  many  champions 
 for  its  own  cause,  who  contended  against 
 the  impious  se6ls  in  debates  and  writ-; 
 Jngs.      Amo7ig  these  Hegesippiis  was  distin^ 
 
 guished:'* 
 
 *  Carpocratians.' 
 
{      174     ) 
 
 guished  *  :'*  from  whose  works,  he  con- 
 tinues to  observe,  he  has  largely  drawn 
 materials. 
 
 In  the  twenty-first  Chapter  of  the  same 
 book  he  says ;  "  At  this  time  flourished  in 
 the  Church  (the  Ebionites  were  not  then 
 members  of  the  church )  Hegesippus,  Diony- 
 sius,  Pinytus :  and  after  these  Philippus, 
 Apollinarius,  and  Melito:  Musanus  also 
 and  Modestus,  and  last  of  all  Irenaeus; 
 the  orthodoxy  of  whose  sound  faith  of  the 
 Apostolic  tradition  has  come  down  to  us 
 in  their  writings."  nv  xca  ag  vif^ag  rviz 
 A-TTog-oXiKvjg  Ttrocpoi^oa-eug  17  Tijg  vytug  Tsrisseag  efy^occpog 
 
 It  was  not  from  any  thing  ambiguous 
 or  obscure  in  the  writings  of  Hegesippus, 
 that  Eusebius  colle6led  his  religious  opi- 
 nions.    His    sentiments  were    shewn   by 
 
 the 
 
 (poK;  ^oyf^oca-m  irj  xa&'  vf^cti;  didaaxaAka. 
 
 Uoc^r.yt>  £»?  f^iacv  »  aXwOsia  'dXinii  tuvrr,(;  t-irs^/^axa?,  «  ^l  ay^a^u* 
 at;To   /A0»o»  lAtyx'^i',  a^^a  xa»  Jl  i[y^»(fo.'v  a7ro^£t|ew»  xara  tw»  »6e«» 
 
 Ef  raroK  tyw^i^sTo  Hyrjaiirvof, 
 
(     175     ) 
 
 the  most  unequivocal  marks.  For,  in 
 continuation  of  the  last  sentence,  Eusebius 
 observes  ;  "  Hegesippus,  indeed,  in  the 
 five  books  of  memoirs  which  have  come 
 to  us,  has  left  the  fullest  testimojiy  of  his 
 own  sentiments/' 
 
 *0  fj(,zv   av    HyviTiTT'TTog    sv    unvrs.    roig    eig   Ti^ag 
 BXQairiv  V'7ro[A.V7i^x(ri    rvig  loicng   yyufA.Tjg  TorX'/josa-TccTviv 
 
 This  evidence  has  been  entirely  over- 
 looked by  those  who  have  maintained,  that 
 Eusebius  is  silent  on  the  subje6l  of  the 
 religious  opinions  of  Hegesippus;  and  who 
 have  concluded,  with  unparallelled  extrava- 
 gance, in  defiance  of  all  the  ancient  testi- 
 mony on  the  subjeSl,  that  both  this  ancient 
 Historian,  and  the  whole  church  of  Jerusa- 
 lem before  the  time  of  Adrian^,  were  Uni- 
 tarians. 
 
 To  render  these  testimonies  compleat, 
 it  is  only  necessary  to  recolle6t  what  were 
 the  known  and  undoubted  opinions  of  some 
 of  the  illustrious  persons,  with  whom 
 Hegesippus  is  classed,  on  the  subject  of 
 the  nature  of  Christ ;  or,  what  combination 
 
 of 
 
 *  C.  xxii. 
 
(     176     ) 
 
 of  opinions  formed  the  system  of  the 
 Catholic  church.  Many  of  them  are  known 
 only  by  the  encomiums  of  Eusebius,  and 
 of  an  anonymous  writer  cited  in  one 
 part  of  his  history.  The  tenets  of  Irenasus 
 are  known  from  his  works :  and  it  is 
 hardly  necessary  to  observe,  that  he  was 
 a  sincere  believer  in  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
 The  sentiments  of  Melito  are  also  known 
 to  have  been  the  same  with  those  of  Ire- 
 naeus  by  the  testimony  of  an  ancient  writer 
 cited  by  Eusebius  *. 
 
 When  Eusebius  wrote  these  testimonies 
 to  the  chara6ler  of  Hegesippus,  the  Nicene 
 creed,  (to  which  he  had  subscribed,  though 
 not  without  some  scruples,)  represented 
 the  leading  doftrines  of  the  church,  which, 
 he  observes,  had  always  been  the  same  -f. 
 1  purposely  avoid  the  everlasting  dispute, 
 whether  he  himself  leaned  towards  Arianism 
 or  not  :  on  this  head,  Du  Pin  and  Lardner, 
 two  able  and  candid  judges,  may  be  con- 
 sulted. However  Eusebius  may  have 
 differed  from  his  brethren  in  some  points, 
 most  of  which  will  probably  be  thought 
 very  unimportant,  he  uniformly  and  zea- 
 lously 
 
 *  Ecc.  History,  L.  5.  c.  xxviii. 
 
 «A>)6a5  ExxMo"'^?  ?^«/>i7rgoT»f .     Hist.  iLC.  L.  4.  C.     II. 
 
(    -^11   ) 
 
 lously  contend  for  the  divinity  and  preex- 
 istence  of  Christ,  and  his  eternal  genera- 
 tion from  the  Father.  But,  it  is  only 
 necessary  to  observe  at  present,  that  what 
 he  considered  as  the  church  (E;c«/\>?r;a)  and 
 its  orthodoxy  were  directly  opposite  to 
 Unitarianism.  He  frequently  quotes  the 
 authority  of  the  church  against  Marcellus 
 of  Ancyra* :  and,  in  his  History,  speaking 
 of  a  writer,  whom  he  classes  among  these, 
 to  whom  he  annexed  the  epithets  o^9o^o^uv 
 Koct  eKKXTja-ioig-iKuVi  he  observes,  that  this  author 
 wrote  a  book  against  the  celebrated  Uni- 
 tarian Artemo*f. 
 
 Upon  the  whole  :  Eusebius,  a  bishop  of 
 the  Catholic  church,  a  believer  in  the 
 divinity  and  preexistence  of  Christ,  in  an 
 age  extremely  intolerant  towards  Unita- 
 rianism, not  of  a  firm  tone  of  mind,  as 
 some  say,  and  therefore  not  disposed  to 
 shock  prevailing  opinions,  not  without  a 
 considerable  portion  of  bitterness  against 
 Unitarians,  and  therefore  not  inclined  to 
 praise  an  Ebionite,  an  accomplished  and 
 critical  scholar,  well  acquainted  witli  man- 
 kind, and  on  these   accounts  incapable  of 
 
 inserting 
 
 *Euseb.  cont.  Marcell.  L.  i.  c.  iii.  vi,  vii,  viii.  L.  2. 
 c.  vi,  vii.  23.  L.  3.  c.  6. 
 t  L.  5.  c.  xxvii,  xxviii. 
 
(      178      ) 
 
 inserting  in  his  history  a  well-known  false- 
 hood, has  related,  that  Hegesippus,  Melito, 
 IrenEeiis,ancI  others,  flourished  in  the  church, 
 the  opinions  of  which  he  has  in  other  places 
 opposed   to   Unitarianism,  and   that   their 
 writings  contained  orthodox  opinions  agree- 
 able   to   the   Apostolic  tradition   and   the 
 true  faith.     He  has  also  related  that  Hege- 
 sippus was  distinguished  as  a  champion  of 
 the  church  against  the  errors  of  sectaries, 
 and  particularly  against  the  extravagancies 
 of  the  Carpocratians,  who  were  Unitarians. 
 The  abstra61   term  o^^ohlia,  by  which  he 
 has  chara6terized   the  opinions   of  Hege- 
 sippus, he  has  afterwards  applied  in  con- 
 crete to  a  body  of  writers,  one  of  whom 
 wrote  against  the  Unitarianism  of  Artemo. 
 He  has  commended  the  faith  and  zeal  of 
 Hegesippus ;   he  has  drawn  materials  from 
 his  writings,   and   ranked   him  among  the 
 most  distincruished  members  of  the  church 
 in  the   second   Century.     Stronger  testi- 
 mony to  the  opinions  of  any  writer  is  not 
 often  found  in  the  works  of  another. 
 
 It  is  not  easy  to  conceive  how  any  author 
 should  commit  so  many  oversights  as  to 
 be  led  to  suppose  Hegesippus  an  Ebi- 
 onite.      He  is  expressly  declared  to  have 
 
 been 
 
i     ^79     ) 
 
 been  a  member  of  the  church,  at  a  time 
 when  the  Ebionites  and  Nazarenes  were 
 neither  members  of  the  church  of  Jerusa- 
 lem, nor  of  any  other.  And  "Eusebius* 
 relates,  that  he  cited  the  proverbs  of  Solo- 
 mon by  a  title  which  implied  his  acknow- 
 ledgement of  the  book:  whereas  the 
 Ebionites,''  according  to  Epiphanius,  "  ac- 
 knowledged no  part  of  the  Old  Testament 
 but  the  Pentateuch,  nor  the  whole  of 
 that+." 
 
 VI.  Hegesippus  then,  a  Hebrew  Chris- 
 tian, a  believer  in  the  divinity  of  Christ,  born 
 at  the  end  of  the  first  Century  or  in  the  be- 
 ginning of  the  second,  before  the  extin6tion 
 of  the  Hebrew  church  of  Jerusalem,  with 
 some  of  the  members  of  which  he  was  pro- 
 bably acquainted,  has  borne  testimony  to  the 
 purity  of  the  Christian  faith  before  the  time 
 ofTrajan  in  the  most  pointed  language :  and, 
 as  his  testimony  was  given  while  writing 
 on  the  subje6l  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem, 
 he  must  be  considered  as  a  more  imme- 
 diate voucher  for  the  purity  of  the  faith  of 
 
 that 
 
 *Ecc.  History,  L,  4.  c.  xxii. 
 
 f  Horsley's  Letters  to  Dr.  Priestley,  p.  71.'  1784. 
 
 Z   2 
 
(      i8o      ) 
 
 that  church*.      Tertulhan,  Eusebius  and 
 many  others  have  declared,  in  general  terms, 
 that  the  Catholic  faith  was  more  ancient 
 than  that  of  the  se6laries.     Clemens  Alex- 
 andrinus,   Cyprian,    and  Chrysostom,  who 
 considered    Unitarians   as    Heretics,  have 
 declared    with    Hegesippus  that  the  first 
 age  of  Christianity  was  clear  from  heresy  -f. 
 But,  when  these  writers  were  speaking  of 
 the  church  in  general,  they  might  possibly 
 forget  the  individual  church  of  Jerusalem : 
 on  this  account,  as  well  as  because   they 
 were  after  the  time  of  Hegesippus,  their 
 evidence  is  not  of  equal  authority  with  his : 
 their  collateral  testimony  must,  however, 
 be  allowed  to  bring    with    it    some  con- 
 firmation of  the  truth  of  his  relation. 
 
 The  modern  writers,  who  have  supposed 
 Hegesippus  an  Unitarian,  have  rather 
 over-rated  his  authority,  when  thej^  thought 
 
 it 
 
 *  Valesius  is  of  opinion  that  Hegesippus  spoke  of  the 
 church  of  Jeiusalcni  only.  Sec  liis  note  on  Luscb.  Hist. 
 L.  2-  c.  xxxii.  The  crilicism  of  the  Historian  is,  in  this 
 case,  to  be  followed  in  preference  to  that  of  his  very 
 learned  and  judicious  Commentator.  Some  of  the  Se6ls, 
 which  Hegesippus  has  mentioned,  were  not  Jewish. 
 
 t  "  Qua;  intelligcnda  sunt  de  apertiore  fallacis  do6trinae 
 sparsionc,  majorequc  numero  piavorum  dodorum  et  vehe- 
 mcntiore  conatu  :  nam  a  tempore  quo  scriptae  sunt  altera 
 Petii,  item  Euistolae  Judac  et  Joannis,  jam  fraudes  illae 
 truperani."'     Lc  Cierc. 
 
(      i8i      ) 
 
 it  would  help  their  own  system :  it  will 
 not  be  undervalued,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  when 
 he  is  proved  to  have  been  a  believer  in  the 
 divinity  of  Christ.  He  has  related  with 
 the  simplicity,  which  is  said  to  have 
 marked  his  chara6ler,  that  till  Symeon  was 
 made  bishop  of  Jerusalem  (i.  e.  till  the 
 time  of  Trajan)  *'They  used  to  call  the 
 church  the  virgin  church :  for,  it  had  not 
 yet  been  corrupted  with  vain  doctrines  *." 
 
 This  testimony  and  that  of  Clemens  Alex- 
 andrinus  were  probably  never  meant  to  be 
 taken  in  a  stri6l  literal  sense,  as  Spanheim, 
 Jones  and  Le  Clerc  have  observed.  <*This 
 could  not  be  stri6lly  true,  because  there 
 were  Gnostics  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles ; 
 but  they  were  few  compared  with  their 
 numbers  afterwards.  On  this  account,  it 
 is  said  by  several  of  the  ancients  that 
 heresy  began  in  the  time  of  Adrian ;  when 
 .the  most  distinguished  of  the  Gnostics 
 made  their  appearance -f.''  Had  the  entire 
 works  of  Hegesippus  come  down  to  us,  we 
 should  probably  have  found,  that  he  had 
 explained  this  testimony  in  the  same  man- 
 net  :  for  the  explanation  of  Eusebius  X  is 
 
 exactly 
 
 /^arajaj?.     Eusebius,  L.  4.  c.  xxii. 
 
 t  History  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  3.  p.  261. 
 ;|:  Hist.  L.  3.  c.  xxxii. 
 
(      182      ) 
 
 exa6lly  the  same  in  substance  with  that  of 
 the  modern  writers  which  I  have  menti- 
 oned ;  and  Hegesippus  has  named  heresies 
 (the  Simonians  and  others,)  which  he  knew 
 existed  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles. 
 
 After  due  dedu(5lions  for  a  loose,  popular 
 phrase,  or  even  for  wilful  exaggeration,  if 
 it  be  thought  necessary,  it  must  be  in  the 
 highest  degree  probable  from  the  testimony 
 of  Hegesippus,  that  the  great  body  of  the 
 church  of  Jerusalem  believed  in  the  divinity 
 of  Christ.  After  reasonable  allowances 
 for  inaccuracy  or  exaggeration,  an  impar- 
 tial judge  will  be  disposed  to  express  his 
 opinion,  formed  on  the  evidence  of  Hege- 
 sippus, in  the  language  of  another  ancient 
 writer  on  the  same  subject.  "  Pene  omnes 
 Christum  Deum  credebant  */' 
 
 *  Sulpicius  Severus. 
 
 CHAP* 
 
(      1^3     ) 
 
 CHAP.     X. 
 
 THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA- 
 MENT BY  THE  FIRST  JEWISH  CHRISTIANS, 
 COLLECTED  FROM  THEIR  RELIGIOUS 
 OPINIONS. 
 
 I.  Testimony  of  Eusebius  to  the  priority  of  the  opinions 
 of  the  church.     Claim  of  Marcellus  to  the  priority  of 
 
 ,.  his  opinions.  Claim  of  the  Artemonite  Unitarians  to 
 the  priority  of  their  opinions.  Refutation  of  these 
 claims.  Inconsistent  with  one  another.  Refuted  as 
 soon  as  they  were  advanced  by  Caius  and  Eusebius. 
 2.  CredibiUty  of  the  testimony  of  Eusebius  on  the  sub- 
 je6lof  the  primitive  church  of  Jerusalem.  Appeal  to 
 his  testimony  and  that  of  Sulpicius  Severus  on  the 
 subje6l  of  the  Jewish  Christians  by  Dr.  Priestley. 
 Eusebius  not  disposed  to  speak  highly  in  favour  of 
 Ebionites.  His  testimony  to  the  faith  of  the  primitive 
 church  of  Jerusalem.  3.  Testimony  of  Sulpicius 
 Severus.  4.  Collateral  testimony  of  other  writers, 
 Eusebius,  Theodoret,  Epiphanius,  The  author  of  the 
 Alexandrian  Chronicle.  The  origin  of  the  Ebionites 
 universally  allowed  to  have  been  at  the  end  of  the  first  or 
 the  beginning  of  the  second  Century.  5.  Summary 
 view  of  the  evidence  to  prove  that  the  primitive  church 
 of  Jerusalem  believed  in  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
 
 lE 
 
 USEBIUS,  a  native  of  Palestine, 
 born  about  a.  d.  265,  has  left  the  most 
 ample   testimony  t6    the   priority  of  the 
 
 opinions 
 
(      i84     ) 
 
 Opinions  entertained  by  the  church  in  his 
 time,  and  to  the  purity  of  the  faith  of  the 
 Hebrew  church  of  Jerusalem  in  particular, 
 
 it  has  lately  been  contended,  that  Unita- 
 rianism  was  the  religion  of  the  common 
 people  among  the  Gentile  Christians  in  the 
 second  and  third  Centuries.  The  nature 
 of  the  claims  of  the  few  Unitarians  among 
 the  Gentile  Christians,  who  existed  at  in- 
 tervals in  those  ages,  is,  in  itself,  a  sufficient 
 refutation  of  this  opinion.  In  their  disputes 
 with  the  members  of  the  church,  instead 
 of  appealing  to  the  faith  of  the  great  body 
 of  Christians  of  their  time,  they  stepped 
 back  out  of  sight  into  antiquity,  and  boldly 
 asserted  that  theirs  had  been  the  prevail- 
 ing religion  at  the  time,  to  which  they 
 referred. 
 
 Marcellus  of  Ancyra,  in  the  age  of 
 Eusebius,  never  thought  of  contending  for 
 the  general  prevalence  of  his  opinions  in 
 his  own  timet  but  affirmed  that  Unitarian- 
 fsm  was  the  common  religion  till  the  time 
 ofOrigen*.  The  Unitarians  in  the  time 
 of  Origen  (the  Artemonites  about  a.  d. 
 220)  instead  of  assuming  with  Marcellus 
 
 that 
 
 *  Eusebius  contra  Marcellum,  L.  i.  c.  iv. 
 
(      i85     ) 
 
 that  Unitarianism  was  then  the  religion  of 
 the  majority,  insisted  that  it  had  prevailed 
 universally  till  the  time  of  Victor*. 
 
 These  bold  pretensions,  advanced  either 
 in  open  defiance  of  truth,  or  without 
 common  knowledge  of  history,  were  re- 
 futed by  Eusebius  in  the  manner  that 
 might  be  expelled  from  a  learned  and 
 critical  Historian. 
 
 When  Marcellus  asserted,  that  the  doc- 
 trines of  the  church  of  his  time  were  no 
 older  than  the  days  of  Origen,  and  that 
 his  system  of  Unitarianism  had  prevailed 
 before;  Eusebius  immediately  appealed  to 
 the  a6ls  of  the  synods  before  Origen's  age  ; 
 where  the  same  opinions  were  universally 
 exhibited,  which,  Marcellus  had  contended, 
 were  only  of  modern  growth  -f . 
 
 With  respedl  to  the  pretensions  of  tlie 
 Artemonites ;  Eusebius  observed,  that  they 
 had  been  refuted  by  a  writer,  whom  he  has 
 
 cited, 
 
 *  Euseb.  Hist.  L.  5.  c.  xxviii. 
 
 diai(po§oi?,    '^s■^o9ra^a»    y^itfecj-ai,-,     ol    uv  bk;    x«t    avTo^    o    rr,(;   cs-iffAJi 
 
 X'^^oiy-rrip  uTTo^^Hwrat,     Contra  Marcellum,  L.  i.e.  iv. 
 
 A  A 
 
(     i86     ) 
 
 cited,  supposed  to  be  eithef  Caius  or 
 Origen.  They  had  absurdly  asserted,  that 
 ail  the  ancient  Christians  till  after  the  time 
 of  Viclor,  together  with  the  Apostles  them- 
 selves, were  Unitarians.  A  brief  answer 
 was  sufficient  to  refute  so  preposterous  a 
 claim.  Accordingly,  this  writer  immedi- 
 ately produced  the  names  of  Justin,  Mil- 
 tiadeSjTatian  and  Clement,  before  the  time 
 of  Vi6lor's  successor,  observing  that  the  di- 
 vinity of  Christ  was  also  taught  in  the  writ- 
 ings of  many  others.  And  he  insultingly 
 asks,  "Who  is  ignorant  of  the  books  of  Ire- 
 naeus  and  Melito,  and  the  rest,  which  teach 
 that  Christ  is  God  and  Man?"  One  of  the 
 iirst  religious  services  performed  by  the 
 Christians  consisted  in  singing  psalms  and 
 hymns  to  their  God  and  Saviour:  this  wri- 
 ter, in  answer  to  the  Unitarians  of  his  time, 
 appealed  to  these  hymns,  written  iii  the  fii^st 
 age  of  Christianity,  in  which  the  learned 
 and  the  ignorant  joined,  and  in  which  Christ 
 was    celebrated     as    tlie    word    of    God. 
 
 "^uX^JLOi  OS  ccroi  y.cii  ecocci  adsX(puv  ccTTccp^Tjg  vtto 
 TtTifuv  ypoicpsKToci  Tcv  Xoycv  Tn  -^sfcj  Tcv  Xpig-ov  Vfxvatn 
 ^eoXcyavreg^,  That  he  has  not  misrepre- 
 sented tlie  meaning  of  those  ancient  hymns, 
 or  given  only  an    account  of  suppositious 
 
 ones, 
 *  Eusebius  Hist.  Ecc.  L,  5.  c.  xxviii. 
 
(     187     ) 
 
 ones,  instead  of  the  genuine  produ6lions 
 of  the  first  century,  we  know  from  the 
 testimony  of  Pliny ;  who  in  his  letter  to 
 Trajan  (a.  d.  iio)  mentions  the  custom 
 of  the  Christians  to  sing  hymns  to  Christ 
 as  God,  or  as  a  God  *.  What  Pliny  relates 
 as  an  existing  custom  in  the  year  no,  or 
 as  others  say,  104,  must  have  taken 
 place  at  a  still  earlier  period  :  and  his 
 testimony,  united  to  that  of  Caius  or 
 Origen,  would  of  themselves  be  almost 
 sufficient  to  enable  us  to  decide  on  this 
 article  of  the  primitive  Christian  faith. 
 But  this  discussion  belongs  properly  to 
 another  place.  It  is  necessary  to  return 
 to  the  church  of  Jerusalem. 
 
 II.  Eusebius  has  not  only  borne  testi- 
 mony to  the  priority  of  the  opinions  of  the 
 Christian  churches  in  general  of  his  time, 
 and  this  on  the  authority  of  the  ads  of 
 the  churches  themselves :  he  had  also 
 laboured  to  gain  information  on  the  sub- 
 jedl:  of  the  Hebrew  church  of  Jerusalem  in 
 particular,  before    its    extindlion     under 
 
 Adrian. 
 
 *  "  Adfirmabant  2utem,hanc  fuisse  summam  vel  culpae 
 sua?,  vel  erroris,  quod  essent  soliti  stato  die  ante  lucem 
 convenire,  carmenque  Chiisto  quasi  D^o  diceie  secum 
 invicem,"    L.  10,  Epist.  97. 
 
 A   A   2 
 
(     188     ) 
 
 Adrian.  When  it  is  recolle6led,thathe  was 
 a  native  of  Palestine,  that  he  collecled  the 
 opinions  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem  less 
 than  two  centuries  after  Adrian's  time, 
 that  besides  the  entire  works  of  Hegesippus 
 and  Aristo  of  Pella,  he  had  probably  an 
 opportunity  of  drawing  information  from 
 a  multitude  of  other  books,  whose  very 
 names  are  now  lost,  and  perhaps  from  the 
 records  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem  itself: 
 when  it  is  considered,  that  he  professes  to 
 give  his  testimony  on  the  authority  of 
 ancient  records,  at  a  time  when  their  ex- 
 istence would  afford  the  easy  means  of 
 convi61ing  him  of  a  falsehood  ;  his  evidence 
 is  of  great  weight  indeed. 
 
 Dr.  Priestley  has  sometimes,  with  great 
 propriety,  insisted  strongly  on  the  superior 
 authority  of  Eusebius  and  Sulpicius  Seve- 
 rus  on  the  very  subje6l  of  the  Hebrew 
 church  of  Jerusalem  and  other  Jewish 
 Christians.  "  If  any  regard  is  to  be  paid 
 to  Eusebius,  the  oldest  historian,  or  to 
 Sulpicius,  who  is  much  more  circumstan- 
 tial than  Orosius,  and  on  that  account 
 better  entitled  to  credit,  no  Jews,  Chris- 
 tians, or  others,  were  allowed  to  remain  in 
 
 the 
 
(      ^89     ) 
 
 the  place*."  '•  Eiisebius -f  says  that  the 
 first  heralds  of  our  Saviour,  {■w^coToxyj^m^g) 
 by  whom  he  must  have  meant  the  Apostles, 
 called  those  Ebionites,  which  in  the  He- 
 brew language  signifies  poor,  who,  not 
 denying  the  body  of  Christ,  shewed  their 
 folly  in  denying  his  divinity  ;J;." 
 
 This  might  seem  to  imply  an  admission 
 of  this  ancient  Historian's  authority.  Yet 
 we  find  in  another  place.  "  As  to  the 
 general  testimony  of  Eusebius  and  other 
 writers,  themselves  believers  in  the  divinity 
 of  Christ,  that  the  church  of  Jerusalem 
 towards  the  close  of  the  Apostolic  age  was 
 orthodox  in  their  sense  of  the  word,  it  is 
 not  to  be  rega?'ded,  unless  they  bring  some 
 sufficient  pivof  of  their  assertion.  They 
 were,  no  doubt,  willing  to  have  it  thought 
 so;  and  without  considering  it  very  par- 
 ticularly, might  presume  that  it  was  so  : 
 but  the  fa6ts,  which  they  themselves 
 record,  and  the  account  which  they  give 
 of  the  condu6l  of  the  Apostles  in  divulging 
 this  do6lrine  to  the  Jews,  make  it  highly 
 
 improbable 
 
 *  Letters  to  the   Archdeacon   of  St.    Albans,    P'.  3. 
 p.   12. 
 
 t  Ecc.  Theol.  L.  i.  c.  xiv.  p.  75. 
 
 :|:  History  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  3.  p.  167. 
 
(      190      ) 
 
 improbable  tliat  the  case  should  have  been, 
 as  in  general  terms  they  assert*." 
 
 The  proofs  of  an  Historian,  when  he 
 treats  of  times  before  his  own,  seldom 
 consist  in  artificial  reasoning,  but,  in  an 
 appeal  to  the  authentic  records  of  those 
 times.  In  the  two  passages,  just  referred 
 to  in  this  historian,  containing  the  mention 
 of  fa6ls,  the  truth  of  which  Dr,  Priestley 
 admits  without  scruple,  he  has  not  men- 
 tioned on  what  authority  he  wrote : 
 whether  he  related  them  on  the  authority 
 of  ancient  records,  ^  or  tradition,  or  mere 
 conje6hire,  he  has  not  said.  On  the 
 subject  of  the  faith  of  the  church  of  Jeru- 
 salem he  expressly  declares  that  he  speaks 
 on  the  authority  of  written  documents. 
 Yet  Dr.  Priestley,  resting  on  the  charac^ler 
 of  the  Historian,  has  not  withheld  his 
 assent  to  the  two  first  mentioned  testimo- 
 mies  ;  but  affirms,  that  the  last  "  is  not 
 to  be  regarded  --[." 
 
 Let 
 
 *  Letters  to  Dr.  Horsley,  Pt.  i.  p.  23. 
 
 fWith  respe£l  to  the  suffrage  of  Eusebius  to  the 
 orthodoxy  of  the  primitive  church,  and  particularly  of  the 
 bishops  of  Jerusalem  towards  the  close  of  the  Apostolic 
 a'je;  a  suffrage  so  full  and  explicit  that  it  hath  been  deemed 
 aWcisive   ar'gument  against  Dr.  Priestley's   hypothesis  ; 
 
 with 
 
(    191    ) 
 
 Let  it,  however,  be  supposed,  that  the 
 prejudices  of  Eusebius  on  this  subject 
 might  destroy  his  veracity.  What  must 
 have  been  the  consequence  ?  In  his  age, 
 Judaizing  Christians  were  universally  de- 
 spised and  hated  by  their  Gentile  brethren: 
 according  to  Jerom's  account,  the  Ebionites 
 and  Cerinthians  had  been  long  since 
 anathematized  for  their  attachment  to  the 
 ritual  law  only*.  The  Ebionites  were 
 distinguished  from  other  Christians  by  two 
 leading  marks,  their  observance  of  the 
 Mosaic  ritual,  and  the  profession  of  Uni- 
 tarianism.  Had  Eusebius  really  been 
 more  influenced  by  prejudice  than  by  a 
 regard  for  truth,  on  finding  that  the  mem- 
 bers of  the  church  of  Jerusalem  had  not 
 emerged  from  Judaism  before  the  time  of 
 Adrian,  he  would  probably  have  set  them 
 down  at  once  as  Ebionites,  without  any 
 further  inquiry:  and  had  he  a6tually  found 
 that  they  were  both  Judaizers  and  Unita- 
 rians, he,  "who  speaks  of  Ebionites  with 
 
 hatred 
 
 witli  respeft  to  this  testimony,  we  say,  the  Do6lor  couid 
 only  tind  one  way  of  getting  rid  of  it.  It  is  not,  says  lie, 
 to  be  regarded.  What  a  prodigious  advantage  this  short 
 and  coinpendiOLis  method  of  decision  gives  a  man  over  his 
 opponent.  It  saves  all  the  needless  expence  of  criticism. 
 It  servesinsteadof  a  thousand  arguments;  and  it  hatii  the 
 singular  felicity  of  being  sliettcied  from  all  reply." 
 Monthly  Review  for  January,  1784,  p.  59. 
 
 *  Hieron.  Augustino  Kpistola,  89,  Vol.  i.  p.  631. 
 
(      192      ) 
 
 hatred  and  contempt,"  would  not  Iiave 
 been  disposed  to  vouch  for  the  purity  of 
 their  faith;  nor  v.ould  he  have  dared  to 
 j^ublish  the  following  testimony. 
 
 "B.    IV.       c    H    A    p.    V." 
 
 "the    bishops    of    JERUSALEM    FROM    OUR 
 SAVIOUR,"   &C. 
 
 "  I  have  not  found  any  written  account 
 preserved  of  the  times,  wliich  the  Bishops 
 in  Jerusalem  presided:  the  account  is 
 that  they  were  very  short-lived  So  much 
 I  have  colle6ted  from  written  records y 
 that  till  the  siege  of  the  Jews  under 
 Adrian,  fifteen  successive  bishops  lived 
 there,  all  whom  they  declare  to  have  been 
 Hebrews,  and  to  have  truly  received  the 
 perfecl  knowledge  of  Christ ;  so  as  to  have 
 been  esteemed  worthy  of  the  Episcopal 
 ministry  by  those  who  were  capable  of 
 judging  on  such  matters  */' 
 
 The 
 
 K   E   <I>.      E. 
 
 *  Oi   unnx^iv  avo  th  Swrr^o?  xxt   ettj   th;  o>)Ayn/,E»«?   If^o!rQ^^'//*;» 
 
 E7r»axo~oi. 
 
 Tw»  ysfjivt  et  IsfocroXy/iioi?  Y.'Jierv.oiToiv  rn<;  Xfos'K?  y^ct^fi  o-u^ofxtvUi  nouf/.ui; 
 svp'".  HOjt*»^>)  yx^  «»  ^^ct^v'^onii  awraj  Aoyo?  nari^n  yivialan.  Toaarov 
 cf'  £*  ify^ct^uy  'a?a£f»A';^«}  ut;  ui^^i  7r,<;y.x~x  Ao^tavov  I«o«i4»k  -croXi^^xwej 
 
{      193     ) 
 
 The  meaning  of  the  term  yvcvng  is  very 
 inadequately  expressed  by  the  word  "faith." 
 The  early  Christian  writers  distinguished 
 between -sr/r'?  faith,  and  yv^a-ig  perfect!:  Chris- 
 tian knowledge  *.  The  first  they  held  to 
 be  a  summary  knowledge  of  the  most 
 necessary  truths ;  which  they  supposed 
 all  true  members  of  the  Christian  church 
 to  possess:  the  second  implied  the  purity 
 and  perfe6lion  of  Christian  faith  joined  to 
 perfe6l  knowledge  -f,  which  they  supposed 
 to  be  the  lot  of  only  a  few. 
 
 Eusebius  mentions,  in  the  same  Chapter, 
 that  all  these  bishops  were-  of  the  circum- 
 cision. "  The  Bishops,''  it  has  lately  been 
 observed,  "  were  Jews,  because  the  people 
 were  so  J."  And,  in  the  spirit  of  this  just 
 remark,  it  may  be  added,  the  bishops  were 
 true  believers,  because  the  people,  by  whom 
 they  were  elected,  were  so. 
 
 III.  When 
 
 >i«T«d6|a(70a»"  ur  »;o>!  lErgo?   rm  rcc  Toia^s    f^iK^wtiv  ^vvctruv  hch  tkj  tojs 
 ETric-y.oTrui/  XiiTBeyicc;  a^ia?  ooy.i[/.a.aQriVat, 
 
 *  Clemens.  Alex-.   L.  5.  sub  initio    Euseb.   Ecc.  Hist. 
 L.  2.  c.  i.      Valesius  Note  on  Eusebius,  p.  24. 
 
 ■f  OwTe  ri  ■yvi'ai;  uhv    rxTtr^uc,  aO    »j  ■nrjr'J  ccviv  yvxamq,      <t>AniTai 
 TfAfiwa-iv  iiTioi'/ofjArnv'  »;  y.iv  yx^  -KQiro  OTifK  y-oc^ocirsg^ifji.ty^toi;  v^oKHTXi, 
 
 Clem.  Alex.  L.  5. 
 
 X  History  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  3  p.  197. 
 
 Bb 
 
(      194     ) 
 
 III.  When  Sulpicius  Severus  (about 
 A.  D.  400.)  compiled  his  history  of  the 
 four  first  centuries,  he  was  enabled,  like 
 Euscbius,  to  draw  materials  from  books 
 which  are  now  lost :  and  the  accounts  of 
 these  two  historians,  though  expressed  in 
 different  wa3^s,  perfe^ily  coincide,  and 
 confirm  one  another.  Sulpicius  declares, 
 m  the  most  explicit  terms,  that  the  great 
 body  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem  believed 
 in  the  divinity  of  Christ.  *'  Pene  omnes 
 Christum  Deum  sub  legis  observatione 
 credebant*/'  The  remark  of  Dr.  Priestley 
 on  this  passage  will  probably  be  consigned 
 t-o  the  fate,  to  which  he  would  destine  the 
 decisive  evidence  contained  in  it-f .  Those, 
 who  wish  to  support  a  system,  by  sup- 
 posing the  primitive  church  of  Jerusalem 
 to  have  been  Unitarian,  will  find  it  neces- 
 sary to  set  aside  the  relations  of  Eusebius 
 and  Sulpicius  Severus  :  but,  an  unpreju- 
 diced inquirer  after  truth  will  attend  to 
 them,  for   this    powerful   reason,  because 
 
 they 
 
 *L.  2.  c.  Ixv. 
 
 f  "  This  writer's  mere  assertion,  that  the  Jewish 
 Christians  helJ  Christ  to  be  God,  in  the  proper 
 sense  of  the  word,  unsupported  by  any  reasons  for  it,  is 
 even  kis  to  be  regarded  than  that  of  Eusebius."  Letters  to 
 the  Archdeacon  of  St.  Albans,  Appendix  3.  p.  218.  This 
 is  certainly  too  summary  a  method  of  disposinc^  of  ancient 
 testimonies. 
 
(      ^95      ) 
 
 tliey  are  not  simply  the  only  ancient 
 writers  of  credit,  but  the  only  ancient 
 writers  of  any  sort,  in  whose  works  any 
 dire61  testimony  on  this  subject  has  been 
 preserved. 
 
 IV.  Though  no  dire6l  testimony  to  the 
 orthodoxy  of  the  primitive  church  of  Jeru- 
 salem can  be  produced  in  addition  to  that, 
 w^hich  I  have  stated  in  this  and  the  pre- 
 ceding Chapter ;  it  is  remarkably  confirmed 
 by  a  body  of  collateral  evidence,  which  no 
 less    deserves    our   attention.       The   two 
 great  badges   of  Ebionitism,   I  have  just 
 observed,    were    the    observance    of    the 
 Mosaic  ritual  and  an  attachment  to  Uni- 
 tarianism.       That    the    members    of    the 
 church  of  Jerusalem  were  distinguished  by 
 the  first  of  these  marks  is  allowed  by  all : 
 and    if  they    were   also  believers    in    the 
 simple    humanity    of  Christ,    they    were 
 really  and  truly  Ebionites;  and  Ebionitism 
 not   only  began   to   exist,  but  flourished, 
 a  few  days  after  the  crucifixion  of  Christ, 
 W'hen  three  thousand  Jews  were  converted 
 to  Christianity*. 
 
 The 
 
 *Aasii. 
 
 B  B  2 
 
(      ^96    ) 
 
 The  passage  in  Eusebius,  in  which  the 
 Jirst  heralds  of  our  Saviour  are  said  to  have 
 given  the  name  of  Ebionites  to  certain 
 Christians,  may  seem  to  favour  this  sup- 
 position. And  if  the  hypothesis  be  true, 
 if  that  combination  of  opinions  and  habits, 
 which  constituted  Ebionitism,  really  ex- 
 isted at  Jerusalem  before  the  time  of 
 Vespasian,  Eusebius  himself,  and  several 
 other  historians  of  credit  will  probably 
 have  noticed  it,  in  some  parts  of  their  works. 
 But,  if  no  such  notice  can  be  found  ;  if 
 on  the  contrary,  Eusebius  himself  and 
 other  ancient  historians  of  credit  have 
 left  it  on  record,  that  the  Ebionites  began  to 
 exist  at  the  end  of  the  first,  or  the  beg-in- 
 iiing  of  the  second  century,  the  supposition 
 must  be  reversed,  and  we  may  conclude 
 with  certainty,  from  this  indirccl  testi- 
 mony, that  the  members  of  the  primitive 
 church  of  Jerusalem  were  not  Unitarians. 
 
 The  general  expression  "primitive  heralds" 
 (sr^uroycx^v^ieg)  in  Eusebius,  like  "  primitive 
 Christians,''  will  not  decide  on  the  origin 
 of  the  Ebionites  :  it  is  from  other  parts  of 
 his  works  that  his  testimony  on  the  subjedt 
 of  their  Antiquity  is  to  be  collected.  In  his 
 liistory,  he  first  treats  of  them  under  Trajan, 
 
 and 
 
{     ^97     ) 
 
 and  makes  them  of  the  same  antiquity  v/ith 
 the  Cerinthian  heresy,  and  that  of  the 
 Nicolaitans  *.  The  author  of  the  Alexan- 
 drian Chronicle -f  also  fixes  their  origin 
 under  Trajan  in  the  year  105.  Theo- 
 doret,  professing  to  follow  Eusebius, 
 places  the  origin  of  the  Nazar<xans,  Ebio- 
 nites  and  Cerinthians  in  the  reign  of 
 DomitianJ.  It  is  not,  perhaps,  easy  to 
 determine  whether  he  misunderstood  or 
 forgot  Eusebius,  or  whether  he  judged 
 tliis  to  be  the  true  date,  by  comparing 
 him  with  other  writers.  IrencEus  says, 
 that  all  the  heretics  were  later  than 
 tlK3  b-ishops,  to  whom  the  Apostles  com- 
 mitted their  churches  || ;  and,  in  his  cata- 
 logue of  heresies,  he  places  several  sects 
 before  the  Ebionites§.  The  testimony  of 
 Irenasus    on    this    subject    is    that  of  the 
 
 Christian 
 
 *  Ecc.  Hist.  L.  3.  c.  xxvii,  xxviii, -xxix. 
 
 t  Chron.  Alex.  p.  596. 
 
 :|:  Haeret.  Fab.  L.  2.  c.  i,  il,  Hi 
 
 jl  L.  3.  c.  iv. 
 
 §  The  Heresiarchs  Simon,  McnanJer,  Saturnir,i!> 
 Basilides,  Carpocrates  are  placed  by  Irenaeus  and  T  heo- 
 doret  in  chronological  order  before  the  Cerinthians  and 
 Kbionites.  Though  the  order  is  not  txaclly  the  same  in 
 IipiphaniuSj  Augustine  andPhilaster,  many  seds,  however, 
 are  placed  before  the  Ebionites  in  all  their  catalogues. 
 
(      19S     ) 
 
 Christian  Fathers  in  general.  "  Epipha- 
 niiis*  makes  both  Ebion  (for  in  his  time 
 it  was  imagined  that  the  Ebionites  were 
 so  called  from  some  particular  person  of 
 that  name)  and  Cerintliiis  coteraporary 
 with  the  Apostle  John  ;  and  he  could  not 
 tell  which  of  them  was  the  elder.  He 
 likewise  makes  the  Ebionites  cotemporary 
 with  the  Nazarenes'f-.''  In  another  passage, 
 "  after  mentioning  the  places,  where  they 
 chiefly  resided,  viz.  Percea,  Coele-Syria, 
 Pella  and  Cocabe,"  he  mentions  that  they 
 had  their  origin  after  the  rem.oval  of  the 
 Jewish  Christians  from  Jerusalem,  on  the 
 approach  of  the  siege  %, 
 
 On  a  general  view  of  the  evidence  on 
 this  subje6t,  not  a  single  ancient  writer 
 is  found,  who  has  placed  the  origin  of  the 
 Kazarseans  and  Ebionites  before  a.  d.  70. 
 they  are  commonly  supposed  to  have  been 
 of  later  date ;  and  on  comparing  ancient 
 
 d.ocuments, 
 
 evtaf^eci  t^jtjruv  nvii  Tua^  Snhl^ccno.   Epiphan.  Haer.  29.  initio, 
 comp.  Haer.  30.  p.  149. 
 
 §  2. 
 
 f  History  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  3.  p.  164. 
 X  Haer.  30.  §  7.  p.  123. 
 
(      ^99      ) 
 
 documents,   modern  writers  have  found  it 
 difficult  to  decide  whether  they  were  se6ls 
 of    the     first,     or   second  Century.       Le 
 Clerc  *    fixes     one   in   the    year    72,    the 
 other    in     103:      Mosheim    treats     them 
 both   as    heresies  of  the  second  Century. 
 When   Toland    asserted,    that   they  were 
 the    first  and    only    Christians ;     his  ig- 
 norance    excited     the     astonishment     of 
 every   scholar:   and   he   was    immediately 
 refuted  by  an  appeal  to  the  ancient  writers  ; 
 a  part   of  whose    testimony   I    have  just 
 stated.      "  Those  heretics,"  s^ys  one  of  hi.? 
 opponents,    *'  whom   Nazarenus   calls    the 
 first  and  only  Christians,  were  not  known 
 to  the  ancients  till  after  the  destruction  of 
 Jerusalem." — What  accuracy  in  other  things 
 can  be  cxpe61ed  from  a  writer,  when  his 
 
 ignorance 
 
 *  Dr,   Priestley,  without  the  testimony  of  any  ancient 
 writer,  and   without  the  countenance   of  any   individual 
 among  the  moderns,  has  reduced  the  three  or  the  two  sedls 
 of  Ebiouites  and  Nazaraeans  to  one.     The  title  of  one  of 
 his  Chapters  runs  thus :  "  Of  the  Nazarenes  and  Ebionites, 
 shewing  that  they  were  the  same  people,  and  that  f!s?]e  of 
 them  believed  the  divinity  or  preexistence  of  Christ."     In 
 this  Chapter  he  seems  to  intimate,  (Vol.  3.  p.  178)  that 
 Le  Clerc  was  of  the  same  opinion  with  himself:  ('*  The 
 opinion  that    the  Ebionites  and  Nazarenes  were  the  same 
 people  is  maintained  by  Le  Clere  and  the  most  eminent 
 critics  of  the  last  age")  whereas  he  has  placed  the  origin 
 of  that  sedt,  which  believed  in  the  miraculous  conception 
 of  Christ,  in  the  year  seventy-two,  and  the  other  in  a.  d. 
 103.     See  his  Ecclesiastical  History  under  those  years. 
 
(        200        ) 
 
 ignorance  or  ill  will  leads  him  to  mistake 
 the  name,  the  sentiments  and  chronology  of 
 that  seel,  which  he  defends  r 
 
 e  ■^" 
 
 The  professed  objecl  of  Dr.  Priestley's 
 history  is  to  collect  the  sense  of  the  New 
 Testament  on  the  subje6l  of  the  nature  of 
 Christ y)*o;?j  the  interpretation  of  the  persons 
 to  whom  Christ  and  his  apostles  spoke  and 
 wrote:  this  interpretation  he  proposes  to 
 discover  through  the  medium  of  their  reli- 
 gious opinions  :  and  he  ascertains  (though 
 not  with  accuracy)  the  sentiments  of  the 
 NazarjTeans  and  Ebionites  by  the  testimony 
 of  ancient  writers  :  this  is  one  material 
 point  gained :  but,  in  order  to  attain  his 
 proposed  end,  it  is  necessary  that  he 
 should  prove  by  ancient  testimony  what 
 Toland  took  for  granted:  his  purpose  is 
 not  accomplished,  unless  he  proves  the 
 Ebionites  and  Nazaraeans  to  have  been  the 
 very  first  Jewish  Christians.  Knowing 
 probably  from  the  failure  and  disgrace 
 of  Toland,  that  this  is  impossible,  he 
 sometimes  contents  himself  v/ith  cauti- 
 ously affirming  "  that  both  Ebionites  and 
 Nazarwcans    were  existing  in    the   time   of 
 
 the 
 
 *  Mangey's  Remarks  upon  Nazarcnus,  p.  59. 
 
(       201       ) 
 
 the  Apostles*:'*  and  the  evidence,  which 
 he  has  adduced,  tends  only  to  prove  that 
 they  existed  before  the  death  of  the  Apo- 
 stle John;  sometimes,  however,  he  has 
 intimated,  what  he  knew  it  was  necessary 
 for  his  purpose  to  prove,  that  the  very 
 first  Jewish  Christians  were  Ebionites-f. 
 
 The  body  of  collateral  evidence  which  I 
 have  just  stated,  falling  in  with,  and  con- 
 firming the  diredl  testimonies  of  Hege- 
 sippus,  Eusebius  and  Sulpicius  Severus, 
 compleatly  sets  aside  this  unwarranted 
 supposition.  Either  the  members  of 
 the  primitive  church  of  Jerusalem  were 
 not  Unitarians,  or  Historians  in  placing 
 the  earliest  Unitarians,  and  among  these 
 the  Ebionites,  at  the  end  of  the  first,  or 
 the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  have 
 been  more  unanimous  in  relating  a  palpable 
 falsehood  than  writers  are  usually  observed 
 to  be  in  recording  truth. 
 
 V.   The 
 
 *  History  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  3.  p.  166. 
 
 t  P.  189,  and  210.  Where  he  takes  it  for  granted,  that 
 the  original  Jewish  Christians  were  the  same  with  the 
 Ebionites.  "  No  person  can  refled  upon  this  subje(5t 
 with  proper  seriousness,  without  thinking  it  a  little  extra- 
 ordinary that  the  Jewish  Christians  in  so  early  an  age  as 
 they  are  spoken  of  by  the  denomination  of  Ebionites, 
 should  be  acknowledged  to  believe  nothing  either  of  the 
 divinity,  or  even  of  the  preexistence  of  Christ,  if  either  of 
 those  do6trines  had  been  taught  thim  by  the  Apostles," 
 
 Cc 
 
(        202        ) 
 
 V.  The   whole  evidence  on  this  suhjecl 
 may  be  summarily  stated  under  the  follow- 
 ing heads.       i.  Several  ancient  Christian 
 writers,     who    considered    Unitarians    as 
 heretics,    have  declared  that  the  church  in 
 general  in    the   first   age    was  (compared 
 with  succeeding  times)   free  from  heresy: 
 several    others    have    affirmed    in   general 
 terms,   that    the   doftrines    of  the    church 
 were   of  greater  antiquity  than    those  of 
 any  of  the  se61:s:   and   the   claims  of  the 
 Unitarians  of  the  third  century  to  superior 
 antiquity  were  immediately  disproved  by 
 the   members    of  the  church  :   they  were 
 inconsistent  with  one  another ;   and  w^ere 
 advanced  at   random,  without  any  know- 
 ledge of  the  history  of  the  times,  in  which 
 they    asserted    that     their    opinions     had 
 prevailed, 
 
 2.  In  the  works  of  two  Historians,  be- 
 lievers in  the  divinity  of  Christ,  the  purity 
 of  the  faith  of  the  Hebrew  church  of 
 Jerusalem  in  the  first  century  is  strongly 
 attested.  Both  these  wTiters  w^ere  men  of 
 learninsr,  and  drew  the  materials  for  their 
 histories  from  ancient  documents  ;  some 
 of  which  are  now  lost :  one  of  them,  a 
 native  of  Palestine,   who   wrote  less  than 
 
 two 
 
(      203      ) 
 
 two  centuries  after  tlie  extin6lion  of  that 
 church,  expressly  declares  that  he  pub- 
 lished his  testimony  on  the  authority  of 
 written  records ;  and  has  happily  pre- 
 served a  fragment  of  Hegesippus,  a  Jewish 
 Christian,  a  member  of  the  Catholic 
 church  in  the  middle  of  the  second  cen- 
 tury: the  frao^ment  is  taken  from  his 
 history  of  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem, 
 and  it  contains  strong  testimony  to  the 
 purity  of  their  faith  till  the  time  of  Trajan. 
 
 3.  The  origin  of  the  Nazaraeans  and 
 Ebionites  is  placed  by  the  concurrent  tes- 
 timony of  several  ancient  historians  at  tlie 
 end  of  the  first,  or  the  beginning  of  the 
 second  century :  and  the  first  individuals, 
 who  believed  in  the  simple  humanity  of 
 Christ,  are  mentioned  by  name  by  several 
 writers.  This  is  a  clear,  though  indirect 
 declaration,  that  the  first  members  of  the 
 church  of  Jerusalem  believed  in  the  divi- 
 nity of  Christ :  had  they  not ;  they  would 
 have  been  Ebionites. 
 
 4.  No  ancient  testimony  can  be  found 
 to  oppose  this  evidence.  No  writer  has 
 asserted,  that  the  members  of  the  primi- 
 tive church   of  Jerusalem  believed   in  the 
 
 C  c  2  simple 
 
(      204      ) 
 
 simple  humanity  of  Christ :  no  one  has 
 called  them  Ebionites :  no  one  has  placed 
 Ebionitism  or  Unitarianism  of  any  kind 
 before  the  seventieth  year  after  the  birth 
 
 of  Christ. 
 
 :^^ 
 
 CHAP- 
 
{     205     ) 
 CHAP.     XI. 
 
 THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA- 
 MENT  BY  THE  FIRST  JEWISH  CHRISTIANS, 
 COLLECTED  FROM  THEIR  RELIGIOUS 
 OPINIONS. 
 
 • 
 
 I.  The  ancient  testimonies  to  the  opinions  of  the  jirsl 
 
 Jewish  Christians  unopposed  by  any  evidence  except 
 
 a  prescriptive  argument    founded  on    the  opinions  of 
 
 Ebionites  in  the  third  Century  as  described  by  Origen. 
 
 Examination  of  this  argument.     Its  weakness  virtually 
 
 allowed  by  Dr.  Priestley ;    who   contends,    that  the 
 
 opinions  of  one  part  of  the  Jewish  Christians  changed 
 
 between    a.  d.    170,  and    230.      Origen's  testimony 
 
 not  inconsistent   with  that  of  Hegesippus,    Eusebius 
 
 and  Sulpicius.     2.  Disappearance  of  Jewish  Christians 
 
 in  most  of  the  churches  in  the  second  Century.     Their 
 
 extindlion  accounted  for  from  the  combined  influence 
 
 of  several  causes.     Judaism  had  been  abandoned  by 
 
 some    members    even    of  the    church   of  Jerusalem 
 
 before  the  time  of  Adrian.      It    would  probably  b( 
 
 abandoned  by    the    greater    part    of  them    after  th( 
 
 edi6t   of   Adrian.      Most    of  them   would  probabl; 
 
 have  ceased  to  be  Jews  (properly  so  called)  befor 
 
 the  time  of  Origen.     Had  Origen  declared,  that  a- 
 
 the  Jews  professing  the  Christian  religion  in  his  tim 
 
 were    Ebionites,    his  testimony  would  not  be  incoi- 
 
 sistent  with  that  of  Hegesippus,  Eusebius  and  Sulpiciu. 
 
 I.  1  N  the  discussion  of  some  historicl 
 questions,  strong  evidence  is  found  o 
 both  sides,  and  it  is  necessary  to  atted 
 
 w:h 
 
(        206        ) 
 
 with  great  care  to  repugnances,  to  weigli 
 opposite  testimonies,  and  to  be  decided  by 
 the  preponderance  of  that  side,  on  which 
 sound  judgement  discerns  the  greater 
 weight.  In  the  present  case,  we  have 
 little  labour  beyond  the  easy  task  of  stating 
 coincidences.  The  only  evidence  adduced, 
 on  one  side,  against  strong  testimony  on 
 tlie  other,  is  a?i  argument  founded  on  a 
 declaration  of  Origxn  respecting  the  faith 
 oi  Jewish  Christians  in  the  beginning  of 
 the  third  Century, 
 
 An    impartial  inquirer    after    historical 
 
 trutli   has  great  reason  to  complain,  that 
 
 while  the  testimony  on  one   side  has  not 
 
 "t>een  fully  and   fairly  stated  in  the  History 
 
 ^J  early   Opinions,  or   in  any  part    of  the 
 
 long   controversy    before   and    after    that 
 
 HListory,  the  prescriptive  argument  deduced 
 
 rom  Origen  has  been  expanded  beyond  all 
 
 Easonable  bounds,  and  has  been  made  to 
 
 ccide  on  a  question,  with    which    it  has 
 
 Ittle,  or  no  connection. 
 
 One  of  the  objeds  of  the  philosophical 
 ompiler  of  tliis  History,  was  to  determine 
 tb  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament 
 bj  the  Jewish  Christians  in  the  first  Cen- 
 tury 
 
{        207        ) 
 
 tury  through  the  medium  of  their  religious 
 opinions.  This  objedl  necessarily  required 
 him  to  give  attention  to  all  the  testimony 
 of  credible  historians  among  the  ancients 
 on  that  particular  subjeit ;  but,  instead  of 
 listening  to  the  only  evidence,  by  wdiich 
 the  opinions  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem  in 
 the  first  century  can  be  determined,  he  has 
 betrayed  a  strong  disposition  to  shrink 
 from  the  whole  of  it :  and  has  succeeded 
 in  drawing  the  attention  of  his  opponents 
 from  the  times  before  Adrian  to  a  period  a 
 full  century  later  than  the  reign  of  that 
 monarch. 
 
 After  the  regular  historical  evidence  on 
 the  tenets  of  the  Jewish  Christians  in  the 
 first  century  had  been  impartially  stated 
 and  fully  considered  ;  the  argument  from 
 Origen  might  also  have  been  set  forth  in 
 all  its  force.  It  would  have  been  reason- 
 able, after  having  collected  and  weighed 
 the  testimony  of  antiquity  on  this  sub- 
 ject, to  have  given  due  attention  to  the 
 obje6lions  against  it :  it  would  have  been 
 proper,  after  having  stated  the  common 
 historical  testimon}^,  to  have  started  the 
 "  historical  doubts." 
 
 It 
 
(        208        ) 
 
 It  might  have  been  asked  with  great 
 propriety ;  How  could  it  happen,  if  most 
 of  the  Jewish  Christians  of  the  first  Century 
 were  behevers  in  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
 as  they  are  said  to  have  been  by  the  only 
 historians,  who  have  written  expressly  on 
 this  point,  that  Origen,  in  the  beginning 
 of  the  thirds  should  speak  of  no  Jewish 
 Christians  then  existing  but  Ebionites  of 
 two  kinds  ?  "  This  testimony  of  such  a 
 person  as  Origen  to  the  Unitarianism  of 
 all  the  Jewish  Christians  in  his  time,  goes 
 so  near  to  prove  the  Unitarianism  of  the 
 great  body  of  Jewish  Christians,  and  con- 
 sequently of  the  Christian  church  in  gene- 
 ral, in  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  that  I  do 
 not  wonder  at  your  wishing  to  set  it 
 aside  */' 
 
 This  would  have  been  a  reasonable, 
 though  not  a  powerful,  obje6lion.  The 
 writer,  by  whom  it  has  been  advanced,  has 
 suggested  one  of  the  means  of  its  refutation. 
 The  force  of  the  obje6lion  depends  on  the 
 degree  in  which  it  is  probable  that  the 
 opinions  of  the  Judaizing  Christians  con- 
 tinued  the  same  from  the  time  of  Adrian 
 
 to 
 
 *  Letters  to  the  Archdeacon  of  St.  Albans,  Pf,  3.  p.  4. 
 
(        209        ) 
 
 to  the  time  of  Origen,  about  a  Century.' 
 Those,  who  are  best  acquainted  with  human 
 nature,  will  judge  how  little  stress  can  be 
 laid  on  the  immutability  of  human  opinion 
 during  the  course  of  a  century,  in  which 
 the  opinions  of  the  whole  Roman  world 
 began  to  change,  and  the  beginning  of 
 which  was  marked  by  one  of  the  greatest 
 convulsions  in  the  political  state  of  the 
 Jews,  that  ever  happened  to  any  nation. 
 How  little  can  be  depended  on  the  immu- 
 tability of  the  opinions  of  the  Ebionites 
 during  the  second  century.  Dr.  Priestley 
 has  determined  against  himself. 
 
 In  one  part  of  his  works,  he  has  sup- 
 posed, that  before  the  time  of  Irenasus, 
 (a.  p.  170.)  there  existed  only  one  se6l  of 
 '  these  Jewish  Christians,  and  that  se6l 
 denying  the  miraculous  conception  of 
 Christ,  as  well  as  his  divinity.  Now  as 
 Origen  (a.  d.  230.)  speaks  of  one  seel  of 
 Ebionites  denying,  and  awo^/z^r  believing  the 
 miraculous  conception  ;  a  great  revolution 
 must  have  taken  place  in  the  religious 
 opinions  of  one  part  of  the  Ebionites  in  the 
 space  of  forty  or  fifty  years, 
 
 D  D  This 
 
C       210        ) 
 
 This  supposition,  I  allow,  is  not  con- 
 sistent with  history*:  but,  since  Dr. 
 Priestley  has  admitted  the  possibility  of 
 such  a  change,  since  he  has  stated  it  as  a 
 fac5l,  ("  Originally  the  Jewish  Christians 
 did  not  believe  the  do6lrine  of  the  mira- 
 culous conception.  Both  Justin  Martyr 
 and  Ireiiceus  represent  them  as  believing 
 it,  without  excepting  any  that  did.  Origen 
 is  the  first,  who  has  noticed  two  kinds  of 
 Ebionites,  one  believing  the  miraculous 
 conception,  and  the  other  denying  it-^j^:") 
 since  he  has  even  drawn  important  in- 
 ferences from  this  supposed  fact  against 
 the  authenticity  of  the  two  first  Chapters 
 of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel;  his  argument, 
 founded  on  the  immutability  of  the  opinions 
 of  Jewish  Christians  from  the  first  to  the 
 third  century,  is  destroyed  by  his  own 
 authority. 
 
 If 
 
 *Epiphanius,  with  more  means  of  ijiformntion  than  we 
 are  possessed  of,  was  unable  to  determine  wiih  certainty 
 which  sc6l  was  tlie  more  ancient,  the  Nazarjeans,  who 
 bcHcvcd  in  the  miraculous  conception  of  Christ,  or  the 
 Ccrinthians  :  but,  he  has  placed  bojh  before  the  Ebio- 
 nites in  his  catalogue:  from  his  account,  however,  as  well 
 as  from  that  of  Husebius  and  7"hcodoret,  it  appears  that 
 these  three  secSls  begail  to  exist  about  the  same  time. 
 
 f  History  of  early  Opinions,  B.  3.  c,  11.  p.  215% 
 
-(  211  ) 
 
 If  a  revolution  took  place  in  the  opinions 
 of  one  part  of  the  Jewish  Christians  in  the 
 short  compass  of  forty  or  fifty  years,  the 
 opinions   of  the   whole  body  might  have 
 altered  between  the   ages  of  Adrian  and 
 Origen.      And,    in   fa 61,  human    opinion 
 in  different  ages  is  too  variable  to   enable 
 us  to  draw  conclusions   from  one  century 
 to  another  with  certainty.     If  Origen,  about 
 A.  D.  230,  had  related,  that  all  Christians 
 of  Jewish   extra6lion   in   his   time    were 
 Unitarians,    and  had  said  nothing  on  the 
 faith  of  the  Jewish  Christians  of  the  first 
 century ;  if,  on  the  other  hand,  Hegesippus, 
 Eusebius  and  Sulpicius  Severus,  about  the 
 years  170,    330,  and  400,   had  related   it 
 as  an  historical  truth,  that  the  great  body 
 of  Jewish    Christians,  in  the  first  century 
 and  the  beginning  of  the  second,  believed 
 in  the  divinity  of  Christ;  they  would  have 
 advanced   nothing  absolutely  inconsistent 
 with   each   other's  accounts.       Historians 
 of  the  eighteenth  century  have  represented 
 the  great  body  of  Englishmen  in  the  fif-r 
 teenth  as  Roman  catholics :  writers  at  the 
 beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century  have 
 described  the   English  of  their   own  time 
 as  a  nation  of  Protestants :  yet  these  two 
 accounts  are  not  inconsistent.      There  is 
 
 D  D  2  nothing 
 
(       212       ) 
 
 nothing  very  improbable  or  absurd,  we 
 should  say,  in  the  representation  of  any  of 
 these  writers:  the  fadl  attested  by  Hege- 
 sippus,  Eusebius  and  Sulpicius  Severus  is 
 totally  distin6l  from  that,  which  we  admit 
 on  the  authority  of  Origen :  they  bear 
 testimony  to  different  things ;  they  speak 
 of  people  removed  more  than  a  century 
 from  each  other:  human  opinion,  particu- 
 larly in  times  of  great  political  convulsions, 
 is  liable  to  change  :  in  the  second  century, 
 several  causes  existed  sufficient  to  effe6l  a 
 change  in  the  opinions,  customs  and  man- 
 ners of  Judaizing  Christians  :  and  these 
 causes,  we  know,  actually  produced,  at 
 least,  a  partial  effe6l :  for  in  most  of  the 
 churches,  which  in  the  first  century  were 
 composed  of  Jews  and  Gentiles  jointly, 
 Judaism  had  disappeared  long  before  the 
 end  of  the  second. 
 
 II.  Origen,  it  is  said,  in  the  beginning 
 of  the  third  century,  speaks  of  no  Jewish 
 Christians,  but  Ebionites  of  two  kinds  : 
 these  are  known  to  have  been  few  in  num- 
 ber, residing  in  Pella,  and  a  few  other  parts 
 of  the  East :  whereas  Jewish  Christians 
 had    existed    in   considerable  numbers   in 
 
 everv 
 
(       213       ) 
 
 every  church,  in  the  beginning  of  the  first 
 century,  and  had,  in  fa6l,  been  the  origi- 
 nal stocks,  from  which  the  Gentile  churches 
 had  sprung.  How  these  Jews  professing 
 the  Christian  religion  disappeared,  is  a 
 question  intimately  connedled  with  the 
 present  inquiry,  and  is  in  itself  a  subje6l 
 deserving  some  consideration. 
 
 The  difficulty  and  obscurity,  with 
 which  this  subject  has  been  enveloped,  are 
 strongly  expressed  in  the  History  of  early 
 Opinions.  "  It  is  to  be  lamented  that  we 
 know  so  very  little  of  the  history  of  the 
 Jewish  Christians.  We  are  informed  that 
 they  retired  to  Pella,  a  country  to  the  east 
 of  the  sea  of  Galilee,  on  the  approach  of 
 the  Jewish  war,  that  many  of  them  returned 
 to  Jerusalem  when  that  war  was  over,  and 
 that  they  continued  there  till  the  city  w^as 
 taken  by  Adrian ;  but,  what  became  of 
 those,  who  v.^ere  driven  out  of  the  city  by 
 Adrian  does  not  appear.  It  is  most  pro- 
 bable that  they  joined  their-  brethren  at 
 Pella  or  Beroea  in  Syria,  from  whence  they 
 liad  come  to  reside  at  Jerusalem;  and  in- 
 deed what  became  of  the  zvhole  body  of  the 
 ancient  Christian  Jews  (none  of  whom  can 
 be  proved   to  have   been   Trinitarians)    / 
 
 cannot 
 
(        214        ) 
 
 cannot  tell.  Their  numbers,  we  may  sup- 
 pose, were  gradually  reduced,  till  at  length 
 they  became  extin6l  */' 
 
 Even  in  the  middle  of  the  second 
 century,  no  traces  are  discoverable  of 
 Judaizing  Christians  in  any  of  the 
 churches  :  and  none  appear  to  have  existed 
 even  out  of  the  churches,  except  a  few 
 individuals  in  some  parts  of  the  East. 
 The  Ebionites  -f  were  the  last,  who,  in 
 inconsiderable  numbers,  had  a  separate 
 existence  :  and  even  they  were  gradually 
 mingled  with  other  Christians  or  with 
 Jews,  and  disappeared  altogether  in  the 
 fifth  or  sixth  century. 
 
 The   extin6lion    of  the  great   body  of 
 Christian  Jews,  or  in  other   words,  their 
 compleat   union   with    the  Gentile   Chris- 
 tians, may  be  accounted  for  from  the  com- 
 bined 
 
 *  Vol.  3.  p.  231. 
 
 t  Epiplianius  has  related,  that  Ebion  h'lmsdf  pre(7(hed  in 
 Rome  and  Asia  Minor;  but,  he  says,  the  roots  of  their 
 thorny  doctrines  were  principally  in  Nabate,  Paneas  and 
 Cochaba?,  and  even  in  Cyprus.  "Ovto?  p-ev  «►  J  eCio.*  y.ui  avroi; 
 
 t»  T-n  Affta.  TO  i(p(^e  y.r.^vyjji.oc  xa»  Pwjt>t»),  Ta?  «  ^t^a?  oi.ya,viiuau)i 
 'Sja.^cttpia.l'uv  i^ncnv  a-ira  re  t*?c  Nafarea;  xai  Tluyiaaoi  to  'cr^viircv, 
 M(i'aCtTi^o?  T£  y.ui  Y^uy^u^uiv  Tr?    f»  t»)    Eacran7to»  yr,  tflriKSiva   Ac^atf*, 
 
 itT^M  xui  1)1  TV,  KtTj-gw.     Hzer.  30.  §  18.  p.  142> 
 
(        215        ) 
 
 billed  influence  of  several  different  causes, 
 wiiich  are  known  to  have  operated  with 
 great  force  in  the  first  and  second  centuries. 
 
 1.  The  precepts  and  example  of  the 
 Apostles,  whose  writings  were  read  in  the 
 several  churches  of  which  the  Jewish 
 Christians  were  members ;  and  who,  if 
 they  permitted  the  observance  of  the 
 Mosaic  ritual  according  to  ancient  custom, 
 at  least  taught  its  inutility.  The  precepts 
 of  St.  Paul  are  almost  compleatly  epito- 
 mized in  these  words.  "  Circumcision  is 
 nothing,  and  uncircumcision  is  nothing,  but 
 the  keeping  the  commandments  of  God*." 
 
 2.  The  prevalence  of  an  opinion  strongly 
 insisted  on  by  some  of  the  earliest  Chris- 
 tian writers  -f ,  that  the  Gospel  was  the 
 substance  of  the  ceremonial  law ;  and  that 
 an  observer  of  the  precepts  of  Christianity 
 was,  in  the  utmost  stridness  of  speaking, 
 a  follower  of  the  precepts  of  Moses.  This 
 opinion  seemed  to  remove  all  objedlion 
 against  the  abandonment  of  this  law; 
 when    Jews,  by    reUnquishing   its    literal 
 
 observance, 
 
 *  I  Cor.  vii.  9. 
 
 t  Barnabas,  §  2.  lO.  Irenseus,  L.  4.  c.  xviii.  xlx. 
 Clemens  Alex.  Pa^dag.  L.  3.  c.  xii.  sub  initio.  Origen. 
 riiilocalia,  c.  i. 
 
(       816       ) 
 
 observance,  ceased  not  to  follow  it,  accord- 
 ing to  the  common  opinion,  in  a  more 
 perfect  manner.  Whatever  preeminence 
 they  ascribed  to  the  name  of  Israelites, 
 that  preeminence  they  still  enjoyed,  and 
 even  acquired  a  superiority  over  their  bre- 
 thren, whose  customs  they  had  deserted. 
 They  considered  Jews  as  cardial,  and  them- 
 selves as  the  true  spiritual  Israelites. 
 
 Non  genus  oblationum  reprobatum  est : 
 oblationes  enim  et  illic,  oblationes  autem 
 et  hie :  sacrificia  in  populo  sacrificia  in 
 ecclesia ;  sed  species  immutata  est  tantum*. 
 Munera  autem  et  oblationes  et  sacrificia 
 omnia  in  t3^po  populus  accepit,  quemad- 
 modum  ostensum  est  Moysi  in  monte  -f . 
 
 They  would  be  the  more  readily  induced 
 to  follow,  what  was  called,  the  spiritual 
 interpretation  of  the  Law,  instead  of  its 
 *'  carnal"  i.  e.  literal  signification,  because 
 some  of  the  unbelieving  Jews  themselves 
 had  long  been  accustomed  to  receive  many 
 parts  of  it  in  an  allegorical  sense.  Of 
 these  Philo  is  an  instance.  In  this  writer 
 tlie  allegorical  method  of  interpretation  is 
 carried  to  the  highest  pitch  of  extravagance : 
 and  it  was  probably   to  an   abuse  of  this 
 
 sort 
 
 *  Irenaeus,  L.  4.  c.  xvili.  f  L.  4.  c.  xix. 
 
(        217        ) 
 
 sort  of  interpretation,  that  our  Saviour 
 alluded  to,  when  he  complained  of  the  law 
 having  been  explained  away,  or  made  of 
 no  efFe6l  by  foolish  traditions. 
 
 3.  A  third  cause,  v/hich  greatly  con- 
 tributed to  effect  a  compleat  union  between 
 Gentile  and  Jewish  Christians,  was  the 
 general  prevalence  of  the  Greek  languas^e 
 in  most  parts  of  the  world,  where  Jews 
 resided.  Many  thousands  of  this  people, 
 who  had  lived  in  Alexandria  ever  since  the 
 time  of  tlie  two  first  Ptolemies,  and  many 
 others  in  different  parts  of  Asia  Minor  and 
 Greece,  spoke  and  understood  no  other 
 language.  Even  in  Palestine,  after  the 
 icra  of  the  Seleucidse,  the  use  of  the  Greek 
 language  stood  in  nearly  the  same  relation 
 to  that  of  the  Syriac,  as  the  English  now 
 bears  to  the  Gaelic  in  some  parts  of  Scot- 
 land. Some  of  the  inhabitants  spoke 
 Greek*;  which  thus  became  of  easy  access 
 to  all ;  the  greater  part  of  them  were  only 
 acquainted  with  the  Syriac -f^;  many  would 
 probably  have  a  familiar  knowledge  of 
 both  ;  and  some  of  their  Roman  masters 
 
 were 
 
 *  Acls  xxi.  37.  Lightfoot.  Hor.  Hebr.  in  Mattb.  i.  23. 
 
 tjosephus  Praef.  in  Anttq.  Judaic,  et  Pjaef.   in  Bell, 
 
 Ji;daic.  et  Ad^s  xxi.  40. 
 
 E  E 
 
(     si8      ) 
 
 were  perhaps  only  acquainted  with  the 
 Latin  language.  It  was  for  the  informa- 
 tion of  all  descriptions  of  persons  that  the 
 superscription  on  our  Saviour's  cross  was 
 in  Hebrew  (i.  e.  Syriac)  Greek  and  Latin. 
 All  the  New  Testament,  except  the  Gos- 
 pel of  St.  Matthew,  was  written  in  Greek 
 by  men  who  had  no  more  than  a  common 
 education :  Philo,  an  Alexandrian  Jew, 
 and  Josephus  of  Jerusalem,  wrote  in  the 
 same  language :  the  works  of  Aristo  of 
 Pella,  Justin  Martyr  of  Samaria,  and  He- 
 gesippus,  were  also  written  in  Greek :  and 
 most  of  the  sacred  books  of  the  Ebionites 
 were  in  this  very  general  language. 
 
 The  communication  of  opinion  between 
 the  Gentile  and  Jewish  Christians  would 
 be  much  facilitated  by  a  common  language, 
 and  would  materially  contribute  to  destroy 
 all  disagreement  between  them  on-  the 
 subje6lofthe  spiritual  observance  (i.  e.  in 
 other  words,  the  literal  desertion)  of  the 
 Mosaic  law. 
 
 4.  The  prevalent  opinion  of  most  of  the 
 Gentile  Christians  at  the  end  of  the  first 
 and  the  beginning  of  the  second  century, 
 
 on 
 
(        219        ) 
 
 on  the  sinfulness  of  Judaism,  and  their 
 violence  against  Judaizers,  particularly 
 those  who  refused  to  communicate  with 
 them,  must  also  have  had  some  efFe6l  in 
 detaching  a  part  of  these  Christians  from 
 the  observance  of  their  law.  About  a.  d. 
 140.  the  intolerance  of  the  Gentile  Chris- 
 tians was  become  so  extreme,  that  it  was 
 made  a  question,  on  which  they  were 
 divided,  whether  those,  who  continued  to 
 follow  the  Mosaic  ritual,  could  obtain 
 salvation  :  and  Justin  himself  decided  in 
 the  negative  against  those  who  attempted 
 to  impose  the  Jewish  yoke  on  Gentiles,  or 
 who  refused  to  communicate  with  them  *. 
 
 5.  Another  cause  of  the  diminution  of 
 the  numbers  of  Jewish  Christians  may  be 
 looked  for  in  the  persecution  of  Adrian  : 
 who  prohibited  all  Jews  from  entering  the 
 neighbourhood  of  Jerusalem.  Judaizing 
 Christians  were  included  in  his  decree :  and 
 it  may  reasonably  be  supposed  that  the 
 horrors  of  a  separation  from  their  native 
 country  would  induce  many  to  abandon 
 customs,  which  some  of  their  fellow  Chris- 
 tians had  long  thought  indifferent,  which 
 others  believed  to  be  wicked,  and  which  had 
 
 at 
 
 *  Justin  Martyr,  p.  230.  et  seq.  Ed.  Thirlby. 
 
 E  E  Q 
 
(        220         ) 
 
 at  length  become  as  offensive  to  their 
 Roman  conquerors  as  to  the  great  body  of 
 Christians. 
 
 The  joint  operation  of  these  causes,  for 
 they  all  acted  at  the  same  time,  must 
 have  been  almost  irresistible:  and  when 
 their  force  is  properly  appreciated,  it  will 
 cease  to  be  a  matter  of  wonder  that  so  few 
 Christian  Jews  existed  in  the  third  cen- 
 tury.  Obscure,  as  the  early  part  of  the 
 history  of  Christianity  confessedly  is,  one 
 compleat  revolution  in  the  state  of  the 
 Christian  churches,  and  the  existence  of 
 the  causes,  which  contributed  to  effect 
 another,  may  be  clearly  traced  out. 
 
 From  the  History  of  the  A6is  of  the 
 Apostles  and  their  Epistles  in  the  Ncw 
 Testament  it  appears,  that  Christians  at 
 first  formed  a  body  of  incoherent  parts. 
 Tl-e  Jews,  at  first,  were  the  majority,  and 
 in  some  of  the  churches  coiitinued  for  a 
 considerable  time  to  bear  a  great  propor- 
 tion to  their  Gentile  brethren ;  on  whom 
 they  attempted  to  impose  the  burdensome 
 and  painful  ceremonies  of  their  law.  Vio- 
 lent contentions,  as  it  might  be  cxpec^led, 
 \vere   the   consequences  of  this  attempt : 
 
 and 
 
(        221        ) 
 
 and  the  Gentile  converts,  after  having 
 defended  themselves  from  the  encroach- 
 ments of  Judaizers,  were  driven  by  the 
 bitterness  of  opposition  and  a  detestation 
 of  customs,  which  had  been  nearly  forced 
 on  thein,  to  an  intolerance  of  the  same 
 nature  with  that,  from  which  they  had 
 received  so  much  annoyance  ;  and  adtually 
 declared  it  absurd  even  for  Hebrews  "  to 
 call  themselves  by  the  name  of  Jesus 
 Christ  and  to  Judaize."  This  hard  sen- 
 tence was  pronounced  by  Ignatius*  about 
 A.  D.  1 07.  At  first  the  contest  was,  whether 
 all  should  follow  the  law  of  Moses  :  it  was 
 finally  decided,  that  it  should  be  observed 
 by  none. 
 
 The  Christian  Jews,  in  this  situation, 
 taught  to  relinquish  their  ancient  customs, 
 or  at  least  to  consider  them  as  indifferent, 
 by  the  lessons  of  the  Apostles ;  relieved 
 from  their  scruples  by  the  common  opinion, 
 that  an  observer  of  the  precepts  of  the 
 Gospel  was  i-eally  and  truly  a  fol- 
 lower of  the  law  of  Moses ;  detested  by 
 their  own  nation,  from  which  they  had 
 separated,  and  abhorred  and  anathematized 
 by  other  Christians   for   not  making  the 
 
 separation 
 
 *Epist.  to  the  Magncsians,  §  10. 
 
(        224        ) 
 
 by  relinquishing  odious  customs,  which 
 were  beginning  to  grow  out  of  date  even 
 among  themselves,  or  would  fly  to  other 
 Christian  churches;  where  finding  Judaism 
 proscribed  by  the  reprobation  of  their 
 brethren,  no  less  than  by  the  force  of 
 Adrian  in  Judea,  they  would  gradually 
 abandon  all  its  distin6live  customs  and 
 ceremonies,  sink  into  the  gentilism  of 
 Christianity,  and  be  in  reality  "one  fold 
 under  one  shepherd."  A6luated  by  no 
 motive  but  the  force  of  former  habits  to 
 continue  in  the  profession  of  the  Mosaic 
 law,  impelled  by  the  most  violent  reasons 
 to  abandon  it,  w^ith  the  loud  and  terrifying 
 voice  of  Christianity  raised  on  all  sides 
 against  Judaism,  with  the  thunder  of  the 
 synagogue  already  directed  against  apos- 
 tates*, and  with  the  sword  of  an  imperious 
 conqueror  driving  them  from  their  native 
 country  "f,  if  they  remained  Jews,  the  few 
 deserters  of  their  ancient  law  would  in- 
 crease, and  soon  become  the  multitude, 
 and  fallimr  into  the  relioion  and  customs 
 of  Gentile   Christians,   they  would    be   so 
 
 thoroughly 
 
 Justin  M.  Dial. 
 
 f  "  Adrianus  — niilitum  cohortem  custodias  in  perpetuum 
 agitare  jussir,  qux  JuJ.-eos  omncs  Hicrosolymsc  aditu 
 arceret."     ijulpicius  Severus, 
 
(        225        ) 
 
 thoroughly  incorporated  with  them  in  the 
 course  of  a  century,  that,  if  Origen  had 
 really  spoken  of  no  Jewish  Christians  but 
 Ebionites,  his  silence  would  be  no  argu- 
 ment against  their  existence. 
 
 Had  the  Ebionites  been  disposed  to  lay 
 aside  the  observance  of  the  ritual  law,  the 
 peculiarity  of  their  opinions  on  another 
 subje6l  would  have  prevented  them  from 
 uniting  with  other  Christians.  They  be- 
 lieved in  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ; 
 and  this  obnoxious  article  of  their  creed 
 formed  a  perpetual  bar  against  their  admis- 
 sion into  any  of  the  churches ;  but,  which 
 existed  not  with  the  great  body  of  Jewish 
 Christians,  "Qui  Christum  Deum  crede- 
 bant/' 
 
 Had  Origen  then  asserted,  that  the 
 Ebionites  were,  as  far  as  he  knew,  the 
 only  Jews  professing  the  Christian  religion 
 m  his  time, — without  explaining  himself 
 more  fully  afterwards,  we  should  neither 
 have  reason  to  question  his  veracity,  with 
 one  class  of  readers,  nor  to  conclude,  with 
 another,  that  the  Ebionites  were  the  only 
 Jewish  Christians  of  the  first  century, 
 because  he  knew  of  no  others  in  the  third. 
 
 Ff  CHAP. 
 
(        22(5        ) 
 
 C  H  A  P.     XII. 
 
 THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA- 
 MENT BY  THE  FIRST  JEWISH  CHRISTIANS 
 COLLECTED  FROM  THEIR  RELIGIOUS 
 OPINIONS. 
 
 I. — 2.  Opinions  of  Petavius,  Tillemont,  Moslieim, 
 Horsley,  Priestley  on  the  meaning  of  two  passages,  in 
 the  opening  of  the  2d  Book  of  Origen's  treatise  against 
 Celsus,  on  the  subje6l  of  the  Christians  of  Jewish 
 extraction  in  the  third  Century.  3—4.  Explanation 
 of  these  passages.  Both  Celsus  and  Origen  bear  testi- 
 mony to  the  existence  of  Christians  of  Jewish  extiat^ion, 
 who  had  abandoned  the  obseivance  of  the  Mosaic  law. 
 
 5.  General  view  of  Origen's  reply  to  the  first  charge 
 of  Celsus  against  the  Christians  of  Jewish  extraction. 
 
 6.  Testimony  of  Celsus  lo  the  belief  of  the  great  body 
 of  Christians  of  Jewish  extradion  in  the  divinity  af 
 Christ.  This  testimony  confirmed  by  the  acquiescence 
 of  Origen.  7.  How  far  Origen  has  denied  the  truth 
 of  the  charges  of  Celsus  in  the  opening  of  the  second 
 Book. 
 
 I.  A  ROM  the  united  testimony  of  seve- 
 ral ancient  writers  it  appears,  that  the 
 Jewish  Christians  of  the  first  century,  ia 
 general,  believed  in  the  divinity  of  Christ ; 
 and  that  no  individuals  appeared,  who 
 asserted  his  simple  humanity,  till  towards 
 
 the 
 
(       227        ) 
 
 the  end  of  that  century.  Against  this 
 facl,  so  establislied,  no  testimony  what- 
 ever has  been  opposed  :  and  nothing  has 
 been  advanced  to  call  it  in  question,  except 
 a  presumptive  argument  founded  on  the 
 supposed  testimony  oi  Origen;  who,  it  is 
 asserted,  has  spoken  of  the  Ebionites,  as 
 if  they  were  the  only  Christians  of  Jewish 
 extra6lion  in  his  time ;  without  having 
 alluded  to  any  others. 
 
 Had  Origen  really  mentioned  no  others ; 
 it  could  only  be  concluded,  tliat  a  com- 
 pleat  intermixture  had  taken  place  between 
 the  Jewish  Christians,  (described  by  He- 
 gesippus,  Eusebius  and  Sulpicius  Severus) 
 and  the  Gentiles  ;  not  that  those  historians 
 had  asserted  a  falsehood.  But,  in  facl, 
 this  testimony  of  Origen,  like  the  silence 
 of  Eusebius  on  the  religious  tenets  of 
 Hegesippus,  is  a  mere  fiction:  and  both 
 he  and  his  antagonist  Celsus  must  be 
 brought  forv^'ard  to  prove,  what  we  might 
 previously  expe6l  would  be  the  fac^l,  that 
 most  of  the  Christians  of  Jewish  extra 6lion, 
 before  the  end  of  the  second  century  had 
 deserted  the  Mosaic  ritual,  and  believed  in 
 the  divinity  of  Christ, 
 
 F  F  2  II.    In 
 
(        228        ) 
 
 II.  In  the  opening  of  the  second  Book 
 against  Celsus  an  apparent  inconsistency 
 between  two  passages,  very  near  each 
 other,  has  long  since  been  observed.  In 
 the  first  of  them  it  seems  to  be  imphed, 
 that  all  Christians  of  Jewish  extra6tion 
 observed  the  ritual  law  in  the  age  of  the 
 writer,  and  were  called  Ebionites.       Ur^^s 
 
 TUTO  KocravG-^crxq^  on  oi  utto   laoctiuv   eig   rov  JriO-av 
 'srigiuovTBg    a    KocroiXeXciTruci    rov    TiroiT^iov    vojxov* 
 (3i^cri  ycco  jcar  avrov  BTrojvvfzoi  ttj/;  kccto.  rvjv  eycdoxv-^ 
 ts'TU^'Xiiccq  T»  vou,}i  yey^vVti^Bvoi.     Ek,iuv  yao  o  'm'Tco'/og 
 iirocatx.  la^uicig  auXsircci'  kcci  E^iuvociot    ;^^ij|ttofr/^fc'cr<y 
 01  UTTO  la^cx-iuv  Tov  lv,(r\iv  tag  'Koig'ovj  'sra^cide^cx.fzivoi   . 
 "Not  having  been  aware  of  this,  that  the 
 Jews,  who  believe  in  Jesus  have  not  de^ 
 serted   the  ancient  law  of  their  country  : 
 for  they  live  according  to   it,  receiving  a 
 name  from  the  poverty  of  the  law^  accord- 
 ing to  their  acceptation-f-  of  it :  for  a  beggar 
 is  called  among  the  Jews  Ebion  :  and  they 
 of  the  Jews,   who  have  received  Jesus  as 
 the  Christ,  go  by  the  name  of  Ebionseans." 
 
 Though  the  second  passage  has  been 
 very  imperfectly  and  erroneously  under- 
 stood, it  is  universally  allowed,  that  men- 
 tion is   made  in  it  of  two  sorts  of  Jewish 
 
 Christians 
 
 *  P.  56.  Ed.  Spencer. 
 
 ■f  See  Valesiusonlhe  term  ix'^a^ri  in  a  note  on  Euscbius, 
 L.  6.  c.  xili. 
 
(       229       ) 
 
 Christians    at   least,    some  of  whom  Jiad 
 deserted  the  literal  observance  of  the  law. 
 
 Kcci  log  cvyKS)/Vfji£vug  ys  tocvQ  o  'srccgoc.  rca  K&X(ra 
 laouiog  Xsyeij  ovvu^jL^vog  •sri^ocvurBpov  enretVy  on  rivsg 
 fjLEV  Tjfzuv  icccTO(.XeXoi7ra<ri  roc  e9vj  woo<pcx,(r£i  otviy7i(reci)V 
 xcci  uXXviyopiuv*  Tivsg  oe  y.on  6iviy\i^£VQiy  ug  ZTTccfysX- 
 Xetrdsy  wvsvf^oiriTcugj  .aosv  ifrrov  roc  'srcx.rpia  ttjositb* 
 Tivsg  oe  noe  OiTjyafjLSvotj  ^aXsa^e  koh  tov  Ivja'av  "Ztroipa," 
 de^occOoii  ccg  T!rpo(pi/iTSV&£VTix,  x,ix,i  tov  M&'ucrsii)?  vofj(,ov 
 TTior^cTixiy  ct>g  ev  r>7  Xs^et  B^ovreg  rov  'sruvroe,  ra  wfisu- 
 
 The  first  of  these  passages  seems,  at 
 first  sight,  not  only  inconsistent  with  the 
 second,  but  is  also  at  variance  with  other 
 parts  of  Origen,  in  which  he  treats  Ebionites 
 with  the  utmost  contempt,  and  mentions 
 them  merely  as  persons  who  call  themselves 
 Christians. 
 
 Petavius  -f  has  attempted  to  reconcile 
 Origen  with  himself  and  other  writers,  by 
 supposing,  that  in  the  first  of  the  passages 
 
 he 
 *  P.  59- 
 
 t  V'^erum  Ebionaeorum  nomen  latius  extendisse  vicieri 
 potest  Origenes ;  ut  Ebionsos  illos  appellet,  qui  cum 
 alioqui  de  Christi  divinitate  re^le  sentirent,  cum  Chris- 
 tiana religione  Jiidaicas  ceremonias  amplc6lendas  crede- 
 rent:  quod  quidem  tomo  2°.  subinitiumsignificare  videiur, 
 Petavius  Annot.  in  Epiphan,  de  lixr.  Ebion. 
 
(        228        ) 
 
 II.  In  the  opening  of  the  second  Book 
 against  Celsus  an  apparent  inconsistency 
 between  two  passages,  very  near  each 
 other,  has  long  since  been  observed.  In 
 the  first  of  them  it  seems  to  be  imphed, 
 that  ail  Christians  of  Jewish  extra6tion 
 observed  the  ritual  law  in  the  age  of  the 
 writer,  and  were  called  Ebionites.       Ur^Ss 
 
 rUTQ   KOiTC&V 071(7 OLq^   OTl   01    OiTTO    Inocciuv    Big    TOV  Jrj(riiV 
 
 'Zing-evovrsg  a  KccroiXsKoiTrucn  tov  TxrotTOiov  voy.ov'' 
 (Biaci  ycco  "Aolt  cojtov  bttccvvi^oi  rvjg  Kccrcx.  rr;V  ex.^ox'K''^ 
 •zrrcti^siticg  ns  vofji^  ysysw^ixevot,  E^iuv  yoco  o  isTru^yjiq 
 'ZirocDcx.  la^uicig  KccXsiroii'  y.ui  E^imocioi  ^C7ii/,cxm(^iic-iv 
 oi  e/.TTO  la^ocioov  TOV  JViCrav  ug  Xpig'oVy  •Ztraoccde^ccf/^EVoi* , 
 
 "  Not  having  been  aware  of  this,  that  the 
 Jews,  who  believe  in  Jesus  have  not  de^ 
 serted  the  ancient  law  of  their  country  : 
 for  they  live  according  to  it,  receiving  a 
 name  from  the  poverty  of  the  law,  accord- 
 ing to  their  acceptation-f-  of  it :  for  a  beggar 
 is  called  among  the  Jews  Ebion  :  and  they 
 of  the  Jews,  who  have  received  Jesus  as 
 the  Christ,  go  by  the  name  of  Ebionaeans." 
 
 Though  the  second  passage  has  been 
 very  imperfeclly  and  erroneously  under- 
 stood, it  is  universally  allowed,  that  men- 
 tion is   made  in  it  of  two  sorts  of  Jewish 
 
 Christians 
 
 *  P.  56.  Ed.  Spencer. 
 
 t  See  Valesiuson  the  term  sxJoxi  in  a  note  on  Euscbius, 
 L.  6.  c,  xiii. 
 
(       229       ) 
 
 Christians    at   least,    some  of  whom  Jiad 
 deserted  the  literal  observance  of  the  law. 
 
 Kcci  cog  cuyns'xvyAvug  ys  rocv9  a  'srotpa  too  KsXcrco 
 ladaiog  Xsyeij  cwa,i/,£vcg  "ziriQuvuTSpov  znreiVy  on  rivsg 
 fjLEv  vjfjLOov  y.ciiraXBXoi7ra(ri  roc  zQiq  'uroo(pcc(TZi  oty]yi](recov 
 xoti  uXKviyopieav*  Tivsg  oe  y.0Li  diviya^Bvoiy  cog  eTTuP/BX-' 
 Xeo'dsj  wv£Vf:iO!,rix,ugj  .adsv  tjttov  roi  ixro(.rpic&  ttjobite* 
 Tivsg  oe  aoe  atTiynfjiEvot^  jSaKso'de  koci  tov  li^a-'nv  ^srocpa- 
 ts^ocG-dai  cog  i!rpo(pviTBvS£vroij  koci  tov  Meov(recog  vo^ov 
 TTjDY.o'oa,  cog  ev  tv  Xs^bi  B')(ovTBg  tov  'sruvToe.  ra  "srffeu- 
 fjiCiTog  vav^. 
 
 The  first  of  these  passages  seems,  at 
 first  sight,  not  only  inconsistent  with  the 
 second,  but  is  also  at  variance  with  other 
 parts  of  Origen,  in  which  he  treats  Ebionites 
 with  the  utmost  contempt,  and  mentions 
 them  merely  as  persons  who  call  themselves 
 Christians. 
 
 Petavius  -f  has  attempted  to    reconcile 
 
 Origen  with  himself  and  other  writers,  by 
 
 supposing,  that  in  the  first  of  the  passages 
 
 he 
 
 *  P.  59- 
 
 t  Verum  Ebionaeorum  nomen  latius  extendisse  videri 
 potest  Origenes ;  ut  Ebionaeos  illos  appellet,  qui  cum 
 alioqui  de  Christi  divinitate  rei^e  sentirent,  cum  Chris- 
 tiana religione  Jiidaicas  ceremonias  amplccftendas  crede- 
 rent:  quod  quideni  tomo  2^.  subinitiumsigr.ificare  videiur, 
 Petavius  Annot.  in  Epiphan.  de  Hasr.  Ebion. 
 
(    230    ) 
 
 he  has  used  llie  term  E^iuvcciot  in  a  more 
 enlarged  sense  than  usual,  having  extended 
 it  to  all  Jewish  Christians,  whether  Ebio- 
 nites  properly  so  called  or  not. 
 
 Tillemont    supposes    an    inaccuracy   of 
 expression  in  the  first  passage ;    but,  with 
 equal  candour  and  justice,  allows  Origen 
 the   privilege   of  explaining  himself,  and 
 supposes  the  error  corre6led,  or  rather  the 
 obscurity  removed  in  the  second.   "Origen 
 seems  to  say,  that  in  his  time  all  the  con- 
 verted  Jews    still   observed   it    (the  law). 
 For,  when  Celsus  accused  them  of  having 
 changed  their  name  and  life,  Origen  an- 
 sw^ers,    that   they    followed    the    law,  and 
 were    called  Ebionites.      How-ever  he   ex- 
 plains   himself    a    little    afterwards,  and 
 declares,    that    of  the    Jewish   Christians 
 there  were  some  who  had  quitted  the  law, 
 and  others,  who  joined  it  together  with  the 
 faith  of  Jesus  Christ*/' 
 
 Mosheim  and  Dr.  Horsley  have  supposed, 
 that  Origen  has  asserted  a  wilful  falsehood 
 in  the  first  passage,  and  spoken  the  truth 
 in  the  second. 
 
 Dr. 
 
 *  Tillemont.  jMcm.  Eccl .  under  Ccrinthus. 
 
C    231    ) 
 
 Dr.  Priestley  contends  tliat  the  first 
 passage  is  true,  as  a  general  proposition, 
 and  that  the  exceptions  to  it  are  mentioned 
 in  the  second.  He  supposes  that  Origen, 
 in  the  last  passage,  alludes  to  a  few  Jewish 
 Christians,  who  had  abandoned  their  ancient 
 customs  ;  while  the  great  body  of  theni 
 (described  in  general  terms  in  the  first'*) 
 Iiad  not.  Pie  agrees  with  all  the  others, 
 who  have  turned  their  attention  to  this 
 part  of  Origen,  (in  this  also  Tillemont 
 seems  to  agree  with  them)  in  supposing, 
 that  those  Jewish  Christians,  who  had 
 deserted  the  law,  are  alluded  to  in  the  words 
 
 TlVBg  VjfJLCOV  KOCTUXz'hOi'TTOCfTl  TO.  B^vj  "WoocpxTzi  ^i',]'yyiTB:av 
 
 vcoci  uXXvjyu^iuv.  *'  Some  of  us  have  deserted 
 the  established  customs  under  the  pretext 
 of  following  allegorical  interpretations/' 
 
 III.  Great  obscurit}^  in  the  opening  of 
 Origen's  second  Book  th^ere  certainly  is  ; 
 but,  I  think,  no  contradiction.    The  second 
 
 of 
 
 *  Letters  to  the  Archde.icon  of  St.  Albans,  Pt.  3.  Letter  r. 
 He  is  not  very  consistent  with  hin:iself,  when  he  says,  that 
 "  Origen  expressly  informs  us,  that  in  his  time  all  the 
 Jewish  Christians  went  by  that  name"  (Ebionites,)  Hist. 
 Vol.  4.  p.  72.  And,  ''You  make  very  light  of  the: 
 Ebionites:  but  according  to  the  testimony  of  Origen, 
 they  were  the  whole  body  of  Jewish  Christians."  Letter  ^. 
 to  Dr.  Geddcs.  ^ 
 
(        232      ) 
 
 of  the  passages  in  question  is,  in  reality, 
 a  continuation  of  the  first;  for,  nearly  the 
 whole  matter  between  them  is  in  the  form 
 of  a  digression.  It  would  be  highly  im- 
 probable, on  this  account,  as  well  as  others, 
 that  he  should  assert  a  wilful  falsehood 
 in  tlie  one,  and  dire(^t:ly  contradidl  himself 
 in  the  other. 
 
 In  order  to  understand  the  beginning  of 
 the  second  Book,  it  is  necessary  to  keep 
 in  view  a  very  prevailing  notion  in  the 
 first  ages  of  Christianity  on  the  nature  of 
 the  relation  between  the  Mosaic  law  and 
 the  Gospel.  An  opinion,  which  was  enter-- 
 tained  by  perhaps  the  generality  of  Chris- 
 tians on  this  subject,  was  carried  by 
 Origen,  as  it  had  been  before  by  the  author 
 of  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  to  the  most 
 extravagant  pitch.  He  considered  all 
 parts  of  the  law,,  even  the  most  minute,  as 
 types  of  different  parts  of  the  Gospel  dis- 
 pensation. The  Gospel,  in  his  opinion, 
 w^as  the  substance  of  what  many  parts  of 
 the  law  were  only  a  shadow.  He  thought, 
 that  the  primary  obje61:  of  the  Mosaic 
 ceremonies  was  the  prefiguration  of  dif- 
 ferent parts  of  the  Christian  system,  that 
 the  ritual  law  was  intended  by  God,  when 
 
 delivered 
 
(      ^33      ) 
 
 delivered  to  the  Israelites,  to  serve,  as  it 
 were,  for  a  model  of  the  great  work  of 
 Christianity,  and  that  its  design  and  mean- 
 ing were  never  seen  till  the  veil  was  removed 
 from  before  it,  at  the  appearance  of  Christ*. 
 
 It  was  reserved  for  the  successful  labours 
 of  Maimonides  and  Spencer  to  discover, 
 that  the  primary  obje6l  of  the  laws  of 
 Moses  was  the  extindUon  and  prevention 
 of  idolatry  of  every  kind  :  and  that  injunc- 
 tions, which  at  first  sight  appear  absurd 
 or  trifling,  derived  significancy  and  wis- 
 dom by  acting  in  subservience  to  so  im- 
 portant an  end.  Origen,  not  possessed  of 
 this  key,  persuaded  himself,  that  some 
 parts  of  the  Pentateuch  were  nugatory, 
 others  impradlicable  and  delusive  f,  and 
 false  X  in  their  literal  sense,  that  some 
 laws  had  even  7io  meaning  except  an  alle- 
 gorical one  relating  to  Christianity;  and 
 he  has  formally  laid  it  down,  as  an  esta- 
 blished 
 
 ayaOa..    -^ccrcc  B^x^^v  uq   y.ua^y  ^^X^l^ivm^  ^>    <7X.«v    £»;^e   to  y?au,u.». 
 
 rhiJocalia,  c.  i.  p.  5. 
 
 t  Ama  ^i  isu,a-i  toi?  •3r§o£.^>,jU,£i'OK  ^lv^o^o^^av  Kcct  aaiCnut  ■»  Jtw- 
 Tum  WEg.  Bin  -Koyuv  ay.  a.\M  ti?  uvcti  ^okh  r,  ^'  y^^^p-y,  ^^ra  t« 
 Wj|x«T.xa   ^^  vmYiixevv;,  ccKX   uq  -sr^o?  to  ^..Aoy   y^xi^^a  i^uMt^y,tyn, 
 
 rhiJocaiia,  c.  1.  p.  7.  Ed.  Spenc. 
 
 X  He  supposes  the  History  in  the  beginning  of  Genesis 
 So  be  only  true  in  a  figurative  sense.  Philoc.  c.  i.p.  12,  13. 
 
 G  G 
 
(      234     ) 
 
 blislied  maxim,  that  all  parts  of  the  Old 
 and  New  Testament  "have  a  spiritual," 
 i.  e.  an  allegorical  sense ;  but,  that  "all  have 
 not  a  bodily,"  i.  e.  a  litercil,  "meaning*." 
 All  true  Christians,  all  the  members  of  the 
 Christian  church,  he  maintained,  were 
 strictly  and  truly  followers  of  the  Mosaic 
 law;  the  Gospel  san61;ioning  the  moral 
 part,  and  being  in  itself  the  real  substance 
 of  the  ceremonial ;  and,  according  to  his 
 principles.  Christians  were  more  truly 
 followers  of  this  law  than  the  Jews  them- 
 selves -f. 
 
 Without  attending  to  thesesentimentsof 
 Origen,  it  is  impossible  to  fully  comprehend 
 the  opening  of  the  second  book,  and  many 
 other  parts  of  his  works. 
 
 IV.  Celsus  lived  in  the  time  of  the 
 Antonines :  he  might  perhaps  be  even  as 
 early  as  the  age  of  Adrian,  where  Origen 
 lias  placed  him  J ;  and  had  probably  been 
 
 witness, 
 
 *  Eifft  Tivvi?   ypx^xi  TO  crk'fj.X'nx.o*  adxixui;  «^aj-a»  —  tr'i"  ow»  o»o»;i 
 T»!P  4'*'%'"'  "*•  fo  'vjyivf/.!*  T^fs  y^ufrji  fjiotx  ^r,  Qrnnv.      I  hiioc.  C.  ]. 
 
 P-  9-  n  . 
 
 Cj/H  To  'Zri'EfjM.diTtKov,  H  'SOuiTct  d«  TO  ffUfji.ctTt'toy,  p.    ID. 
 
 f  Philoc.  c.  i.  p.  l6,  17. 
 
 i  Urig.  coiit.  Oels.  L.  i.  sub  initio. 
 
(     ^Z5     ) 
 
 witness,  in  the  early  part  of  his  life,  to  the 
 desertion  of  the  Mosaic  law  by  great  num- 
 bers of  Jewish  Christians.  In  that  part  of  his 
 attack  on  Christianity, which  Origen  answers 
 in  his  second  book,  he  had  introduced  a  Jew 
 expostulating  with  his  fellow-countrymen  ; 
 "who,"  the  Jew  says,  "had  been  very 
 ridiculously  duped  in  having  relinquished 
 the  law  of  their  country  by  the  sedu6lion  of 
 Jesus,  and  had  gone  over  to  another  name 
 and  another  mode  of  life  *."  He  seems  to 
 intimate,  that  some  had  abandoned  their 
 ancient  laws  in  his  time.  "  You  have  left  the 
 ancient  law  of  your  country  both  yesterday, 
 and  a  little  time  since,  and  when  we 
 punished  this  author  of  your  delusion -f." 
 
 In  answer  to  this,  Origen  observes,  "  They 
 of  the  Jews  J  (i.  e.  those  who  have  con- 
 tinued mere  Jews  by  remaining  unmixed 
 
 with 
 
 ovof^ci  y.a\,  «?  aAAoc /Sioi/.       p,  55. 
 
 u'iVi'nni  ra  -n-ar^ia  voi^^a,  p.  5^. 
 
 t  It  is  on  many  accounts  to  be  regretted,  that  the  work 
 of  Celsus  has  not  been  preserved.  To  those  that  are 
 acquainted  with  the  petty  cavils,  to  vv'hich  Origen  had 
 frequently  recourse,  it  will  not  appear  improbable,  that 
 this  part  of  his  answer  was  only  intended  as  a  captious 
 objeaion  against /^^  language^  which  Celsus  had  employed. 
 He  had   probably  iiitroduced  his   Jew  addressino-  THE 
 
 G  G  2  JEWS 
 
(     236     ) 
 
 with  other  Christians)  who  beheve  In 
 Jesus,  have  not  abandoned  the  ancient  law 
 of  their  country ;  for  they  live  according 
 to  it,  receiving  a  name  from  the  poverty 
 of  the  law,  according  to  their  acceptation 
 of  it.  For,  a  beggar  is  called  among  the 
 Jews  Ebion :  and  they  of  the  Jews,  who 
 have  received  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  go  by 
 the  name  of  Ebionteans." 
 
 Origen,  however,  knew  that  it  w^ould  be 
 a  very  insuflicient  answer  toCelsus,  to  say 
 that  the  Ebionites,  or  "  those  of  the  Jews" 
 (properly  so  called)  professing  the  Chris- 
 tian religion,  had  not  deserted  the  laws  of 
 their  ancestors :  these  were  two  extremely 
 inconsiderable  seels,  totally  unknown   in 
 
 all 
 
 JEWS  (instead  of  the  Christians  of  Jewish  extra<5\ion} 
 who  believed  in  Jesus  ^tm  wnro  t»  Aaa  tuv  Ih^mwj  «?  toj-  Imo-s* 
 VTirtvaavTuv • — or,  ra?  a'^ro  Is^uiuv^  see  p.  56.)  Though  this 
 language  could  not  be  misunderstood,  it  was  not  stridly 
 proper :  for  if  thev  had  really  abandoned  Judaism  and 
 mixed  with  other  Christians,  they  had  ac51ually  ceased  to 
 be  Jews:  and  the  only  proper  Jews  believing  in  Christ 
 were  Ebionites,  who  preserved  their  nationality  by  re- 
 mair.ing  distindt  from  other  Christians.  It  is  observable, 
 that  as  soon  as  Origen  begins  to  speak  of  Christians  of 
 Jewish  cxtra(Siion,  uho  had  deserted  the  literal  observance 
 of  the  Mosaic  law,  instead  of  ib^ajoi,  lie  introduces  the  more 
 general  and  less  odious  term  ic^arMrui  (p.  58,  59.)  a  title 
 hv  which  even  Gentile  Christians  thouiiht  theinfelves 
 honoured.  It  is  the  fastidious  accuracy  of  a  carping  contro- 
 versialist, and  not  either  wilful  or  inadvertent  inisrepresen- 
 tr.tion,  that  we  mostly  recognize  in  Origen's  treatise  against 
 Ce!sus. 
 
(     237     ) 
 
 all  the  countries  through  which  Christianity 
 was  then  diffused,  except  a  few  parts  of 
 the  East;  where  they  existed  in  small 
 numbers  :  and  Origen  himself  has  treated 
 them  with  great  contempt  by  calhng  them 
 heresies  *,  who  boasted  that  they  were 
 Christians  "f;  and  who  betrayed  the  poverty 
 of  their  intelletl  by  not  being  able  to  ascend 
 to  the  spiritual  interpretation  of  their  law  J. 
 He  knew  that,  besides  these  two  petty  bodies 
 of  men,  hardly  numerous  enough  to  merit 
 the  name  of  heresies,  many  Christians  of 
 Jewish  extra6lion  existed  in  most  parts  of 
 the  world,  where  the  religion  of  Christ  was 
 established :  these,  by  their  intermixture 
 with  other  Christians,  and  their  desertion 
 of  the  ritual  law,  had,  properly  speaking, 
 ceased  to  be  Jews.  In  order  to  demon- 
 strate, that  they  too  had  not  deserted  the 
 law  of  Moses,  a  matter  of  far  more  diffi- 
 culty, and  which  none  but  an  allegorist 
 would  have  thought  of  attempting,  it  was 
 
 necessary 
 
 *  Ektj  yxfi  Tiv£<;  a»^6i7£(;  ra;  TIocvXh  £5rtro^«j  ra  uTroroXn  jA-n  'arpoo'te- 
 
 fiivaif  fcij-TTE^  EQiuvMoi  a.y.(poT£-^oi.  L.  5.  cont.  Cels.  p.  274. 
 
 *(■  E^uaocii  oe  Tint;  xaci  tov  T/jyav  cfTrooi^ofx-iiioi  uq  'nroipa  rara 
 X^iriavoj  iivxi  ccv^aiiTiq'  et*  ^s  y.cti  y.ccrx  tok  la^xiav  vofiot  uq  to,  la^tmuv 
 'S}\ri^yt  0mii  e9eXoiniq'  «to»  ^  etmv  01  ^»ttch  EQtmenoi^  >jTot  bk  'Zi7«p9tnt 
 cfioKoyavTiq  ofz-oiuiq  ■nuAv  tot  I»icra»,  >j  ay.  arcu  •yeyitviffdcx.ij  aM  uq  Tt>i 
 Xo*'^»<;  a^9^!W7ra5.    p.  2/2. 
 
 J  OvK    £^«|xGa*o/xei'   tccvtx   co;  oi  'Ujruyci   rr,    ^txvoKx,  E|?iwpaict  Tr,q 
 
 itsTid^nct^  nr.q  o»»w(pt5  £7r;f»v^oj.  Philocalia,  c.  i.  p.  17.  Ed.  Spenc. 
 
C    238    ) 
 
 necessary  for  him  to  shew  in  what  the 
 true  spiritual  law  of  Moses  consisted :  ng 
 0  uXvjSvjg  vofjioq* :  what  heavenly  truths  were 
 represented  by  the  different  parts  of  the 
 Jewish  worship ;  what  shadow  of  future 
 blessings  was  exhibited  in  laws  about 
 meats  and  drinks  and  new  moons  and 
 festivals  and  sabbaths :  and  in  these,  he 
 supposes,  the  Apostles  were  instru61:ed 
 after  the  crucifixion  of  Christ ;  this  being 
 the  great  myster}^  which  was  to  be  revealed 
 to  them,  and  which  they  could  not  bear 
 before  -f .  The  several  parts  of  the  Christian 
 system  formed,  in  Origen's  opinion,  the 
 true  law  of  Moses. 
 
 Having  thus  prepared  the  way  for  a 
 compleat  answer  to  Celsus ;  he  asks,  "  How 
 is  it,  that  those  have  deserted  the  law  of 
 their  country,  who  censure  the  negle6l  of 
 it  in  others  ^"  He  then  instances  St.  Paul, 
 who  presses  on  the  Galatians  and  Corin- 
 thians the  observance  of  the  moral  part  of 
 the  Mosaic  law,  and  the  ritual  law  also  in 
 its  allegorical  sense  J  :  (he  has  afterwards 
 spoken  of  Christians  being  taught  by 
 Christ  ''  to  relinquish  bodily  circumcision, 
 
 bodily 
 
 *  L.  2.  cont.  Cels.  p.  57. 
 
 t  See  p.  57.  -ETret  ^Kirui^  &C.  %  P«  59* 
 
(     ^39     ) 
 
 bodily  sabbaths,  bodily  feasts,  bodily  new 
 moons,  and  clean  and  unclean  meats  ;  and 
 to  transfer  the  mind  to  a  law  worthy  of 
 God,  and  true  and  spiritual*")  and  he  at  last 
 proceeds  to  a  full  and  accurate  answer-f : 
 in  which,  consistently  with  his  usual 
 practice,  he  retorts  the  accusation  of  the 
 Jew  of  Celsus  on  the  unbelieving  Jews 
 themselves. 
 
 "  How  confusedly  the  Jew  in  Celsus 
 speaks  on  this  subje6l ;  when  he  might  more 
 credibly  say,  that  some  of  us"  (unbelieving 
 Jews)  *-'have  deserted  the  established  cus- 
 toms undera  pretext  of  (following)  "alle- 
 gorical interpretations:  but,  some  of  you" 
 (Christians  of  Jewish  extraftion,  to  whom 
 the  Jew  of  Celsus  professedly  addresses 
 himself)  "guided,  as  you  alledge,  by  a 
 spiritual  interpretation  J,  nevertheless"  (in 
 
 following; 
 
 H  avoa-iov    {mv  to   apravw  <7W,w«.Tiy.)i,-  OTe^tT^f**)?,    Kxt  o-uyMTi-^H 
 'sinvj/i.ccriKov.    p.  6r. 
 
 t  See  p.  22g.  of  this  Vol. 
 
 X  "Guided  by  a  spiritual  interpretation"  (^.»iytf^,avo,  n^nvjMX' 
 
 7^o>T^.  xyx^uv  0 ,01^.0^  ,^a  ck^xv.     ««  The  Spiritual  interpretation 
 *l-^         u        person,  who  is  able  to  shew  of  what  heavenly' 
 things  the  carnal  ]cws  served  the  model  and  shadow,  and 
 ot  What  future  blessings  the  law  contains  the  shadow." 
 
 Philocalia, 
 
(        240        ) 
 
 following  tliis  interpretation)  "observe  the 
 ancient  laws  of  your  country''  (in  their 
 spiritual  sense,  without  being  misled  by 
 false  allegory,  like  some  of  us  Jews)  "and 
 others  of  you''  (i.  e.  the  Ebionites  of  both 
 kinds) "without  interpreting"  (spiritually,) 
 "are  yet  disposed  both  to  receive  Jesus  as" 
 (the  Messiah)  "  predi61:edby  the  prophets, 
 and  also  to  observe  tlie  law  of  Moses 
 agreeably  to  the  ancient  pra61:ice  of  your 
 country,  placing  all  the  spiritual  sense  in 
 the  mere  letter." 
 
 It  may  be  observed,  in  illustration  of  the 
 first  part  of  this  passage,  which,  I  think, 
 has  been  very  much  misunderstood,  that 
 the  works  of  Philo  will  be  a  lasting  monu- 
 ment of  the  application  of  false  allegory  to 
 explain  away  the  meaning  of  the  writings  of 
 Moses  :  and  in  this  Philo  was  not  singular; 
 since  our  Saviour  himself  complained  of 
 those,  who  had  made  even  the  moral 
 law  "of  none  eflfecf  by  foolish  traditions." 
 In  his  time,  some  of  the  scribes,  or  inter- 
 preters 
 
 Philocalia,  c.  i.  p.  lo.  In  this  place  he  produces  the  same 
 instance  from  St.  Paul,  by  uhich  he  has  illustrated  his 
 notion  of  spiritual  interpretation  in  the  second  book  against 
 Celsus.  "Thou  shalt  not  muzzle  the  ox  that  treadeth 
 out  the  corn."  This  precept,  understood  literally  (or,  in 
 Origen's  language,  (arnally)  by  the  Jews,  was  understood 
 and  followed  by  Christians  in  its  true  spritual  sense. 
 
(       24,1       ) 
 
 preters  of  the  law,  adhered  to  the  literal 
 sense,  others  called  in  the  aid  of  allegory** : 
 it  must  have  been  through  some  allegorical 
 interpretation,  that  the  Jew  Elxai  affirmed 
 sacrifices  to  have  been  neither  taught  by 
 Moses  in  the  Pentateuch,  nor  pra6lised  by 
 the  Patriarchs  "f- :  and,  by  comparing  Jose- 
 phus  VN^ith  Philo,  it  appears,  that  the  Essenes 
 considered  themselves  as  stri(Stly  folowers 
 of  the  law,  but  not  in  its  literal  sense;  that 
 they  adopted  the  allegorical  method  of  inter- 
 preting it,  and  thought  that  it  was  not  to  be 
 understood  without  divine  inspiration  J ; 
 and  it  must  probably  have  been  in  conse- 
 quence of  their  allegorical  explanations,  that 
 they  insisted  on  the  inutility  of  sacrifices  §. 
 
 In  this  passage  of  Origen,  the  Christia7is 
 of  Jewish  extra 61  ion  are  divided  into  two 
 classes,  both  of  whom,  he  asserts,  in  answer 
 to  Celsus,  were  observers  of  the  Mosaic  law: 
 
 those, 
 
 *  See  the  two  Chapters  in  Beausobre's  IntroJ.  to  the  N. 
 Test,  on  "  The  Jewish  prophets  and  scribes,"  and  on 
 "  The  Jewish  se6ts." 
 
 t  Epiphanius  de  Hasr.  Judaic.  Ossen.  p.  47. 
 
 t  Philo,  Vol.  2.  p.  458.  Ed.  Mangey,  Josephus,  L.  2. 
 c.  viii.  de  Bell.  Jud. 
 
 Phil.  Vol.  2.  p.  457.  Ed.  Mangey.  The  same  sense  is 
 perhaps  conveyed  in  the  words  of  Josephus,  £(p'  uvrm  rui 
 Stjr»«{  £9riTs?.i?o-i>.  Antiq.  Jud.  L.  18.  c.  i.    See  the  context, 
 
 H  H 
 
(         24-2         ) 
 
 those,  whom  he  first  mentions,  were  fol- 
 lowers of  it  in  its  true  spiritual  sense  ;  the 
 others,  i.  e.  the  Ebionites  of  both  kinds, 
 adhered  to  the  letter. 
 
 He  then  observes,  that  the  Jew  of  Celsus 
 continues  to  attack  the  same  people :  **  How 
 is  it  that  you  set  out  from  our  holy  reli- 
 gion, but  despise  it  as  you  go  on  ?  since 
 3^ou  can  mention  no  other  foundation  of 
 your  do6lrine  than  our  law  */'  Origen, 
 continuing  his  defence  of  these  Jewish 
 Christians,  replies,  "  They  do  not,''  as 
 you  contend,  "  despise  what  is  written  in 
 the  law,  as  they  go  on  ;  but,  add  greater 
 honour  to  it,  shewing  what  a  profundity 
 of  mystic  wisdom  the  words  contain,  which 
 were  never  understood  by  the  Jews,  who 
 only  touch  their  surface -f." 
 
 Thoufrh  his  answer  to  the  accusation  of 
 Celsus  against  the  Jewish  Christians  for 
 deserting    tlie  law   of   their    ancestors    is 
 
 highly 
 
 anaa^eTf ;    ax    e%c-vte;  ei.X>,r,v  x^^r,v  eiiruv  T8  ^oyf^ctroi  r,  tov  xi/.eTi^oi 
 jo/-i&r,   p.  59. 
 
 •f  Oyf,  w;  XiyiTCf  ^$  ot  ir^oiosT!?  aTi/xa^«<7i  ra  (»  vofj-u  yiy^xfifjuta.' 
 
 C(,^uv  y.cti    w^ropprirav   Myut  txetvct  t»  ygap.//aT«,   rcc   two   Isoaiwv  s 
 TjOif^rfAJia,  run  t7n7roXa»6TEj6»  (>««»  /xtGi««rf§oi')   «t/To»;  EVTtyp^avovTf*. 
 
 P-59- 
 
(      2.43      ) 
 
 highly  laboured,  and  is,  on  his  princples, 
 perfe6lly  accurate,  its  legitimacy  will  not 
 be  allowed  by  any  but  those,  who,  with 
 him,  admit  all  the  extravagances  of  allego- 
 rical interpretation.  In  fact,  the  testimony 
 of  Origen  to  the  desertion  of  the  ritual  law 
 by  the  great  body  of  Jewish  Christians, 
 must  be  considered  as  joined  to  that  of 
 Celsus :  they  both  bear  witness  to  the 
 same  thing ;  they  differ  only  in  their 
 manner  of  expressing  it.  Origen  fully 
 admits,  that  a  body  of  Jewish  Christians 
 had  ascended  to  the  spiritual  meaning  of 
 the  law,  like  their  brethren  among  tlie 
 Gentiles,  and  therefore  could  not  be  Ebio- 
 nites  of  either  kind,  since,  by  his  express 
 declaration,  both  sorts  of  Ebionites  received 
 their  name  from  the  poverty  of  their  in- 
 tellect in  not  admitting  any  besides  its 
 "  carnal"  or  literal  meaning. 
 
 The  evidence  of  Celsus  is  clear  and 
 strong  :  and  as  he  lived,  at  least,  near  the 
 time  of  Adrian,  when  the  greatest  deser- 
 tion from  the  Mosaic  law  probably  took 
 place,  it  must  have  great  weight,  even  had 
 it  not  been  confirmed  by  Oriiren :  but, 
 when  the  latter  writer  also  reports,  that 
 some  Jewish  Christians  followed   tlie  law 
 
 H   II   2  ^  ill 
 
(      244<      ) 
 
 in  a  literal,  and  others  in  a  "  true  spiritual" 
 sense,  a  sense,  which  lie  affirms  to  be 
 unknown  to  the  Jews  and  Ebionites  of 
 botli  kinds  ;  he,  in  other  words,  asserts 
 that  it  was  adhered  to  by  some,  and  relin- 
 quished by  others  ;  and  fully  confirms  the 
 testimony  of  Celsus.  The  two  writers 
 are  reconciled  by  this  single  consideration, 
 that  the  spiritual  observance  of  the  Mosaic 
 law,  in  Origen's  sense,  is  the  same  with  its 
 abandonment,  as  described  by  Celsus. 
 
 V.  So  far,  I  have  only  noticed  as  much 
 of  Origen's  answer  as  was  necessary  to 
 explain  two  difficult  and  disputed  passages 
 in  the  opening  of  the  second  book.  Mis 
 whole  reply  to  this  charge,  when  explained 
 by  a  comparison  with  other  parts  of  his 
 works,  may  be  reduced  under  the  follow- 
 ing heads. 
 
 1.  The  accusation  of  deserting  their 
 ancient  laws  and  customs,  urged  by  the 
 Jew  in  Celsus  against  Jewish  Christians, 
 would  have  been  more  applicable  to  the 
 heathen  converts  to  Christianity :  "  His 
 account  would  have  appeared  highly  credi- 
 ble, had  it  been  \\ntten  to  us"  Gentile 
 ©  Christians. 
 
(      245     ) 
 
 Christians  *.  Gentile  Christians  have 
 really  deserted  their  ancient  laws  and  cus- 
 toms, in  order  to  follow  the  Mosaic  law  -(^ 
 in  its  true  spiritual  sense. 
 
 2.  "  Those  of  the  Jezvs"  at  present,  who 
 believe  in  Christ,  (the  Ebionites  of  both 
 kinds)  who  have  remained  mere  Jews  by 
 keeping  themselves  distin6t  from  Gentile 
 Christians,  and  "  who  boast  that  they 
 are  Christians,"  have  not  deserted  the  Mo- 
 saic law,  not  even  the  letter  of  it :  they 
 have  received  a  name  to  distinguish  them 
 from  those,  who  understand  and  follow 
 the  law  in  a  more  just,  spiritual  and  ex- 
 alted sense ;  and  they  are  still  mere  Jews, 
 mere  carnal  Israelites,  (o-cc^kixoi  la-^otviXLrociX.) 
 Celsus  has  urged  his  accusation,  without 
 having  been  aware  even  of  this  :  ^>;(J"e  r\iTo 
 
 zaTccvorja-ocg, 
 
 3.   The 
 
 *  Ka»  ixvTo  ye  raro  'sr^urov  i(pifcc^sv^  rt  ov;7roT£  aTrat^  xpiiacf 
 'Zs^oaiii'itatcciiHv  0  KeXco?,  y  'm^oau'iKtitoiH  Is^aioy  ■ergo?  T»;  otnta  ruv  e^vuv 
 tiU'^ivcvTaq  Xiyovrcty  ccKKcc  'STpoq  TBr,  a/iro  ln^cctuv,  'SnBixvuTctTot;  ^'  a.» 
 x«»  iSo^iv  0  Xoyo^  Bivoci  avTco  'wpo^  yi^oiq  yFoc<pojx.ivo^,   p.  ^6. 
 
 ■\  Tlaaa.  de  EXXcci;  y.oct  /aat^fca^o?  »  y.dTCi  rw  oixUfj.svniif  ^v?^UTOC<;  tyet 
 /xf^iaj  KixrccXiTToyrciv  ra?  iraTgwa;  nj/xa?  y.on  W|M.»^ojtt£i'a?  •&£«?  -r-/:; 
 Tij^rjo-Ewj  ruv  Mw^-EiU?  vofj-tov^    y.ai  rrig  ji*«6riT««5  Tuy  Ivan  Kp»ra  hoyuv, 
 
 Philocalia,  c.  i.  p,  2.  £d.  Spenceri. 
 
 X  Compare  Orig.  cont.  Cels.  p.  56.  with  p.  274,  and 
 Philocalia,  p.  17. 
 
(    ns    ) 
 
 3.  Tlie  Apostles  themselves  observed 
 the  Mosaic  ritual,  adhering  to  the  literal 
 meaning  for  some  time;  Peter,  before  he 
 had  been  informed  by  the  holy  spirit  of  its 
 spiritual  meaning ;  and  Paul,  with  others, 
 in  compliance  with  the  prejudices  of  the 
 Jews.  He  became  to  them  as  a  Jew,  in 
 order  to  gain  the  Jews  *. 
 
 4.  Those  of  the  Jev/ish  Christians  can- 
 not be  said  to  have  deserted  the  law,  who, 
 with  Paul,  follow  the  moral  part  of  it,  and 
 who,  with  him  also,  obey  the  ceremonial 
 part,  interpreting  it  in  its  true  spiritual 
 sense,  e.  g.  who  obey,  in  its  true  allego- 
 rical sense,  this  precept  of  the  law,  "  Thou 
 shalt  not  muzzle  the  ox  that  treadeth  out 
 the  corn."  "  How  have  those  deserted  the 
 laws  of  their  country,  who  have  them  alwaj^s 
 in  their  mouths,  and  say ;  Does  not  the 
 law  teach  this-f?  For,  in  the  law  of  Moses 
 it  is  written.  Thou  shalt  not  muzzle  the  ox 
 that  treadeth  out  the  corn.  Doth  God 
 take  care  for  oxen  ?  or,  sayeth  he  it  alto- 
 gether for  our  sakcs  ?  For  our  sakes,  no 
 doubt,  it  is  written  J." 
 
 5.   Celsus 
 
 *  See  p.  56,  and  57,  t  i  Corinih.  ix.  8. 
 
 :t  P.  58  and  59. 
 
(     247     ) 
 
 5.  Celsus,  then,  has  written  confusedly   . 
 on   the    subje6l :     his    Jew    would     have 
 spoken  more  credibly  {73-i9xvut£^ov^)  had  he 
 declared,  that  all  Christians  of  Jewish  ex- 
 tra6lion  are  observers  of  the  law  of  Moses  ; 
 some  following  it,  like  Gentile  Christians, 
 in  its   true  spiritual  sense,   as  they    have 
 been  taught   by    St.    Paul,  having  relin- 
 quished bodily  circumcision,  and  all  other 
 distinctive  marks  of  Judaism  ;  others,  who 
 are  now  the  only  proper  Jews  believing  in 
 Christ,   reje6ling   the  explications   of    St. 
 Paul,  and  calling  him  a  deserter  of  their 
 law,  still  adhere,  like  other  Jews,    to  the 
 literal  observance  of  its  precepts  f . 
 
 VI.  Orio-en,  if  he  be  allowed  the  usual 
 privilege  of  explaining  his  own  words,  has 
 not  asserted  a  wilful  falsehood  in  one  page, 
 and  flatly  contradidled  himself  in  the  next : 
 nor  has  he  related,  that  all  the  Christians 
 of  Jewish  extraftion  were  Ebionites  :  it 
 would  have  been  truly  wonderful,  if  he 
 had.  For  his  second  book  against  Celsus 
 contains  the  most  decisive  proofs  that  the 
 great  body  of  Jewish  Christians  had  both 
 relinquished  the  literal  observance   of  the 
 
 cere- 
 
 *  V.  Steph.  Thesaur.     f  Compare  p.  59.  and  p.  274. 
 
(     248      ) 
 
 ceremonial  law,  and  believed  in  the  divinity 
 of  Christ. 
 
 St.  Paul,  whom  both  se6ls  of  Ebionites 
 rejecled,  is  made,  as  it  were,  the  represen- 
 tative of  Israelitish  Christians  *.  Both 
 the  Jews  and  Gentiles,  who  may  have 
 deviated  from  the  letter  of  the  law,  are 
 defended -f.  ("  It  is  not  to  be  inferred, 
 because  John  the  Baptist  was  a  Jew,  that 
 every  believer  either  of  the  Gentiles  or 
 yezvs  ought  to  observe  the  law  of  Moses 
 according  to  the  letter/')  And  Christians 
 are  mentioned,  who  had  been  taught  by 
 Christ  to  relinquish  bodily  circumcision, 
 bodily  feasts  J,  &c.  which  will  neither 
 apply  to  Ebionites,  who  still  observed  them, 
 nor  to  Gentile  Christians,  by  whom  they 
 had  never  been  practised. 
 
 The  second  book,  it  must  be  recolleded, 
 is  particularly  set  apart  to  answer  the  cri- 
 minations urged  by  Celsus  against  the 
 Christians  of  Jewish  extra6lion.  Having 
 mentioned   the  subje6l  of  the  first   book, 
 
 he 
 
 *  P.  58. 
 
 f  Ov  ya."   STret    luc^ccio;  v.v^   (loiavvw^)   crvvxyirai   oTt  an   'ssa.nx  tov 
 ya.-ra,  to  ygx^yix  toc  Muvj-iU(;  fn^ety  voi/.ci,  p.  DO. 
 
 X  p.  61. 
 
(      249     ) 
 
 he  says  ;  "  We  propose  to  draw  up  this 
 ill  answering  the  accusations  urged  by  him 
 against  those  of  the  people  of  the  Jews, 
 who  have  believed  in  Jesus*/'  In  this 
 book,  he  has  fortunately  cited  many  pas- 
 sages from  the  work  of  Celsus,  in  which 
 the  philosoplier  has  introduced  a  Jew  re- 
 proaching his  countrymen,  who  were  con- 
 verted to  Christianity,  for  deifying  Christ. 
 He  repeatedly  speaks  of  Christ  as  their 
 God,  accuses  them  of  calling  their  son  of 
 God,  the  word,  ocuroXoyov,  and  complains 
 that  they  criminate  the  Jews  for  not  believ- 
 ing Christ  to  be  God.  It  v/ill  be  sufficient 
 to  cite  one  out  of  a  multitude  of  passages 
 to  this  purpose,  without  more  than  a  bare 
 reference  to  others  ^f-. 
 
 Origen,  having  observed  %  that  the  Jew 
 pf  Celsus  was  addressing  his  countrymen 
 -converted  to  Christianity,  soon  after  cites 
 this  sentence  from  his  address  ;  "  He 
 (Christ)  certainly  no  longer  feared  any 
 one;   and  being,  as  you  say,  a  God,"  &c.§ 
 
 This 
 *  P.  56. 
 
 t  P.  61, 62,  63,  71,  72,  74,  75, 78, 79,  80,  81, 82. 
 X  P.  93. 
 
 <J  Ou  ya^  o'/i  £n    £^oto«To    7ivx   ci'A^uTcuv   uvo^xvuvj   xaj,    6;j  Cart 
 »c;  w,  p,  loi, 
 
 I    I 
 
(        2^0        ) 
 
 This  testimony  seems  decisive.  We 
 have  the  reiterated  declarations  of  Celsus, 
 in  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  con- 
 firmed by  the  acquiescence  of  Origen,  at 
 the  beginning  of  the  third,  that  the  great 
 body  of  Jewish  Christians  believed  in  the 
 divinity  of  Christ.  The  second  book  is 
 professedly  written  to  refute  the  accusa- 
 tions alledged  against  this  body  of  men: 
 and  few  literary  works  have  ever  been 
 examined  with  more  critical  severity,  than 
 the  writings  of  the  heathen  philosopher  by 
 his  learned  antagonist. 
 
 In  different  parts  of  his  work  Origen 
 has  most  rigorously  scrutinized  those  parts 
 of  the  book  of  Celsus,  which  professedly 
 or  incidentally  treated  on  the  opinions  or 
 practices  of  Jews  and  Jewish  Christians, 
 and  has  freqently  selected  passages  merely 
 for  the  purpose  of  pointing  out  a  mistake, 
 though  the  exposure  was  of  no  consequence 
 in  forwarding  the  great  design  of  his  work, 
 the  defence  of  Christianity.  In  the  very 
 opening  of  this  second  book,  after  having 
 mentioned  that  the  Jew  of  Celsus  had  been 
 introduced  expostulating  with  his  country- 
 men for  desertins:  the  laws  of  their  ances- 
 tors,  he  immediately  denied  the  fad!,  and 
 
 saserted 
 
C    251    ) 
 
 asserted,  that  the  accusation,  of  deserting 
 their  ancient  laws,  and  going  over  to  a 
 new  name  and  a  new  mode  of  life,  could 
 only  apply  to  Gentile  Christians  In  the 
 same  book  he  has  produced  a  multitude 
 cf  extra 61s  from  Celsus,  in  which  the 
 Christians,  against  whom  the  philosopher 
 diredted  his  attacks,  are  accused  of  consi- 
 dering Christ  as  God. 
 
 Had  all,  or  even  the  majority  of  Chris- 
 tians of  Jewish  extra61ion,  been  Unitarians, 
 Origen's  triumph  over  his  adversary  on  this 
 subje^l:  would  have  been  compleat,  and  he 
 would  have  insulted  over  his  want  of  in- 
 formation with  the  utmost  exultation :  con- 
 tinually on  the  watch  for  inaccuracies  of 
 any  sort,  either  in  favour  of  the  cause, 
 which  he  was  supporting,  or  against  it, 
 he  would  have  made  the  most  of  such  an 
 enormous  blunder  as  this  :  "  Celsus,''  he 
 would  have  said,  "  is  not  even  aware  that 
 they  are  only  Gentile  Christians,  who 
 believe  in  the  divinity  of  Christ:  how 
 excessive  must  be  his  ignorance  on  a  sub- 
 je6l,  which  he  has  presumed  to  handle, 
 when  he  has  accused  Jewish  Christians  of 
 deserting  the  laws  of  Moses,  which  they 
 all  continue  to  follow,  and  of  believing  in 
 
 I  I  2  ihe 
 
(        252         ) 
 
 the  divinity  of  Christ,  whom  they,  with 
 few  exceptions,  hold  to  he  a  mere  man/' 
 
 Instead  of  this  correction  of  his  adver- 
 sary's mistake,  he  has  acquiesced  in  the 
 wholeoi  this  accusation:  instead  of  denying 
 the  truth  of  the  fa 61,  he  has  endeavoured 
 to  prove  its  reasonableness,  and  has  consi- 
 dered the  faith  of  the  great  body  of  these 
 Christians  as  identified  with  that  of  the 
 church  at  large  *. 
 
 VII.  In  opposition  to  the  testimony  of 
 several  ancient  historians  on  the  belief  of 
 the  first  Jewish  Christians,  it  has  lately  been 
 said,  that,  according  to  Origen's  account, 
 there  were  no  Jewish  Christians,  except 
 Ebionites  of  two  kinds,  in  his  time.  Both 
 Origen  and  Celsus,  however,  speak  decid- 
 edly of  others  besides  Ebionites  :  this  is  all 
 that  it  is  necessary  to  observe,  in  order  to 
 set  aside  the  obje6lion  against  the  testi- 
 monies of  Hegesippus,  Eusebius,  and 
 Sulpicius  Severus.  But,  in  addition  to 
 this,  Celsus  has  by  many  repeated  declara- 
 tions borne  the  fullest  testimony  to  the 
 belief  of  the  Christians  of  Jewish  extrac- 
 tion, in  general,  in  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
 *  P.  93.  and 
 
{     ^53      ) 
 
 and  Origen  acquiesces  in,  and  allows  this 
 part  of  his  adversary's  charge. 
 
 To  this  it  will  perhaps  be  objefted,  that 
 tlie  acquiescence  of  Origen  is  problema- 
 tical;  since  he  has  perhaps  raised  doubts 
 about  the  truth  of  every  part  of  the 
 statement  of  Celsus  on  this  subjecl,  in  the 
 very  opening  of  his  second  book.  He 
 expresses  his  surprize,  that  his  opponent 
 has  not  introduced  his  Jew  addressing 
 himself  to  the  believers  of  the  Gentiles 
 rather  than  to  the  believing  Jews  :  "  his 
 w^ords  addressed  to  7/5  would  have  appeared 
 very  highly  credible.  But  he,  who  pro- 
 fesses to  know  every  thing,  knows  not 
 what  is  suitable  to  the  prosopopoeia*." 
 
 After  this  declaration,  it  may  be  said, 
 Origen's  posterior  silence  on  any  particular 
 part  of  the  charges  of  Celsus  affords  no 
 evidence  of  his  admission  of  its  truth :  and 
 though,  after  this,  several  passages  are 
 produced   from  Celsus,   in  which  Jewish 
 
 Christians 
 
 *  K«»    avTo     yt    raro    ■nr^wrsi/   f^»r«/^-s»,   ti   oV.^ote  a^ral    x|(»«f 
 'jT^oc'wTroTroKaj.  p.  56. 
 
(     2-54     )•• 
 
 Cliristians  are  cliarged  with  worsliipping 
 Clirist  as  God,  which  Origen  never  denies  ; 
 still,  it  may  he  alledged,  we  may  conclude 
 from  this  notice  at  the  outset,  that  the 
 accusation  will  only  be  applicable  to  the 
 great  body  of  Gentile  Christians*. 
 
 In  order  to  be  convinced  of  the  futility 
 of  this  obje61ion,  we  have  only  to  fix  our 
 attention  on  Origen's  method  of  conducling 
 a  controversy.  It  is  no  part  of  his  cha- 
 ra6ler  to  speak  in  general  terms  of  the 
 inaccuracy  of  his  opponent,  without  dis- 
 tin6tly  specifying  the  several  errors,  which 
 fell  under  his  notice.  In  the  second  book, 
 which  is  set  apart  to  corre6l  the  misstate- 
 ments of  Celsus  on  the  subject  of  Jewish 
 Christians,  the  slightest  misconception  of 
 his  subje61,  the  most  inconsiderable  mis- 
 representation of  a  matter  of  fact,  or  the 
 most  trivial  inaccuracy  of  expression  seems 
 never  to  have  escaped  his  censure:  he 
 often  cites  a  passage  merely  for  the  sake 
 of  correcting  a  trifling  error  in  it;  and 
 we  may  have  the  utmost  assurance,  that 
 no  gross  misstatement  of  a  matter  of  fa(3t, 
 
 of 
 
 *  We  may  cbscne,  by  the  v. ay,  tliat,  iftliis  obje61ion 
 were  admitted,  we  should  liave  the  testimony  ot  Oiigen 
 to  the  bcHcf  o^  the  great  b.ody  oj  Gentile  Cliustians  ot  his 
 time  in  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
 
C      ^55      ) 
 
 of  which  he  was  aware,  could  have  escaped 
 Si  distincl  and  a  severe  animadversion. 
 We  might  even  venture  to  say,  that 
 Origen  has  in  no  instance  satisfied  himself 
 with  speaking  in  general  terms  of  the 
 inaccuracy  of  his  opponent,  without  spe- 
 cifying particular  errors  :  and,  if  ever  it 
 be  possible  to  explain  a  part  of  an  author's 
 works  by  attending  to  his  chara6ler,  it  is 
 unquestionably  so  in  the  present  case. 
 When  he  asserts,  that  the  words  of  Celsus 
 would  appear  highly  credible,  if  addressed 
 to  Gentile  Christians,  we  m.ay  be  fully 
 convinced,  from  his  character  as  a  dispu- 
 tant, that  he  means  only  the  words  relat- 
 ing to  the  desertion  of  the  Mosaic  law, 
 which  he  immediately  labours,  though  not 
 very  successfully,  to  refute  at  great  length. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
(        25^       ) 
 
 C  H  A  P.     XIII. 
 
 THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA- 
 MENT BY  THE  FIRST  JEWISH  CHRISTIANS, 
 COLLECTED  FROM  THEIR  RELIGIOUS  OPI- 
 NIONS. 
 
 I .  Testimony  of  Sulpicius  Severus  to  the  desertion  of  tlie 
 Mosaic  law  by  Jewish  Christians.     Testimony  of  Basil 
 and  Chrysostom  to  the  conformity,  in  faith  and  manners, 
 between  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians.     2.  The  ob- 
 servance of  the  ritual  law  prohibited  in  the  churches 
 which  were   partly  composed  of  Jews   and   partly  of 
 Gentiles,  about  the  end  of  the  first  century.     Judaism 
 probably  abandoned  by  most  of  tlie  members  of  the 
 church   of  Jerusalem  about  a.  d.  156.     3.  Opinions 
 of  the  Jewish   Christians  in  the  first  century  on  the 
 subjeft  of  the  nature  of  Christ.     Their  interpretation 
 of  the  New  Testament  collefted  from  their  opinions. 
 They  must  have  thought  the  do6lrine  of  Christ's  divi- 
 nity very  clearly  taught  by  himself  and  the  Apostles. 
 
 I.  J?  ROM  the  testimony  of  Celsus  con- 
 firmed by  the  acquiescence  of  Origen  it 
 appears,  that  the  great  body  of  Jewish 
 Christians  in  the  second  century  believed 
 in  the  divinity  of  Christ;  and,  from  the 
 united  testimonies  of  both  these  writers, 
 we  also  may  conclude,  that  most  of  them 
 had   relinquished  all  distinclivc  marks  of 
 
 Judaism 
 
(     257     ) 
 
 Judaism,  Jind  were  not  different  from 
 Gentile  Christians.  Several  causes,  we 
 know,  existed  sufficient  to  produce  this 
 last  efFe6l  ;  and  without  it,  we  should  be 
 at  a  loss  to  account  for  the  disappearance 
 of  the  Jewish  Christians  after  the  first 
 century. 
 
 The  account  given  by  Celsus  andOrigen 
 of  the  desertion  of  the  literal  observance 
 of  the  Mosaic  law  by  the  Jewish  Christians 
 is  also  confirmed  by  other  writers. 
 
 Sulpicius  Severus,  speaking  of  the  orders 
 of  Adrian  to  drive  all  Jews  from  Jerusalem, 
 observes,  that  "  this  measure  was  service- 
 able to  the  Christian  faith  ;  because  at  that 
 time  nearly  all  believed  Christ  to  be  God 
 with  the  observance  of  the  law ;  the  Lord 
 so  disposing  it,  that  the  servitude  of  the  law 
 should  be  removed  from  the  liberty  of  the 
 faith  and  of  the  church.  Then  was  Mark 
 the  first  Gentile  bishop  at  Jerusalem  */' 
 
 This 
 
 *  "Quod  quidem  Christians  fidei  proficiebat;  quia  turn 
 pene  omnes  Christum  Deum  sub  legis  observatione  crede- 
 bant.  Nimirum  id  domino  ordinante  dispositum  ut  legis 
 servitus  a  libertate  fidei  atque  ecclesise  tolleretur.  Ita  turn 
 primum  Marcus  ex  gentibus  apud  Hierosolymam  episcopus 
 fuit.  Hist.  L.  2.  c.  xxxi. 
 
 K  K 
 
(     258     ) 
 
 This  measure  was  serviceable  to  the 
 Christian  faith,  because  from  that  time  the 
 great  body  of  Hebrew  Christians  exone- 
 rated themselves  from  the  servitude  of  the 
 law ;  by  which,  as  we  know  from  Ignatius, 
 Justin  Martyr  and  Jerom,  Christianity  was 
 then  supposed  to  suffer  degradation. 
 
 In  perfe6l  conformity  with  these  testi- 
 monies, Basil  has  represented  the  believing 
 Jews  as  perfe6lly  similar  in  their  senti- 
 ments to  the  Gentile  Christians,  and 
 forming  with  them  one  uniform  body; 
 which  could  not  have  been  true,  if  the 
 Jewish  Christians  had  in  general  been 
 Ebionites :  who,  long  before  his  time, 
 had  not  been  permitted  to  rank  among 
 Christians. 
 
 "  A  portion  of  believers  in  Christ,  has 
 been  saved  from  the  w^hole  of  Israel :  the 
 ele6lion  having  been  found  in  a  few  only: 
 which  portion  a6ting  as  leaven  to  the 
 Gentiles,  has  drawn  them  all  over  to  a 
 resemhlayice  of  itself^," 
 
 On 
 
 *  To  (ix«Toi  fAfgo?  Tu)v  iBirtvaomuv  wc  X^'r«>»  htaruh  awo  t8  'mx»To( 
 TH  Io•§ar)^,   tv  oXi-yoi;  tv^i^eicTVx;  rr,<;  fyAoyr)?*  o-tti^  w;  ^uf^-n  yfKJ^Evov  To*? 
 
 Esaiam,  p.  396.  Kd.  Faris.  1721. 
 
(      259      ) 
 
 On  this  testimony  it  may  be  remarked, 
 that,  in  the  time  of  Basil,  the  Ebionites  had 
 been  in  a  state  of  excommunication  for 
 several  ages,  excluded,  according  to  the 
 common  opinion,  from  future  salvation, 
 and  not  considered  as  Christians.  No 
 bodies  of  men  could  be  more  dissimilar* 
 than  the  Ebionites  and  Gentile  Christians. 
 When,  therefore,  he  declares,  that  a  portion 
 of  believing  Israelites  was  saved,  and  that 
 the  Gentile  Christians  had  been  brought 
 over  to  a  resemblance  of  them,  his  testimony 
 to  the  early  existence  of  other  Jewish 
 Christians  besides  Ebionites  is  no  less 
 decisive  than  that  of  Celsus  and  Origen. 
 
 II.  By  comparing  the  accounts  given  of 
 the  first  Hebrew  Christians  by  the  earliest 
 ecclesiastical  Historians,  with  the  history 
 of  the  acts  of  the  Apostles  and  the  epistles 
 of  St.  Paul,  in  the  New  Testament,  the 
 state  of  opinion  among  them,  and  the 
 changes  in  their  manners  may  be  colle6led 
 with  great  probability.  At  first,  they 
 were  ail  rigorous  observers  of  the  law  of 
 Moses,  and  insisted  on  imposing  the  same 
 burden  on  Gentile  converts  :  this  made  it 
 necesary  for  the  Apostles,  and   others  of 
 
 K  K  2  the 
 
(      26o      ) 
 
 the  first  teachers  of  Christianity  to  insist 
 strongly  on  the  inutility  of  the  ceremonial 
 law :  and  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
 appears  to  have  been  written  for  that  pur- 
 pose. In  most  of  the  churches  before  the 
 end  of  the  first  century,  the  spirit  of  Judaism 
 and  the  spirit  of  Christianity  were  found 
 to  be  so  much  at  variance,  that,  when  the 
 epistle  of  Barnabas  was  written,  the  aboli- 
 tion of  the  literal  observance  of  the  law 
 was  regularly  taught,  and  Christians  were 
 informed,  that  an  obedience  to  the  pre- 
 cepts of  the  Gospel  was  the  true  spiritual 
 observance  of  the  law.  *'  God  has  mani- 
 fested to  us  by  all  the  prophets,  that  he 
 has  no  occasion  for  our  sacrifices,  or  burnt 
 offerings,  or  oblations;  saying,  *  To  what 
 purpose  is  the  multitude  of  your  sacrifices, 
 &c*/  These  things  therefore  hath  God 
 abolished,  that  the  new  law  of  our  Lord 
 Jesus  Christ,  which  is  without  the  yoke 
 of  any  such  necessity  might  have  an  ofier- 
 ing  becoming  men-f."  "But  why  did 
 Moses  say  ;  Ye  shall  not  eat  of  the  swine, 
 neither  the  eagle,  nor  the  hawk,  nor  the 
 crow,  &;c.  I  answer,  that  under  this  out- 
 side figure  he  comprehended  three  spiritual 
 doctrines,  that  were  to  be  gathered  from 
 
 thence/' 
 
 *  Isaiuh  i.  1 1  — 14.         t  Ep.  Barn.  §  2.  Wake's  Transl. 
 
(      "-6i    ) 
 
 thence/'  —  "Moses  therefore,  speaking  as 
 concerning  meats,  delivered  indeed  three 
 great  precepts  to  them  in  the  spiritual  sig- 
 nification of  those  commands  But  they, 
 accordino;  to  the  desires  of  the  flesh,  un- 
 derstood  him,  as  if  he  had  only  meant  it 
 of  meats*/' 
 
 At  length,  about  the  end  of  the  first 
 century,  Judaism  was  expressly  prohibited 
 in  the  churches,  which  were  composed  of 
 Gentiles  and  Jews.  Ignatius  (about  a.  d. 
 107.)  declares  "  It  is  absurd  to  call  your- 
 selves by  the  name  of  Christians  and  to 
 judaizei^ ;"  and,  "  If  any  one  shall  preach 
 the  Jev/ish  law  unto  you,  hearken  not  unto 
 him  X'"  At  that  time,  the  literal  obser- 
 vance of  the  Mosaic  law  was  neither  tole- 
 rated, nor  entirely  abolished:  no  separate 
 privilege  is  allowed  to  Gentile  Christians 
 as  distinguished  from  Jews,  nor  to  Jewish 
 Christians  as  distinouished  from  Gentiles: 
 the  great  objedl  of  his  Epistles  is  to  incul- 
 cate uniformity  of  faith  and  manners;  to 
 worship  God  in  the  same  place,  and  in  the 
 same  manner :  and  in  the  epistles  to  the 
 
 Mai]!:nesians 
 
 *  Sedl.  10. 
 
 t  Epistle  to  the  Magnesians.     §  10.  ; 
 
 X  Ep.  to  the  Philadelphians.     §  6. 
 
(     262     ) 
 
 Magnesians  and  Philadelphians,  in  particu- 
 lar, all  Christians,  without  exception,  are 
 warned  against  Jewish  customs. 
 
 "  I  exhort  you  that  ye  study  to  do  all 
 things  in  a  divine  concord. — Let  there 
 be  nothing  that  may  be  able  to  make  a 
 division  airong  you.  But,  ye  be  united 
 to  your  bishop,  and  those  who  preside  over 
 you,  to  be  your  pattern  and  dire6lion  in 
 the  way  to  immortality.  As  therefore  the 
 Lord  did  nothing  without  the  Father  being 
 united  to  him,  neither  by  himself,  nor  yet 
 by  his  Apostles ;  so  neither  do  ye  any  thing 
 without  your  bishop  and  presbyters : 
 neither  endeavour  to  let  any  thing  appear 
 rational  to  yourselves  apart;  but  being 
 come  together  into  the  same  place,  have 
 one  con.mon  prayer;  one  supphcation ; 
 one  mind  ;  one  hope  ;  in  charity  and  in  joy 
 undeliled.  There  is  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
 than  whom  nothing  is  better.  \\  herefore, 
 come  ye  all  together  as  unto  one  temple 
 of  God  ;  as  to  one  altar;  as  to  one  Jesus 
 Christ,  who  proceeded  from  one  Father; 
 and  exists  in  one,  and  is  returned  to  one." 
 
 "Be  not  deceived  with  strange  do61rines, 
 nor  with  old  fables,  which  are  unprofitable. 
 
 For, 
 
(    263    ) 
 
 For,  if  we  still  continue  to  live  according 
 to  the  Jewish  law,  we  do  confess  ourselves 
 not  to  have  received  grace '^.  —  These 
 things,  my  beloved,  I  write  unto  you; 
 not  that  I  know  any  among  you  that  lie 
 under  this  errror :  but,  as  one  of  the  least 
 among  you,  I  am  desirous  to  forewarn  you, 
 that  ye  fall  not  into  the  snares  of  vain 
 do6lrine  -f ." 
 
 This  was  the  language,  in  which  the 
 Jewish  Christians  were  addressed  by  the 
 rulers  of  the  Christian  church  at  the  end  of 
 the  first  century  :  the  literal  observance  of 
 their  ancient  law  was  at  that  time  as 
 severely  reprobated  as  the  strange  do6lrines 
 of  new  heresies :  and,  about  thirty  years 
 later,  such  was  the  general  abhorrence  of 
 Judaism,  that  any  Christian  who  professed 
 it,  was  very  commonly  supposed  to  be 
 excluded  from  salvation  J. 
 
 The  opinion,  that  every  true  Christian  was 
 a  true  follower  of  the  ritual  law  which  had 
 long  prevailed  among  Christians,  would 
 have  a    stronger  tendency  to   induce  the 
 
 Jewish 
 
 *  Epistle  to  the  Magnesians.     §   6.   7,   8.   Wake's 
 Translation. 
 
 i  Seft.  II.     t  Justin  Martyr,p.  23o.et«eq,  Ed.  Thirlby. 
 
(     264     ) 
 
 Jevvish  Christians  to  abandon  the  laws  of 
 their  ancestors  than  the  violence  of  their 
 Gentile  brethren :  and  these  causes  joined 
 toothers  appear  to  have  produced  the  effeil, 
 that  might  reasonably  be  expected  :  for, 
 after  the  middle  of  the  second  century, 
 there  are  neither  any  traces  of  churches 
 composed  partly  of  Jews  and  partly  of 
 Gentiles,  like  those  in  the  first  age  of 
 Christianity,  nor  of  Ebionites*  existing 
 separate  from  the  churches  any  where, 
 except  in  a  few  "j^  places  in  the  east. 
 
 The 
 
 *It  Is  probable,  that  nil  the  Ebionite?,at  the  end  of  the 
 second  and  beginning  of  the  third  century,  bore  no  propor- 
 tion to  the  number  of  Jewish  Christians  in  Palestine  alone, 
 in  the  reign  of  Trajan,  after  the  rescript  of  that  emperor 
 in  favour  of  the  Christians,  Eusebius  speaks  (hyperboli- 
 cally,  no  doubt,)  of  Justus,  one  of  the  Hebrew  bishops, 
 as  one  of  the  myriads  of  those  of  the  circumcision,  who 
 
 believed  in  Christ.  la^^atoj  tk  ovo/xa  Isrof  u.v^m»  oa-a  va.  •nrjffkro,aj)j 
 «f  TQV  X^ifov  TJjdxaTTa  'WiTTiTivv.iTUv  i\^  v.:t\  avToi;  urn.  HlSt.  JL.  3* 
 C.   XXXV. 
 
 t  We  must  not  suppose,  that  theNazaraeans  or  Ebionasan 
 Christians  existed  in  many  parts  of  the  east  from  aeon- 
 fused  sentence  in  Jerom.  Quid  dicam  de  Hebionitis,  qui 
 Christianosesse  se  simulant?  Usque  ho{i\e  per tcfas  Orientis 
 synogogas  inter  Judasos  h^eresis  est  quse  dicitur  Alineorum, 
 ct  a  Pharisa;ls  nunc  usque  damnaiur,  quos  vulgo  Nazaraeos 
 nuncupant,  qui  credunt  in  Christum,  filium  dei,  natum  de 
 virgine  Maria,  et  eum  dicunt  esse,  qui  sub  Pontio  Pilato 
 passus  est,  et  resurrexir,  in  quern  et  nos  crcdimus :  sed 
 dum  volunt  et  Judasi  esse  et  Christiani,  nee  Judasi  sunt 
 ncc  Christiani.  Opera  Tom.  i.  p.  634.  Ed.  Lutet.  1624. 
 
 A 
 
{      2^5      ) 
 
 The  Jewish  Christians  must  therefore, 
 in  general,  have  abandoned  their  distinc- 
 tive customs  in  most  of  the  Christian 
 churches  in  the  first  century,  or  the  begin- 
 ning of  the  second :  and  they  would  pro- 
 bably be  followed  in  this  by  most  of  the 
 members  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  after 
 Adrian  had  prohibited  all  Jews  from  ap- 
 proaching the  neighbourhood  of  their 
 native  city. 
 
 The  ancient  testimonies,  by  which  we 
 prove,  what  is  beforehand  in  the  highest 
 degree  probable,  are  those  of  Celsus, 
 Origen,  and  Sulpicius  Severus:  to  whom 
 Basil  may  also  be  joined.  From  the 
 positive  testimonies  of  these  writers, 
 joined  to  the  consideration  of  the  dis- 
 appearance of  Jewish  Christians  in  the 
 second  century  in  most  parts  of  the  world, 
 
 where 
 
 A  very  judicious  explanation  of  this  passaj^e  has  not  been 
 sufficiently   attended   to._The   imprecations  which    the 
 Jews  uttered  thrice  every  day  in  their  public  prayers  against 
 Christians,  under  the  name  of  Nazarenes,  "  were  com- 
 posed some  years   before  the  destruction    of  Jerusalem 
 according  to  the  chronology  of  Semach  David,  and  were 
 not  concealed ;  but  the  empire  growing  Christian,  the  Jews 
 feared  they  should  fall  under  the  lash  of  the  civil  power  for 
 these  their  wicked   prayers,  and  therefore  pretended,  that 
 *"7"^^3"'°"b'a  seaoftheirown,  called  Nazarsans  or 
 Minsans,  and  imposed  so  far  upon  St.  Jerom  as  to  make 
 him  believe  them."   Mangey's  Rem.  on  Nazarenus,  p.  7. 
 
 L  L 
 
(      q66     ) 
 
 where  they  had  existed  before,  we  may 
 conclude  with  certainty,  that  they  had 
 assimilated  themselves  to  Gentile  Chris- 
 tians: and  the  year  136  has  been  with 
 great  probability  assigned  as  the  time, 
 when  the  secession  from  the  Mosaic  ritual 
 took  place  among  the  members  of  the 
 church  of  Jerusalem*. 
 
 III.  Respe6ling  the  opinions  of  the  first 
 Jewish  Christians  on  the  nature  of  Christ 
 in  most  of  the  churches,  of  which  they 
 soon  formed  but  a  small  portion,  dire6l 
 and  specific  testimony  is  wanting.  Two 
 classes  of  evidence  may  be  just  mentioned, 
 which  are  however  too  general  and  inde- 
 terminate to  be  of  much  use  on  this 
 particular  subje61:.  Irenseus,  Tertullian,  and 
 many  others,  have  expressly  declared,  that 
 the  opinions  of  the  Christian  church  pre- 
 ceded those  of  any  of  the  heretics  :  and  it 
 would  be  unnecessary  to  mention,  had  it  not 
 been  denied  by  Dr.  Priestley,  that  both 
 these  writers  considered  Unitarians  as  he- 
 retics. Others  of  the  Christian  fathers, 
 who  also  reckoned  Unitarianism  heretical, 
 
 have 
 
 *Du  Fresnoy's  Chronological  Table,  and  Echard's  Eccle- 
 siastical History  under  the  year  136.  and  Mosheim  dc 
 Rebus  anteConstantinum,  p.  324. 
 
(     267     ) 
 
 have  affirmed  that  the  first  ages  of  the 
 church  were  free  from  heresy  :  by  which 
 they  plainly  meant  that  the  disseminators 
 of  erroneous  opinions  were  very  few,  when 
 compared  with  those  of  later  times. 
 
 A  third  class  of  testimony  will  apply 
 more  immediately  to  this  point.  All  the 
 ancient  Christian  historians,  who  have 
 treated  on  this  subject,  have  placed  the 
 origin  of  Unitarianism  in  the  second  or 
 third  age  of  Christianity,  and  have  men- 
 tioned the  first  individuals  by  name,  (Cerin- 
 thus,  and  Carpocrates,  with  whom  some 
 have  joined  Ebion)  who  taught  this  doc- 
 trine, or  one  nearly  allied  to  it :  from  their 
 united  testimony  it  is  clear,  that  the  great 
 dispute  in  the  first  age  of  Christianity  (viz.  in 
 the  first  thirty-five  years  after  the  crucifixion 
 of  Christ)  was  about  the  simple  divinity 
 of  Christ,  not  about  his  simple  humanity. 
 The  first  Gnostic  heretics, who  were  Jews* 
 and  Samaritans,  contended  that  Christ  was 
 man  only  in  appearance,  and  that  he  only 
 seemed  to  suffer.  While  the  early  origin  of 
 the  seels  of  this  class,  the  only  se6ts  which 
 gave  much  concern  in  the  second  century, 
 
 is 
 
 *"That  the  authors  of  heresy  in  the  time  of  the  Apo- 
 stles were  chiefly  Jews  is  evident  from  a  variety  of  circum- 
 stances."    Hist,  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  i. 
 
 L   L  2 
 
(      268      ) 
 
 is  fully  admitted,  the  ancient  historians  of 
 the  church  have  agreed  in  placing  the  first 
 Jewish  Unitarians,  whose  numbers  were 
 too  inconsiderable  to  give  alarm  in  any  age, 
 tov/ards  the  end  of  the  first,  or  the  begin- 
 ning of  the  second  century  *. 
 
 The  opinions  of  the  Hebrew  church  of 
 Jerusalem  (which  may  reasonably  be  con- 
 sidered as  a  just  specimen  of  the  opinions 
 of  the  Jewish  Christians  at  large)  on  the 
 nature  of  Christ,  in  the  first  century,  are 
 determined  by  the  express  testimonies  of 
 Hegesippus,  Eusebius  and  Sulpicius  Seve- 
 rus  ;  with  these  the  testimony  of  Celsus  to 
 the  opinions  of  the  Jewish  Christians  in 
 general,  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century, 
 
 perfe6lly 
 
 *  "The  church  was  disturbed  in  its  infancy,  with  two 
 opposite  heresies,  each  of  which  produced  several  sed^s. 
 1  he  principal  tenets  of  one,  which  came  from  the  Sama- 
 ritans, and  had  Simon  for  its  first  author,  were,  that  there 
 arc  tv.o  Gods,  and  two  principles,  the  creator  and  another 
 above  him,  and  that  our  Saviour  was  man  in  appearance 
 only.  These  are  they  to  whom  arc  given  in  generalthe 
 names  of  Gnostics  and  Docctas ;  under  vvhicli  arc  compre- 
 hended al/nost  ^//the  &c61s  of  the  inofiji  ages.'' 
 
 The  other  heresy  opposite  to  this  came  from  the  Jews, 
 vho  embraced  Christianity,  but  not  in  all  its  perfeiition. 
 'J  hey  owned  one  principle  and  one  God,  and  the  reality 
 of  Clirist's  human  nature.  But,  they  believed  him  to  be 
 r,o  nore  thian  man,  denied  his  divinity,  and  retained  the 
 tcremonics  of  the  law  v\ith  so  much  zeal,  as  to  diminish  the 
 liberty  and  glory  cf  the  £ospel."    'Jillcmont  on  Cciinihus. 
 
(        2^9        ) 
 
 perfe6lly  coincides  ;  the  whole  is  confirmed, 
 were  additional  authority  wanting,  by  the 
 acquiescence  of  Origen;  and  against  this 
 body  of  evidence  not  a  single  ancient 
 testimony  can  be  opposed. 
 
 Since  then  "  it  cannot  be  doubted 
 but  that  the  primitive  Christians  reall}^ 
 thought  that  their  opinions  (whatever  they 
 were)  were  contained  in  the  scriptures,  as 
 these  were  the  standards  to  which  they 
 constantly  appealed  */'  and  by  which  their 
 opinions  were  formed  ;  since  the  gospel  of 
 St.  Matthew  was  particularly  intended  for 
 the  use  of  Hebrew  Christians -f;  and  since 
 those,  who  are  of  the  same  age  and  country 
 with  a  speaker  or  writer,  are  the  most 
 likely  persons  to  know  the  true  meaning 
 of  words  addressed  immediately  to  them- 
 selves; we  might  conclude,  even  if  the 
 New  Testament  had  been  totally  lost,  or 
 grossly  corrupted,  or  mutilated,  that  it 
 originally  taught  the  do61:rine  of  Christ's 
 divinity. 
 
 We  may  also  conclude,  that  the  language 
 of  the  New  Testament  on   the  subject  of 
 
 the 
 
 *  Priestley's  Letter  to  the  Dean  of  Canterbury,  p.  8. 
 t  Euseb,  Hist.  L.  3.  c.  xxiv. 
 
(        270        ) 
 
 the  divinity  of  Christ  and  the  verbal  in- 
 structions of  the  Apostles  did  not  appear 
 to  the  first  Hebrew  Christians  difficult  or 
 ambiguous.      For,   we  know  the  force  of 
 that    association   of   ideas    depending    on 
 habit  too  w^ell,  to   suppose,  that  it  would 
 have  been  possible  to  banish  the  notions, 
 which   they   had    previously  conceived  of 
 their  Messiah,  by  words  of  doubtful  import. 
 The  Jews  had  been  for  some  time  in  ex- 
 pe6lation  of  a  great  deliverer,  when  our 
 Saviour  appeared  among  them  ;  and  their 
 opinions   respecting  his    nature  and   cha- 
 racter had  been  partly  formed  on  the  Old 
 Testament,  and  partly  by  their  own  fancies. 
 They  had  expe61;ed,  that  he  was  to   be  a 
 deliverer  of  the  Jews  only ;  and  with  such 
 a  prejudice  as  this,  they  must  have  been 
 strongly  disposed  to  misinterpret  any  pas- 
 sage in  scripture,  (if  it  appeared  to  them 
 at  all  doubtful,)  which  informed  them,  that 
 he  came  to  save  the  world.      Their  Mes- 
 siah, according  to  another  of  their  precon- 
 ceived notions,  was  to  be  a  temporal  prince, 
 and  a  man;  and,    under  the    influence  of 
 such   an   opinion,  they   must  have    been 
 inclined  to  pervert    the   meaning  of   pas- 
 sages, (if  they  thought  them  in  any  degree 
 obscure)  which  taught  his  divinity. 
 
 Jews, 
 
(        271        ) 
 
 Jews,  if  disposed  to  deviate  from  the 
 truth  at  all  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
 words  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  must,  on 
 account  of  their  habitual  train  of  thought, 
 have  had  a  strong  bias  to  err  on  the  side 
 of  Unitarianism :  they  could  never  have 
 been  brought  to  believe  their  Messiah  pos- 
 sessed of  a  divine  nature,  unless  his  words 
 and  those  of  his  inspired  servants  had  ap- 
 peared to  them  very  clear  and  explicit  on 
 this  particular  subje6t.  If  it  had  been  a 
 matter  of  doubt  with  the  first  Hebrew 
 Christians,  whether  the  divinity  or  simple 
 humanity  of  Christ  was  taught  by  himself 
 and  the  Apostles,  ancient  prejudices  would 
 have  disposed  them  to  seize  the  latter 
 opinion,  and  we  should  have  been  informed 
 by  ancient  historians,  that  Ebionitism  com- 
 menced with  Christianity  itself^ 
 
 When  therefore  w^e  know,  that  the  dis- 
 pute in  the  first  age  of  Christianity  was 
 between  those,  who. maintained  the  union 
 of  the  divine  and  human  natures  in  the  per- 
 son of  Christ,  and  those,  who  insisted  on 
 his  simple  divinity,  and  that  the  first  be- 
 lievers in  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ 
 appeared  not  till  after  the  destru6lion  of 
 Jerusalem   under  Vespasian;  we  may  be 
 
 certain. 
 
(        272        ) 
 
 certain,  that,  in  whatever  ohscurity  tlie 
 other  opinions  taught  by  Christ  and  his 
 apostles  might  be  supposed  to  be  involved, 
 the  do6lrine  of  his  divinity  was  thought  to 
 be  very  clearly  and  plainly  inculcated. 
 
 :^< 
 
 CHAP. 
 
(    "^l^,    ) 
 
 CHAP.     XIV. 
 
 THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA- 
 MENT BY  THE  EBIONITES  COLLECTED 
 FROM   THEIR   RELIGIOUS   OPINIONS. 
 
 I.  Whether  the  Ebionites  and  Nazaraeans  of  the  sepond 
 century  were  two  or  three  se6ls,  a  subje6t  of  dispute. 
 Singular  hypothesis  of  Dr.    Priestley,   that  they  were 
 only  one  se6t  till  after  the  age  of  Irenaeus,  and  that 
 se6t  entertaining  the  same  opinions  with  himself  on  the 
 subjea  of  the  nature  of  Christ.    Dr.  Priestley's  method 
 of  colle6ting  the  sense  of  the   New  Testament  on  this 
 subjeft  from  the  opinions  of  the    Ebzonites.      The 
 principle,   by  which  their  interpretation  of  the  New 
 Testament  is  collefted,  false.    Those  among  the  Ebio- 
 nites, who  had   read  the  New   Testament,   probably 
 thought  it  to  contain  do61:rines  relating  to  the  nature  of 
 Christ  opposite  to  their  own.       Their  opinions  the  re- 
 presentation of  doftrines  taught  in  their  own  canonical 
 books,  and  not  of  those  of  the  New  Testament.  — Con- 
 sequence of  appealing  to  the  opinions  of  the  Ebionites 
 as  the  just  representations  of  the  do6lrines  of  Christi- 
 anity.    Consequence  of  appealing  to  their  opinions  in 
 order  to  discover  the   sense  of  the   New  Testament. 
 2.  Toland's  attempt  to  destroy  the  authority  of  the 
 New  Testament,  and   Dr    Priestley's  method  of  ex- 
 plaining it  compared.      Summary  view  of  the  interpre- 
 tation of  the  New  Testament,    i.  By  the  Jews.  2.  Pri- 
 mitive church  of  Jerusalem.     3.   Ebionites,     4.  The 
 greatest  part  of  the  New  Testament  not   received  by 
 the    Ebionites.     Summary  view  of  the  evidence   on 
 this  subjeft. 
 
 Mm  I.  IN 
 
(     274     ) 
 
 I.  X  N  an  inquiry  into  the  interpretation 
 of  the  New  Testament  by  the  first  Jewish 
 Christians,  the  sense  in  which  it  was  un- 
 derstood by  some  of  the  earhest  of  those 
 Christians,  v/ho  were  usually  called  here- 
 tics, would    be   highly  valuable,    if  their 
 interpretation  could  be  made  out  with  any 
 considerable   degree  of  probability  :   this, 
 however,     it    would    be   unreasonable   to 
 expe61  :    and   we   may    dismiss    the    first 
 Gnostics,    without    much    concern    about 
 their  opinions,  because  it  is  not  known  by 
 \\'hat  means  they  were  formed. 
 
 The  opinions  of  the  Ebionites  would  be 
 less  entitled  to  our  notice,  as  a  medium 
 for  discovering  the  sense  of  the  New  Tes- 
 tament, than  those  of  the  first  Gnostics, 
 liad  not  an  improper  stress  been  laid  on 
 them  by  a  modern  writer;  who  has  at- 
 tempted to  establish  his  own  S3^stem  of 
 religion  b}^  the  help  of  a  S3^stem  of  historical 
 mistakes. 
 
 It  has  been  universally  allowed,  that  a 
 body  of  Jews  professing  the  Christian 
 religion,  and  divided  into  two  se61s  under 
 the  name  of  Ebionites,  existed  in  Palestine 
 
(    ^is    ) 
 
 at  the  end  of  the  first,  or  the  beginning  of 
 the  second  century.  One  of  these  is  sup- 
 posed by  many  writers  to  have  been  some- 
 times denoted  under  the  title  of  Nazar^ans  : 
 while  others  contend,  that  the  Nazaraeans 
 were  a  sect  distindl  from  both. 
 
 Theodoret  among  the  ancients,  and 
 Huetius  andSpanheim  among  the  moderns, 
 were  of  the  latter  opinion  ;  while  a  great 
 majority  of  the  learned  has  considered  the 
 Nazaraeans  and  those,  whom  Nicephorus 
 called  the  lesser  Ebionites,  as  one  and  the 
 same  se6l.  Of  this  opinion  were  Grotius, 
 Vossius,  Spencer,  Le  Clerc,  J.  Jojies,  Mo- 
 sheim  and  Gibbon. 
 
 Each  of  these  two  opinions  has  been 
 supported  by  arguments  of  some  force : 
 but,  in  dire6l  opposition  to  both,  the 
 writer,  to  whom  I  have  alluded,  has  reduced 
 the  three  or  the  two  se61s  to  one.  He  has 
 supposed,  without  producing  any  ancient 
 testimony  in  favour  of  his  hypothesis,  and 
 without  the  countenance  of  any  modern 
 writer,  that  those,     who    disbelieved    the 
 
 divinity 
 
 *  Mosheim  (de  Rebus  ante  Constantinum  p.  330.)  has 
 committed  a  llight  mistake  in  ranking  Huetius  with  Gro- 
 tius, Vossius  and  Spencer. 
 
 M   M  2 
 
(     276     ) 
 
 divinity  and  miraculous  conception  of 
 Christ,  and  who  rejetled  the  twcT  first 
 Chapters  of  St.  Matthew,  were  the  first 
 and  only  Ebionites  ;  and  that  they  were 
 not  divided  into  two  se6ls  till  between  the 
 times  of  Irenceus  and  Origen,  at  the  end 
 of  the  second,  or  the  beginning  of  the  third 
 century. 
 
 This  conje61ure  is  founded  on  the  sile?ice 
 of  Justin  and  Irenaeus  respe61ing  any  Jew- 
 ish Christians,  except  those,  who  believed 
 that  Christ   was  a   man   born   of  human 
 parents  ;    though   none  of  the    surviving 
 works  of  Justin  are  on  the  subject  of  here- 
 sies ;   though  it  is  probable  enough,  from 
 the  testimony  of  Theodoret*,  that  Justin, 
 in  his   work   on    heresies,    wrote   against 
 both  Ebionites  and  Nazaraeans ;  and  though 
 the  silence  of  these  writers,  were  it  real, 
 could  never  be  opposed  against  the  positive 
 testimony  of  other  authors  of  credit,   who 
 liad  sufficient  means  of  information. 
 
 One  of  these  se6\s  believed  in  the  mi- 
 raculous conception  of  Christ ;  but  whether 
 
 they 
 
 E«§u»a»o?,  —  y.o»    si^iynM.      Theodorct.      de   Ebionasis   et 
 Nazaraeis  Haer.  Fab.  L.  2.  c.  i.  2. 
 
(     277     ) 
 
 they  adinilted  his  divinity  or  not,  is  a  matter 
 of  doubt.  The  degree  of  uncertainty  on 
 this  subje6l  is  very  accurately  marked  by 
 Mosheim*. 
 
 They  received  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew 
 entire,  lirXTi^sg-urov  -f- ;  and  the  only  fault  of 
 their  copy,  as  Le  Clerc  has  observed,  was 
 that  it  Vv^as  virB^TrXyi^eg,  having  been  aug- 
 mented by  the  temerity  of  some  of  their 
 teachers  with  many  interpolations  J.  On 
 this  account,  and  because  their  canon  was 
 composed  in  part  of  apocryphal  books,  we 
 cannot  collect  their  interpretation  of  any 
 part  of  the  New  Testament  thfough  the 
 medium  of  their  religious  opinions  ;  were 
 they  even  fully  known. 
 
 The  opinions  of  the  other  se6l  are  more 
 certainly  ascertained:  and  through  them 
 it  has  lately  been  attempted  to  discover  the 
 true  meaning  of  scripture  on  the  subjed  of 
 of  the  nature  of  Christ. 
 
 Itcertainly  would  be  interesting  to  know 
 in  what  sense  the  New  Testament   was 
 
 understood 
 
 *  De  Rebus  ante  Constantinum,  p.  330. 
 t  Epiphanius  Haer.  29.  num.  9. 
 
 t  See  Jones  on  the  Canon,  part  2.  c.  25--29.  and  Fa- 
 bricius,  Codex  Apocryphus,  Vol.  i.  p.  355. 
 
(      278      ) 
 
 understood  either  by  them  or  any  body  of 
 men,  who  lived  near  the  time,  when  any 
 part  of  it  was  written.  The  first  Ebionites 
 were  perhaps  in  existence,  when  the  Apostle 
 John  wrote  his  gospel  ;  and  some  ancient 
 writers  have  asserted,  what  appears  in  itself 
 not  very  unlikel3^  that  some  parts  of  his  epis- 
 tles were  direc^ted  against  the  opinions  of  the 
 first  members  of  that  se6V.  Both  the  Greek 
 and  Syriac  languages  were  spoken  in  their 
 country,  several  of  the  Ebionites  would  be 
 competent  judges  of  the  meaning  of  books 
 on  the  subjecl  of  their  own  religion  in 
 either  language,  and  their  interpretations 
 of  them  would  form  and  regulate  the  opi- 
 nions of  the  body  at  large. 
 
 Ihey  believed  that  Christ  was  a  man 
 born  of  human  parents  ;  and  it  has  lately 
 been  taken  for  granted,  that  they  supposed 
 this  do6trine  taught  in  scripture,  viz.  in 
 the  Gospel  of  St.  John  and  the  other  parts 
 of  the  New  Testament*  ;  and  it  has  in  the 
 
 next 
 
 *  "  I  have  shewn  that  the  doiHrine  of  the  simple  huma- 
 rity  of  Cluist  was  received  by  the  great  body  of  the  primi- 
 tive Christians  both  7^"'^  ^"^  Gentiles.  Ihty  were  in 
 tcssessicn  of  the  bcoki  cf  ih  Anv  Trstmnent  and  for  their  use 
 thy  ivere  uriiten;  and  yet  ihcy  saw  in  them  no  such  doc- 
 trine as  that  of  the  creation  of  the  world  by  Chiist,  or-even 
 that  of  his  preexistence."  Letter  4  to  Dr.  Price  in  "  De- 
 fence of  Unitarianijni  for  i/Sj'-iyqo." 
 
{     ^79     ) 
 
 next  place  been  concluded,  that  no  doflrine 
 at  variance  with  this  can  be  taught  in 
 scripture. 
 
 The  writers,  by  whom  these  inferences 
 have  been  drawn,  have  sometimes  been 
 rather  ostentatious  in  formal  declarations  of 
 the  principles^  on  which  their  investiga- 
 tions have  been  condu6led.  When  we  see 
 in  some  of  their  books  a  train  of  maxims 
 of  historical  criticism  laid  down  with  a 
 regularity,  like  that  of  the  postulates  and 
 axioms  in  Geometry,  we  are  led  to  ima- 
 gine, that  nothing  short  of  mathematical 
 accuracy  will  be  found  in  their  reasoning, 
 and  that  truth,  and  truth  only  will  result 
 in  their  conclusions.  It  were  to  be  wished, 
 that  they  had  mentioned  on  what  principle 
 of  historical  criticism  they  have  proceeded 
 in  the  case  now  before  us.  As  they  have 
 neglected  this,  it  may  not  be  unseasonable 
 to  point  out  W'hat  they  have  omitted. 
 The  principle,  on  which  they  have  tacitly, 
 and  perhaps  inadvertently,  proceeded  is 
 this,  *'  that  men  must  suppose  their  own 
 opinions  contained  in  books,  to  whose 
 authority  they  do  not  submit/'  "  The 
 Ebionites  must  have  believed  the  books, 
 whose  authority  they  did  not  acknowledge, 
 
 to 
 
(      28o      ) 
 
 to  have  contained  their  opinions."  It  is 
 entirely  on  this  principle,  that  the  Ebioni- 
 tish  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament 
 
 A. 
 
 has  been  lately  founded,  and  recommended 
 to  Christians  of  the  present  age,  as  one  of 
 the  best  means  for  discovering  the  meaning 
 of  the  passages  in  it  relating  to  the  nature 
 of  Christ. 
 
 As  the  principle  is  beyond  measure  ex- 
 travagant, the  errors,  which  have  flowed 
 from  it,  cannot  excite  our  surprize.  A 
 more  reasonable  principle  would  have  led 
 with  some  degree  of  probability  to  an  op- 
 posite conclusion.  It  might  have  been 
 laid  down  as  rather  probable,  that  the 
 Ebionites  supposed  the  books,  whose  au- 
 thority they  did  not,  like  other  Christians, 
 regularly  acknowledge,  to  have  contained 
 dodlrines  opposite  to  their  own. 
 
 The  passages  of  the  New  Testament,  in 
 which  the  divinity  of  Christ  is  commonly 
 supposed  to  be  most  clearly  taught,  are  in 
 the  Gospel  of  St.  John:  this  Gospel,  whose 
 authority  was  always  acknowledged  by 
 every  church,  and  even  by  a  vast  majority 
 of  those  Christians,  who  were  called  here- 
 tics,  was  not  admitted  into  the  canon  of 
 
 the 
 
(     28i      ) 
 
 the  Ebionites :  and,  therefore,  it  is  rather 
 probable  that  they  believed  it  to  contain 
 do6trines  contrary  to  their  opinions. 
 
 The  Gospels  of  Luke  and  Marie  are  also 
 very  commonly  thought  to  teach  the  divi- 
 nity of  Christ,  though  less  clearly  than  that 
 of  John  :  these  Gospels,  which  have  also 
 been  always  acknowledged  as  of  divine 
 authority  by  all  Christian  churches,  were 
 never  received  by  the  Ebionites  :  at  least, 
 the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke  was  never  acknow- 
 ledged by  any  of  this  class  of  Christians: 
 and  therefore  it  is  in  some  degree  probable, 
 that  they  interpreted  these  books  as  they 
 are  understood  by  us. 
 
 The  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew  is  com-  ' 
 monly  supposed  to  teach  the  divinity  of 
 Christ :  both  the  miraculous  conception 
 and  divinit}^  are  generally  believed  to 
 be  taught  in  thetv^'o  first  Chapters.  This 
 Gospel  has  been  always  received  entire  by 
 the  Christian  church  :  those  Ebionites, 
 however,  who  disbelieved  both  these  doc- 
 trines, rejecled  the  whole  of  the  two  first 
 Chapters,  and  corrupted  and  mutilated  the 
 remainder,  and  the  first  words  of  the  only 
 Gospel,    whose   authority    they    acknow- 
 
 N  N  ledged. 
 
(        282        ) 
 
 ledged,  contain  an  historical  falsehood  *. 
 It  is  highly  probable,  therefore,  that  the 
 Gospel  of  St.  Matthew  was  understood  by 
 the  Ebionites  as  it  is  understood  by  us, 
 that  they  believed  it  to  contain  the  do6lrine 
 of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  that  on  this  ac- 
 count they  rejected  the  two  first  Chapters, 
 and  mutilated  and  corrupted  the  remainder. 
 
 The 
 
 *  "The  Ebionites  made  no  public  use  of  any  other 
 Gospel  than  that  of  Matthew ;  though  they  might  easily 
 have  had  the  other  Gospels  and  the  rest  of  the  books  of  the 
 New  Testament  translated  for  their  use;  and  it  appears 
 from  Jerom,  who  saw  that  Gospel  as  used  by  them,  that 
 it  was  not  exa^lly  the  same  with  our  copies.  It  is  well 
 known,  that  their  copies  of  Matthew's  go^pdhiidnoi  the 
 story  of  the  miraculous  conception  ;  and  they  also  adJed  to 
 the  history  such  circumstances  as  tliey  thought  sufficiently 
 authenticated."     History  of  early  Opinions,  Vol,  i. 
 
 "  The  Ebionites  being  Jews,  and,  in  general,  acquainted 
 with  their  own  language  only,  made  use  of  no  other  than 
 a  Hebrew  gospel,  which  is  commonly  said  to  have  been 
 that  of  Matthew  originally  composed  in  their  language. 
 This  I  think  highly  probable  from  the  almost  unanimous 
 testimony  of  antiquity."  Hist,  of  early  Opin.  Vol.  3.  p.  212. 
 
 Compare  this  with  the  extrati:1:  from  the  Letter  to  Dr. 
 Price,  p.  278.  of  this  Vol. 
 
 "  The  beginning  of  their  Gospel  runs  thus  j  'It  came 
 to  pass  in  the  days  of  Herod,  the  king  of  Judaea,  that  John 
 came  baptizing,   &C.'      'H  h  ocpx^  m  ■n7a^'  avT&K  EfaJyEAja  tp^ft 
 
 ^aTvi^fcy,  Sic.  Epiphan.  Haer.  30.  §  3.  13. 
 
 Now,  "  Herod  the  king  of  Judaea  was  certainly  dead 
 above  twenty  years  before  John  the  Baptist  began  his  mi- 
 nistry (See  Josephus  and  ll^e  Chronologists)  and  yet  Dr. 
 Priestley  (Hist,  of  early  Opin.  Vol.  4.  p.  77,  &ic.  p.  105, 
 &-C.)  is  inclined  to  prefer  this  Ebionitish  Gospel  to  the 
 genuine  one  of  St.  Matthew!"  Parkhurst,  p.  42. 
 
{     283      ) 
 
 The  divinity  of  Christ  and  the  inutility 
 of  the  ceremonial  law  are  both  thought  to 
 be  taught  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles;  which  form 
 a  considerable  part  of  the  New  Testament: 
 the  Ebionites    who  were  believers    in  the 
 simple  humanity  of  Christ  and  observers  of 
 the  law,  rejecled*  these  Epistles;  and  the 
 necessary  inference  is,  that   they  believed 
 one  of  these  do61:ines  at  least  to  have  place 
 in  them.     Instead  of  the  genuine  history  of 
 the  a(5ls  of  the  Apostles,  in  which  St.  Paul  is 
 a  principle  agent,  they  had  some  spurious 
 memoirs   of  their  own-f :  and  it  is  not  cer- 
 tainly known  whether  they  received  any  part 
 of  the  New  Testament,  except  the  Gospel  of 
 St.  Matthew,  which   in   their   hands  had 
 undergone  a  compleat  metamorphosis.  And 
 yet,  an  appeal  has  been  seriously  made  to 
 the  opinions  of  the  Ebionites  as   the  true 
 representations    of    do61rines    taught    in 
 books,  which  they  never  acknowledged. 
 
 The  authority  and  the  authenticity  of  the 
 New  Testament  have  been  proved  beyond 
 all  question  by  writers  J;  whose  arguments 
 stand,  at  this  moment,  unrefuted.  This 
 book,  which   has   been  proved  to    be  the 
 
 true 
 
 *  Origen  cont.  Celsum,L.  5.  p.  274. 
 
 +  Epiphanius.  Ha;r.  30.  §  16. 
 
 X  ]'  Jones,  Lardner,  Michaelis,  Bryant,  Paley, 
 
 N  N   2 
 
■        (     284     ) 
 
 true  and  tlie  only  deposit  of  the  doclrines 
 of  Christianity,  lies  open  before  us  :   men 
 of  plain  understanding  and  common  infor- 
 mation are  enabled    by  ordinary  helps  to 
 discover  its  meaning  :  but  instead  of  look- 
 ing dire6lly  at  the  book,  they  are  recom- 
 mended to  turn  to  the  creed  of  the  Ebio- 
 nites,  as  a  sort  of  refle6tor,  in  which  the 
 images  of  the  do6lrines  of  the  New  Testa- 
 ment are  to  ba  more  clearly  and  distinctly 
 viewed  than   the  do6lrines  themselves  by 
 dire6l    inspection.      On    examining,   how- 
 ever,    into  the  constru61ion   of  this    new 
 Panorama,   a  palpable  deception  is    disco- 
 vered :     some    of   the    visionary    figures, 
 which    it    presents    to  our  view,  are  not 
 representations  of  any  thing  contained  in 
 the  New  Testament,  as  we  were  informed*, 
 but    are  tlie   refle61:ed    pictures    of    other 
 obje61s    substituted  by  fraud  or  inadver7 
 tcnce  in  its  place. 
 
 We  can  only  look  to  the  opinions  of 
 the  Ebionitcs  as  the  representations  of 
 doctrines  contained  in  their  own  books, 
 not  in  ours  :  an  appeal  can  only  be  made 
 to  them,  in  order  to  discover  the  sense  of 
 the  books,  by  which  their  opinions   were 
 
 formed : 
 
 *  See  the  extract  from  the  Letter  to  Dr.  Price,  p.  278. 
 
(     285     ) 
 
 formed  :  and  these  were  not  the  genuine 
 Gospels  of  St.  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke  and 
 John,  the  A6ls  of  the  Apostles  and  the 
 epistles  written  by  the  Apostles  to  tlie  first 
 Christian  churches  ;  but  the  Gospel  accord- 
 ing to  the  Hebrews,  some  counterfeit  me- 
 moirs of  the  A6ls  of  the  Apostles  *,  the 
 Clementine  Recognitions  -f,  the  pretended 
 Epistle  of  Peter  to  James  J  and  some 
 other  forgeries  :  all  which  have  long  since 
 been  proved  to  be  spurious,  and  none  of 
 which  were  ever  of  any  authority  in  the 
 primitive  Christian  church. 
 
 It  has  happened  by  one  of  those  curious 
 inconsistencies,  which  are  sometimes  ob- 
 servable in  human  condu6l,  that  the  per- 
 sons, who  at  present  clamour  most  loudlv 
 against  the  admission  of  any  creed  amono- 
 Christians,  except  the  New  Testament, 
 should  affirm  that  the  sense  of  this  book 
 on  one  of  the  most  important  do61rines  of 
 our  religion  is  to  be  settled  by  the  un- 
 written creed  of  the  Ebionites. 
 
 It 
 
 ^Eplphanlus  Haer.  30.  §  13.  15.  23. 
 
 t  Grabe  Spicilegium  Patrum,  Tom.  i.  p.  57. 
 
 tFabrjciusCodexApocryphus,Tom.  2.p.  gio.  Grnhc 
 jPicileg.  I  om.  I. p.  59,  t)o.  DodwelI,Dissert.  t  in  Irenieum, 
 §  10. 
 
(     266     ) 
 
 It  iindoubteclly  must  have  happened, 
 that  in  the  progress  of  his  great  work  Dr. 
 Priestley  lost  sight  of  the  obje6l  for  wiiich 
 it  was  commenced.  His  original  design  is 
 fairly  stated  in  his  own  words.  "  The 
 proper  object  of  my  work  is  to  ascertain 
 what  must  have  been  the  sense  of  the 
 books  of  scripture  from  the  sense  in  which 
 they  were  actually  understood  by  those, 
 for  whose  use  they  were  composed  *." 
 This  was  a  reasonable  purpose :  but  in- 
 stead of  pointing  out  the  sense  of  scripture 
 by  the  interpretation  of  those  for  whose 
 use  it  was  designed  ;  he  collects  its  doc- 
 trines by  the  opinions  of  those,  who  never 
 used  it ;  and  he  might  have  as  reasonably 
 appealed  to  the  opinion  of  a  Mahometan, 
 as  to  that  of  an  Ebionite,  to  discover  the 
 dod:rines  contained  in  our  four  Gospels. 
 
 Religion  admits  not  of  temporizing. 
 It  is  necessary  to  see  to  what  this  new 
 principle  will  lead:  and,  if  it  be  just,  to 
 admit  all  its  consequences.  Are  we  to 
 appeal  to  the  opinions  of  the  Ebionites  as 
 just  representations  of  the  do<5trines  of 
 Christianity?  We  must  admit  then  the 
 authority    of   their     canonical    books,    by 
 
 which 
 
 *  Letter  to  Paikhurst. 
 
(     287     ) 
 
 which  those  opinions  were  formed  ;  and 
 negle6l  our  own,  which  they  negle6led. 
 Or,  are  we  to  appeal  to  their  opinions  (as 
 it  has  been  lately  recommended)  in  order 
 only  to  discover  their  interpretation  of  our 
 canon  of  scripture  on  the  subje6l  of  the 
 divinity  or  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ  ? 
 If  their  opinions  must  decide  on  this  ques- 
 tion, we  must  necessarily  conclude,  that 
 the  simple  humanity  of  Christ  was  taught 
 in  their  own  books,  and  his  divinity  in 
 ours,  to  whose  authority  they  refused  to 
 submit,  in  common  with  other  Christians, 
 And  thus  the  Ebionites  themselves  will 
 destroy  the  spurious  system,  which  has 
 been  defended  by  their  authority  and 
 name  ;  but,  to  which  they  never  gave  their 
 approbation. 
 
 Had  an  Ebionite  been  asked,  if  the  sim- 
 ple humanity  of  Christ  was  taught  in  the 
 Gospel  of  St.  John ;  he  would  probably 
 have  replied,  that  his  brethren  had  been 
 prevailed  on  by  some  of  their  leaders  not 
 to  acknowledge  the  authority  of  that  Gos- 
 pel, because  it  very  clearly  inculcated  the 
 doftrines  of  Christ's  divinity  and  preex- 
 istence,  which  they  thought  impossible  ; 
 and   he   would     have    been    struck  with 
 
 amazement 
 
(      288      ) 
 
 amazement  at  an  appeal  being  made  to 
 his  opinions  as  the  proper  representations 
 of  dodrines  taught  in  books,  which  lie 
 had  either  not  read,  or  not  approved. 
 
 Let  a  case  be  supposed  among  the  Ma- 
 hometans similar  to  that,  which  has  lately 
 astonished  the  Christian  world.  A  collec- 
 tion of  writings  termed  the  Koran  now 
 regulates  the  faith  of  the  Mussulmen.  Let 
 us  imagine  a  philosopher  of  Constantinople, 
 of  high  reputation,  reall}^  persuading  him- 
 self, that  all  the  passages  in  it,  on  some 
 particular  subject,  are  of  doubtful  signifi- 
 cation ;  that,  on  considering  the  general 
 spirit  of  tliis  book,  it  is  uncertain,  for 
 instance,  whether  Mahomet  intended  to 
 declare  himself  a  prophet,  or  not.  To 
 remove  this  doubt,  he  appeals  to  the  opi- 
 jiions  of  the  faithful  in  the  time  of  the 
 disciples  or  immediate  successors  of  Maho- 
 met himself:  but,  instead  of  dire6ting  his 
 attention  to  those  of  that  age,  who  received 
 the  whole  book,  and  whose  tenets  were 
 formed  on  what  they  conceived  to  be  its 
 precepts,  he  discovers  an  extremely  small 
 se6t  hidden  in  an  obscure  corner  of  the 
 Mahometan  dominions,  which  would  scarce- 
 ly have  been   heard  of,  in   modern  timesy 
 
 had 
 
(     289     ) 
 
 had    it    not     been     dignified    with     the 
 name  of  an  heresy.     Though  Mahometan 
 historians  are  not  agreed  about  the  very- 
 year  when   this   se61   first  appeared,   they 
 have,  however,  without  exception,  placed 
 its  origin  about  half  a  century,  or  rather 
 more,  after  the  death  of  their  great  Prophet. 
 The  religious  opinions  of  this  obscure  and 
 despised  body  of  men  were  regulated  by  a 
 set  of  spurious    compositions,  which  some 
 of  their  leaders  had  the  address  to  impose 
 on  them  ;  and  they  received  only  one  small 
 part  of  the  Koran,  which  they  had  inter- 
 polated and   garbled   at   pleasure.      By  a 
 bold  fi6lion,  the   philosopher  supposes,  in 
 contradi6lion   to    the   historians,  that  the 
 members  of  this   se6l  were  the  very  first 
 Mahometans ;  and   confidently  appeals  to 
 their  religious  tenets  as  a  proper  medium 
 for  discovering  the  sense  of  a  book,  which 
 they  never  received.      If   this    method  of 
 settling  the  meaning  of  the  Koran  had  ever 
 been  proposed  ;  not  a   single  Turk  would 
 have  been  found,  who  could  have  endured 
 for  a  moment  the  solemn  trifling  of  the 
 philologer,   who  could  gravely   project    so 
 preposterous  an  attempt. 
 
 O  Q  Wo 
 
(        290       ) 
 
 We  do  not  refer  to  tlie  readers  of  Plato, 
 in  order  to  discover  the  sense  of  the  writ- 
 ings of  Xenophon  on  the  subject  of  So- 
 crates :  we  are  not  to  collect  the  meanins: 
 of  the  history  of  Cyrus  written  by  Hero- 
 dotus from  the  opinions  of  men,  who  have 
 only  read  the  romance  of  Xenophon  on  the 
 life  of  that  prince  :  and  we  cannot  appeal 
 to  the  Ebionites,  the  readers  of  the  gospel 
 according  to  the  Hebrews,  as  the  proper 
 method  of  ascertaining  what  the  four 
 Evangelists  and  th^  other  Apostles  have 
 taught  on  the  subject  of  the  nature  of 
 Christ. 
 
 n.  It  is  now  almost  forgotten,  though 
 the  circumstance  happened  no  longer  since 
 than  the  beginning  of  this  century,  that 
 the  opinions  of  the  Ebionites  were  once 
 consulted  for  a  very  different  purpose. 
 A  writer  of  that  time  attempted  to  destroy 
 the  authority  of  the  New  Testament  by 
 precisely  the  same  means,  which  have 
 lately  been  employed  to  discover  its  true 
 meaning.  To  accomplish  this  purpose,  he 
 proceeded  by  these  steps.  —  The  first  con- 
 verts to  Christianity  were  of  the  Jewish 
 race,    and  received  their  do6trines   from 
 
 Christ 
 
(        291        ) 
 
 Christ  himself  and  his  Apostles:  their's 
 therefore  was  the  genuine,  as  it  was  the 
 original,  Christianity.  He  then  tacitly 
 took  for  granted,  that  the  doftrines  and 
 sacred  books  of  the  Ebionites  in  the  second, 
 third  and  fourth  centuries  were  the  same 
 with  those  of  the  primitive  Jewish  Chris- 
 tians :  from  which  it  followed,  that  these 
 were  Unitarians,  that  the  gospel  according 
 to  the  Hebrews  contained  the  genuine 
 do6lrines  of  Christianity,  and  that  our 
 canon  is  therefore  of  no  authority*.  This 
 was  the  conclusion  at  which  Toland 
 aimed,  without  troubling  himself  about 
 concealing  his  sentiments  under  much 
 disguise.  And,  if  the  premises  of  his  rea- 
 soning be  true,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable : 
 it  is  the  only  legitimate  consequence  of  an 
 appeal  to  the  creed  of  the  Ebionites. 
 
 Dr.  Priestley  setting  out  from  the  same 
 point,  supposing  (without  venturing,  like 
 Toland,  openly  to  assert)  that  their's  was 
 the  original  and  genuine  Christianity,  and 
 
 rea§oning 
 
 *  "  Since  the  Nazai  enes  or  Ebionites  are  by  all  Church- 
 Historians  unanimoujly  acknowledged  to  have  been  the 
 first  Christians,"  &:t.  Toland's  Nazarenus,  p.  76.  This 
 was  certainly  rather  strong  assertion  j  but  it  was  necessary 
 for  the  author's  purpose. 
 
 0   0  2 
 
(        292        ) 
 
 reasoning    as   if   they   had    received   our 
 canon,  instead  of  one  totally  different  from 
 ours,  concludes  that  they  must  have  thought 
 it  to  contain  their  opinions  *,  and  therefore 
 that  no  do6lrine   at  variance  with  Unita- 
 rianism  can  be  found  in  it.    It  will  hereafter 
 be   mentioned  as  a  striking  inconsistency  in 
 the  ecclesiastical  history  of  these  our  times, 
 that  the  present  century  should  open  with 
 a   weak   and   almost   pitiable   attempt    to 
 destroy  the  authority  of  the   New  Testa- 
 ment,  by   appeahng   to  the  creed  of  the 
 Ebionites,    and   that   the   century   should 
 close  with  a  still  weaker  attempt  to  explain 
 it  by  an  appeal  to  the  very  same  creed. 
 
 An  acknowledgement  of  the  superior 
 authority  of  the  opinions  of  the  Ebionites 
 necessarily  led  to  the  admission  of  the 
 superior  authority  of  their  sacred  books  : 
 the  supposition  of  their  opinions  being  the 
 
 proper 
 
 *  "It  cannot  be  doubted  but  that  the  primitive  Chris- 
 tians really  thought  that  their  opinions,  whatever  they 
 were,  were  contained  in  the  scriptures,  as  these  were  the 
 standard  to  which  they  constantly  appealed.  When  you 
 say  therefore  of  what  I  have  written,  as  you  choose  to  ex- 
 press it  'in  four  large  volumes,  concerning  the  Jews  and 
 
 the  Gnostics  and  the  Ebionites  and  the  Nazarenes 
 
 that  all  this  will  fall  dincSlly  to  pieces'  \our  conclusion  is 
 rather  too  hasty."  Letters  to  the  Dean  ol  Cantcrburyjp.  8. 
 
(     293      ) 
 
 proper  representations  of  the  do6lrines  of 
 Christianity,  implied  the  acknowledgement 
 of  the  gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews 
 as  the  true  deposit  of  those  do61rines.  This 
 was  clearly  seen  by  Toland :  and  though 
 only  some  fragments  of  this  book  have  sur- 
 vived the  negle6l  of  the  primitive  Chris- 
 tians and  the  Vv^reck  of  time :  yet  the 
 Mahomietans,  as  he  asserted,  having  among 
 them  a  book  called  the  gospel  of  Barnabas, 
 jn  which  St.  Paul  is  vilified,  and  the  sim- 
 ple humanity  of  Christ  taught,  both  on 
 the  Ebionsan  system,  he  recommended  it 
 to  the  attention  of  Christians,  as  of  superior 
 authority  to  our  gospels  *,  and  as  a  proper 
 substitute  for  the  gospel  according  to  the 
 Hebrews. 
 
 However  absurd  this  may  appear  to  us, 
 it  is  the  reasonable  consequence  of  an  ad- 
 mission of  the  Ebionaean  authority.  The 
 gospel,  which,  according  to  this  writer's 
 account -f,  the  Mahometans  acknowledge, 
 
 contains 
 
 *  Nazarenus,  p.  69. 
 
 t "  I  will  venture  to  affirm,  that  though  the  Mahometans 
 do  acknowledge  a  Gospel  to  have  been  formerly  sent  from 
 heaven  to  Jesus,  v.hom,  by  the  way,  they  suppose  to  be 
 the  only  writer  of  it,  yet .  they  allow  that  Gospel  has  no 
 force  or  authority,  they  produce  no  testimonies  from  it, 
 nor  do  any  of  them  read  it  as  a  sacred  book."  Mangey  on 
 Nazarenus,  p.  24. 
 
(      294     ) 
 
 contains  the  doctrines,  by  which  the  sacred 
 books  of  the  Ebionites  were  distinguished: 
 and,  it  is  certainly  true,  that  the  Maho- 
 metan and  Ebionsean  opinions  respecting 
 the  nature  and  chara6ler  of  Christ  are 
 nearly  the  same.  The  Mahometans  agree 
 in  part  with  the  milder  se61:,  which  believed 
 that  Christ  was  born  of  a  virgin  *,  that  he, 
 no  less  than  Moses,  was  a  great  teacher 
 and  prophet,  that  he  was  the  Messiah 
 predicted  by  the  prophets,  and  that  he  had 
 received  a  commission  from  God  to  reform 
 and  instruct  the  world ;  but,  that  he  was 
 only  a  man. 
 
 If,  therefore,  their  opinions  are  to  be 
 considered  as  the  standard  of  Christianity, 
 the  different  nations  of  Mahometans  are 
 unquestionably  truer  Christians  (as  far  as 
 do6trines  are  concerned  in  constituting  our 
 religion)  than  the  greater  part  of  that  body 
 of  mankind,  to  which  this  name  has  been 
 exclusively  annexed  ;  and,  instead  of  pro- 
 jecting their  conversion,  Christians  them- 
 selves ought  to  be  converted  to  the  Chris- 
 tianity of  the  Turks.  The  author  of 
 Nazarenus  w^as  not  remarkable  for  winking 
 at  the  consequences,  which    flowed  from 
 
 his 
 
 « In  the  Alcoran  he  is  always  called  the  son  of  Mary. 
 
{      295     ) 
 
 his  own  principles ;  and  he  made  no  at- 
 tempt to  conceal  this.  He  thought  highly 
 of  the  purity  of  the  faith  of  the  Unitarian 
 Christians  of  his  time ;  and  he  probably 
 intended  it  as  no  mean  encomium  on  them, 
 when  he  declared,  that  their  Christianity 
 almost  entirely  coincided  with  that  of  the 
 Mahometans,  or  that  of  the  Ebionites : 
 which,  he  observed,  were  one  and  the 
 same. 
 
 After  having  described  the  Christianity 
 and  the  Gospel  of  the  Mahometajis,  he 
 chara6lerized  both  in  a  short  summary  in 
 these  words.  "  'Tis  in  short  the  ancient 
 Ebionite  or  Nazarene  system;  and  agrees 
 in  every  thing  almost  with  the  scheme 
 of  our  modern  Unitarians.  It  is  not,  I 
 believe,  without  sufficient  grounds,  tliat  I 
 have  represented  them  (the  Mahometans) 
 as  a  sort  of  Christians ;  and  not  the  worst 
 sort  neither,  though  far  from  being  the 
 best*.''  From  another  passage,  however, 
 in  this  author  and  from  the  general  spirit  of 
 his  book  we  might  conclude,  that  he  con- 
 sidered them  as  the  best  Christians.  "  You 
 perceive,''  he  says,  "by  this  time,  that  what 
 Mahometans  believe  concerning  Christ  and 
 
 his 
 
 *  Preface  to  Nazarenus,  p.  3. 
 
(    296    ) 
 
 his  doclrines,  were  neither  the  inventions 
 of  Mahomet,  nor  yet  of  those  monks,  who 
 are  said  to  have  assisted  him  in  framing 
 his  Alcoran  ;  but,  that  they  are  as  old  as 
 the  lime  of  the  j4postleSf  having  been  the 
 sentiments  of  whole  se6ls  or  churches  ; 
 and  that,  though  the  gospel  of  the  Hebrews 
 be  in  all  probability  lost,  yet  some  of  those 
 things  are  founded  on  another  gospel  an- 
 ciently known,  and  still  in  some  manner 
 existing,  attributed  to  Barnabas.  If  in 
 the  history  of  this  gospel  (of  Barnabas) 
 I  have  satisfied  your  curiosity,  I  shall 
 think  my  time  well  spent  ;  but,  infinitely 
 better,  if  you  agree  that  on  this  occasion 
 I  have  set  the  original  plan  of  Christianity 
 in  its  due  light." 
 
 • 
 This  is  one  of  the  consequences  of  an 
 appeal  to  the  opinions  of  the  Ebionites. 
 To  guard  against  such  absurdities  ;  to  pre- 
 vent ignorant  persons  from  being  misled 
 by  the  fictitious  authority  of  pretended 
 traditions,  by  the  forgeries  of  ancient,  and 
 the  no  less  gross  impostures  of  modern 
 times,  it  has  long  since  been  proved  by 
 critical  arguments,  and  it  is  now  admitted 
 and  insisted  on  by  Christians  of  every  de- 
 nomination, that  the  New   Testament  is 
 
 the 
 
C    ^^1    ) 
 
 the  genuine  and  the  only  deposit  of  the 
 do6lrines  of  Christianity.  This  book  is 
 generally  thought  to  teach  the  divinity  of 
 Christ  very  clearly.  A  few  Christians, 
 however,  think  differently  :  and  in  sup- 
 port of  their  opinion,  they  have  lately  pro- 
 fessed to  appeal  to  the  valuable  interpreta- 
 tion of  the  first  Christians  contemporary 
 with  the  Apostles,  as  one  of  the  means,  by 
 which  the  sense  of  scripture  on  the  subje6l 
 of  the  nature  of  Christ  may  be  determined 
 with  certainty.  The  interpretation  of  any 
 book  by  contemporaries  is  truly  valuable, 
 either  in  ascertaining  the  sense  of  doubtful 
 passages,  or  in  confirming  the  meaning  of 
 otliers.  We  may  admit  the  appeal  to  the 
 contemporaries  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles 
 with  confidence,  and  have  only  to  request, 
 that  those,  by  whom  it  has  been  brought 
 forward,  will  not  shrink  from  the  decision 
 of  the  judges,  whose  sentence  they  have 
 drawn  down  on  themselves. 
 
 We  may  appeal  to  three  bodies  of  Jewish 
 people  contemporaries  of  Christ,  or  of  some 
 of  his  Apostles ;  who  had  heard,  or  read 
 some  of  the  words  of  the  New  Testament. 
 1.  The  unbelieving  Jews.  2.  The  primi- 
 tive church  of  Jerusalem,  before  its  destruc- 
 
 P  P  tion 
 
(     298     ) 
 
 tion  under  Adrian.  3.  Ihe  Ebionites, 
 (since  their  autliority  has  been  insisted  on) 
 who  began  to  exist  about  the  time  of  the 
 publication  of  St.  John's  gospel. 
 
 The  interpretation  of  several  passages 
 in  the  New  Testament,  relating  to  the 
 nature  of  Christ,  by  the  unbelieving  Jews, 
 is  proved  dire^ly  by  the  most  decisive 
 testimony  of  four  contemporary  historians : 
 who  have  related  that  the  Jews,  at  different 
 times,  attempted  to  destroy  Jesus  Christ, 
 and  at  last  accomplished  their  purpose, 
 because  he,  as  they  alledged,  being  a  man 
 made  himself  God,  by  calling  himself  the 
 son  of  God,  and  assuming  privileges  and 
 powers,  which,  as  they  thought,  belonged 
 to  God  only. 
 
 The  interpretation  of  the  words  of  Christ 
 and  his  Apostles  by  the  primitive  church 
 of  Jerusalem,  though  not  proved  dire6Hy, 
 is  colledled  with  very  great  probability 
 through  the  medium  of  their  religious 
 opinions,  as  described  by  the  only  ancient 
 historians,  who  have  expressly  treated  on 
 them,  and  whose  accounts  are  confirmed 
 by  the  collateral  testimony  of  others,  with- 
 out being  opposed  by  any  ancient  testi- 
 mony 
 
(      ^99      ) 
 
 mony  whatever.  This  church,  according 
 to  their  representation,  beheved  in  the 
 divinity  of  Christ.  *'  Pane  omnes  Chris- 
 tum Deum  sub  legis  observatione  crede- 
 bant.'' 
 
 The  interpretation  of  the  Nev/  Testa- 
 ment by  the  Ebionites,  of  whatever  vahie 
 it  may  be,  is  also  not  proved  directly,  but 
 is  collefted  through  the  medium  of  their 
 religious  opinions.  By  comparing  two 
 historical  fa(5ts,  the  sense  in  which  they 
 understood  the  New  Testament  may  be 
 inferred  with  a  considerable  degree  of  pro- 
 bability. The  first  of  these  fa6ts,  their 
 belief  in  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ,  is 
 fully  established  by  the  general  testimony 
 of  historians ;  the  second,  which  is  as  fully 
 ascertained  as  the  other,  is  their  refusal  to 
 submit,  with  other  Christians,  to  the  autho- 
 rity of  nearly,  the  whole  of  the  New  Testa- 
 ment. The  probable  inference,  which 
 must  be  drawn  from  the  combination  of 
 these  two  circumstances,  is  obviously  this; 
 that  they  believed  it  to  contain  the  do61rines 
 of  the  miraculous  conception  and  divinity 
 of  Christ,  which  they  disapproved.  The 
 probability  of  this  conclusion  is  encreased 
 by  the  consideration,  that  in   the  Gospels 
 
 r  p  2  there 
 
(      300     ) 
 
 there  were  no  other  do6lrines  (whatever 
 the  epistles  of  St.  Paul  might  contain) 
 Avhich  could  be  obnoxious  to  Jewish  Chris- 
 tians. 
 
 III.  In  attempting  to  colle6l  the  pro- 
 bable interpretation  of  the  Ebionites,  I 
 have  reasoned  on  the  common  supposition 
 (whicJi  is  admitted  by  Dr.  Priestley)  of 
 the  greater  part  of  the  New  Testament 
 forming  no  part  of  their  canon.  The 
 evidence,  on  which  the  opinion  is  founded, 
 stands  thus  :  Some  ancient  writers  have 
 related,  that  they  considered  St.  Paul  as 
 an  Apostate,  and  rejected  both  his  epistles*, 
 and  the  history  of  the  A6ts  of  the  Apostles-f, 
 in  which  he  is  a  principal  agent.  Several 
 ancient  writers  also,  so  far  from  counte- 
 nancing the  notion  of  the  Ebionites  taking 
 any  of  their  opinions  from  the  Gospel  of 
 St.  John,  have  positively  declared,  that 
 this  Evangelist  wrote  against  the  errors 
 of  the  Ebionites  and  Ccrinthians.  And, 
 according  to  the  united  testimony  of  several 
 ancient  historians,  they   used  the  gospel 
 
 according 
 
 *  TreniTUS,  L.  i.  c.  26.    Eusebius,  Hist.  L.  3.  c.  27. 
 Origen  cont.  Celsum.  L.  5.  juope  hnem. 
 
 fEpiphanius,  Hxr.  30.  16. 
 
(      30^      ) 
 
 according  to  the  Hebrews,  i.  e.  a  mutilated 
 and  corrupt  copy  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel 
 only.  Iren?eus  says,.  "  They  use  only  the 
 Gospel  according  to  St.  Matthew  *."  Euse- 
 bius,  "  Using  only  the  Gospel  according 
 to  the  Hebrews  f,  they  made  little  account 
 of  the  others."  Wiien  Epiphanius  reports, 
 that  they  received  the  New  Testament,  he 
 explains  himself  by  declaring,  that  *'  the 
 Ebionites  receive  the  Gospel  according  to 
 St.  Matthew :  for  this  both  they  and  the 
 Cerinthians  use,  and  no  other  ;J;.''  And, 
 according  to  Theodoret,  "  They  (the  Ebio- 
 nites, who  denied  the  miraculous  concep- 
 tion) receive  the  gospel  according  to  the 
 Hebrews  only  ;  and  "  They  (the  Ebionites, 
 who  believed  in  the  miraculous  concep- 
 tion) use  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew 
 only." 
 
 To 
 
 *  "Solo  autem  eo,  quod  est  secundum  Matthasum,evan- 
 gelio  utuntur,  Iren.  L.  i.e.  xx. 
 
 f  EvxlyiXn-j  h  fAo'JU  tu  v.aM  E^^ata^  ^syo/^sw  ^^uj^svoiy   rut  MiTrm 
 
 cfAiK^ov  tnomvTo  Myosi.  Euscb.  Hist.  L.  3.  27. 
 
 X  Liyjinui  lAEv  Kui  avroi  to  xara  M«t0«iov  Bva.ryB?,toi/.  raru  ya^ 
 ncci  auToi  uq  Kcti  ot  y.arcc  K'/j^ivSoe  xguvrxi  fjt.ovu.  xa.7\tia-t  ^e  avro  x«t« 
 E^gaitfs.  Epiph.  Haer.  30.  §  3. 
 
 Ek  tw  yn)>  'moc^  cevToiq    EvxpyeXn,;  nccru  Mcc-r^cnov  ovoiA-ct^oiJiivu^  a^ 
 
 TSTo  x.aXa£7ij.  Haer.  30.  §  13. 
 
 §  Movov  d£  TO  xuToc  E^fataj  evcx.fye7aoi/  SB^ovTtt.\, 
 
 Haer.  Fab.  L.  2.  c.  i. 
 
(      302      ) 
 
 To  this  no  ancient  testimony  whatever 
 is  opposed  * :  and  the  only  circumstance, 
 which  can  raise  a  doubt  on  the  subje6t,  is 
 that  of  the  citations  from  the  other  Gospels 
 in  the  Clementine  Homilies  and  Recogni- 
 tions ;  the  first  of  which  are  generally 
 thought  to  have  been  the  composition  of 
 an  Ebionite  of  the  second  century;  and 
 the  two  works,  which  have  been  so  much 
 interpolated,  that  reasoning  on  them  is, 
 at  the  most,  only  groping  in  the  dark,  are 
 very  commonly  supposed  to  have  been 
 originally  one  and  the  same.  Th.ese  cita- 
 tions furnished  Lardner  with  an  argument 
 for  supposing,  that  one  of  tlie  branches  of 
 the  Ebionites  either  received  the  four 
 Gospels,  or  one  compiled  from  them. 
 
 ti 
 
 u 
 
 *  Marius  Mercator,  indeed  (a.  d.  430)  mentions,  tliat 
 Ebion  made  use  of  the  authority  of  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke, 
 as  well  as  that  of  St.  Matthew,  (Merc,  in  Nest.  p.  128. 
 §  14)  But,  this  oti'.y  proves,  that  Lbion,  (if  a  person  of 
 that  name  ever  existed)  might  refer  to  those  Evangelists, 
 as  an  authority  to  which  ihe  generality  of  Christians  sub- 
 mitted, though  he  would  not  allow  it  hinjsclf :  in  the  same 
 manner  as  Cerinthus  and  Carpocrates  appealed  to  tlie  two 
 first  Chapters  of  St.  Matthew,  i.  Kpiphan.  Har.  30.  §  14. 
 We  may  observe  by  the  way,  that  according  to  these 
 account?,  the  most  important  parts  of  the  New  'I'estament 
 were  referred  to  by  heretics  in  tlie  first  twenty  or  thirty 
 rears  after  they  are  stated  to  ha\  c  been  written.  Lnrdncr's 
 Ciedibility  of  the  Gospel,  p.  2.  c.  xxix. 
 
(     3^3     ) 
 
 *'  If  this  he  the  work  of  an  Ebionite,  as 
 is  generally  supposed  *,  and  see?ns  not  im^ 
 probable ''\-y  it  may  be  argued,  that,  when 
 the  author  wrote,  the  four  Gospels  were 
 owned  by  that  se6l,  or,  at  least,  by  some 
 branch  of  it.  For  though  there  may  be 
 some  interpolations  in  these  homilies, 
 there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  any  texts 
 have  been  added.  If  such  a  thino:  had 
 been  attempted,  we  should  have  had  here 
 some  passages  out  of  other  books  of  the 
 New  Testament,  and  possibly  out  of  St. 
 Paul's  epistles.  It  is  very  probable  also, 
 that  we  should  have  met  with  some 
 forms  of  quotation  different  from  those 
 now  used  in  these  homilies.  I  see  no 
 way  of  evading  this  conclusion,  but  by 
 supposing  that  all  these  texts  of  our 
 several  Gospels  were  in  some  Gospel 
 used  by  the  Ebionites,  called  the  gospel 
 of  St.  Matthew,  or  according  to  the  He- 
 brews, or  by  whatever  other  name  it  was 
 distinguished.     However,  either   way  our 
 
 evangelical 
 
 *  Vid.  Prasfar.  Clcrlcl.  et  jutllcium  Coteleriide  Clcmen- 
 tlnis,  apud  Patres  Apost.  Mill.  Proleg,  670. 
 
 t  V'id.  Horn.  3.  §  12,  7.  §  8.  16,  §  15  et  alibi. 
 
{     3^4     ) 
 
 evangelical  history  is  confirmed*/'  This 
 argument,  which  is  stated  by  its  venerable 
 author  with  his  usual  caution,  must,  I 
 think,  be  allowed  to  stand  on  too  weak  and 
 uncertain  grounds  to  be  opposed  against 
 the  very  strong  and  united  testimony  of 
 Christian  antiquity  :  and  even  admitting 
 all  its  force,  it  would  prove  nothing  re- 
 speding  that  se6l  of  Ebionites,  by  whose 
 opinions  Dr.  Priestley  attempts  to  discover 
 the  sense  of  the  New  Testament. 
 
 The  ancient  testimonies  relative  to  the 
 books  of  the  Ebionites  are  too  consistent 
 and  clear  to  be  set  aside  by  the  Clemen- 
 tine Homilies.  But,  even  supposing  that 
 the  testimonies  on  one  side  relating  to 
 both  seels  of  Ebionites,  were  nearly  ba- 
 lanced by  the  citations  in  the  Homilies  on 
 the  other,  and  that  it  were  a  matter  of 
 extreme  uncertainty,  on  comparing  these 
 opposite  evidences,  wliether  those  who 
 beheved  Christ  to  be  a  mere  man  born 
 of  human  parents,  received  the  four  Gos- 
 pels, or  not :  who,  in  this  case  would 
 attempt,  with  Dr.  Priestley,  to  collect  the 
 meaning  of  the  New  Testament  through 
 
 the 
 
 X  Lardner's  Credibility  of  the  Gospel  History,  P^  2.  c. 
 29.  Vol.  ?.  p.  358.  Ld.  Kippis. 
 
(     305     ) 
 
 the  medium  of  their  opinions?  Either 
 their  opinions  are  of  no  use  whatever  in 
 leading  us  to  their  interpretation  of  the 
 New  Testament,  or,  the  probable  inference 
 from  them  is  that,  which  I  have  just 
 deduced. 
 
 :^ 
 
 Q  2  '  CHAP, 
 
(      So6     ) 
 
 CHAP.     XV. 
 
 THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA- 
 MENT BY  THE  FIRST  GENTILE  CHRIS- 
 TIANS COLLECTED  FROM  THEIR  RELIGI- 
 OUS  OPINIONS. 
 
 I.  Observations  on  the  interpretation  of  the  words  of  the 
 New  Testament  i.  By  the  Jews  2.  The  great 
 body  of  Jewish  Christians.  3.  The  Ebionites.  4.  The 
 Gentile  Christians  2.  Claim  by  Simon  Magus  to 
 identity  with  Christ.  To  support  this  claim  he  judged 
 it  necessary  to  assert  his  own  divinity.  The  first 
 Gnostical  se6ls  denied  the  human  nature  of  Christ 
 altogether.  Correftion  of  their  errors  by  the  sacred 
 writers  and  tlie  Apostolical  Fathers.  In  corre6ling  the 
 errors  of  those,  who  contended  for  the  simple  divinity 
 of  Christ,  the  Apostles  and  primitive  Fathers  must 
 sometimes  have  asserted  that  Christ  was  a  man  only^ 
 if  they  had  intended  to  teach  the  do6trine  of  his  simple 
 humanity.  No  declaration  to  this  cffe6l  is  to  be  found 
 in  the  New  Testament,  or  in  any  Christian  writing  in 
 the  first  century  after  the  establishment  of  Christianity. 
 
 I.  XN  order  to  ascertain  the  sense  of  dis- 
 puted passages  in  scripture,  and  to  confirm 
 the  meaning  of  others,  it  is  of  considerable 
 importance  to  know  liow  they  were  under- 
 stood by  persons,  who  lived  in  or  near  the 
 age,  when  they  were  written.  The  inter- 
 pretaticn  oi'  the  words   of  our  Saviour  by 
 
 the 
 
(     307     ) 
 
 the  unbelieving  Jews,  who  heard  him  speak 
 in  their  owai  language,  is  in  itself  highly- 
 valuable  in  establishing  their  real  meaning. 
 The  interpretation  of  the  precepts  of  Christ 
 and  the  Apostles  by  the  primitive  church 
 of  Jerusalem,  and  other  Jewish  Christians, 
 colle6led  with  considerable  probability  from 
 the  religious  opinions  of  that  church,  as 
 described  by  the  only  writers,  who  have 
 treated  on  the  subje6l,  deserves  also  much 
 attention.  And  the  sense,  in  which  the 
 New  Testament  was  understood  by  the 
 individuals,  who  had  the  influence  to  mis- 
 lead the  small  se6ts,  which  appeared  in  a 
 part  of  Syria,  about  the  end  of  the  first 
 century,  under  the  name  of  Ebionites,  is 
 not  to  be  totally  disregarded. 
 
 We  should  attend  to  them,  as  we  would 
 attend  to  a  number  of  ancient  versions, 
 or  paraphrases  of  the  New  Testament 
 composed  in  the  age  of  the  Apostles  by 
 men,  who  perfe61:ly  understood  the  lan- 
 guage, comprehended  the  design,  and 
 entered  into  the  spirit  of  the  original :  and 
 their  concurrence,  if  all  or  most  of  them 
 agree  in  exhibiting  the  same  sense,  on  any 
 one  topic,  will  point  out  the  truth  with 
 moral  certainty. 
 
 Q  2  2  To 
 
(      3o8      ) 
 
 To  us  the  interpretation  of  the  New 
 Testament  by  the  first  Gentile  Chris- 
 tians would  be  very  important,  if  it  could 
 be  clearly  ascertained.  And,  though  the 
 history  of  Christianity  in  the  first  century 
 is  involved  in  great  obscurity,  it  will  not, 
 however,  be  a  matter  of  great  difficulty  to 
 determine,  with  a  ver}'^  high  degree  of  pro- 
 bability at  least,  the  opinions  of  the  Chris- 
 tians of  that  period  on  the  particular  subject 
 of  the  nature  of  Christ. 
 
 II.  The  writings  in  or  near  the  first 
 century,  which  are  to  be  consulted  in 
 order  to  discover  the  opinions  of  the  first 
 Gentile  Christians,  are  the  scriptures  of  the 
 New  Testament,  the  five  Apostolical  Fa- 
 thers, and  the  works  of  a  few  heathen 
 writers. 
 
 The  New  Testament  is  commonly  sup- 
 posed to  teach  the  divinity  of  Christ ;  but, 
 this  cannot  be  taken  for  granted  at  present ; 
 as  it  is  the  point,  which  we  are  aiming  to 
 prove,  by  means  of  the  interpretation  of 
 contemporaries.  One  observation,  how- 
 ever, even  in  this  inquiry,  may  be  extended 
 not    only  to    the    writings    of    the    first 
 
 Christian 
 
(     309     ) 
 
 Christian    Fathers,  hut  also  to  the   New 
 Testament. 
 
 Soon  after  the  Apostles  had  retired 
 from  Jerusalem  to  Samaria,  a  Samaritan 
 appears  to  have  conceived  the  design  of 
 personating  Christ,  who  had  just  been 
 crucified.  He  knew  that  our  Saviour  had 
 worked  miracles  of  a  very  different  nature 
 from  the  delusive  tricks,  which  he  had 
 himself  pra6lised,  he  saw  the  same  benefi- 
 cient  and  stupendous  works  wrought  by  the 
 Apostles,  without  knowing  by  what  means 
 they  w^ere  performed ;  and  desirous  to  be 
 possessed  of  the  qualification  suitable  to 
 the  chara6ter,  which,  even  at  that  time, 
 he  perhaps  began  to  think  of  assuming, 
 he  attempted  to  purchase  with  money  a 
 power,  which  God  alone  could  bestow*. 
 
 While  this  impostor  continued  with 
 the  Apostles,  he  would  unquestionably 
 learn  something  of  what  Christ  had  taught 
 respefting  his  own  nature,  and  would, 
 without  doubt,  regulate  his  pretensions  in 
 some  degree  by  those  of  the  person,  whose 
 name  he  assumed :  though  both  the  foun- 
 dation  and  superstructure  of  his  scheme 
 
 consisted 
 *  Ads  viii.  13.  18. 
 
(     3^0     ) 
 
 consisted  in  falsehood  ;  yet  to  prevent  the 
 imposture  from  appearing  too  palpable,  a 
 certain  mixture  of  truth  must  necessarily 
 have  been  called  in  to  his  assistance. 
 
 If  he  knew,  that  Christ  had  asserted  his 
 o\vn  divinity,    he  would   probably  think  it 
 necessary  to  advance  the  same  claim  :  and, 
 if  he  had  learnt  from   the   Apostles,  that 
 Christ  had  declared  himself  a   man  onl}^, 
 he  would  certainly  not  call   himself  God. 
 Now,  when  Simon  Magus  pretended,  that 
 Christ  had   reappeared    in  his  person,  he 
 declared,  that  he  had  first  manifested  him- 
 self in  Judaea  as  God  the  son  ;  where  he 
 only  seemed   to   suffer;    that  he  now  ap- 
 peared in  Samaria  as  God  the  Fathei%  and 
 would    visit    other   nations    as    the    Holy 
 Ghost  *.      From  this  historical  fa6t,  with- 
 out any  reference  to  the  New  Testament, 
 had  tlie  Gospels  even  never  been  written, 
 we  might  conclude  with  some  probability, 
 that  Christ  himself  had  claimed  divinity, 
 
 and 
 
 *  "  Hie  igitur  a  multis  quasi  Deus  glorificatus  est,  et 
 c^ocuit  scmet'psum  esse,  fjui  inter  Judaeos  quideiu  quasi 
 Filius  npparucnt,  in  Samaria  autcni  quasi  Pater  descen- 
 dcrir,  in  rcliquis  vcro  gcr.tibus  quasi  Spiritus  Sandus 
 advcntaverit."  Jrcnasus,  L.  i.  c.  23.  See  also  the  Appen- 
 dix tp  Tcrtullian  de  IVcescrip.  1-  usebits  L.  2.  c.  xiii. 
 Epiphanius  Ha;r.  21.  §  i.  Theodoict.  Hser.  p'ab,  L.  i, 
 c.  i. 
 
(     311     ) 
 
 and  taught  the  do6lrine  of  the  trinity  iil 
 unity  in  some  sense  or  other.  When, 
 therefore,  we  read  in  the  Gospels  the  words 
 of  Christ,  "  I  and  my  Father  are  one  *"  — 
 "  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations,  bap- 
 tizing them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
 of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost -f;"  we 
 meet  with  nothing  more  than  what  we 
 were  prepared  by  common  history  to  ex- 
 pe6l.  This  coincidence  would  be  at  once 
 both  a  strong  argument  in  favour  of  the 
 genuineness  of  these  parts  of  the  gospel 
 history,  (were  there  any  want  of  such  evi- 
 'dence)  and  of  the  sense,  in  which  they  are 
 commonly  understood. 
 
 The  claims  of  Simon  Magus  were 
 advanced  before  many  of  the  books  of  the 
 New  Testament  were  written,  and  were 
 so  far  crowned  with  success,  that  he  re- 
 ceived divine  honours  among  the  Samari- 
 tans J.  Mosheim  has  observed,  that  he 
 has  always  been  improperly  termed  a 
 heretic  :  but,  though  he  was  a  false  Mes- 
 siah, it  is  with  great  propriety  also  that  he 
 
 has 
 
 *  John  X.  30. 
 
 t  Matthew  xxviii.  ig. 
 
 Tiy  'sreuToy  ^loy  ly.emv  o^^hoyijiys'i,   JuStin  xVI.  p.  40.  lid.   Thirlby, 
 
(       3^2       ) 
 
 has  always  been  represented  as  the  father 
 of  heretical  opinions  *  :   as  both  the  Gno- 
 sticism of  the  first   and  second  centuries, 
 and   the   Sabellianism  of  the  third,  were 
 first  marked  out  by   this   impostor.     He 
 affirmed    that     Christ    only    seemed     to 
 suffer:      and     while     he    and     the     first 
 Gnostical  sedls  denied  our  Lord's  huma- 
 nity, they  at  once  set  aside  the  doctrine 
 of    atonement,   and    rejected   the    notion 
 of  a  resurre6lion.     All  these  errors  were 
 corre61:ed  with  great  care  by  the  Apostles, 
 The  reality  of  our  Lord's  human  body  -f, 
 his  sufferings  on  the  cross,  and  the  atone- 
 ment for  the  sins  of  the  world  by  his  death, 
 are  clearly  taught  in  the  New  Testament, 
 and  are  also  repeatedly  insisted  on  by  the 
 first  Christian   writers  after  the  Apostles. 
 To  countera6l  the  do6lrines  of  those,  who 
 maintained  the  simple  divinity  and  impassi- 
 bility of  Christ,  it  was  necessary  to  declare, 
 
 that 
 
 *It  was  not  Simon,  but  his  follower?,  after  his  time, 
 (see  Origen,  coat.  Cclsiim.  L.  5.  p.  272)  who  denied 
 Jesus  to  be  the  son  of  God.  He,  at  first,  supported  his 
 claim  of  divinity  by  pretending  to  identity  with  Christ. 
 This  temporary  expedient  was  laid  aside  by  the  Simouians 
 after  his  age. 
 
 t  "  For  many  deceivers  are  come  into  the  world,  who 
 confess  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh,"  2  Ep. 
 John  7. 
 
(     313     ) 
 
 that  the  salvation  of  mankind  was  efFe6led 
 by  the  suffering  of  the  man  Christ  Jesus*. 
 But,  though  the  principal  tenet  of  the 
 Gnostics  was  that  of  the  divinity  of  Christ; 
 it  is  no  where  asserted  either  in  the  Apos- 
 tolical fathers  or  in  the  New  Testament, 
 most  of  which  was  written  after  these 
 erroneous  opinions  had  prevailed,  that 
 Jesus  Christ  was  a  man  only.  Not  a 
 single  expression  to  this  effe6l  can  be 
 found  either  in  the  New  Testament,  or  in 
 the  writings  of  the  five  fathers  of  the  first 
 century. 
 
 The  omission  of  a  plain  and  full  decla- 
 ration to  this  purpose,  under  such  circum^ 
 stances,  seems  to  prove  decidedly,  that 
 they  never  intended  any  such  notion  to 
 be  collected  from  their  writings.  When 
 men  are  combating  one  error,  they  often 
 inadvertently  use  language  bordering  on 
 an  error  of  an  opposite  sort.  When  the 
 sacred  writers  and  the  first  fathers  had  to 
 combat  the  notion  of  the  simple  divinity  of 
 Christ,  it  would  not  have  been  a  matter  of 
 wonder,  if  the  latter  had  seemed  to  insist 
 on  his  simple  humanity  :  this,  however,  is 
 
 not 
 
 *  Rom.  V. — I  Cor.  xv. — i  Tim.  ii. 
 R   R 
 
not  the  case :  and  it  would  be  a  question 
 not  easily  decided,  whether  the  divine  or 
 the  human  nature  of  Christ  is  most  fre- 
 quently and  clearly  inculcated  in  the  New 
 Testament,  and  the  writings  of  the  Apos- 
 tolical fathers. 
 
 When  St.  John  wrote  his  Epistles  and 
 Gospel,  the  notion  of  the  simple  divinity 
 of  Christ  had  been  a  long-established,  a 
 general  and  a  dangerous  error.  Had  the 
 Evangelist  been  conscious  of  his  Master's 
 mere  humanity,  the  circumstances  of  the 
 times  positively  required  of  him  to  declare 
 explicitl}^  that  Jesus  was  onty  a  man  like 
 ourselves  :  whereas  his  Gospel  is  generally 
 supposed  to  teach  the  divinity  of  Christ 
 with  more  clearness  than  any  other  part 
 of  the  New  Testament. 
 
 The  same  observation  may  be  extended 
 to  Clemens  Romanus,  Hennas,  Barnabas, 
 Ignatius  and  Poly  carp.  Though  all  these 
 writers  were  loudly  called  on  by  the  crying 
 error  of  the  times,  which  some  of  them 
 opposed  too  with  the  most  fervent  zeal, 
 not  one  of  them  has  declared,  that  Christ 
 was  a  man  oiily.     On  the  contrary,  in  the 
 
 writings 
 
(     3^5     ) 
 
 writings  of  three  out  of  the  five,  the  divinity 
 and  preexistence  of  Christ  are  expressly 
 taught :  and  it  is  at  least  probable,  that 
 Clemens  and  Polycarp  have  also  delivered 
 the  same  do6lrines  in  the  short  compass 
 of  their  epistles. 
 
 RR2  CHAP. 
 
(     Si6     ) 
 
 1 
 
 CHAP.     XVI. 
 
 THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA- 
 MENT BY  THE  FIRST  GENTILE  CHRIS- 
 TIANS, COLLECTED  FROM  THEIR  RELIGI- 
 OUS OPINIONS. 
 
 I .  Observations  on  the  authority  of  the  Apostolical  fathers, 
 and  Dr.  Priestley's  use  of  them.     2.  The  divinity  of 
 Christ  taught  by  Barnabas.     3.  By  Hermas.     4.   By 
 Clemens  Romanus.    External  testimony  to  the  religious 
 opinions  of  Clemens.     5.  The  divinity  of  Christ  taught 
 in  the  genuine  Epistles  of  Ignatius.     Summary  view 
 of  the  controversy  relating  to  these  Epistles  from  Park- 
 hurst.    Wakefield's  argument  to  prove  them  corrupted. 
 Examination  of  this   argument.      6.    Dr.   Priestley's 
 objei^tion.     7.  Pearson's  arguments  not  invalidated  by 
 the  answer  pf  Larroque.     Larroque  refuted  by  other 
 writers.     Acknowledgement  pf  Le  Clerc.    8.  Ignatius 
 a  believer  in  the  divinity  of  Christ  —proved  by  external 
 and  internal  evidence.      9.  The  religious  opinions  of 
 Folycarp  identified  with  those  of  Irenaeus,  his  scholar. 
 
 I.  J3E  F  ORE  a  regular  inquiry  be  made 
 into  the  opinions  of  the  Apostolical  fathers, 
 and  their  testimony  to  the  sentiments  of 
 Christians  in  general  of  their  age;  it  is 
 necessary  to  consider,  whether  the  evi- 
 dence contained  in  their  writings  be  of  any 
 value,  or  not.     The   author,  on  whom   I 
 
 have 
 
(     317     ) 
 
 have  had  frequent  occasion  to  animadvert, 
 has  adopted  a  most  singular  mode  of  con- 
 du6l   towards   these    writings.       He    has 
 frequently  appealed  to  them  in  support  of 
 his  own  opinions  *  ;  and  at  the  same  time 
 has  refused  to  suhmit  to  the  conclusions 
 deduced  from  them  by   his  opponents -f; 
 this  equivocation    is   intolerable.       If  he 
 reje6ls  them  as  being  grossly  corrupted, 
 or   altogether  supposititious,  why  has  he 
 attempted   to   defend   his    cause  by  their 
 authority  ?     If  he    supposes   them   to    be 
 the  real  productions    of  the  first  century, 
 and  reasons  on  that  supposition  in  favour 
 
 of 
 
 *  Letters  to  the  Archdeacon  of  St.  Albans,  Pt.  2^.  p. 
 47  —  54.     History  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  i.  p.  258.  and 
 
 195- 
 
 f  "  The  works  that  are  ascribed  to  them  (the  Aposto- 
 lical Fathers)  are  almost  entirely  spurious."  Hist,  of  early 
 Opinions,  Vol.  i.  p.  93.  "  The  evidence  of  the  fads  I 
 refer  to  does  not  depend  upon  writings,  the  authenticity 
 and  purity  of  which  are  so  questionable  as  those  ot  the 
 Apostolic  Fathers ;  but,  on  the  uniform  concurrent  testi- 
 mony of  all  the  Christian  writers  from  the  age  of  the 
 Apostles  (ill  long  after  the  Council  of  Nice."  Letter  to 
 Parkhurst. 
 
 Yet  Dr.  Priestley  has  appealed  to  Polycarp  to  prove  the 
 truth  of  one  of  his  opinions.  "  /^s  a  proof  has  been  re- 
 quired that  the  phrase  coining  in  the  flesh  is  descriptive  of 
 the  Gnostic  heresy  only,  and  not  of  tlie  Unitarian  d.;c51rine 
 also,  I  would  observe,  ihnt  it  is  so  used  in  the  epistle  ,of 
 Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  John." 
 
(     3i8     ) 
 
 of  his  own  system,  why  are  not  others  to 
 be  allowed  the  same  privilege  ? 
 
 In  fa£l,  the  writings  under  the  name  of 
 Barnabas,  Clemens  Romanus  (I  speak  only 
 of  the  first  Epistle)  and  Hennas  are  allow- 
 ed, by  the  almost  universal  concurrence  of 
 the  learned,  to  have  been  compositions  of 
 the  first  century ;  whether  they  were  all 
 %vritten  by  the  persons,  whose  names  they 
 bear,  or  not.  It  is  admitted  also,  that 
 the  epistle  of  Pol3''carp  was  written  at  the 
 opening  of  the  second  century:  and  those, 
 which  are  called  the  genuine  epistles  of 
 Ignatius,  are  now  generally  allowed  to 
 have  been  of  the  same  age;  though  con- 
 siderable doubts  are  entertained  about  their 
 purity. 
 
 II.  The  Epistle  under  the  name  of 
 Barnabas  was  quoted  by  Clemens  Alex- 
 andrinus,  and  before  his  time  an  allusion 
 seems  to  have  been  made  to  it  by  Celsus  *, 
 who  lived  in  the  middle  of  the  second 
 centur3\  In  tliis  Epistle  the  divinity  of 
 Christ  is  clearly  taught;  and  that  in  the 
 old  Latin  version  wliere  no  marks  of  in- 
 terpolation have  been  discovered  -f . 
 
 Mr. 
 
 *  Oiigcn  cont.  Cels.  p.  49.    f  See  p.146,  147.  of  this  Vol. 
 
(     3^9     ) 
 
 Mr.  Wakefield,  after  having  raised  soma 
 imaginary  difficulties  about  the  meaning 
 of  two  of  the  passages  on  this  subject,  has 
 the  candour,  however,  to  acknowledge ;  "  If 
 I  may  be  allowed  to  draw  any  conclusion 
 from  such  questionable  premises,  I  shall 
 not  hesitate  to  declare,  that  this  Barnabas, 
 or  rather,  perhaps,  this  Pseudo-Barnabas, 
 in  my  opinion,  believed  in  the  preexistence 
 of  Jesus  Christ*/' 
 
 III.  The  preexistence  of  Christ  is  also 
 taught  in  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas.  "  We 
 have  competent  external  evidence"  in  the 
 testimonies  of  Irenseus,  Clemens  Alexan- 
 drinus  and  TertuUian,  '*  that  Hermas  spoken 
 of  by  St.  Paul  was  the  author  of  the  Shep- 
 herd.'' And  the  genuineness  of  the  pas- 
 sages on  the  nature  of  Christ  is  unquestion- 
 able. The  style  of  this  book,  which  no 
 translation  can  disguise,  and  which  hardly 
 admits  of  imitation,  prevents  all  suspicioii 
 of  interpolation. 
 
 In  the  third  book  Sim.  -f  5.  Hermas 
 calls  the  Holy  Ghost  the  son  of  God,  and 
 
 Jesus 
 
 *  Inquiry  into    the    Opinions  of  Christian  writers    cf 
 the  three  first  centuries,  p.  309, 
 t  P.  427.  V/ake's  Trans. 
 
(        320        ) 
 
 Jesus  Christ  the  servant  of  God,  probably 
 in  allusion  to  the  words  of  St.  Paul; 
 "  Who,  being  in  the  form  of  God,  thought 
 it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God  :  but 
 made  himself  of  no  reputation,  and  took 
 upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant*/'  He 
 answers  the  objedlions  likely  to  arise  from 
 considering  Christ  as  a  servant  -f :  and, 
 afterwards  expresses  himself  in  these  re- 
 markable terms.  "  First  of  all.  Sir,  shew 
 me  this.  This  Rock  and  Gate,  what  do 
 they  mean  ?  Attend,  he  says  ;  this  Rock 
 and  Gate  is  the  son  of  God.  Why,  Sir, 
 I  replied,  is  the  Rock  old,  but  the  Gate 
 new  ?  Hear,  says  he.  Simpleton,  and  un- 
 derstand. The  son  of  God  is  indeed  more 
 ancient  than  every  creature,  so  that  he  zvas 
 present  to  his  Father  in  his  plan  for  making 
 the  creature.  But,  the  Gate  is  new  for 
 this  reason ;  because  in  the  consummation 
 in  these  last  days  he  hath  appeared,  that 
 they,  who  shall  attain  salvation,  may  enter 
 through  it  into  the  kingdom  of  God];.'' 
 
 *'  The  name  of  the  son  of  God  is  great 
 and  immense,  and  the  whole  world  is  sus- 
 tained by  him  ||.     These  passages  require 
 
 no 
 
 *  Philip,  ii.  7.  t  p.  435- 
 
 X  3.  g.  12.  Wakefield's  Trans.  |1  3.  g.  14. 
 
(        321        ) 
 
 no  comment:  and  Mr.  Wakefield  has 
 hardly  a6led  with  his  usual  frankness,  in 
 not  openly  allowing,  that  they  contain  the 
 do6lrines  of  the  divinity  and  preexistence 
 of  Christ. 
 
 IV.  It  is  unnecessary  to  repeat  the 
 ancient  testimonies,  by  which  the  first 
 Epistle  of  Clemens  Romanus  is  proved  to 
 be  genuine  *.  Photius  has  observed,  that 
 the  author  of  this  Epistle  has  only  used 
 terms  expressive  of  the  humanity  of  Christ : 
 but,  he  acknowledges,  at  the  same  time, 
 that  nothing  is  contained  in  it  against  the 
 doarine  of  his  divinity.  And  "  even  in 
 this  Epistle  mention  is  made  of  the  suffer- 
 ings  of  God^,  which  was  probably  not 
 observed  by  Photius  J/'  The  preexistence, 
 and  perhaps  the  omnipotence  of  Christ 
 seem  also  to  be  expressed  in  another  pas- 
 sage of  this  Epistle. 
 
 "  The  scepter  of  the  majesty  of  God, 
 our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  came  not  in  the 
 pomp  of  pride  and  arrogance,  although  he 
 
 had  it  in  his  power." 
 
 It 
 
 *  See  Cave,  Du  Pin  and  Lardner.         t  To.?  e^^'o*?  Ts^ea 
 jTillcmont  Mem.  Eccles.  under  Clement  i. 
 
 S  s 
 
(       322        ) 
 
 It  has  been  observed,  that  the  copy 
 used  by  Jerom  had  probably  xa/Tre^  -nruvrtx, 
 ^vvui^evog  instead  of  kxitts^  ^wctyAvog :  since 
 his  translation  runs  thus :  "  Sceptrum 
 Dei  Doininus  Jesus  Christus  non  venit  in 
 ja61:antia  superbias  cum  possit  omnia  *. 
 "  Though  he  had  all  things  in  his  power. 
 
 It  seems  to  be  admitted  even  by  Unita- 
 rians, that  the  expression  Sufferings  of 
 God,  implies  the  divinity  of  Christ:  this, 
 I  think,  appears  from  the  spirit  of  their 
 remarks  upon  it.  — "  This  is  language 
 so  exceedingly  shocking,  and  unscriptural, 
 that  it  is  hardly  possible  to  think,  that 
 it  could  be  used  by  any  writer  so  near  the 
 time  of  the  Apostles -f.  Mr.Parkhurst's 
 reply  to  this  observation  will  be  found  in 
 the  subjoined  note  J. 
 
 When 
 
 *  Hieron.  in  Esaiam,  c.  lii. 
 
 f  History  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  i.  p.  97. 
 
 :|:  And  yet  the  Apostle  Paul  liad  cliie6lcd  the  elders  of 
 Kphesus  to  feed  the  church  of  God,  which  he  had  purchased 
 
 with  HIS  OWN  blood,    hcc    m    lAIOY    ai/z-aro?,    A6ls    XX.    28. 
 
 And  the  expression,  sufferings  (f  God,  meaning  of  that 
 man  who  was  also  God,  is  surely  not  more  improper  than 
 that  of  God's  oivn  blood,  meaning  tlie  blood  of  him  who 
 was  God  as  well  as  vian.  I  am  well  aware  that  some 
 copies,  in  this  text  of  the  Atts,  have  Ktru-  instead  of 
 Qiti ,  but  it  should  be  observed,   that   the   church   of  the 
 
 Lord 
 
(     323     ) 
 
 When  we   recolle6l    the   universal  ap- 
 plause, with   which  the   name  of  Clemens 
 
 was 
 
 Lord  is  a  phrase  that  occurs  no  where  else  in  the  New 
 Testament ;  whereas  the  church  of  God  is  according  to 
 St.  Paul's  usual  style.  See  i  Cor.  i.  2.  10.  32.  xi.  22.  xv. 
 9.  2  Cor.  i.  I.  Gal.  i.  13.  i  Tim.  iii.  5.  15.  and  Dr.  Mill 
 on  A6ts  XX.  28.  And  we  have  already  seen  IgnatiuSy 
 Ephes.  §  I,  using  the  phrase,  blood  of  God^  which  is  a 
 confirmation  of  the  true  reading  in  A6ls  xx.  28 ;  and 
 this  reading,  and  the  expressions  of/^7za/iw^and  Clemenfy 
 mutually  support  each  other.  But  there  is  nothing  won- 
 derful in  Dr.  P's  catching  atJunius's  opinion  concerning 
 the  passage  in  Clement;  because  he  certainly  wished  to 
 get  rid  of  the  obnoxious  words  ■?E'a9r/.<;aT«  atrt,  which 
 contain  a  clear  and  positive  proof  of  this  apostolical 
 writer's  faith  in  the  Divinity  of  Christ;  and  that  too  in 
 an  epistle,  the  genuineness  of  which  he  himself  admits. 
 But  although  Junius,  not  understanding  the  text  in 
 Clement,  attempted  to  amend  it  by  a  conjeSiural  substitu- 
 tion of  ixa.6r.ixa.Tu,  prccepts,  for  'ETcc^y.ixa.ra,  Sufferings,  yet  the 
 .sense  of  the  true  readmg  is  cleared  in  Cotelerius's  note  on 
 the  place,  and  the  reading  itself  satisfa6lorily  defended 
 against  the  conjeSlure  o^  Junius,  by  the  learned  Dr.  Grabe, 
 in  his  Annotation  on  Bishop  Bull's  Latin  Works,  folio, 
 P'  57 y  5^-  ^^^  ^s  I  have  been  led  to  take  notice  of 
 Clement's  Epistle,  I  shall  here  cite  the  beginning  of  his 
 gad  se6tion:  "If  any  one  shall  consider  them  singly 
 and  distin6tly,  he  will  acknowledge  the  magnificence 
 of  the  gifts  given  through  him  (1.  e.  Jacob).  For 
 from  him  are  the  priests  and  the  Levites,  all  who 
 minister  at  the  altar  of  God  ;  from  him  the  Lord  Jesus 
 
 according  to    the  flesh."     (* — E^  a,vrn  ya.^  U^h^    )t»i  Xev'irat, 
 
 'BjCci/tii;    01    7\HTii£yiivTi(;   ru   ^Jvaicc^riCiu  -j-a    ©sb*  e|  avTH  Ky^to^   Iva-'di; 
 
 TO  KATA  XAPKA.  See  Dr.  Lardner's  Credibility,  Part  IL 
 Vol.i.  p.  77,  78  )  Now  let  rhe  reader  attentively  com- 
 pare this  quotation  with  Rom.  ix.  4,  5,  and  then  deter- 
 mine for  himself,  whether,  in  the  words,  "from  him 
 the  Lord  Jesus  according  to  the  flesh,"  Clnvent  did  not 
 ^efer  to  Rom.   ix.  5  ;    and    consequent!)',  whether,  in 
 
 S  S  2  usin<r 
 
(      324      ) 
 
 was  mentioned  by  Trinitarians'^,  in  the 
 second,  third  and  following  centuiies,  and 
 attend,  at  the  same  time,  to  this  internal 
 evidence  in  his  Epistle ;  it  will  not  be 
 doubted  but  that  he  was  a  believer  in  the 
 divinity  of  Christ, 
 
 V.  In  those,  which  are  called  the  ge- 
 nuine Epistles  of  Ignatius,  the  divinity  of 
 Christ  is  frequently  and  strongly  incul- 
 cated :  this  is  universally  allowed :  but  it 
 at  the  same  time,  urged,  and  with  reason, 
 that  even  these  Epistles  are  not  entirely 
 without  the  appearance  of  interpolation. 
 They  are,  however,  so  generally  allowed  to 
 
 be 
 
 using  them,  he  had  not  respect  to  that  Divine  Nature  in 
 Christ,  which  was  not  from  Jacob.  It  is  however,  I 
 iiope,  on  the  whole,  evident,  how  well  Clement  agreed, 
 ys  to  the  do6trine  of  Clirist's  Divinity,  not  only  with 
 Ignatius,  but  likewise  with  his  friend  and  fellow-labourer 
 !St.  Paul.  (See  Phil.  iv.  3.)  Parkhurst  on  the  Divinity  of 
 Christ,  p.  i4.o,8cc. 
 
 *  To  mention  only  one  instance  of  the  approbation  of 
 the  religious  tenets  of  Clemens  by  a  believer  in  the  divinity 
 of  Christ.  Eusebius  styles  Quadratus,  Clemens,  Ignatius, 
 Polycarp,  and  Papias.  S£ow^£7re<c  p.a9>7Ta»  of  the  Apostles, 
 *'by  whose  writings,"  he  says,  "  the  tradition  of  the  Apo- 
 stolical dodtrine  is   still   conveyed  down  to  us."     fie  ert  k«i 
 
 f£^sT«i.  Hist.  L.  3.  c.  37.  cotnp.  c.  36,  38,  39.  This 
 tradition,  which  Eusebius  asserted. was  preserved  in  the 
 church,  is  particularly  oppojed  against  Unitarianism  by 
 himself,  L.  3.  cont.  Marcellum,  c.  6. 
 
(     S25     ) 
 
 be  o-enuine  in  the  main,  and  their  interpo- 
 lations are  commonly  thought  to  be  so 
 inconsiderable,  that,  in  an  inquiry  into  the 
 state  of  opinion  in  the  two  first  centuries, 
 they  may  be  referred  to,  though  not  with 
 perfe6l  confidence,  as  authentic  documents 
 of  those  times  *. 
 
 Since  the  controversy  on    this   subject, 
 in  the  last  century  --f-,  the  question  relating 
 
 to 
 
 *  See  the  Testimonies  to  Ignatius  in  Lardner  and  Du 
 Pin. 
 
 f  "  That  Ignatius  was  bishop  of  Aniioch  in  Syria,  in  the 
 latter  part  ot  the  first,  and  the  beginning  of  the  second 
 century  after  Christ,  is  indisputable,  and  admitted  on  all 
 hands.  And  Chrysostom  tells  us,  that  "  he  was  inti- 
 mately acquainted  with  the  Apostles;  enjoyed  their  spi- 
 ritual instruftion,  even  in  the  most  sublime  mysteries  of 
 Christianity ;  and  was  by  them  thought  worthy  of  the 
 bishopric  to  which  he  was  advanced."  There  are  a 
 number  of  epistles  extant  under  his  name.  Several  of 
 these  are,  by  all  learned  men,  reje6ted  as  spurious:  and 
 of  the  seven  remaining  ones  there  are  two  editions,  the 
 one  larger,  the  other  shorter.  The  larger  is  so  evidently 
 corrupted  and  interpolated,  that  perhaps  there  is,  at  this 
 day,  scarcely  a  man  of  learning  in  the  world,  who  does 
 not  prefer  the  other:  and  as  to  the  shorter  epistles  them- 
 selves, there  were,  in  the  last  century,  different  opinions 
 concerning  them  ;  till  at  length  a  warm  and  close  con- 
 troversy arose  between  Mons.  Daillc,  a  celebrated  French 
 divine,  and  our  eminent  bishop  Pearson;  the  former 
 having  attacked,  and  the  latter  defending,  the  genuine- 
 ness of  the  seven  shvrter  Epistles  of  Ignatius.  Bishop 
 Pearson's  work,  intituled  y indicia  Epistolarum  Sandli 
 Jgnatiiy  was  first  published  in  1672;  and  gave  such 
 general  satisfadlion,  that  since  that  time  there  have  been 
 
 few 
 
(     326     ) 
 
 to  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistles  seems 
 to  have  been  at  an  end :  no  argument 
 having  been   brought  forward   since  that 
 
 time 
 
 few  men  of  any  note,  who  have  maintained  that  these 
 Epistles  were  not,  at  least  in  the  main,  genuine.  As 
 for  what  Dr.  P.  asserts,  Vol.  i.  p.  1:7,  that  " Le  Sueur, 
 after  having  given  an  account  of  the  whole  matter,  says 
 that  Mr.  DaiUe  has  clearly  proved  that  the  first,  or  small 
 coUedion  of  Ignaiius's  Epistles  was  forged  about  the 
 beginning  of  the  fourth  centuiy,  or  two  hundred  years 
 after  the  death  0^  Igjiafius" —  I  answer,  that  both  Bishop 
 Pearson  and  Archbishop  TVake  have  entirely  demolished 
 this  lueak  pretence  of  Daille's.  "In  the  Epistles  of 
 Ignatius  (meaning  his  shorter  epistles)  there  is,  says  Dr; 
 Jortin,  a  harshness  of  style,  but  a  lively  spirit,  and  a 
 noble  enthusiasm,  especially  in  that  to  the  Komans. — - 
 But  though  the  shorter  epistles  are,  .on  many  accounts, 
 preferable  to  the  larger,  I  will  not  affirm  that  they 
 bave  undergone  no  alteration  at  all."  (Remarks  on 
 Eccles.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  234.  259,  2d  edit.)  "Consider- 
 ing then,  says  Dr.  Lardner,  these  testimonies  I  have 
 alleged  from  Ircna;vs,  Origen,  and  Euschius,  and  also  the 
 internal  chara6lers  of  great  simplicity  and  piety  which  are 
 in  these  epistles  (I  mean  the  smaller),  it  appears  to  me 
 probable  that  they  are,  for  tlie  main,  the  genuine  epistles 
 of  Ignatius.  If  there  be  only  some  few  sentiments  and 
 expressions  which  seem  mconsistent  with  the  true  age  of 
 Ignatius,  'tis  more  reasonable  to  suppose  them  to  be 
 additions,  than  to  rejeft  the  epistles  themselves  entirely ; 
 especially  in  this  scarcity  of  copies  which  we  now  labour 
 under.  As  the  interpolations  of  the  larger  epistles  are 
 plainly  the  work  of  some  Arian,  so  even  the  smaller 
 epistles  may  have  been  tampered  with  by  the  Arians,  or 
 the  orthodox,  or  both  ;  though  I  don't  ajjun}  that  there  are 
 in  litem  any  considerable  corruptions  at  alterations." 
 
 *'  Thus  these  two  learned  and  able  critics,  Dr.  Jortin 
 and  Dr.  Lardner.     But  not  so  Dr.  Priestley." 
 
 "  For  my  own  pari,"  says  he,  p.  ic8,  "  I  scruple  not 
 to  say  that  there  never  were  more  evident  marks 
 
 of 
 
(     327     ) 
 
 time  to  prove  them  spurious  or  grossly 
 corrupted,  which  critics  have  thought  wor- 
 thy of  attention,  and  which  had  not  been 
 either  satisfa 61  orily  answered,  or  obviated  in 
 Bp.  Pearson's  Vindicise  Ignatianae.  Lately, 
 indeed,  Mr.  Wakefield  has  endeavoured  to 
 prove  them  interpolated  on  the  subjecl  of 
 the  divinity  of  Christ  by  an  argument, 
 which  has,  at  least,  the  merit  of  originality. 
 
 He 
 
 of  interpolation  in  any  writing,   than  are  to  be 
 found  in  these  genuine  epistles,  as  they  are  called, 
 of  Ignatius:  though  I  am  willing  to  allow,  on  re- 
 considering them,  that,  exclusive  of  manifest  inter- 
 polation, there  maybe  aground-work  of  antiquity 
 in  them.     The  famous  passage  in  Josephus  con- 
 cerning Christ,  is  not  a  more  evident  interpolation 
 than  many  in  these  epistles  of  Ignatius." 
 *'  And  this  last  proposition  1  direftly  and  positively  deny ; 
 and  though  such  vapouring  may  impose  upon  the  ignorant 
 and  illiterate,  whether  male  or  female,  yet  I  believe  Dr. 
 P.  will  hardly  find  one  man  of  learning   (Mr.  Gilbert 
 f'P^akeJield  excepted)  to  join  with  him  in  so  extravagant  an 
 assertion.  And  notwithstanding  he  talks  thus  confidently 
 of  the  many  evident  interpolations  in  the  genuine  epistles 
 oi  Ignatius,  he   does  not  produce  owd".     For  the  Do6tor 
 on  this,  as  on  other  occasions,  finds  it  much  easier  to 
 assert  than  to  prove. 
 
 Guided  therefore  by  my  own  deliberate  judgem.ent 
 concerning  the  genuineness  of  the  seven  shorter  Epistles  of 
 IgnatiuSy  and  supported  by  the  authority  of  such  critical 
 scholars  as  Archbishop  Usher,  Grotius,  Hammond,  Pear- 
 son, Bull,  Grahe,  Jo.  Albert,  Fabricius,  Wake,  and  Cave^ 
 I  shall  now  produce  what  that  blessed  martyr,  the  disci- 
 ple and  intimate  companion  of  the  Apostles,  hath  said, 
 not  only  concerning  the  Divinity  and  Fre-existence  of  our 
 Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  but  also  concerning  his 
 miraculous  Conception,  and  the  DoSlrine  of  the  Trinity, 
 Parkhurst,  p.  130. 
 
(     S28     ) 
 
 He  produces  passages  from  those,  which 
 are  called  the  genuine  Epistles ;  and  com- 
 paring them  with  the  corresponding  parts 
 in  the  set  of  Epistles,  which  are  allowed  to 
 be  interpolated,  he  sometimes  finds,  that 
 Jesus  Christ  is  more  exalted  in  the  former 
 than  in  the  latter*:  he  then  proceeds  to 
 reason  thus ; 
 
 "  When 
 
 The  genuine. 
 
 *  Endeavour,  therefore,  to  be  confirmed  in  tie  Boclrines 
 of  the  Lord  and  the  Apostles;  that  ye  may  prosper  in  all  that 
 yc  do,  in  Flesh  and  Spirit,  in  Faith  and  Love,  iv  the 
 SoM  AND  THE  Father  and  the  Spirit,  in  the  Begin- 
 ning and  in  the  End,  with  your  most  worthy  Bishop,  and 
 that  well-woven  spiritual  Crown  your  Presoytery,  and  the 
 Deacons  according  to  God.  Submit  to  the  Bishop  and  to 
 each  other,  as  Jesus  Christ  to  the  Father  according  to  the 
 Flesh,  and  the  Apostles  to  Christ  and  the  Father 
 AND  the  Spirit  :  that  there  may  be  both  a  carnal  and 
 SPIRITUAL  Union:  Sect.  13. 
 
 The  interpolated; 
 
 Endeavour,  therefore,  to  be  confirmed  in  the  Do&rines  of 
 the  Lord  and  the  Apostles;  that  all  Things,  which  ye  doj 
 may  prosper,  in  Flesh  and  Spirit,  in  Faith  and  Love  with 
 your  most  worthy  Bishop,  and  the  well-woven  and  spiritual 
 Crown  your  Presbytery,  and  the  Deacons  according  to  God. 
 Submit  to  the  Bishop  and  to  each  other,  as  Christ  to  the 
 Father;  that  there  may  be  in  you  an  Union  according  to 
 God. 
 
 "  Is  it  not  most  evident  from  a  Comparison  of  these  two 
 Passages,  that  the  genuine  Epistles,  as  they  are  called, 
 have  been  corrupted,  as  well  as  the  interpolated  ;  and 
 cften  to  a  much  greater  Degree  ?  If  any  Man  will  be  con- 
 tumacious enough  to  dispute  what  appears  so  extremely 
 manifest  and  undeniable,  I  must  insist  upon  a  satisla6lory 
 Answer  to  the  foUowintr  Question."     Wakefield. 
 
(     329     ) 
 
 "  When  the  notorious  purpose  of  the  in- 
 terpolator of  these  Epistles  was  the  aggran- 
 disement of  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ — the 
 establishment  of  his  preexistence  and  God- 
 head ;  as  the  paragraphs  allowed  to  be 
 spurious  demonstrably  evince;  is  it  possi- 
 ble, that  he  should  pass  over  in  the 
 genuine  Epistles,  upon  which  the  other 
 are  formed,  such  expressions  as  we  find  to 
 be  omitted  in  the  last  quotation  of  the 
 corrupted  set?  Until  this  objeftion  be 
 refuted,  I  will  maintain  that  these  genui?ie 
 productions  of  Ignatius  have  been  notori- 
 ously adulterated,  si?ice  the  days  of  the 
 earliest  interpolatoi'  *." 
 
 1.  This  obje6lion  appears  to  have  arisen 
 from  a  want  of  sufficient  attention  to  the 
 design  of  the  interpolator.  It  is  clearly 
 proved  by  Grabe  *,  that  his  purpose  was 
 to  favour  the  Arian  scheme :  and  therefore 
 the  mutilation  of  those  passages,  which 
 came  up  to  the  orthodoxy  of  the  age,  would 
 be  perfedlly  consistent  with  his  design. 
 Mr.  Wakefield  would  have  suppressed  his 
 
 obje6lion, 
 
 *  Enquiry  into  the  Opinions  of  the  Christian  Writers 
 of  the  three  firll  Centuries,  p.  337. 
 
 t  Grabe  Spicilegium.  Not.  p.  225.  Tom.  2.  Ed.  Oxon, 
 1714. 
 
 T  T 
 
(     33^     ) 
 
 obje6lion,     if  he  had    attended    to    this 
 circumstance. 
 
 2,  Were  his   hypothesis  respe6ling  the 
 time   of  the  supposed  adulteration  of  the 
 genuine  Epistles  admitted ;  it  would,  without 
 any  other  consideration,  go  very  near  to 
 prove,  that  the  divinity  of  Christ  was  ori- 
 ginally taught  in  them,  as  they  came  from 
 the  hands  of  Ignatius.     As  most  impartial 
 critics  will  be  disposed  to  say,  with  Lardner, 
 "  I  do  not  affirm  that  there  are  in  them  any 
 considerable  alterations  or  corruptions;"  if 
 it  could  be  determined  that  alterations  or 
 corruptions   were    made   in    the   genuine 
 Epistles,    since    the   interpolated  Epistles 
 were  formed,  as  Mr.  Wakefield  endeavours 
 to    demonstrate,    their   purity   before  that 
 time   would  be  proved   to  a  considerable 
 degree    of  probability;    and,    we    might 
 quote  with  encreased,  and  almost  perfedt 
 confidence  of  their  genuineness,  any  pas- 
 sages, which  can  be  shewn  to  have  been 
 in  them,  before  the  beginning  of  the  sixth 
 century,   when     the  interpolated   Epistles 
 were  composed*.      Now,  about   the  year 
 449,  Theodoret   cited  passages   from  the 
 Epistles  of  Ignatius,  in  which  the  divinity 
 
 of 
 
 ♦  Cave  Hist.  Literaria,  p.  27.  andDu  Pin  under  Ignatius. 
 
(     3S^      ) 
 
 of  Christ  is  acknowledged  in  plain  terms ; 
 in  which  he  is  called  "  the  son  of  David 
 according  to  the  flesh,"  "  the  son  of  God 
 in  divinity  and  power,  truly  born  of  a 
 virgin;"  and  "Our  God  Jesus  Christ;" 
 and  "  The  son  of  Man  and  the  son  of 
 God  *." 
 
 The  same  dodlrines  and  the  same  pecu- 
 liarity of  language,  which  we  at  present 
 observe  in  these  Epistles,  were  found  in 
 them  byTheodoret  nearly  a  century  before 
 "  the  time  of  the  earliest  interpolator." 
 We  might  therefore,  after  bowing  to  Mr. 
 Wakefield  for  his  defence  of  Ignatius, 
 retire,  and  leave  him  in  the  full  possession 
 of  his  own  argument. 
 
 VI.  Dr.  Priestley  has  strongly  contended 
 for  the  spuriousness  or  gross  corruption  of 
 the  genuine  Epistles  of  Ignatius  -f  :  but, 
 on  looking  through  his  writings,  no  critical 
 
 argument 
 
 *  Otrx   v/.    yivii<;    AccQi^  •/.a.rot,   o-a^xa,  viov  0£tf  x.«t«  $£0T»jTa  y.x^ 
 O  yǤ  Beoi  n/A4>v  Iykts^  Xqi^oi;. 
 
 Tu  vno  Ts  uv^^uTTn^  x«»  viUTH  ©£».  IgHat,  jH  Theodoret.Dial. 
 Immutab.  V.  Pearson.  Vindic.  Fart.  i.  c.  i.  p.  lo. 
 
 t  "  You  must  know  that  the  genuineness  of  them  is 
 not  only  very  much  doubted,  but  generally  given  up  by 
 the  learned."    Letter  to  Dr.  Horsley,  Pt.  i.  p.  13. 
 
 T  T  2 
 
(     33^     ) 
 
 argument  is  found  in  support  of  his  opinion; 
 except  an  assertion,  that  the  expressions, 
 «  Christ  a  God"  and  "  Christ  our  God" 
 are  not  the  language  of  any  age  of  Chris- 
 tianity. —  "  This,  Sir,  is  neither  apostolical 
 language,  nor,  indeed,  that  of  any  writer 
 whatever,  in  any  age  of  the  Church  *." 
 
 To  an  old  objedlion  we  may  repeat  an  old 
 answer.  "  The  obje6tions  taken  from  the 
 style,"  says  Du  Pin,  "are  of  little  moment: 
 for,  who  has  informed  these  modern  critics 
 what  was  the  style  of  Ignatius's  age/'  Is  it 
 from  Pliny  that  Dr.  Priestley  has  learnt 
 that  the  term  "  God"  was  not  applied  to 
 Christ  by  Christians  in  the  first  Century -f; 
 Or,  has  he  collected  this  information  from 
 Clemens Romanus];,  orCelsus||,  orSulpicius 
 Severus  §  ?  Or,  is  it  a  mere  conjecture  of 
 his  own  ^ 
 
 The 
 
 *  J^etter  to  Parkluirst.  "  This  perpetual  nddition  of 
 the  term  Cod  to  the  word  Christ  is  generally  considered  as 
 pf)  interpolation.  It  is,  indtetl,  a  manifest  and  absurd 
 one,  such  a  phraseology  not  resembling  any  thing  iti  that 
 age,  or  indeed  in  cjtiy  subscquiut  one."  Letter  to  Dr. 
 |Cnowles. 
 
 t  Carmenque  Christo  quasi  Deo  diccrc  sccum  imicern. 
 
 J  Ucc^r.ixccrct  ccvTV.  1.  e.    C-)etf. 
 
 {I  fi<  (paT£  ©£0?  u)v.     "■  Being,  as  you  say,  a  God." 
 §  "  Pcnc  omncs  Christum  Dcuni  sub  Icgis  obseivatione 
 crcdctant. 
 
(      333      ) 
 
 The  application  of  this  term  to  Christ 
 in  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius  has  sometimes, 
 though  not  always,  a  suspicious  appearance : 
 but,  it  is  not  to  be  expunged  with  so  little 
 ceremony  as  that  of  a  random  dash  from 
 the  hasty  pen  of  Dr.  Priestley. 
 
 VII.  It  has  lately  been  intimated,  that 
 the  arguments  of  Pearson,  by  which  the 
 genuineness  of  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius 
 was  established,  were  invalidated  by  the 
 answer  of  Larroque*.  This  notion,  how- 
 ever, has  only  been  just  taken  up.  It 
 was  fully  admitted,  soon  after  the  contro- 
 versy was  over,  that  the  reasoning  of  the 
 latter  author  had  not  at  all  afFe6fed  the 
 work  of  the  learned  Prelate,  against  which 
 he  wrote  :  and  his  objeftions  were  in- 
 stantly refuted  by  Bull  f ,  Nicolaus  le 
 Nourry  J,  Du  Pin  ||  and  others.  The  opi- 
 nion of  the  critics  on  this  sul)je6l  is  very 
 fairly  and   accurately  stated  by  a  learned 
 
 Unitarian 
 
 *  "  I,  Sir,  shall  save  myself  that  trouble,  till  you  shall 
 
 have  replied  to   every  part  of  Larroque's   answer  to  this 
 
 work  of  Pearson  ;  a  work,  which  I  suspe^  you  have  not 
 
 .:,ylooked  into:'   Letter  2d  to  the  Archdeacon  of  St.  Albans. 
 
 Pt.2. 
 
 fDefens.  Fid.  Nic.  Sea.  3.  c.  i.  §  lo.etseq. 
 
 :|;  Tom.  I.  Apparatus  ad  13ibliothecam-maA,  Patrura. 
 
 II  History  of  Eccles.  Writers— Ignatius. 
 
(     334,     ) 
 
 Unitarian  at  the  end  of  the  last  century.— 
 *'  Illarum  rerum  periti,  utroque  opere  dili- 
 genter  perle6io,  negarunt  eruditum  ilium 
 virum  ulla  ratione  Pearsoni  argumenta 
 labefadasse  */' 
 
 VIII.  1.  After  all  due  abatements  for 
 a  want  of  perfect  assurance  of  the  purity 
 of  the  genuine  Epistles,  or  rather,  after 
 admitting,  that  some  parts  of  them  bear 
 evident  marks  of  interpolation,  it  must 
 be  allowed  to  be,  at  least,  highly  probable 
 from  the  internal  evidence  contained  in 
 them,  that  their  author  was  a  believer 
 in  the  divinity  of  Christ.  When  to  this 
 the  external  evidence  is  joined,  all  doubt 
 is  at  an  end. 
 
 2.  Origen,  little  more  than  a  century 
 after  Ignatius,  cited  a  passage  from  an 
 Epistle  containing  an  allusion  to  the 
 miraculous  conception  of  Christ:  and  this 
 passage  is  now  found  in  the  genuine 
 Epistles. 
 
 "  Eleganter  in  cujusdam  Martj'ris  Epis- 
 tola     scriptum    reperi  ;     Ignatium     dico, 
 
 Episcopum 
 
 *  Clerlcus  in  Pracfat.  Epist.  Ignat,  praemissa. 
 
{     335     ) 
 
 Episcopum  Antiocliise  post  Petrum  secun- 
 dum ;  qui  in  persecutione  Romae  pugnavit 
 ad  bestias,  Principem  saeculi  hujus  latuit 
 vireinitas  Marige*.  The  citation  is  from 
 the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  sXukv  rov  a^- 
 
 'XpvTot,  T»  amvoq  rarn  f}  Turaodsvioc  Mocoixg. 
 
 3.  Ignatius  suffered  martyrdom  about 
 A.  D.  107.  A  circumstantial  relation  of 
 that  tragical  event  has  been  preserved  to 
 our  times :  and,  07i  its  authority,  Dr. 
 Priestley  has  concluded,  that  he  spoke  the 
 language  of  an  Unitarian.  In  this  rela- 
 tion, a  passage,  which  shews  his  belief  in 
 the  divinity  of  Christ,  has  been  overlooked; 
 while  another,  which  only  shews,  that  he 
 was  not  a  polytheist  -j^,  has  been  prepos- 
 terously brought  forward  to  prove  hnn  an 
 Unitarian. 
 
 « 
 
 All 
 
 *  Hom.6»,  Hieronymo  Interprete.  Pearson  Vindiciaf 
 Ignatianae,  p.  7.  part.  i. 
 
 t  "  What  this  excellent  man  said  when  he  appeared 
 before  the  emperor  Trajan,  was  the  language  of  an 
 Unitarian,  '  You  err,'  he  said,  '  in  that  you  call  the  evil 
 spirits  of  the  heathens,  Gods.  For  there  is  but  one  God, 
 who  made  heaven  and  earth,  and  the  sea,  and  all  that 
 are  in  them;  and  one  Jesus  Christ,  his  only  begotten 
 son,  whose  friendship  may  I  enjoy."  Hi/t.  of  early 
 Opinions,  Vol.  i.  p,  262. 
 
(     S36     ) 
 
 <C 
 
 All  the  brethren  kneeling  down,  he 
 prayed  to  the  Son  of  God  in  behalf  of  the 
 churches*." 
 
 4.  Without  insisting  on  the  genuine- 
 ness of  any  passage  in  the  Epistles  of 
 Ignatius,  in  which  the  divinity  of  Christ 
 is  taught  ;  assuming  no  more  than  that 
 the  parts  of  them  relating  to  indifferent 
 matters  have  not  been  materially  altered 
 hy  corruption  ;  the  religious  opinions  of 
 Ignatius  may  be  identified  with  those  of 
 the  church  of  Smyrna :  and  it  appears  by 
 other  evidence  -f  that  they  were  believers 
 in  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
 
 The  general  design  of  his  Epistle  to  the 
 Smyrn^eans    is  not  to  convert  them  from 
 
 *  Relation  of  the  Martyrdom  of  Ignatius,  Wake's 
 Translation,  §  12.  It  must,  however,  be  allowed,  as 
 Mr.  Gibbon  has  somewhere  observed,  that  "neither  the 
 Epistles  nor  the  Acls  of  Ignatius  can  be  used  with  per- 
 i'etl  confidence." 
 
 "Y  AyvoavTEj  ot»  hte  tov  Xpirov  otote  y.a.rctXt'Keiv  avyriaoi/.e9cc  —  an 
 iri^ov  nvx  o-tQuy,    thtov  |w.e»  yce,^  vtov  ovra  t«  Sew  'cr^offv.ui/ajaEv*  tw^  (5"* 
 
 '*  Not  knowing,  that  neither  is  it  possible  for  us  ever 
 to  forsake  Christ  —  nor  worship  any  other  besides  him.' 
 For  him,  indeed,  as  being  the  son  of  God  ii/e  adore: 
 but  for  the  Martyrs  we  worthily  love  them,  as  the  dis- 
 ciples and  followers  of  our  Lord."  Circ.  Epistle  of  the 
 Church  of  Smyrna.  Wake's  Trans. 
 
 This  passage  together  with  most  of  tlie  Epistle  was 
 quoted  by  Eusebius. 
 
(     Z^l     ) 
 
 any  established  error,  but  ^a  confirm  them 
 in  their  faith,  to  guard  them  against  the 
 new  heresy  of  the  Gnostics,  and  to  per- 
 suade them  to  follow  their  Bishop  and 
 Pastors,  but  especially  their  Bishop  Poly- 
 carp,  a  believer  in  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
 
 "  I  glorify  God,  even  Jesus  Christ,  who 
 has  thus  filled  you  with  all  wisdom  :  for^ 
 I  have  understood  how  that  you  are  settled 
 in  an  immoveable  faith*/' 
 
 This  language  could  not  have  proceeded 
 from  an  Unitarian  to  a  body  of  people,  who 
 believed  in  the  divinity  of  Christ.  The 
 faith  of  the  church  of  Smyrna  and  of  Poly- 
 carp  their  Bishop  must  have  been  that  of 
 Ignatius. 
 
 After  this,  it  would  be  superfluous  to 
 state  the  testimonies  of  Theophilus,  Euse- 
 -bius,  Athanasius,  Jerom  and  Theodoret : 
 one  of  whom  mentions  that  Ignatius  con- 
 firmed the  churches  of  the  several  cities, 
 through  which  he  passed,  in  the  true  faith, 
 and  admonished  them  to  avoid  heresies,  by 
 constantly  adhering  to  the  Apostolical 
 tradition -f :   which  faith    of  the  Christian 
 
 church, 
 
 *  Ign.  Ep.  to  Smyrnseans,  §  i. 
 t  Eusebius,  L.  3.  c.  36,  37,  38,  9Q) 
 
 U  u 
 
(     338      ) 
 
 church,  and  which  apostolical  tradition  are 
 in  other  parts  of  his  works  directly  opposed 
 to  Unitarianism.  Three  others  of  these 
 writers  have  cited  passages  from  his  works 
 in  which  the  miraculous  conception  and 
 divinity  of  Christ  are  taught*:  and  the 
 fourth  has  ranked  him  with  the  members 
 of  the  church,  who  were  most  distin- 
 guished for  tlieir  orthodoxy;  Polycarp, 
 Justin  Martyr  and  Irenseus  -]-, 
 
 IX.  It  would  be  unreasonable  to  expert 
 an  exposition  of  the  religious  opinions  of 
 Polycarp  in  a  single  Letter,  the  only  work 
 of  his  of  which  we  are  in  possession,  and 
 which  consists  of  only  a  few  pages  ].". 
 In  it,    indeed,   he  calls  God  the  Father  of 
 
 our 
 
 *  V.  Pearson,  Vind.  Ignat.  part.  i.  c.  ii 
 
 t  Nunquid  non  possum  tibi  totam  veterum  scriptorum 
 seriem  commovere,  Ignatium,  Polycarpum,  Irenacum, 
 Justinuni  Maityrcm,  niultosque  alios  Apostolicos  et  clo- 
 qucntes  viros,  qui  adversus  Hebioneni  et  Thcodotum 
 Byzantinum  et  Valentinuni  hac  eadem  scntientcs  plena 
 sapientiae  volumina  conscripscrunt."  Hicronymus  adv. 
 Hehidium. 
 
 J  Spanheim,  speaking  of  a  writer,  who  had  appealed 
 to  Clemens  Ronuinus  and  Polycarp  against  the  doftrine 
 of  ihc  Trinity,  observes,  "  Tuetur  se  silent'io  Clementis 
 Rorn.  ct  Polycarpi  in  ej)istolis  quK  eorum  nomen  praefe- 
 runt :  in  qiiib  '.s  tumen  niliil  reperit,  quod  vel  in  specicm 
 vSacrosan6lis  de  Tiinitatc,  aut  divinitate  Filii  dogmatibus 
 ad  ciLCtur."     Intiod.in  Chronolog.  p.  198. 
 
(     339     ) 
 
 our  Jesus  Christ;  and  Jesus  the  son  of 
 God  (§  12.) ;  but  from  his  epistle  alone  it 
 cannot  be  colle6led  in  what  sense  he 
 understood  these  terms.  By  the  same  sort 
 of  external  evidence,  however,  (though 
 much  stronger  in  degree)  as  that  by  which 
 we  determine  the  opinions  of  Cerinthus, 
 Carpocrates,  Valentinus,  Melito  and  others, 
 who  either  never  wrote,  or  whose  writings 
 are  lost,  we  know,  that  Poly  carp  was  a 
 believer  in  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
 
 1.  The  words  of  his  last  doxology  are 
 preserved  in  the  circular  Epistle  of  the 
 church  of  Smyrna,  which  w^as  written  on 
 the  subje6l  of  his  Martyrdom.  "  I  praise 
 thee,  I  bless  thee,  I  glorify  thee  with  the 
 eternal  and  heavenly  Jesus  Christ  thy 
 beloved  son,  with  whom  to  thee  and  the 
 Holy  Ghost,  be  glory  both  now  and  to  all 
 succeeding  ages"^."  This  is  not  the  lan- 
 guage of  an  Unitarian  "f . 
 
 2.  Irenaeus 
 
 *  These  words  together  with  nearly  the  whole  Epistle 
 were  cited  by  Eusebius,  Hist.  L.  4.  c.  xv. 
 
 t  Dr.  Priestley  asserts  that  the  doxology  of  which  these 
 words  are  a  part,  is  addressed  to  God  the  Father  and  not 
 ,to  Christ.  "  This  prayer  is  addressed  to  God  the  Father 
 and  not  to  Christ;  so  that  this  disciple  of  the  Apostle  John 
 did  not  think  the  example  of  Stephen  any  precedent  for 
 him."  Letters  to  the  Archdeacon  of  St.  Albans,  P^.  2.  p. 
 158.  He  will  have  some  difficulty  in  shewing  the  necessity 
 of  this  inference,  and  in  reconciling  the  passage  above-cited 
 with  the  do6hine  of  Socinus. 
 
 U  U  3 
 
(     340     ) 
 
 2.  Irenasus,  the  disciple  of  Polycarp,has 
 borne  the  most  ample  testimony  to  the 
 coincidence    of   their    religious    opinions. 
 "  When  I  was  yet  a  child  I  saw  you  in 
 splendor  in  lower  Asia,  in  the  royal  palace 
 with   Polycarp,  and  endeavouring  to  gain 
 his  favour  :  for  I  more  thoroughly  remem- 
 ber events  of  that  time  than  those  of  later 
 date:     (for    things    learnt    in    childhood 
 growing  with  the   mind  remain  in  it,)  so 
 that  I  can  tell  both  the  place  where  the 
 blessed  Polycarp  sat  and  taught,   and  his 
 going  out   and  in,  and  his  manner  of  life 
 and  the  form  of  his  person,  and  the  dis- 
 courses which  he  held  to   the  people,  and 
 that  he  used  to  speak  of  his  conversation 
 with  John  and  with  the  rest,  who  had  seen 
 the  Lord,  and  to  relate  their  sayings,  and 
 what  he  had  heard  from  them  concerning 
 the  Lord  ;  and  that  Polycarp,  having  re- 
 ceived his  information  from  eye-witnesses 
 of  the   word    of  life,  reported  all  things 
 relating  to  his  miracles  and  doctrine  agree- 
 able to  the  scriptures*," 
 
 According 
 
 *  Eiooi'  ya^  a  "BraJ;  eov  eri  iv  Trj    vara)  Acia  'wu^a.  ru  Tlo>,vy.ct(jru 
 
 <aoc,p  avru.  fxaM^ov  ycc^  rcc  tote  eii«fji.ii%ix.onvu  roi»  tvay^o^  yiyofjLiyuy, 
 at  ya.^  ly.  ^utcuv  f/ca6r;£r«?  avvecv^Hffai  t»)  '^'^XV  '**"'''■*'  ««-'T>}*  Wf* 
 fxc  ^uvaaCai  nnrtiv  x«(  roe  tcttoi,  ev  u  xafiiCo/^Ecc?  cnXiyiro  o  ^«x.«^iof 
 no^i'XJtgTrcf  *  xat   t«?  •nr^oc^fc?  uvm  x«»  Ta?  tKrooi's*   xa»  Tof  p^a^axTrfa 
 
 TS 
 
{     341     ) 
 
 According  to  this  testimony,  the  doc- 
 trines, which  Irenaeus  thought  scriptural, 
 were  the  do6lrines  of  Polycarp. 
 
 "  Polycarp,  who  had  not  only  been  in- 
 structed by  the  Apostles,  and  conversed 
 with  many,  who  had  seen  Christ,  but,  had 
 been  also  appointed  by  the  Apostles  bishop 
 in  Asia,  in  the  church  of  Smyrna ;  whom 
 we  have  seen  in  the  early  part  of  our  life 
 (for  he  lived  very  long,  and  quitted  life  in 
 a  very  old  age,  having  suffered  martyrdom 
 with  glory  and  very  high  renown,)  having 
 always  taught  the  doctrines  which  he  had 
 learnt  from  the  Apostles,  and  which  the 
 church  hands  down,  and  which  alone  are 
 true,  &c*/' 
 
 t6 
 
 The 
 
 Ttf  ^«y,  >£«»  rw  78  cw/xaTo?  toeuv'  xai  tok;  aiCcKi^en;  a;  £Woj«to  iffpoq  to 
 •crArjOo;*  Koct  rriv  jAZTa  Juuvva  avvuycc^^(i<^r,v  w;  UTrri^ytXht^  xaci  n:nv  ^ira,  tut 
 
 yMi  'cit^i  T»  Kt/g»»  Tin*  rt»  a,  t^oc^  ikhvuv  »Kyr<<.oei.  y-cn  lusipi  tuv  ^vvctuEut 
 aura,  x«»  <nrs^i  t»)?  Oioxc-KocXiccc,  U(;  tsa,^  uvtotttui/  tjjj  ^uv)<;  rn  'Koyti 
 tuci^etXri^u)!;  0  TIoXvxoc^'7ro<;    a.7rr,fysXXe    'Srccira    a'jy-Sluvsc    TaJj  y^a^atj, 
 
 Iren.  Epist.  ad  Florinum  ap.  Eusebium.  L.  5.  c.  xx. 
 
 (pBiq   'ZToMotf  To»?  TOK  "X^tj-cv  ea^ocxoo-iv,  ccM^a,  y.ai  vnro  »'7roj-o7\A>v  xarccs- 
 
 Taon;    £J5  Tuiv  Aaictv  e»  rv   tv  "Lixv^vri    txy.XrKTioe.  c^TKjy.o'jroc^    ov  xcti  r,fx.ui 
 
 tu^XKCCf/Av  ev  r/i  •st^utv  r,f/.uv   viXiy.tai,  yi'ui'rroXv  yu^  'cscc^nji.mi^    xcci  ixrcinv 
 
 7>i§«^eof,  ivoo^ui;  >icn  i'!rt(l:xvirciTX  u«^7tr/;c-«f,  £|r,A&£  Ta  i3«»)  rc/v-rct 
 tv  ^  *  <  ...  ' 
 
 ciox^xi;  a«,  x  y.xi  nrx^x  ruv  x-tto^o^^uv  ey.xfierv  a  y.xi  fi  ettxXxatx  'Sjxpx- 
 
 hhaiVy  X  H«»  //ova  Eft*  «^>:8»j,     Irenasus,  L.  3.  c.  iii. 
 
(     342      ) 
 
 **  The  church  though  disseminated 
 through  the  whole  world  to  the  very  bounds 
 of  the  earth,  having  received  from  the 
 Apostles  and  their  disciples  the  faith  in 
 one  God  the  Father  Almighty,  and  in  one 
 Jesus  Christ  the  son  of  God  invested  with 
 flesh  for  our  salvation,  and  in  the  Holy 
 Ghost*/'  &c. 
 
 *'The  church  throughout  the  world  dili- 
 gently keeps  this  faith,  and  believes  these 
 articles,  as  if  it  had  the  same  soul  and  the 
 same  heart-f ." 
 
 Irenaeus  "  in  many  places  of  his  works, 
 and  almost  as  often  as  he  speaks  of  the 
 zvordX,  insists  on  his  divinity  and  eter- 
 nity ||."  The  testimony  of  such  a  writer, 
 with  such  means  of  information  on  the 
 subje6l  on  which  he  wrote,  compleatly 
 removes  all  doubt  about  the  rehgious 
 opinions  of  Polycarp. 
 
 yrn  ouc^iru^f.'.iyn  'au^ot  ds  ruv  AitotoT^uv  xcci  rut  ix.nvui)  ftudriTun  "zrraga- 
 
 IvcHi  Toy  v^ov  ra  ©it;  tov  cce^xubtna  VTre^  tjj?  vj^ETf^a?  au,rr,pi«(;'  xat  ei? 
 «ry£t/*a  ayioii.       Iren.  L.  I.  C.  X,  §  I. 
 
 "I"  Tuvrr,»    rrv    •crir*)' •— ii  ExxX»jo-ia   —  eTrif/LiXu^   (pvXa<7at\ — x«i 
 Cj^ciUi;  'Eirivn  THTOK,  iL'(;  /may  ■^•j^jij  y.cci  T>i»  uvTr,t  eyjsaot,  xa.(oioc)i.  §  ^, 
 
 X  Du  Pin  under  Irenaeus. 
 
 II  Iren.  L.  i.e.  xix.  L,  2.  c.  xviii.  xliii.  xlviii.  and  Ivj, 
 L.  3.  c.  vi.  20. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
(      343     ) 
 
 CHAP.     XVII. 
 
 THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA- 
 MENT BY  THE  FIRST  GENTILE  CHRIS- 
 TIANS, COLLECTED  FROM  THEIR  RELIGI- 
 OUS OPINIONS. 
 
 I.  Opinions  openly  professed  and  continually  taught  by 
 the  learned  will  be  received  by  the  great  body  of  the 
 people.  2.  Popular  opinions  in  any  age  how  colle6led 
 from  contemporary  writings.  3.  The  opinions  of  the 
 Christians  of  Philippi  collefted  from  the  epistle  of  Poly- 
 carp.  4.  5.  6.  7.  The  religious  opinions  of  the  Ephe- 
 sian,  Magnesian,  Trallian  and  Roman  Christians 
 identified  with  those  of  Ignatius.  8.  The  religious 
 opinions  of  part  of  the  Christians  of  Philadelphia  the 
 same  with  those  of  Ignatius.  No  evidence  that  the 
 others  believed  in  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ.  9. 
 Statement  of  Dr.  Priestley's  negative  evidence  to  prove 
 Unitarianism  the  faith  of  Polycarp  and  Ignatius,  and 
 of  Christians  in  general  of  their  age.  Examination  of 
 this  evidence.  View  of  the  ancient  testimonies  on  the 
 subje6tofthe  different  Unitarian  seGts.     . 
 
 I  I 
 
 T  is  a  maxim,  which  no  modern  dis- 
 covery in  ancient  history  can  controvert, 
 that  the  speculative  opinions,  which  are 
 openly  professed,  and  continually  taught 
 by  the  great  body  of  the  learned  at  any 
 period,  are  received  by  the  bulk  of  the 
 people   to  whom  the  instruction  is  given. 
 
 The 
 
(     344      ) 
 
 The  Theology  of  Hesiod,  we  may  safely 
 take  for  granted,  represents  the  popular 
 religion  of  the  Greeks  of  his  age.  In 
 Homer  we  seldom  hear  of  the  a6lions  or 
 the  opinions  of  the  common  people  of  the 
 Grecian  and  Trojan  armies:  but,  as  soon 
 as  we  discover  the  Theological  opinions  of 
 their  chieftains,  when  we  know,  that  they 
 addressed  their  praj^ers  to  Jupiter,  or  Mars, 
 or  Minerva,  we  immediately  conclude, 
 that  such  were  the  opinions  and  practices 
 of  their  followers.  If  we  observe  Xeno- 
 phon  consulting  the  oracle  at  Delphi,  whe- 
 ther he  shall  engage  in  the  expedition  with 
 Cyrus ;  if  we  find  him  offering  sacrifices 
 and  addressing  his  prayers  to  the  Gods,  we 
 set  down  these  at  once  as  the  common 
 customs  among  the  Athenian  people  of  his 
 time  *. 
 
 If  we  wish  to  trace  out  the  opinions 
 of  any  people  of  antiquity,  on  discovering 
 the  general  spirit  of  the  writings  of  their 
 men  of  learning,  we  immediately  consider 
 our  purpose  accomplished,  without  impos- 
 ing on  ourselves  the  additional  labour  of 
 identifying,  by  a  regular  demonstration, 
 the   opinions   of  the   people  taught   with 
 
 those 
 
 *  Anab.  L.  ^> 
 
(     345     ) 
 
 those  of  their  teachers.  As  soon  as  exter- 
 nal evidence  informs  us  of  the  sentiments 
 of  Cerinthus  and  Carpocrates,  we  suppose, 
 even  without  a  momentrary  hesitation, 
 that  we  have  determined  those  of  the  first 
 Cerinthians  and  Carpocratians. 
 
 We  ascertain  the  opinions  of  the  first 
 Socinians  by  those  of  Socinus  :   and  when 
 we  know,  that  Dr.   Price  was   "  inclined 
 to  wonder,"  at  good  men  satisfying  them- 
 selves   with     Socinian    interpretations    of 
 Scripture  *,  we  instantly  suppose,  that  the 
 body  of  Christians,  to  whom  his  discourses 
 were    usually   addressed,  felt   a    difficulty 
 similar  to  that  of  their  instru6for.     It  is 
 thus,  after  having  discovered  the  tenets  of 
 Polycarp   and   Ignatius,  either  by  the  in- 
 ternal  evidence    in  their  writings,  or  by 
 external  testimony,   that  we  conclude  the 
 members    of    the   Christian    churches   in 
 Asia,    of  which  they  were   the   principal 
 
 teachers, 
 
 *  '«  Speaking  of  the  Socinian  interpretations  of  Scripture, 
 you  say,  p.  135,  '  I  must  own  to  you,  that  I  am  inchned  to 
 wonder,  that  good  men  can  satisfy  themselves  with  such 
 explanations.'  However  you  candidly  add,  "  But  1 
 correa  myself.  I  know  that  Christians,  amidst  their 
 differences  of  opinion,  are  too  apt  to  wonder  at  one  another, 
 and  to  forget  the  allowances,  that  ought  to  be  made  for  the 
 darkness,  in  which  we  are  all  mvolved."  Priestley, 
 Letters  to  Dr.  Price;  p  165. 
 
 Xx 
 
(     346     ) 
 
 teachers,   to    have   been   behevers    in  the 
 divinity  of  Christ. 
 
 A  discovery  indeed  of  a  very  singular  na- 
 ture, it  is  said,  has  lately  been  made  in  the 
 state  of  the  religious  opinions  of  Christians 
 in  the  second,  third  and  fourth,  nay  even 
 in    the    fifth    and    sixth    centuries ;    it   is 
 maintained,  not  only  with  every  appearance 
 of  seriousness,  but  with  all  the  ardour  of 
 proselyting  zeal  *,  that  the  learned  and  the 
 unlearned    in    tliose    early    ages   w^ere   of 
 opposite  opinions  on   a  leading  article  of 
 their  religion  ;    that   the   writers  and  tlie 
 rulers  of  the  church  believed  in  the  divinity 
 of  Christ,  while   the  common  people  held 
 him   to   be  no    more    than  man;   that  the 
 
 ele6^ors 
 
 *Mr.  Lindsey  has  shewn  considerable  /eal  in  spreading 
 Dr.  Priestley's  Historical  and  Critical  Discoveries,  together 
 with  some  of  his  own,  among  "  the  Youth  of  the  twa 
 Universities." 
 
 "  HERETOrORE,  many  Christians,  who  saw  that 
 there  was  no  foundation  in  the  scriptures  for  the  divinity 
 ot  Christ,  or  for  his  being  any  thing  more  than  a  man  with 
 an  extraordinary  commission  and  power  from  God,  did  not 
 hww  what  to  make  of  some  of  ihe  earliest  Christian  writers 
 embracing  a  contrary  opinion," 
 
 <' Concerning  this  Urge  f  eld,  or  more  justly  to  speak,  this 
 overgrown  M/ooi  of  Christian  antiquity,  which  our  author 
 alone  hath  cleared  up,  and  in  which  he  hath  made  such 
 discoveries,  &c." 
 
 "  The  distindion  of  the  opinion  of  the  early  writers 
 from  that  of  the  common  people  was  never  before  observed 
 by  anyone."     Lindsey,  \'indic.  Priestl.'Postscript. 
 
(     347     ) 
 
 ele(5lors  and  the  ele6led,  the  teachers  and 
 the  people  taught  were  uniformly  opposed 
 to  one  another  in  their  sentiments  on  this 
 subjedi,  from  the  time  of  Justin  Mart}^ 
 down  to  the  age  of  Jerom,  at  least.  This 
 notion  has  not,  however,  been  extended 
 backward  to  the  first  century.  No  one 
 has  yet  undertaken  to  prove  an  opposition 
 between  the  people  and  those  whom  they 
 had  ele6led  for  their  instrudtors,  or  who 
 had  received  their  appointments  from  the 
 Apostles,  before  Justin's  age  ;  so  that  after 
 determining  the  religious  opinions  of  the 
 Apostolical  Fathers,  we  may  still  be  allowed 
 
 to  consider  them  as  representing  the  opinions 
 of  the  Christian  church  in  general,  in  the 
 first  century,  and  the  beginning  of  the 
 second.  But,  it  will  not  be  difficult  to 
 prove  the  truth  of  a  proposition,  which 
 we  might  safely  have  taken  for  granted. 
 
 II.  If  writers  complain  of  the  obstinacy 
 and  incredulity  of  the  people  of  their 
 own  age ;  if  they  complain  of  persecution 
 on  account  of  the  do6frines,  which  they 
 teach  ;  if  they  apologize  for  their  ovvn 
 sentiments,  and  take  great  pains  to  remove 
 prejudices    against    them ;   if  they    betray 
 
 X  X  3  doubts 
 
(     34^      ) 
 
 doubts  and  fears,  that  their  opinions  are 
 not  suitable  to  the  spirit  of  the  times  ;  if 
 the  obvious    design    of  their   writings  be 
 rather  to  convert  others  from  their  belief, 
 than  to  confirm  them  in  it;  the  great  mass 
 of  the  people,  with  whom   they   are  thus 
 concerned,  we  may  safely  affirm,  entertain 
 some   opinions   essentially   different   from 
 their    own.       By    these   rules,  we   might 
 determine,     from    the    Apologies    of    the 
 Christians  in  the  second  century,  without 
 any  other  evidence,  that  the  great  body  of 
 the  people   in  the  Roman  provinces  were 
 not  converted  to  Christianity. 
 
 On  the  contrary,  when  the  writers  com-^ 
 mend  the  opinions  of  those,  to  whom  they 
 address  themselves  ;  when  they  appear  sol- 
 licitous  to  confirm  them  in  their  present 
 persuasions  ;  when  they  try  to  guard  them 
 against  the  error  of  new  opinions,  instead 
 of  attempting  to  eradicate  old  and  invete- 
 rate prejudices ;  when  they  shew  no  ap- 
 prehension, that  the  do6h'ines  which  they 
 teach  will  be  denied  or  doubted;  when  the 
 writers,  who  maintain  any  system  of  theo- 
 logical opinions,  either  commend  the  faith 
 of  the  people,  and  complain  only  of  their 
 want   of   knoivledge ;    or   represent    them 
 
 in 
 
{     349      ) 
 
 in  plain  terms  as  entertaining  a  common 
 faith  with  themselves  ;  in  any  of  these 
 cases,  we  may  conclude  with  certainty, 
 that  the  writers  and  the  people  agree  in 
 their  sentiments. 
 
 By  these  rules,  the  religious  opinions 
 of  Polycarp,  Ignatius  and  Barnabas  may  be 
 proved  to  have  been  the  same  with  those  of 
 the  people  in  the  churches,  to  whom  they 
 wrote:  without  taking  for  granted  more 
 than  that  the  general  tenor  of  their  Epistles 
 has  not  been  materially  altered  by  inter- 
 polation; and  without  laying  any  stress 
 whatever  on  those  passages  in  Ignatius,  in 
 which  Christ  is  direftly  or  indireftly  called 
 the  God  of  Christians :  though  some  of 
 these  are  so  conne6led  with  the  substance 
 of  the  Epistles,  that  no  doubt  can  be 
 entertained  of  their  genuineness. 
 
 III.  Let  Polycarp  speak  to  the  opinions 
 the  church  of  Philippi. 
 
 '■'  Polycarp  and  the  Presbyters  that  are 
 with  him  to  the  church  of  God,  which  is 
 at  Philippi/'  "  I  rejoiced  greatly  —  that 
 ye  received  the  images  of  a  true  love  —  as 
 
 also 
 
(     350     ) 
 
 also  that  the  root  of  faith,  which  was 
 preached  from  ancient  times,  remains  firm 
 jn  you  to  this  day." 
 
 The  design  of  this  Epistle,  as  far  as  it 
 relates  to  matters  of  faith,  is  to  confirm, 
 not  to  dissuade  from,  established  opinions  ; 
 and  no  intimation  can  be  found  in  it  of 
 any  individual  in  the  church  of  Philippi 
 professing  Unitarian  opinions.  From  the 
 opening  of  the  Epistle,  which  I  have  cited, 
 and  from  its  general  tenor,  we  may  conclude 
 with  certainty, 
 
 1.  That  the  faith  of  the  great  body  of 
 the  people  coincided  with  his  own.  2. 
 That  there  were,  however,  among  them 
 some  individuals,  who  maintained  the  doc- 
 trines of  the  Gnostics;  who  denied  the 
 reality  of  Christ's  human  body,  and  conse- 
 quently his  suffering  on  the  cross,  and  who 
 Ye\e6ied  the  notion  of  a  future  resurrec^tion 
 and  judgement*. 
 
 The  first  of  these  conclusions  perfectly 
 coincides  with  the  account,  derived  from 
 another  quarter,  of  Polycarp's  influence 
 over   the  Asiatic   churches.     At  the  time 
 
 of 
 
 *  Sea.  6.  7. 
 
(     351      ) 
 
 of  his  martyrdom,  "  all  the  multitude  of 
 Gentiles  and  Jews  of  Smyrna  called  out  ,'* 
 *  This  is  the  teacher  of  all  Asia,  the  Father 
 of  the  Christians*/ 
 
 IV.  The  religious  opinions  of  the  Chris- 
 tians of  Ephesus  (about  a.  d.  107.)  are 
 easily  colle6led,  by  attending  only  to  the 
 general  design  of  the  Epistle  written  to 
 them  by  Ignatius.  In  it  he  strongly  re- 
 commends subje6lion  to  their  bishop,  and 
 warns  them  against  the  novel  opinions  of 
 the  Gnostics -f,  Q.y^oxX.s\h^vi\X.o perseverance 
 in  their  present  faith,  and  bears  the  fullest 
 testimony  to  its  purity,  J  asserting  that  no 
 heresy  dwells  among  them  ||.  "  Let  no 
 man  deceive  you  ;  as  indeed  neither  are 
 ye  deceived,  being  wholly  the  servants  of 
 God. — Nevertheless,  I  have  heard  of  some, 
 who  have  gone  to  you  having  perverse 
 dodlrine;  whom  you  did  not  suffer  to  sow 
 among  you,  but  stopped  your  ears  §.  — 
 To  their  blasphemies  return  your  prayers  : 
 to  their  error  your  firmness  of  faith  \.." 
 
 Ignatius, 
 
 *  Circular  Letter  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna. 
 
 tSe6^.  7.  16.   17,   &c.  +  Sea.   i.  8.   10.   11. 
 
 II  Sea  6.  §  Sea.  9.  4.  Sea.   10. 
 
(     352     ) 
 
 Ignatius,  a  believer  in  the  divinity  of 
 Christ,  would  not  have  written  in  this 
 general  strain  to  Unitarians.  Had  his 
 notions  been  materially  different  from 
 theirs,  he  would  have  exhorted  them  to 
 turn  from  their  erroneous  opinions,  or 
 would  not,  at  least,  have  mentioned  them 
 with  unqualified  approbation. 
 
 V.  The  opinions  of  the  Christians  of 
 Magnesia  may  also  be  identified  with  those 
 of  Ignatius.  When  he  direfted  his  Epistle 
 to  them  ;  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  members 
 of  their  church  had  not  perfectly  coalesced : 
 it  is  very  probable,  from  the  nature  of  his 
 exhortation,  that  they  had  very  lately  as- 
 sembled to  worship  God  in  different  places* 
 and  the  purpose  of  his  Epistle  seems  to  be 
 to  exhort  to  them  to  unity,  and  to  caution 
 them  both  against  Judaism  and  Gnosticism. 
 
 The  Jewish  Christians  are  strenuously 
 exhorted  against  following  their  old  cus- 
 toms bv  a  literal  observance  of  their  law : 
 and  all  are  at  the  same  time  cautioned 
 against  some  new  and  strange  do6trines, 
 which  had   found   their  way  among  them. 
 
 Ignatius, 
 
 *  Sea.  7. 
 
(     353     ) 
 
 Ignatius,  after  asserting  Christ  to  be  the 
 eternal  word  of  the  Father,  and  not  to  have 
 come  forth  ^^from  silence*^'*  immediately 
 observes,  that  some  den}''  his  death -|-. 
 
 From  one  of  these  expressions  (coming 
 forth  from  silence)  it  was  inferred  by  Dal- 
 Iseus  and  others  that  an  allusion  was  made 
 to  a  notion  of  the  Valentinians ;  and  there- 
 fore that  the  Epistle,  or,  at  least,  this 
 part  of  it  was  written  after  the  age  of 
 Ignatius.  —  In  answer  to  this,  Pearson 
 first  endeavoured  to  prove,  that  it  was  the 
 Ebionsan  heresy,  which  Ignatius  had  in 
 view;  because  he  warned  the  Magnesians 
 against  Judaism ;  and  the  caution  would 
 have  been  inapplicable  to  the  Valentinians. 
 
 Though  in  this  opinion  he  is  supported 
 by  several  other  writers,  both  ancient  and 
 modern,  it  must  be  allowed  to  be  a  matter 
 of  great  uncertainty,  whether  the  Ebionites 
 are  ever  censured,  or  noticed  in  any  way 
 by  Ignatius.  He  condemns  Judaism,  it  is 
 true,  in  this  Epistle ;  but,  unless  the 
 Ebionites  were  the  only  Jewish  se6ls  of 
 his  age,  his  censure  will  not  necessarily 
 apply  to  them :   and  if  this  part  J  of  Bp. 
 
 Pearson's 
 
 » 
 
 *  Se6l.  8.      t  Se6l.  9.       %  C.  5.  Vind.  Ign.  part,  poster. 
 
 Y  Y 
 
(     S54f     ) 
 
 Pearson's  argument  had  never   apf)eared, 
 his  cause  would  not   have  been  weakened 
 by  its  suppression:  for  in  his  sixth  Chapter 
 he  has  established  the  opinion  of  Usher, 
 Vossiusand  Hammond  beyond  all  question  : 
 having  proved,  beyond  the   possibility   of 
 contradi6lion,  that  Gnosticism  had  existed 
 early  in  the  first  century,  that  Valentinus 
 copied  the  body  of  his  S3^stem  from  Basili- 
 des  and  the  other  early  Gnostics,  and  con- 
 sequently, that  an  allusion  to  a   tenet   of 
 Valentinus  is  no  proof  of  the  spuriousness 
 of  the  Epistle  to  the  Magnesians. 
 
 To  this  we  may  perhaps  venture  to  add, 
 that  they  were  some  of  the  Jewish  Gnostics*, 
 and  not  Ebionites,  who  are  censured  in  this 
 Epistle.  "  I  am  desirous  to  forewarn  you,'* 
 says  Ignatius,  "  that  ye  fall  not  into  the 
 snares  of  vain  doctrines  *  :  but,  that  ye  be 
 fully  instru61:ed  in  the  birth  and  sufferings 
 and  resurreciion  of  Jesus  Christ,  our  hope  ; 
 
 which 
 
 *  Some  think  this  Epistle  directed  against  the  Cerinthian 
 heresy:  but,  this  is  not  certain.  Cerinthus  maintained, 
 that  Jesus  was  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  and  that  the 
 Christ,  a  divine  or  superangehc  being,  was  united  to  him 
 at  his  baptism,  and  deserted  him  before  his  crucifixion  ; 
 so  that  it  was  the  man  Jesus,  and  not  Christ,  who  really 
 suffered.  He  also  insisted  on  the  necessity  of  observing 
 the  Mosaic  law.     See  Cave  Hist,  Lit. 
 
 t  Se6t,  II. 
 
(     355     ) 
 
 "which  was  done  in  the  time  of  the  govern-* 
 ment  of  Pontius  Pilate,  and  that  most 
 truly  and  certainly  ;  and  from  which  God 
 forbid  that  any  among  you  should  be  turned 
 aside/'  This  language  is  evidently  pointed 
 against  those,  who  denied  the  human 
 nature  of  Christ  and  the  reality  of  his 
 suffering  and  resurre6lion,  and  not  against 
 Ebionites. 
 
 Though  Ignatius,  in  this  Epistlej  appears 
 not  to  think  highly  of  the  firmness  of  some 
 of  the  Magnesians  ;  the  rehgious  opinions 
 of  the  great  body  of  them  must  have  coin- 
 cided with  his  own.  "  These  things  I 
 write,  not  that  I  know  of  any  among  you, 
 who  lie  under  this  error,  but  am  desirous 
 to  forewarn  you,  that  ye  fall  not,  &c/'  — 
 "  Study  therefore  to  be  confirmed  in 
 the  do6lrine  of  our  Lord  and  of  his 
 Apostles/' 
 
 VI.  The  Epistle  to  the  Trallians  con- 
 tains unqualified  approbation  of  their  con- 
 du6l :  and  the  design  of  it  is  to  guard  them 
 against  new  do6lrines,  those  of  the  Gnos- 
 tics, not  to  dissuade  them  from  perseve- 
 rance in  estabhshed  opinionjs  and  habits. 
 
 y  Y  2  *'  They 
 
{     356     ) 
 
 "  They  that  are  heretics  confound  together 
 the  do6lrine  of  Jesus  Christ  with  their  own 
 poison  */'  —  "  Not  that  I  know  there  is  any 
 thing  of  this  nature  among  you  "f ." 
 
 VII.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Ron>ans, 
 Ignatius  requests  them  to  pray  to  Christ 
 for  him  X  •  ^^^^  the  concluding  sentence 
 perhaps  implies  an  approbation  of  their 
 faith.  "  Be  strong  unto  the  end  in  the 
 patience  of  Jesus  Christ/'  The  Salutation 
 is  certainly  in  the  language  of  strong 
 approbation. —  "  To  the  church — beloved 
 and  illuminated — which  I  salute  in  the  name 
 of  Jesus  Christ,  as  being  united  both  in 
 flesh  and  spirit  to  all  his  commands." 
 
 This  language  would  probably  not  have 
 been  employed  by  a  believer  in  the  divinity 
 of  Christ  in  an  address  to  a  body  of 
 Unitarians. 
 
 VIII.  In  the  church  of  Philadelphia  a 
 considerable  schism  had  taken  place,  and 
 Ignatius,   in  his  letter  to   them,  approves 
 
 of 
 
 *  Sea.  6.  t  Sea.  8. 
 
 ij  Aiictn'jjnri  Toy  X^»roi'  fWfj  ij*«. 
 
(     357     ) 
 
 I 
 
 of  those  who  adhered  to  their  Bishop,  and 
 finds  no  division  among  them  *.  The  others 
 he  exhorts  to  repent,  and  to  return  to  the 
 unity  cf  the  church.  The  faith  of  those, 
 who  followed  their  Bishop,  must  have  corre- 
 sponded to  the  notions  of  Ignatius:  but, 
 whether  they  composed  the  majority  of 
 the  church  cannot  be  colle6led  from  this 
 Epistle:  nor  can  it  be  determined  whether 
 any  of  the  seceders,  who  seem  to  have 
 been  Judaizing  Christians,  were  believers 
 in  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ. 
 
 On  a  general  view  of  the  Epistles  of 
 Ignatius,  it  appears,  that  the  religious 
 opinions  cf  the  great  body  of  Christians, 
 with  whom  he  corresponded,  coincided  with 
 his  own :  that  several  Christians  of  his  age 
 denied  the  reality  of  Christ's  human  nature, 
 and  consequently  refused  to  acknowledge 
 his  suffering  on  the  cross,  his  resurrection, 
 and  the  atonement  for  the  sins  of  the 
 world  by  his  death  ;  but,  it  cannot  be  said 
 with  certainty,  that  he  has  any  where 
 alluded  to  the  opinions  of  Unitarians. 
 
 IX.   In  this  Analysis  of  the  Epistles  of 
 Poly  carp  and  Ignatius  it  will  be  seen,  that 
 
 I 
 
 *  Sea,  2. 
 
(     358     ) 
 
 I  have  fully  admitted  one  of  tlie  premises 
 of  an  argument,  by  wliich  it  has  lately 
 been  attempted  to  prove  Unitarianism  the 
 religion  of  Christians  in  general  in  the  first 
 century,  and  of  these  two  writers  in  par- 
 ticular ;  it  will  now  be  necsssary  to  make 
 a  very  serious  pause,  before  the  legitimacy 
 of  the  conclusion  be  granted. 
 
 The  argument  may  be  stated  in  the 
 words  of  its  author. 
 
 "  Ignatius  frequently  mentions  heresy 
 and  heretics  ;  and,  like  John,  with  great  in- 
 dignation ;  but  it  is  evident  to  every  person, 
 who  is  at  all  acquainted  with  the  history, 
 learning  and  language  of  those  times,  and 
 of  the  subsequent  ones,  that  he  had  no 
 persons  in  his  eye,  but  Gnostics  only. 
 Now,  how  came  this  writer,  like  John, 
 never  to  censure  the  Unitarians  *,  if  he  liad 
 
 thought 
 
 *  Wlien  Dr.  Priestley  uislies  to  prove  tlie  antiquity  of 
 the  F.bionites,  he  picduces  j.assages  tiom  ancient  authors 
 in  which  St,  John  is  declared  to  have  written  directly 
 againi;t  tliis  seft  and  that  of  tlie  Cerinthians  ("  ^  ou, 
 iVjr.  Aidideacon,  are  pleased  to  deny  the  oistence  even 
 of  the  tbionitcsin  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  contrary,  I 
 will  venture  to  say,  to  the  unanimous  testimony  of  all 
 antiquity,  —  Jercm,  giving  an  account  of  the  leasons  that 
 moved  John  to  write  his  Gospel,  mentions  the  Ebionites 
 liOt  only  ai  a  soft,  but  a  flourishing  sceil  in  the  time  of  the 
 
 Apostles.'' 
 
(     S59     ) 
 
 thought  them  to  be  heretics  ?  Their  con- 
 dLi6l  can  only  be  accounted  for  on  the 
 supposition,  that  both  himself  and  the 
 Apostle  John  were  Unitarians  ;  and  that 
 they  had  no  idea  of  any  heresies  besides 
 those  of  the  different  kinds  of  Gnostics  *." 
 
 A  slight  attention  to  history  and  chro- 
 nology, will  enable  us  to  discover  a  satis- 
 factory reason  why  St.  John,  Polycarp  and 
 Ignatius  should  write  with  great  severity 
 against  Gnosticism,  without  dire6f  ing  their 
 attention  to  the  opinions  of  Unitarians. 
 
 In 
 
 Apostles."     Joannes    scripsit    evangelium,    rogatus    ab 
 Asiae  episcopis,  adveisus  Cerinthum,  aliosque  hsereticos, 
 jet    maxime  tunc   Ebionitarum   dogma    consurgens,   qui 
 asserunt  Christum  ante  Mariam  non  fuisse,   unde  et  com- 
 pulsus  estdivinamejusnaturamdicere.  Op,  Vol.  i.  p. 273. 
 "  This  is  only  one  out  of  many  authorities  that  I  could 
 produce  for  this  purpose,  and  it  is  not  possible  to  produce 
 any  to  the  contrary."     Letter  to  the  Archdeacon  of  St. 
 Albans,  Pt,  2.  p.  19.)     Having  proved  their  antiquity  ^_y 
 such  evidence  as  this;  he  soon  after  reasons  on  the  suppo- 
 sition,   that   St.  John  did  not  write  direBly  or  indirectly 
 against  Ebionites  or  any  other  Unitarians,  and  thence  con- 
 cludes that  the  Apostle  himself  was  a  believer  in  the  simple 
 humanity  of  Christ  —  "  Gnosticism  having  been  certainly 
 condemned  by  the  Apostle,  and  not  the  do6lrineof  tiie 
 Ebionites,  I  conclude  that  in  the  latter,  which  is  allowed 
 to  have  existed  in  his  time,  he  saw  nothing  worthy  of  cen- 
 sure ;  but,  that  it  was  the  dodtrine,  which  he  himself  had 
 taught."  Hist,  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  i.  p.  195. 
 
 *  History  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  i.  p.  258.  260. 
 
(     36o     ) 
 
 In  Irenaeus  the  early  heresies  are  ranked 
 in  this  order:  Simon,  Menander,Saturnilus, 
 BasiUdes,     Carpocrates,      Cerinthus,     the 
 Ebionites    and    Nicolaitans.      In   Epipha- 
 nius :    bimon,  Menander,  Saturnilus,  Basi- 
 lides,    the   Nicolaitans,   the  Gnostics,  tlie 
 Carpocratians,  the  Cerinthians,  the  Naza- 
 rasans,  the  Ebionites  ;  whose  origin  he  has 
 fixed  some  time  after  the  taking  of  Jerusa- 
 lem, without  mentioning  the  year*.    In  the 
 Appendix  to  TertuUian's  treatise :   Simon, 
 Menander,  Saturninus,  Basilides,  Nicolaus, 
 the  Ophitae,  Cainaeans,  Sethians,  Carpocra- 
 tians, Cerinthus,  Ebionites.    In  Theodoret, 
 Carpocrates  is  placed  under  Adrian  -f  after 
 Simon,  Menander,  Saturnilus  and  Basilides. 
 i\nd  the  origin  of  the  Nazaraeans,  Ebionites 
 and  Cerinthians,  who  are  declared  to  have 
 sprung  up   at  the   same   time,  is   fixed  as 
 early  as    the   reign   of  Domitian  J  ;  i.  e. 
 between    the    years    80    and   97.       This 
 writer  also   says,    that  Simon,   Menander 
 an4   other     disciples   of  Simon    appeared 
 while  the  Apostles  were  living;  and  that 
 
 even 
 
 *  Teyave  ^£  »j  «(;(;>)  t»tb  ^tra,  tjjx  run  lf^ocro\viii>»  aXuo'iv,   Epiph* 
 Haer.  30.  §  2. 
 
 t  Theodoret  Hacr.  Fab.  L.  i.  p.  5.  p.  197. 
 
 +  Haer.  Fab.  L.  2.  c.  i.  2.  3. 
 
(     361      ) 
 
 even  Cerinthus  spread  his  do6lrine  before 
 the  death  of  the  Apostle  John  *.  In  Euse- 
 bius,  (whom  Theodoret  seems  to  have 
 mistaken)  the  Ebionites  and  Cerinthians 
 are  first  mentioned  under  Trajan  f  ;  and 
 are  both  declared  to  be  of  the  same  anti- 
 quity: and  theCarpocratians  are  mentioned 
 after  them  under  Adrian  J.  In  Augustine 
 the  same  order  is  observed  as  in  Epi- 
 phanius.  In  Philaster,  Simon,  Menander, 
 Saturninus,  Basilides,  and  the  Nicolaitans 
 are  placed  before  the  Carpocratians  and 
 Ebionites.  In  the  Alexandrian  Chronicle, 
 the  origin  of  the  Ebionites  is  fixed  in 
 the  year  105. 
 
 Though  several  ancient  writers  have 
 asserted,  that  St.  John  wrote  ao-ainst  the 
 Cerinthian  and  Ebioncean  heresies  :  from 
 this  view  of  the  testimonies  of  the  ancient 
 historians  on  the  antiquity  of  the  different 
 sq6\s  ;  it  must  be  allowed  to  be  in  some  de- 
 gree doubtful,  whether  any  Unitarian  seils 
 existed  in  his  time,  or  not.  The  age  of  Ce- 
 rinthus 
 
 *  Har.  Fab.  Pra;f.  in  Lib.  2, 
 
 t  Euseb.  Hist  L.  3,  c.  27.  28. 
 X  L  4.  c.  7. 
 
 Z  z 
 
(        3^2         ) 
 
 rinthus  (whose  peculiar  opinion,  respe61ing 
 the  union  of  the  divine  and  human  natures 
 in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  prevents  him 
 from  being  properly  classed  among  Unita- 
 rians) is  very  uncertain.  "  Le  Clerc  speaks 
 of  him  at  the  year  80 ;  Basnage  at  the 
 year  101.  By  some  he  is  esteemed  a 
 heretic  of  the  first,  by  others  of  the  second 
 century*/' 
 
 "  Basnage  speaks  of  the  Carpocratians 
 Vat  the  year  112;  Tillemont  thinks  they 
 might  appear  about  the  3^ear  130/'  Le 
 Clerc  supposes  those  Ebionites  or  Naza- 
 raeans,  who  believed  in  the  miraculous 
 conception  of  Christ,  to  have  first  appeared 
 about  A.  D.  72  :  those,  who  believed  Christ 
 to  be  a  mere  man  born  of  human  parents, 
 he  fixes  in  the  year  103.  Mosheim  places 
 the  Cerinthians  in  the  first  century,  but 
 refers  the  Nazara^ans,  Ebionites  and  Car- 
 pocratians to  the  second. 
 
 Accordins:  to  the  unanimous  testimony 
 of  all  antiquit}^  Gnosticism  had  appeared 
 more  than  half  a  century  before  St.  John 
 wrote  his  Epistles  and  Gospel;  and  had 
 become  an  inveterate,  an  increasing,  and  a 
 
 dangerous 
 
 *  Lardncr  Hist,  of  Her,  c.  4..  §  2. 
 
(     3<53     ) 
 
 dantreroLis  error,  in  different  parts  of  Asia, 
 where  he  and  Ignatius  and  Poly  carp  lived. 
 St  John  wrote  his  Epistles  about  a.  d.  97: 
 the  Epistles  of  Ignatius  and  Polycarp  were 
 probably  written   ten   years    later.       The 
 ancient  historians,  by   whom   we   are  in- 
 formed of  the  general  prevalence  of  Gnos- 
 ticism at  the  end  of  the  first  century,  leave 
 us    in    some    degree    of    doubt     whether 
 the  Unitarianism  of  Carpocrates  and  the 
 Ebionites  appeared  a  few  years  before,  or 
 after  the  letters  of  Ignatius  and  Polycarp 
 were  composed.      Take  the  earliest  date  : 
 Gnosticism    had     arrived      at     manhood: 
 Ebionitism  was  in  its  infancy,  and  buried 
 in    the  obscurity    of  Pella,  at  that  time. 
 If  therefore   Ignatius   and    Polycarp    have 
 "frequently  mentioned  heresy  andheretics  ; 
 and  like  St.  John  with  great  indignation ;" 
 and  if  it  be  "  evident  to  every  person,  who 
 is  it  all  acquainted  with  tlie  history,  learn- 
 ing and  language  of  those  times,  that  they 
 had  no  persons  in  view  but  Gnostics  only  \' 
 they  have    followed  the   line   of  condu61:, 
 that  a  view  of  the  history  of  those  times 
 would  lead  us  to  expect  from  them:   and 
 the  negative    argument,    wliich    has  often 
 been   moved  by    Dr.    Priestley  in  opposite 
 direcfions,  as   it  best  suited  liis  purpose, 
 
 z  z  3  must 
 
(     3^4     ) 
 
 must  necessarily  be  turned  at  last  against 
 himself. 
 
 From    the   testimony  of  some  ancient 
 ^vriters,    we    should  be    led    to    suppose, 
 that  the  Nazaraeans,  Ebionites  and  Car- 
 pocratians  first  appeared  towards  the  end 
 of  the  first  century  :  from  others  we  should 
 infer,    that    they    were    not    in    existence 
 till  the  beginning  of  the  second.      In  this 
 case    we    are    obliged    to     balance    these 
 opposite  accounts :   and   in   a  comparative 
 view  of  the  evidence  on  both   sides,  the 
 silence  of  Polycarp  and  Ignatius   (if  they 
 be  silent  on  the  subject  of  the  Ebionitish 
 and  Carpocratian  opinions)  must  be  taken 
 into     consideration.       Since     these     two 
 writers    have  been   proved    to  have  been 
 "believers  in  the    divinity  of  Christ  *,  and 
 since   they   have  very  frequently   treated 
 those  Gnostic  heretics  with  severity,  who 
 are  known   to  have   been  in  considerable 
 numbers  in  their  time,  without  ever  al- 
 luding to  the  opinions  of  the  Ebionites, 
 Nazaraeans,    or     Carpocratians  ;      (about 
 whose  existence  at    the  end  of  the  first 
 century  there  is  some  previous  doubt)  it 
 is  on   this    account   probable,  either  that 
 
 these 
 
 *  See  the  preceding  CJiapter. 
 
(  365   ) 
 
 these  se61s  were  not  in  existence  in  their 
 time,  or  that  they  were  very  inconsider- 
 able, and  confined  to  some  remote,  or 
 obscure  countries,  without  having  appeared 
 in  any  of  the  churches ^  to  zvhich  their  Epis- 
 tles IV ere  addressed. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
266 
 
 CHAP.     XVIII. 
 
 THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA- 
 MENT   BY      THE      FIRST     GENTILE    CHRIS- 
 
 ■  TIANS,  COLLECTED  FROM  THEIR  RELIGI- 
 OUS OPINIONS. 
 
 J.  Hymns,  in  -which  the  divinity  of  Christ  \vas  celebratec?, 
 appealed  to  a.  d.  220.  as  compositions  of  the  first  age 
 of  Christianity.  Hymns  used  in  the  religious  assemblies 
 of  Christians,  a.d.  260.  discarded  by  laul  of  JSamosata 
 as  modern  comf.ositions.  -  The  dispute  between  Chris- 
 tians of  tlie  third  century  on  this  subje6l  decided  by  the 
 testimony  ftf  Pliny.  View  of  this  testimony  in  con- 
 nc(5tion  with  other  evidence  to  the  opinions  of  the  first 
 Cliristians  on  the  subject  of  Christ's  nature.  2.  Gene- 
 ral view  of  the  testimony  of  the  writers  in  the  second 
 and  following  centuries  on  the  same  subjc6t.  1  he 
 claims  of  the  Unitarians  in  the  third  century  to  superior 
 antiquity,  contradictory  and  false—  immediately  rctutcd 
 by  other  writers.  3.  Statement  of  Dr.  Priestley's  three 
 arguments  to  prove  Unitarianism  the  religion  of  the  first 
 Christians.  Examination  of  the  last.  Christian  writers 
 before  Justin.  Gnostics.  Apostohcal  Fathers.  4.  5.  6". 
 7.  Testimony  to  the  religious  opinions  of  Aristides, 
 Agrippa,  Quadratus,  Papias,  and  Aristo  of  Fella.  8. 
 Only  one  Unitarian  luritcr  before  the  time  of  Justin. 
 All  the  others,  except  Cerinthus,  cither  believed  in  the 
 simple  divinity  of  Christ,  or  entertained  opinions  corre- 
 sponding to  the  orthodoxy  of  the  second  and  third 
 centuries. 
 
 I.  THE 
 
(     S67     ) 
 
 I.    X  HE  first  converts   to    Christianity 
 were  dire6ledby  St.  Paul  to  sing  hymns  to 
 their  God  and  Saviour*:   and  it  is  highly 
 probable,  antecedently  to  all  testimony,  that 
 some  of  these  very  first  compositions  would 
 be  used  in  the  Christian  churches,  during 
 the  first  two  hundred  years,  at  least,  after 
 their    introduction.       Had    any  of  these 
 parts  of  the  religious  service  of  the  first 
 Christians,  in   which   the  learned  and  the 
 unlearned  joined,  been  transmitted  down 
 to  our  times,  they  would  be  highly  valu- 
 able, as  far  as  they  exhibited  a  pi6ture  of 
 the   opinions  of  their  age.      The   ancient 
 hymn   in  our  Liturgy -j^  is  not  sufficiently, 
 near  the  age  of  the  Apostles  for  our  purpose: 
 and  it  is    not  certain  w'hether  that,  w^hich 
 is    preserved   in   the   works    of    Clemens 
 Alexandrinus,  and  in  which  the  eternity  of 
 Christ  is   taught,  be  really  a  composition 
 of  the  second  century  ;   as  it  is  not  found 
 in  all  the  copies  of  Clemens.     And  w^ere 
 it  the  genuine  production  of  this    writer, 
 the  opinions  of  the  Christians  of  the  fi.rst 
 century  could  not  be  colledted  from  it. 
 
 By 
 
 *  Coloss.  iii.  1 7.  fTe  Deum. 
 
(     868     ) 
 
 By  the  united  testimonies,  however,  of  an 
 accomphshed  heathen  in  the  reign  of  Trajan 
 and  of  a  Christian  writer  ahout  no  years 
 later,  it  may  be  proved  that  the  divinity 
 of  Christ  was  celebrated  in  the  Chris- 
 tian hymns  of  the  first  century.  This  last 
 mentioned  writer  (who  is  commonly  placed 
 as  early  as  a.  d.  212,  but  might  perhaps 
 be  ten  years  later)  in  his  dispute  with  the 
 Unitarians  of  his  time,  confidently  appealed 
 to  them  in  proof  of  the  priority  of  the 
 doctrines  of  the  church.  "All  the  psalms 
 and  hymns,  v/ritten  by  faithful  brethren 
 from  the  earliest  times,  celebrate  and 
 ascribe  divinity  to  Christ  as  the  word  of 
 God  *."  From  comparing  this  passage 
 with  another  in  the  30th  Chapter  of  the 
 7th  Book  of  Eusebius,  it  appears,  1.  that 
 certain  hymns  were  used  by  the  Christians 
 of  the  third  century  in  their  religious  as- 
 semblies, which  were  commonly  believed 
 to  be   ancient   compositions.       2.    That, 
 
 about 
 
 *  'Va.y.yM  oE  oaoi  nut  u^en  uSiXipuv  aTra.^x'^,!;  viro  ru»  vnro-'v  y^ccpeta-xi 
 rev   Xoyc-f  Ta    ©ta  rov  X^iro*    v^wcri    ^ioXoyi^vnq.      Kliscb.    HlSt. 
 
 L.  5.  c.  28.  He  first  appealed  against  the  Aitcmonitcs 
 to  the  Scriptures,  e««i  y^^afai ;  in  which  the  works  of  tliree 
 of  the  Apostolical  Fathers  were  often  included  ;  he  then 
 mentioned  a  few  of  the  writers  in  the  second  century,  be- 
 tbie  the  time  of  Zephvrinus,  in  whose  works  the  divinity 
 and  prcexistcnce  of  Christ  were  taught ;  and  lastly  he 
 a[)pealed  to  the  ancient  hymns. 
 
{     3^9      ) 
 
 about  A.  D.  260,  ail  Unitarian  appeared, 
 who  was  guilty  of  several  irregularities 
 both  ill  his  opinions  and  condu6l,  and 
 who  suppressed  the  use  of  these  hymns 
 in  his  own  church;  pronouncing  them  sup- 
 posititious compositions  of  the  more  mo- 
 dern Christians.  Neither  he,  it  must 
 be  observed,  nor  the  members  of  the 
 church  appear  to  have  assigned  any  reasons 
 in  favour  of  their  respective  opinions  on 
 the  subjecl  of  the  age  of  these  poetical 
 pieces. 
 
 3.  From  the  rejeclion  of  the  hymns 
 used  in  the  third  century  by  Paul  of  Sa- 
 mosata,  a  believer  in  the  simple  humanity 
 of  Christ,  as  well  as  from  the  positive 
 declarations  of  the  Trinitarians,  we  may 
 conclude  with  certainty,  that  they  contained 
 the  doftrine  of  Christ's  divinity.  Their 
 antiquity  is  the  only  point  in  dispute. 
 
 Caius,  or  whoever  was  the  writer  cited 
 by  Eusebius,  asserted,  that  hymns  of  tliis 
 description  had  been  written  in  the  first 
 age  of  Christianity,  and  that  they  existed 
 in  his  time.  Paul  of  Samosata  affirmed, 
 that  the  hymns  used  in  the  church  m  his 
 time  were    not   ancient.     These  accounts 
 
 AAA  are 
 
{     370     ) 
 
 are  not  absolutely  inconsistent  with  one 
 another:  but,  had  he  even  contended,  in 
 dire6l  opposition  to  Caius,  that  no  such 
 compositions  had  appeared  in  the  first 
 century  ;  both  these  persons  might  be 
 reasonably  supposed  to  be  influenced  by 
 prejudices  in  favour  of  their  respective 
 religious  systems  ;  and  it  would  be  proper 
 to  settle  the  dispute  between  them  by  call- 
 ing in  an  impartial  and  competent  witness, 
 under  strong  obligations  to  relate  the  truth, 
 and  without  any  temptations  to  distort,  or 
 suppress  it.  Such  a  witness  we  have  in 
 Pliny,  in  his  letter  to  Trajan  on  the  subjefl 
 of  the  Christians  in  his  province  of  Bithy- 
 nia:  from  whose  testimony  it  appears, 
 that  the  Christians  of  his  time  and  many 
 years  before  it,  by  their  own  acknowledge- 
 ment, were  accustomed  to  sing  a  hymn  to 
 Christ  as  God  *. 
 
 According 
 
 *  Propositus  c&t  libellus  sine  aufiore  multorum  nomina 
 continens,  qui  ncgant  se  esse  Chnstianos,  aut  luisse—  ergo 
 dimittendosputavi.  Alii  ab  indice  nominati  e^se  se  Chns- 
 tianos dixerunt ;  et  mox  negavcrunt,  t'uisse  quidem,  sed 
 desiissc:  quidamante  triennium,  quidam  anteplures  annos,^ 
 non  nemo  etiam  ante  viginti  quoque.  Onines  et  iniae,inem 
 tuam,  Deorumque  siniulachra  venerati  sunt ;  ii  et  Christo 
 nialedixerunt.  Adfirmabant  autem,  banc  fuisse  summanrj 
 vel  culpa:  su.T,  vel  erroris,  quod  cssent  soliti  stato  die  ante 
 luctiu  convenire,  canncnque  Christo  quasi  Deo  dicere 
 .secum  invicem.     Pliny.  L.  lO.  Ep-  97- 
 
(     371     ) 
 
 According  to  Baronius,  this  letter  was 
 written  a.  d.  104.  Pagi  has  placed  it 
 with  more  probability  in  a.  d.  110,  i.  e. 
 about  67  years  after  the  establishment  of 
 Christianity,  according  to  the  common 
 chronology.  Pliny  colle6ted  his  account 
 of  the  customs  of  the  Christians  from  some 
 who  had  deserted  their  religion  twenty 
 years.  And  since  what  was  an  esta- 
 blished custom,  while  these  persons 
 professed  the  Christian  religion,  must 
 have  existed  at  a  still  earlier  period ;  his 
 testimony  will  be  sufficient  to  prove  the 
 divinity  of  Christ  to  have  been  acknow- 
 ledged by  the  very  first  Christians  in 
 Bithvnia. 
 
 Mosheim  is  afraid  of  determining  the 
 force  of  the  expression  "Quasi  Deo;'' 
 because  it  is  uncertain  whether  Pliny 
 has  given  us  the  language  of  the 
 Christians,  or  his  own*.  And  whether 
 they  considered  Christ  as  one  with 
 God  the  Father,  or  a  totally  distindl 
 intelligence;  whether  they  believed  him 
 to  be  a  being  of  some  subordinate  nature, 
 or  not,  cannot  be  determined  by  this  single 
 
 testi- 
 
 *  De  Rebus  ante  Constantinum,  p.  148. 
 A  A   A  2 
 
(     Zl'^-      ) 
 
 testimony:  we  can  only  be  certain,  that 
 they  ascribed  divinity  to  him  in  some 
 sense  or  other.  But,  when  the  letter  of 
 Pliny  is  viewed  in  connexion  with  the 
 "whole  of  the  evidence  to  the  opinions  of 
 the  Apostolical  Fathers,  and  the  Christians 
 in  general  of  the  first  century,  and  also 
 with  the  account  of  the  first  Christian 
 hymns  by  the  writer  just  quoted,  who 
 affirms,  that  Christ  was  celebrated  in 
 them  as  the  word  of  God ;  when  it  is  re- 
 colle61ed,  at  the  same  time  that,  in  the 
 very  first  Christian  writings  after  the 
 time  of  Pliny,  about  whose  authenti- 
 city and  purity  there  is  no  question,  Christ 
 is  represented  as  the  son  of  God,  coeternal 
 and  consubstantial  with  the  Father;  the 
 opinions  of  the  Christians  of  the  first 
 century  might  be  considered  as  de- 
 termined without  the  necessity  of  recurring 
 to  further  evidence. 
 
 II.   I  shall  just  notice,  however,  another 
 
 class  of   evidence,    without   stating    it  at 
 
 length.       The    general  testimony  of  the 
 
 -writers  of  the   second,   third,   fourth  and 
 
 following  centuries  to  the  state  of  opinion 
 
 among 
 
(     373     ) 
 
 ^mong  the  Christians  of  the  first,  is  so  full, 
 consistent  and  clear,  that,  when  we  consi- 
 der the  means  of  information,  which  they 
 possessed,  and  when  we  know  that  ancient 
 documents  then  existed,  which  are  now 
 lost,  and  by  which  a  groundless  claim 
 might  probably  have  been  instantly  re- 
 futed, we  might  rely  on  them,  without 
 much  fear  of  being  misled. 
 
 Their  testimony  stands  thus  :  The  church, 
 the  great  body  of  Christians,  to  Ts-Xvjdog^'^, 
 believed  in  the  preexistence  and  divinity  of 
 Christ;  which  do6trines,  as  well  as  others, 
 it  had  received  from  the  Apostles,  before 
 any  heresies  existed  -f.  Of  the  Christians 
 called  heretics,  the  great  body  believed  in 
 the  simple  divinity  of  Christ,  denying  the 
 
 reality 
 
 *Origen.  cont.  Cels.  L.  5.  p.  272.  Ed.  Spencer. 
 
 f  Hegesippus  ap.  Euseb.  Hist.  L.  4.  c.  22.  — Irenceus, 
 L.  3.  c.  ^,  4.  —  Clemens  Alexandrinus  Strom.  L.  7.  prope 
 finem.  Tertullian.  Prccscrip.  adv.  Ha;r.  Orig.  cont.  Cels. 
 L  3.  p.  T35.  Eusebius  Hist.  Eccles.  L.  4.  c.  7.  et  adv. 
 Marcellum  passim. 
 
 Chrysostomalso  has  ranked  Unitarians  of  both  descrip- 
 tions, Sabelliansand  Alogians,  among  heretics;  (Tom.  ii. 
 p.  233.  Ed.  Montfaucon.  Paris,  1734)  and  he  has  de- 
 clared, that  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles  there  was  no  heresy. 
 
 Tote  roivvv,    r^ny.a.  iKr,^vTrov  aoroi  kcctoc,  Tr,v  Qiy.iiju.evr,v   wTrxa-av-^  ae^-j-t; 
 
 a^sfjuxYiv.  Ser.  6r.  oper.  Vol,  5.  p.  839  citat.  a  Priestley. 
 Hist,  of  early  Opinions,  Vol  3.  p.  261.  Yet,  Dr  Priestley 
 aftually  asserts,  that  even  "  Chrysostom  considered  almost 
 all  the  Christians  as  being  Unitarians  in  the  age  of  the 
 Apostles." 
 
(     374<     ) 
 
 reality  of  his  human  body ;  \vhich  faith 
 had  also  prevailed  almost  from  the  very 
 first  establishment  of  Christianity.  During 
 the  first  forty  or  fifty  years,  all  Christians 
 were  of  one  or  the  other  of  these  per- 
 suasions. 
 
 In  the  beginning  of  the  second  century, 
 accord inp-  to  some  accounts,  at  the  end  of 
 the  first,  according  to  others,  and  after  the 
 sever tieth  year  of  the  Christian  sera,  ac- 
 cording to  all,  a  few  Christians  appeared, 
 who  asserted  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ. 
 Even  they  never  thought  (and  this  is  the 
 only  point,  about  which  we  are  concerned 
 at  present)  their  do6lrines  taught  in  the 
 books  of  the  New  Testament*,  but,  were 
 so  far  imposed  on  by  some  unprincipled 
 teachers  as  to  submit  partly  to  writings 
 improperly  sandlified  with  the  names 
 of  the  Apostles,  which  are  known  and 
 acknowledged     to     have    been    forgeries, 
 
 and 
 
 *  Will  any  learned  Unitarian  of  our  time  undertake  to 
 produce  an  instance  of  any  individual,  before  the  third 
 century,who  thoughtthat  St.  John's  Gob.pel  admitted  oi  an 
 Unitarian  interpretation?  Can  it  be  proved  by  historical 
 tnidence,  that  any  individual  before  the  year  20c  (i  might 
 ilx  on  a  later  period)  acknowledged  the  authority  of  St. 
 John's  Gospel,  and  at  the  same  time  believed  in  the  simple 
 humanity  of  Christ  ?  The  use,  which  the  Alogians  at 
 the  end  of  the  second  century  made  of  this  Gospel  ap- 
 peals 
 
(     S15     ) 
 
 and  partly  to  a  copy  of  St.  Matthew's 
 Gospel,  which  some  of  their  leaders  had 
 interpolated,  mutilated,  Sindfalsified.  This 
 Book,  the  first  words  of  which  contained 
 an  historical  falsehood,  was  most  com- 
 monly known  under  the  title  of  the  Gospel 
 according  to  the  Hebrews. 
 
 No  attempt  appears  to  have  been  made 
 by  any  class  of  Unitarians  to  refute  the 
 claims  of  the  members  of  the  church  to 
 the  priority  of  their  opinions,  no  testimony 
 adduced,  no  artificial  argument  constructed, 
 no  random  assertion  advanced,  till  the 
 beginning  of  the  third  century.  After 
 this  time  indeed  the  claims  of  the  beHevers 
 in  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ  to  the 
 antiquity  of  their  opinions  highly  deserve 
 to  be  noticed,  because  they  contain  their 
 own  refutation. 
 
 Marcellus 
 
 pears  to  have  been  the  same  with  Dr.  Priestley's  method 
 of  referring  to  the  Apostohcal  Fathers.  They  cited  cer- 
 tain passages  from  it  against  their  adversaries,  without 
 allowing  it  to  be  genuine.  Comp.  Lardner  Hist,  of 
 Heretics,  B.  2.  c.  xvii.  §  5.  and  c.  xxiii.  with  Tillemont 
 under  the  article. y^/o^i.  <«  That  there  was  a  sed  of 
 Christians  (says  Lardner)  who  rejefted  John's  Gospels 
 &c.  —  I  do  not  believe."  He  afterwards  observes  with 
 more  reason ;  '*  If  there  really  were  some  such  persons, 
 their  opinion  would  be  of  little  moment,  considering  the 
 general  testimony  of  the  ancients  in  favour  of  St.  John's 
 Gospel,  and  his  first  Epistle." 
 
(     376     ) 
 
 Marcellus  of  Ancyra,  at  the  end  of  the 
 tliird,  and  the  opening  of  the  fourth  cen- 
 tury, asserted,  that  his  system  of  Unita- 
 rianism  had  been  the  universal  religion  of 
 Christians  till  Origen  (a.  d.  230)  intro- 
 duced another  doctrine.  The  Aratemonite 
 Unitarians  a  little  before  Origen's  age,whose 
 opinions,  by  the  way,  were  very  different 
 from  those  of  Marcellus,  contended,  that 
 theirs  had  been  the  universal  religion  till 
 the  time  of  Zephyrinus,  the  successor  of 
 Victor.  Without  mentioning  the  incon- 
 sistency and  contradi6fion  of  these  claims,, 
 they  manifestly  could  not  have  been  ad- 
 vanced without  the  most  gross  ignorance 
 of  history,  or  a  shameless  disregard  of 
 truth ;  since  the  divinity  of  Christ  was 
 taught  in  the  works  of  Justin,  Melito, 
 Tatian,  Athenagoras,  Theophilus,  Irenaeus 
 and  many  other  before  the  time  of  Zephy- 
 rinus (without  mentioning  the  writings  of 
 the  Apostolical  Fathers  ;  some  of  which 
 were  publicly  read,  like  the  books  of 
 scripture  in  churches)  and  since  a  very 
 distinguished  Unitarian  had  been  excom- 
 municated  by  the  immediate  predecessor 
 of  Zephyrinus.  < 
 
 Contradictory 
 
(    ^11    ) 
 
 1 
 
 Contradi6lory  pretensions  like  these, 
 which  were  instantly  refuted  by  the 
 members  of  the  church,  are  evidently 
 insufficient  to  weaken,  in  any  degree,  the 
 testimony  of  such  writers  as  Hegesippus, 
 Irenaeus,  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Terfculliaa 
 and  Eusebius. 
 
 Irenaeus  was  born  in  the  beorinning"  of 
 the  second  century,  and  had  conversed  with 
 Polycarp,  a  general  bishop  over  the  Asiatic 
 churches  at  the  end  of  the  first.  Hesre- 
 sippus  also  must  probably  have  conversed 
 with  persons  of  the  first  century.  He,  as 
 well  as  Irenaeus,  was  a  believer  in  the 
 divinity  of  Christ,  and  he  has  borne  the 
 most  ample  testimony  to  the  purity  of  the 
 church  during  its  first  age.  Clemens 
 Alexandrinus  and  Tertullian  must  also 
 have  conversed  with  persons  who  had 
 lived  near  the  first  centurv;  and  their 
 testimony  is  as  full  and  decisive  as  that  of 
 Hegesippus  and  Ircn^us. 
 
 HI.  Before  the  general  statement  of  the 
 evidence,  in  this  and  the  preceding  Chap- 
 ter, by  which  it  is  proved,  that  the  Chris- 
 tians of  the  first  century  were  believers  in 
 
 B  B  B  the 
 
(    srs    ) 
 
 the  divinity  of  Christ,  it  would  have  been 
 proper  to  have  mentioned  the  reasons 
 which  induced  Dr.  Priestley  to  suppose 
 Unitarianism  the  belief  of  the  first  ages  of 
 of  the  church  :  it  will  not  however  be  too 
 late  to  notice  them  in  this  place.  They 
 may  be  reduced  to  these  heads. 
 
 1.  Unitarians  were  not  censured  by  St. 
 John,  Ignatius  or  Polycarp  ;  though  they 
 wrote  with  great  severit}^  against  Gnostics. 
 This  is  considered  as  a  presumptive  proof, 
 that  St.  John,  together  with  these  tv/o 
 Fathers,  and  the  great  body  of  Christians 
 in  general,  of  their  time,  \yere  Unitarians. 
 
 This  negative  evidence  has  been  already 
 examined:  and  I  shall  only  observe  on  it 
 at  present,  that  an  opposite  conclusion 
 might  be  drawn  from  an  argument  of  this 
 sort  with  at  least  as  much  propriety  as  the 
 dedu6lion  in  favour  of  the  antiquity,  and 
 general  prevalence  of  Unitarianism.  Since 
 neither  St.  John,  nor  Ignatius  nor  Polycarp, 
 nor  any  of  tlie  Apostical  Fathers  have 
 censured  that  system  of  faith  which  Trini- 
 tarians profess :  and  since  no  writer  of  the 
 three  first  centuries  ever  ventured  to  sticr- 
 matize  Trinitarians  with  the  name  of  here- 
 
 * 
 
 tics; 
 
(     579     ) 
 
 tics  ;  it  would  follow,  by  Dr.  Priestley's 
 own  reasoning,  that  the  Apostolical  Fathers 
 were  Trinitarians,  and  that  the  great  body 
 of  Christians  also  in  the  three  first  centu- 
 ries believed  in  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
 
 2,    The   second    and   principal    reason 
 assigned  for  supposing   the   Christians  of 
 the  first  century,  Unitarians,  is  an    argu- 
 ment of  a  ver}^  peculiar  cast.  —  It  is  first 
 fully  granted,    that  the   writers   and    the 
 learned  in  general  in  the  second  and  third 
 centuries,  from  Justin  Martyr  to  the  coun- 
 cil of  Nice,  w^ere  believers   in  the  divinity 
 of  Christ.      And  to   avoid  the  conclusion, 
 which  results  from  the  method,  commonly 
 followed  by  Historians,  of  collecting  the 
 popular    opinions    of   any    age    from    the 
 general  spirit  of  its  writings,  it  is  supposed, 
 and  an  attempt  is  made  to  prove,  that  the 
 great  body  of  the  common  people  in  those 
 two  centuries   were  Unitarians,  that  they 
 maintained   opinions    dire611y  opposite  to 
 those  of  the  learned  of  their  time,  that  the 
 teachers  were  of  one  opinion,  and  the  peo- 
 ple taught  of  another  :  on  which  hypothe- 
 sis, the  opinions  of  either   the   people  or 
 their    rulers    and    instrucJtors   must   have 
 undergone  a  total   change:   then,   on  the 
 
 B  B  B  2  supposed 
 
(     sSo     > 
 
 supposed  principle  of  human  nature,  that 
 the  commmon  people  arc  less  liable  to 
 change  than  the  learned,  it  is  concluded, 
 that  Unitarianism  was  the  universal  reli- 
 gion of  the  very  first  Christians  ;  and  it 
 is  next  inferred,  that  no  do6lrnie  at  vari- 
 ance with  this  can  be  taught  in  the  New 
 Testament. 
 
 3.  A  third  argument  for  supposing  the 
 primitive  church  Unitarian  consists  in  an 
 assertion,  that  Justin  Martyr  (a.  d.  140) 
 was  the  first  zvriter,  who  advanced  the 
 do61"rine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ.  xMl  the 
 evidence,  I  think,  which  Dr.  Priestley  has 
 produced  in  different  parts  of  his  works, 
 except  indeed  the  testimonies  of  Hege- 
 sippus*  and  Chrysostom -f,  falls  under  one 
 of  these  three  heads. 
 
 When  a  question  arises  about  the  opi- 
 nions of  the  writers  of  any  period,  there 
 are  two  metliods,  by  wliich  it  is  usually 
 decided:  1.  Bv  the  internal  evidence  found 
 in  the  writings  themselves,  after  due  de- 
 du(5tions  for  casual  or  wilful  corruptions, 
 where  such  deduc^tions  are   necessary,   as 
 
 in 
 
 *  See  p.  160  of  this  Volume,  Note. 
 •\  See  p.  373.  Note. 
 
(     38i-     ) 
 
 in  the  case  of  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius  : 
 2.  By  the  testimony  of  other  writers  of 
 credit  who  had  sufficient  means  of  obtain- 
 ing information.  It  is  by  this  external 
 evidence,  that  we  learn  the  opinions  of 
 Simon  Magus,  Cleobius,  Basilides,  Cerin- 
 thus  and  Valentinus.  And  by  the  same 
 sort  of  evidence,  without  recurring  to  their 
 writings,  and  without  laying  any  stress 
 on  their  purity,  we  might  determine  with 
 moral  certainty  the  religious  tenets  of  the 
 Apostolical  Fathers. 
 
 The  writers  before  Justin  Martyr,  most 
 of  whose  chra6lers  are  fully  ascertained 
 either  by  their  writings,  or  the  testimony 
 of  others,  are  Simon,  Cleobius,  Basilides, 
 Clemens  Romanus,  Barnabas,  Hermas, 
 Ignatius,  Polycarp,  Papias,  Cerinthus, 
 Epiphanes,  Valentinus,  Isidorus,  Ouadra- 
 tus,  Aristides,  Agrippa  and  Aristo  Pellaeus. 
 This  is  perhaps  not  a  com  pleat  catalogue 
 of  the  writers  before  Justin ;  but,  no  one 
 is  omitted  in  it,  who  had  ever  the  cha- 
 ra6ter  of  an  Unitarian. 
 
 Justin  Martyr,  it  is  asserted,  was  the 
 first  Christian  writer,  in  whose  works  the 
 do61rine  of  Christ's   divinity  was   taught. 
 
 Now 
 
(     383      ) 
 
 Now  of  the    writers  before  Justin,  whom 
 I  have  enumerated,  we  know  by  the  testi- 
 mony   of    antiquity,   that    Basihdes,    Va- 
 lentinus,  and  most  of  the  other  Gnostics, 
 believed  in   the    simple  divinity  of  Christ, 
 and  denied    his  human  nature  altogether : 
 this  testimony  has  never  been  questioned, 
 unless  the  apologies  for  the  first  se6fs  by 
 Beausobre  may  be    said  to   have   called  it 
 in   question  :    and    by    the    same    sort    of 
 evidence  as  that,  by  which  we  discover  the 
 tenets  of  the  Gnostics,  confirmed  by  the 
 internal  evidence  in  some  of  their  writings, 
 we  are  informed  of  the   religious  opinions 
 of  Clemens  Romanus,  and  the  other  Apos- 
 tolical Fathers. 
 
 The  external  testim.ony  to  the  orthodoxy 
 of  the  Apostolical  Fathers,  Dr.  Priestley 
 has  overlooked  for  no  discoverable  reason, 
 but  because  it  destroys  his  hypothesis,  and 
 he  disposes  of  the  internal  evidence  of  the 
 writings  themselves  by  an  assumption,  that 
 they  are  all  either  spurious,  or  mutilated, 
 or  corrupted,  and  that  the  forgeries,  cor- 
 ruptions and  curtailments  have  all  been 
 purposely  on  one  side.  He  adopts  a  mere 
 conjecture  of  Junius,  supposes  an  error  in 
 the  ojily  existing  MS.  of  Clemens  Romanus, 
 
 and 
 
(  383  ) 
 
 and  for -zzra^i^/y^ara  aur»(i.  e.  ®sii)  proposes  ^a^iy- 
 
 ^ara.  He  cites,  what  he  terms,  the  prayer  of 
 Polycarp  to  God  the  Father,  which  is  pre- 
 served in  the  circular  Epistle  of  the  church 
 of  Smyrna,  but   negle61s  to   mention  his 
 conjoint  doxology  to  Christ,  and  he  totally 
 overlooks  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus  ;  who 
 has  identified  the  religious  tenets  of  Poly- 
 carp  with   his    own.      The   multitude   of 
 passages  in  Ignatius,  in  which  the  divinity 
 of  Christ  is  clearly  expressed,  he  at  once 
 strikes  out  as  interpolations,  without  even 
 attempting  to  prove  the  spuriousness  of  any 
 one  of  them ;  and  passes  over  the  external 
 evidence   without  notice,  though   it    is   in 
 itself  fully  sufficient  to  prove  Ignatius  to 
 have  been  a  believer  in  the  divinity    of 
 Christ. 
 
 The  divinity  of  Christ  is  not  only  taught 
 in  the  present  Greek  copy  of  the  Epistle 
 of  Barnabas,  but  in  the  old  Latin  Trans- 
 lation also.  Dr.  Priestley,  however,  asks, 
 "  Can  it  be  thought  at  all  improbable,  that 
 if  one  person  interpolated  the  Greek, 
 another  should  make  as  free  with  the 
 Latin  V  —  The  divinity  and  preexistence 
 of  Christ  are  also  taught  in  the  Shepherd 
 of  Hennas.    Cut,  he  removes  this  difficulty 
 
 by 
 
(  384  ) 
 
 by  supposing  it  to  be  a  work  of  the  second 
 century.  Having  by  this  compendious 
 process  reduced  the  Apostolical  Fathers 
 to  his  own  theological  standard ;  he  next 
 a6lually  reckons  on  their  silence^  a  silence 
 of  his  own  creation,  in  favour  of  his 
 own  opinions  ;  and  confidently  affirms, 
 that  "we  find  nothing  like  divinity  ascribed 
 to  Christ  before  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr/' 
 This  is  the  most  extraordinary  method  of 
 condu6ting  an  historical  inquiry  that  ever 
 was  adopted. 
 
 IV.  The  Apostolical  Fathers  were  not 
 the  only  writers  before  Justin,  whose  opi- 
 nions coincided  with  the  orthodoxy  of  tlieir 
 successors  in  the  church  in  the  second  and 
 third  centuries.  Aristides  is  called  by 
 Eusebius  -s-igog  ccyr,^  *,  the  title  which  he  has 
 in  some  part  of  his  history  given  to  Irenipus 
 and  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  two  of  the  most 
 distinguished  champions  of  the  church  :  and 
 the  old  Roman  Marty rologi urn  bears  the 
 most  express  testimony  to  his  belief  in  the 
 divinity  of  Christ.  "  Aristidem  Philoso- 
 phum  Atheniensem  simul  cum  Quadrato 
 Apologiam  Adriano  obtulisse  Eusebius  et 
 
 Hieronymus 
 
 *  Hibt.  L.  4.  c.  iii. 
 
(      385      ) 
 
 Hieroiiyiniis     te.stantur.       Philosophoriim 
 sententiis  contextam  earn  scribit  Hieroiiy- 
 mus  Epist.    84^.  ad   Magnum.     Ob   qiias 
 quilibet  illius   particeps   fieri  desideraret  ; 
 CatholicLis  vero  Christianus  ideo  maxime 
 quod  Deltas   Jesu  Christi  in  ilia    egregi'e 
 fuerit  adserta.      Ita   enim   antiquum  Mar- 
 tyrologium  Romanum. — Hadriano  pr'uicipi 
 de  reViQ-ionc  Chrisliand  volumes  obtiilil,  nostri 
 dogmatis    conl'uiens  onitionem  (forte  ratio^ 
 nem)    et    quod  Jesus    Christus   solus  esset 
 DeuSy  prcssente  ipso  Iinperatorc,  luculentis- 
 sime  peroravit^. 
 
 V.  That  thereligiou.s  opinions  of  Agrippa 
 coincided  with  the  orthodoxy  o'i  later  times 
 may  be  colle6led  with  some  probability 
 from  the  testimony  of  Theodoret. — ''Against 
 these/'  he  says  (i.  e.  against  some  Valen- 
 tinians)  "Agrippa  and  Irenxus  and  Cle- 
 mens the  stromatist  and  Origen  contend, 
 contesting /or  the  truth-[. 
 
 VI.  The 
 
 ■     *  Grabe  Spicilegium  Patrurn,  Tom.  2.  p.  125. 
 X'^y-riu     Theod.  Haer.  Fab.  L.  i.e.  iv.  . 
 
 C  c  c 
 
(     38S      ) 
 
 Vr.  The  same   may  be  proved  of  Oua- 
 dratiis  and  Papias.  —  Eusebius  speaking  of 
 several   contemnoraries    of  Ouadratus,   to 
 whom  lie  gives  the  title  of  ^eoTr^sTretg  fjLQiQy}rcx.t. 
 of  the  Apostles,  specifies  the  names  of  those 
 *^  by  whose  writings/*  he  says,  "  the  tradi- 
 tion   of  the  Apostohcal    doctrine    is    still 
 conveyed  do\\  n  to  us  */'    these   are  Oua- 
 dratus, Clemens,    Ignatius,    Polycarp    and 
 Papias.      Had  it  ever  been   supposed,  that 
 any  of  these  writers  had  been  Unitarians, 
 Eusebius,  who  speaks  of  Christians  of  that 
 persuasion  with  some  acrimony,  and  v>ith 
 great  contempt,  and  in    whose  works  the 
 Apostolical  tradition  is  particularly  opposed 
 against  Unitarianism,  would  not  have  writ- 
 ten this  sentence,  nor  indeed  any  part  of 
 the  37th  Chapter  of  the  third  Book  of  his 
 History.      Had  he  entertaine.1  the  slightest 
 suspicion,  that   any  of  these  writers  had 
 deviated    so    far  from  his   notions  of  the 
 true  Apostolical  do6h"ine,  as  to  have  been 
 believers  in  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ, 
 he,  who  in  this  part  of  his  history  has  not 
 neglected  to  notice  the  comparatively  tri- 
 fling error  of  one   of  them  -f ,  would  have 
 
 reprobated 
 
 •n  'csa^x^ocit;  (p'.^iTut.     Hist.  L.  3.  c.  xxxvii.  Conip.  c.  xxxvi, 
 xxxviii,  xxxix. 
 
 I'  The  notion  ofPartias  respcfting  a  Millenium,  c,  xxxix. 
 
(     S87     ) 
 
 reprobated  any  of  their  heretical  opinions 
 with  great  severity ;  and  instead  of  an 
 unqualified  panegyric  on  four  of  these 
 writers,  we  should  have  had  to  witness  the 
 language  of  censure,  which  he  has  fre- 
 quently applied  to  Paul  of  Samosata  and 
 Marcelhis  of  Ancyra. 
 
 VII.  The  belief  of  Aristo  of  Pella  (author 
 of  the  dispute  between  Jason  and  Papiscus) 
 in  the  divinity  and  preexistence  of  Christ 
 may  be  collecfed  from  his  manner  of  ex- 
 pounding a  passage  of  the  Old  Testament: 
 which  is  casually,  and  perhaps  inaccurately 
 noticed  by  Jerom. 
 
 Hieronymus  in  Traditlonihus  Hebraicis  hi 
 
 Genesm  "*. 
 
 "  In 
 
 *  In  Tertulliani  llbro  cont.  Prax.  c.  v.  diversa  prorsus 
 habentur ;  Aiuntquidem,  inquit,  et  Genesin  in  Hebraico,  ita 
 incipere  :  In  principio  Deus fecit  sibijilium,  Nequc  Hila- 
 rius  in  di6tis  Commentariis  alicubi  ait,  in  Hebraeo  cxtare; 
 hx  filio  creavit  Deus  ccq\\it[\  ciiGn'^wn;  sed  hax  solum  in 
 Comment,  ad  Palm.  ?.  habet—  Brcsith  verbum  Hebnicium 
 est.  Id  tres  sig7iificantias  in  se  habet,  id  est,  in  principio,  cf 
 in  capite,  et  injilio.  Quae  ut  Hebiaica?  linquae  ignarus 
 scripsit,  diversas  patrum  expositioncs  pro  diversis  signifi- 
 cationibus  vocis  Bresilh  accipiens.  Atquc  mys'Ucam 
 tST AM  pnncipii  de   Fjlio  hXPosiTioNEM  ab  Aristone 
 
 IN  DISPUTA'J  lONE   ADHIBITAM  FUISSE  facile  Cicdo  :    sicut 
 
 et  Clemens  Alevandiinus  ex  Prccdicatione  Petri  candem 
 protulit.  (V.  Spicileg.  Tom.  i.p.  328.)  Basilium,  Am- 
 
 C  C  C  3 
 
(     3S8     ) 
 
 "  In  principio  fecit  Dens  ccvlum  et  terrain. 
 Plerique  existimant,  sicut  in  altercatione 
 quoque  Jasonis  et  Papisci  scriptum  est,  et 
 Tertullianus  in  Lib.  contra  Praxean  dis- 
 putat,  necnon  Hilarius  in  expositione  cu- 
 jusclam  Psalmi  affirmat,  in  Hebr&o  haberi : 
 In  Filio  fecit  Deus  caelum  et  terram»  Ouod 
 falsum  esse  ipsius  rei  Veritas  comprobat/' 
 
 VIII.  Justin  Martyr,  it  appears,  is  so 
 far  from  being  "  the  first  writer  that  we 
 can  find  to  have  advanced  the  do6trine  of 
 the  divinity  of  Christ,"  that  of  the  seven- 
 teen writers  before  Justin,  whom  I  have 
 enumerated,  all  were  believers  in  the  divi- 
 nity of  Christ,  except  one.  It  is  deter- 
 mined with  as  much  certainty  as  can 
 mostly  be  attained  in  matters  of  ancient 
 history.  i.  That  the  Gnostics,  Simon, 
 Cleobius,  Basilides,  Valentinus  and  Isidorus 
 contended  for  the  simple  divinity  of  Christ, 
 and  denied  his  human  nature  altogether. 
 
 2.   That 
 
 brosium  -jliosque  rrcentiores  ut  taccam.  Ast  quod  in 
 Hebicco  Icttiini  fiieiit ;  Infilio  Detts  fecit  calinn  ettcnam, 
 iiti  Tertullianus  et  Hilarius  haud  effutiverunt;  ita  nee  ab 
 Aristone  dic;tuni,  sed  Hieronymum  in  hoc,  perinde  ut 
 prioribus  duobus  citaiulis,  niemorirp  det'citu  aut  nimia 
 lestinationelapsum  puto.  Grabc.  Spicilcg.  Tom,  2.  p>  132. 
 
(     S89     ) 
 
 2.  That  the  Gnostic  Cerinthus  main- 
 tained, Jesus  to  have  been  a  man  born  of 
 human  parents,  but  that  the  Christ,  who  was 
 united  to  him  at  his  baptism,  and  by  whom 
 his  miracles  were  wrought,  was  a  divine 
 being. 
 
 3 .  That  Epiphanes,  the  son  of  Carpo- 
 crates,  a  Gnostic  in  Adrian's  reign,  main- 
 tained the  doctrine  of  Jesus  Christ's 
 simple  humanity. 
 
 4.  That  the  religious  opinions  of  Clemens 
 Romanus,  Barnabas,  Hermas,  Ignatius, 
 Polycarp,  Ouadratus,  Papias,  Aristides, 
 Agrippa  and  Aristo  Pellaeus  coincided  with 
 the  orthodoxy  of  the  rulers  of  the  church 
 in  the  second  and  third  centuries. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
(     390     } 
 
 CHAP.    xrx. 
 
 EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  PRIESTLEY's  PRESUMP- 
 TIVE EVIDENCE  TO  PROVE  THE  GENTILE 
 CHRISTIANS,  IN  THE  SECOND  AND  THIRD 
 CENTURIES,   GENERALLY  UNITARIANS. 
 
 I.  Statement  of  his  presumptive  evidence  to  prove  Unf- 
 tarianism  the  religion  of  the  common  people  in  the 
 second  and  third  centuries.  2.  Obsen'alions  on  a  part 
 of  this  evidence.  3.  Jewish  and  Gentile  Unitarians 
 censured  as  Heretics  in  the  first  writings  of  Christians 
 professedly  on  the  subje6l  of  Heresy.  4.  The  age  of 
 the  first  Alogians  determined.  5.  Origin  of  a  new 
 system  of  Unitarianism.  Unitarians  considered  as 
 Heretics  by  Clemens  Alexandrinus  and  TertuUian. 
 If  Unitarians  were  07i  any  account  considered  as  heretics 
 in  the  second  century,  they  were  few  in  number.  6. 
 ^Recapitulation.  Unitarians  oi  every  description  consi- 
 dered as  heretics  in  the  second  century. 
 
 I.  JL  HE  only  reason  for  supposing  Uni- 
 tarianism the  religion  of  the  first  Chris- 
 tians, on  which  any  great  stress  has  been 
 laid,  is  contained  in  that  very  remarkable 
 argument,  which  I  have  more  than  once 
 had  occasion  to  notice;  and  which  I  shall 
 not  dismiss  w^ithout  examination. 
 
 It  is  first  fully   allowed,  that   from  the 
 time  of  Justin  till  the  council  of  Nice,  the 
 
 writers 
 
(     S9T^      ) 
 
 writers  among  Christians,  the  rulers  of  the 
 church  and  the  learned  in  a:eneral  believed 
 in  the  divinity  of  Chrisf :  but,  the  com.non 
 people,  it  is  asserted,  during  the  whole  of 
 this  long  period,  and  even  after  it,  believed 
 Christ  to  have  been  a  mere  man :  and 
 thence  it  is  concluded,  that  Unitarianism 
 was  the  universal  religion  of  the  very  first 
 age  of  Christianity. 
 
 ,  An  hypothesis  so  contrary  to  general 
 experience  and  common  sense,  as  that  of 
 the  teachers  of  any  age  and  the  people 
 taught  entertaining  opposite  religious  opi- 
 nions, ought  to  be  supported  by  a  strongs 
 body  of  testimony  before  reasonable  and 
 unprejudiced  persons  can  bring  their  minds 
 even  to  doubt  on  the  subje6t.  The  pre- 
 sumptive evidence  which  Dr.  Priestley  has 
 stated  to  prove  the  common  people  of  the 
 second,  third  and  fourth  centuries  Unita- 
 rians, while  the  writers  were  Trinitarians, 
 is  this. 
 
 1.  There  was  no  creed  or  formulary  of 
 faith  to  prevent  Unitarians  from  commu- 
 nion with  what  was  called  the  catholic 
 church :  the  Apostle's  creed  containing  "  no 
 
 article 
 
 *  Hist,  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  3.  c.  xiii.  p.  235. 
 
(     39'^     ) 
 
 article  that  could  exclude  Unitarians  ^•." 
 This,  though  it  is  not  easy  to  see  why,  is 
 thought  a  reason  for  supposing  them  the 
 majority  of  Christians. 
 
 2.  "  The  very  circumstance  of  the  Uni- 
 tarian Gentiles  having  no  separate  name 
 is,  of  itself,  a  proof  that  they  had  no 
 separate  assemblies,  and  v^ere  not  distin- 
 guished from  the  common  mass  of  Chris- 
 tians *".'*  This  circumstance  is  also  tlioudit 
 to  be  a  proof  that  they  were  the  majority 
 of  Christians -f. 
 
 3.  "  Another  ground  of  presumption 
 that  the  Unitarians  were  not  considered  as 
 heretics,  or  indeed  in  any  obnoxious  light, 
 and  consequently  of  their  being  in  very 
 great  numbers  in  early  times,  is,  that  no 
 treatises  were  witten  against  them." — 
 "  They  were  first  mentioned  without  any 
 censure  at  all,  afterwards  with  very  little ; 
 and  no  treatise  ivas  ivritten  expressly  against 
 them  before  TertidliaJi' s  against  Praxeas." 
 ^^  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  about  the  year 
 170,  wrote  against  heresies,  but  only  his 
 Book  against  Marcion  is  mentioned  by 
 Eusebius  X-"     "  He  also   mentions  many 
 
 of 
 *  P.  2^7.  i  P.  241.  X  Hist.  L.  4.  c.  xx»v. 
 
(     293     ) 
 
 of  the  works  of  Melito,  bishop  of  Sardis, 
 but  none  of  them  were  against  Unitarians*. 
 Rhodon,  he  also  says,  wrote  against  the 
 Marcionites -f*.  We  have  also  the  first 
 Book  of  a  large  work  of  Origen's  against 
 heresy,  and  —  he  had  no  view  to  any 
 besides  Gnostics.  Can  it  be  doubted  then, 
 that  there  would  have  been  treatises  writ- 
 ten expressly  against  the  Unitarians  long 
 before  the  time  of  Tertullian,  if  the}^  had 
 been  considered  in  any  obnoxious  light,  or 
 had  not  been  a  very  great  majority  of  the 
 Christian  world  J  ?^' 
 
 "The  Apostle  John  —  never  censures 
 them"  (the  Unitarians).  "  I  observed  the 
 .same  with .  respect  to  Hegesippus,  Justin 
 Martyr,  and  Clemens  Alexandrinus.  I  now 
 find  the  same  to  be  true  of  Polycarp  and 
 Ignatius,  and  that  even  Irenceus,  Tertullian 
 and  Origen  did  not  treat  the  Unitarians  as 
 heretics  \\." 
 
 4.  In  the  forgeries  under  the  name  of 
 the  Clementine  Homilies  and  Recognitions, 
 in  which  Unitarian  doctrines  are  put  into 
 
 the 
 *  L.  4.  c  xxvi.  f  L.  5.  c.  xiii. 
 
 X  p.  252,  253.  Anno  1786. 
 
 II  Letters  to  Dr.  Horsley,  P^.  2.  p.  47.  Anno  17S4. 
 
 D  D   D 
 
(     394     ) 
 
 the  mouths  of  St.  Peter  and  Clement,  no 
 mention  is  made  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
 personification  of  the  logos.  This  is  thought 
 to  be  an  argument,  that  this  doctrine, 
 which  made  a  principal  part  of  the  ortho- 
 doxy of  the  subsequent  period,  had  made 
 but  little  progress  when  this  book  was 
 written :  which,  as  some  think,  was  about 
 the  middle  of  the  second  century*. 
 
 II.  This  is  the  whole  of  what  has  been 
 termed  the  "  presumptive  evidence  that  the 
 majority  of  the  Gentile  Christians  in  the 
 early  ages  were  Unitarians.''  I  will  not 
 inquire,  whether  Unitarians  of  the  second 
 and  third  centuries,  who  believed  Christ 
 to  have  been  a  mere  man,  born  of  human 
 parents,  would  be  excluded  from  the  com- 
 munion of  other  Christians  by  a  creed,  in 
 which  Jesus  Christ  was  declared  to  be  the 
 only  son  of  God,  "  who  was  conceived  by 
 the  Holy  Ghost,  and  born  of  the  Virgin 
 Mary;"  because,  if  it  should  appear,  that 
 they  were  a6iually  considered  as  heretics, 
 it  is  a  matter  of  indifference,  whether  this 
 was  cfFe6led  by  means  of  a  written  creed, 
 or  without  one. 
 
 Nor 
 
 *  Hist,  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  3.  p.  254. 
 
^  (     S95     ) 
 
 Nor  will  it  be  necessary  to  examine  the 
 Clementines,  in  order  to  discover  whether 
 the  Trinitarian  do6lrine  be  ever  alluded  to 
 in  them ;  because  we  have  better  evidence 
 of  the  existence  and  universal  prevalence 
 of  that  doarine  in  the  Christian  churches, 
 than  can  be  derived  from  a  single  forgery 
 of  an  uncertain  age,  and  by  a  unknown 
 author.  On  this  subject,  however,  we 
 may  just  notice  one  instance  of  the  ambi- 
 dextrous management,  with  which  Dr. 
 Priestley  conducts  his  historical  inquiries. 
 All  his  readers  must  have  noticed  a  very 
 remarkable  use,  to  which  he  has  turned 
 the  neo-ative  argument,  in  different  parts 
 of  his  history  of  early  Opinions,  and  in 
 some  of  his  other  controversial  writings. 
 Neither  St.  John,  he  has  affirmed,  nor 
 Ignatius  nor  Polycarp  censured  Unitarians 
 in  their  writings  :  and  Gentile  Unitarians, 
 he  contends,  were  not  publicly  and  direclly 
 censured  till  the  end  of  the  second  century 
 by  TertuUian.  From  this  supposed  sile7ice 
 of  the  first  Christian  writers  on  the  subject 
 of  Unitarianism  he  concludes,  that  St.  John, 
 Ignatius  and  Polycarp,  (though,  in  Igna- 
 tius, Christ  is  frequently  called  God) 
 together  with   all  the   Christians  of  their 
 
 D  D  D  2  age. 
 
(      S9^     ) 
 
 age,  except  Gnostics,  were  Unitarians,  and 
 that  the  great  body  of  the  Christian  peo- 
 ple through  the  whole  of  the  second  century 
 continued  in  the  profession  of  the  same 
 faith  :  but,  when  he  comes  to  consider  the 
 silence  respecting  Trinitarian  opinions  in 
 the  Clementine  homilies,  he  draws  an  op- 
 posite conclusion,  and  is  disposed  to  infer, 
 that  these  opinions  are  not  noticed,  because 
 they  "had  made  but  little  progress*." 
 
 III.  It  is  asserted  that  the  Unitarian 
 Gentiles  had  no  separate  name,  that  Uni- 
 tarians were  not  censured  by  St.  John, 
 Polycarp,  Ignatius,  Hegesippus,  or  Clemens 
 Alexandrinus;  and  "that  even  Irenseus, 
 Tertuliian  and  Origen  did  not  treat  them 
 as  heretics."  The  circumstance  of  Uni- 
 tarians being  distinguished  by  no  particular 
 name,  and  having  *'  no  treatises  written 
 against  them,"  is  thought  to  be  a  pre- 
 sumptive 
 
 *  "  What  is  particularly  remarkable  relating  to  this 
 work  is,  that,  —  it  contains  no  mention  ot  that  doc'^trine, 
 which  made  .so  great  a  figure  afterwards,  and  which  in 
 time  bore  down  all  before  it,  viz.  that  of  the  personifica- 
 tion of  the  logos.  No  person,  I  should  think,  could  peruse 
 that  work  with  care,  without  concluding,  that  the  ortho- 
 doxy of  the  subsequent  period  had  made  but  little  pro- 
 gjess  then."     Hist,  of  early  Opinions,  \'ol,  3.  p.  25^. 
 
(     397     ) 
 
 sumptive  argument,  that  they  \yere  not 
 considered  as  heretics,  not  separated  from 
 the  church,  and  consequently  of  '^  their 
 being  in  very  great  numbers  in  early 
 times." 
 
 In  the  year  1784  Dn  Priestley  asserted, 
 that  Tertullian  and  Origen  had  not  treated 
 Unitarians  as  Heretics;  in  the  year  1786 
 he  affirmed,  that  Tertullian  was  the  first 
 person  who  wrote  expressly  against  them, 
 in  a  treatise,  where  they  are  several  times 
 called  heretics,  and  treated  with  extra- 
 ordinary severity;  and  after  having  re- 
 peatedly denied,  that  Iren^us  (a.  d.  170) 
 had  considered  the  Ebionites  as  heretics, 
 he  at  last,  in  the  year  1789,  retreated 
 from  this  ground ;  and  acknowledged,  that 
 Bp.  Horsley  had  produced  a  passage,  in 
 which  Irenaeus  calls  them  heretics,  and 
 which  he  had  overlooked  *". 
 
 The  origin  of  the  Carpocratians,  Cerin- 
 thians  and  Ebionites,  (including  under  this 
 name  two  or  three  petty  se6ls  of  Jewish 
 Christians,  as  Origen  seems  to  have  done,) 
 is  placed  by  all  the  ancient  historians, 
 who  have  treated  on  the  subje6l  of  their 
 
 antiquity, 
 
 *  Letters  to  the  Bibhop  of  St.  David's,  F.  3d.  p.  32. 
 
(     398     ) 
 
 antiquity,   at  tlie  end  of  the  first,  or  tlie 
 beginning  of  the  second  century.      I  have 
 mentioned  the  Cerinthians ;  because  they 
 are  sometimes,    though  improperly,  con- 
 sidered  as    Unitarians.     No  testimony  of 
 any    writer    of  credit,    or,     I    believe,    of 
 any  ancient   writer  whatever,  can  be  pro- 
 duced, in    which  any  Unitarians  are  said 
 to   have  existed  before  these    se6is.      St. 
 John     wrote     his     Epistles     and     Gospel 
 either   a   few   years    before,  or   after   the 
 appearance  of  the   Ebionites ;   and   it   has 
 been    a  very   common   opinion    from    the 
 time  of   Irenaeus  to  this  day,  that  he,   as 
 well  as    Ignatius,  indire6lly  attacked  their 
 opinions.    And  as  far  as  teaching  a  doctrine 
 opposite  to  theirs  miay  be  called  opposing 
 their  opinions,  so  far  St.  John  in  his  Gos- 
 pel, and  Ignatius,  will  be  generally  allowed 
 to  have  written  against  the  Ebionites :  but 
 whether  they  had  these  sedtaries  in  view, 
 when  their  books  were  composed,  is  very 
 doubtful :     and    it    is    a    question,   which 
 almost  equally  admits  of  dispute,  whether 
 any  of  them  existed  before  the  death  of  the 
 Ajwstle.      Some  of  the  first  Christian  wri- 
 ters, however,   after  Ignatius,  wrote  pro- 
 fessedly  against    heresies :     none   of   the 
 .surviving    works    of  Justin    are    on   this 
 
 subje6t : 
 
(      S99     ) 
 
 subje6l :  the  work,  which,  he  informs  us  *, 
 he  wrote  against  all  heresies,  is  unfor- 
 tunately lost :  but  we  know,  that  the  se6ts 
 of  Jewish  Christians,  who  believed  in  the 
 simple  humanity  of  Christ,  were  attacked 
 in  it.  On  the  testimony  of  Eusebius 
 Dr.  Priestley  very  reasonably  admits,  that 
 Theophih.is  of  Antioch,  and  Rhodon  wrote 
 against  the  Marcionites ;  and,  on  the  au- 
 thority of  Theodoret,  we  are  also  compelled 
 to  conclude,  that  Justin,  (a.  d.  140)  in  his 
 work  on  heresies,  censured  the  se6ts  of 
 Nazarasans  and  Ebionites  -f .  To  the  Car- 
 pocratian,  Nazaraean  and  Ebionaean  Uni- 
 tarians, I  know  not  whether  the  Ophites 
 or  Sethians  of  Adrian's  time,  are  to  be 
 added:  but,  excepting  these,  there  are  no 
 discoverable  traces  of  any  individual  be- 
 lieving in  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ 
 before  the  end  of  the  second  century,  when 
 the  Alogi  appeared.  The  Carpocratians 
 were  Gentile   Christians];    (for   we  must 
 
 not 
 
 *  Eusebius  Hist.  L.  4.  c.  11. 
 
 ■j"  Kara    TyTwii     <7vtiypci,^iv   larii'o;    o    (ptXoyo^o;    y.cct  ^x^rvt;   y.xi 
 
 Haer.  Fgb.  L.  2.  c.  ii. 
 
 +  They  reje6led  the  law  of  Moses,  see  Epiphanius,  p. 
 53,  Ed.  Petav.  Colon.  1682. 
 
(     4^0     ) 
 
 not  bs  led  by  an  erroneous  interpreta- 
 tion of  Hegesippus  by  Valesius*  to  think 
 them  Jews)  and  though  Carpocrates  him-^ 
 self  perhaps  lived  in  the  first  century,  his 
 followers  acquired  no  distinclion  till  the 
 time  of  Adrian,  when  the  abilities  of  his 
 son  brought  them  into  notice.  Soon  after 
 this,  in  the  very  first  work  of  Christian 
 antiquity  on  the  subject  of  heresies  -f-, 
 which  has  come  down  to  us,  the  Ebionites, 
 Carpocratians,  Cerinthians  and  Sethians 
 are  classed  among  heretics,  and  censured 
 with  great  severity.  In  this  work  the 
 Carpocratians  are  placed  in  chronological 
 order  before  the  others. 
 
 A  small  fragment  of  the  first  Christian 
 historian,  who  was  contemporary  with 
 Ireneeus,  is  preserved  in  Eusebius :  and  in 
 this  also  the  first  Gentile  Unitarians,  the 
 Carpocratians,  are  ranked  among  heretics. 
 This  writer,  it  appears,  while  treating  on 
 the  church  of  Jerusalem,  was  led  by  his 
 subje6l  to  mention  the  original  stocks  of 
 the  heresies,  which  prevailed  in  his  own 
 time,  and  by  which  the  Christian  church, 
 
 had 
 
 *  Euseb.  Hist.  L.  4.  c.  xxii. 
 t  Irenaeus. 
 
i  401  ) 
 
 had  been  disunited.  As  his  work  was  not 
 professedly  written  on  the  subjed  of  here- 
 sies, and  as  his  only  purpose  was  to  give 
 some  account  of  their  origin  *,  without 
 entering  on  the  subjed  at  large,  like 
 Iren?eus,  he  has  only  mentioned  the  Car-^, 
 pocratian  Unitarians,  and  has  left  it  to 
 other  authors  to  trace  out  the  variations, 
 which  their  do6lrine  received,  in  the  suc- 
 ceeding se6ls  of  Cerinthians  and  Ebionites. 
 Though  the  Carpocratians  are  found  in  his 
 short  catalogue,  in  which  only  eleven  se6ls' 
 are  mentioned.  Dr.  Priestley  has  affirmed, 
 that  "  Hegesippus,  the  first  Christian  his- 
 torian, enumerating  the  heresies  of  his 
 time,  mentions  several  of  the  Gnostic 
 kind,  but,  7iot  that  of  Christ  being  a  mere 
 man  -f /' 
 
 The  gradations,  through  which  Dr. 
 Priestley  relu6lantly  descended  on  the 
 subje6l  of  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus,  de- 
 serve also  to  be  noticed. 
 
 1.   He  affirmed,  that  Unitarians  in  ge- 
 neral were  not  censured  as  heretics  by  this 
 
 writer. 
 
 *  Toil  YMT    avrov  at^E<rta»  ra?  «?x*^*      Euseb.   Hist.   Jj.   4* 
 c.  xxii. 
 
 t  Hist,  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  4.  p.  307. 
 
 E  E  E 
 
(        402        ) 
 
 writer.  — "  Ireiiaeus,  Tertullian  and  Origen 
 did  not  treat  the  Unitarians  as  heretics  */' 
 
 2.  He  asserted  of  the  Ebionites  in  par- 
 ticular, that  Irenceus  had  indeed  expressed 
 some  dislike  of  their  do61rine,  but,  that 
 he  had  not  treated  them  as  heretics.  — 
 "  I  have  observed  that  Tertullian  is  the 
 first  Christian  writer  who  expressly  calls 
 the  Ebionites  heretics,  Irenasus,  in  his 
 large  treatise  concerning  heresy,  expresses 
 great  dislike  of  their  do6inne ;  but,  he 
 never  confounds  them  with  the  heretics  "i'/' 
 
 3.  "  Irenasus's  treatise  against  heresy 
 shews,  that  tlie  Gnostics  only  were  con- 
 sidered as  coming  under  that  description. 
 The  Ebionites  indeed  are  censured  in  it, 
 but  no  mention  is  made  of  the  Gentile 
 Unitarians  J." 
 
 4.  "  In  one  passage  however  ^'ow  thmk, 
 that  it  does  appear  that  he  must  have 
 considered  them    (the  Ebionites)  in  that 
 
 light 
 
 *  Lett,  to  Dr.  Horsley,  ?'.  2.  p.  47. 
 
 **  The  whole  of  this  account  is  inconsistent  with  Ter- 
 tuUian's  considerincj  Unitarians  as  Heretics."  Hist,  of 
 early  Opinions,  Vol.  i.  p.  289. 
 
 t  Hist,  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  3.  p.  201. 
 
 :j:  Vol.  3.  p.  252. 
 
(      403      ) 
 
 light    (i.   e.    as   heretics):  but,  admitting 
 this,  &c*." 
 
 5.  "  I  further  added,  that,  if  there  was 
 any  other  passage,  in  which  Irenasus  called 
 the  Ebionites  heretics,  I  had  overlooked 
 it.  Such  a  passage,  however,  your  Lord- 
 ship now  produces,  p.  455,  for  among 
 other  heretics  he  there  enumerates  the 
 Ebionites -f/'  "  But,  this  is  of  no  conse- 
 quence to  my  argument,  &c."  —  To  have 
 been  consistent  with  himself,  Irenaeus  ought 
 not  to  have  considered  the  Ebionites  as 
 heretics  J." 
 
 After  holding  out  so  long,  and  surren- 
 dering with  but  an  ill  grace,  it  might 
 seem,  that  the  reason,  why  the  Ebionites 
 were  considered  as  heretics  in  an  early  age 
 was  not  very  obvious.  How  surprized  are 
 we  then  at  the  next  step ! 
 
 6.  "  There  is  an  evident  reaso7i,  why 
 the  Ebionites  were  pretty  soon  considered 
 as  heretics II''  —  "and  a  reason  which  did 
 
 not 
 
 *  Letter  to  Parkhurst,  p.  179, 
 
 t  Letters  to  the  Lord  KisKop  of  St,  David's,  p.  32. 
 
 +  !<!•  P-  35- 
 
 II  Id'  P-  2Z' 
 
 E  B  E  2 
 
(     404     ) 
 
 not  affe6l  the  Unitarians  araons:  the  Gen^ 
 tiles.  For  the  Jewish  Christians,  on  ac- 
 count of  their  using  a  different  language, 
 held  separate  assemblies  from  those  who 
 used  the  Greek  tongue  ;  and  besides  Jerom 
 expressly  says,  they  were  deemed  heretics 
 071  ly  on  the  account  of  their  attachment  to 
 the  institutions  of  Moses." — The  obje6lion 
 from  Jerom  has  been  long  since  answered 
 by  Dr.  Horsley,  and  it  is  clear,  that 
 Irenaeus  deemed  the  Ebionites  heretics  for 
 receiving  only  one  Gospel,  for  considering 
 Christ  as  a  mere  man,  and  for  insisting 
 on  the  necessity  of  observing  the  Mosaic 
 ritual. 
 
 7.  Dr.  Priestley  still  maintains,  that 
 "  Irenctus  makes  no  mention  of  any  Gen- 
 tile Unitarians  in  his  works  against  heres}^ 
 but  only  of  the  Ebionites  *:"  but,  at  some 
 future  period,  after  taking  a  few  more 
 steps,  he  will  perhaps  grant,  that  the  Car- 
 pocratians  were  not  Jews,  that  they  are 
 the  only  Gentile  Unitarians  of  whose  ex-' 
 istence  in  the  beginning  of  the  second 
 century  we  have  any  evidence,  and  that 
 they  are  very  severely  censured  by  Irensus, 
 and  ranked  by  him  among  heretics  in  a 
 
 treatise 
 
 *  Hist,  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  3.  p.  291. 
 
(     405     ) 
 
 treatise  written  professedly  on  the  subje6^ 
 of  heresy. 
 
 IV.  Dr.  Priestley  has  imagined  a  body 
 of  Unitarians  long  before  the  time  of 
 Theodotus  (a.  d.  190),  to  whom  Epi- 
 phaniLis,  at  last  gave  the  appellation  of 
 Alogi:  and,  as  they  were  not  marked  by 
 any  distinguishing  title  by  any  preced- 
 ing writer,  he  concludes,  that  they  were 
 not  considered  as  heretics,  and  there-^ 
 fore,  that  they  must  have  formed  the  majo^ 
 rity  of  Christians.  This  is  his  favourite 
 use  of  the  negative  argument:  if  ever  he 
 can  discover  a  period,  in  which  no  men- 
 tion is  made  of  Unitarians  ;  in  that  period 
 he  sets  them  down  at  once  as  the  majority 
 of  Christians.  This  argument  w^as  how- 
 ever turned  the  other  way  by  Dr.  Lardner, 
 on  this  very  same  subject :  from  the  silence 
 of  Irenaeus,  Eusebius  and  all  other  ancient 
 writers  before  Philaster  and  Epiphanius, 
 respe6ling  the  Alogi,  he  concluded  that 
 they  had  no  existence*.     There  was  no 
 
 reason 
 
 *"  It  is  time  to  deliver  my  own  opinion,  which  is,  that 
 
 this  is  a  fiftitious  heresy.  —  There  is  not  any  notice  taken 
 
 of  them  in  Irenasus,  Eusebius,  or  any  other  ancient  writer 
 
 before  Philastei  and  Epiphanius."     Hist,  of  Heretics, 
 
 B.  2.  c.  xxiii.  §  2, 
 
C    40^    ) 
 
 reason  for  Lardner  to  suppose  that  these 
 two  writers  had  dealt  in  fidlion  :  for  it  is 
 not  a  heresy,  which  was  ancient  about 
 A.  D.  190,  that  Epiphanius  has  described 
 under  the  title  of  Alogi,  but  a  se6t  which 
 sprang  into  existence  under  different 
 leaders  (who,  with  their  respe61ive  fol- 
 lowers, are  classed  together  by  Epiphanius 
 under  this  general  name)  about  a.  d.  190. 
 They  are  not  indeed  in  the  catalogue  of 
 Irenaeus,  because  they  had  not  appeared 
 when  he  wrote ;  but,  they  are  very  fully 
 described  in  Eusebius,  though  they  were 
 not  known,  in  his  time,  under  a 
 more  general  appellation  than  that  of  the 
 Artemonites. 
 
 Towards  the  end  of  the  second  century, 
 several  Unitarian  teachers  appeared,  who 
 maintained  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ, 
 and  denied  the  eternity  of  his  existence  as 
 the  Xoyog  of  the  Father.  An  anonymous 
 writer  (supposed  to  be  Caius)  quoted  by 
 Eusebius,  appears  to  have  considered  The- 
 odotus  as  the  first  of  these  *.  Theodoret 
 seems     to    have    placed    Artemon    before 
 
 him: 
 
 *  See  Euscb.  Hist.  L.  5.  c.  28. 
 
{     407     ) 
 
 him*:  and  it  is  still  a  petty  subje6!:  of 
 dispute,  to  which  leader  the  origin  of  this 
 se6l  is  to  be  ascribed.  Whether  Artemon, 
 or  Theodotus,  or  Asclepiades,  or  Hcrmo- 
 philus,  or  Apollonius  first  began  to  teach 
 the  Unitarian  do6lrine  towards  the  end  of 
 tiie  second  century,  is  a  question  which 
 perhaps  cannot,  and  certainly  needs  not 
 be  decided.  Epiphanius,  it  should  seem, 
 like  other  writers,  considered  them  all  as 
 living  about  the  same  time;  but  he  has 
 not  placed  Theodotus  first :  he  has  given  a 
 general  description  of  the  whole  body  of 
 the  Alogi,  which  consisted  of  several  parts ; 
 and  as  the  Artemonites,  who  make  so 
 conspicuous  a  figure  in  the  ancient  history 
 of  the  church,  are  not  mentioned  in  his 
 catalogue,  they  must  be  considered  as  in- 
 cluded under  the  more  extensive  title  of 
 the  Alogi,  and  his  suffrage  is  perhaps 
 iiidire6lly  given  to  the  precedence  of  Arte- 
 mon before  Theodotus ;  w^ho  is  described 
 by  him  as  an  oc7ro(r7roccry.cc  of  the  Alogi -j-. 
 
 However 
 
 *  Theodoret.  Haer.  Fab.  L.  2.  c.  iv,  v: 
 53-  §  I- 
 
(     4oS     ) 
 
 However  tliis  may  be,  that  tlie  wliole 
 heresy  of  the  Alogi  arose  about  the  ai^e 
 of  Theodotus,  and  not  in  any  early  period, 
 as  Dr.  Priestley  supposes,  may  be  proved 
 with  the  utmost  certainty.  Montanus,  the 
 father  of  the  Cataphrygian  heresy,  began 
 his  prophecies,  a.  d.  171,  or  173.  In  fix- 
 ing on  this  date,  learned  moderns,  as 
 Lardner  has  observed,  have  generally  sub- 
 mitted to  the  authority  of  Eusebius  *. 
 Pearson  and  Beausobre  have  followed  Epi- 
 phanius,  who  says  that  Montanus  set  up 
 his  pretensions  in  the  19th  year  of  Anto- 
 ninus Pius,  i.  e.  A.  D.  i^^'f.  Lardner  has 
 mentioned  only  one  modern  writer,  (Bar- 
 ratier)  who  has  imagined,  that  Montanus 
 appeared  as  early  as  a.  d.  126, 
 
 Out  of  his  se6l  grew  another,  that  of 
 the  Ouintilians  X  '  which  was  follozved  by 
 a  third,  whose  tenets  were  composed  of 
 the  errors  of  both,  to  which  the  name  of 
 Quartodecimans    (^Teo-(ra.^s(nccci^£KXTiTui)    was 
 
 given. 
 
 *  Euseb.  Chronicon.  Ann.    ii.    Marc.  Antonin.    et 
 Hist.  Ecclcs.  L.  4.  c.  xxvii. 
 
 f  Epiph.  Hicr.  48.  §  I. 
 
 4|  (XVTVt  oefAuy.tm.       Epiph,  Hxi.   49.   §   I, 
 
(     409     ) 
 
 given  *.  And  at  last  "  sprang  up  in  order 
 after"  the  Phrygian,  Ouintilian  and  Ouar- 
 todeciman  heresies,  the  se6l  of  the  Aloo-i-f. 
 
 If  we  allow  only  a  very  few  years  to 
 have  intervened  between  these  se6ls,  as 
 they  successively  arose,  we  cannot,  on  any 
 reasonable  supposition,  place  the  origin  of 
 the  Alogi  long  before  the  year  190. 
 It  is  more  probable  that  they  appeared 
 very  soon  after  that  year  than  much  before 
 it:  and  thus  the  hypothesis  of  Dr.  Priest- 
 ley on  the  antiquity  of  the  Alogi,  which 
 rests  solely  on  the  testimony  of  Epipha- 
 nius,  is  compleatly  destroyed  by  the  very 
 writer,  who  was  imagined  to  have  given 
 it  his  support. 
 
 t  V.  From  the  time  of  Justin  (the  first 
 father,  the  genuineness  and  purity  of 
 whose  writings  Dr.  Priestley  has  admit- 
 ted :  for  he  supposes  even  the  Epistle 
 of  Clemens  Romanus   corrupted)   to  Ter- 
 
 tuUian, 
 
 T£  Ka»  Kf..r.AA.«:a;v,    ocvik-j-\,i  i^ccXiv   Tu  Kocri^u  eti^cc  ui^ia-i<;  Tiali^i;-^ 
 xeciuiKumuvy  UT^i  >ca,>,8fji.ivv.       Ha^r.  50.  S   I. 
 
 ^nj  ui^iiTii  tTB^ct.     Ha-r  51.  §  1. 
 
 F   F   F 
 
(     410     ) 
 
 tullian,  Unitarians  were  classed  among: 
 heretics.  Clemens  Alexandrinus  (a.  d. 
 180)  wrote  no  treatise  professedly  against 
 them,  but  he  has  incidentally  noticed 
 the  Carpocratian  heresy  *,  and  some 
 are  of  opinion,  that  he  has  also  men- 
 tioned the  Ebionites  under  the  title  of 
 the  Peratic  heresy,  among  a  few  other 
 sedis  whose  names  he  has  introduced  in 
 in  the  seventh  Book  of  his  Stromata.  This, 
 however,  is  questionable  :  the  nsoocnzoi  of 
 Clemens  are  perhaps  the  same  with  the 
 Ub^utxi  of  Theodoret  -f, 
 
 Whether  this  be  so,  or  not,  Clemens 
 excluded  all,  who  were  not  believers  in  the 
 divinity  of  Christ  and  Trinitarians,  from 
 the  church.  He  affirms  that  there  is  but 
 one  true  church,  for  whose  superior  anti- 
 quity he  contends  X  :  the  opinions  of  th« 
 church  were  his  own  :  and  '*  he  not  only 
 mentions  three  divine  persons,  but  invokes 
 them  as  one  only  God 
 
 The 
 
 *  H  Tfc.»  Kap7roze&Tiaw»  dt^sa;.     Strom,  L.  3.  sub  initio, 
 t  Har.  Fab.  L,  i.  Har.  17. 
 
 7y.'^  ly.yJxs^iacy  rr.f  Tu  o»Tt  a^yxiott.       Strom.  L    "J",  prop.  fin. 
 
 jl  P.Tpdn'r.  L.  I.  c.  viii.  and  L.  3.  c.  xii.     vSee  Du  Pin 
 on  Clemens  Ale.\'. 
 
(     411     ) 
 
 The  age  of  Tertullian  is  memorable  for 
 
 the  appearance  of  two  opposite  systems  of 
 
 Unitarianism,  in  one  of  which  Christ  was 
 
 debased  to  a  mere  human  being,  while  the 
 
 professors   of  the   other   studied   to  exalt 
 
 his  nature  to  a  perfect  identity,  in  person 
 
 as  well  as  substance,  with  God  the  Father. 
 
 That  the  first  of  these  systems    was  the 
 
 popular,  and  the  second  the  philosophical 
 
 Unitarianism  of  antiquity  is  a  mere  dream 
 
 of    Dr.    Priestley's,    unsupported   by   the 
 
 slightest   evidence.       It    appears,  on   the 
 
 contrary,  that  the  latter  was   beyond   all 
 
 comparison,  the  more  popular  scheme  of 
 
 the   two,    and   that   they   were   only   the 
 
 advocates  of  the  former,  who  were  accused 
 
 of  philosophizing  *. 
 
 At  Byzantium  Theodotus  contended  for 
 the  simple  humanity  of  Christ  about  a.  d. 
 igo.  Artemon  advanced  the  same  doc- 
 trine a  little  before,  or  after  Theodotus  : 
 several  other  teachers  appeared  about  the 
 same  time,  agreeing  altogether,  or  in  part 
 at  least,  with  these  two  Unitarian  leaders. 
 
 The 
 
 *Hoc  cacteris  observatu  dignius  est,  quod  Theodotiani 
 sen  Artemonitae  Fhilosophiae  ac  Geometrije  magnum 
 statuisse  pretium,  inimo  majus  quam  sacri  codicis  et 
 religionis  dignitas  ferebat,  Mosheim  de  Keb.  ante 
 Constant,  p.  430. 
 
 F  F  F   3 
 
C    412    ) 
 
 The  instant  that  the  opinions  of  these 
 Alogi  were  published,  they  were  treated 
 as  heretics:  Theodotus  was  excommuni- 
 cated by  Vidlor,  the  doctrines  of  the  whole 
 se6l  were  exposed  by  a  writer  quoted  by 
 Euscbius,  and  they  appear  to  have  been 
 actually  extinguished  for  a  considerable 
 time-f-  ;  since  no  trace  of  them  can  be 
 discovered  for  some  years,  and  since  Paul 
 of  Samosata  is  said  to  have  revived  their 
 heresy  in  the  latter  part  of  the  third 
 century  *f . 
 
 Praxeas  had  no  sooner  "begun  to  preach 
 his  Unitarian  do6trines  at  Carthage,  which 
 are  represented  by  contemporary  writers 
 as  totally  different  from  those  of  Theodo- 
 tus and  Artemon,  than  he  was  refuted,  by 
 Tertullian  as  it  is  commonly  supposed, 
 and  obliged  to  sign  a  recantation,  which 
 was  preserved  by  the  ruling  members  of 
 the  church:  and  the  *' aveuce  Praxeanae" 
 seemed  to  be  entirely  eradicated  X.  The 
 treatise  which  he  afterwards  wrote  against 
 
 the 
 
 *  Paiica  dc  liis  se^^is,  quae  ci'to  periissc  vidcntur,  memo- 
 riae prodita  sunt,  Moshcim  de  Reo.  ante  Constant,  p.  430. 
 
 "t  Teruv  tv    rivoq  cTrHOxa-fAcc-rt  xocra.  t»)?  AgT£//ft.cc?  ui^tc-Buii;  /miT^oir,- 
 
 ^ccTui.     Euseb.  Hist.  L.  5.  c.  xxviii. 
 
 .t  Vid.  Tertull.  adv.  Praxeam  sub  initio. 
 
(     413     ) 
 
 the  Praxeanites  is  still  extant ;  and  we 
 may  judge  of  its  efFe6l  by  the  orthodoxy 
 of  the  Carthaginian  church  some  years 
 after  his  death:  where  Cyprian,  his  ad- 
 mirer and  follower,  ruled  with  uncontrouled 
 sway.  —  Tertullian,  in  other  parts  of  his 
 works,  speaks  also  of  the  Ebionites  as 
 heretics,  —  Ebionis  Haeresis  est*,  et  eos 
 in  Epistola  (Johannes)  maximeAntichristos 
 vocat,  qui  Christum  negarent  in  carne  non 
 venisse,  et  qui  non  putarent  Jesum  filium 
 Dei :  illud  Marcion,  hoc  Hebion  vindicavit. 
 
 From  the  pertinacity  with  which  it  was 
 for  some  time  maintained,  that  Unitarians 
 were  not  reckoned  heretics  in  the  second 
 century,  it  might  be  imagined,  that  this 
 is  a  question,  which  requires  learning  and 
 critical  skill  to  decide.  To  any  one,  who 
 has  looked  into  Irenseus,  it  is  just  such  a 
 critical  question  as  to  determine,  whether 
 Dr.  Priestley,  in  his  Biographical  Chart, 
 has  ranked  Bacon  and  Newton  among 
 Philosophers.  It  is  not  however  very  diffi- 
 cult to  account  for  Dr.  Priestley's  reluc- 
 tance to  concede  this  point  to  his  adversaries. 
 For,  after  it  is  once  granted,  that  Unita- 
 rians w^ere  ranked   among  heretics  in  the 
 
 second 
 
 *Pra:scrip.  adv.  Haer.  p.  ng.  Ed.  Basil.  1539. 
 
(      4H     ) 
 
 second  and  third  centuries,  particularly 
 by  Tertullian,  it  follows  that,  so  far  from 
 forming  the  great  body  of  Christians,  they 
 bore  only  a  small  proportion  to  those,  who 
 were  separated  from  the  church  :  since 
 the  same  Tertullian,  who  esteems  Unita- 
 rianism  heretical,  declares  the  Valentinians 
 the  most  numerous  body  of  heretics  *. 
 
 VI.  Upon  the  whole,  it  appears  from 
 history,  that  a  few  individuals  first  appeared 
 at  the  end  of  the  first,  or  the  beginning 
 of  the  second  century,  who  insisted  on  the 
 simple  humanity  of  Christ.  Against  these 
 some  passages  in  the  writings  of  the  Apos- 
 tle John  and  Ignatius  have  been  very 
 commonly  supposed  to  be  dire6led  :  but 
 this,  it  must  be  allowed,  is  rather  doubtful: 
 and  it  is  certain,  that  they  are  less  fre- 
 quently and  less  strongly  censured  than 
 the  Gnostics.  The  reason  is  obvious. 
 If  they  were  in  existence  at  the  end  of 
 the  first  century,  they  must,  at  any  rate, 
 liave  been  few  in  number,  obscure,  and 
 despised:  whereas  the  Gnostics  had  flou- 
 rished for  some  lime,  and  were  numerous, 
 
 proud 
 
 *  V^alcntiniani  frcqiicntlssinuim  plane  collegium  inter 
 hacreticos,  Tertuli.  adv.  Valentinianos  initio. 
 
(     415     ) 
 
 proud  and  insolent.  Unitarians,  liowever, 
 increased  in  the  beginning  of  the  second 
 century,  and  Justin  Martyr,  perhaps  about 
 half  a  century  after  their  very  first  appear- 
 ance, wrote  against  tlie  Ebionites  ;  as  we 
 are  informed  by  Theodoret.  Soon  after 
 his  time,  Hegesippus  a.  d.  170,  wrote 
 against  the  Carpocratian  Unitarians  ;  whom 
 we  find  mentioned  in  his  short  catalogue 
 of  heresies.  And  Irenseus  his  contempo- 
 rary, though  he  wrote  immediately  against 
 the  Valentinians,  has  ranked  Ebionites, 
 Carpocratians  and  Cerinthians  among  here- 
 tics :  and  their  belief  in  the  simple  huma- 
 nity of  Jesus  is  one  of  the  tenets  by  which 
 he  has  considered  them  all  as  distinguished 
 from  the  church.  About  the  year  190, 
 a  new  se6l  of  Unitarians  arose,  consisting 
 of  several  branches,  to  which  Epiphanius 
 has  given  the  name  of  Alogi,  from  their 
 denial  of  the  preexistence  of  Christ  as  the 
 word  of  God.  Theodotus  was  one  of  their 
 most  distinguished  leaders  :  but,  excom- 
 munication immediately  followed  the  pub- 
 lic declaration  of  his  sentiments :  their 
 pretensions  were  compleatly  refuted  by  a 
 writer  cited  in  Eusebius  ;  who  lived  about 
 A.  D.  212,  or  perhaps  220:  and  the  whole 
 
 se(5l 
 
(     4i6     ) 
 
 se6l  seems  to  have   suffered  a  temporary 
 extin6lion. 
 
 About  the  time  of  Theodotus,  or  rather 
 before  it*,  Praxeas,  an  Unitarian  of  a  very 
 different  description,  who,  hke  the  Swe- 
 denborgians  of  our  time,  maintained,  that 
 Christ  was  one,both  in  substance  and  person, 
 with  God  the  Father,  appeared  at  Rome. 
 As  he  had  distinguished  himself  by  detect- 
 ing the  errors  of  Montanus,  and  as  his 
 tenets  were  then  supposed  to  be  directly 
 opposite  to  that  system  of  opinions,  which, 
 in  modern  times,  has  been  known  under 
 the  name  of  Socinianism,  he  was  at  first 
 highly  encouraged  by  Vi6tor,  who  had 
 excommunicated  Theodotus *i\  He  appears 
 to  have  had  a  numerous  body  of  followers, 
 for  a  time,  at  Carthage  ;  but  his  do6lrines 
 
 were 
 
 *  See  Pagi  in  a.  d.  171. 
 
 t  Dr.  Priestley  has  employed  a  seflion  (Hist.  Vol.  3. 
 p.  ^03,  &c  )  to  prove,  in  opposition  to  the  writer  in  Euse- 
 bius,  that  Theodotus  was  not  exconiniunicatcd  for  assert- 
 ing the  sim|)le  humanity  of  Christ.  And  the  principal 
 reason,  wiiich  he  has  brought  to  overturn  one  lustorical 
 ia(E;t,   rests  on  the  perversion  of  another. 
 
 "  It  cannot  be  supposed,"  he  says,  "  that  Victor  would 
 liave  patronized  in  Praxeas  the  same  doctrine,  for 
 which  he  had  before  excommunicated  Theodotus." 
 IJndoubtedlv,  if  we  take  for  granted,  that  I'raxeas  and 
 'I'hfodolus  maintained  the  Atjwc  do6lrine,  we  cannotadmit, 
 though  history  informs  us  of  the  fa6t,  that  Vidor  patro- 
 nized the  one,  and  excommunicated  the  otlier. 
 
{    .417     ) 
 
 were  soon  reckoned  heretical,  and  a  vio- 
 lent treatise  was  written  against  his  se6t 
 by  TertuUian  about  a.  d.  205.  His  opi- 
 nions were  adopted,  with  little  variation,  in 
 the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  by 
 Noetus,  and  soon  after  by  Sabellius  :  from 
 whom  this  system  became  distinguished 
 by  the  name  of  Sabellianism  ;  a  title,  which 
 it  still  retains.  Under  every  change,  which 
 it  experienced,  and  by  whatever  name  it 
 was  known,  its  professors  were  treated  as 
 heretics :  though  some  members  of  the 
 church  in  the  third  century,  were  disposed 
 to  excuse  their  errors,  as  they  originated 
 from  a  desire  of  exalting  the  person  of 
 Christ  to  compleat  and  absolute  identity 
 with  God  the  Father,  instead  of  debasing 
 him  to  mere  humanity,  like  the  Ebionites, 
 Carpocratians  and  Artemonites.  It  has 
 lately  been  contended,  that  Unitarians 
 were    not    ranked   amon?  heretics    before 
 
 o 
 
 TertuUian,  that  they  had  no  distin5t  names, 
 that  no  treatises  were  written  against 
 them,  and  that  they  were  not  excluded 
 from  communion  Vv'ith  the  church,  and 
 thence  it  is  inferred,  that  they  formed  the 
 majority  of  Christians. 
 
 G  G  G  The 
 
(     4iS     ) 
 
 The  whole  of  this  representation  is   to- 
 tally inconsistent  with   history,  and  truth. 
 All  the  Unitarians  of  every  description,  of 
 whose  existence   we   have  any  intimation 
 in  the  second  century,   were  distinguished 
 by  names  annexed  to  their  several  se6ts : 
 treatises    were   written    against  them,    as 
 soon   as    they   attracted   notice,    some  of 
 which     are     still     extant :    their    leaders 
 were  excommunicated,  their  do6trines  con- 
 troverted,  and  their  pretensions   refuted: 
 they  were  formally  placed  among  heretics 
 by  some  writers,  and  incidentally  censured 
 by  many    others:   and   some  of  them,  we 
 may  add,  were  unjustly  calumniated,  and 
 treated,  as    in  the   case   of  Praxeas,  with 
 unmerited  harshness. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
(      419     ) 
 CHAP.     XX. 
 
 EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  PRIESTLEY'S  "DIRECT 
 
 evidence"  to  prove  the  gentile 
 christians,  in  the  second  and  third 
 centuries,  generally  unitarians. 
 
 I.  Dr.  Priestley  colle6ts  tlie  opinions  of  the  Apostolic 
 age  from  the  opinions  of  unlearned  Christians  very 
 remote  from  that  age.  2.  He  negleds  the  testimony 
 of  heathen  writers  to  the  opinions  of  the  great  body  of 
 Christians  in  the  second  and  third  centuries.  3.  State- 
 ment of  his  testimonies  from  Origen,  Tertullian, 
 Athanasius  and  Jerom.  4.  Examination  of  these 
 testimonies.  Origen,  Athanasius  and  Jerom  are  speak- 
 ing of  a  want  of  knowledge  in  the  common  people, 
 not  of  any  error  in  their  faith  —The  Fathers,  of  the 
 second,  third  and  fourth  centuries  have  not  asserted, 
 that  St.  John  was  the  first,  who  taught  the  dodrine  of 
 Christ's  divinity.  5.  Examination  of  Tertullian's 
 testimony.  View  of  the  two  kinds  .of  Unitarianism  in 
 Tertullian's  time.  Correftion  of  Dr.  Priestley's  mis- 
 statememt.  The  Unitarians  of  Tertullian  are  repre- 
 sented by  him  as /o/W(?r^  ojFraxeas,  as  Monarchists, 
 not  believers  in  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ.  View 
 of  the  circumstances,  which  occasioned  Tertullian's 
 treatise  against  Praxeas.  The  Unitarians  mentioned  in 
 this  piece  are  the  common  people  of  the  Christians  in 
 Carthage,  not  the  world  at  large,  not  ancient  but  con- 
 verted to  this  faith  in  Tertullian's  time.  Tertullian's 
 testimony  to  the  belief  of  Christians  in  general  in  the 
 divinity  of  Christ. 
 
 GGG3  I.    THE 
 
(        420        ) 
 
 I.  X  H  E  philosophical  writer,  whose 
 historical  statements  I  have  taken  the 
 liberty  to  examine  in  this,  and  the  preced-! 
 ing  chapter,  proposes  to  discover  the  true 
 meaning  of  Scripture  relating  to  the  nature 
 of  Christ,  by  the  interpretation  of  Gentile 
 Christians  contemporary  with  the  Apostles, 
 from  wliom  they  received  their  information, 
 This  interpretation  he  intends  to  collecl 
 through  the  medium  of  their  religious 
 opinions.  But,  their  religious  opinions  he 
 determines  neither  by  the  general  spirit 
 of  the  reputed  writings  of  their  time,  nor 
 by  the  opinions,  nor  the  testimony  of  the 
 writers  in  the  next  ages  after  them  :  who 
 affirm  that  the  orthodoxy  of  their  own  time 
 constituted  the  prevalent  religion  of  the 
 very  first  Christians.  He  allov/s  the  tes- 
 timony of  Pliny  to  have  no  weight,  and 
 he  has  not  noticed  that  of  Adrian  :  nor  has 
 he  compared,  and  combined  the  evidence 
 deducible  from  these  various  sources,  and 
 drawn  his  conclusions  from  a  comprehen- 
 sive view  of  the  whole.  To  determine  the 
 religion  of  the  first  century  he  retreats  to  the 
 third  *■,  to  the  fourth,  to  the  fifth,  to  the 
 
 sixth, 
 
 *  Tcitullian  wrote  liis  treatise  against  Praxeas,  from 
 which  Dr.  Priestley  has  colle6led  his  first  and  principal 
 testimon\',  a  t  the  opening  of  the  third  century  ;  some  time 
 af;er  he  liadbecome  a  Montanist, 
 
(        42  1        ) 
 
 sixth,  to  any  century  sufficiently  remote 
 from  that,  whose  opinions  he  attempts  to 
 discover.  And  after  having  fixed  on  his 
 first  period,  a  lidl  centur}^  after  the  last  of 
 the  Apostles,  it  is  observable,  that  even 
 there,  instead  of  availing  himself  of  all  the 
 light,  which  the  imperfect  literature  of 
 that  age  affords,  he  takes  advantage  of  all 
 possible  obscurity.  The  writings  of  some 
 learned  and  some  ignorant  Christians  of 
 those  times  are  extant  at  this  day.  But 
 instead  of  collecting  the  religion  of  the 
 Apostolic  age  from  the  men  of  the  third 
 century,  who  have  left  the  visible  images 
 of  their  own  minds  in  their  writings,  he 
 appeals  to  those,  who  have  left  no  ivritrngs 
 at  all :  and  thus  by  stepping  back  into 
 utter  darkness,  if  he  fails  to  defeat,  he, 
 at  least,  hopes  to  elude  his  opponents. 
 
 II.  His  method  of  ascertaining  the  re- 
 ligious tenets  of  these  unlearned  Christians 
 also  deserves  notice.  It  might  be  thought, 
 that  an  appeal  might  reasonably  be  made 
 to  learned  and  inquisitive  heathens,  in 
 order  to  determine,  whether  the  great  body 
 of  Christians  really  considered  Christ  as 
 God,  or  not :  but,  the  heathen  testimony 
 
 on 
 
(       422        ) 
 
 on  this  subje(5l  has  been  either  totally 
 suppressed,  or  not  fairly  stated.  Adrian, 
 it  might  be  supposed,  if  too  late  to  decide 
 on  the  opinions  and  pra6lices  of  Christians 
 in  the  first  century,  might  however  be 
 brought  forv/ard  as  a  witness  to  those  of 
 his  own  time.  Yet  Adrian's  evidence  has 
 been  unnoticed.  The  accusation  urged  by 
 Celsus  against  Christians  for  worshipping 
 Christ  as  God,  was  repeated  to  disgust  in 
 the  treatise  which  he  wrote  against  them, 
 and  never  denied  by  any  class  of  Chris- 
 tians. Yet  this  accusation  has  been  over- 
 looked. A  similar  charge  was  alledged 
 by  Porphyry  and  Hierocles  :  and  never 
 contradicted.  Several  Christian  writers 
 also  have  borne  the  fullest  testimony  to 
 the  belief  of  the  great  body  of  their  con- 
 temporaries in  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
 But,  whenever  any  notice  has  been 
 taken  of  small  parts  of  this  evidence,  they 
 have  been  uniformly  perverted. 
 
 In  addition  to  the  few  artificial  argu- 
 ments, to  which  he  has  given  the  name  of 
 "presumptive  evidence,"  Dr.  Priestley  has 
 satisfied  himself  with  a  very  inconsiderable 
 body  of  dire6t  testimony.  From  a  single 
 passage  in  Tertullian  he  fancies,  that  he 
 
 has 
 
(      423      ) 
 
 has  proved  the  great  body  of  common  peo- 
 ple among  Christians,  at  the  end  of  the 
 second  century,  to  have  been  behevers  in 
 the  simple  humanity  of  Christ.  From  two 
 or  three  passages  in  Origen  he  finds  Uni- 
 tarianism  to  have  been  the  popular  religion 
 about  the  year  230.  From  a  sentence  in 
 Athanasius  he  discovers,  that  the  common 
 people  after  the  council  of  Nice  were  Uni- 
 tarians, in  the  middle  of  the  fourth  cen- 
 tury. From  a  passage  in  Jerom  he  makes 
 a  singular  discovery  respe6ling  the  popular 
 opinion  of  the  fifth  century  :  from  another 
 in  Facundus  he  sets  down  the  "  grex  fide- 
 lium''  in  the  sixth  century  as  Unitarians*: 
 and  if  he  would  be  contented  with  such 
 sort  of  "  presumptive  and  direct  evidence'' 
 as  this,  he  might  prove  Unitarianism,  or 
 any  other  system  of  opinions  to  have  formed 
 the  popular  religion  in  any  age  of  the 
 Christian  church.  His  only  dire6l  testi- 
 mony to  the  opinions  of  the  common 
 people  before  the  council  of  Nice  consists 
 in  a  few  passages  ofTertullian  and  Origen; 
 which  he  has  misunderstood;  and  he  has 
 not  noticed  the  great  body  of  evidence, 
 which  is- found  even  in  these  two  writers, 
 by    which   his    hypothesis    is    compleatly 
 
 destroyed. 
 
 *Hist.  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  3.  p.  336. 
 
(     424     ) 
 
 destroyed.  Even  supposing,  that  he  had 
 rightly  represented  the  sense  of  the  pas- 
 sages, which  he  has  selected  from  their 
 works,  it  surely  required  far  more  testi- 
 mony, than  is  contained  in  them,  to  prove 
 so  paradoxical  a  proposition  as  that  of  the 
 people  taught  entertaining  an  opinion 
 dire6tly  opposite  to  that  of  their  teachers. 
 An  hypothesis  so  contrary  to  general  ex- 
 perience, demanded  far  more  support  than 
 testimony  consisting  of  only  two  or  three 
 doubtful  sentences  aided  by  a  few  artificial 
 arguments  founded  on  a  series  of  mis- 
 statements of  historical  fa6ls,  which  have 
 been  improperly  dignified  with  the  name 
 of  presumptive  evidence. 
 
 IIL  "  That  the  common  people,'*  says 
 Br.  Priestley,  "  among  Christians  were 
 aftually  Unitarians  in  the  early  ages,  and 
 believed  nothing  of  the  preexistence  or 
 divinity  of  Christ  before  the  council  of 
 Nice,  we  have  as  express  testimony  as 
 can  be  desired  in  the  case.  These  sublime 
 dodtrines  were  thouo^ht  to  be  above  their 
 co?npi'ehcnsio?is,  and  to  be  capable  of  being 
 understood  and  received  by  the  learned 
 only.     This  we  see  most  clearly  in   the 
 
 general 
 
(     425     ) 
 
 general  strain  of  Origen's  writings,  who 
 was  himself  a  firm  believer  and  zealous 
 defender  of  the  preexistence  and  divinity 
 of  Christ*/' 
 
 (f 
 
 But 
 
 fjLiKKovTuv  Myci^uvy  vTTo  T8  y.xT  aXn^Huv  x.xrx^yi'K^ofji.ivii  vof^a  ^r,\iiu,i!ic!jv  ; 
 aruj  X.CU  evctfyiXiov  try-io-v  jAvryi^iw  Xi^~^  iii5'«cr;£e;,  to  vofjci^ouevov  vizo 
 'aaytti)]!  ruv  ivrvyyavovTU)/  voeis-uxii  O  os  ip-ni7tv  luctvvrii;  ivalyiXiot 
 uiomov^  oiKHuK;  av  Xs^QrurojjLsvov  'mvsvjjiXTiy-ov.y  actpui;  'S7xpi^,(j-i  rote 
 KoacT*  Toc  'usxna.  ivuiiwj  ■zre^t  f»a  t»  ©ss.  — AtoTrsg  acayKaion  tsvivfji.a- 
 TtJtWf  y.xi  <7coiJt,XTiy.ui;  p/^j-i«n^£H<"  xxi  otth  (aev  p^^»  to  auuxrtKoy 
 HV^vcraeiy  svafysXtov^  (pxa-Kovrx  javiosv  etoivxi  To»?  ax^y.tKoii;  jj  Irjasv 
 X^iro"  y-xi  rarov  erxv^ui/Ancjv^  mrov  'E7o;»)teov.  bttxh  Se  evpe^ucrt  y.xTnp- 
 T^fff/.ivoi  Tti)  w»efjU.asTi,  x«i  y.x^'7ro(popiir7ii;  ev  xv~j}.^  iciovr^  ry  npxvm 
 crolptxc^  fji.ETxdoTsov  uvron;  th  Aoyy,  jTr^^sA^oi'ro?  a^ro  ra  Cfa^zfs^ojo-Oat    i(p 
 
 0  r,v  cj  xp^-n  'ZiTPo;  Tov  Qiov.     Comment  in  Johan.  vol  2.  p  o. 
 
 "  This,  we  ought  to  understand,  that,  as  the  law- 
 was  a  shadow  of  good  things  to  come,  so  is  the  gospel  as 
 it  is  understood  by  the  generality.  But  that  which  John 
 calls  the  everlasting  gospel,  and  which  may  be  more  pro- 
 perly called  the  spiritual,  instru6ts  the  mtelh'gent  very 
 clearly  concerning  the  Son  of  God.  Wherefore  the  o-os- 
 pelmustbe  taught  both  corporeally  and  spiritually,  and 
 when  it  is  necessary,  we  must  preach  the  corporeal  gospel, 
 saying  to  the  carnal,  that  we  know  nothing  but  Jesus 
 Christ  and  him  crucified.  But  when  persons  are  found 
 confirmed  in  the  spirit,  bringing  forth  fruit  in  it,  and  in 
 love  with  heavenly  wisdom,  we  mustimpait  to  them  the 
 logos  returning  from  his  bodily  state,  in  that  he  was  in  the 
 beginning  with  God." 
 
 Oi  /A6»  ya,^  xvrco  tcj  Acyw  y.c}iocr[Ji.r>vTxi,     0»  h  'Sxx^xy.eif/.Bvu  Ttn  avru 
 KXi  ^oKHvn  etvxi   ccvtoj  ru  'ct^utu   Aoyw,    ot  /i^rjdajr  h^otbt^    ei  ^uij  Ir.auv 
 X§»roi',   y-xi   ruTov  trxvcu^ivov^    ot  tok   hoyoi  ax^xx  o^wvtej.        Com- 
 
 jnent  Vol   2.  p.  49- 
 
 •'  Some  are  adorned  with  the  logos  itself,  but  others  with 
 a  logos  which  is  a-kin  to  it,  and  seeming  to  them  to  be  the 
 true  logos  ;  who  (mow  notliing  but  Jesus  Christ  and  him 
 crucified,  who  look  at  the  vv'ord  made  flesh," 
 
 H   H  H  Otyw 
 
(     426     ) 
 
 "  But  nothing  can  be  more  decisive  than 
 the  evidence  of  Tertullian  to  this  purpose, 
 who,  in  the  following  passage,  which  is 
 too  plain  and  circumstantial  to  be  misun- 
 derstood by  any  person,  positively  asserts, 
 though  with  much  peevishness,  that  the 
 Unitarians,  who  held  the  doctrine  of  the 
 divinity  of  Christ  in  abhorrence y  were  the 
 greater  part  of  Christians  in  his  time*." 
 
 (C 
 
 It 
 
 Ovru  Toivtv  ot  /ixE!'  Ties?  [j-erevfiaiv  ccvtb  tu  ev  a.^p(yi  Xoyy,   y.x^  'mpot 
 TovBsov  Xoyy,  y.on  ©ea  X07B,  uavi^  Sla-m  koh  Ho-ataj  y.an  l£^ayi<,t«j,  kch  et  t»j 
 
 fAivovy  To>  y£vo[/.ivov  ax^x.ot,  Xoyov^  to  'orsc.v  vo|U.»^oi'T£?  eaoii  ra  Xoya  Xjtro' 
 y.ara  cra^xa   p.oj'ov  ytvwo-KStji.    thto  oe  ej-*  to   'arMQo;   Tw^  •ro-e7rir£i.r.6i(«t 
 
 toy-t^ouaaiv.     Commcnt.  in  Johan.  Vol.  2.  p.  49. 
 
 "  There  are,  who  partake  of  tlie  logos  which  was  from 
 the  beginning,  the  logos  that  was  with  God,  and  the  logos 
 that  was  God,  as  Hcsea,  Isaiah,  and  Jeremiah,  and  any 
 others  that  sneak  of  him  as  the  logos  of  God,  and  the  logos 
 that  was  with  him ;  but  there  arc  others  who  know  nothing 
 but  Jesus  Christ  and  him  crucified,  the  logos  that  was  made 
 flesh,  thinking  they  have  every  thing  of  the  logos  when 
 they  acknowledge  Christ  according  to  the  flesh.  Such  is 
 the  multitude  ot  those  who  are  called  Christians." 
 
 T»  ^£  icmOi  twv  CTETTts-EfXEvai  vo^iCpfjLivu)!  T>)  (j)nx  TS  Aoyy,  xa»  Sp^» 
 TO)  a^nQnw  hoy!>)   <-^;s    iv  tco    aaxyoTi  apccvn  TyyvavoJiT*,  (/.abiiTiViTott, 
 
 Comment,  in  Johan.  Vol.  2   p.  52. 
 
 "  The  multitudes"  (i  c  the  great  mass  or  body)  ''of 
 believers  are  instructed  in  the  shadow  of  the  logos,  and 
 not  in  the  true  logos  of  God,  which  is  in  the  open  heaven." 
 
 *  Simpliccs  enim  quippe  ne  dixcrim  imprudentes  et 
 idiota-,  quae  m:!Jor  semper  credentium  pars  est,  quoniam  et 
 ijisa  rcgula  fidei  a  pluribus  diis  seculi,  ad  unicum  et  deum 
 veruni  transfert ;    non  intelligentcs  unicum  qujdem,  sed 
 
 cum 
 
(     427     ) 
 
 "  It  is  impossible  not  to  infer  from  this 
 passage,  that,  in  the  time  of  Tertidlian,  the 
 great  body  of  unlearned  Christians  were 
 Unitarians.  Common  sense  cannot  put 
 any  other  constru6tion  on  this  passage, 
 and  Tertullian  is  far  from  being  singular 
 in  this  acknowledgement.  It  is  made  in 
 different  modes  by  several  of  the  Fathers, 
 even  later"  (observe  how  Dr.  Priestley 
 flies  from  the  age  of  the  Apostles)  "than 
 the  age  of  Tertullian.'' 
 
 "  That 
 
 cum  sua  oeconomia  esse  credendum  expavescunt  ad  oeco- 
 pomiam.  Numerum  et  dispositionem  trinitatis,  divisionem 
 prscsumunt  unitatis  ;  quando  unitas  ex  semetipsa  derivans 
 trinitatem,  non  destruatur  ab  ilia,  sed  administretur. 
 Itaque  duos  et  tres  jam  jaftitant  a  nobis  praedicari,  se  vero 
 unius  dei  cultores  praesumunt.  —  Quasi  non  et  unitas 
 inrationaliter  collegia,  haeresim  faciat,  trinitas  rationaliter 
 expensa,  veritatem  constituat.  Monarchiam,  inquiunt, 
 tenemus.  Et  ita  sonum  vocaliter  exprimunt  etiam  Latini, 
 etiam  opici,  utputes  illos  tarn  beneintelligere  monarchiam, 
 quam  enunciant.  Sed  monarchiam  sonare  student  Latini, 
 CEConomiam  intelligere  nolunt  etiam  Gracci.  Ad  Praxeam, 
 Se6t.  3.  p.  502. 
 
 "  The  simple,  the  ignorant,  and  unlearned,  who  are 
 always  the  greater  part  of  the  body  of  Christians,  since 
 the  rule  of  faith,"  (meaning,  probably,  the  Apostles  creed,) 
 "  transfers  the  worship  of  many  gods  to  the  one  true  God, 
 not  understanding  thatthe  unity  of  God  is  to  be  maintained 
 but  with  the  oeconomy  ;  dread  this  occonomy ;  imagining 
 that  this  number  and  disposition  of  a  trinity  is  a  division 
 of  the  unity.  They,  therefore,  will  have  it  that  we  are 
 worshippers  of  two,  and  even  of  three  Gods,  but  that  they 
 are  worshippers  of  one  God  only.  We,  they  say,  hold  the 
 monarchy.  Even  the  Latins  have  learned  to  bawl  out 
 for  the  monarchy,  and  the  Greeks  themselves  will  not 
 understand  the  aconomy." 
 
 H  H  H   2 
 
(     428     ) 
 
 **  That  Tertiillian  considered  the  more 
 simple  and  unlearned  people  as  those, 
 among  whom  the  Unitarian  do6trine  was 
 the  most  popular,  is  evident  from  his  say- 
 ing, that  the  tares  of  Praxeas  grew  up, 
 while  many  slept  in  the  simplicity  of 
 do6lrine  *." 
 
 "  Athanasius  also,  like  Tertullian,  ac- 
 knowledged that  the  Unitarian  do6lrine 
 was  very  prevalent  among  the  lower  class 
 of  people  in  his  time,"  i.  e.  in  the  middle 
 of  the  fourth  century  *f . 
 
 "  This  being  the  language  of  complaint, 
 as  well  as  that  of  Tertullian,  it  may  be  the 
 more  depended  on  for  exhibiting  a  state  of 
 
 thino[s 
 
 *  Fruticaverant  avenas  Praxeanae  h;c  qiioque  supci- 
 seminatae,  dormicntibus  multis  in  simplicitate  dodiina;. 
 Ad  Fraxcam.  L»  i.  p.  511. 
 
 ervnaiv.  Toe.  ycc^  u.iyu>,a.  x.ui  ^icrxaTa^»i7rTa  to-'v  'Sr^ayfji.ce.ruii  -Rrtrf*  T»7 
 "Er^o?  Tof  Shop  ?,ccijJvaieTUt.  OOsf  &t  'sre^t  ti;v  yvu^c-iv  ot^vvaratTK;  xiro- 
 WiTTTtfcTiv,  «  /^*)  •E•e^c^8f^E^  if/.i^iyeiv  tyi  crtf-e<,  y.on  roci    'Ore^n^yBi;  ^nir.aeiq 
 
 ly.rQtTTtff^^a.i,  De  Incamatione  verbi  contra  Paulum  Samo- 
 «atensem,  Opera,  V^ol.  i.  p.  591. 
 
 "It  grieves,"  he  says,  "those  who  stand  up  for  the 
 holy  faith,  that  the  multitude,  and  especially  persons  of 
 low  understanding,  sliould  be  infe^led  with  those  blas- 
 phemies. Things  that  are  sublime  and  difficult  arc  not 
 to  be  apprehended,  except  by  faith  ;  and  ignorant  people 
 must  fall,  if  they  cannot  be  persuaded  to  rest  in  faith,  and 
 avoid  curious  questions." 
 
(     429     ) 
 
 things  very  unfavourable  to  what  was  called 
 the  orthodoxy  of  that  age.     And   it  was 
 not  the  do6lrine  of  Arius,  but  that  of  Paulus 
 Samosatensis,  that  Athanasius  is  here  com- 
 plaining of.      These  humble   Christians   of 
 Origen,  who  got  no  farther  than  the  shadow 
 of  the  logos,  the   simplices,   and    idiotce   of 
 Tertullian,  and  the  persons  of  low  under^ 
 standing  of  Athanasius,  were  probably  the 
 simplices  credentium  of  Jerom,  who,  he  says, 
 *'  did  not  understand  the  scriptures  as  be- 
 came their  majesty."      For  had  these  sim- 
 ple   Christians    (within   the    pale   of   the 
 church)   inferred  from  what  John    says  of 
 the  logos,  and  from  what  Christ  says  of 
 himself,    that   he   was,  personally   consi- 
 dered, equal  to   the   Father,  Jerom  would 
 hardly  have  said,  that  "they  did  not  un- 
 derstand tlie  scriptures  according  to  their 
 majesty,'"  for  he  himself  would  not  pretend 
 to  a  perfe6l  knowledge  of  the  mystery  of 
 the   trinity.      '•'  For   these   simple    Chris- 
 tians,'' he  says,  "  the  earth  of  the  people 
 of    God    brought    forth    hay,    as    for  the 
 heretics  it  brought  forth   thorns*,"     For 
 
 the 
 
 *  Quoddicitur  super  terrampopuli  mei,  spinaeet  fcrnum 
 ascendent,  retenc  potest  et  ad  haereticos,  et  ad  simplices 
 quosque  credentium,  qui  non  ita  scriptuiam  intelligunt 
 ut  iliius  conveiiit  majestati.     Unde  siijgula  singulis  ccap- 
 
 tavinius, 
 
(     430     ) 
 
 the  intelligent,  no  doubt,  it  yielded  richer 
 fruits/' 
 
 "  From  all  these  passages,  and  others 
 quoted  before,  I  cannot  help  inferring, 
 that  the  doctrine  of  Christ  being  any  thing 
 more  than  a  man,  the  whole  do6lrine  of 
 the  eternal  logos,  who  was  in  God,  and 
 who  was  God,  was  long  considered  as  a 
 more  abstruse  and  refined  principle,  with 
 which  there  was  no  occasion  to  trouble 
 the  common  people  ;  and  that  the  dodlrine 
 of  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ  continued 
 to  be  held  by  the  common  people  till  after 
 the  time  of  Athanasius,  or  after  the  coun- 
 cil of  Nice.  And  if  this  was  the  case  then, 
 we  may  safely  conclude,  that  the  Unitarians 
 were  much  more  numerous  in  a  more 
 early  period,  as  it  is  well  known  that  they 
 kept  losing,  and  not  gaining  ground,  for 
 several  centuries*/' 
 
 IV.  With  the  Christians  after  the 
 council  of  Nice  I  have  no  concern  :  and 
 Dr.  Priestley  can  hardly  be  serious,  when 
 
 he 
 
 tavimus,  ut  terra  populi  dei  ha-reticis  spinas,  imperitis  qui- 
 busquc  ecclcsia;  loeinim  aff'crat.    Jcrom.  in  Isai.  xxxii  20. 
 Opera, Vol.  4.  p.  118.  Priestley's  citations  and  translations, 
 *  Hist,  of  early  Opinions,  B.  3.  c.  xiii. 
 
(     431     ) 
 
 he  intimates,  that  the  Unitarian  do6lrine 
 was  very  prevalent  in  the  time  of  Athana- 
 sius  and  Jerom.  In  one  part  of  his  works 
 he  has  observed  ;  "  According  to  him," 
 (Athanasius)  "  many  persons  within  the 
 pale  of  the  church  must  either  have  been 
 Unitarians,  or  have  believed  the  do6lrine 
 of  the  Trinity  without  understanding  it, 
 which''  Dr.  Priestley  continues  to  observe, 
 "is  in  fact  no  belief  at  all*." 
 
 It  surely  may  be  admitted,  tliat  we  all 
 frequently  believe  what  we  cannot  perfectly 
 understand.  But,  whether  this  be  the 
 case  or  not,  Athanasius  certainly  thought 
 so.  If  it  be  affirmed,  that  this  Father  has 
 any  where  represented  the  great  body  of 
 Christians  of  his  time  as  Unitarians,  the 
 assertion  is  without  foundation :  but,  if  it 
 be  contended,  that,  according  to  him,  the 
 great  body  of  Christians  believed  the  doc- 
 trine of  tlie  Trinity  without  understanding 
 it,  the  fa6l  is  indisputable.  Jerom,  Origen, 
 Clemens  Alexandrinus  and  nearly  all  the 
 Christian  Fathers  thought  the  same.  The 
 same  opinion  is,  I  believe,  universally 
 maintained  at  this  moment,  and  has  pre- 
 vailed in  every  age  of  the  Christian  church. 
 
 It 
 
 *  Letter  to  the  Arclideacon  of  St.  Albans,  p.  8i. 
 
(     432      ) 
 
 It  is  from  inattention  to  one  of  the  most 
 common  distinctions,  which  the  ancient 
 Fathers  have  minutely  described,  and 
 strongly  insisted  on,  that  Dr.  Priestley  has 
 represented  Jerom,  Athanasius  and  Origen 
 as  vouchers  for  the  general  prevalence  of 
 Unitarianism  in  their  time.  They  distin- 
 guished between  sytgic,  Chrhtlan  faith  and 
 yvua-ig,  perfect  Christian  knozv ledge :  to  which 
 discrimination  Athanasius  has  dire6lly 
 alluded  in  the  passage  just  cited.  "  Things 
 that  are  sublime  and  difficult  are  appre- 
 hended by  faith  in  God.  [Ts-ig-ei  rw  -zzr^o?  rov 
 Geov)  "  Whence,  those  who  are  incompetent 
 in  kllOZi'ledge  'yet  tstsoi  ti^v  yvu(Tiv  ocovvocravrBg^ 
 *'  fall  oft",  if  they  be  not  persuaded  to  rest 
 in  faith/'  (r-/?  T^ngei),  &c.  "  Faith"  they 
 defined  to  be  "a  summary  knowledge  of 
 the  most  necessary  truths:"  '' Kjioicledge" 
 (yvuc-ig)  "a  Strong, and  steady  illustration  of 
 what  is  learnt  by  faith,  a  superstructure 
 raised  on  faith,  as  its  foundation,  by  the 
 instruclion  of  Christ*."  The  former, 
 they   maintained,  might   be  possessed  by 
 
 all 
 
 'J  H  iJ.iv  >iv  •nririCj  trvvTOfjio:  sfiv^  &•;  etTTHv,  ruv  y.ocre'iretyovTiiv  yvuaiq' 
 11  yvuiiTK;  oi  e:7.od'c(|i?  Tuv  (Jia  'STiriu<;  'CJOi.pei'Xvifji.iJ.muv  icrp(v^x  xar*  Bi(o<x.ioq 
 cici  tn^  xv^iuy.ri'-,  oteu^y.a.'Kix-  £7roixo.il/xy/Lxi>»!  t>9  -ZE-irf*,  «!  to  txatrccrrTu- 
 Tc/v    y.ai  /LcsT    t7rtr>!,v.v/^    yui    xaiTaXrjTrrov    'srcc^Cf.TZitJ.Tniaoi..       ClemPnS 
 
 Alex.    Strom.    I..  7.   n.   732.   Ed.  Paris.   Sylburg,  Vid. 
 etiani  L  5.  sub.  initio. 
 
C     433      ) 
 
 all  pious  persons,  by  all  true  Christians : 
 the  latter,  they  thought,  fell  only  to  the 
 lot  of  2ifew  "*.  In  this  yvua-ig  they  possessed, 
 in  their  own  opinion,  a  full  conception  of 
 the  mysteries  of  Christianity;  and,  not 
 satisfied,  like  the  great  body  of  Christians, 
 with  believing  in  the  divinity  of  Christ ; 
 they  thought,  that  they  compleatly  com- 
 prehended the  manner  of  his  existence, 
 before  he  was  invested  with  human  flesh. 
 Any  one,  who  will  turn  to  the  passages 
 cited  by  Dr.  Priestley  from  Origen,  will 
 immediately  perceive,  that  it  is  not  any 
 defe6l,  or  error  in  the  faith  of  the  multi- 
 tude of  Christians,  to  which  that  Father 
 alluded,  but  a  deficiency  in  their  know- 
 ledge-f.  That  sort  and  degree  of  knowledge 
 (not  of  faith)  which  Athanasius  thought  it 
 dangerous  for  persons  of  low  understand- 
 ing to  affe6t,  that  sort  and  degree  of 
 knowledge  Origen  and  Jerom,  in  the  pas- 
 sages cited  from   them,  declare,  is  not  to 
 
 be 
 
 *  H  7v«<7t5  ^i  avTYi  ■»  y.uTU  oiX^o^cc^  «j  OAirOYS  tx  run  aTToro^vK 
 
 ccy^a.(puq  'Sfo.^a.l^^eiaa,  )ici,ri>.yiKv^vj,  Clemens  Alex.  Strom.  L. 
 6.  citat.  a  Valesio  Annot.  in  Euseb.  Hist.  p.  24. 
 
 T'/if  /ASK   ci.y.^\Sonoi,\i    ayrij?  f7n^y,T«i'   ohAyuv  Erf,  TJif  ^t  'sn'rw  Kxn^s-iV 
 
 ADANTHN  npos  TON  ©EON  EYnEiQfiN.  Athanasius  de 
 Incamatione  contra  Paul.  Samos.  Vol.  i.  p.  592,  citat.  a 
 Priestley.  Letters  to  the  Archdeacon  of  St.  Albans,  Pt. 
 2.  p.  82. 
 
 t  Origen  (seeComm.in  Joan.  Vol.  2.  p.  5.)  also  asserted, 
 that  only  a  few  could  understand  St.  John's  Gospel;  but  he 
 never  thought  of  affirming  that  only  a  few  believed  it. 
 
 Ill 
 
(     434     ) 
 
 be  found  among  the  great  mass  of  Chris- 
 tians. And  not  the  slightest  intimation 
 of  the  general  prevalence  of  Unitarianism 
 is  discoverable  in  this  testimony.  In  this 
 place,  an  error  may  be  corre6led,  which 
 runs  through  a  whole  Seftion  in  the  His- 
 tory of  early  opinions.  It  is  there  asserted, 
 that  '^according  to  the  acknowledgement 
 of  the  Christian  Fathers,"  John  was  the 
 '  first,  who  taught  the  doctrines  of  the  divi- 
 nity and  preexistence  of  Christ :  and  a 
 multitude  of  quotations  is  produced  to 
 prove  this  position.  No  such  acknow- 
 ledgement was  thought  of  by  the  Fathers. 
 On  this  subje61:,  the  New  Testament  was 
 understood  by  them  as  it  is  understood  by 
 us.  They  found  the  divinity  of  Christ 
 taught  by  most  of  the  writers  of  the  New 
 Testament  before  John ;  and  they  have 
 cited  passages  to  this  purpose  from  almost 
 every  part  of  it :  but  John,  they  asserted, 
 what  is  allowed  by  all,  was  the  first  who 
 published  to  mankind  the  knowledge  of 
 the  manner  in  which  Christ  preexisted  as 
 the  word  of  God.  None  of  the  disciples, 
 they  contended,  had  taught  the  divinity 
 (9£0T'yjg)  of  Christ  so  frequently,  fully,  and 
 clearly  as  this  Apostle,  and  he  was  the 
 first,  who  explained  the  9-soAo^/a,  the  doc- 
 trine of  the  di\  ine  Xoyo;  or  word  :  which^ 
 
 they 
 
(     435     ) 
 
 they  maintained,  none  but  Christians  with 
 minds  more  than  commonly  illumined 
 could  understand,  though  all  true  Chris- 
 tians, on  the  authority  of  Scripture,  believed 
 the  truth  of  the  do61rine.  Out  of  thirty 
 quotations  from  the  Fathers,  which  Dr. 
 Priestley  has  produced,  the  only  one  to 
 his  purpose  is  from  Marius  Mercator,  a 
 most  inaccurate  writer  of  the  fifth  century. 
 And  in  a  multitude  of  passages  from  pre- 
 ceding writers,  in  which  it  is  declared, 
 that  John  first  tauglit  the  ^^oXoyia,  of  Christ, 
 he  has  erroneously  expressed  this  term  by 
 the  English  word  divinity:  though  every 
 thing  but  a  formal  definition  is  given  of  it 
 \)y  Chrysostom  *. 
 
 V.  In  order  to  understand  the  passage 
 from  TertLillian,  it  is  necessary  to  recollect 
 the  two  opposite  systems  of  Unitarianism 
 in  his  age.  The  Alogians,  believed  in  the 
 simple  humanity  of  Christ.  The  Monar- 
 chists, afterwards  known  by  the  name  of 
 Sabellians,  who  formed  a  considerable  se6l 
 in  several  parts  of  Africa,  stri6tly  main- 
 tained 
 
 n^WT*5  ctvcfi/ciucc  Toy  rriz  Sso^oyt*?  "Kv^vov^  'STxaxt  ruv  'stb^xtuv  «» 
 «vy,-J^f,      xa.     v7rsor^B-],e    p^aiga^a,     EN     APXHI    HN   'O    AOFO^, 
 
 Chiysost.  in  Joan.  i.  citat.  a  Priestley. 
 
 I  I   I   2 
 
(     43^     ) 
 
 tained  the  doarine  of  Christ's  divinit3% 
 but  denied  his  distin6l  personality.  The 
 term  Alogians  is  sufficiently  extensive  to 
 comprehend  the  Ebionites  and  Carpocra- 
 tians,  though  it  is  confined  by  Epiphanius 
 to  those  Gentile  behevers  in  the  simple 
 humanity  of  Christ,  who  first  appeared 
 at  the  end  of  the  second  century.  The 
 most  distinguished  leaders  of  this  very 
 inconsiderable  seel  were  Theodotus  of 
 Byzantium,  Artemon,  and  Paul  of  Sa- 
 mosata.  Praxeas  was  the  first  Monarchist. 
 His  successors  were  Noetus  and  Sabellius, 
 who  maintained,  with  little  difference,  the 
 do6lrines  of  their  founder.  As  extremes 
 are  often  brought  to  meet,  an  union  was 
 formed  between  these  two  opposite  schemes; 
 or  rather,  one  system  was  formed  out  of 
 both  by  Marcellus  of  Ancyra  in  the  begin- 
 ning of  the  fourth  century  *.  After  which 
 time,  pure  Sabellianism  disappeared,  and 
 if,  with  Beausobre,  we  attempt  to  collec^l 
 its  principles  from  the  opinions  of  Marcel- 
 Jus,    we   shall   make   the    system   appear 
 
 indeed 
 
 *  Marccll'jsis  accused  by  Euscbius  of  combining  the 
 opinions  of  Sabellius,  Paul  of  Samosata  and  the  Jews. 
 
 Ma§K£?iAo?  ^£  'dOLVTu  (pvooci;^  -sroTE  ix.ev  «?  uvrot  oMn  ra  XafeAAia  Bvdov 
 <ffoT£  ^£  Iti^cnoz  uy  aniK^vi;  ot.'ivi'f\iyyi'va.\,    Euscb.  COnt.  Marccll, 
 
 L.  3.  c.  vi. 
 
(     437     ) 
 
 indeed  more  agreeable  to  human  reason: 
 but  we  shall  not  discover  the  truth.  As 
 the  opinions  of  se61s,  which  retain  the 
 same  name,  often  change  in  a  few  years ; 
 the  best  accounts  of  the  first  Monarchists 
 are  unquestionably  those  of  contemporary 
 writers.  They  first  appeared  about  a.  d. 
 190,  or  earlier.  About  a.  d.  205,  Tertul- 
 lian  was  their  accuser,  and  about  a.  d.  230, 
 Origen  was  in  some  degree  their  apologist. 
 Since  both  these  writers  perfectly  agree  with 
 one  another,  and  with  many  others  in  repre- 
 sentincc  them  as  believers  in  the  divinity 
 of  Christ,  in  the  highest  possible  sense  of 
 the  word;  no  room  seems  left  for  conjec- 
 ture *.     To   this    evidence   no   testimony 
 
 can 
 
 *  Origen,  alluding  to  the  Monarchists,  speaks  of  those 
 who  confound  the  Son  with  the  Father,  under  the  notion 
 
 of  doing  him  honour.  Ov  vofJATe.ov  ya.^  etvxi  vz-e^  avTH  ra;  t» 
 •^ivoYi  (ppovavra,!;  <me^t  a-vra  !pavT«cn«,  ts  ^o^ccC^sm  ccvroi/j  oTTotoi  e<crt» 
 cvyyiovTB^  crarfo?  y.ctt  via  evvoicti'^  y-xi  rrj  woTdcrei  zva,  Stdovrti;  eivcci  rev 
 
 'sjun^a.  v.a\.  rov  viov.  Comm.  in  Matt.  Vol.  I.  p.  47  J.  And 
 he  accurately  distinguishes  between  the  i\.ionarchists  and 
 Alogians  in  these  words,  Hto*  agvs?jx£>a?  t^ioT>)T«  vm  t-r^^av  -zB-aj* 
 
 T5JV  Tti  iffccTPoi;  —  y)  c/.fvau.ivaq  Tm   SsorrTa  ra  rty.       "  xLlther  thoSG 
 
 who  deny  that  the  identity  of  the  Son  is  different  from  that 
 of  the  Father,  orthose  who  deny  the  divinity  of  the  Son." 
 Comm.  in  Johan.  Vol.  2.  p    46. 
 
 Alluding  to  the  high  opinion,  which  the  Monarchists  en- 
 tertained of  Christ's  divinity,  Novatian  says,  Usque  adeo 
 manifestum  est  in  scripturis  esse  Deum  tradi,  ut  plerique 
 h<ereticorum  divinitatis  ipsius  magnitudine  et  veriiatc  com- 
 pioti,  ultra  modum  extendere  honores  ejus  ausi  essent,  non 
 
 filium. 
 
(     4S8      ) 
 
 can  be  opposed  :  and  the  moderns,  who 
 have  departed  a  little  from  the  accounts  of 
 the  ancient  writers  in  their  description  of 
 monarchism,  seem  to  have  had  no  other 
 reason  for  the  deviation  but  a  persuasion 
 that  some  articles  of  their  creed,  particu- 
 larly that  of  the  passibility  of  God  the 
 Father,  were  too  extravagant  to  have 
 been  real:  whereas  their  leading  tenets 
 are    at     this     time      professed     by     the 
 
 Swedenborgian 
 
 Mium,  sed  ipsum  Deum  patrem  promere  vel  piitare.  c.  23. 
 p.  87.  citat.  a  Priestley  Hist.  Vol.  2.  p.  166. 
 
 It  would  be  easy  to  produce  a  multitude  of  authorities 
 perfe6lly  coinciding  with  the  accounts  of  Tertuliian, 
 Origen  and  Novatian,  to  prove  that  the  Monarchists  or 
 SabeUians  believed  Christ  to  be  God  the  Father  ;  and 
 not  a  mere  man  ;  as  Dr.  Priestley  supposes  the  Monar- 
 chists in  Tertuliian  to  have  believed.  Sandius,  the  Arian 
 champion  of  the  last  century,  accused  the  Trinitarians  of 
 borrowing  their  notionsof  the  perfe6l  equality  of  the  Son 
 with  the  Father  from  Fraxeas,  Sabellius  and  the  Mon- 
 tanists.  See  Spanheim  Introd.  ad  Chronol.  p.  197.  The 
 same  accusation  had  been  urged  by  Arius  himself, 
 
 "  After  Peter,  who  suffered  martyrdom  under  Diocle- 
 tian, succeeded  Achillas  in  the  bishopric  of  Alexandria, 
 and  to  him  Alexander :  —  it  happened  that  he  and  his 
 presbyters  were  one  day  exercising  themselves  in  a  dispu- 
 tative  way  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  Arius,  one  of 
 his  presbyters,  a  subtle  disputant,  pretended  to  be  appre- 
 hensive, that  the  Bishop's  discourse  tended  to  Sabellianism, 
 and  carried  his  own  to  a  contrary  extream  ;  alledging  with 
 no  little  vehemence,  that  if  the  Father  begot  the  Son,  he, 
 that  was  begotten,  had  a  beginning  of  existence ;  that 
 therefore  there  was  a  time  when  the  Son  was  not,"  Theo- 
 doret.  fiist.  L.  i.  c  ii.  Parker's  Translation.  See  the 
 testimonies  of  the  Clnistian  Fathers  to  the  opinions  of 
 Praxeas,  Noetus,  and  Sabellius  in  Tillemont  and  Lardner. 
 
(     439     ) 
 
 Swedenborgian  Christians :  who,  if  they 
 still  profess  all  the  tenets  of  their  founder, 
 are  Patripassians  in  the  stri6lest  sense  *. 
 
 The  account  of  these  two  different  sys- 
 tems of  Unitarianism  in  the  "History  of  early 
 Opinions"  is  not  only  without  the  slightest 
 foundation  in  real  history,  but  has  all 
 history  against  it.  "  Besides  the  simple 
 Unitarianism  above  described,  or  the  doc- 
 trine of  Christ  being  a  mere  man  inspired 
 by  God,  which,"  says  Dr.  Priestley,  "was 
 the  belief  of  the  generality  of  Christians  of 
 lower  rank,  there  was  likewise  in  early 
 times,  what  may  be  called  a  philosophical 
 Unitarianism,  or  an  explanation  of  the 
 do6lrine  concerning  Christ  on  the  principles 
 of  the  philosophy  of  those  times.  And 
 this  deserves  the  more  notice,  as  it  pro- 
 bably gave  occasion  to  what  is  commonly 
 called  the  patripassian  do6lrine;  if  such  a 
 do6lrine  was  ever  really  maintained-|\" — 
 "  This  however  would  never  apply  to  any 
 but  Philosophers.     The  common    people 
 
 ARE    DESCRIBED     AS     SIMPLE     UNITARIANS, 
 
 without  having  any  such  whimsical  hvpo- 
 thesis   as    this  X-"  -^  This    philosophical 
 
 Unitarianism 
 
 *  See  the  Cliapters  in  Swedenburg  "  De  Domino, 
 t  Hist,  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  3.  p.  376, 
 I  Id.  381. 
 
(      440      ) 
 
 Unitarianism  is  the  doctrine  ascribed  by 
 Tcrtullian  to  Praxeas;  though  he  speaks  of 
 the  common  people  as  simple  Unitarians*." 
 
 Accorclinp-  to  this  account,  Tertullian 
 has  ascribed  one  set  of  opinions  to  Praxeas, 
 the  Unitarian  leader,  against  whom  he 
 wrote,  and  another  to  the  common  people, 
 the  simplices  and  idiotse,  of  whose  perver- 
 sity he  complains.  This  representation  is 
 entirely  lidtitious.  The  common  people  of 
 the  Carthagifiian  Christians  are  described 
 by  Tertullian  as  having  just  become 
 Monarchists,  follozuers  of  Praxeas,  avense 
 Praxeanae,  —  vanissimi  Monarchiani,  — 
 Monarchiam,  inquiunt,  tenemus  :  and  he 
 has  no  where  intimated,  that  any  consi- 
 derable body  of  men,  either  learned  or 
 unlearned,  in  his  time,  believed  in  the 
 simple  humanity  of  Christ. 
 
 The  occasion  and  design  of  the  treatise 
 against  Praxeas  may  easily  be  collected 
 from  the  treatise  itself.  Praxeas  had  dis- 
 tinguished himself  at  Rome  by  his  confu- 
 tation of  the  false  prophecies  of  Montanus  : 
 but,  soon  after,  introduced  what  was 
 thought  a  heresy  of  his  own,  and  preached 
 
 his 
 
 *P.387. 
 
(     441     ) 
 
 his  do6lrines  with  some  success:  "the 
 tares  of  Praxeas  sown  upon"  (the  true 
 corn)  "had  produced  fruit  here  too"  (i.  e. 
 at  Carthage).  The  se6laries,  however, 
 were  brought  back  to  communion  with  the 
 church  by  the  exertions  of  one  of  its  mem- 
 bers, probably  Tertuliian  himself,  and  the 
 heresy  seemed  eradicated.  **Tradu6tae  de- 
 hinc  per  quem  Deus  voluit,  etiam  evulsae 
 videbantur."  Praxeas  signed  a  recantation 
 of  his  error,  and  this  vvas  lodged  in  the  hands 
 of  the  members  of  the  church.  After  this, 
 a  division  took  place  among  the  latter, 
 owing  to  the  lapse  of  Tertuliian  himself 
 into  the  absurdities  of  Montanism ;  Praxeas, 
 or  his  followers,  some  of  whom,  it 
 seems,  had  concealed,  and  not  abandoned 
 their  opinions,  seized  the  opportunity  of 
 profiting  by  this  favourable  circumstance: 
 and  while  they  assaulted  the  errors,  which 
 the  most  distinguished  leader  of  the  Car- 
 thaginian Christians  had  embraced,  as- 
 sailed with  great  effeft  the  genuine 
 dodlrines  of  the  church :  which  thus  suf- 
 fered by  their  accidental  and  temporary 
 conne6lion  with  falsehood.  Availing  him- 
 self 
 
 *  Fru6lificaverant  avenae  Praxeanae  hie  quoque  super- 
 seminatce.  Tert.  adv.  Frax.  sub.  init. 
 
 t  Vid.  Tertull.  adv.  Prax.  sub  init. 
 
 K  K  K 
 
(     44^2     ) 
 
 self  of  the  dissensions  among  the  rulers, 
 the  Monarchist  leader  appears  to  have 
 addressed  the  common  people  with  such 
 success,  that,  if  we  may  credit  the  violent 
 language  of  the  enflamed  Tertullian,  all 
 the  ignorant  persons  in  the  place  were 
 converted  to  his  opinions. 
 
 Tertullian,  not  of  a  temper  to  permit 
 adversaries,  whom  he  despised,  to  enjoy 
 a  long  triumph  over  his  weakness,  rose  a 
 second  time,  in  full  confidence  of  his 
 own  powers,  and  launched  the  thunder  of 
 his  barbarous  eloquence  against  the  new 
 se6laries.  To  expose  the  errors  of  Praxeas, 
 and  to  bring  back  the  deluded  people  to 
 the  true  faith,  he  wrote  the  vehement 
 piece,  in  which  Dr.  Priestley  has  lately 
 discerned  testimony  to  the  belief  of  com- 
 mon, unlearned  Christians  in  the  simple 
 HUMANITY  OF  CHRIST.  —  In  this  treatise, 
 the  errors,  into  which  the  unlear?ied 
 Christians  of  Carthage  had  fallen,  are 
 explained  in  a  few  words.  Ipsum  dicit 
 (Praxeas)  patrem  descendisse  in  vir- 
 ginem,  ipsum  ex  ea  natum,  ipsum  passum : 
 denique  ipsum  esse  Jesum  Christum*.  After 
 ^ome  further  observations,  Tertullian  next 
 
 describes 
 
 *  Adv.  Prax.  sub,  jniu 
 
(     445    *) 
 
 describes  the  catholic  faith,  and,  like  the 
 other  Fathers,  asserts  its  priority,  not  only 
 before  "  Praxeas  of  yesterday  j"  but  before 
 the  first  heretics*:  observino;,  that  the  doc- 
 trines  of  the  church  might  be  supported  on 
 the  ground  of  antiquity;  that  being  true 
 which    was    the    original    doctrine,     that 
 spurious  which  appeared  late  -f*.      But,  not 
 to  rest  the  matter  on  this,  he  undertakes, 
 like  other  early  Christian  writers,  to  shew 
 the  reasonableness  of  the  do6lrine  of  the 
 church,  to  explain  how  the  Trinity  is  con- 
 sistent with  unity,  since  the  "  perversity" 
 of  the  Monarchists  insisted  on  the  unity  of 
 God   in   such  a   sense  as  to   exclude  the 
 distin6lion  of  persons  in  the  Godhead  J. 
 
 How 
 
 *  Hanc  regulam  ab  initio  Evangelii  decjcurrisse,  etiam 
 ante  priores  quosque  liaereticos,  nedum  ante  Praxean 
 hesternum  probabit  tam  ipsa  posteritas  omnium  hEeretico- 
 rum,  quam  ipsa  novellitas  Praxeae  hesterni, 
 
 f  Quo  peraeque  adversus  universas  haereses  jam  hinc 
 prajudicatum  sit,  id  esse  verum  quodeunque  primum: 
 id  esse  adulterum  quodeunque  posterius, 
 
 "l  Sed  salva  ista  praescriptione,  ubique  tamen  propter 
 instru6tionem  et  munitionem  quorundam,  dandus  est 
 etiam  retraftantibus  locus  :  vel  ne  videatur  unaquseque 
 pervcrsitas  non  examinata,  sed  precjudicata  daninari; 
 maxime  haec  quss  se  existimat  meram  veritatem  possidere, 
 dum  unicum  deum  non  alias  putat  credendum,  quam  si 
 ipsum  eundemque  et  patrem  et  filium  et  spiiitum  sant^lurn 
 tficat,  &c.    Vid.  TertuU. 
 
 K  K  K  3 
 
(      444      ) 
 
 How  the  persons  of  the  Trinity  "  admit 
 of  number,"  he  says,  "  without  division" 
 (of  substance)  "  the  following  tra6l  shall 
 demonstrate."   For,  ^' all  the  men  of  simpli- 
 city" (alluding  probably  to  their  aiFe6lation 
 of  simplicity   of  doctrine,  as   well  as  to 
 their  ignorance)  "  not  to  call  them  unwise 
 and  unlearned,  who  always  form  the  ma- 
 jority of  Christians*,"  &c. —  "hold  that 
 two  and  even  three  Gods  are  preached  by 
 us,  and  afFe6t  themselves  to  be  worshippers 
 of  only  one  God,  as  if  the  unity  of  God 
 understood    irrationally     could    not    form 
 heresy:    we,    they    say,  hold    the    mo- 
 narchy." —  Tertullian,   after   this,   with 
 much  self-complacency,  on  account  of  his 
 own    superior    knowledge   of    Latin    and 
 Greek,  ( the  first  was  the  common  language-|~ 
 of  the  Carthaginian  colonists,  and  the  latter 
 was  understood  and  spoken  by  many  indi- 
 viduals in  almost  every  part  of  the  Roman 
 empire  J,)    amuses  himself  with  deriding 
 
 the 
 
 *  Quomoclo  numerum  sine  divisione  patiuntur  proce- 
 clentcs  tiadatus  dcmonstrabunt.  Siinplices  enim  quique, 
 ne  dixcrini  imprudenles  et  idiotac  (quae  major  semper  pars 
 credentium  est),  &c.  See  p.  426.  otthis  Vol.  Note. 
 
 'f-  Anno  ab  urbe  condita  627  Carthago  in  Africa,  restitui 
 jussa,  dedii6\is  civium  Rcmanorum  familiis,  quae  earn 
 incolerct,  rcstituta  ct  repleta  est.     Orosius.  L.  5.  c.  xii. 
 
 ■j;  Si  quis  mir.orem  gloria-  fru61um  putat  ex  Graccisver- 
 sibus  percipi,  qiiam  ex  I.atinis,  vehcmenter  errat;  prop- 
 
 lerea 
 
(     445     ) 
 
 the  ignorance  of  the  new  converts  to  Mo- 
 narchism.  "  Men"  he  says,  "  who  speak 
 Latin,  even  the  most  illiterate  of  them,  learn 
 to  articulate  the  Greek  word  Monarchy. 
 so  well,  that  you  might  imagine  them  to 
 understand  it  as  well  as  they  pronounce  it : 
 but,  though  men,  who  speak  the  Latin 
 language,  study  to  sound  the  Greek  word 
 monarchy,  even   Greeks   are  not  disposed 
 
 to 
 
 terea  quod  Giaeca  leguntur  in  omnibus  fere  gentibus, 
 Latina  suis  finibus,  exiguis  sane,  continentur.  Cicero  pro 
 Archia. 
 
 That  the  Greek  language  was  understood  and  spoken 
 by  many  at  Carthage  appears  from  Apuleius,  who  hved 
 only  a  few  years  before  the  age  of  TertuUian.  Address- 
 ing himself  to  the  Carthaginians,  he  says,  Vox  mea  utraque 
 lino-ua  jam  vestris  auribus  ante  proximum  sexennium 
 probe  cognita.     Florid.  1 8.  p.  813.  Ed.  Delph. 
 
 And,  Ejus  Dei  (sc.  ^sculapii)  hymnum  Graeco  et 
 Latino  carmine  vobis  hic  canam.  —  Hymnum  ejus  utra- 
 que lingua  canam:  cui  dialogum  similiter  Graecum  et 
 Latinum  pr^texui ;  in  quo  sermocinabuntur  Sabidius 
 Severus  et  Julius  Persius.  —  Persius,  quamvis  et  i-se 
 optime  Latine  possit,  tamen  hodie  nobis  ac  vobis  Atticis- 
 sabit.  p.  818. 
 
 Jamdudum  scio,  quid  hoc  significatu  flagitetis,  ut 
 caetera  Latinae  materire  persequamur(Schopfius  ex  Libio 
 Fulvii  legebat  Latine  narrare  prosecpiamur).  Eam  et  in 
 principio  vobis  diversa  petentibus,  ita  memini  polliceri, 
 ut  neiitra  pars  vestrCm,  nee  qui  Grace,  nee  qui  Latine 
 petebatis,  di6lionis  hujus  expeites  abiretis.  Ouapropter, 
 si  ita  videtur,  satis  oratio  nostra  atticissaverit.  Tempus 
 est  in  Laiium  demigrare  de  Grcecid.     Florid,  24..  p.  830. 
 
{     44^     ) 
 
 to  know  what  OtxovofjLio!,  means*.  But  I,  if 
 I  have  acquired  any  knowledge  of  either 
 language/'  &c. 
 
 Such  was  the  state  of  religious  opinion 
 in  the  great  body  of  Carthaginian  Chris- 
 tians, at  the  end  of  the  second  century. 
 Nearly  all  were  monarchists,  believers  in 
 the  divinity  of  Christ,  in  the  highest  pos- 
 sible sense  in  which  the  term  divinity  can 
 be  understood,  asserting  Christ  to  be  God 
 the   Father,    and   considering  the  words 
 Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  as  only  three 
 different   terms  for   the  same  omnipotent 
 Being.  The  reign  of  this  opinion  is,  however, 
 known  to  have  been  of  short  duration ;  for,  in 
 less  than  fifty  years  after  this  treatise  v»'as 
 written,  Cyprian,  the  admirer  and  follower 
 of  Tertullian,  was  elec^ted  bishop  of  Car- 
 thage   by     the  people    and     clergy,    and 
 governed  that   church   with  the  most  un- 
 controuled  sway.  ■ —  This  system  is  known 
 to    have    prevailed    more    in  Africa  than 
 any  other   part   of  the    Roman    empire  : 
 and,    when    the    peculiar     circumstances 
 
 which 
 
 *  Tertullian  hns  before  defined  o»xoco//.ia.  Uniciim 
 quidem  Dciini  ciedinius  :  sub  hue  tamen  dispensationc, 
 quam  o»xo>op.ta»  dicimus,  ut  unici  dei  sit  et  filius  sermo 
 ipsius,  qui  ex  ipso  proccsscrit,  per  qucm  omnia  la^la  sunt, 
 et  sine  quo  laduni  est  nihil.     Adv.  Prax.  sub.  initio. 
 
(     447     ) 
 
 which  divided  and  disturbed  the  Cartha- 
 ginian church  are  considered;  it  is  no 
 wonder  that  all  the  ignorant  people  of 
 the  place  to  use  the  hyperbolical  lan- 
 guage of  Tertullian,  were  for  a  short  time, 
 Monarchists.  But,  even  at  Carthage  there 
 is  not  the  slightest  trace  of  an  Unitarian, 
 who  believed  in  the  simple  humanity  of 
 Christ,  in  the  time  of  Tertullian.  The 
 Christians  of  that  place  were  Monarchists, 
 and  not  Alogians :  they  believed,  that 
 Christ  was  truly  one  and  the  same  in 
 substance  and  person  with  God  the  Fa- 
 ther, not  that  he  was  a  mere  man  like 
 themselves. 
 
 The  notion  of  Tertullian's  testimony  to 
 the  popularity  of  the  do6lrine  of  Christ's 
 mere  humanity  has  arisen  from  two  enor- 
 mous mistakes,  i.  That  Tertullian,  in 
 mentioning  the  obje6lions  of  simple,  igno- 
 rant people  against  the  do6lrines  of  the 
 church,  was  speaking  of  the  common 
 people  in  the  Christian  world  at  large, 
 instead  of  those  ow/y,  who  were  immedi- 
 ately under  his  own  eye  at  Carthage.  2. 
 That  Monarchists  denied  the  divinity  of 
 Christ ;  whereas,  in  denying  his  person- 
 ality 
 
(     448     ) 
 
 alit}''  to  be  distin6l  from  that  of  the  Father, 
 they  asserted  his  divinity  in  the  highest 
 possible  degree. —  Tertuliian,  when  speak- 
 ing of  the  Carthaginian  Christians,  declares 
 that  all  the  ignorant  people  (simplices  qui- 
 que,  or  idiotes  quisque)  were  just  become 
 Monarchists  :  when  he  speaks  to  the  opi- 
 nions of  Christians  in  general  throughout 
 the  world,  he  affirms  that  they  all  held 
 Christ  to  be  God*,  These  two  accounts 
 are  perfe6Uy  consistent :  but,  both  must 
 unquestionaby  be  understood  with  some 
 limitation. 
 
 It  is  hardly  worth  observing,  that  Dr. 
 Priestley,  I  believe  without  any  authority, 
 reads  quippe  instead  of  quique.  The  ex- 
 pression "  simplices  quique"  is  probably 
 one  of  Tertullian's  barbarisms,  instead  of 
 simplex  quisque  or  unusquisque.  He  after- 
 wards has  it  so.  Male  accepit  Idiotes 
 quisque  aut  perversus  hoc  di6lum*.  Dr. 
 Priestley  also  seems  to  have  inadvertently 
 
 ranked 
 
 *  Christi  regnum  et  nomen  ubique  adoratur,  omnibus 
 Rex,  omnibus  Deus  et  Dominus  est.  Lib.  cont.  Judaeos 
 c.  vii.  Aspice  universas  naiiones  de  voragine  erroris 
 humani  exinde  emergentes  ad  Dominum  Deum  creato- 
 rem,  et  ad  Deum  Christum  ejus,  c.  xii. 
 
 *  Tertuliian.  adv.  Prax.  p.  473  Ed.  Basil.  1539. 
 
(     449     ) 
 
 ranked  Praxeas  among  the  Montanists, 
 though  he  was  their  most  formidable 
 antagonist*. 
 
 *  **  Many  of  the  Montanists,  besides  Praxeas,  against 
 whom  TertuUian  wrote,  were  probably  Unitarians." 
 Hist,  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  3.  p.  323. 
 
 y^ 
 
 L  L  L  CHAP. 
 
(     450     ) 
 CHAP.     XXI. 
 
 TP|E  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA-5 
 MENT  BY  THE  FIRST  GENTILE  CHRIS- 
 TIANS, COLLECTED  FROM  THEIR  RELI- 
 GIOUS  OPINIONS. 
 
 The   usual   pra6^ice  of  Historians  to  determine  the 
 state  of  opinion  in  any  age  by  the   general  spirit  of 
 its  writing's.     2.    Reasonableness  of  this  method.     If 
 the  great  body  of  Christians  in  the  second  and  third 
 centuries  had  been   Unitarians,  many  writers   would 
 have  been  Unitarians  also.  3.  The  rulers  of  the  church 
 could  not  be  professed  Trinitarians,  while  the  people 
 were  Unitarians,  from  the  nature  of  the  church  govern- 
 ment :  4.  and  from  the  severity,  with  which  Unitarians 
 were  treated.     5.   The  writings  of  learned  Christians 
 in  the  second  and  third  centuries  would  have  been  of  a 
 different  cast,  if  the  common  people  had  been  Unita- 
 rians.    6.   Theodoret's  testimony  to  the  influence  of 
 the  bishops    with  the    common    people,    before    the 
 council  ot  Nice.     7.   The- divinity  of  Christ  taught  in 
 hymns  used  in  the  religious  service,  in  which  learned 
 and  unlearned  Christians  joined.     8.   The  doctrine  of 
 Christ's  divinity  proved  to   have   been  the  prevailing 
 opinion  in  the  sesond  and  third  centuries,  by  comparing 
 the  different  pretensions  of  Unitarians  and  Trinitarians 
 in   those   ages.      9.  Unitarians  proved   to  have   been 
 inconsiderable  in  number  from  the  first  a6ls  of  Con- 
 stantine  after  his  conversion. 
 
 I.   THE 
 
(     451     } 
 
 rip 
 
 I.    JL  H  E    hypothesis     relathig    to    the 
 
 opposition  between  the  opinions  of  learned 
 and  unlearned  Christians,  in  the  second 
 and  third  centuries,  on  the  subject  of  the 
 nature  of  Christ,  appears  at  first  sight  so 
 extravagant,  that  nothing  but  dire6l, 
 strong,  and  various  testimony  would  be 
 sufficient  to  induce  an  unprejudiced  mind 
 to  acquiesce  in  it.  But,  no  evidence  of 
 this  kind  has  been  produced :  the  passages 
 from  Tertullian  and  Origen,  having  no  con- 
 nexion with  the  question,  on  which  they 
 have  been  brought  to  decide :  and  the 
 supposition  of  the  Unitarianism  of  the 
 common  people  in  those  early  ages  stands 
 at  this  moment  without  any  testimony 
 whatever  in  its  support.  It  remains  to  be 
 seen  what  the  advocates  of  this  whimsical 
 notion  will  say  to  the  evidence  en  the 
 other  side.  Any  testimony  indeed  to 
 prove  the  common  people,  in  any  age,  of 
 the  religion  which  was  openly  professed, 
 and  continually  taught  by  the  learned, 
 would  be  superfluous,  had  not  a  contrary 
 opinion  been  maintained  by  a  writer, 
 whose  well-earned  reputation  in  some 
 departments  of  philosophy  is  almost 
 sufficient  to  give   currency    to    the    most 
 
 L  L  L  2  palpable 
 
(     452     ) 
 
 palpable    errors    in    subjecls,    where    his 
 information  is  less  accurate  and  extensive. 
 Were  it  not  from  a  consideration  of  this 
 sort,  we  might  cast  our  eye  over  a  table 
 of  the  writings  of  Christians  in  the  three 
 first  centuries,  consisting  of  Letters,  Ora- 
 tions, Sermons,    dida61ic,  moral  and  con- 
 troversial   pieces.    Apologies,   Panegyrics, 
 Histories,  and  Commentaries  :   and  might 
 very    safely    take  for   granted,    that    the 
 popular  religion  was   to  be   found   in  the 
 general    spirit  of  these  popular  writings. 
 It  is  thus,  that  the  history  of  opinion  of  any 
 age  or  any  people  is  commonly  colle6led ; 
 and  it  is  thus  that  the  religious  opinions 
 of  Christians  in   the  first  ages  of  Chris- 
 tianity have  been  determined  by  the  most 
 accurate  historians.  —  Dodrina  Catholica 
 hujus   (i.  e.  2d'.)    sasculi,   says   Spanheim, 
 qualis  fuerit  certissime  colligitur, 
 
 1.  Ex  scriptis  Apostolicis. 
 
 2.  Ex  scriptis  symbolicis. 
 
 $.  Ex  scriptis  Apologeticis  —  Justini 
 Athenagor3?,  &c. 
 
 4.  Ex  scriptis  ahis  secundse  hujus  aetatis  ; 
 nempe  ex  genuinis  Justini,  Theophili,  Ta- 
 tiani,  &c. 
 
 Ex  his  omnibus  colliguntur  articuli  fidei 
 Christianae. 
 
 II.  It 
 
(     453      ) 
 
 II.   It  is   not  without  reason,  that  his- 
 torians   usually   determine  the   state  and 
 changes   of  opinions   in  any  age  by  the 
 general   spirit  of  its    writings.       Popular 
 opinions  and  popular  writings  are  always 
 mutually  influenced  by  each  other.     If  the 
 great  body  of  Christians,  before  the  council 
 of  Nice,  had  been  believers  in  the  simple 
 humanity  of  Christ,  a  multitude  of  books 
 would  have  sprung  out  of  that  generally 
 prevailing  opinion,  and  would  have  marked 
 the  spirit  of  the  age  with  as  much  certainty, 
 as  words  usually  describe  thoughts,  or  as 
 the  fruit  distinguishes  the  tree.      If  a  few 
 Platonizing  Christians  in  the  middle  of  the 
 second   century    had  really  attempted  to 
 introduce  a  do6lrine  opposite  to  the  senti- 
 ments of  the   majority  of  their  brethren, 
 the  Unitarian  faith  would   have   been  im- 
 mediately vindicated  against  the  bold  inno- 
 vators   by  some   of   the   common   people. 
 Every   age  can    witness    what   moderate 
 qualifications    are    necessary    to     form  a 
 writer.     And  some  of  the  early  Christian 
 fathers  were  in  fa6t  so   far  removed  from 
 the  chara(51:er   of  philosophers,  that  they 
 possessed  as  little  science  or  literature  as 
 many  writers  of  our  age.    In  some  of  their 
 works  we  might  as   reasonably  expect  to 
 
 find 
 
(     454.     ] 
 
 find  philosophy,  as  to  meet  with  sound 
 knowledge  and  rational  information  in 
 many  of  the  political,  and  politico-theolo- 
 gical painplilets,  which  have  been  published 
 in  England  within  the  last  seven  years. 
 Several  of  the  Fathers  were  as  ignorant, 
 and  obtruded  falsehood  mixed  with  truth 
 on  their  readers  and  hearers  with  as  much 
 self-satisfa6tion,  and  contempt  for  others, 
 as  some  popular  orators  and  writers  of  the 
 present  day.  One  of  the  first  Unitarian 
 writers  was  a  well-informed  artizan  of 
 Byzantium  ;  and  had  a  few  philosophers 
 attempted  to  impose  a  new  creed  on  Chris- 
 tians, every  artizan  would  have  been  con- 
 verted into  a  writer:  the  Unitarians  of 
 that  age,  that  is,  all  the  Christians,  like 
 the  Unitarians  of  our  time,  would  have 
 exclaimed  with  the  utm^ost  violence  against 
 the  IDOLATRY  of  the  philosophizing  Trini- 
 tarians; and  instead  of  treatises  ao^ainst 
 heretics  written  by  the  latter,  in  the  name 
 of  tliC  church,  we  should  have  had  to 
 peruse  a  mass  of  matter,  the  produ6lion 
 of  the  Unitarian  church,  against  the  heresy, 
 pliilosophism  and  idolatry  of  the  worship- 
 pers of  Christ.  Now,  since  out  of  a  mul- 
 titude of  volumes  before  the  council  of 
 Kice,  only  one  work  is   to    be   ibund,   in 
 
 which 
 
(      455      ) 
 
 which  the  do6lrine  of  Christ's  simple  hu- 
 manity is  defended,  we  may  be  fidlv 
 assured,  on  this  account  only,  that  Unita- 
 rianism  must  have  been  professed  by 
 extremely  few  Christians. 
 
 III.   It  is  universally  allowed,  that  the 
 writers,  the  rulers  of  the  church,  and  the 
 learned  in  general,  in  the  second  and  third 
 centuries,  believed  in  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
 and  openly   taught   this  doflrine.       And, 
 from  the  conne6lion,   which    always   sub- 
 sists   between  the  opinions  of  the  learned 
 and  the   ignorant,  we  might  have   a  very 
 strong  assurance,  that  the  common  people 
 in  general  held  the  same  tenets  with  their 
 superiors   on  this    subje61.      A  peculiarity 
 in  the  constitution  of  the  Christian  church 
 in  the  first  ages  raises  a   high  degree  of 
 probability    to   moral    certainty.  —  In   the 
 early  state  of  the  church,  the  bishops,  pres- 
 byters  and  other   ministers   were  ele61ed 
 to  their  offices   by  the  whole  body  of  the 
 people*.      The  government  of  the  church 
 
 before 
 
 *  Prrecipua  pars  ecclesias  populuserat,  qui  potestate  vale- 
 bat  episcopum,  presbyteros,  et  ministros  designandi,  leges 
 ierendi,  quae  proponebantur  in  conventibus  vel  appro- 
 bandi,  malos  et  dcgeneres  et  excludendi  et  recipiendi  : 
 
 ncc 
 
(     456     ) 
 
 before  the  council  of  Nice  was  eleftive  and 
 representative  in  the  stri6lest  sense.  And 
 it  ought  to  be  known,  that  two  modern 
 leaders  of  a  body  of  Christians  *,  who,  it 
 is  said,  are  advocates  for  a  very  general,  if 
 not  universal  representation  of  the  people 
 in  civil  government,  maintain,  that  the 
 constituents  and  their  representatives  were 
 uniformly  of  opposite  opinions  for  two 
 hundred  years,  in  a  government,  where 
 the  rulers  were  eledled  by  the  people  at 
 large  :  that  the  people  regularly  appointed 
 persons  to  govern,  and  instru6l  them, 
 whom  they  must  have  thought  idolaters. 
 
 Dr.  Priestley's  reasoning  does  not  al- 
 ways lead  to  such  strange  conclusions. 
 Ononeocsasion,  he  observes,  "the  bishops 
 were  Jews,  because  the  people  were  so.'* 
 And  on  the  same  just  principle  he  ought 
 to  have  inferred,  that  the  bishops  through- 
 out the  whole  Christian  world  in  the  second 
 and  third  centuries  were  believers  in  the 
 divinity  of  Christ,  and  Trinitarians,  because 
 the  people,  who  eledled  them,  were  so. 
 Whatever  were  the  opinions  of  the  great 
 
 body 
 
 ncc  aliquid  momentt  alicujus,  nisi  conscio  et  consentient^ 
 populo  decern!  et  geri  poterat.  Mosheim.  de  rebus  ante 
 Constant  p.  14.5. 
 
 *  Dr.  Priestley  and  Mr.  Lindsey. 
 
(     457     ) 
 
 body  of  eleclors  on  matters  of  importance, 
 the  opinions  of  the  ecclesiastical  magistrates 
 elected  would,  unquestionably  be,  in  general, 
 the  same.  Or,  if  it  should  occasionally 
 happen,  that  the  people  raised  a  person  to 
 an  eminent  situation  in  the  church,  who 
 had  the  hypocrisy  to  conceal  his  sentiments, 
 till  after  his  elevation,  such  instances  would, 
 at  any  rate,  be  rare :  and  the  individuals, 
 thus  exalted  by  the  mistake  of  the  electors, 
 would  be  degraded  (as  we  find  they  were) 
 as  soon  as  their  opinions  became  known*. 
 
 IV.  The  severity,  with  which  Unitarians 
 were  treated  by  the  church,  before  it  became 
 possessed  of  civil  power,  proves  that  its 
 rulers  had  the  people  on  their  side.  In  a 
 very  few  years  after  the  origin  of  the 
 Ebionsean,  Cerinthian  and  Carpocratian 
 se61s,  they  were  attacked  as  heretics  by 
 Justin,  Irenceus  and  Hegesippus;  excluded 
 from  the  common  privileges,  and  even  the 
 
 7iame 
 
 *  Athanasius,  after  tlie  council  of  Nice,  was  appoinfed 
 to  his  Bishopric  by  the  whole    multitude  of  people  uf  the 
 
 catholic  church.       no.?  I  >mo<;  —  anGowf,    ly.^aCpv^  ctiTanTii  Abatw 
 
 trto»  i'^Tiffy.'^TTov.  Ep.  Synod.  Alex.  ap.  Athen.  Apol.  2. 
 T.  2.  p.  726.  citat.  a  Bingharn,  Antiq.  Christ,  B,  4. 
 c.  2.  —  Yet  Dr.  Priestley  supposes  these  people  to  have 
 been  beUevers  in  the  simple  humanity  of  Clirist. 
 
 M  M  M 
 
(      458      ) 
 
 name  of  Christians,  and  thought  to  be 
 incapable  of  future  salvation.  The  only 
 Unitarians,  of  whose  existence  any  trace 
 can  be  discovered,  were  treated  with 
 the  utmost  harshness  ;  and  as  soon  as 
 any  member  of  the  church  openly  pro- 
 fessed his  belief  in  the  simple  humanity 
 of  Christ,  he  was  immediately  excluded 
 from  the  communion  of  other  Chris- 
 tians, and  stigmatized  with  the  name 
 of  heretic.  Could  it  possibly  have  hap- 
 pened, that  Theodotus  should  have  been 
 excommunicated,  and  Paul  of  Samosata 
 deposed,  for  maintaining  the  same  opinions 
 with  the  people  in  whose  hands  the  con- 
 trouling  power  was  lodged  and  frequently 
 exercised  ? 
 
 V.  Had  the  mass  of  the  people  been 
 believers  in  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ, 
 the  rulers  of  the  church,  elected  by  them, 
 must  also  have  been  Unitarians  :  and  had 
 a  few  philosophers  first  ventured  to  teach 
 Trinitarianism,  as  it  has  lately  been  as- 
 serted, about  A.  D.  14,0;  had  they  at- 
 tempted to  introduce  a  new  doclrinc  into 
 Cliristianity  from  the  writings  of  the 
 heathen  philosophers,  it  would  have  been 
 
 immediately 
 
(     459     ) 
 
 immediately  exploded  with  indignation; 
 the  sufficiency  of  scripture  as  a  rule  of 
 faith  and  morals,  would  have  been  insisted 
 on,  the  heathenism  of  the  new  teachers 
 would  have  been  reprobated,  and  they 
 would  have  been  driven  with  ignominy 
 from  the  church.  Can  we  suppose  it 
 possible  for  congregations  of  Christians  to 
 sit,  and  hear  doctrines  which  they  held 
 idolatrous,  continually  repeated,  without 
 exerting  the  power,  wliich  was  lodged  in 
 their  hands,  to  prevent  such  blasphemy  ? 
 Would  they  tamely  submit  to  see  several 
 members  of  the  church  successively  ex- 
 communicated, and  deprived  of  all  the 
 advantages  of  Christianity  by  a  few  phi- 
 losophers for  no  other  crime,  than  enter- 
 taining the  same  opinions  with  them- 
 selves ?  Is  it  likely  that  all  this  should 
 happen  not  only  without  the  punishment 
 of  the  authors  of  these  strange,  philoso- 
 phizing doctrines,  wlio  audaciously  excom- 
 municated those,  who  opposed  them  ;  but 
 without  any  public  vindication  of  the  rights 
 of  a  degraded  people,  insulted  by  a  few 
 philosophers  without  civil  or  military 
 power  to  support  their  usurpation,  and, 
 by  supposition,  without  sufficient  influence 
 
 M  M  M  2  over 
 
(     4^0     ) 
 
 over  their  minds   to  bring    them   over  to 
 their  own  opinions. 
 
 Justin   Martyr,  it  has  lately  been  said, 
 \vas  the  first  Christian,  or  one  of  the  first, 
 ^vho  introduced   the   notion  of  the  preex- 
 istence   and   divinity  of  Christ.      Had  this 
 been  really  so;   Justin  woukl   have    been 
 reckoned  a  heretic,  instead  of  being  ranked 
 among   the    most  respected,   and   revered 
 members  of  the  church  '^. — "  If  the  divinity 
 and  preexistence  of  Christ,"   it  has  been 
 justly  observed,  "was  not  a  tenet  of  pri- 
 mitive Christianity,  there  must  have  been 
 a  period  prior  to  the  Nicoean  council,  when 
 it  was   accounted  a  heresv,  and  when  the 
 non-divinity  was  as   universally  taught  as 
 the   sole  orthodox  do6trine.      Be   pleased 
 then  to   point  out  that   period,  and  prove 
 that  it  existed,  not  by  negatives,  presump- 
 tions and  arguments   from  improbabilit}- 
 but  by  clear,  positive  testimony  +." 
 
 VI.   If  the  great  body  of  the  commoq 
 people  in   tlie   second  and  third  centuries 
 
 had 
 
 *  "The  appellntion  of  Heretics  has  always  been  ap- 
 plied to  the  less  niiincrous  party."  Gibbon.  Hist.  Vol. 
 1.  c.  XV.  p.  C'04.  Kd,  4^0. 
 
 t  Geddcs,  p.  32. 
 
 •^5 
 
(     46i     ) 
 
 had  been  believers  in  the  simple  Iiumanity 
 of  Christ ;  a  peculiar  spirit  must  have  been 
 infused  into  the  writings  of  those  ages, 
 different  from  any  thing,  which  we  now 
 iind  in  them.  Simplicity,  frankness,  and 
 enthusiastic  zeal  were  the  most  striking 
 features  of  the  early  Christian  writers  : 
 A  timid,  time-serving  disposition  was,  of 
 all  qualities,  the  most  remote  from  their 
 chara6ter.  Had  tlie  common  people,in  their 
 opinion,  really  laboured  under  an  error  on 
 the  important  subje6l  of  Christ's  nature, 
 all  their  efforts  would  have  been  put  forth 
 to  effe6l  their  conversion.  Men,  who 
 intrepidly  opposed  the  opinions  of  the 
 whole  heathen  world,  would  certainly  not 
 have  been  afraid  of  attempting  the  com- 
 pleat  conversion  of  their  own  people: 
 all  their  labours  would  have  been  emplo3^ed 
 to  convince  them,  that  they  were  guilty 
 of  blasphemy,  in  calling  their  Saviour  a 
 mere  man  ;  the  homilies,  the  epistles,  the 
 histories  and  commentaries  of  the  second 
 and  third  centuries  would  have  been  filled 
 with  this  subjeft,  and  we  should  see  the 
 opinions  of  the  people  every  where  com- 
 batted  in  the  works  of  the  learned.  Since 
 the  writings  of  those  times  are  not  of  this 
 cast  J  since  the  learned,  on  the  contrar}^ 
 
 while 
 
(     462     ) 
 
 while  delivering  their  sentiments  respect- 
 ing the  divinity  of  Christ,  speak  v^'ith  confi- 
 dence in  the  name  of  the  great  body  of 
 Christians,  write  apologies  for  them,  and 
 describe  their  tenets  as  their  own,  it  seems 
 necessary  to  conclude,  tliat  Jio  material 
 difference  of  opinion  called  for  their 
 exhortations. 
 
 The  probability  of  this  inference  is  in- 
 creased by  the  consideration  of  a  well 
 known  fa6l  in  the  early  history  of  the 
 Christian  church.  In  a  few  places,  where 
 the  common  people  had  been  for  a  time, 
 converted  to  a  sort  of  Unitarianism  by 
 some  of  their  teachers,  as  at  Carthage  by 
 Praxeas,  and  in  Galatia  by  Marcellus  "*, 
 there  we  find  the  writers  uttering  com- 
 plaints, and  hear  of  extraordinary  exertions 
 to  reclaim  them  from  their  errors.  These 
 complaints  and  exertions  would  not  have 
 been  partial  and  local,  if  the  common 
 people  had  been  Unitarians  in  other  places. 
 
 VII.  If  ever  there  was  a  period,  when 
 the  utmost  harmony  subsisted  between 
 the  rulers   of  the   church  and  the  people 
 
 under 
 
 *  See  History  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  3.  p.  340. 
 
(     4^3      ) 
 
 under  their  care,  it  was  in  the  three  first 
 centuries,    before    the    Christian    reliction 
 received  the  patronage  and  support  of  the 
 civil  government.      This  harmony  was  not 
 destroyed    in     the    time    of   Constantine. 
 When  the  Arians  first   appeared,  it  may 
 plainly  be  collected  from  the  substance  of 
 a  letter  of  Alexander,  bishop  of  Alexandria, 
 preserved  in  Theodoret,  that  the  opinions 
 of   the    people    on    the    very    subject    of 
 Christ's  nature  were  much  influenced  by 
 those    of    their    superiors.       "  He    warns 
 him,"  says  Theodoret,  "  against  permitting- 
 those  workers  of  iniquity  to  come  within 
 any  churches  under  his  jurisdiction,  what- 
 ever pretended  letters  of  communion  anv 
 of   them    should    bring;    for,     that    they 
 had  not  only  with  the  Gentiles  and  Jev.s 
 denied  the  divinity  of  Christ,  but  had  also 
 done  what   his    very  crucifiers   could  not 
 persuade  themselves  to  do,  &c.  — that  after 
 they  had    been  synodically  ejected,  they 
 made  their  court  to    his    brethren    of  the 
 episcopal  college,  for  recomm.endatory  and 
 communicatory  letters,   which   having  by 
 their  little  knavish  arts,  dissimulations  and 
 calumnies  obtained  from  too  many  bishops, 
 they  chimed    that   authority  in   the  ears 
 of  the  people,  and  made  use  of  it  to  seduce 
 
 others." 
 
(   464   ) 
 
 others*.'*.  The  Arians  would  not  have 
 chimed  tlie  authority  of  the  bishops  in  the 
 ears  of  the  people,  if  the  former  had  main- 
 tained Christ  to  be  coeternal  and  consub- 
 stantial  with  the  Father,  and  the  frreat 
 body  of  the  latter  had  believed  him  to  be 
 a  mere  man  like  themselves. 
 
 VIII.  It  is  not  unreasonable  to  collect 
 the  rehgious  opinions  of  Christians  in  gene- 
 ral in  the  second  and  third  centuries  from 
 the  nature  of  the  religious  services,  in  which 
 they  joined.  In  the  third  century  it  appears 
 to  have  been  disputed  whether  the  hymns 
 used  in  their  churches  were  written  in  the 
 first  age  of  Christianity,  or  not.  But, 
 whether  they  were  as  ancient  as  they  were 
 common^  supposed,  is  a  question,  which 
 it  is  not  necessary  to  decide,  when  we  are 
 only  enquiring  into  the  opinions  of  the 
 common  people  about  the  time  of  Tertul- 
 lian  and  Origen.  To  prove  that  the  great 
 body  of  Christians  in  the  third  century 
 were  believers  in  the  divinity  of  Christ,  it 
 is  sufficient  to  observe,  that  hymns,  either 
 ancient,  or  novel,  in  which  the  divinity  of 
 Christ  was  celebrated,  were  commonly 
 used  in  the  religious  assemblies  of  Chris- 
 tians, 
 
 •^ Tlicodorct.  Hist.  L,  i,  civ.  Parker's  TnnsUuion. 
 
(     4^5     ) 
 
 tians,  and  that  one  of  the  reasons  for 
 depriving  Paul  of  Samosata  of  his  bishop- 
 ric was  his  attempt  to  abolish  them*.  It 
 is  far  from  improbable  that  the  hymns 
 which  Paul  could  not  tolerate  in  his  dio- 
 cese, according  to  the  received  custom, 
 were  the  very  compositions,  in  which, 
 according  to  the  testimony  of  Pliny,  the 
 Christians,  forty  seven  years  after  the 
 resurre6lion  of  Christ,  were  accustorned  to 
 address  their  praises  to  Christ  as  Godf. 
 
 IX.  If 
 
 *  "Eusebius  (Hist.  L.  5.  c.  28.)  gives  a  farther  proof 
 of  this,  informing  us,  that  the  many  hymns  composed 
 upon  our  blessed  Lord  by  the  earhest  Christians  were 
 arguments  of  his  divinity,  and  were  so  made  use  of  against 
 tlie  heresy  of  Artemon,  who  denied  it.  The  same  his- 
 torian hkewise  observes,  (L.  7.  c.  30)  that  another  heretic, 
 namely  Paulus  Samosatenus,  not  bearing  the  evidence 
 of  those  ancient  hymns,  which  were  composed  upon  our 
 Lord,  endeavoured  to  abolish  them,  under  the  pretence 
 of  their  novelty  ;  and  for  that,  and  his  heretical  opinions, 
 was  deprived  of  his  bisliopric.  —  The  testimony  of  an 
 enemy  may  in  this  case  be  as  prevalent  as  that  ot  a  triend  : 
 for  there  seems  no  other  reason  why  the  aforesaid  heretic 
 should  take  so  much  pains  to  abolish  the  hymns  relatingto 
 our  Lord,  if  he  had  not  thought  the  worship,  which  was 
 paid  by  them,  an  argument  of  his  divinity."  Detence  of 
 the  biiihop  of  London's  Letter   (1719)  p.  21. 
 
 Mosheim  (p.  704.)  has  a  curious  conje6lurei  that  Paul 
 changed  the  Christian  hymns  for  the  Psalms  of  David,  ty 
 please  Zenobia. 
 
 tQjod  essent  soliti  stato  die,  ante  lucem  convenire, 
 carmenque  Christo  quasi  Deo  dicere  secum  iuvicem.  Pha. 
 L.  iO.  Ep.  97. 
 
 N  N  N 
 
(     4^^     ) 
 
 IX.  If  the  common  people,  the  great 
 body  of  Christians,  in  the  third  and  fourth 
 centuries  had  believed  in  the  simple  huma- 
 nity of  Christ,  as  it  has  lately  been  asserted  ; 
 we  should  have  heard  of  Theodotus,  Arte- 
 mon,  Paul  of  Samosata,  Marcellus  of 
 Ancyra  and  Photinus  insisting,  that  all 
 the  Christians  of  their  ozvn  time,  except  a 
 few  Platonizing  philosophers,  were  of  their 
 opinions.  Instead  of  this,  they  declared 
 that  Unitarianism  had  been  the  universal 
 religion  :  and  thus,  in  referring  to  past  time 
 for  the  general  prevalence  of  their  opinions, 
 virtually  admitted,  all  that  we  want  to 
 prove,  the  paucity  of  their  followers  at  the 
 moment  that  their  claim  to  antiquity  was 
 advanced. 
 
 Marcellus  maintained,  that  Unitarianism 
 had  been  universal,  till  Origen,  loo  years 
 before  him,  introduced  a  diiferent  doftrine. 
 The  Unitarians  of  Origen's  age,  or  a  little 
 before  it,  asserted  the  universality  of  their 
 religion,  till  the  purity  of  the  Apostolical 
 do6trine  became  corrupted  under  Zephyri- 
 nus  :  But,  no  instance  is  found  of  any 
 Unitarian  affirming,  or  supposing,  that 
 the  great  body  of  Christians  were  of  his 
 opinion  at  the  instant  when  he  was  de- 
 ■'■  fending 
 
(     467     ) 
 
 fending  his  doctrine,  and  asserting  its 
 antiquity  *.  The  difference  between  the 
 condudl  of  the  writers  of  the  church  and 
 that  of  Unitarians  is  in  itself  sufficient  to 
 determine  which  was  the  prevailing  system 
 in  the  second  and  third  centuries.  Justin, 
 Athenagoras,  Tatian,  Irenseus,  Tertullian, 
 Origen  and  several  others  declared  that 
 Christians  in  general  of  their  ozvn  time 
 believed  in  the  divinity  of  Christ  -f .  The 
 Unitarians  affirmed  their  religion  to  have 
 been  generally  prevalent  at  some  preceding 
 period. 
 
 X.  As  a  medium  for  proving  Unita- 
 rianism  the  universal  religion  of  Christians 
 in  the  age  of  the  Apostles,  it  has  been 
 contended,  that  the  great  body  of  the 
 common  people  in  the  second,  third  and 
 fourth  centuries,  nay    even  in   the  fifth, 
 
 and 
 
 *  The  common  Chronology  brings  the  accession  of 
 Vi6tor  as  low  as  J92,  and  Zephyrinus  201.  But  there  is 
 great  reason  to  question  the  accuracy  of  these  dates. 
 See  Disseit.  Proev.  in  Iren*eum,  p.  80.  Ed.  Ren. 
 Massuet  Par.  17 10.  Where  Vi6lor  is  placed  about  177. 
 Without  attempting  to  settle  the  chronology  ;  it  is  suffi- 
 cient to  observe,  that  it  was  some  time  after  the  accession 
 of  Zephyrinus,  when  the  Artemonites  asserted  the  anti- 
 quity of  their  doftrine.  This  appears  from  the  language 
 of  the  writer  quoted  by  Eusebius,  Hist.  L.  5.  c.  28. 
 
 I  See  the  last  Chap,  of  this  V^ol' 
 
 N  N  N  3 
 
(     468     ) 
 
 and  sixth,  were  believers  in  the  simple 
 humanity  of  Christ  ;  that  their  opinions 
 on  this  subject  were  the  same  with  those, 
 for  which  Paul  of  Samosata  was  excom- 
 municated. "  It  cannot  be  doubted,"  says 
 Dr.  Priestley,  "  but  that  the  simple  and 
 ignorant  people  of  Tertullian  and  Origen 
 were  the  same  with  those,  that  were  com- 
 plained of  by  Athanasius,  as  persons  of 
 low  understanding ;  and  these  were  the  dis- 
 ciples of  Paulus  Samosatensis  *."  Among 
 other  methods,  the  reasonableness  of  this 
 strange  hypothesis  may  be  tried  by  the 
 condu6l  of  the  first  Christian  emperor. 
 "  The  sects,  against  whom  the  imperial 
 severity  was  directed,  appear  to  have  been 
 the  adherents  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  the 
 Montanists  of  Phrygia,  —  the  Novatians, — 
 the  Marcionites  and  Valentinians-f."  And 
 can  we  believe  it  possible,  that  the  em- 
 peror, immediately  on  embracing  Chris- 
 tianity, should  begin  with  the  persecution 
 of  those  tenets,  which  formed  the  Chris- 
 tianity of  his  time  ?  Are  we  seriously  to 
 learn  from  Dr.  Priestle}^  instead  of  gaining 
 our  information  from  Mr.  Gibbon,  that 
 Constantine  was  an  oppressor,  and  not  a 
 
 protect ov 
 
 *  History  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  3.  p.  393. 
 t  Gibbon,  Hist.  Vol.  2,  c.  xxi.  p.  232. 
 
(     4^9     ) 
 
 proteclor  of  the  great  body  of  Christians  ? 
 Policy,  as  some  think,  had  a  share  in  the 
 emperor's    conversion.     What  a   singular 
 kind    of    refinement     must    there     have 
 been  in  that  policy,  which  induced  him  to 
 desert  his  pagan   subjects,  and   to   shew 
 his  attachment  to  his  new  religion  by  a6ls 
 of  severity  against   the  great  mass   of  its 
 professors  !   Constantine,   we  may  be  well 
 assured,    would    neither   have  shewn  any 
 great  solicitude   to  reconcile  Trinitarians 
 and   Arians,  and  a  tender  care  for  their 
 mutual  interests,    if  these  two  parties  had 
 consisted  only  of  a  few  philosophers  :   nor 
 would  he  have  persecuted  believers  in  the 
 simple   humanity  of  Christ,  if  they   had 
 formed  the   great  body  of  Christians.  — 
 The  Novatians  agreed  with  the  church  in 
 their   opinions   respe6ling   the    nature   of 
 Christ,  as  well  as  in  most  of  the  leading 
 doctrines    of   Christianity  * :    and,    on    a 
 further  inquiry  into  their  opinions,  "  The 
 Novatians   were  exempted  by  a  particular 
 edi6l    from  the  general  penalties  of  the 
 law-f." 
 
 *  Mosheim  de  Rebus  ante  Constant,  p.  529. 
 f  Gibbon,  Hist.  Vol.  2.  p.  233. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
(     470     ) 
 
 CHAP.     XXII. 
 
 THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA- 
 MENT BY  THE  FIRST  GENTILE  CHRIS- 
 TIANS, COLLECTED  FROM  THEIR  RELI- 
 GIOUS  OPINIONS. 
 
 I.  General  testimony  of  the  heathens  in  the  second  and 
 third  centuries  to  the  behef  of  Christians  in  the  divinity 
 of  Christ.  Never  denied  by  the  learned  or  unlearned 
 Christians.  2.  Testimony  of  Adrian.  3.  Testimony 
 of  the  Heathens  and  Jews  mentioned  by  Justin.  4. 
 Testimony  of  Celsus  and  Lucian.  5.  Testim.ony  of 
 the  Heathens  in  general  mentioned  by  Minucius  Felix. 
 6.  Testimony  of  Porphyry.  7.  Testimony  of  Hierocles 
 and  another  heathen  writer  noticed  by  La6tantius.  8. 
 Testimony  of  the  heathens  in  general  as  described  by 
 Arnobius.  g.  The  general  testimony  of  the  heathens 
 on  tliis  subje6l  unopposed  by  any  individual  among 
 themselves.  —  Effeft,  which  the  cbjedion  of  the  hea- 
 thens would  have  produced  on  the  Apologies  of  the 
 learned  and  unlearned  Christians,  if  it  had  been  without 
 foundation. 
 
 L  JL  H  E  Christians  for  many  ages  were 
 a  se(5l  separated  from  the  rest  of  the  world 
 by  a  new  system  of  opinions,  and  by  laws 
 and  customs  of  their  own.  The  eyes  of 
 the  surrounding  heathens  were  soon  turned 
 upon  them :  and  in  less  than  a  century 
 after  the  foundation  of  their  religion,  they 
 
 had 
 
(     471     ) 
 
 had  become  obje6ls  of  curiosity,  and   in 
 some  decree  of  alarm.     To  ascertain  the 
 manners,  opinions   and   pra6lices    of   the 
 first   Christians,  an  industrious  and  care- 
 ful inquirer  will  have  recourse  not  only  to 
 their   writings,   but   to  those   of  heathen 
 and  Jewish  observers,  by  whom  they  were 
 surrounded.     And  it  is   a  negled,  which 
 hardly  admits  of  excuse,  that  the  evidence 
 derivable  from  this  last-mentioned  source 
 should   have   been   almost   entirely  over- 
 looked by  the  writer  of  "  the  History  of 
 early  Opinions  concerning  Christ.''     Had 
 the  Carthaginian  writings  been  fortunately 
 preserved  ;  we  still  should  not  despise  the 
 sketches  of    their    history   and    manners, 
 which  are  to  be  found  in  Greek  and  Roman 
 writers.      If  the  writings  of  some   of  the 
 Jewish  and  Christian   sectaries  were  now 
 extant,  such  as  the  Essenes,   the  Menan- 
 drians,  the  Cerinthians,  or  Valentinians  ; 
 we  should  yet  think  it  our  duty  to  attend 
 to   the    descriptions     of   them    in    Philo, 
 Josephus  and  Irenaeus.     Though  some  of 
 the  earliest  writings  of  the  Christian  se6l 
 (considering  the  whole  colle6five  body  of 
 Christians  under   whatever  denomination 
 as  one  se6i,  with  respec^l  to  the  world  at 
 large,)  have  come  down  to  us  ;  we   shall 
 
 hardly 
 
(     472     ) 
 
 hardly  be  a(5luated  by  a  proper  regard  for 
 truth,  if  we  determine  to  shut  our  eyes  on 
 the  piilure  of  them,  which  is  drawn  by 
 the  heathens.  We  may  suspect  both  the 
 partiality  of  friends  and  the  malice  of  ene- 
 mies :  it  will  be  adviseable  to  attend  to 
 the  suggestions  of  both,  and  to  colle6l  the 
 truth  from  a  comparative  view  of  their 
 different  representations.  On  many  sub- 
 je6ts  indeed  a  compleat  account  may  be 
 obtained  of  the  Christians  from  their  own 
 writings  :  and  we  might  also  gain  suffi- 
 cient information  on  several  particulars 
 respe61:ing  their  character  from  the  writings 
 of  heathens  alone. 
 
 When  Celsus  for  instance,  in  the  middle 
 of  the  second  century,  affirmed,  that  all 
 the  Christians  were  ignorant  persons  ;  we 
 may  be  well  assured,  that  very  fev/  of 
 them  could  be  acquainted  with  the  writings 
 of  the  Platonic  philosophers  ;  and  tiience 
 infer  with  great  probabiht}^  that  Chris- 
 tianity could  not  then  have  been  generally 
 corrupted  from  that  source.  When  Julian 
 complained,  that  the  impious  Galilaeans 
 not  only  supported  their  own  poor,  but 
 many  of  those  also  among  the  heathens ; 
 philanthrophy  and  charity,  we  should  con- 
 clude. 
 
{     473     ) 
 
 elude,  were  in  his  time  characteristic  marks 
 of  Christianity.  And  when  nearly  all  the 
 heathen  writers,  who  have  mentioned  the 
 Christians  before  the  council  of  Nice,  have 
 represented  tliem  as  worshippers  of  Christ; 
 when  we  know  from  history,  that  the  Iiea- 
 thens  in  general  considered  the  deification 
 of  Christ  by  Christians  as  a  well-known 
 fa6l,  which  none  of  them  ever  questioned  ; 
 "  such  evidence  as  this,''  we  should 
 say,  "  cannot  be  controverted,  the  fa 61 
 substantiated  by  it  will  never  be  dis- 
 puted, this  can  be  no  calumny  like  some 
 other  groundless  charges  urged  against 
 Christians,  which  they  denied  and  repelled. 
 It  cannot  have  been  a  few  learned  men 
 only  among  them,  who  entertained  the 
 notion  of  Christ's  divinity,  particularly  at 
 a  time,  when  they  were  all  accused  of 
 ignorance:  it  must  certainly  have  been 
 the  great  body  of  this  people,  whom  these 
 heathens  had  in  view." 
 
 On  turning  to  the  writings  of  the  Chris- 
 tians before  the  council  of  Nice,  we  find 
 the  case  to  be  exa6lly  as  we  should  previ- 
 ously expe6l.  A  few  idle,  popular  clamours 
 raised  against  them,  in   which  they  were 
 
 O  o  o  accused 
 
(     474     ) 
 
 accused  of  incest,  cannibalism  and  atheism, 
 but  which  their  more  respeclable  enemies 
 had  not  countenanced,  these  they  denied 
 and  refuted.      But,  though  the  accusation 
 of  worshipping  Christ  as  God  was  urged 
 against  them   universally,    by  writers    as 
 well     as    others,    from    Pliny  to    Julian, 
 and     was      sometimes     even     made    one 
 of   the    grounds   of   persecution;     not    a 
 single   Christian  can  be  mentioned,  who 
 ever  denied  the  charge.      On  the  contrary, 
 their  writers  come  forward  to  avow  this 
 part  of  their  common  faith,  and  to  prove 
 its  reasonableness     and    truth. — To  say 
 that  TertuUian  and  Origen   described  the 
 great  body    of  Christians  as   believers  in 
 the  simplehumanity  of  Christ,  is  an  absurd 
 fi6lion.      Both  of  them  have   strenuously 
 asserted  the   general   belief  of  Christians 
 in  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
 
 II.  The  testimony  of  Pliny  to  this  arti- 
 cle of  the  Christian  faith  in  the  first  century 
 has  already  been  stated.  The  next  heathen 
 testimony  is  that  of  the  emperor  Adrian  : 
 who,  in  a  letter  to  Serrianus,  observes  that 
 ''  the  Patriarch  himself,  when  he  comes  to 
 
 Egypt, 
 
(     475     ) 
 
 Egypt,  is  forced  by  some  to  worship  Sera- 
 pis,  by  others  to  xvorship  Christ*." 
 
 The  whole  pi6lure  of  Egypt  is  drawn 
 by  the  Imperial  artist  in  caricature ;  and 
 the  features  of  Christians  are  distorted, 
 together  with  the  others  in  the  whole 
 group.  But,  sober  truth  maj^  sometimes 
 be  collefted  out  of  the  exaggerations  of 
 wit  and  satire.  At  this  time,  when  Chris- 
 tianity was  persecuted  by  its  enemies,  some 
 Christians,  might  be  previously  assured, 
 we  would  so  far  dissemble,  as  to  pay  a 
 constrained  homage  to  the  popular  divi- 
 nities of  the  country :  we  have  the  testi- 
 mony of  Adrian  in  this  letter,  confirmed 
 by  other  evidence,  that  this  actually 
 happened    in   Egypt  f.      The    testimony, 
 
 by 
 
 *  ^gyptum,  quam  mihl  laudabas,  Serriane  diVnissime 
 totam  didici,  levem,  pendulam  et  ad  omnia  fama  momenta 
 vohtantcm.     Illi,  qui  Serapin  colunt,  Christiani  sunt  •  et 
 devoti  sunt  Serapi,  qui  se  Christi  episcopos  dicunt.   Nemo 
 ilhc  archisynagogus  Judaeorum,  nemo  Samarites,  nemo 
 Chnstianorum  presbyter,  non  mathematicus,  non  aruspex 
 non  ahptes.     Ipse  ille  patriarclia,  quum  ^gyptum  vene- 
 rit,  ab  ahis  Serapidem  adorare,  ab  aliis  cogitur  Cliristum 
 Adrian    ap.  Histor.  August.  Scriptores,  Tom.  2.  p  72 q* 
 Lugd.  JBatav.  1671.  r   /   ^• 
 
 t  See  Casaubon's  learned  note  on  this  page:  which,  I 
 ihmk,  obviates  Lardner's  ingenious  conjeaure  (Hist 'of 
 Heretics,  B.  2.  c.  ii.  §  2,.)  on  the  origin  of  Adrian's 
 opinion  respe6ling  tiie  Christian  worship  of  Serapis. 
 
 0002 
 
(     476     ) 
 
 by  which  we  gain  this  information, 
 teaches  us  also,  that  the  Patriarch  was 
 compelled  by  Christians  to  acknowledge 
 in  Christ  the  divinity,  .  which  heathens 
 forced  him  to  own  in  Serapis. 
 
 The  testimony  of  Adrian  perfe6lly 
 accords  with  that  of  Pliny,  But,  from 
 them  we  cannot  learn  the  whole  Christian 
 theology.  Whether  Christ  was  worshipped 
 as  one  among  many  Gods:  whether  the 
 Christians  of  that  age,  like  the  Sabellians 
 some  time  later,  and  like  the  Swedenbor- 
 gians  in  the  present  age,  considered  him 
 as  God  the  Father,  or  as  one  of  the  three 
 persons  in  the  divine  unity,  or  as  an  in- 
 ferior divinity,  cannot  be  known  from  these 
 testimonies  only. 
 
 In  our  disputes  with  those  moderns, 
 who  suppose  the  divinity  of  Christ  to  have 
 been  firat  acknowledged  by  Justin,  it  is  of 
 some  importance  to  notice  the  tiine,  when 
 Adrian  visited  Egypt  and  made  the  obser- 
 vations, which  he  committed  to  writing  in 
 this  letter.  Adrian  had  been  informed  of 
 the  worship  of  Christ  by  Christians  a.  d. 
 133.  the   very   year   in  which   Justin,  in 
 
 another 
 
(     477     ) 
 
 another  part  of  the  world,  was  converted 
 to  Christianity. 
 
 III.  The  next  heathen  and  Jewish 
 testimony  on  this  subje6l  is  to  be  colle6led 
 from  the  works  of  Justin  himself.  The 
 professed  purpose  of  his  apology,  was  to 
 give  an  exac^b  description  of  the  condu6l 
 and  religion  of  the  Christians  :  who  had 
 been  much  calumniated.  The  obje6lions 
 against  their  religion,  which  he  notices  in 
 his  apology,  must  have  been  started  some 
 years  before  it  was  written  ;  and  he  had 
 probably  heard  them  even  before  his  con- 
 version. The  do(^rines,  which  had  been 
 the  subje6t  of  popular  animadversion, 
 when  he  wrote,  could  not  have  been  first 
 introduced  among  Christians  by  him.  Had 
 the  divinity  of  Christ  been  first  taught  by 
 a  Platonist,  who  was  converted  to  Chris- 
 tianity A.  D.  133,  this  do6lrine  could  not 
 have  been  very  common  before  the  end  of 
 the  second  century,  though  we  suppose 
 great  rapidity  in  its  dissemination,  and 
 could  hardly  have  been  noticed  by  heathens 
 before   that    time*.       If  the    worship   of 
 
 Christ 
 
 *  See  Mr.  Bryant's  last  work  on  "  The  Sentiments  of 
 Philo  Judeus"  p.  60,61.  (1797)  which  has  appeared 
 since  most  of  these  sheets  were  printed. 
 
(     478     ) 
 
 Christ  was  made  a  ground  of  objedlion 
 against  Christians  before  a.  d.  140, 
 this  worship  must  have  been  some  time 
 established.  Now,  Justin  himself,  after 
 having  described  the  article  of  Christian 
 faith  relating  to  the  Trinity,  observes  — 
 "  They  (the  Gentiles)  declare  us  mad 
 in  this,  saying  that,  after  the  immutable 
 and  eternal  God,  the  parent  of  all,  we 
 assign  the  second  place  to  a  crucified 
 man  ;  not  knowing  the  mystery  which 
 this  contains,  to  which  we  request 
 you  to  turn  your  attention  i  while  we 
 explain  it*." 
 
 From  this  passage  compared  v>'ith  the 
 context  it  appears,  that,  when  Justin 
 wrote  his^r^^  Apology,  Jesus  Christ  was 
 honoured  next  to  the  Father,  and  that 
 their  extraordinary  veneration  for  the 
 founder  of  their  religion  was  objefled 
 against  the  Christians  as  madness.  He 
 mentions  it  as  a  matter  of  common  noto- 
 riety, he  takes  no  step  to  prove  the  exist- 
 ence   of  the   fa61-,    but   only  attempts  to 
 
 shew 
 
 E»T«L9a  ya^  i^.ctitciv  ry.uv  y.ura^xivoyroci^  ctvTc^av  ^u^cty  f/.iTCt  rot 
 
 SsKT*  StSovoti  ViijiOK;  ?vE7o*T£f,  ayiavT£s  to  tt  Turu  jitur»!§»o>  u  'ur^oert^eiv 
 t'wa?,    t^rr/jfjLSi/ut    »!ji*fc.»',  <PjoT^«'n'o/xi6«.       illlStlll    M,  p.    2C«  ilu. 
 
 Thirlby. 
 
(     479     ) 
 
 shew  the  reasonableness  of  the  mystery, 
 at  which  the  heathens  had  expresed  their 
 surprize.  From  other  parts  of  the  same 
 Apology  it  also  appears,  that  Justin  was 
 answering  remarks  which  had  been  made 
 on  the  conduct  and  opinions  of  Christians 
 before  he  wrote ;  and  that  one  objection, 
 which  he  endeavoured  to  remove  by  an 
 illustration,  which  would  appear  familiar 
 and  reasonable  to  the  worshippers  of  Jupi- 
 ter and  Mercury,  was,  that  Christ  was 
 •i::alled  the  word  and  the  s  on  of  God  *. 
 
 From  the  Apologies  we  are  informed  of 
 the  objections,  which  had  been  raised 
 against  Christianity  by  the  heathe?is,  before 
 Justin  wrote  :  and  the  Dialogue  acquaints 
 us  with  the  accusations  of  the  Jezvs.  Justin, 
 in  this  last  work,  after  having  alluded  to 
 several  passages  of  the  Old  Testament, 
 (Psalms  22.  46  and  98)  expressing,  as 
 he  supposed,  the  omnipotence,  preexistence 
 and  divinity  of  Christ,  is  at  last  interrupted 
 by  Trypho  ;  (p.  213.)  who  accuses  him  of 
 
 impiety 
 
 Tw  oi  Kcci  rov  ^.oyov,   5  e,-«  'a^urov  yBvnijxx  m  ©ttf  uvcv  £7n/i*»|»«:^ 
 (ptno-netv  rii/.ui;  yByevvKT-^ciif  Ivanv  X^iro*   toi*   ^^»a>ixXov  ■nf^Wf  y.cci  TtfTo» 
 
 «  'ssa^a  TH?  'ma^   vfAni  Asyo/AEm?  vmi;  ru  Ait  xan/ov  n  <pt^o/A,ii/j  —'n^oatij 
 yx^  vmi;  (pxcy-Hdt  rs   Aio?  o»  via^  via.hi  rn*,bifA.tvoi  crvfy^a.(fe{ij  £7r»rao"GtJ 
 
 E^f^ny  /*£»,  &c.  p.  31.  Vid.  etiam  p.  33. 
 
(     48o     ) 
 
 impiety  in  declaring  that  it  was  Christ, 
 who  spoke  with  Moses  and  Aaron  in  the 
 pillar  of  fire.  — Justin  replies,  that  the 
 wisdom  of  God  had  been  concealed  from 
 them,  (the  Jews,)  that  they  had  misunder- 
 stood their  own  scriptures,  and  (p.  215.) 
 cites  the  44th  Psalm  for  the  purpose  of 
 proving  to  Trypho  the  higher  attributes  of 
 Christ.  After  all  this,  he  adds,  "  It  is 
 not  a  matter  of  wonder,  if  you  hate  us, 
 who  understand  these  things,  and  who 
 expose  the  eternal  obduracy  of  your 
 minds  *." 
 
 Here  we  see  the  application  of  passages 
 in  the  Old  Testament  to  Christ  by  Chris- 
 tians, which  the  Jews  thought  to  belong 
 only  to  God  the  Father,  is  one  of  the  causes 
 assigned  by  Justin  for  the  hatred  of  the 
 Jews  against  his  brethren  f .  From  which 
 we  must  conclude,  that  the  Christians  had 
 endeavoured  to  prove  the  divinity  of  Christ 
 in  this  manner  before  Justin's  time  ;  since 
 he  speaks  of  the  hatred,  which  originated 
 from  this  cause,  as  then  existing. 
 
 In 
 
 t  For  an  account  of  Justin's  manner  of  answering  this 
 objeftion  of  the  Jews,  which  must  have  been  made  some 
 time  before  he  wrote,  see  Note,  p.  54.  of  this  Vol. 
 
(     48i     ) 
 
 111  the  beginning  of  the  second  century  ; 
 whether  the  heathens  spoke  of  the  faith 
 of  Christians,  like  Pliny,  as  a  matter  of 
 indifference;  or  as  a  subjeil  of  ridicule, 
 like  Adrian  ;  whether  it  was  mentioned 
 by  heathens  as  an  instance  of  a  sort  of 
 madness,  or  reprehended  by  Jews  as  im- 
 pious and  blasphemous,  the  do61;rine  of 
 Christ's  divinity  was  every  where  brought 
 forward  as  the  leading  article  of  their 
 creed :  and  the  opinion  was  ascribed  to 
 Christians  in  general,  without  distin6lion. 
 
 IV.   Celsus,  if  we  might   trust   to  the 
 authority  of  Origen,  lived  in  the  time  of 
 Adrian,  and  later.      But,  as  it  appears  on 
 other  evidence  that  he  was  contemporary 
 with  Lucian,  it  is  more  probable  that  he 
 was  born  in  the  reign  of  Adrian,  than  that 
 he  wrote  in,   or  very  near  the  time  of  that 
 monarch.    His  treatise  against  Christianity 
 might  perhaps   be  composed   about  a.  d. 
 160  or  170  :  and  his  observations  on  that 
 subject   which    he  committed    to    writing 
 must  have  been  made  during  the  preceding 
 part  of  his  hfe.     The  opinions,  which  he 
 ascribed    to    Christians,    and     which    his 
 antagonist    allowed    to    be    fairly    stated, 
 
 P  p  p  must 
 
(      482      ) 
 
 must  have  been  common  among  the  great 
 body  of  that  people  as  early,  at  least,  as 
 the   year    140.      This    writer  constantly 
 represented  them  as  believers  in  the  divi- 
 nity of  Christ.     And  it   is   clear,  that  he 
 had  not  mistaken  the  opinions   of  a   few 
 philosophizing     Christians    for    those    of 
 the    whole    body  :     since   he  accuses   all, 
 whom    he    had     noticed,     of    ignorance, 
 and  represents  them  all  as  persons  of  low, 
 and  servile  condition,  and  without  common 
 information  *.    The  language  of  the  Chris- 
 tians, he   says,   is  this  ;   "  Let  no  man  of 
 education,  or  wisdom,  or  prudence  come  to 
 us  (for  these  things  we  reckon  evils)  but 
 let    any    man    without    information,    and 
 understanding   and  common   sense   come 
 with   confidence :    for,    in   acknowledging 
 these  to  be  worthy  of  their  God,  they  are 
 evidently  willing  and  able  to  prevail  on  the 
 simple,     the    low-born,   the    stupid,    and 
 slaves,     and    silly  women    and     children 
 only  "^|\"     The  opinions,  therefore,  which 
 
 Celsus 
 
 *  L.  3.  p.  160. 
 
 '\  M>;d«f  -zc-^ocriTw  -zTETraiofu^wEw?,  |u,-/)J'rt{  <7o(po?,  i^n^si^  tp^oiy.oi;  ^KUtiX 
 7«§  ravTo,  vo^t^ijoti  'Zffcc^'  niji.iv)  uK\'  «  rt;  a/xaOtic,  «  Tt;  «ior;-c,-,  «  Ti; 
 >/,7rio?,  Bu^^uii  Y.y.tTU.  TSTU5  -yx^  a4i«5  c-^£T£§a©£a  ot-jTodiv  o,M,cAoya>T£j, 
 
 Celius  ap.  Oiigen,  L,  3.  p,  137. 
 
(   483   ) 
 
 CelsLis  ascribes  to  them,  were  not  the 
 opinions  of  a  few  Platonizing  philosophers, 
 but  of  plain,  common,  unlearned  people, 
 such  as  are  described  by  Justin  Martyr, 
 Irenceus,  Tertullian  and  Origen  under  the 
 title  of  t^tuTui,  Let  Celsus,  then,  be  heard 
 on  the  Theology  of  the  Christians. 
 
 Without  citing  all  the  passages  preserved 
 by  Origen,  in  which  the  heathen  philo- 
 sopher mentioned  the  belief  of  Christians 
 in  the  divinity  of  Christ,  it  will  be  suffi- 
 cient to  refer  to  many  of  them  *,  and 
 to  observe,  that  the  faith,  which  Celsus 
 had  observed,  in  the  middle  of  the 
 second  century  or  earlier,  in  the  croud 
 of  poor,  ignorant  Christians,  as  he  de- 
 scribes them,  is  the  faith  of  our  church, 
 and  of  Christians  in  general  of  the 
 present  day.  His  principal  obje6lion, 
 which  he  repeated  to  disgust,  was  urged 
 against  their  belief  in  the  union  of  the 
 divine  and  hmnan  natures  in  the  person 
 of  Christ.  "  He  obje6i:s  against  us,"  says 
 Origen,  "  I  know  not  how  often,  respecl- 
 ing  Jesus,  that  we  consider  him   as  God 
 
 with 
 
 ■*  See  p.  22,  27,  30,  72,  74,  75,  78,  80,  81,  82,  85,  8q, 
 loi,  100,  107,  136,  152,  163,  385,  386. 
 
 P   P    P    2 
 
(   484   ) 
 
 with  a  mortal  body  *."  In  many  of  the 
 passages,  to  which  I  have  referred,  (i.  e. 
 all  those  in  Origen's  second  Book)  Celsus 
 speaks  of  those  Christians,  who  had  either 
 been  Jews,  or  whose  ancestors  had  been  of 
 that  nation -f:  in  the  others  he  alhides  to 
 Christians  at  large. — He  repeatedly  speaks 
 of  Christ  as  the  God  of  Christians,  affirms 
 that  he  is  worshipped  by  them,  alludes  to 
 the  account  of  his  miraculous  conception  J, 
 observes  that  he  is  called  the  word,  says 
 the  place  is  shewn,  where  Christ,  "  who 
 is  worshipped  by  Christians  was  born||," 
 ridicules  their  inconsistency  in  laughing  at 
 the  worshippers  of  Jupiter,  whose  tomb 
 was  shewn  in  Crete,  while  they  worship, 
 as  God,  a  man  who  was  buried  in  Pales- 
 tine §.  He  represents  the  Christians  as 
 censuring  the  Jews  for  not  admitting  the 
 
 divinity 
 
 t  Origcn,  tlirough  tlie  whole  of  that  Book,  considers 
 thrm  all  (except  the  Ebionites,  v/ho  continued  mere  Jews) 
 as  entertaining  the  same  faith  with  the  Chrisiian  ciiurch 
 at  large  :  and  answers  the  objcftions  of  Celsus  as  alike 
 applicable  to  the  great  body  ot  Christians. 
 
 X  p.  27. 
 
 II  Ka»  TO  riiiy.vvf/.ivov  ruro  oiaQoriTov  ffiv  si*  toi?  tottoj;  x«»  'S'ot^ee.  toi; 
 ry)c  isrifiojq  a^vXoT^ioi?,  &;?  aeot  cv  tw  ffTrr.^ccHi)  tutui  0  viro  'X.f^T^ot.vu* 
 ir^oa-yvi/Hfji.ivoi;  xafi  SaiYxa^r.^sio?  yeyiMriron  Irji7«?.  pt  39' 
 
 \  MsT«  ruvTo,  f^iyii  Tre^j  nfjt-uvy  ot»  Ka.TayiXoifA.iv  tuv  'm^oirxv^vvTa/ii 
 TO)/  A»a  iTTfj  Ta^o?  ecvTU  sv  K^*)T)?  ctiy.Dvrat'  xeti  uotv  »jttc»  ctQcfji-tv  rot 
 eeTTo  rn  Tflt^w,  «x  sidoT£j  ■BTftJj  xoii  xaGo  K^»iT£j  Tfa'To  •aroincrii,    p.    13^* 
 
(  485  ) 
 
 divinity  of  Christ* ;  he  every  where  speaks 
 of  their  opinion  relating  to  the  divinity  of 
 Christ  as  a  matter  of  common  notoriety,  not 
 as  if  its  existence  could  possibly  be  denied, 
 or  as  if  he  had  been  the  first  to  expose  it;  and 
 he  attributes  it  to  the  great  body  of  them, 
 at  the  time  that  he  represents  them  as  com- 
 mozi  people  without  education  and  philoso- 
 phy. Yet  it  has  lately  been  maintained,  not 
 only  with  perfe^i  seriousness,  but  with  un- 
 common zeal  and  pertinacity,  that  all  Chris- 
 tians whether  learned,  or  ignorant,  were 
 believers  in  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ, 
 till  about  the  age  of  Celsus,  and  that  the 
 great  mass  of  them  continued  in  the  pro- 
 fession of  the  same  faith  many  centuries 
 later.  And,  what  will  excite  some  sur- 
 prize, the  philosophical  author  of  this 
 whimsical  hypothesis  has  found  07ie  Vindi- 
 cator, who  has  proclaimed  the  "  discovery" 
 with  great  solemnity  to  the  Youth  of  the 
 two  English  Universities,  and  has  recom- 
 mended it  to  them  as  a  medium  for  ascer- 
 taining, or  confirming  the  true  sense  of 
 the  New  Testament. 
 
 By 
 
 <I>»)o-»  d£  raro  lyxX-nfjiec  o-tto  run  e<?  rov  X§»ro>  "sn^evovruy  mr^oirx- 
 
(     486     ) 
 
 By  comparing  Origen's  defence  with 
 the  attack  of  Celsus,  it  appears  that  the 
 Jews,  no  less  than  the  heathens,  about  the 
 middle  of  the  second  century,  censured 
 the  Christians  in  general  for  their  belief 
 in  the  divinity  of  Christ.  For  Celsus  has 
 put  many  of  his  obje^lions  on  this  subje6l 
 into  the  mouth  of  a  Jew,  and  Origen  found 
 nothing  to  condemn  in  this  part  of  his 
 prosopopoeia.  Lucian  (a.  d.  170)  had 
 observed  the  same  worship  of  Christ  by 
 Christians,  that  had  been  noticed  by  his 
 friend  Celsus.  He  says,  "  'I  hey  still 
 worsliip  that  great  man,  wlio  was  crucified 
 in  Palestine  */'  This  language  would  not 
 have  been  used  to  express  a  worship  lately 
 introduced. 
 
 V.  The  worship  of  Christ  by  Christians 
 was  observed  by  the  heathens  and  acknow- 
 ledged by  the  Apologists  at  the  opening 
 of  the  third  century  also.  Minucius  Felix 
 (a.  d.  220.)  says,  "  You  wander  far  from 
 the  bounds  of  truth,  who  imagine,  either 
 that  a  criminal  deserved  to  be  considered 
 
 as 
 
 cvaa-xoXovier^eiira^   ct»  xouvtiV   retirriv    T(^£T^;^    ucriyecyiv  stj  tov    /;ior. 
 
 Lucian.  de  morte  Percgrini. 
 
(     487     ) 
 
 as  God  by  us,  or  that  a  mere  earthly  baino* 
 could  be  thought  so  *." 
 
 VI.   Porphyry,  who  wrote  against    tlie 
 Christians  at  large,  and  not  against  a  few 
 philosophers  only,  (a.  d.  270)  says,  "Since 
 Jesus    began    to  be    honoured,    no    man 
 has   experienced    any  public    help,    from 
 the   Gods :  f"    and    we   know,    that   this 
 complaint  had   been   uttered   long  before 
 his  time.     "  Lucan,  who  wrote  his  Phar- 
 salia   scarce  thirty  years  after  our  Lord's 
 crucifixion,  laments  it  as  one  of  the  greatest 
 misfortunes  of  that  age,  that  the  Delphian 
 oracle  was  become  silent  J." 
 
 Non  ullo  s^cula  dono 
 
 Nostra  carent  majoi-e  Deum  quam  Delphica  sedes 
 Quod  sileat.  L.  5.  3. 
 
 And  Juvenal — 
 
 Delphis  oracula  cessant 
 
 Et  genus  humanum  damnat  caligo  futuri||. 
 
 Sat.  6.  544. 
 
 "  The 
 
 *  Longe  de  vicinid  verltatis  erratis,  qui  putatis  Deum 
 credi  aut  meruisse  noxium,  aut  potuisse  terrenum.  Min, 
 Felix,  p.  33.     Ed.  Ouzel.     Ludg.  Bat.  1652. 
 
 •f-  I'/5(7a  yu^  Tif/.ufjLiv^^  e^siji.icti;   Ti?  Qsvv   ^>!|Uoai«?   fc'(p;?i.£»«j  jictGct*. 
 
 Porphyr.  ap.  Euseb.  Praep.  Evang.  L.  5.  c.  i. 
 I  Leland. 
 
(     488      ) 
 
 "  The  orator  Libanius  praises  Porphyry 
 and  Jiihan  for  confuting  the  folly  of  a  se6l, 
 which  styled  a  dead  man  of  Palestine  God, 
 and  the  son  of  God  */' 
 
 VII.  Hierocles  and  another  author,  who 
 wrote,  not  against  a  few  philosophers,  but 
 against  the  religion  and  name  of  Christians 
 (about  A.  D.  300.  or  earlier,)  are  mentioned 
 by  La6lantius:  and  their  obje6tion  against 
 the  Christian  opinion,  respecting  the  divi- 
 nity of  Christ  in  particular,  is  recorded. 
 Tot  semper  latrones  perierunt,  et  quotidie 
 pereunt.  Quis  eorum  post  crucem,  non 
 dicam  Deus,  sed  homo  appellatus  est  -f . 
 
 If  Philostratus  may  be  credited  the  term 
 esog,  God,  was  applied  by  many  to  Apollo- 
 nius  of  Tyana ;  and  he  accepted  the  title, 
 observing  that  every  good  man  is  honoured 
 with  it  J.  It  appears,  however,  from  the 
 united  testimonies  of  Adrian,  Celsus, 
 Porphyry  and  Hierocles,  that  the  heathens 
 considered  Christians  as  really  attributing 
 
 divinity 
 
 *  Socrates   Hist.  Eccles.  3.  23.  Gibbon.  Vol.  i.  c.  xvi. 
 
 f  Laiftantius,  L,  5.  c.  iii. 
 
 '!^,Tla.\iii  veiTo,    TH  ^u^\y  o\  uv^^uTTot   Qeov  ere   ovo/*a^«cr«c ;    on  'srx<;, 
 ^■m:,  «j>9^w7ro;,  ccyxQo;  vojiai^o^eco;,  €>'-^ eTuyvixiot,  Tif/.aTa».    Apollon. 
 
 vit.  L.  8.  c.  V.  p.  37.5.  citat.  a  Lardncr,  Vol.  8.  p.  2^8. 
 
(  489  ) 
 
 divinity  to  Christ  in  a  strict  and  proper 
 sense,  and  that  the  terms  Qsog  and  ©sa  viog 
 were  not  merely  used  as  titles  of  honour. 
 "  In  the  time  of  our  ancestors,"  says  Hie- 
 rocles,  "  in  the  reign  of  Nero  flourished 
 Apollonius  of  Tyana  ;  who,  after  having 
 when  very  young  sacrificed  at  JEgse  m 
 Cilicia  to  the  benevolent  God  i^sculapius, 
 wrought  many  and  wonderful  works."  — 
 "  To  what  purpose  have  I  mentioned  these 
 things  ?  that  all  may  perceive  the  accuracy 
 and  solidity  of  our  judgement  in  every 
 thing,  and  the  levity  of  the  Christians  : 
 forasmuch  as  we  do  7iot  esteem  him,  who 
 did  these  things,  a  God,  but  a  man  favoured 
 by  the  Gods  :  whereas  they  for  the  sake 
 of  a  few  tricks  call  Jesus  God  *."  Hiero- 
 cles  must  have  known  whether  the  great 
 body  of  Christians,  the  common,  unlearned 
 Christians,  ascribed  divinity  to  Christ,  or 
 not.  And,  if  they  had  really  thought  him  a 
 mere  man  like  themselves,  the  nature  and 
 
 language 
 
 vivo  Tvayev^j  01;  en  imonh^  y.ojAi^ri  vsy,  xa(«(p  utti^  a/  Atyat?  tu;  Kf^i>£»«? 
 t£P«t7«To  T(d  (pihccv^^wTCu  Aj-y.ATjTriw,  isToKKo,  y.cii  ^ccvy-arx  ot£7r^a^«To.^-» 
 Ttvo;  Hv  Bnx.cc.  rUTUii  ti/.yr,a-%\i'  luce  i^-n  avyy.^ivnv  rrv  TO^ere^av  xn^iQin  y.cti 
 ^iQxfxv  e(pi'  ly.a^u  x^tatv^  y.on  rr,f  ruv  X^ti'iotvuv  xa^oT»)T«.  etTrt^  h/a«j 
 j^,:v  roi»  ToiccvToc  CTeTToivjjcoTa,  a  Qiovj  cx.?^oc,  0£oi;  y.e^cc^KTi/.ivciv  cci/^^x 
 •/lyUfjLSm...    01    ^£  o\    oKiyai;    repocreiut;    tivok;  tqv    Irro-ai'  ©soc  »vccyo:tvilj-i, 
 
 Euscb.  contra  Hieroc.  ad  calcem  Demon.  Evang.  p.  51  z. 
 Ed.  Paris.  1628. 
 
 Q22 
 
(      490      ) 
 
 language  of  this  objeclion  must  have  beeix 
 very  materially  altered. 
 
 VIII.  It  is  not  necessary  to  cite  parts 
 of  ancient  history  to  prove  the  hatred  and 
 persecution,  ^vhich  the  Christians  in  gene- 
 ral, and  not  a  few  Platonic  philosophers 
 only  among  them,  experienced  from  the 
 heathens.  To  mention  one  cause  of  the 
 hatred  of  their  pagan  enemies  falls  in  with 
 my  present  purpose. 
 
 Arnobius  (a.  d.  303)  mentions  that 
 the  heathens  represented  the  Christians  in 
 general  as  odious  to  the  Gods  :  and  the 
 worship  offered  to  Christ  as  God  is  assigned 
 as  the  reason.  "  The  Gods  are  not  in- 
 censed at  you,  because  you  worship  the 
 omnipotent  God,  but,  because  you  mamtain 
 him  to  have  been  God,  who  was  born  a 
 mortal  man,  and  (what  is  infamous  even 
 with  the  vilest  persons)  put  to  death  by 
 crucifixion  ;  aiid  believe  liim  to  be  still 
 living,  and  zvorship  hitn  with  daily  prayers*," 
 
 A 
 
 *  Non  idciico  Dii  vobis  infesti  sunt,  quod  omnipoten- 
 tem  colatis  Deum,  sed  quod  hominem  natum,  et  quod 
 personis  infanie  est  vilibus,  crucis  supplicio  intereniptum, 
 et  Deum  fuisse  contenditis,  et  superesse  adhuc  creditis  et 
 quutidianis  supplicationibus  adoiatis.     Arnobius.  L.  i. 
 
(     491     ) 
 
 A  heathen  would  not  have  addressed  him- 
 self to  the  Christians  in  terms  like  these, 
 if  the  great  body  of  them  had  believed 
 Christ  to  have  been  a  mere  man  like  them- 
 selves ;  and  if  a  few  philosophers  only  had 
 asserted  his  divinity?  The  heathens  in  the 
 time  of  Arnobius,  it  appears,  used  nearly 
 the  same  language  on  this  subje6l,  that 
 Celsus  had  employed  a  century  and  a  half 
 before.  "  If  these  people"  (the  Christians) 
 sa,y§  Celsus,  "worshipped  no  other  but 
 one  God,  they  might,  perhaps,  have  some 
 ground  for  attacking  others:  but  now 
 they  pay  superstitious  honours  to  this 
 man,  who  lately  appeared,  and  yet  they 
 imagine,  that  they  do  not  offend  God,  if 
 his  servant  also  be  worshipped  *," 
 
 It  is  asserted  by  Dr.  Priestley,  "  that 
 it  was  the  meanness  of  Christ's  person, 
 and  the  circumstances  of  his  death,  at 
 which  the  heathen  philosophers  revolted^K'' 
 But,  Cudworth  from  these  and  similar 
 passages  with  far  more  reason  observed  ; 
 
 "  Neither 
 
 Khrcnq  iau<;  w^o^  ruq   aMtfj   aT£v»7j  Xoyo;*    vvn  Si  top  tvayyo;  ^anyra. 
 «  nai   vTrvjgET*!?   avra  ^i^XTrevOioa-iTUi.      CelsUS    ap,    Orig.  L.    8, 
 
 ¥■  385. 
 
 t  Hist,  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  2.  p.  178. 
 
(     492     ) 
 
 *'  Neither  indeed  was  that  the  chief  quarrel, 
 which  the  Pagans  had  with  the  Christians, 
 that  they  had  deified  one,  who  was  cruci- 
 fied; (though  the  cross  of  Christ  was  also 
 a  great  offence  to  them)  but,  that  they, 
 condemning  the  Pagans  for  worshipping 
 others,  besides  the  supreme,  omnipotent 
 God,  and  decrying  all  those  Gods  of  theirs, 
 did  themselves  notwithstanding  w^orship 
 one  mortal  man  for  a  god*/' 
 
 IX.  Upon  the  whole,  it  appears,  that 
 the  opinion  of  the  Christians  in  general 
 respe6ling  the  divine  nature  of  Christ  was 
 a  matter  of  common  notoriety  both  among 
 the  Jews  and  heathens  in  the  first  hundred 
 years  after  the  crucifixion  of  Christ,  that 
 it  was  mentioned  as  a  matter  of  indifference 
 about  seventy-seven  years  after  the  foun- 
 dation of  Christianity  by  Pliny,  that  it 
 afforded  Adrian  matter  for  a  satirical 
 observation  in  a  familiar  letter  a  friend, 
 twenty-three  years  later,  and  had  been 
 the  object  of  Jewish  censure  and  heathen 
 ridicule  before  Justin  wrote  his  first  Apo- 
 logy and  Dialogue.  As  Christians  became 
 more  numerous,  and  more  generally  noticed, 
 
 this 
 
 *  Cu3\vorlli.  Intclleftual  System,  p.  278. 
 
(     493     ) 
 
 this  opinion  became  the  subje6l  of  more 
 frequent  animadversion;  and  Celsus,  whose 
 observations  on  Christians  must  have  been 
 made  little  more  than  a  century  after  the 
 foundation  of  our  religion,  represents  its 
 professors  as  common,  unlearned  people, 
 and  repeatedly  speaks  of  their  belief  in 
 the  divinity  of  Christ.  His  friend  Lucian 
 observes  that  Christians  still  worship 
 Christ.  And  it  fully  appears,  that  not 
 only  writers  among  the  heathens,  but  the 
 Roman  w^orld  at  large,  during  the  second 
 and  third  centuries,  were  thoroughly  con- 
 vinced that  worship  was  offered  to  Christ 
 as  God  by  Christians,  and  declared  that  the 
 Gods  were  incensed  against  them  on  this 
 account.  It  must  also  be  remarked,  that, 
 whenever  the  heathens  alluded  to  this 
 notion  of  Christians,  they  spoke  of  it,  as 
 of  any  other  well-known  fa61:,  which  had 
 never  been  questioned  or  doubted.  No 
 heathen  appears  ever  to  have  stepped  for- 
 ward to  remove  this  vulgar  error.  No 
 writer  ever  attempted  to  corredt  the  erro- 
 neous notions  of  his  contemporaries  on  this 
 head  ;  to  inform  them  that  Philosophers 
 only  among  Christians  believed  Christ  to 
 be  God ;  while  the  great  mass  of  the  new 
 se6l  thought   him   a  mere   man.      In  the 
 
 second 
 
(     494     ) 
 
 second  and  third  centuries,  the  Christian 
 se6t  became  an  obje6l  of  general  notice. 
 Several  philosophers  appear  to  have  read 
 their  books,  and  enquired  into  their  opi- 
 nions with  considerable  industry  and  care: 
 almost  every  heathen  must  have  had  a 
 relation,  a  friend,  a  domestic,  or  a  neigh- 
 bour, a  Christian;  and  the  opinions  of  the 
 common  people  in  particular  of  the  new 
 religion  could  not  but  have  been  well 
 known  to  their  contemporaries.  When, 
 therefore,  we  know  that  the  heathens  of 
 those  times,  without  any  exception  what- 
 ever on  record,  observed  divinity  ascribed 
 to  Christ  by  Christians,  the  fa6l  seems 
 established  beyond  all  dispute.  On  the 
 authority  of  two  or  three  writers  of  the 
 church,  we  believe  that  the  Marcionites, 
 who  were  separated  from  it,  contended 
 that  Jesus  was  a  man  only  in  appearance. 
 And  on  the  authority  of  heathen  wTiters 
 of  chara6ler,  we  are  compelled  to  allow  that 
 the  Christian  se6^,  which  was  just  sepa- 
 rated from  the  heathen  world,  worshipped 
 Christ  as  God, 
 
 But,  let  it  be  supposed,  that  the  heathens 
 liave  misrepresented  the  sentiments  of  the 
 great  body  of  Christians  on  this  subject. 
 
 There 
 
(     495     ) 
 
 There  were  instances  certainly,  when  they 
 applied   the  whimsical   notions  of  a  few 
 small  se6ls  to  the   whole   body:  and  in- 
 stances   might   perhaps   be    produced,   in 
 which  some    of  the  learned  joined  in  the 
 popular  outcries  against  Christianity.  The 
 heathens,  possibly,  took  for  granted,  that 
 the  opinions  of  the  writers  belonged  also 
 to  the  common  people  :   and  this,  perhaps, 
 was  the  source  of  their  error.     This  sup- 
 position, however,  of  a  contrariety  of  opi- 
 nion between  the  learned  and  unlearned 
 will  not  account  for  the  mistake   of  the 
 heathens  before  the  time  of  Justin,  when 
 the   dissension  is  imagined  to  have   first 
 taken  place.     After  his  time  let  us  freely 
 suppose    the   learned   Christians     of    one 
 opinion  respefting  Christ,  and  the  common 
 people  of  another.      Let  us   take   it   for 
 granted,   that   the   heathens  gained  their 
 notions  of  the   religious  tenets    of  Chris- 
 tians from  the  learned  only.     Let  it  even 
 be  admitted   that  Celsus,  who  speaks  of 
 all    Christians   as    ignorant   persons,  had 
 conversed  only  with  Platonic  philosophers 
 among  them;  that   he,   and   Lucian,  and 
 Porphyry  and  Hierocles  had  discovered  the 
 notion  of  Christ's  divinity   among   these 
 philosophers,  and  had  concluded  the  same 
 
 of 
 
(     49^     ) 
 
 of  the  common  people  without  further 
 inquiry.  —  Had  this  really  been  the  case, 
 we  should  certainly  have  found  the  mis- 
 take of  the  heathens  on  this  subje6l  pointed 
 out  in  the  Apologies  for  Christianity.  The 
 Christian  writers  who  successfully  removed 
 other  unjust  aspersions  on  their  chara6ter, 
 would  be  sollicitous  to  have  the  governors 
 of  the  Roman  provinces  rightly  informed 
 on  this  point ;  since  one  great  cause  of 
 indignation  against  the  whole  Christian 
 name  was  the  reproach  of  Polytheism 
 iiro^ed  a^rainst  the  heathens,  while  the 
 Christians  themselves  worshipped  Christ. 
 
 The  condu6l  of  every  honest  Apologist 
 on  this  occasion  would  have  been  decided. 
 "  A  new  religion/'  they  would  have  said 
 to  the  heathens,  "has  appeared  among 
 you,  which  has  excited  much  curiosity, 
 incurred  much  hatred,  and  created  some 
 alarm.  Your  hatred  and  fears  are  alike 
 groundless:  and  with  respe6t  to  the  opi- 
 nions and  condu6l  of  these  people,  you 
 all  labour  under  a  great  mistake.  The 
 learned  and  liberal  among  you,  it  is  true, 
 soon  refused  to  countenance  the  absurd 
 calumnies  propagated,  at  first,  against  us: 
 they    have    not    accused    us   of  atheism, 
 
 incest 
 
(     497     ) 
 
 incest;  and  cannibalism.  These  were  idle 
 clamours  never  believed  by  many  of  you 
 at  any  time,  and  they  are  now  credited  by 
 none.  Still,  however,  your  notions  about 
 our  religious  opinions  are  very  incorredt : 
 and  as  one  reason,  why  you  think  us  just 
 objects  of  persecution,  is  founded  on  error, 
 our  duty  to  God  and  our  brethren,  and  a 
 stri(5l  and  conscientious  regard  for  truth 
 call  upon  us  to  set  you  right  in  this  par- 
 ticular. We  have  all  spoken  with  freedom 
 to  you  on  the  extravagancies  of  Poly- 
 theism :  and  you  are  the  more  indignant 
 at  our  expostulations,  because,  you  sa}^ 
 our  worship  is  not  confined  to  one  God  : 
 Jesus  Christ,  the  founder  of  our  religion, 
 being,  as  you  say,  generally  worshipped 
 by  us  as  God.  —  That  the  great  body  of 
 our  brethren  may  not  be  the  vi6tims  of 
 our  dishonest  concealment,  it  is  necessary 
 to  be  explicit  with  you  on  this  subje6l.— • 
 The  Christian  church,  in  this  third  century 
 since  the  birth  of  Christ,  independently  of 
 its  seels,  which  we  call  heresies,  is  divided 
 into  two  classes  of  men  of  directly  opposite 
 opinions.  The  men  of  learning  and  rulers 
 of  the  church,  who  are  ele61ed  into  their 
 offices  by  the  common  people,  universally 
 believe  in  the  divinity  of  Christ,  one  only 
 
 R  R  R,  excepted. 
 
(      498      ) 
 
 excepted,  whom  we  are  going  to  depose*, 
 and,   if  we   are   not   mistaken,  we  could 
 prove  their  notions  to    be   perfeftly  con- 
 sistent  with    that  of  the   unity   of  God. 
 But,  however  this  may  be,  whether  their 
 notions  be  agreeable  to  reason,  or  not ; 
 let  the  men  of  learning  only  suffer  for  their 
 own  opinions.      You    will,   no  doubt,  be 
 surprized,  but  it  is  stridly  true,  that  the 
 great  body  of  Christians  have  always  be- 
 lieved Christ  to  be  a  mere  man  like  your- 
 selves.    We  hold  their  opinions  erroneous, 
 and  have  been  at  great  pains  to  convert 
 them  to  our  own :   but,   their  obstinacy  is 
 inflexible ;    they   will  neither   learn,    nor 
 believe.      We   think   them  highly  censur- 
 able  for    their   dulness   and  pertinacity ; 
 but,  in  the  name  of  heaven,  do  not  blame 
 of   punish  them   for   opinions,  which   no 
 persuasion  on  our  part  can  induce  them  to 
 adopt.     Turn  your   ridicule,  your    argu- 
 ments,  your  force   against   us.     Let  our 
 unhappy,    ignorant     brethren     incur    our 
 reprehension   only,    which   they  deserve : 
 they  merit,  on   this    account,    no  punish- 
 ment   and   no    censure   from    you.  —  We 
 perceive  you  smile  at  this  apology.     You 
 are  determined  not  to  believe,  that  .our 
 
 people 
 
 *  Paul  of  Samosata. 
 
(     4<99      ) 
 
 people  really  entertain  an  opinion  essen- 
 tially different  from  that  of  their  teachers 
 on  a  leading  article  of  our  common  religion. 
 You  esteem  this  a  mere  fi^lion  fabricated 
 to  skreen  our  followers  from  a  part  of  your 
 vengeance.  No  asseverations  of  ours,  we 
 see,  will  persuade  you,  that  they  have 
 uniformly  ele6led  into  all  offices  of  trust 
 and  power,  and  lately  of  profit  too,  men, 
 who  have  entertained  opinions  opposite  to 
 their  own.  We  hear  you  express  some 
 surprize  at  a  discovery,  which  you  have 
 made  in  our  chara6ler.  '  These  Chris- 
 tians' you  say,  '  with  all  their  absurdity 
 and  folly  and  madness  have  till  now  ap- 
 peared to  us  men  of  great  simplicity :  we 
 thought  that  we  could  have  believed  them 
 on  their  bare  word  :  we  have  been  strangely 
 deceived,  it  appears :  they  want  to  abuse 
 our  simplicity  most  grossly.  They  think 
 us  weak  enougli  to  believe,  that  the  rulers 
 and  their  complying  subje6ls,  the  ele61;ors 
 and  their  representatives,  the  teachers  and 
 the  people  taught,  between  whom  we 
 have  alwa^^s  observed  far  more  than  ordi- 
 nary harmony,  are  of  opposite  opinions  1 
 No  Christian,  who  has  a  proper  regard  for 
 truth,  can  advance  such  a  palpable  false- 
 hood :  no  writer,  who  has  sufficient  respe6l 
 
 R  R  R  2  for 
 
(     500     ) 
 
 for  the  intellecls  of  his  readers,  can,  either 
 now,  or  at  any  future  period,  hope  to 
 obtain  a  moment's  credit  to  such  an  asser- 
 tion.'—  Your  obje61ion  to  our  report  is, 
 we  confess,  not  more  than  we  expe6ted. 
 We  cannot  hope  to  obtain  credit  on  this 
 subjedl.  The  fa6t,  of  which  we  inform 
 you,  is  certainly  contrary  to  every  princi- 
 ple of  the  human  mind.  It  is  however, 
 we  think  it  our  duty  to  repeat,  a  peculiarity 
 of  the  Christian  church,  which  has  existed 
 ever  since  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr,  and 
 probably  will  long  continue,  that  the 
 writers  and  the  governors  of  the  church, 
 amounting  only  to  a  few  hundreds  at 
 most*,  are  believers  in  the  divinity  of 
 Christ,  while  the  great  mass  of  Christians 
 helieve  him  to  have  been  a  mere  man." 
 
 Such 
 
 *In  the  middle  of  the  third  century  Mr.  Gibbon  de- 
 termines the  proportion  between  the  Bishops  and  Prcsby- 
 j^rs  and  the  rest  of  the  people.  "  The  clergy  at  that 
 time"  (in  Rome)  "consisted  of  a  Tuhho^,  forty-six 
 presbyters,  sni-en  deacons,  &c.  The  number  of  widows, 
 of  the  infirm,  and  of  the  poor,  who  were  maintained  by 
 the  oblations  of  the  iaithful,  amounted  to  fifteen  iuindred. 
 (Euseb,  L.  6.  c  43.)  From  reason,  as  well  as  from  the 
 analogy  of  Antioch,  we  may  venture  to  estimate  the 
 Christians  of  Rome  at  about  fifty  thousand."  Hist. 
 Vol.  \.  p.  6c8.  Ed.  40,  This  perhaps  is  nearly  the 
 proportion  between  the  higher  clergy  and  the  people 
 liirough  the  whole  Roman  empire  in  the  middle  of  the 
 tiilrd  century. 
 
(     501      ) 
 
 Such  would  have  been  one  of  the  articles 
 in  the  apology  of  a  learned  Christian,  had 
 the  common  people  asserted  the  simple 
 humanity  of  Christ.  In  such  a  case  he 
 would  neither  have  been  disposed  to  con- 
 ceal the  truth,  nor  wonld  he  have  dared  to 
 disguise  it.  "  For,  upon  an  inquiry  made 
 by  the  emperor,  or  his  order,  he  would 
 have  been  convicted  of  a  design  to  impose 
 upon  all  the  majesty  of  the  Roman  empire, 
 and  that  not  in  an  affair  incidentally  men- 
 tioned, but  in  the  condu6l  and  worship  of 
 his  own  people  concerning  whom,  he  pro- 
 fessed to  give  the  justest  information  *." — 
 We  may  conclude  therefore  with  the 
 utmost  certainty,  when  the  Apologists  and 
 others  publicly  declared  the  Christians  at 
 large  believers  in  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
 that  the  facl  was  stri6lly  true. 
 
 But,  let  it  be  allowed,  that  all  the 
 learned  Christians  uttered  a  deliberate 
 falsehood,  when  they  reported  the  religious 
 opinions  of  their  brethren  to  the  Roman 
 emperors  ;  that  Justin,  Athenagoras,  Theo- 
 phihis,  TertuUian,  Minucius  Felix  and 
 Origen  agreed  in  publicly  asserting  the 
 same  falsehood.     What  would  have  been 
 
 the 
 
 *  Lardner  on  Justin, 
 
t        502        ) 
 
 the  conclucl  of  the  unlearned  Christians  on 
 such  an  occasion  ?  What  must  have  been 
 their  language  on  hearing  a  groundless 
 accusation  from  the  heathens  aggravated 
 in  a  tenfold  degree  by  the  false  and  trea- 
 cherous defence  of  their  Trinitarian  bre- 
 thren ?  Some  very  ignorant  Christians,  we 
 know,  were  writers  :  on  such  an  occasion, 
 ail  who  could  write,  would  have  taken  uo 
 their  pens  with  grief  and  indignation,  and 
 have  addressed  themselves  to  the  heathens 
 in  language,  which  those  emotions  natu- 
 rally inspired.  ■ —  "It  has  been  our  fate,'* 
 they  would  have  said,  "  to  have  our  conduct 
 and  opinions  perpetually  misrepresented. 
 We  were  formerly  traduced  by  the  multi- 
 tude, whom  some  of  your  own  Poets  have 
 (it  seems  justly)  styled  malignant,  as 
 monsters  of  wickedness:  we  are  now  de- 
 scribed as  singular  examples  of  human 
 folly.  We  have  spoken  out  our  senti- 
 ments to  you  with  great  freedom  on  the 
 absurdity  of  Polytheism,  and  have  both  in 
 private  and  public  asserted  the  existence 
 of  one  only  God,  the  creator  and  preserver  of 
 all  things  ;  in  whom  we  live,  and  move,  and 
 have  our  being.  The  boldness  of  our  re- 
 proofs, you  say,  would  be  tolerable,  were  we 
 not  to  contradic^t  ourselves.     At  the  very 
 
 time. 
 
(      503      ) 
 
 time,  3^ou  alledge,  that  we  preach  up  the 
 unity   of  God,  we   ourselves    worship  as 
 God  a  man  who  was  crucified  at  Jerusalem. 
 This  last  charge,  we  assure  you,  is  founded 
 on  a   great  mistake :   but,  your  ignorance 
 of  our  opinions  is  excusable :   what   most 
 excites  our  concern   is    the  base  and  dis- 
 honest condudl  of  our  own  brethen,  who 
 call  themselves  philosophers ;    from  whose 
 writings   you  have    too   hastily    taken  up 
 your  opinions  concerning  us.     They  have 
 had  the  audacity  to  represent  the   whole 
 Christian  body  as  of  one  mind,  bound  by 
 the  same  laws,  and  entertaining  the  same 
 opinions  :  they  have  had  the  unblushing  ef- 
 frontery to  inform  you,  that  we  believe  in 
 the  divinity  of  Christ.      We  are  urged  by 
 the  most  violent  motives,  the  love  of  truth, 
 the  fear  of  disgrace,  a  tender  and    lively 
 concern  for  the   honour  of  the   Christian 
 name,  to  come  forward  publicly,  and  deny 
 the  truth  of  this  calumny.      You  have  been 
 grossly  deceived.      We  believe  Christ  to 
 have  been  a   mere   man   like   yourselves. 
 A  few  Philosophers  only  among  us   have 
 introduced  the  notion  of  a  trinity  of  persons 
 in  the   divine   unity  from  the  writings  of 
 Plato  afid  his  followers :  but  the  corruption 
 has  extended  no  further  than  themselves. 
 
 Christ 
 
(     504      ) 
 
 Christ  is  not  worshipped,  as  you  have 
 frequently  obje6led  against  us,  and  as 
 our  brethren  have  frequently  asserted,  by 
 the  Christian  world  at  large/' 
 
 Had  any  Christian  attempted  to  vindicate 
 his  brethren  in  this  manner,  in  the  second 
 and  third  centuries,  Celsus  and  Lucian  and 
 the  author  of  the  Philopatris  would  have 
 smiled  at  the  thought  of  the  do61rines 
 of  Christ's  divinity  and  the  trinity  in  unity 
 having  been  copied  from  Plato  * ;  and 
 Christians  from  that  time  would  have  been 
 set  down  as  persons  totally  unworthy 
 of  credit,  who  would  deal  in  any  ridiculous 
 li6lion  in  order  to  forward  their  own 
 purposes. 
 
 *  "  It  was  reserved  for  the  disputers  of  later  ages  to 
 assert,  that  those  profound  do61rines  are  in  truth  no  part 
 of  genuine  Christianity:  that  they  were  the  subtil  inven- 
 tions of  men:  and  that  they  were  originally  introduced 
 into  Christianity  from  the  writings  of  Plato.  As  this  as- 
 sertion has  been  frequently  repeated,  tijough  without  the 
 shadow  of  a  proof,  it  deserved  a  minute  enquiry,"  &c. 
 Morgan  on  the  Trinity  of  Plato,  p.  166.  ('7^5) 
 
 CHAP. 
 
(     505     ) 
 
 CHAP.     XXIIL 
 
 THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA- 
 MENT BY  THE  FIRST  GENTILE  CHRIS- 
 TIANS, COLLECTED  FROM  THEIR  RELI- 
 GIOUS  OPINIONS. 
 
 I.  Testimony  of  Justin  Martyr  to  the  belief  of  Christians, 
 particularly  of  the  common  people,  in  the  divinity  of 
 Christ.  His  obligation  to  relate  the  truth  as  described 
 by  Lardner  2.  Testimony  of  Athenagoras  3.  Tatiaa. 
 4.  Theophilus.  5.  Hegesippus  and  Irenreus.  6. 
 Tertullian,  7.  Testimony  of  Origen  to  the  belief  of 
 Christians,  particularly  of  the  common  people,  in  the 
 divinity  of  Christ.  He  complains  of  the  common  peo- 
 ple oflTering  up  prayers  to  Christ,  at  the  time  that  he 
 recommends  them  to  pray  to  God  the  Father  only 
 through  Christ.  His  obligation  to  relate  the  truth  as 
 described  by  Dr.  Priestley.  Testimony  of  Novatian. 
 8.  Arnobius  and  La6tantius.  9.  General  view  of  the 
 evidence  on  this  subje6l.  Inference  respe6iing  the 
 opinions  of  Christians  in  the  first  century  from  the 
 opinions  of  the  learned  and  unlearned  Christians  in 
 the  second  and  third.  Their  interpretation  of  the  words 
 of  Christ  and  his  Apostles  colle61ed  from  their  religious 
 ©pinions. 
 
 I.  JUSTIN  Martyr  wrote  his  first  Apo- 
 logy in  the  year  140,  only  seven  years 
 after  he  had  relinquished  the  errors  of 
 Paganism.      His  professed  purpose  in  this 
 
 S  s  s  treatise 
 
(     506      ) 
 
 treatise  was  to  remove  the  prejudices  enter- 
 tained by  the  heathen  world  against 
 Christians,  by  giving  a  full  and  exa6l 
 description  of  their  lives  and  doctrines. 
 "  It  is  our  purpose,"  he  says,  *'  to  enable  all 
 to  form  a  just  judgement  of  our  lives  and 
 do61rines  */'  And,  accordingly,  he  speaks 
 in  the  name  of  the  Christians  through  the 
 whole  Apology,  not  in  the  name  of  himself 
 and  one  or  two  philosophers  only.  Having 
 mentioned  the  worship  paid  by  Christians  to 
 God  the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
 Spirit  *f ,  and  the  charge  of  madness  urged 
 against  them  by  the  heathens  for  placing 
 Christ  next  to  God  the  Father;  he  reasons 
 on  the  facl  of  this  vvorship  as  a  matter  of 
 common  notoriety,  which  it  would  have 
 been  absurd  to  deny ;  and  immediately 
 professes  his  intention  to  shew  its  reason- 
 ableness \.  He  afterwards  describes  at 
 length  the  initiation  of  Christians  into 
 their  religion  by  baptism  in  the  name  of  the 
 
 Father, 
 
 tffx^t^eiv.     p.  7.  Ed.  Thirlby. 
 
 •f  K«i  ojji.iiMyni/,ev  tuv  Toiarwv  vcjmC^oiaivuh  ®iuv  aGtot,  aXX  a^t 
 TV  uK-niii^oc.'Tii — ©£«•  «M  (Kfinoy  Tf,  x«»  rov  'uJoc^  avrn  vton  tXBoiiray 
 y.ai  ^iSa^ccvTct  vfJ.ci^  tix,vtoc,  xan  rov  tuv  cO^uv  fnofji-ivuv  xut  £fof^o»«/A£i'W)' 
 uycc^uv  afycXuf  r^ccrov,  to-mf/.a.   te  to   'a7e(,<pr,Tiy.ov   o-EteOjueGa    xai  w^e- 
 
 c-y.vtnij.£v,  &c.  p.  1 1.  See  the  Note  in  Tliirlby,  and  Bryant's 
 Dissertation  on  this  passage, 
 t  P.  19,  20. 
 
(     507      ) 
 
 Father,  of  Jesus  Christ  the  Son,  and  of  the 
 Holy  Spirit  * :  and,  what  is  of  most  import- 
 ance to  us  at  present,  he  positively  asserts 
 that  the  cofmno?i  people  were  accustomed 
 to  explain  the  Old  Testament  agreeably  to 
 the  doftrine  of  the  Trinity.  He  asserts 
 that  Plato  had  learnt  from  Moses  to  give 
 the  second  place  to  the  Xoyog  [^evrs^xv  f^sv 
 
 yotp  yuootv  rw  'sruox  Qea  Xoyu — didcvcri)  and  the 
 third  to  the  spirit,  that  was  said  to  move 
 on  the  waters    {rviv  ^e  t^itviv  tu  Xsx^^^'^^  STrKpe- 
 
 DS(r9cci  Tto  xjlari,  73-v£vu,cy.ri)  and  he  immediately 
 declares  that  the  same  explications  were 
 understood  and  followed  by  the  common, 
 unlearned  Christians  of  his  time  +.  Dr. 
 Priestley's  summary  method  of  setting 
 aside  this  testimony  will  be  seen  in  the 
 subjoined  note  J-  Instead  of  following 
 his  elucidation,  it  will  be  proper,  by  com- 
 paring 
 
 *  Ett*  ovojji.oe.rQg  ya^  rs  mur^oq  ruv  oKm  xa*  oio-jroTH  ©=«,  x«i  ra 
 ffWTJ.^o?  r,//<">  Ucra  X^ir^,  x-^f  -z^vsujuaTo,-  ayta,  to  ev  to;  voaxi  Tore 
 ?iHrpoii  'zroiaiTai.    p    0<^. 
 
 t  Apolog.  I.  p.  88. 
 
 '<  +  It  may  be  said,  that  the  testimony  of  Tertullian  is 
 expressly  contradiaed  by  Justin  Martyr,  who  (in  giving 
 an  account  of  the  circumstances  in  which  the  Platonic 
 philosophy  agreed,  as  he  thought,  with  the  doarine  of 
 Moses,  but  with  respeft  to  which  he  supposed  that  Plato 
 had  borrowed  from  Mo  es)  mentions  the  following  parti- 
 culars, viz.  the  power  which  was  after  the  first  God,  or 
 tlie  logos,  "  assuming  the  figure  of  a  cross  in  the  uni- 
 verse, borrowed  from  the  fixing  up  of  a  serpent  (which 
 represented  Christ)  in  the  form  of  a  cross  in  the  wiider- 
 
 vs  s  s  2  nciS ; 
 
(     5o8      ) 
 
 paring  Justin  with  himself,  to  determine 
 whether  he  has  really  borne  testimony  in 
 this  place  to  the  trinitarianism  of  the 
 unlearned  Christians,  or  not :  whether 
 Christ  was,  or  was  not,  the  A075;  to  which 
 they  assigned  ^evTs^a,v  x^'^^^- 
 
 ness;  and  a  third  principle,    borrowed   from  the  spirit, 
 which  Moses  said  moved  on  the  face  ot'tlie  water  at  the 
 creation  ;  and  also  the  notion  o^  some  fire i  or  conflagra- 
 tion, borrowed  from  some  iigurative  expressions  in  Moses, 
 relating  to  the  anger  of  God  waxing  hot.   "  These  things,'' 
 he  says,  "  we  do  not  borrow  from  others,  but  all  others 
 from  us.     With  us  you  may  hear  and  learn  these  things 
 Irom  those  who  do  not  know  the  form  of  the  letters,  and 
 who  are   rude  and  barbarous  of  speech,  but    wise  and 
 understanding  in  mind,  and  from  some   who  are    even 
 lame  and  blind,  so  that  vou  may  be  convinced  that  these 
 things  are  not  said  by  human  wisdom,  but  by  the  power 
 ofG'^od." 
 
 Ov   TO.   ccvTot.  av  rtjy.Eic   «A?xK  flo^a^o/ixsy,  «AA'  ot    tra-j-.t^  tx  viix£TI£<x. 
 fjnixUfJiivoi  ?\syti7i.    "zraj    Xf/Av  an  E5-1   tccvtcc  ay.t;<7Xi  y.at  y.x&ei!/ 'wapa.  tuv 
 
 TO  (p^iyy.ot^  aOfUV  01  y.oci  'sji^uti  tov  vbv  ovtui^  y.ui  ■tr-zi-^uv  y.cci  yjfipi^v  tu'icU 
 Ta?  o-^ni;'  oj<;  crvvmcctj  a  ao(pioc.  ocv^^wjicicc  ixvra,  ysyovEKZi,  oc7^x 
 ^ufa.fjiEiQi8  XnysaQut.       Apol.  p.   88. 
 
 "But  all  that  v.-e  can  infer  from  this  passage  is, that  these 
 common  people  had  learned  from  Moses  iliat  the  world 
 was  made  by  the  power  and  wisdom  (cr  the  logos)  of 
 God;  that  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness  represented 
 Christ ;  and  that  there  was  a  spirit  of  God  that  moved  on 
 the  face  of  the  waters  :  in  slioit,  that  these  plain  people 
 had  been  at  the  source  from  which  Plato  had  borrowed 
 his  philosophy.  It  is  by  no  means  an  explicit  declaration 
 that  these  common  people  thought  that  the  logos  and  the 
 spirit  were  persons  distinil  from  God.  Justin  was  not 
 writing  with  a  view  to  that  question,  as  Tertullian  was, 
 but  only  meant  to  sa\  how  much  more  knowledge  was  to 
 be  found  among  the  lowest  of  the  Christians,  than  among 
 the  wisest  of  the  heathen  philosophers.  Hist,  of  early 
 Opinions,  Vol.  3  p.  248. 
 
(      509      ) 
 
 TUTO    yspvvi9iurct     IHSOTN,  —  TION    ATTOT    TOT 
 ONTHI  0EOT  {xccQovregy  kcci  F,N  AETTEPAI  XliPAl 
 
 t^ovreg,  wviVfjLoc   re   ■sroo(p7]Tiycov  sv    tdit-^  rocrsi    oTt 
 
 The  testimony  of  Justin  to  the  belief  of 
 Christians    in   general,    and    the    common 
 people  in  particular,  in  the  divinity  of  Christ 
 is  full  and  clear.    He  had  engaged  to  give  a 
 true  account  of  the  opinions  and  manners 
 of  the  Christians  at  large  :   and  it  w^as  not 
 consistent  with  his  chara6ter  and  pracSlice 
 to  put  off  his  own  particular  opinions  for 
 those  of  the  whole    body  of  his  brethren, 
 even   on  occasions  when  he  lay  under  less 
 powerful   obligations  to  adhere  to  truth, 
 than  at  the  time  when  he  wrote  his  Apo- 
 logies.   In  the  Dialogue  (p.  3ii.)Trypho 
 asks,  whether  Jerusalem  would  be  rebuilt, 
 and    whether    Christians,  with  Christ    at 
 their    head,    and   all   virtuous  Jews,  who 
 had    lived    before    his   appearance,   would 
 assemble,    and   possess  it.  —  Justin,    with 
 many  others  of  his  age,  was  a  Millennarian  : 
 but,  instead  of  declaring  that  this  was  the 
 opinion  of  Christians  in  general;  he  returns 
 this  answer.   "  I  have  acknowledged  before, 
 that  I  and  many  others  are  of  this  opinion; 
 *  P.  19,  20.  but. 
 
(     510      ) 
 
 but,     I    have  also   intimated,  that  many 
 true  and    pious  Christians    do    not  admit 
 this."     Would  a  person,  who  was  so  little 
 disposed  to  pass  his  own  opinions  for  those 
 of   the   whole   body    of  Christians,    have 
 ventured  to  declare  to  the  Roman  emperor, 
 that  Christians  in  general  believed    in'  the 
 divinity  of  Christ,  if  he  himself  had  been 
 the  first  to  introduce  that  do6lrine,  and  if 
 it  had  been  embraced  only  by  a  few  indi- 
 viduals ?  Justin's  knowledge  of  his  subject 
 precludes  all  possibility  of  a  mistake,  his 
 chara6ler  will   not   admit  the  supposition 
 of  a   wilful    falsehood,  and  he  would  not 
 have  dared,  had  he  been  inclined,  to  deceive 
 those,  to  whom  his  Apologies  were  addressed. 
 He  must   have  been  well  assured  of  the 
 truth  of  what  he    says,   and  'tis  likely  he 
 knew    it   to   be    the    ordinary  opinion   of 
 the  Christian  people  he  had  visited  in  his 
 travels.      If  it    had    not    been    a  general 
 opinion,     or   had   obtained  in    some    few 
 places  only,   he  must   have  spoken   more 
 cautiously,  and  made  use  of  some  limita- 
 tions and  exceptions.      For,  if  there  were 
 Christian     people     in    any     considerable 
 numbers,  who  believed  not  in  the  divinity 
 of   Christ,     upon    inquiry    made     by  the 
 emperor    or   his   order,    he    had    run   the 
 
 hazard 
 
(     5"      ) 
 
 hazard  of  being  convi6led  of  a  design  to 
 impose  upon  all  the  majesty  of  the  Roman 
 empire;  and  that  not  in  an  affair  inci- 
 dentally mentioned,  but  in  the  conduct 
 and  worship  of  his  own  people,  concerning 
 whom  he  professed  to  give  the  justest 
 information. 
 
 I  have  described  Justin's  obligation  to 
 relate  the  truth  on  this  subje6l  almost 
 entirely  in  the  language,  which  Lardner  has 
 applied  to  the  same  purpose  on  another*. 
 And  it  will  be  almost  equally  applicable 
 to  the  other  Apologists. 
 
 II.  Athenagoras  wrote  his  Apology 
 (perhaps  about  a.  d.  170.)  after  the  wor- 
 ship of  Christ  had  been  a  subje6l  of  ridicule 
 among  the  heathens  ;  as  appears  from  the 
 treatise  itself.  In  answer  to  the  charge  of 
 Atheism,  after  having  explained  the  Chris- 
 tian notions  on  the  existence  of  a  God, 
 Athenagoras  adds  (speaking  in  the  name 
 of  the  Christian  community,  and  not  of  a 
 limited  part  of  it,)  "We  also  acknowledge 
 the  son  of  God.  Nor  let  any  one  think  that 
 there  is  any  thing  ridiculous  in  my  attri- 
 buting 
 
 *  See  Lardner  on  Justin, 
 
{      512      ) 
 
 buting  a  son  to  God.  For,  our  sentimentSf 
 whether  of  God  the  Father,  or  of  the  Son, 
 are  not  like  the  fables  of  the  Poets,  who 
 inake  their  Gods  no  better  than  men. 
 But,  the  son  of  God  is  the  word  of  the 
 Father  in  comprehension  and  operation  : 
 for  through  him  and  by  him  were  all  things 
 made;  the  Father  and  the  Son  being 
 one  ^y"  &c.  After  this  he  adds  ;  "  Who 
 then  would  not  be  perplexed  at  hearing 
 people  called  atheists,  who  declare  the 
 Father  God,  the  Son  God,  and  the  Holy 
 Spirit  •^%  &c.  And  he  immediately  sub- 
 joins ;  "  You  must  not  wonder,  if  I  go 
 through  the  account  concerning  us  with 
 accuracy :  I  speak  accurately,  that  you 
 may  not  be  carried  away  with  the  vulgar 
 and  senseless  opinion,  but  may  be  able  to 
 learn  the  truth  ;J:." 
 
 Athenagoras 
 
 *  Noa^afv  yap  xa»  mov  ts  0sa.  xai  m.i]  /xoi  ys^ojov  tk  vo(/.^a-n  to  viov 
 nxxi  Tw  Sew.  a  yocp  wj  'Etouitck  /AfSoTTctacru',  adm  ^i^TtBt;  tciv  av^^uiruv 
 ^»tKVvrrzz  ra?  ©£a?,  »)  csregi  ra  ©ta  hm  tsxr^oi;  ■n  'VJi^i  ra  vm  'me<p^ovriKa^ 
 y.tn.  «m'  £riv  0  vio<;  -ra  Qia  Xoyoi;  th  -EraT^o?,  ev  »^£«  x-m  tn^ynot.  tr-^oj 
 uxjTS  yoL^^  ya.1  ol  avre  tsxiru  lyenTo^  evo?  ovto?  ra  iiraT^o?  y.ut  ra  ny, 
 ovTOf  h  ra  J»a  ivwa.r^t.y  xcn  'mccr^o:;  ev  vna  tiornri  xcci  avtctjj.H  'zsvivfj.oc'rfx;,^ 
 »a;  y.a»  Aoyof  t« -zrareo;  o  uio;  ra  ©ta.      AthenagOias,    p.  10.  ad. 
 
 calcem  Justini  Mart.  Ed.  Paris.  1615. 
 
 "t  Tij  av  ix  a.)i  aTrc,pr,aeiiy  Xsycvra?  &tov  'Sfure^oc  y.oci  tidf  Sso*  xai 
 'Syntvuai  ccyicv  ^e^y.vv^TU^  xvruv  x«»  Tr,)/  t\i  t>)  tiwcret  dyia/zu,  xat  Tnt  £> 
 T>;  Ta^fi  ^lai^EO-tv  axa^ra?  afisa^  y.a7va((AEva;,    p.  I  I . 
 
 ;|;  E»  ^£  axgi^wj  ^tE|Ei/x»  Toi'  x«6'  »)/*«?  ^oyov,  /xn  Sai'nAainjTE.  «>«  ya^ 
 un  Tri  xoivrj  xa»  aXvyu  (TvnaTroOr^r.j^z  yyu-iAr,^  -X^>'^^  "^  Ta^r.Gej  £»iEi«» 
 ax;i^<j7^oyt;^a.i.  p.   1  1 . 
 
(     5^3      ) 
 
 Athenagoras  then,  when  professing  to 
 speak  with  accuracy  on  the  condu5l  and 
 opinions  of  Christians,  has  represented 
 them  in  general  as  beheving  in  the  divinity 
 of  Christ.  Either  he  was  guilty  of  a  wil- 
 ful falsehood,  or  they  were  not  Unitarians. 
 Under  this  article  it  may  be  observed  of 
 the  Apologists  in  general;  i.  When 
 Christians  were  stigmatized  as  atheists, 
 they  appealed  to  their  religious  tenets, 
 publickly  avowing  the  belief  of  their  bre- 
 thren in  God  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy 
 Spirit.  2.  When  their  enemies,  taking 
 another  ground,  taxed  them  with  wor- 
 shipping a  crucified  man,  they  admitted 
 the  fa(5l  of  the  worship  ;  but  denied  that 
 he  was  a  mere  man.  3.  They  made  these 
 declarations,  when  under  very  strong  obli- 
 gations to  relate  the  truth,  and  sometimes 
 when  they  professed  to  speak  with  the 
 utmost  care  and  accuracy. 
 
 Ill,  Tatian,  (about  a.  d.  170.)  after 
 having  noticed  the  corruptions  in  the 
 Greek  philosophy,  proceeds  to  describe 
 the  tenets  of  Christians  as  distinguished 
 from  those  of  the  heathens.  "  I  will  give 
 you,"  he  says,  "a  more  clear  exposition  of 
 
 T  T  T  our 
 
(     5H     ) 
 
 our   sentiments  *."    And  soon   after  adds 
 that  the  Word  created  angels  before  men-f . 
 Alkiding  to  the  popular  cry  raised  against 
 the  Christians  for  worshipping,  as  God,   a 
 man  who  was  born  and  crucified  in  Pales- 
 tine, he  says,   "  We    are  not  senseless,  O 
 Greeks,  nor  talk  trifles  to  you,  when  we 
 declare  that  God  was  born  in  the  form  of 
 man  X-"  —  Tatian  then  professing  to  give 
 a   clear   exposition   of  the    sentiments  of 
 Christians    in   general,    and    not   of  that 
 extremely  limited  part,  which  consisted  of 
 a  few    philosophers,  declares    their   belief 
 in  the  preexistence  and  divinity  of  Christ ; 
 and  from  the  language,  which  he  employs, 
 it    appears    that    these    tenets    had    been 
 ridiculed  by  the  heathens  before  he  wrote. 
 
 IV.  Theophilus,  (about  a.  d.  170.) 
 after  having  mentioned  tlie  churches, 
 which  existed  in  the  world,  and  heresies 
 separated  from  them,  observes  that  the 
 luminaries  of  heaven  were  created  on  the 
 
 fourth 
 
 ^ttiti'xT'.^ot  c:  !y.9r<roLtat  rx  r.^-ri^ee,.       Tatian.    p.    145.  Ed. 
 
 Paris.  1615. 
 p    146. 
 
(     5^5     ) 
 
 fourth  day,  that  the  fourth  day  is  a  type 
 of  man,  who  wants  light,  and  that  the 
 three  days,  which  preceded  the  creation  of 
 the  sun  and  moon,  are  a  type  of  the 
 mystery  of  the  Trinity  *.  He  afterwards 
 gives  an  account  of  the  logos  from  St. 
 John's  Gospel,  which  he  cites.  Though  his 
 testimony  to  the  faith  of  the  Christians  in 
 general  of  his  time  is  not  so  express  as 
 that  of  some  of  the  other  Apologists,  he 
 has  indire6lly  declared  the  churches 
 trinitarian. 
 
 V.  Hegesippus  and  Irenaeus  (a.  d.  170.) 
 were  not  Apologists  ;  but  they  were  under 
 the  common  obligations  to  relate  the  truth  ; 
 and  both  of  them  have  borne  full  testimony 
 to,  what  they  thought,  the  orthodoxy  of 
 Christians  in  general  of  their  own  time. 
 While  Hegesippus  was  thought  an  Unita- 
 rian, his  evidence  was  brought  forward 
 with  great  confidence^;  and  we  must  not 
 allow  it  to  be  drawn  back,  after  he  has 
 been  proved  to  have  been  a  believer  in  the 
 divinity  of  Christ  J.      This  Historian,  after 
 
 noticing 
 
 *  P-  94- 
 
 t  Hist,  of  early  Opinions,  Vol,  4  .p.  308.  See  also  the 
 opening  of  the  History  of  Corruptions. 
 I  See  Chap.  ix.  of  this  Vol. 
 
 T    T    T    2 
 
(      5i6     ) 
 
 noticing  that  tlie  members  of  the  Corinthian 
 church,  with  whom  he  conversed  in  his 
 way  to  Rome,  "  continued  orthodox"  till  the 
 time  of  Primus,  and  after  mentioning  that 
 Anicetus,  whom  he  had  visited,  had  been 
 succeeded  as  bishop  of  Rome  by  Soter, 
 who  was  followed  by  Eleutherus,  observes 
 that  "  under  each  successive  Bishop,  and 
 in  every  city,  the  opinions  prevail,  which 
 the  law  teaches  and  the  Prophets  and  the 
 Lord  *r 
 
 "  The  church,"  says  Irenseus,  "  though 
 spread  through  the  whole  world  to  the 
 very  bounds  of  the  earth,  having  received 
 from  the  Apostles  and  their  disciples,  the 
 faith  in  one  God  the  Almighty  Father, 
 who  made  the  heaven,  and  the  earth,  and 
 the  seas,  and  all  that  are  in  them,  and  in 
 one  Christ  Jesus,  tlie  son  of  God  invested 
 with  flesh  for  our  salvation,  and  in  the 
 Holy  Spirit -f,''  &c.  "  The  church  having 
 received  this  doctrine  and  this  faith  above- 
 mentioned, 
 
 FiVQixiiioi;  oe  t*  Vu/xrif  Oiuod^rii  EVc/i>ij-«ju.»;i'  f^-^X.i^'^  AaxriTti. — xat  •zsocea 
 
 Ki^» .«.     Eiiseb.  riibt.  L.  4.  c.  xxii. 
 t  See  p.  342.  of  this  \  ol. 
 
(     517     ) 
 
 mentioned,  though  spread  through  the 
 whole  world,  carefully  preserves  them,  as 
 if  it  were  confined  to  one  house,  and 
 believes  these  articles  in  the  same  sense, 
 as  if  it  had  the  same  soul  and  the  same 
 heart;  and  preaches,  and  teaches  and  com- 
 municates them  with  perfe6l  harmony,  as 
 if  it  possessed  one  and  the  same  moutlj. 
 Languages  vary  through  the  world,  but 
 the  power  of  tradition  is  one  and  the  same. 
 And  neither  do  the  churches  founded  in 
 Germany  believe  or  transmit  do6lrines 
 different  from  others,  nor  those  in  Spain, 
 nor  those  among  the  Celts,  nor  in  the  east, 
 in  Egypt,  in  Libya  and  the  middle  of  the 
 world.  But  as  there  is  one  and  the  same 
 sun  created  by  God  for  the  whole  world; 
 so  the  preaching  of  truth  shines  every 
 where,  and  sheds  light  upon  all,  who 
 wish  to  arrive  at  the  knowledge  of  it ;  and 
 neither  will  any  ruler  in  the  churches,  who 
 is  powerful  in  eloquence,  deliver  doctrines 
 different  from  these,  nor  will  one,  who  is 
 feeble  in  speech,  take  away  from  the 
 doctrine  delivered  to  him  ;  for  as  there  is 
 one  and  the  same  faith,  neither  he,  who 
 is  able  to  describe  it  in  many  words,  says 
 too  much;  nor  he,  who  has  few,  too  little*." 
 
 We 
 
 e 
 
(      5i8      ) 
 
 We  may  siispecl  tlie  accuracy  of  tliis 
 pompous  and  hyperbolical  representation. 
 But,  if  any  considerable  body  of  people 
 among  Christians  had  been  Unitarians, 
 Iren^eus,  a  believer  in  the  divinity  of 
 Christ,  would  not  have  described  the 
 general  faith  with  such  complacency  and 
 exultation. 
 
 VI.  The  testimony  of  Tertullian  to  the 
 belief  of  Christians  in  general  has  been 
 already  noticed "f.  *'  He  also  gives  a  plain 
 proof  that  some  of  the  public  offices  at 
 that  time  were  sent  up  to  God  and  Christ 
 together ;  for,  shewing  the  inconsistency 
 of  the   Roman   shews    whh  a  Christian's 
 
 duty. 
 
 •       r  •I 
 
 ui  ivcc  oiKcv  oiy.ffcu'  y.oci  ojt/.oiw?  'crifEtei  thtok,   u^   ^lav  i^fvyr.v  y.ui  t*;v 
 uvir.t  iyHoa.  y.u^oiccv.y  y.cci    atjx^icvui  ruvTU  y.ri^vaaei.^  y.oci  dicuayM^   xa» 
 
 6ia?vEy.To»  ufCj/.oiuiy  u7s7\  r,  ovva^^n;  Tr,c,  's:a^aociffea;^  fAicc  y.a.i  r,  ccvrv^  xoci 
 axE  at  cv  Pff^aviaij  \oevy.i'.cx,i  EnxArff'**  a70\ci!q  'Bi'ntfity.aaiv  ij  «M&'f 
 ttct^ad'iocaciVj  tiT£  iv  Tai;  iCrftaKj  ^^te  tv  Ke7vtoi?j  UTt  kuto,  raj  Aia- 
 tOMCy  'alt  iv  Ai^t-WT&'j  t-TE  ev  AiCtr,  bTE  6ti  yocTtx.  ^4.iqcc  itf  y.oc^ts 
 i^et[A,na.i'  a?>.  uo'm^  o  r/^iof,  to  y.Ticf^oc  m  ©Efj  £>  o?iW  ruy.oajjui  eij 
 >;a»  c.  at;Toc,  tTw  j-ai  to  xrftyp.a  Tr,?  aXr.teia?  '^^;ft^Tap^>)  (punei^  cat 
 ^£<.Ti^«  -crajTa?  «»[.^awtf?  Tfc?  /EfcTkcpsit;  fr;  ECriyjaaU'  «7.r,t'e.a^  eX(ie;v, 
 xat  fcTE  0  <uraiv  otiaTo?  Ev  ^oyo)  T&*  ev  tan;  ExxAJiciai?  'C:^t<er«'T<ii'j  £T£f« 
 T tT (<;►££&<. —tTE  0  AjSti*)?  £>i  Tw  ?vo^(i;  E^iaTTt'CEi  '!»,►  da^a^aiv.  //»«{ 
 yap  Hoti  Tr,i;  uvir,(;  'Uifiui;  far,?,  faTt  o  cccAv  ict^i  atT*;?  oti«p£>05  e<7r<t» 
 t7r?.£0J«£r£f,  tJTE  0  70  o^iyov  r^aTTOnjcE.       it6n.  l-<,   I.  C.  X.  §.  2» 
 
(    519    ) 
 
 duty,  *  What  is  it/  says  he,  'to  go  out  of 
 the  church  of  God  into  the  assembler  of  the 
 devil ;  out  of  heaven  to  earth,  to  weary 
 those  hands,  which  you  have  lifted  up  to 
 God,  by  clapping  and  praising  a  player 
 afterwards  —  to  S3.y  from  ages  to  ages  to 
 any  other  but  God  and  Christ  */  Some 
 have  from  hence  conje6lured,  that  here  is 
 an  allusion  to  the  doxology"  (now  used  by 
 the  church  of  England;)  "but  let  that  be 
 as  it  will,  it  is  a  plain  proof  that  the  joint 
 invocation  of  the  Father  and  son  was  used 
 in  some  particular  hymn  of  that  time;  the 
 expression /ro;?2  ages  to  ages  being  in  all 
 probability  a  part  of  some  Antiphon  or 
 Response  of  the  people  to  the  minister -[-/' 
 
 VII.  The  testimony  of  Origen  to  the 
 belief  of  Christians  in  general  in  the  divi- 
 nity of  Christ,  and  more  particularly  of  the 
 common  people  of  his  age,  is  also  very 
 clear  and  decisive.  And  he  and  Justin 
 Martyr,  it  may  be  remarked,  when  speak- 
 
 ing- 
 
 o 
 
 *  Quale  est  enim  do  Ecclesia  in  Diaboli  Ecclcsiam 
 tendere,  de  coelo  (quod  aiunt)  in  cnenum,  illas  manus, 
 quas  ad  Deumextuleris,  postmodum  laudando  liistrionem 
 lati^are, —  ei<;  caumi;  oc::'  onmoc,  alii  omnino  dicere  nisi  Deo 
 et  Christo  ?  De  Spe61aculis,  c.  xw. 
 
 t  Defence  of  the  Bishop  of  London's  Letter,  p.   i-. 
 
(       520        ) 
 
 ing  of  this  faith  of  unlearned  Christians, 
 have  described  them  by  the  very  term 
 "  Idiotce,"  which  TertuUian  has  applied  to 
 the  common  people  of  Carthage,  in  the 
 passage  which  has  lately  been  cited,  by 
 mistake  in  support  of  the  Socinian  hypo- 
 thesis. "  Of  whose"  (i.  e.  Christ's)  "  divi^ 
 7iity,"  says  Origen,  "  so  many  churches  of 
 men  converted  from  wickedness  are  wit- 
 nesses */'  And,  speaking  of  Christians 
 in  general,  he  observes  ;  "  We  affirm  that 
 God  spoke  to  him  (Christ)  when  he  said ; 
 Let  there  be  light-f;"  and  *'Let  those  accusers 
 know,  that  he,  whom  we  consider  as  God 
 and  son  of  God,  and  have  been  so  per- 
 suaded, from  the  beginning,  is  the  very 
 word,  the  wisdom,  and  the  truth  X'" — 
 *'We  serve  then,  as  we  have  given  out,  one 
 God  the  Father  and  the  son,  and  we  hold 
 firmly  against  the  other  (i.  e.  the  heathen 
 Gods):  nor  do  we  render  undue  and  super- 
 stitious honours  to  a  being  who  but  lately 
 came  into  the  world  as  if  he  had  not  preexist- 
 ed :  for  we  believe  him,  when  he  says  *  Before 
 
 Abraham 
 
 Ov  Tm;  ^iorriTOi  y-u^rvps^  at  Toa-avrott  ru»  fj.na.QxXotruv  octto  rri^ 
 y(vyiCiJi  ruv  KCtKuy  ey-nX-naixt.      Orig.  COllt.  Celsum,  L.I  .p.  3D. 
 'y  Turcu  yxp  ^xf^iv  tv  rrj  xara  Muaix  xocr/^ioTrcijia  ■s^poj-aTToi'Ta  tov 
 <wciri^u-  tigriKivxi  TO  Tivri^-nru  (pu^.      L.  2.  p.  v^, 
 
 etvxi   Qiov   xa»  v\ov  ©stf,   »to;  0  awoMyot;    £r*j  ^oci  )}  avToero^iot  K»i 
 etVToaXr.^eiX,       I>.  3-   P*    ^35* 
 
(       521        ) 
 
 Abraham  was,  I  am/  and  when  he  savs, 
 *  I  am  the  truth/  and  there  is  no  o?ie  of  us 
 so  servile  as  to  think  that  truth  had  no 
 existence  before  the  time  of  Christ's  mani- 
 festation. We  worship  then  the  Father 
 of  truth  and  the  son,  who  is  truth  itself^ 
 two  TV  vTrog-cca-siy  but  one  in  harmony,  con- 
 cord and  identity  of  will  */'  —  Arians  and 
 Trinitarians  have  severally  claimed  Origen 
 as  their  own.  Huetius  is  of  opinion,  that 
 in  this  passage  he  lias  distinguished  be- 
 tween the  substance  of  the  Father  and  the 
 son,  agreeably  to  the  Arian  hj^pothesis  : 
 others  contend  that  by  distinSl  uTrofxa-si^  he 
 only  meant  a  distinction  of  persons.  He 
 has  indeed  strongly  insisted  on  the  divinity 
 of  Christ,  and  has  represented  Christians 
 in  general  as  believing  in  the  same  doc- 
 trine :  but  his  own  opinions  on  this  sub- 
 je6t  were  not  exa61:ly  those  of  his  brethren 
 about  his  own  time.  Though  he  has  left 
 full  testimony  to  the  belief  of  his  fellow 
 Christians  in  the  divinity  of  Christ,  it 
 appears  by  his  own  acknowledgement,  that 
 
 the 
 
 *  £»«  av  ©EOf,  wj  aTToot^Ui'.cciJt.tfy  toj  'Srocn^x  y.xi  to»  viav  BepxTrevo-" 
 I^bd'  y.oct  f*s»E»  viyAv  b  tsr^o?  rui  «AAtJ;  XTtv/i^  Aoyo?*  xai  S  to*  ivuyyo^  yt 
 ^ocuavTOiy  u<;  'bt^oti^op  hk  octaSj  v!rB^^^tKjKevo[/t.e»f  avra  yat.^  'mn'^w-i^ct.  no 
 «To»Tt,  rijUi  A^euaiA,  yiitc^c/A  iyu  etfjn'  xa»  /£yo»r»,  £71;  c-tui  v.  oc7.rSie\x' 
 yen  Sp^  uru  Ti?  r,f/ji)v  tr^v  cu'^^caro^c:;  u;  oiso-Oat  ot»  v)  ir.<;  atV/iSciasi,-  «j-w. 
 
 U  u  u 
 
(     5^2     ) 
 
 the  common  unlearned  people  about  him, 
 (the  Idiotae,  as  he  and  Justin  and  Tertullian 
 call  them,)  could  not  be  prevailed  on,  to 
 adopt  his  peculiar  notion  and  pra6lice  of 
 praying  to  the  Father  only,  through  the 
 Son. 
 
 He  addresses  himself  to  them  with 
 evident  vexation  ;  "•  If  we  would  hear,'* 
 says  he,  "  what  prayer  is,  we  should  not 
 pray  to  any  generated  being,  not  even  to 
 Christ  himself;  but  to  the  God  and  Father 
 of  all  alone,  to  whom  our  Saviour  himself 
 prayed  */'  '•  It  is  not  reasonable  for  those, 
 who  are  thought  v.'orthy  to  be  sons  of  the 
 same  Father,  to  pray  to  a  brother:  for, 
 '  You  must  send  up  3^our  prayers  to  the 
 Father  alone  with  me  and  throudi  me/ 
 Hearing  then  Jesus  say  this,  let  us  pray 
 to  God  through  him,  all  speaking  the  same 
 words,  and  not  divided  about  the  form  of 
 prayer  :  and  are  zee  not  divided,  if  some 
 pray  to  the  Father,  and  some  to  the  Son  ? 
 cotnmon  people^  in  great  simplicity  from  a 
 want  of  an  examination  and  investigation 
 of  the    subje6l,    cofumitting  an    offence    in 
 
 oTTering 
 
 •wfor/ivy.'vtov  £)-•>',  *^o£  clvtu  tu  Xoir^^'  eCKKa.  (jlohj  tcj    9f(y  tuv   o\u;y  x«t 
 
 48.  citat.a  Piiestley  Hist,  of  early  Opinions,  Vol.  2.  p.  161. 
 
(     523     ) 
 
 offering  prayers  to  the  Son,  either  with  the 
 Father,  or  zvithout  the  Father'^," 
 
 Orio-en,  we  see,  wished  to  introduce 
 uniformity  in  the  service  of  the  church : 
 he  himself  offered  up  prayers  to  God  the 
 Father  alone,  through  Christ :  the  common, 
 unlearned  people,  the  idiots,  had  not 
 conform.ed  to  his  praftice;  but  prayed 
 either  to  God  the  Father  and  Christ,  or  to 
 Christ  alone.  It  will  be  interesting  to  see 
 how  Dr.  Priestley  disposes  of  this  testi- 
 mony. In  his  Letter  to  Dr.  Knovvles  he 
 produces  only  a  part  of  the  passage,  and 
 drops  the  last  clause:  and  in  his  History 
 of  early  Opinions  as  well  as  in  that  Letter, 
 by  means  of  a  false  translation,  he  has 
 forced  Origen  to  declare,  that  in  praying 
 to  the  Father  through  Christ,  and  in  not 
 prayin  o;  to  Christ,  Christians  are  all  agreed-^. 
 
 Even 
 
 lyXoT-cv-  i^ovu  ycc^  to;  craT^t  juet    £p-a  y.ctt  ^l   s/xtf  avaTrE/ATTTeoi-  er»y  vfLit 
 TO  avra  hiyovri<;  CTa^TE?,  [/.r.h  ctre^t  t8  r^oTra  rr,<;  ivyrr^  o-^'C^P-^*'*''  "  *^X» 
 
 VM-a,  \so7^%v  uHe^Morr,Tcc  Sta.  to  aQaca-avirov  >icci  cH^STurov  ayM^Tamri^ 
 Tuv  cr§o(7£f;;(^o/x£WV  tw  Viu,  «t£   f/.ETa  Ttf  'Sja.T^o';^  «T£  x^gK  TS  •k-«.t^o?. 
 
 De  Orat.  p.  5.  citat.  a  Priestley. 
 
 \  *'  We  are  not  to  pray  a  Brother,  who  has  the  same 
 
 common  Father  with  ourselves  ;  Jesus  himself  saying,  that 
 
 we  must  piay  to  the  Father  through  him.    In  tliis  we  are 
 
 ^  U  U  U  2  *J'"i 
 
(      o24      ) 
 
 Even  the  silence  of  Origen  on  this  sub- 
 je6\  is  ahnost  as  conclusive  as  his  positive 
 testimony.  In  a  multitude  of  passages, 
 which  he  has  cited  from  Celsus,  it  is  declared, 
 that  Christ  was  worshipped  as  God  and  the 
 son  of  God  by  Christians  ;  and  this,  when 
 '  all  of  them  are  stated  to  be  ignorant  peo- 
 ple, of  low  condition.  Instead  of  denying 
 this  representation,  he  has  sometimes  ex- 
 pressly, and  sometimes  silently,  admitted 
 it  to  be  just. 
 
 But,  in  one  part,  it  may  be  observed, 
 Celsus  speaks  of  some  Christians  only,  who 
 were  in  the  profession  of  this  faith.  "  That 
 so?ne  Christians  should  maintain,  that  any 
 God,  or  son  of  God  has  come  down  to 
 justify  people  on  earth,  and  that  Jews 
 should  hold  that  he  zvill  come,  is  most 
 scandalous  :  and  but  few  words  are  requi- 
 site 
 
 all  agreed  and  are  not  divided  about  tlie  method  of  prayer: 
 but  should  we  not  be  divided,  if  some  prayed  to  the  fa- 
 ther and  some  to  the  Son.  Common  people,  (he  says) 
 through  a  great  mistake,  and  lor  want  oi  distinguishing 
 prayed  to  the  son  either  wilk  the  Father,  or  ivithout  the 
 FaOier."     Origen.  Priestley's  Translation. 
 
 When  Dr.  Priestley  in  other  parts  of  his  work,  appeals 
 to  the  testimony  of  Origen,  to  prove  that  the  Christians  of 
 his  age  were  not  accustomed  lo  pray  to  Christ,  he  alludes 
 to  this  passage  :  the  begii:ning  of  which,  according  to  his 
 translation,  holds  one  language,  and  the  end  another. 
 
(     525     ) 
 
 site  for  the  refutation  of  this  notion  */*— 
 This  unusual  mark  of  limitation,  nveg,  some, 
 may  create  a  suspicion,  that  Christians  of 
 this  class  were  not  very  numerous.  Origen, 
 when  Ceisus  speaks  of  Christians  in  general 
 believing  in  the  divinity  of  Christ,  acqui- 
 esces in  his    representation,  and   defends 
 the  faith   of  his   brethren.       Let  us    see 
 whether    his     scrupulous    and    fastidious 
 accuracy  will  allow  the  propriety  of. this 
 expression,  "some  of  the  Christians.'*  His 
 answer  is  this  :   "  He"  (Ceisus)  "  appears 
 to  be  inaccurate  in  asserting  of  the  whole 
 body  of  Jews,  and  not  of  some  individuals 
 of  them.,  '  that  they  expecl  a  being  will  come 
 down  to   earth,'  and  of  Christians,  in  de- 
 claring 'that  some  of  them  maintain  that  he 
 has  come  down  -f.' 
 
 Ceisus,  it  is  intimated  by  Origen,  ought 
 to  have  spoken  of  all  Christians  and  only 
 of  some  individuals  among  the  Jews. 
 Three  historical  fa 61s  cf  great  importance 
 are  established  by  this  testimon}^     i.  All, 
 
 whom 
 
 0etf  viov  ruv  rr,^B  6iyMiuzT,v  TbV  a,KT'/j>Tov,  KUi  aSe  ^eiTxi  (Jt-ocK^a  hoya  5 
 
 fKtyxo<;>  Ceisus.  Dp.  Orig,  Lib.  4.  p.  161. 
 TJwj  uvTut  xaTaCfCwera*  AE'/y^-J)'.     p.  1 6 1, 
 
(     526     ) 
 
 whom  Origen  called  Christians,  i.  e.  every 
 individual  of  the  church'^,  believed  that 
 Christ  was  a  divine  being  who  had  de- 
 scended from  heaven.  2.  The  great  body 
 of  Jews  expected  a  mere  man  for  their 
 Messiah,  3.  Some  individuals  of  that 
 people  expe6led  the  son  of  God,  a  being 
 more  than  man^f. 
 
 Novatian  says.  Si  homo  tantummodo 
 Christus ;  quomodo  adest  uhiqiie  mvocatus, 
 cum  hgsc  hominis  natura  non  sit,  sed  Dei, 
 ut  adesse  omni  loco  possit  J  ? 
 
 Having 
 
 *  H/i/-«?  l\  ccKo  Tviz  i'Trmvit.a  X^tya  szy.Xviaia.i;.  Ol'ig.  COnt.  Cels. 
 p.  388. 
 
 Origen,  in  answer  to  Celsus,  having  observed,  that  there 
 were  two  kinds  of  Ebionites,  who  adhered  to  the  observ- 
 ance of  the  ritual  law,  one  se6t  of  whom  believed  and  the 
 other  denied  the  miraculous  conception  of  Christ,  asks 
 Tt  Taro  ipe^et  ly/.X-n^u  Toi;  ocTio  rr?  £KxAj;o-t«s  a?  avo  TOT  IIAHGOYS 
 it.'Po[JiCia£v  0  Ke>.(3-o?.    L.  5    P'  272. 
 
 t  By  com.paring  this  passage  with  another,  (quoted  p. 
 97.  of  this  Vol. )  it  appears,  that  the  individuals,  who  enter- 
 tained  this  opinion,  must  have  been  very  few  in  number. 
 
 :J:C.  14,  p.  45.  citat.  a  Priestley,  Hist,  of  early  Opinions, 
 Vol.  3.  p.  4.19.  Dr.  Priestley  seems  to  think  this  testi- 
 mony of  some  weight ;  "but,"  he  says,  ''whatever  might 
 he  tiie  case  in  the  time  of  Novatian  (when  what  he  says 
 could  rot  be  tiue  of  any  besides  the  Trinitarians)  this 
 certainly  was  not  the  pra6tice  even  with  ihem  in  the 
 time  of  Origen,  who  Jlottrished  not  more  tha?i  twenty  years 
 before  him."—  ^'According  to  Origen,  the  custom  of  Chris- 
 tians was  to  pray  to  God  through  Christ."  Hist,  of  early 
 Opinions,  Vol.  3.  p.  /,}g.  ])r.  Priestley  is  resolved  to 
 compel  Origen  to  bear  testimony  in  liis  favour;  whatever 
 the  other  Fathers  may  say.- 
 
(     527     ) 
 
 Having  stated  Origen's  testimony  to  the 
 belief  of  Christians  in  general,  and  parti- 
 cularly of  the  unlearned  part  of  them  in  the 
 divinity  of  Christ;   his  obligation  to  relate 
 the  truth  may  be  described  in    the  words 
 of  Dr.  Priestley.      "  So   positive  a    testi- 
 ^'  mony   as    this,    from   so   respe6table   a 
 "  chara61:er  (the   most   so,   I  will  venture 
 "  to  say,  that  his  age,  or  that  any  age, 
 "can   boast)    one    would    have    thought, 
 "  could    not    have    failed    to    have   some 
 "  weight  with  persons  who  had  not  intirely 
 "  bid  farewel  to  shame,  and  who  were  not 
 determined  to  support  an  hypothesis  at 
 any  rate.      It  is  not  only  the  testimony 
 of  a  man  of  the  greatest  purity  of  cha- 
 "  ra61er  in  all  respe6ts,  but  delivered  in 
 "  the  face  of  all  the  world,  who  could  not 
 "  but  have  known  it  to  be  a   falsehood,  if 
 "  it  had  been  one ;  and  therefore  could  not 
 '«  have  had  any  other  efFe6l  than  to  expose 
 *'  himself.      It  is,  in  fa6t,  to  suppose  that 
 "  a  man  of  the  greatest  integrity  in  the 
 "  world  would  tell  a  lie  in  circumstances 
 "  in  which  the  greatest  liar  would  have 
 «  told  the  truth.     If  ever  any  man  had   a 
 ^  motive  to  keep  himself  within  the  bounds 
 "  of  truth,  it  was  Origen  in  this  particular 
 "  case,  a  man  who  was  considered  as  at 
 
 *'  the 
 
 cc 
 
(     528     ) 
 
 **  the  head  of  the  Christians,  and  of  whom 
 "  the  greatest  men,  which  that  and  the 
 "  following  age  produced,  such  as  Diony- 
 *'  sius  of  Alexandria,  Firmilian  of  Cappa- 
 *'  docia,  and  Gregory  of  Neocassarea,  were 
 *'  the  greatest  admirers.  Would  such 
 *'  men  as  these  have  been  so  wonderfully 
 "  attached,  as  they  are  known  to  have 
 *'  been,  to  Origen,  if  he  had  been  a  wilful 
 *'  Har^  Can  it  then  be  supposed  that  such 
 *'  a  man  as  this,  in  the  circumstances  in 
 "  which  he  wrote,  would  have  asserted 
 "  concerning  the  Christians  in  general, 
 **  that  they  were  all"  believers  in  the  divi- 
 nity of  Christ,  *•'  if  it  had  been  notorious 
 "  (as,  if  it  had  been  true,  it  must  have 
 "  been*")  that  the  great  body  of  them  sup- 
 posed him  to  have  been  a  mere  man  ? 
 
 VIII.  Arnobius  (a.  i>.  303)  having 
 mentioned,  that  the  heathens  obje6l  to 
 the  worship  of  Christ  by  Christians,  (Na- 
 tum  hominem  colitis)  admits  the  fa6t  of 
 the  worship,  but  denies,  that  he  was  a  mere 
 man-f.  Ladlantius,  (a.  d.  303)  compar- 
 ing the  heathens  with  the  Christians  J, 
 says,  that  the  former  are  superstitious  in 
 
 worshipp/ng 
 
 *  Letters  to  the  Bishop  of  St.  David's,  p.  50. 
 
 •t  Adv.  gcntcs,  L.  I.  :|:  L.  4.  §  29.  and  30. 
 
(     529     ) 
 
 worshipping  many  and  false  Gods  ;  but 
 that  the  Christians  are  religious,  as  they 
 supplicate  the  one,  true  God:  and  he 
 observes :  "  Perhaps  any  one  may  ask, 
 how,  since  we  say  that  we  worship  one 
 God,  do  we  ?ievertlieless  assert  that  there 
 are  two,  God  the  Father,  and  God  the 
 Son*."  Speaking  of  an  ohje61:or  against 
 Christianity,  this  writer  observes,  "  In  that 
 (the  obje6lor)  says  that  he  (Christ)  per- 
 formed miracles,  by  which  principally  he 
 obtained  the  credit  of  being  of  divine 
 nature;  he  appears  to  agree  with  us;  since 
 he  affirms  the  very  thing,  in  which  we 
 /boast." 
 
 IX.  Here  the  testimony  to  the  opinions 
 of  the  Christians,  on  the  subje6l  of  the 
 nature  of  Christ,  may  be  closed.  During 
 the  long  period  between  Trajan  and  Con- 
 stantine,  a  number  of  heathen  witnesses, 
 or  rather,  the  whole  Roman  world  agree 
 in  the  same  accusation  :  they  represent  the 
 belief  of  Christ's   divinity  as  constituting 
 
 one 
 
 *  Fortasse  qunerat  aliquls,  quomodo,  cum  Deum  nos 
 unum  colere  dicamus,  duos  tamen  esse  asseveremus, 
 Deum  patrem  et  Deum  filium.     L.  5.  c.  xxix. 
 
 Quod  ait,  portentifica  ilium  opera  fecisse,  quo  maxime 
 divinitatis  fidem  meruit;  assentiri  nobis  jam  yidetur  ;  cum 
 dicit  eadem,  quibus  nos  gloriamur,  L.  4.  c.  xiii. 
 
 X  XX 
 
(     530     ) 
 
 one  part  of  Cliristianity,  and  not  a  single 
 voice  is  raised    among   them,   at  the  time 
 that  they  speak  of  all  Christians  as  common, 
 unlearned  people,  to  contradi6l  this  pre- 
 vailing notion  :  the  learned  and  the  igno- 
 rant among  the  heathens,  the  violent  and 
 the    moderate,     the    benevolent    and    the 
 malignant  concur  in  this:  those,  who  con- 
 demn it  as   a   crime,  those,  who  laugh  at 
 it  as  a  folly,  and  those,  who  incidentally 
 notice  it  as  an  indifferent  matter,  speak  of 
 the  fa61:,  as  if  it  had  never  been  doubted, 
 or  disputed.      If  we  examine  the  witnesses 
 on    the    other    side,    their    testimony   is 
 equally  full  and  extensive.     The  Christian 
 Apologists  and   others,   without  a  single 
 exception,    expressly     admjt,    or    silently 
 acquiesce  in,     this    part   of    the  heathen 
 accusations,  at  the  time  that  they  corre6l 
 misrepresentations     on    other     subje6ls: 
 they    openly    avow   the  belief  of    Chris- 
 tians in  general,  particularly  of  the  com- 
 mon   people,    in    the    divinity  of  Christ ; 
 and   labour  to    prove   the  reasonableness 
 of   their    faith.       Christianity    was    then 
 thought  a  crime:   and  the  truth  or  false- 
 hood of    many  of  the  accusations,  which 
 were  brought  against  the  Christians,  may 
 be  proved  with  as  much  certainty,  as  if 
 
 they 
 
(     531     ) 
 
 they  had  been  arraigned  and  tried  in  a 
 court  of  justice.  When  a  multitude  of 
 witnesses  against  a  prisoner  is  found  to 
 agree  in  attesting  the  same  fa6l,  the 
 general  concurrence  on  one  side  only  is  no 
 equivocal  mark  of  truth.  When  all  the 
 indifferent  witnesses,  and  even  those  who 
 appear  in  his  favour,  agree  with  his  ac- 
 cusers ;  when  the  prisoner  himself,  on 
 different  examinations,  repeatedly  avows 
 the  same  thing,  without  any  prevarication 
 whatever;  the  charge  is  proved  beyond  all 
 question.  In  a  case  like  this,  it  will  be 
 nugatory  to  point  out  a  flaw  (I  am  not 
 aware  of  any)  in  the  deposition  of  one  or 
 two  of  the  witnesses :  the  body  of  evidence, 
 which  I  have  stated,  is  not,  I  think,  to  be 
 set  aside  by  weakness,  should  any  be 
 discovered,  in  a  few  of  its  parts.  And  as 
 to  a7iy  evidence  on  the  other  side — we  may 
 wait  for  it,  but  none  will  appear. 
 
 A  small  part  of  the  testimony,  which 
 has  been  produced,  will  probably  be 
 thought  sufficient  to  prove  the  belief  of 
 the  great  mass  of  Christians,  in  the  second 
 ^nd  third  centuries,  in  the  divinity  of 
 Christ.  And  even  their  interpretation  of 
 the  New  Testament  is   not  be  despised  ; 
 
 X  X  X  2  the 
 
{     532     ) 
 
 the  sense  in  which  any  ancient  Book  was 
 understood  by  its  readers,  particularly 
 well-informed  readers,  only  a  short  time 
 after  it  v/as  written,  being  always  of  some 
 importance*.  But,  the  religious  opinions 
 of  the  common  people,  in  the  second  and 
 third  centuries  though  supposed  to  have 
 been  at  variance  with  those  of  the  learned, 
 have  lately  been  employed  as  a  medium 
 for  discovering  the  religion  of  ^//  Christians 
 in  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  and  through 
 that,  the  true  meaning  of  the  New  Testa- 
 ment. Those,  who  can  satisfy  themselves 
 with  proving  the  Unitarian^sm  of  the  very 
 first  Christians  from  the  "  simplices  and 
 idiotas''  of  Tertullian,  will  find  it  diffi- 
 cult to  elude  their  own  reasoning,  when 
 it  is  turned  with  additional  force  against 
 themselves.  In  the  beginning  of  the 
 fourth  century  the  great  body  of  the  Chris- 
 tian 
 
 *  See  c.  vi.  §  I.  of  this  Vol. 
 
 "  It  has  been  urged,  that,  if  any  dofliine  is  not  to  be 
 found  in  the  Apostolic  writings,  no  authority  of  the  Fa- 
 thers can  give  it  a  san6tion.  This  is  very  true.  But  if 
 any  person  through  fraiUy  and  misconception  should 
 imagine,  that  any  article  was  of  doubtful  purport,  and 
 attended  with  obscurity,  then  the  evidence  of  those,  \\ho 
 had  conversed  with  tlie  Apostles  and  their  immediate 
 disciples,  must  have  weight.  And  those  of  the  second 
 century,  who  came  later,  are  still  sufficiently  early  to 
 have  their  opinion  admitted."  Bryant  on  the  lientimcnis 
 of  Philo  Judeus,  p.  Go. 
 
(     533     ) 
 
 tian   people   together  with    the    writers, 
 the  rulers  of  the  church,  and  the  learned 
 in   general,    believed    in   the   divinity   of 
 Christ:   the  same   opinion  had  prevailed 
 among  Christians  at  large,  whether  learned 
 or  ignorant,  through  the  third  century,  and 
 can  be  distinctly  traced  back  through  the 
 second,  among  all  Christians,  except  two 
 or  three  extremely  inconsiderable  sedls,  up 
 to  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr,  an  hundred 
 years  after  the  foundation  of  Christianity. 
 To  say  nothing  of  preceding  writers  on 
 this  subject,  we   may   fairly  judge  of  the 
 opinions  of  the  very  first  Christians  by 
 those  of  their  learned  and  unlearned  suc- 
 cessors.     The  chain,    which   we   see  ex- 
 tended from   the  council   of  Nice   up    to 
 Justin   Martyr,    could  not   suddenly    stop 
 there:  but  must  undoubtedly  be  continued 
 to  the  first  Christian  converts.      When  we 
 read  in  Tacitus  a  description  of  the  rehgious 
 opinions    and    customs    of  some    ancient 
 German  nations,    we  have   no   hesitation 
 in   reasoning   on   the   supposition    of  the 
 prevalence  of  these  opinions  and  customs, 
 near  a   century   before   his   time.     When 
 we  know,  that  a  certain  system  of  rehgion 
 was  taught    by  the  Druids  in  this  Island, 
 in  the  time   of  Julius   Cassar,   we  readily 
 
 admit 
 
(     534!     ) 
 
 admit  its  existence  at  a  still  earlier  period, 
 some  years  beyond  the  reach  of  history. 
 And,  when  we  find  the  divinity  and  pre^ 
 existence  of  Christ  taught  by  the  writers, 
 and  beheved  by  the  common  people,  from 
 the  time  of  Justin  Martyr  down  to  the 
 council  of  Nice ;  we  may  conclude  with 
 great  probability,  from  this  consideration 
 alone,  that  this  was  the  common  faith  of 
 Christians  from  the  foundation  of  the  first 
 Christian  church  at  Jerusalem  a.  d.  33.  to 
 the  time  of  Justin's  conversion  A.  d.  133*. 
 
 The  historical  fa6l  relating  to  the  opi-^ 
 nions  of  the  first  Christians,  which  one 
 writer  has  attempted  to  establish -f-,   and 
 
 which 
 
 *  For  the  other  evidence  to  the  opinions  of  the  Gentile 
 Christians  in  the  Apostohc  age,  see  c.  xv,  xvi,  xvii,  and 
 xviii.  of  this  Vol. 
 
 t  **  The  proper  objeft  of  my  work  is  to  ascertain  what 
 must  have  been  the  sense  oi  the  books  of  scripture  from 
 tlie  sense,  in  which  they  were  a6lually  understood  by 
 those,  tor  whose  use  tliey  were  composed,  and  to  deter- 
 mine wliat  must  have  been  the  scntimentsof  the  Apostles 
 by  means  of  the  opinions  of  those,  who  received  tiicir 
 instruction  from  them  only."  Priestley's  Letter  to  Park- 
 hurst,  p.  2.  "  This  historical  discussion,  when  the  na- 
 ture ot  it  is  well  considered,  cannot  but  be  tiiought  to 
 decide  concerning  the  whole  controversy  :  for,  it  it  be 
 inw,  as  1  have  endeavoured  to  prove  by  copious  historical 
 evidence,  —  that  the  groat  body  of  unlearned  Chri^tiuns 
 continued  to  be  simply  Unitarians  till  the  second  and 
 third  century,  it  will  hardly  be  doubted,  but  that  their 
 
 instructors. 
 
(     5SS     ) 
 
 which   another    has  recommended  to  our 
 notice  as  a  discovery,  being  reversed,  the 
 inference  respe6ling  the  true  meaning  of 
 the  New  Testament  must  be  changed  with 
 it.     "  It  cannot  be   doubted  but  that  the 
 primitive    Christians   really    thought   that 
 their  opinions   (whatever  they  were)  were 
 contained    in    the    scriptures  ;     as    these 
 were  the  standards,  to   which   they   con- 
 stantly  appealed  *."  — -  "  They    were     in 
 possession  of  the  books  of  the  New   Tes- 
 tament,    and    for    their    use    they    were 
 written  *f  :'*    and  their    interpretation    of 
 these  Books,  is  determined  by  their  reli- 
 gious opinions. 
 
 instru6lors,  viz.  the  Apostles  and  first  disciples  of  Christ 
 were  Unitarians  also,  and  therefore  that  no  other  inter- 
 pretation of  the  scriptures  than  that  of  the  Unitarians,  as 
 opposed  to  that  of  the  Trinitarians  or  Arians,  can  be  the 
 true  one."     Pref.  to  Letters  to  Dr.  Home. 
 
 *  Priestley's  Letter  to  the  Dean  of  Canterbury,  p.  8. 
 t  Letter  4.  to  Dr.  Price  in  Defence  of  Unitarianism  for 
 
 FINIS. 
 
POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 ADDITIONS  AND  CORRECTIONS. 
 
 Observation  on  a  passage  in  Origen,  (L.  2.  Cont.  Cels.) 
 •'  .     ,  ^       p.  229,  239,  of  this  Vol. 
 
 "  Ohigfen,  ift  another  work,  has  distinguished  between  the 
 true  spiritual  interpreter  of  Moses  (the  true  Christian)  and 
 the  two  parties  among  the  unbelieving  Jews,  one  of  which 
 understood -the  words  of  the  law.  giver  only  in  their  literal 
 sense,  while  the  individuals  of  the  other,  by  means  of  false 
 allegory,  explained  away  the  Law,  which  they  ^'-professed  to 
 interpret.'^ 
 
 See  Basnage,  Hist,  of  the  Jews,  Sook  2.  c.  ix.  §  2.  and  9. 
 and  the  first  passage  in  Origen,  to  which  he  refers. 
 
 Page. 
 
 3.  for  testimony  of  Justin,  read  testimony  of  the  Jew  in 
 Justin  confirmed  by  the  acquiescence  of  Justin  himself. 
 
 4.  1.  4..   from  the  bottom, yi?r  first  chapters,  r.  sedions. 
 7.1.  g.  for  peope,  r.  people. 
 
 9.  1.  I.  dele  *. 
 
 14.  1.  'i.for  prophet  Nazereth,  r.  prophet  of,  &c. 
 20.  1.  S' for  summary,  r.  paraphrase. 
 22.  1.  T-  fof  Idololatira,  r.  Idolclatra. 
 27.  1.  I5.y^r  enfluence,  r.  influence. 
 41.  1.  2^.  for  adversasies,  r.  adversaries. 
 43.  1.  M.for  reasonble,  r.  reasonable. 
 90.  1.  ^y  for  think,  r.  would  think. 
 97.  Note.  Tw  iH^aw-u  'snQoju'Ku^  deest  Iota  subscript. 
 126.  I,  i.for  words  when,  r.  words,  when 
 
 144..  Note,/'^r  yaipj),  r,  y^x:^:yi, 
 170.  'Not.e^for  Histosy,  r.  History. 
 174.  Note,  1.  5. /or  H5r. »)'. 
 
 177.1.  i.y^ir  contend,  r.  contended. 
 • 1.  10.  for  these,  r.  those. 
 
 181.  1.  I.  from  the  bottom, /ijr  mannet,  r.  manner. 
 
 216.  1.  h^tde/e  to. 
 
 234.  1.  14.  for  the  sesentiments,  r.  these  sentiments, 
 
 • Note,  1.  i.forTmv;  r.  «>£?. 
 
 — ————].  /ifforyun'^ri'if  r.  7;a^«j» 
 
 237.  Note, 
 
ADDITIONS  AND  CORRECTIONS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 11'  '•  I'for  cum,  read  eum. 
 
 186.  last.  \.  for  suppositious,  r.  supposititious, 
 
 237.  Note,  2.  for  %oi7raf,  r.  ^oiTry?. 
 
 239.  Note,  '^,  for  ru  ^ui'Xjj.ivoj,  r.  ru  ^vvce.[A£VUt 
 
 241.  1.  g-for  folowers,  r.  followers. 
 241.  Note,  2.  for  p.  47.  r.  p.  42. 
 
 »  i  ■  3,  for  y.ccVf  r.  y.xv. 
 
 243.  1.  20.  ^T/Zi-r  literal  meaning,  add,  and  observed  its 
 precepts  like  other  Jews. 
 
 245.  Note,  7.,  for  •Kotra.'Xi'irovra.v,  r,  xaT«Ai7rovTaf. 
 
 — — K^ir^,  r.  X§irtf. 
 
 249.  bottom  X.for  eo?,  r.  Qho;. 
 
 254.  1.  I.  from  the  bottom,  for  mistatement  r.  misstate*- 
 
 ment. 
 264.  Note,  r.  for  T'-jvwaTTa,  r.  Tfinn-avra,. 
 — —  Note,  2. for  Nazarasans,  r.  Nazaraean. 
 302.  Note  at  the  bottom,  dele  Lardner's  Credibility  of  the 
 
 Gospel  History,  P^  2.  c.  xxix. 
 301.  Notes  2,  3,  4,  6.  deest  Iota  subscript. 
 306.  1.  S.y^rclaim  by  Simon,  r.  claim  of,  &c. 
 309.  1.  10.  for  beneficient,  r.  beneficent. 
 317.  1.  ^.for  opponents ;  r.  opponents. 
 324.  1.  \Q.  for  it  at  r.  it  is  at. 
 331.  Note,  3.  deest  Iota  subscript. 
 
 340.  1.  10.  for  remain  in  it,  r.  unite  with  it. 
 
 341.  Note,yor  E/^aOs^y,  r.  Bj/M^eu. 
 
 376.  1.  6.  for  Aratemonite,  r.  Artemonite. 
 
 1.  20.  for  other,  r.  others. 
 
 378.  1.  5.  from  the  bottom, /^rApostical  r.  Apostolical. 
 392.  1.  iS.  for  witten,  r,  written. 
 395.  1.  8.  for  a,  r.  an. 
 
 409.  Note,  I,  for  ru  y.o(7[ji.u^  r,  ru  x.oir^i;, 
 
 ■ Note,  1.  2.  for  ru  ^tw,  r.  tw  Bio), 
 
 413.  1.  10.  dele  non. 
 
 419.  1.  20.  for  misstatememt,  r.  misstatement. 
 
 424.  1.  3  from  the  bottom,  for  comprehensions,  r.  com- 
 prehension. 
 
 435*  Note,  DTTEor^siJ/E,  r.  virif^s-^s, 
 
 475.  1.  II.  for  might  be  previously  assured,  we,  r.  we 
 might  be  previously  assured. 
 
 491.  1.  I'^.for  others,  read  the  others. 
 
 520.  Note,  2>for  y.oj-fx,o7iror,ia,  r.  Hocr//,o7roiia;. 
 
 I  believe  I  have  committed  an  error,  (p.  333.)  in  re- 
 presenting Le  Clerc  as  an  Unitarian.  See  his  life  in  the 
 Additions  tothe  English  Edition  of  Bayle. 
 
J 
 
r 
 
 L-