[BRARY 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CAL [FORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 'A . .:
 
 \m 
 
 . 
 
 m 
 
 .\ *. 


 
 AN 
 
 ILLUSTRATION 
 
 THE METHOD OF EXPLAINING 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 BY THE EARLY OPINIONS OF JEWS AND CHRISTIANS 
 CONCERNING CHRIST. 
 
 BY WILLIAM WILSON, B.D. 
 
 LATE FELLOW OF ST JOHN'S COLLEGE, 
 CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 A NEW EDITION CAREFULLY REVISED. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE . 
 
 PRINTED AT THE PITT PRESS, 
 
 BY JOHN W. PARKER, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 M.DCCC.XXXVIII.
 
 ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 TO 
 
 THE PRESENT EDITION. 
 
 WILLIAM WILSON, the author of the follow- 
 ing work, was admitted a member of St John's 
 College, Cambridge, in the year 1779. He took 
 the degree of B.A. in 1784, on which occasion 
 he was the third wrangler; and proceeded regu- 
 larly to the degree of M.A. in 1787, and that of 
 B.D. in 1794. 
 
 In the year 1788, he was elected a Fellow of 
 St John's College. From that period, he devoted 
 himself to Theological studies ; which were ter- 
 minated by his death in 1800, at the early age 
 of thirty-eight. 
 
 In the year 1797, Mr Wilson published his 
 Illustration of the method of explaining the New 
 Testament, by the early opinions of Jews and 
 Christians concerning Christ the only work, it is 
 believed, which he committed to the press. That 
 work speedily attracted the notice of Dr Prety- 
 man (Tomline), then Bishop of Lincoln ; and his 
 .Lordship is understood to have strongly recom-
 
 IV ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 mended the author to the attention of Mr Pitt. 
 The consequence was, that the Premier pre- 
 sented Mr Wilson to a Living ; to which, at the 
 time of his death, he was about to remove. 
 
 Several persons, who were intimately ac- 
 quainted with Mr Wilson, are still residing in 
 this University ; and they all speak of him in 
 terms of the greatest respect and kindness as 
 a man of talents and learning, of exemplary 
 conduct and amiable disposition. 
 
 The Editor of the present edition of Mr 
 Wilson's Illustration is not without hopes that, 
 by means of this republication, the work may 
 become more extensively known than it has 
 hitherto been. It is, in his estimation, one of 
 the most valuable productions that have ever 
 appeared on any subject. 
 
 T. T. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE, 
 25 May, 1838.
 
 < < > X T K N T S. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 1. I M PORT Aver, of tl:^ Inquiry into the grounds of Jesus Christ's Condemnation. 
 _'. Expectations ot' tlie .Jewish nation. '.\. Their principal reason for believing 
 .Jesus an impo>tor would lie their principal motive for condemning him to 
 death. 4. Inquiry into the grounds of his condemnation. pi. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 1. Different signilicatior.s of the phrase "Son of God." Proposal of the ques- 
 tion. In what sense it is applied to Jesus Christ in the New Testament? 
 -. Argument to prove that it implied his Divinity, from considering the pro- 
 bable object of his trial. 3. Second argument, from considering the nature 
 of the crime for which he suffered. Opinions of Grotius and others on this 
 subject. 4. Third argument, from considering the Law by which he was con- 
 demned. Jesus Christ condemned by the Law of Moses. No Law in the 
 Pentateuch or Misna against any one declaring himself the Son of God, 
 unless the phrase be supposed to imply Divinity. Whether Jesus was con- 
 demned by the Law in the 18th Chapter of Deuteronomy. The opinion of 
 Grotius. Opinions of others. 5. Objection against the miracles of Christ 
 considered. The Jews suppose Christ to have been condemned by the Law 
 in the 13th Chapter of Deuteronomy. Inconsistency of two objections against 
 the Chriistian miracles. (J. Fourth argument, from comparing the proceedings 
 of the Sanhedrim with the conduct of the Jewish people on different occa- 
 Mons. Whether the Fathers have denied that Jesus Christ taught his own 
 Divinity and pre -existence. The reason assigned by them, for the caution of 
 Christ and the Apostles, satisfactory; and affords no presumption against the 
 reality of these doctrines. Apparent inconsistency in the conduct of the 
 Jewish people accounted for. p. 10. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 OTHER REASONS, WHICH HAVE BEEN" ASSIGNED FOR THE -JEWISH RE- 
 JECTION AND CONDEMNATION OF CHRIST, EXAMINED. 
 
 1. The prejudices against the humble birth of Christ, and his want of external 
 splendour, 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 effect. 2. Effect of the prejudice against his birth. 3. Effect 
 of the prejudice against his want of temporal power and splendour. 4. The 
 effect of these prejudices in a considerable degree destroyed by the influence 
 of his miracles. The real grounds of his persecution by the Jews, how to 
 be determined p. 47- 
 
 b
 
 Vi CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER 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. 
 
 1. Foundation of the opinion that Jesus was condemned for simply declaring 
 himself the Messiah. Three combinations of opinions relating to this subject 
 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. Oppo- 
 site evidence from the New Testament. Testimony of Origen. Conclusion. 
 5. Application of this conclusion to the History of Jesus Christ's trial, p. 56. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 WHETHER THE JEWISH SANHEDRIM REALLY BELIEVED JESUS CHRIST 
 GUILTY OF THE CRIME FOR WHICH THEY CONDEMNED HIM. 
 
 1. Regularity of their proceedings, length of the trial, their earnestness and 
 unanimity. 2. Their conduct on the second trial. 3. They had no material 
 object to gain, by pronouncing Jesus guilty without being persuaded of his 
 criminality. 4. Their sincerity appears from the silence and conduct of 
 Christ. 5. And St Peter's address to his countrymen. 6. From a general 
 view of the conduct of the Jewish people p. 77- 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 ON ^HE INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS OF JESUS CHRIST, BY HIS 
 CONTEMPORARIES AND COUNTRYMEN. 
 
 1. The general opinion of readers of the New Testament, on the meaning of 
 the passages in it relating to the nature of Christ. Different methods of 
 explaining difficulties 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 Celsus and other ancient heathens, probably just. The general concur- 
 rence of the Christian writers of the first centuries, in any one opinion 
 relating to the sense of certain passages in Scripture, affords a strong pre- 
 sumption 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 Testa- 
 ment by the first Gentile Christians. 3. Concurrence of several bodies of 
 Jews and 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 
 allude to the doctrine of transubstantiation p. 86.
 
 CONTENTS. YH 
 
 CHAPTER VII XIII. 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, BY THE FIRST JEW- 
 ISH CHRISTIANS, COLLECTED FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 1. The opinion 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 testimony 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. 105. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 1 2. Misstatements of the testimonies of Justin Martyr and Irenasus, on the 
 subject of the Jewish Christians, corrected p. 112. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Importance of determining the opinions of the primitive Church of Jeru- 
 salem. 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. 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. Testi- 
 mony of Hegesippus to the purity of the faith of the Church of Jerusalem. 
 
 p. 118. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 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. Credibility of the testimony of Eusebius on the sub- 
 ject of the primitive Church of Jerusalem. Appeal to his testimony and 
 that of Sulpicius Severus on the subject 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. Tes- 
 timony of Sulpicius Severus. 4. Collateral testimony of other writers, Eu- 
 sebius, 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 beginning of the second century, o. Summary view of the 
 evidence to prove that the primitive Church of Jerusalem believed in the 
 Divinity of Christ p. 136-
 
 Vlll CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 1. The ancient testimonies, to the opinions of the first Jewish Christians, unop- 
 posed 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 con- 
 tends, that the opinions of one part of the Jewish Christians changed be- 
 tween A. D. 170, and 230. Origen's testimony not inconsistent with that 
 of Hegesippus, Eusebius and Sulpicius. 2. Disappearance of Jewish Christ- 
 ians in most of the churches in the second century. Their extinction ac- 
 counted 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 be abandoned by the greater part 
 of them after the edict 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 Jc-jix, professing the Christian religion in his 
 time, were Ebionites, his testimony would not be inconsistent with that of 
 Hegesippus, Eusebius, and Sulpicius : p. 152. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 12 Opinions of Petavius, Tillemont, Mosheim, Horsley, Priestley, on the 
 meaning of two passages in the opening of the second Book of Origen's 
 Treatise against Celsus, on the subject of the Christians of Jewish extrac- 
 tion in the third Century. 3 4. Explanation of these passages. Both 
 Celsus and Origen bear testimony to the existence of Christians of Jewish 
 extraction, who had abandoned the observance of the Mosaic Law. 5. Gene- 
 ral view of Origen's reply to the first charge of Celsus, against the Christ- 
 ians of Jewish extraction. 6. Testimony of Celsus to the belief of the 
 great body of Christians of Jewish extraction in the Divinity of Christ. 
 This testimony confirmed 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. 168. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 1. Testimony of Sulpicius Severus to the desertion of the Mosaic Law by Jewish 
 Christians. Testimony of Basil and Chrysostom to the conformity, in faith and 
 manners, between Jewish and Gentile Christians. 2. The observance 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 the members of the Church of Jerusalem about 
 A.D. 136. 3. Opinions of the Jewish Christians in the first century, on 
 the subject of the nature of Christ. Their interpretation of the New Tes- 
 tament collected from their opinions. They must have thought the doc- 
 trine of Christ's Divinity very clearly taught by himself and the Apos- 
 tles p. 191.
 
 t ON T K N I & IX 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BY THE EB1ONITES 
 COLLECTED FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. 
 
 1. Whether the Ebionites and Nazaraeans of the second century were two or 
 three sects, a subject of dispute. Singular hypothesis of Dr Priestley, 
 that they were only one sect till after the age of Irenaeus, and that sect 
 entertaining the same opinions with himself on the subject of the nature 
 of Christ. Dr Priestley's method of collecting the sense of the New 
 Testament on this subject from the opinions of the Ebionites. The prin- 
 ciple, by which their interpretation of the New Testament is collected, false. 
 Those among the Ebionites, who had read the New Testament, probably 
 thought it to contain doctrines relating to the nature of Christ opposite to 
 their own. Their opinions, the representation of doctrines taught in their 
 own canonical books, and not of those cf the New Testament Consequence 
 of appealing to the opinions of the Ebionites as the just representations 
 of the Doctrines of Christianity. 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 explaining it, compared. Summary view of the interpretation of the 
 New Testament. 1. By the Jews. 2. Primitive 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 subject p. 203. 
 
 CHAPTER XV XVIII. 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE XEW TESTAMENT, BT THE FIRST GEN- 
 TILE CHRISTIANS, COLLECTED FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 1. Observations on the interpretation of the words of the New Testament. 
 (1) By the Jews. (2) The great body of Jewish Christians. (3) The 
 Ehionites. (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 sects denied the human nature of 
 Christ altogether. Correction of their errors by the Sacred Writers and the 
 Apostolical Fathers. In correcting the errors of those, who contended for the 
 simple Divinity of Christ, the Apostles and primitive Fathers must some- 
 times have asserted that Christ was a man only, if they had intended to 
 teach the doctrine of his simple humanity. No declaration to this effect is 
 to be found in the New Testament; or in any Christian writing in the first 
 century after the establishment of Christianity p. 227. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 1. 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 
 Hennas. 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 Parkhurst. Wakefield's argument to prove them corrupted.
 
 X CONTENTS. 
 
 Examination of this argument. 6. Dr Priestley's objection. 7- Pearson's 
 arguments not invalidated by the answer of Larroque. Larroque refuted 
 by other writers. Acknowledgement of Le Clerc. 8. Ignatius a believer 
 in the Divinity of .Christ proved by external and internal evidence. 
 9. The religious opinions of Polycarp identified with those of Irenseus, his 
 scholar p. 234. 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 1. 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 collected from contemporary writings. 3. The opinions of the Christians 
 of Philippi collected from the epistle of Polycarp. 4, 5, 6, 7- The religious 
 opinions of the Ephesian, Magnesian, Trallian and Roman Christians identi- 
 fied 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 subject of the different Unitarian 
 sects p. 244. 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 1. Hymns, in which the Divinity of Christ was celebrated, appealed to A.D. 220. 
 as compositions of the first age of Christianity. Hymns used in the reli- 
 gious assemblies of Christians, A.D. 2GO. discarded by Paul of Samosata 
 as modern compositions. The dispute between Christians of the third cen- 
 tury on this subject decided by the testimony of Pliny. View of this tes- 
 timony in connection with other evidence to the opinions of the first 
 Christians on the subject of Christ's nature. 2. General view of the testi- 
 mony of the writers in the second and following centuries on the same 
 subject. The claims of the Unitarians in the third century to superior 
 antiquity, contradictory and false immediately refuted 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. Apostolical Fathers. 4, 5, C, 7- Testimony to 
 the religious opinions of Aristides, Agrippa, Quadratus, Papias, and Aristo 
 of Pella. 8. Only one Unitarian writer before the time of Justin. All the 
 others, except Cerinthus, either believe'd in the simple Divinity of Christ, 
 or entertained opinions corresponding to the orthodoxy of the second and 
 third centuries p. 270. 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 EXAMINATION OF DR PRIESTLEY'S PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE TO PROVE 
 THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS, IN THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTU- 
 RIES, GENERALLY UNITARIANS. 
 
 1. Statement of his presumptive evidence to prove Unitarianism the religion 
 of the common people in the second and third centuries. 2. Observations
 
 CONTKNTs. XI 
 
 on a part of this evidence. :{. Jewish and Gentile Unitarians censured 
 as Heretics in the first writings of Christians professedly on the subject 
 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 Tertullian. If Unitarians were on any account 
 considered as Heretics in the second century, they were few in number. 
 6. Recapitulation. Unitarians of every description considered as Heretics 
 in the second century p. 287. 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 EXAMINATION OF DR PRIESTLEY'S "DIRECT EVIDENCE" TO PROVE 
 THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS, IN THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES, 
 GENERALLY UNITARIANS. 
 
 1. Dr Priestley collects the opinions of the Apostolic age, from the opinions 
 of unlearned Christians very remote from that age. 2. He neglects the 
 testimony of heathen writers to the opinions of the great body of Christians 
 in the second and third centuries. 3. Statement of his testimonies from 
 Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius and Jerom. 4. Examination of these tes- 
 timonies. Origen, Athanasius and Jerom are speaking of a want of know- 
 ledge 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 doctrine of Christ's Divinity. 5. Examination 
 of Tertullian's testimony. View of the two kinds of Unitarianism in 
 Tertullian's time. Correction of Dr Priestley's misstatement. The Unita- 
 rians of Tertullian are represented by him as followers of Praxeas, 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 converted to this faith 
 in Tertullian's time. Tertullian's testimony to the belief of Christians in 
 general in the Divinity of Christ.... T p. 308. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIXXIII. 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, BY THE FIRST GEN- 
 TILE CHRISTIANS, COLLECTED FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. 
 
 1. The usual practice of Historians to determine the state of opinion in any 
 age by the general spirit of its writings. 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 government : 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 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
 
 Xll CONTENTS. , 
 
 service, in which learned and unlearned Christians joined. 8. The doctrine 
 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 number from the first acts of Constantine after his conversion p. 331. 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 1. General testimony of the heathens in the second and third centuries to the belief 
 of Christians in the Divinity of Christ. Never denied by the learned or un- 
 learned 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 Minucius Felix. 
 
 6. Testimony of Porphyry. 7- Testimony of Hierocles and another heathen 
 writer noticed by Lactantius. 8. Testimony of the heathens in general as 
 described by Arnobius. 9. The general testimony of the heathens on this 
 subject unopposed by any individual among themselves. Effect which the 
 objection of the heathens would have produced on the Apologies of the learned 
 and unlearned Christians, if it had been without foundation p. 346. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 1. 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. Tatian. 
 4. Theophilus. 5. Hegesippus and Irenaeus. 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 people offering 
 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 de- 
 scribed 'by Dr Priestley.- Testimony of Novatian. 8. Arnobius and Lac- 
 tantius. 9. General view of the evidence on this subject. Inference re- 
 specting the opinions of Christians in the first century, from the opinions 
 of the learned and unlearned Christians, in the second and third. Their in- 
 terpretation of the words of Christ and his Apostles collected from their 
 religious opinions p. 372.
 
 AN 
 
 ILLUSTRATION, 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 1. Importance of the Inquiry into the grounds of Jesus Christ's Condemnation. 
 2. Expectations 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. 
 
 I. THE crucifixion of Jesus Christ by the inha- 
 bitants 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 effected 
 by it, but because it has already been followed by a 
 total change in the sentiments and manners of a 
 great and increasing 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 
 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. 
 
 A
 
 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 character and office. They were then subject 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 expected 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 language under the title of Messiah ; and 
 in Greek under the synonymous appellation of Christ. 
 Whether they looked for a mere man, distinguished 
 above all others by the favour and supernatural as- 
 sistance of God, or a being more than human, has in 
 modern times been a matter of some dispute. The 
 earliest Christian writers after the Apostolic age have 
 informed us that the Jews of those times, like their 
 posterity in succeeding ages, expected, for their Mes- 
 siah, a human King and Prophet; and the single 
 testimony of the Jew in Justin Martyr, a Samaritan, 
 confirmed by the acquiescence of Justin himself, only 
 a century after the death of Christ, might be thought 
 sufficient to preclude all disagreement and doubt on 
 the subject 1 . The question, however, became much 
 agitated in the last Century; and the names, more 
 
 1 Trypho, the Jew in the Dialogue, says, KCU yap 
 Xpio-Toi/ avOpto-rrov e dvQpiairiav irpocrSoKianfv yevtja-fffdai "We all 
 expect that Christ will be a man born of human parents." p. 235. Edit, 
 Thirlby.
 
 than the arguments, of Pearson, Bull, Pococke, Allix 
 and Kidder, who maintained that the Jews expected 
 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 ex- 
 amine carefully into the ancient opinions of their 
 nation relating to the Messiah 2 . His arguments 
 are conclusive; and he thus expresses the result of 
 his inquiry. " The means, which the Jewish church 
 had, to know the Messiah, had been more effectual, 
 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 thought 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 which 
 they never received, and thereby make their incre- 
 dulity, which is but too deplorable, more criminal 
 than it really is 3 ." The decision of Basnage is 
 sanctioned by the concurrence of many critical scho- 
 lars before, and since his time; and a living writer, 
 though baffled in his great attempt to prove the 
 doctrine of Christ's Divinity a corruption of Christi- 
 anity, has, however, succeeded in confirming Bas- 
 nage's sentence by additional evidence. Justice must 
 
 * Book iv. r. 24. 
 
 ^ Basnage, Preface, p. 7. Taylor's translation. 
 A 2
 
 allow to the first two sections of his third Book 1 , 
 what candour cannot admit in most of his History, 
 that he has fully proved his point. 
 
 III. Such were the expectations of the Jews, 
 when Jesus appeared among them, to assert the title 
 and character of the Messiah, and to correct their 
 errors on that subject. He appealed to miracles, and 
 to the completion of prophecies in his person, to con- 
 firm his claims : the conduct of a numerous hody of 
 followers fully proved their belief in the existence of 
 his miracles ; which appear not to have been doubted 
 by the unbelieving Jews themselves : yet he was 
 rejected as a false Messiah, and put to death as a 
 blasphemer. From the consideration of the unre- 
 lenting severity of his persecutors, an argument has 
 been formed against their belief in the Christian 
 miracles 2 ; but the objection has only arisen from 
 extreme inattention to the motives by which their 
 conduct 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 naturally 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 at 
 large on the same subject. Where the account of 
 one is abridged, that of another is diffuse; where 
 
 1 " History of early Opinions concerning Jesus Christ," by Dr Priestley. 
 
 2 See "The Jewish and Heathen Rejection of the Christian Miracles," 
 by Dr Edwards, p. 8 10.
 
 one is obscure, some of the others are clear: and the 
 truth may be collected 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 3 ; in the former he was accused 
 of blasphemy, and condemned 4 : and though the judi- 
 cial power of the Jewish court was at that time much 
 abridged, the Roman governor was prevailed on, by 
 the importunity of the Jews, to ratify and execute 
 the sentence of the Sanhedrim. The conduct of the 
 Jews on this occasion appears to have been deter- 
 mined by the different claims which Jesus had ad- 
 vanced. 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 com- 
 bined with 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 alleged guilt he was 
 accused before Pilate ; " We found this fellow per- 
 verting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to 
 Caesar, saying, that he himself is Christ, a King:" 
 " He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all 
 Judea, beginning from Galilee to this place 5 ." But, 
 
 3 John xviii. 38. and xix. 4. 
 
 4 Matthew xxvi. 65, 66. See also the corresponding accounts of Mark 
 and Luke. 5 Luke xxiii. 2, 5.
 
 6 
 
 to discover what they conceived to be his real offence, 
 we must refer to the proceedings of their own tribu- 
 nal. 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 confession of his supposed guilt was drawn 
 from him by the High Priest's examination. With 
 respect to the examination of witnesses, 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 1 ." Accord- 
 ing to St Mark, " the Council sought for witnesses 
 against Jesus to put him to death ; and found none : 
 for many bare false witness against him, but their 
 witness agreed not together 2 ." The obscurity of the 
 first Evangelist is well explained by the second. 
 The Sanhedrim, it appears, sought for witnesses to 
 convict Jesus of a capital crime. On examination, 
 they proved to be false witnesses, either by the incon- 
 sistency or the weakness of their evidence ; and there- 
 fore, 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 
 convict any one of a capital crime 3 ; and at last 
 "came two witnesses," to testify that Jesus had 
 threatened to destroy the temple, and build it again 
 
 1 Matth. xxvi. 59, 60. 
 
 ~ Mark xiv. 55, 56. urai al (tapTvpiat OUK rjcrav. Perhaps, the true 
 translation is "their testimonies were insufficient." See Grotius on the 
 term urai. 
 
 3 Numbers xxxv. 30. Deut, xvii. 6.
 
 in three days: but, either a slight disagreement in 
 their testimony annulled the force of their evidence; 
 or, what is more probable, the fact substantiated 
 was not thought to amount to a capital offence. 
 Testimony sufficient to convict 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, that the testimony of 
 two men is true :" and it must be according to the 
 same sort of phraseology that these witnesses are 
 called " false witnesses ;" for the only fact mentioned, 
 to which they deposed, appears to have been strictly 
 true, but not sufficient to prove the crime of blas- 
 phemy 4 . Having failed in establishing this charge, 
 the High Priest asks, however, for a reply ; expect- 
 ing, perhaps, to meet with some objectionable matter 
 in a long defence 5 . 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 effected. According to St Luke, our Saviour was 
 asked two questions. In Matthew and Mark these 
 are expressed in one, probably for the sake of bre- 
 
 " Ideo falsi testes, quia quse vera fortassis erant tanquara crimina 
 et maleficia objiciebant." Estius in Matt. xxvi. 61. See also Wakefield's 
 note on this passage ; and Grotius on Mark xiv. 55. 
 
 5 "Videbat Caiaphas ne illud quidem factum, quod maxirae ad in- 
 vidiam Christ! pertinebat, sufficere ad damnationem : quod Marcus dixit 
 7<rcu ai napTvpiai OVK rj<rav. Nihil enim mail Templo ominabatur, 
 etiam qui demoliturura se dicit, si et restituturum se addat: neque 
 pollicitatio, utcunque vana, capite erat luenda. Itaque testimoniis 'ali- 
 orum diffisus, quaerit ex ipsius ore aliquid elicere quod ipsum oneret- 
 Sperabat enim in prolixa defensione facile aliquid repertum iri eJ?ct- 
 /3\rjrov. Grotius in Matt. xxvi. 62. See also Hammond on Mark xiv. 56.
 
 vity: and from these two Evangelists, it cannot be 
 certainly known, whether he was condemned for 
 declaring himself the Christ, or the Son of God, or 
 for asserting that he should afterwards appear with 
 glory at the right hand of God. The doubt, how- 
 ever, 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, ye 
 will not believe ; and if I also ask you, ye 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 said unto them, Ye say that I am. And 
 they said, What need we any further 1 witness? for 
 we ourselves have heard of his own mouth 2 ." "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 is guilty of 
 death 3 ." The real ground of his condemnation also 
 appears from a circumstance mentioned by St John, 
 in his account of the second trial. The Jews ex- 
 claimed to Pilate, "We have a Law, and by our 
 Law he ought to die, because he made himself the 
 
 From this expression it appears, consistently with the whole 
 account of the trial, that till then further evidence was thought ne- 
 cessary. This may also be collected from the silence of St Luke, no 
 less than by his testimony. He has not even mentioned the examina- 
 tion of the witnesses. 
 
 - Luke xxii. 6671. 3 Matt. xxvi. 65.
 
 Son of God 4 ." 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 
 Jewish 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 in- 
 validated his pretensions to the character of the 
 Messiah, but was in itself the crime for which he 
 suffered. If then it can be clearly ascertained in 
 what sense these words were understood by the Jews; 
 the only ground of his condemnation, and the prin- 
 cipal cause of their rejection of his claims, will be 
 at once determined. 
 
 4 John xix. 7.
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 1. Different significations of the Phrase, "Son of God." Proposal of the 
 question, In what sense it is applied to Jesus Christ in the New Testa- 
 ment ? 2. Argument to prove that it implied his Divinity, from consider- 
 ing the probable object of his trial. 3. Second argument, from considering 
 the nature of the crime for which he suffered. Opinions of Grotius and 
 others on this subject. 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 Misna 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 18th Chapter of Deuteronomy. 
 The opinion of Grotius. Opinions of others. 5. Objection against the 
 miracles of Christ considered. The Jews suppose Christ to have been 
 condemned by the Law in the 13th Chapter of Deuteronomy. Inconsistency 
 of two objections against the Christian miracles. 6. Fourth argument, 
 from comparing the proceedings of the Sanhedrim with the conduct of the 
 Jewish people on different occasions. Whether the Fathers have denied 
 that Jesus Christ taught his own Divinity and Pre-existence. The reason 
 assigned by them, for the caution of Christ and the Apostles, satisfactory ; 
 and affords no presumption against the reality of these doctrines. Apparent 
 inconsistency in the conduct of the Jewish People accounted for. 
 
 I. To discover in what sense the phrase, " Son 
 of God," is applied to our Saviour in the New Tes- 
 tament, it has sometimes been thought sufficient to 
 search the Old 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 to select 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
 
 11 
 
 decided, nor so indolently abandoned. The Jews 
 pronounced Jesus guilty of a capital crime by their 
 Law, because 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 metaphor- 
 ical 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 evange- 
 lical history of John the Baptist and our Saviour, 
 will affirm that the Jews would condemn any man 
 to death for simply declaring himself, in metapho- 
 rical language, a prophet inspired and commissioned 
 by God. All knew John to be a prophet: Christ, 
 in the opinion 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 of Nazareth ;" and what was very com- 
 monly 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 
 necessary, to those other acceptations, of which the 
 expression will merely admit it will be sufficient 
 to inquire, 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, synony-
 
 mously with the word Christ or Messiah : or whether 
 Jesus, in announcing himself the Son of God, was 
 not understood to speak of his own Divinity. 
 
 II. If we try to explain the conduct of the 
 Jewish magistrates, hy comparing it with the opi- 
 nions then prevalent of an expected Messiah, and 
 by considering the probable object of the trial in 
 their court it is difficult to suppose our Saviour, 
 under all the disadvantages of an humble appear- 
 ance, condemned for acknowledging himself to be 
 the Messiah, either in direct, or indirect 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 1 ; but, after a tedious and fruitless examina- 
 tion of many witnesses, 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, accord- 
 ing to the unanimous opinion of the supreme court 
 of judicature, consisting of seventy-two persons, con- 
 stituted in itself a capital crime; though it might 
 be expected that the object of the trial would be to 
 prove the falsehood, not merely the existence of his 
 claim. His judges would probably think it neces- 
 sary to prove, to their own satisfaction and that of 
 the people whom they feared 2 , either that he wanted 
 some of the characteristic marks of the true Messiah, 
 1 John v. 16. - Matth. xxi. 46.
 
 13 
 
 or that he was distinguished by some positive tokens 
 of imposture. A few centuries later indeed when 
 the Jews had been disappointed by a succession of 
 pretenders, who had brought on them many grievous 
 calamities worn out with vexation, they at length 
 pronounced a severe anathema against any one, who 
 should presume to utter any prediction on this sub- 
 ject 3 ; and in the temper of mind, which disappoint- 
 ment of exalted hopes, and the pressure of excessive 
 sufferings, naturally 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 
 disappointments 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 expected and not 
 place it to the account of those other parts of his 
 conduct, which might, in their opinion, prove his 
 claim groundless. Would no individual of this court, 
 of which Nicodemus and Gamaliel were members, 
 have asked the Galilaean stranger, what 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 confession, that his 
 birth-place, or conduct, or doctrines were inconsistent 
 with the character assumed? Would they all be 
 
 3 Buxtorf. Synag. Judaic, xxxvi. 442.
 
 14 
 
 satisfied with hearing him simply declare himself 
 the Messiah, and that not directly, hut by means 
 of a synonymous term? and could they all imme- 
 diately 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 1 , and not adduce evidence to set 
 aside their effect at another? It is very improbable 
 that the Jews of that age should either so far misin- 
 terpret their Law, or establish such a precedent: it 
 is not likely, at a time when they expected a Mes- 
 siah, that they would be satisfied with proving Jesus 
 to have only arrogated to himself that character. 
 It is more probable that the tribunal would proceed 
 further, by attempting to prove him a false Messiah ; 
 and producing evidence either from the examination 
 of witnesses, or his own confession, sufficient to con- 
 vince both themselves 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 among the Jews had before endea- 
 voured to persuade the people, of the futility of his 
 claim, because he had broken the Sabbath 2 ; and 
 the Sanhedrim would probably have received some 
 imperfect, and perhaps inconsistent reports, that he 
 had called God his Father in a more strict 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 
 
 1 John xi. 47. 8 John ix. 16.
 
 15 
 
 of dispensing with the observance of the sabbath ; 
 that he had spoken in express terms of his own om- 
 nipotence and etemity; and that all these claims 
 were, in fact, comprized in one, that he was " the 
 Son of God.'' The object of the trial would there- 
 fore 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 
 was a false Christ, and merited death ; because, in 
 declaring himself the Son of God, they conceived 
 him to have claimed Divinity, and on that account, 
 and that only, to be convicted of blasphemy. 
 
 On this supposition, that unison in their conduct 
 and sentiments in different ages is observable, which 
 in Jews might be expected. In modern times, they 
 accuse Christians of blasphemy and idolatry for deno- 
 minating their Christ the Son of God : in the sev- 
 enth century, they urged the same accusation 3 : in 
 the fifth century, they urged the first commandment 
 in the decalogue against Christians 4 : in the fourth, 
 Eusebius of CaBsarea 5 relates, that they would not 
 admit the possibility of the existence of a Son of 
 God : in the beginning of the third century, accord- 
 ing to Origen, who had conversed very extensively 
 with Jews on this particular subject 6 , they refused 
 
 3 " Leontius (Episcop. Neapoleos Cypri. 5 Sermone pro Christi 
 Theologia contra Judseos Concil. Nic. 2. Act. 4. p. 235, &c.) alleges 
 that the Jews ought to be confounded with shame to accuse Chris- 
 tians of Idolatry." Basnage, B. vi. c. 21. 
 
 4 See Priestley, Hist, of early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 28. 
 6 Demon. Evang. Lib. iv. c. 1. 
 
 , ' Origen cont. Celsum, p. 79. Ed. Spenc.
 
 16 
 
 to admit the application of the term, Son of God, 
 to the Messiah 1 ; and, as it has been somewhere 
 observed by Basnage, the compiler of the Misna 
 indirectly attacks Christians on the same account 
 in the treatise, of which Maimonides has given us 
 a paraphrase : in the middle of the second century, 
 the fictitious Jew of Celsus continually attacks Christ 
 for calling himself God, and Son of God ; and ridi- 
 cules the Christians for believing his claims 2 : in the 
 beginning of the second century, the Jew in Justin 
 Martyr objects against the Divinity of the Messiah, 
 as a doctrine peculiar to Christians, and repugnant 
 to the notions of his countrymen 3 : and a century 
 before, the Jews at different times attempted to 
 stone Jesus for alluding to his Divinity, and Pre- 
 existence, and actually condemned him to death for 
 declaring himself the Son of God. 
 
 A further consistency, in the conduct of the Jews 
 towards Christ and Christians in different ages, may 
 also be observed. When they only appealed to their 
 own Law, the authority of which was acknowledged 
 by Christians as well as themselves, they have urged 
 the charge of blasphemy and idolatry ; and they con- 
 demned Jesus to death for the crime of blasphemy, 
 in declaring himself the Son of God. But, when 
 they addressed themselves to the Roman Emperors 
 
 1 Origen cont. Celsum, p. 38. Ed. Spenc. 
 
 a See Origen, p. 22, 30, 51, 62, 71, 79, 82, 136, &c. &c. 
 
 3 P. 235. Ed. Thirlby. Before Justin wrote his Dialogue, the Jews 
 had calumniated the impious sect, aJ'pecn? -m adeos, which acknow- 
 ledged Jesus as Messiah, and a teacher, and Son of God, Xpta-ror 
 KOI S/Scto-KCtAoi/ KOI v'tov Qeov. p. 368.
 
 17 
 
 before the time of Constantino, they accused Christ- 
 ians 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 4 ; 
 and they accused our Saviour, to the Roman gover- 
 nor of Judaea, because he made himself Christ, a 
 King, and therefore spoke against Caesar. 
 
 III. To discover the sense in 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 punish- 
 ment of both crimes was in every particular the 
 same. According to this maxim, the blasphemer 
 and idolater were the only criminals affixed to a 
 cross, after having been stoned to death. " Lapi- 
 dati omnes suspenduntur : verba R. Elieseris. At 
 sapientes aiunt: non suspenditur nisi blasphemus et 
 idololatra 5 ." 
 
 Maimonides, who, in the 12th century, under- 
 took to explain the digest of the oral law agreeably 
 to the spirit of the Talmud, observes on this, " The 
 blasphemer alone was affixed to a cross;" and adds, 
 
 * Mosheim, Hist. Eccl p. 30. and Alb. Fabricius, in luce Evan- 
 gelii orbi universo exoriente. c. 7. p. 133. 
 
 5 Misna Tract, cle Synedriis, Vol. iv. p. 235. Ed. Surenhusii. 
 
 B
 
 18 
 
 " and an idolater is also called a blasphemer." These 
 notions of the ancient Jews, on the near affinity of 
 blasphemy to idolatry, perfectly accord with the repre- 
 sentation of these crimes in their Sacred Book. The 
 one seems to consist in certain actions 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 Testament 
 to denote one crime seems to have been sometimes 
 applied to the other 1 . But the assumption of the 
 title of the Messiah, a human king and prophet, 
 could have no relation to either of these crimes. It 
 might be considered as an instance of great pre- 
 sumption or gross imposture; but, with Jews, it 
 could be neither idolatry nor blasphemy, to aspire 
 to any human character however exalted: and when 
 the Sanhedrim immediately and unanimously pro- 
 nounced our Saviour guilty of blasphemy, for calling 
 himself the Son of God, he must have appeared to 
 them to have affected a higher nature than any 
 human being could possess. 
 
 To this conclusion we have been led, by com- 
 paring the Jewish notions of a Messiah and of blas- 
 phemy together, as they are to be collected from their 
 own ancient records. There is also strong negative 
 evidence in the New Testament, that it was not 
 accounted blasphemy by the Jewish magistrates, to 
 acknowledge Jesus as the Christ. If he blasphemed, 
 in the eyes of the Jews, by indirectly declaring him- 
 self Christ, the same guilt must have attached on 
 
 1 See Isaiah LXV. 7.
 
 19 
 
 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 prophet, who should 
 come into the world; at another, the multitude hails 
 him with Hosannas 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 significations 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, ac- 
 cording to its most obvious meaning, it be thought 
 to imply Divinity; the Jews, it may easily be sup- 
 posed, would pronounce Jesus a blasphemer for claim- 
 ing a property, which they admitted in the One 
 Jehovah only. 
 
 It would be easy to fortify this reasoning and 
 conclusion with a crowd of authorities. I shall be 
 content with a few : first producing the opposite opin- 
 ion of Grotius; who, with Erasmus, Limborch and 
 others, supposed Jesus to have been condemned for 
 indirectly declaring himself the Messiah or Christ. 
 
 " B\a(T(f)r)iJilav vocat Pontifex quod Jesus se Christ- 
 um profiteretur: et sane erat ni Christus fuisset." 
 Observe his reason : " Nam qui sibi earn potestatem 
 falso arrogat, in Deum est contumeliosus 2 ." 
 
 * N. in Matt. xxvi. 65. 
 B2
 
 "Non intelligit^/m* Dei adoptionis excellentia, 
 qualem credebat fore Christum ; sed films Dei gene- 
 ratioue divina, qualem non credebat quidem fore 
 Christum; sed intellexerat (sc. Pontifex) Jesum et 
 
 se esse dicere, et a discipulis haberi: et quidem 
 
 duo rogat Jesum, prout confessio Petri et discipulo- 
 rum duo continebat, an sit Christus, et an sit natura 
 filius Dei 1 ." 
 
 "Qui filium Dei natura se facit, alium Deum 
 invehit contra legem 2 , et blasphemiae reus est 3 ." 
 
 " Princeps sacerdotum duo interrogat ; unum, an 
 esset Christus, nam Christum Judaei expectabant; 
 alterum, an esset filius Dei, quod quidem Judtzis, 
 scripturas non intelligenlibus, longe erat odiosius : 
 Nam mysterium Trinitatis nesciebant; et quia filium 
 Dei proprie intelligebant, scilicet, naturalem filium: 
 ideo, ex eo quod Christus diceret aut significaret se 
 filium Dei, colligebant, quod aequalem se faceret Deo. 
 Hinc statim exclamavit pontifex ' Blasphemavit,' i. e. 
 dixit injuriam Deo, cui se fecit aequalem, affirmando 
 se filium Dei. Nam illud 'Blasphemavit,' non puto 
 referendum ad illud, quod se Christum fateretur ; 
 vere enim Christum expectabant Judaei ; sed quod 
 se fateretur esse filium Dei. Nam Christum purum 
 hominem existimant, et filium Dei omnino negantV 
 " They conclude Christ guilty of blasphemy, and 
 consequently of death, because he styled himself the 
 Son of God, not in their sense, in which they allowed 
 
 1 Lucas Brugensis in Matt. xxvi. 63. * Deut. vi. 4. 
 
 3 Lucas Brugen. in Job. xix. 7. * Estius in Matt. xxvi. G3.
 
 21 
 
 that of the Psalmist to belong to him 5 , but, in his 
 own : i. e. because, being a man, he made himself 
 God 6 . Whence it is manifest, 1. that in the sense 
 of the Jews, to own himself the Son of God, and to 
 make himself 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, be- 
 cause he said he was the Christ, but only because 
 he said he was the Son of God; by that, making 
 himself equal with God 7 ." 
 
 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 first 
 three Evangelists, and a declaration of some of their 
 people as recorded by St John, would place the mat- 
 ter 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 or 
 which they really believed him guilty ; because it 
 was not likely to influence a Roman Governor, who 
 might have no respect for Jewish Laws. They ac- 
 cused him, at first, of sedition, for declaring himseh 
 Messiah, a King; but the governor perceived this 
 
 s Psalm ii. 7,12. 6 Job. x. 33. 
 
 7 Joh. v. 18. Whitbv, note on Luke xxii. 70.
 
 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: "We 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 is not a 
 capital crime by any statute in the whole Mosaic 
 Code to assume the title and character of the Mes- 
 siah. The oral law, in the time of Christ, may be 
 said to have had nearly the same relation 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, use- 
 ful as an explanation and supplement to the other. 
 The traditionary maxims, which constituted the se- 
 cond law, were digested and published, by a learned 
 and zealous Jew, about one hundred and eighty 
 years after the trial of Christ 1 ; at a time when 
 Christianity had diffused itself into every part of 
 the vast extent of the Roman empire ; when the 
 Jews had practised every art to defame the new 
 religion, and to apologize for their own conduct 
 towards Christ and Christians. No precept or rule, 
 therefore, in the oral law, however inconsiderable, 
 
 1 The Misna was published by R. Juda about the year two hun- 
 dred and twenty : but the Jews had employed themselves in collecting 
 the traditions and customs, which form the body of this second law, 
 from the time of their second destruction under Adrian. See Allix, 
 "Judgment of the Jewish Church," C. xxiii. p. 395.
 
 23 
 
 that might in any way tend to justify their conduct, 
 would be left out of this collection. It is not, how- 
 ever, a capital crime, or any crime, by any rule 
 found in the Misna, to assume the title and cha- 
 racter of the Messiah ; and, as the Sanhedrim con- 
 demned 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 character, against which their Law was really 
 directed. But, if the Pentateuch and Misna be 
 examined with the utmost care, no statute or maxim 
 will be found in either, which the Jews could mis- 
 take so far, as to conceive it capable of application 
 to this case, unless they supposed 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 commandment; and his case would be 
 supposed to fall under the operation of some of the 
 penal laws in the Pentateuch, enacted to enforce its 
 observance. 
 
 To express the whole argument in a few words: 
 Jesus Christ was condemned to death by the Jewish 
 Law, for acknowledging himself the Son of God : the 
 phrase, " Son of God," admits, and merely admits of
 
 24 
 
 several different acceptations: the declaration must 
 have been thought innocent, in the eye of the Law, 
 in any of these significations, except one : in that, it 
 was liable to be accounted a capital crime it might 
 be thought a breach of the first commandment : in 
 that sense, therefore, it must 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 Penta- 
 teuch against false Prophets in general. Allowed. 
 This is, indeed, very probable. Let these laws then 
 be examined; not with the distracted attention and 
 cursory reference of most of the commentators but 
 with the care, which a distinct and important sub- 
 ject of historical disquisition requires. These laws, 
 as Maimonides has remarked, are directed 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 convicted of impost- 
 ure by the failure of their prophecies, and put to 
 death 1 . The others are to be considered as false 
 prophets, and put to death for simply teaching the 
 worship of false gods 2 . 
 
 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 prophecies, we are well assured, made 
 no part of the ground of his condemnation : it was 
 
 1 Deut. xviii. 21, 22. = Deut. xiii. 111.
 
 for simply professing to be the " Son of God ;" i. e. (as 
 the Jews themselves, on another occasion, interpreted 
 this expression) for making himself God 3 that he suf- 
 fered. 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 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 
 blasphemer we are still compelled to conclude that 
 he was proved, in the opinion of the Jews, to be 
 a false Messiah, a false prophet, or a blasphemer, 
 because he claimed Divinity. 
 
 To shew what confused and inaccurate notions 
 Grotius entertained on this subject, it is enough to 
 observe, that he supposed our Saviour condemned, 
 for indirectly declaring himself the Messiah, by the 
 law in the eighteenth chapter of Deuteronomy against 
 false prophets. On the expression, " Son of God 4 ," 
 he observes, " i. e. Messiam : ut notavimus supra, Jo. 
 i. 49, et x. 36. Si mori debet qui prophetam se dicit 
 
 3 John x. 33, 36. * John xix. 7.
 
 26 
 
 cum non sit, mori multo magis debet, qui Messiam 
 se 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 Csesareas et Romanas nullam in 
 eo mortis causam invenis, nos juxta divinam legem 
 invenimus maximam. In scripturis enim passim doce- 
 mur non esse nisi unum Deum: atqui, hie finxit se 
 esse naturalem Dei filium, et talis semper haberi 
 voluit: ergo, nobis introducere tentavit secundum 
 Deum : nam films Dei naturalis necessario est Deus. 
 Jam vero lex jubet pseudoprophetas et blasphemes 
 omnes morte plecti (Levit. xxiv. 16, et Deut. xiii. 5), 
 ergo hie morte plectendus 1 ." 
 
 Another commentator has also expressed the rea- 
 soning of the Jews nearly in the same manner. 
 " Secundum leges Romanas causam non invenis, at 
 secundum nostram causa maxima est, blasphemia in 
 Deum. Sibi dignitatem filii Dei arrogavit, sc. natu- 
 ralis (nam adoptivos se etiam ipsi dicebant : * unum 
 patrem habemus Deum' inquiunt Joan, viii.) unde 
 alibi, ' tu, homo cum sis, facis teipsum Deum 2 .' " 
 
 V. A modern objection against the reality of 
 the Christian miracles may be viewed in connection 
 with the law, which I have just cited. The rejec- 
 tion and crucifixion of Christ, it is intimated, prove 
 
 1 Tirinus, Annot. in Job. xix. 7. - SA. in John xix. 7.
 
 27 
 
 s 
 
 that the Jews discredited his miracles ; for the united 
 force of their prejudices " would have heen irresisti- 
 bly borne down by the natural influence of an un- 
 doubted miracle 3 ." In answer to this, we have simply 
 to point to the law in Deut. xiii. It is one of that 
 system by which their opinions were partly formed, 
 and their ecclesiastical government conducted in the 
 time of Christ 4 : it is directed against the particular 
 case of miracles wrought in support of false doc- 
 trines : and it is even probable, that the case of 
 Jesus Christ was brought under the operation of this 
 very law. 
 
 "Orobio the Jew, in his friendly conference 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 5 ." Owing to some temporary 
 oversight, to which any writer is liable, this learned 
 and candid Jew has certainly intimated, that his an- 
 cestors could not have persecuted and crucified Jesus, 
 had they credited his miracles; and this thought- 
 less assertion has been expanded into a regular argu- 
 ment, and urged in a tone of as high confidence, as 
 if it were decisive of the fate of Christianity itself. 
 But, whatever authority the objection may derive 
 
 3 "Jewish and Heathen Rejection of the Christian Miracles," by 
 T. Edwards, p. 10. 
 
 * Basnage, B. 5. C. ii. 
 f 5 "Jewish and Heathen Rejection of the Christian Miracles," p. 8,
 
 28 
 
 from the name of Orobio, or whatever additional im- 
 portance it may acquire in consequence of its adop- 
 tion and improvement by any Christian of our own 
 time, its original author will be driven from his 
 ground by 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 injudiciously drawn out to defy the armies 
 of Israel. It must be a matter of common notoriety, 
 that this objection is totally inconsistent with the 
 usual reasoning of the Jews against Christianity. It 
 is implied in the objection, 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 doc- 
 trines, such as they suppose Jesus to have taught : and 
 consequently, according to their notions, he might 
 have been persecuted and crucified by their ances- 
 tors, while the reality of his miracles was fully ad- 
 mitted. 
 
 He asserted, as they believe, his own Divinity: 
 and his case, in their opinion, fell under the law 
 against the false prophet, (in the thirteenth chapter 
 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 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,
 
 29 
 
 entice 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 1 ." Fagius remarks " Caeci Judsei, maxime im- 
 piissimus 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 ge- 
 nerality of the Jews since the twelfth Century ; 
 and he maintains that the miracles of a prophet, 
 (whose claim is set aside by certain rules, which 
 are pointed against those, who recommend the wor- 
 ship of other gods) are no proof of the truth of his 
 pretensions. His reason would make no inconsider- 
 able figure in the metaphysics of Malebranche, Des 
 Cartes, or Locke. " Because the testimony of the 
 understanding, which proves the falsity of his pro- 
 fessions, is of more weight than that of the eyes, 
 which see his miracles 2 ." 
 
 The case of Christ, though not expressly men- 
 tioned, is clearly enough alluded to; and the general 
 scope of his reasoning is founded on the principle of 
 the law in the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy; 
 to which he refers, and observes that the cause, why 
 God permits such miracles, is assigned in that chap- 
 ter : " Because the Lord your God trieth you." 
 
 1 See Fagius on Chald. Paraph. Deut. xiii. in the Critici Sacri. 
 See also his note on Deut. xviii. 15. 
 ' 2 Maimonidis Prsefatio in Misnara, p. 3. Ed. Surenhusii.
 
 30 
 
 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 advo- 
 cate ; who contend, that the united force of the Jew- 
 ish prejudices must have been irresistibly borne down 
 by the natural influence of an undoubted miracle. 
 
 The sentiments of Maimonides respecting the 
 force of the evidence of miracles in general, and the 
 reality of those of Christ in particular, were those of 
 the more ancient Jews at large. On this subject, 
 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 ima- 
 gine that the rejection and punishment of our Sa- 
 viour, who, as they strenuously contend, advanced 
 this claim, afforded any presumption against the be- 
 lief of contemporaries in the reality of his miracles. 
 
 The Jewish author, who has unaccountably found 
 an advocate in a learned Christian, when it might 
 have been reasonably supposed that Jew, Gentile 
 and Christian would have been unanimous in ex- 
 ploding this extravagance, is not only refuted by 
 whole tribes of his own people he has actually re- 
 futed himself. In one part of his writings (I quote 
 them on the authority of Limborch 1 ) he affirms, in 
 the fullest and most direct terms, that our Saviour 
 
 1 " Jesum in se ipsum, ut verum Deum Israelis, fidem exegissc, Dei 
 omnipotentiam sibi arrogasse, se Deo scqualem prsedicasse, et quidem 
 falso." Orobio apud Limborch. Arnica Collatio, p. 252. Ed. Goudse. 
 1688.
 
 31 
 
 laid claim to Divinity; in another place he asserts, 
 that "if a Prophet, or even the Messiah himself, the 
 acknowledged Messiah, had proved his divine mission 
 by miracles, but claimed Divinity, he ought to be 
 stoned to death 2 ." By this acknowledgment one of 
 the claims of Jesus constituted in itself a crime, for 
 which no miracles could atone, and deserved a pun- 
 ishment, which they ought not to prevent ; the writer 
 therefore admits, in full and decisive answer to him- 
 self, that the rejection and punishment of that claim 
 afford not the slightest presumption against the be- 
 lief of the Jews in the Christian miracles. He, in 
 fact, grants that the Jewish nation might have first 
 received Jesus as the Messiah, on account of miracles ; 
 and afterwards have destroyed him for claiming Di- 
 vinity. Orobio himself, if it be thought necessary, 
 will seal Orobio's condemnation. But we are not 
 reduced to rest on the authority of an adversary, in 
 order to prove that the Jewish rejection of the claims 
 of Christ affords no presumption of their disbelief 
 of his miraculous power. On one side, they saw his 
 miracles, which Jews of that age and of every age 
 have thought might be effected by the agency of 
 evil spirits, permitted by God to try the firmness 
 
 2 " Quin imo Vir Doct. ad Quaest. 3. Num. 8. p. 109, 110, 111, contendit 
 Prophetam (imo ipsum Messiam) si seipsum Deum Israelis esse affir- 
 masset (quod hie Domino Jesu adscribit) et plurimis conftrmaret mira- 
 culis, jure esse lapidandum." P. 252. " Sed quo tandem hscc viri docti 
 machina tendit ? Ut evincat Dominum Jesum Deum Israelis sub idea 
 diver sa ab ea quam Deus Israeli revelaverat, colendum proposuisse, ac 
 perinde alienum docuisse Deum : Licet itaque plurimis doctrinam istam 
 conftrmaret miraculis, quod sccundum legem Deut. xiii. jure lapidandus 
 
 t;* &c. p. 295.
 
 32 
 
 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* 1 divine 
 and human natures they conceived to be impossible; 
 the claim of Divinity impious. The supposed impiety 
 and impossibility of one of his claims, in their opin- 
 ion, overturned the weaker evidence of undisputed mi- 
 racles wrought in its support. They weighed what to 
 them appeared opposite evidences; and the prepon- 
 derance of that side, on which their prejudiced opin- 
 ions had placed the greater weight, decided the conduct 
 of the magistrates and the infidelity of the people. 
 
 Christians have had to oppose two very different 
 classes of adversaries ; who ought, on their own ac- 
 count, to have concerted some consistent plan of ope- 
 ration, before they commenced their attacks. While 
 one party, with the Jews, thinks lightly of the mira- 
 cles of the 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. " Enfin des ecrivains, qui regardent 
 les miracles comme autant d'absurdites et qui en 
 nient non seulement 1'existence, mais la possibilite, 
 ne nous paroissent pas fort capables de decider de 
 leur pouvoir sur le cceur des homines. Aussi ces 
 grands opposants a la revelation sont-ils peu d'accord 
 entr'eux sur ce sujet. Si quelques-uns se persuadent 
 que les miracles auroient une force irresistible, 
 d'autres en jugent tout differemment. ' Redresse les 
 boiteux,' dit 1'un d'entr'eux, 'fais parler les muets,
 
 S3 
 
 rcsuscitc les niorts, je n'en serai point ebranle. Re- 
 marquez la belle harmonic qui regne entre ces Mes- 
 sieurs. ' On ne resisteroit point aux miracles,' dit 
 Tun; 'je n'en serois point ebranle,' dit 1'autre; c'est 
 ainsi que s'accordent ces sages'." 
 
 VI. The question before us, it must be remem- 
 bered, is this : Whether Jesus, under the external 
 disadvantages of an humble birth and appearance, 
 was condemned 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 expected 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 discussion of 
 this question, it seems reasonable to judge of the 
 motives of the Sanhedrim, by those of the Jewish 
 people ; to explain the conduct of one body of Jews 
 by the conduct of others ; and to form our opinions 
 on a connected and comparative view of the whole. 
 If the magistrate and the subject, 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 dis- 
 pleasure, when they conceived him to speak of his 
 divine mission only as Messiah ; we are then fur- 
 nished with a forcible reason, in addition to those 
 already stated, for believing that this was, at least, 
 
 ' Lettres de quelques Juifs, Ed. 2 d ". * Paris, p. 147. 
 
 c
 
 34 
 
 the principal, if not the only ground of his condem- 
 nation. And, it may 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 language, were con- 
 versant about the same objects, 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, af- 
 fords a decisive proof, that his meaning was not 
 misunderstood. 
 
 In order to judge whether the Sanhedrim would 
 condemn Jesus, appearing as he did appear, for teach- 
 ing the doctrine of his Divinity, or for simply de- 
 claring himself the Messiah we may first appeal to 
 the conduct 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 unto the truth : 
 ...but I have greater witness than that of John:. ..for 
 the works that I do bear witness of me, that the 
 Father hath sent me :" and no mention is made 
 of any disapprobation expressed on this occasion. 
 But a short time before this, when he had appeared 
 to the same people to call God his Father in a 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, 
 because he not only had broken the sabbath, but 
 said also that God was his proper Father
 
 35 
 
 'iSiov e\eye TOV BeoV making himself equal with 
 God 1 ." 
 
 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 con- 
 clude, with considerable probability, 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 order to explain the conduct of the Sanhe- 
 drim by that of the Jewish people, our second ap- 
 peal may be to a body of Jews collected in one of 
 the courts of the temple of Jerusalem 2 . 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 3 he, at length, 
 
 1 John v. 18. 2 John viii. 
 
 3 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, hearing 
 witness of him ; and addresses 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. 
 
 C 2 The
 
 addresses them in these remarkable words. " Verily, 
 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 attribute of God alone : and, 
 that the Jewish interpretation was the same with 
 ours, appears not by any obscure and ambiguous 
 words let fall on the occasion, but by a speaking 
 action too expressive to be misunderstood: "Then 
 took they up stones to cast at him." Our Saviour 
 asserts his pre-existence, and certain Jews imme- 
 diately 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 perfect 
 consistency with the preceding conduct of the people, 
 unanimously pronounce him worthy of death. 
 
 To account for the conduct of the Sanhedrim 
 by comparing it with that of the people, we may 
 appeal, in the third place, to another body of Jews 
 collected in the temple 1 . "And Jesus walked in 
 the temple, in Solomon's porch : then came the 
 Jews round about him, and said unto him:../ If 
 
 The Evangelist has observed it, as if it were a remarkable circumstance : 
 ''These words spake Jesus,. ..and 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 he has solved the difficulty, v. 27: "They under- 
 stood 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 pro- 
 perly his father; but had no conception, on this occasion, that he in- 
 timated this Father to be God. 
 1 John x. 23.
 
 37 
 
 thou be the Messiah, tell us plainly.' Jesus answer- 
 ed them, / told you, and ye believed not : the works, 
 that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of 
 me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my 
 sheep.... My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, 
 and they follow me : and I give unto them eternal life; 
 and they shall never perish, neither shall any man 
 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." 
 
 k Then the Jews took up stones again to stone 
 him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have 
 I showed you from my Father: for which of those 
 works do ye stone me ? The Jews answered him, 
 saying, For a good work we stone thee not, but 
 for blasphemy; and because that 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 hear- 
 ers. So far from being reckoned blasphemous, it 
 seems to have been heard without exciting more 
 emotion than a common remark ; and it is not till 
 he declares himself one with his Father, that they 
 take up stones to stone him. Their words, in this 
 case, are no less significant than their actions. They 
 do not say, " We stone thee, because thou being a 
 humble Galilean makest thyself the Messiah ;" but 
 " We stone thee for blasphemy, and because thou.
 
 38 
 
 being a man, makest thyself God." The motive of 
 the Jews, on this occasion, is avowed in direct and 
 explicit terms. They attempt to stone him, hecause, 
 in asserting his own Divinity, he was guilty of blas- 
 phemy ; and in their observations, and his answer, 
 we distinctly see the two claims, the combination of 
 which they conceived to form his guilt. The first 
 and principal, according to our Saviour's account, 
 was, that he called himself the Son of God : " Say 
 ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified 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 affirmation, 
 " I and my Father are one." The people, on this 
 occasion, attempt to stone him for blasphemy; and 
 he was afterwards condemned by the Sanhedrim for 
 the same crime. The people attempt to stone him, 
 because, he, as they alleged, being a man, made 
 himself God, by calling himself the Son of God, and 
 professing to be one with his Father: and the San- 
 hedrim also condemned him to death, because he 
 declared himself the Son of God. This narrative of 
 the proceedings of the people contains a just expo- 
 sition of the motives, which afterwards influenced 
 their magistrates, and forms a valuable comment on 
 the history of our Saviour's trial. 
 
 The subsequent conduct of this same body of 
 people is also not unworthy of attention. Our Sa- 
 viour reproves them for considering him as a bias-
 
 39 
 
 phemer, in declaring 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 fortiori, he intimates that 
 the appellation would be given with a more strict 
 propriety to him, who was sanctified and sent by 
 the Father. So far in this expostulation, his lan- 
 guage was doubtful. When he intimated, that the 
 appellation would be applied with more propriety 
 to him than to others, he might be supposed either 
 to allude to his divine nature, or to assert only his 
 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., 
 believe me not : but, if I do, then though ye believe 
 not me, yet believe the works, that ye may know 
 and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him''' 
 The Evangelist then relates, that " therefore they 
 sought again to take him." The strain of this ex- 
 postulation appeared to them the same with that, 
 from which they had just concluded, 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 Jesus to death for declaring him- 
 self the Messiah, or for asserting his Divinity, we 
 may make our fourth appeal to the conduct and lan- 
 guage of a body of Jews in Galilee, described in 
 the sixth chapter of St John. Five thousand men, 
 who had witnessed his miracles, actually acknow-
 
 40 
 
 ledged 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 Messiah. The next day, the same persons mur- 
 mured disapprobation, when he intimated in meta- 
 phorical language that he was of more than human 
 nature. " The Jews then murmured at him, because 
 he said, I am the bread which came down from 
 heaven." That they understood him on this occa- 
 sion to allude to his Divinity and pre-existence, 
 appears further from their own observation : " Is not 
 this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother 
 we know ? How is it then that he saith, 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 connection 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 they 
 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 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
 
 41 
 
 extravagant claim of Divinity? Their language and 
 conduct have obviated the question : they have vir- 
 tually given their suffrages; and their opinion must 
 have great weight in deciding ours. 
 
 It is on one occasion related by St John 1 , that 
 when Christ was speaking of his Father, the people, 
 who heard him, understood not that he spoke of 
 God; and it may be reasonably supposed, that when 
 he indirectly or obscurely advanced the claim of Di- 
 vinity, his meaning would be sooner discovered by 
 men of learning than by the common people. Let 
 the conduct of the Sanhedrim, then, be compared 
 with that of a body of scribes and pharisees assem- 
 bled from every town of Galilee and Judaea and 
 Jerusalem itself 2 . Before this assembly of men of 
 education, as well as a great multitude of the com- 
 mon people, he assumed and exercised the power of 
 forgiving sins. Then, certain of the scribes said 
 within themselves, " Who is this that speaketh blas- 
 phemies? Who can forgive sins, but God only?" 
 When he asserted the power of forgiving sins, on this 
 occasion, it was at least suspected, by some of the 
 scribes, that his words amounted to blasphemy the 
 crime for which he was afterwards 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 expected Messiah, was considered by the scribes 
 as appropriated to God alone: and he was afterwards 
 condemned by the Sanhedrim for claiming a higher 
 
 1 Chap. viii. 27. 5 Luke v. 17.
 
 42 
 
 nature than they admitted in the Messiah, in de- 
 claring himself the Son of God 1 . 
 
 A very distinguished philosopher of the present 
 age has made the following observation on the re- 
 sult of his own inquiries on this subject : " I have 
 shown that, by the confession of all the Christian 
 Fathers, neither Christ himself, nor any of his Apos- 
 tles before John, taught this pre-existence 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 would have revolted at 
 it 2 ." A slight correction of the language of this 
 remark will introduce a considerable, but a neces- 
 sary alteration of the sentiments conveyed in it. 
 Christ inculcated not the doctrines of his Divinity 
 and pre-existence with clearness, on all occasions, on 
 
 1 " They were offended at him, because in his discourses to them 
 he sometimes gave them hints, that he was a much greater person 
 than they imagined, upon which they called him a blasphemer, who 
 made himself God, and equal with God; that is, who assumed to 
 himself divine honours and more respect than was due to a prophet; 
 for the Jews had no notion that their Messias should be any thing 
 more than mere man. 
 
 The Jews, as it appears from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, 
 objected to the Christians, that they worshipped more gods than 
 one, and ascribed divine perfections to Christ. To this Justin (See 
 Index to Thirlby's Edit. Christus) and other Christians answered, 
 that frequent mention is made 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. 06o<? Ka/Xerrat KO\ 0eo? ea-Tt KOI ea"rat. Justin, p. 261. 
 Trypho says to Justin, It is written, " I am the Lord my glory I will 
 not give to another." This objection 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. 
 
 2 Priestley's Letters to Candidates for Orders, p. 82.
 
 43 
 
 account of the prejudices of the Jews, in favour of 
 their Messiah being a mere man : this, and no more 
 than this, has been granted by the Christian Fathers. 
 He so frequently, however, and so plainly spoke of 
 his Divinity and pre-existence, that their minds did 
 revolt at it : on this account, they consulted how to 
 
 J 
 
 put him to death. On the same account, they at 
 different times took up stones to stone him. For 
 this reason, the magistrates judged him guilty of 
 blasphemy, and at last prevailed on the Roman go- 
 vernor to crucify him. 
 
 " If we look into the Gospel history," observes 
 this writer, " we shall find that all our Saviour him- 
 self taught or insinuated, were his divine mission 
 in general, or his being the Messiah in particular ; 
 with the doctrine of the resurrection, and that of 
 himself coming again to raise the dead and judge 
 the world. These doctrines, accompanied with moral 
 instructions, and reproofs of the Pharisees for cor- 
 rupting 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 ivas admitted by the Christian 
 Fathers*" In seeming contradiction, however, to a 
 part of this remark, he observes in the next page, 
 " 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. 
 
 3 "History of early Opinions,' B. in. r. 3.
 
 44 
 
 they were offended ; and that he conciliated their 
 esteem, whenever he represented himself as a mere 
 man, such as they expected a prophet and the Mes- 
 siah to be." With the same inconsistency, he has 
 afterwards cited and alluded to several passages in 
 the Fathers, in which they assert that Christ taught 
 his own Divinity ; though he informed not his disci- 
 ples that he was the Creator of the world. Of these 
 passages it will be sufficient to select the two fol- 
 lowing. 
 
 " Christ did not reveal his Divinity immediately, 
 but was first thought to be a prophet, and the Christ, 
 simply a man: and it afterwards appeared by his works 
 and sayings, c>d TO>/' epyw KOL TWV ptj/uLdrwv, what he 
 really was 1 ." 
 
 " At Athens, Paul calls him (Jesus) simply a 
 man, and nothing farther, and for a good reason : 
 for if they often attempted to stone Christ himself, 
 when he spake of his equality with the Father, and 
 called him, on that account, a blasphemer, they would 
 hardly have received this doctrine from fishermen 2 ," 
 &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 doctrines as those of his 
 own Divinity and pre-existence, should not openly 
 teach them at first to his disciples and others on all 
 convenient occasions. This difficulty they soon found 
 
 1 Chrysostotn ap. Priestley, Hist, of early Opinions, B. in. c. 3. 
 p. 74. a Ibid. p. 114.
 
 45 
 
 to be imaginary. Having an opportunity of personal 
 intercourse with Jews only a few ages after the time 
 of Christ and, probahly, having access to Jewish 
 writings of our Saviour's age, which are now lost 
 they must have been able to collect the opinions of 
 that people, on the subject of their Messiah, with 
 the utmost certainty. The Jews, they found, ex- 
 pected a mere man in the person of their Messiah ; 
 and, it was necessary for our Saviour gradually and 
 cautiously to oppose this prejudice 3 , that he might 
 not be destroyed as a blasphemer, before the purpose 
 of his mission was accomplished. It would obviously 
 be necessary for the disciples also to address the Jews 
 with the same sort of caution, and for the same rea- 
 son : the Fathers 4 have declared that they did so : 
 but how it should follow from this, that the Divin- 
 ity of Christ was neither taught by himself nor his 
 disciples, it is not easy to discover. 2. On looking 
 into the New Testament, a difficulty occurs to ac- 
 count for the seeming inconsistencies in the conduct 
 of the Jewish people towards our Saviour. At first, 
 
 3 An instance of the caution, with which he opposed the pre- 
 vailing opinion on this subject, is recorded, Matth. xxii. 42. "What 
 think ye of the Messiah? Whose son is 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?" 
 
 4 See History of early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 50123. Dr Priestley, 
 B. in. c. 3, clearly proves that, according to the opinion of the Fathers, 
 Christ taught his own Divinity, though with some caution. Yet, the 
 running title of that Chapter is, "Christ did not teach his own Di- 
 vinity !" Because the Fathers affirmed the doctrine of Christ's Divinity 
 to have been taught with caution, Dr Priestley concludes that it was 
 not taught at all; though they have assigned a reason for that cau- 
 jfion, which he must allow to be sufficient
 
 46 
 
 indeed, we are astonished at a succession of apparent 
 contradictions. At one time, we see five thousand 
 men acknowledging him as the Messiah, and pre- 
 paring to make him King : the day following, the 
 same persons murmur at the fancied extravagance 
 of his claims 1 . On one occasion "many believed on 
 him ;" and immediately after, they took up stones 
 to cast at him 2 . Before his trial, he is hailed as 
 the Messiah, with Hosannas, through the streets of 
 Jerusalem ; and soon after, the people cry out, " By 
 our law he ought to die." On a further inspection 
 of the Evangelical history, the whole difficulty van- 
 ishes. They believe on him, they seek to proclaim 
 him King, they hail him, with Hosannas, as the 
 Messiah only: they murmur when he alludes 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 himself the Son of God." 
 
 According to Dr Priestley's acknowledgement, the 
 Fathers accounted for the apparent inconsistency of 
 the disciples, in the same manner. 
 
 " 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." 
 
 1 John vi. 15, 44. 2 John viii. 30, 59.
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 OTHER REASONS, WHICH HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED FOR THE JEWISH 
 REJECTION AND CONDEMNATION OP CHRIST, EXAMINED. 
 
 1. The prejudices against the humble birth of Christ, and his want of external 
 splendour, 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 effect. 2. Effect of the prejudice against his birth. 3. Effect 
 of the prejudice against his want of temporal power and splendour. 4. The 
 effect of these prejudices in a considerable degree destroyed by the influence 
 of his miracles. The real grounds of his persecution by the Jews, how to 
 be determined. 
 
 I. WHETHER the humility of our Saviour's birth 
 and appearance will be sufficient to account for his 
 rejection and condemnation by the Jews, after they 
 had witnessed his miracles, is, I think, decided in the 
 preceding chapters. Might not, however, the case 
 stand thus ? 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 several accounts, at length 
 condemned him to death for indirectly preferring this 
 claim on his trial. In such a representation as this, 
 there is certainly, previous to inquiry, nothing in- 
 credible ; still, it is necessary to examine the Gospel 
 history, to see whether it be just, or not. He was 
 the object of Jewish censure on many accounts : this 
 cannot be denied. Sometimes he was reprehended, 
 l^ecause he sat down to eat with publicans and sin-
 
 48 
 
 ners ; sometimes they murmured at him for assum- 
 ing the power of forgiving sins ; and sometimes 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 he came from 
 Galilee; 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 conduct and doctrines, 
 have been enumerated by Christian writers 1 : but 
 whenever men are said to be led to any course of 
 action by the joint operation of many reasons, there 
 is commonly some one leading motive paramount to 
 the rest, which gives efficacy to the combination to 
 which the others are only subsidiary and without 
 which, they would have little effect. In assigning 
 the principal motive of the conduct of the Jews 
 towards our Saviour, both ancient and modern writers 
 have advanced the most opposite opinions. Some of 
 these authorities would, undoubtedly, 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 de- 
 termined 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 
 
 1 Jortin, first " Discourse concerning the Truth of the Christian 
 Religion." 

 
 49 
 
 would be, in some degree, correspondent to the 
 splendour of his character. The birth of Jesus was 
 mean ; but we must not hastily conclude that this 
 was his great offence, unless, on examining the Gos- 
 pel history, we can distinctly trace out the operation 
 of this cause, and see that it essentially and pre- 
 eminently contributed to produce this effect. It cer- 
 tainly was expected, by 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 expected brilliancy and magnificence, appeared 
 in the meek dignity of an humble teacher: and the 
 disappointment of the Jews, in such a material article 
 of their hopes, would probably so far counteract the 
 effect 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 
 national rejection of his claims, their consultations 
 how to put him to death, the execution of this bloody 
 purpose, and their continuance in incredulity after 
 the great miracle of his resurrection, are to be attri- 
 buted to this cause. This supposition cannot be ad- 
 mitted, unless, on an examination of the Gospel 
 history, the prejudice against his humble appearance 
 should be found to have actually effected this exten- 
 sive and complicated operation. The contrast, be- 
 tween the humility of Christ and the exalted expect- 
 ations of the Jews, suggests itself to every one, on 
 
 D
 
 50 
 
 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 conjecture, when, by a continuation 
 of his inquiry, he can easily discover what was the 
 matter of fact. 
 
 II. On looking over the Gospels with a par- 
 ticular view to this question, it is found that the 
 inhabitants of Nazareth 1 were offended at the mean- 
 ness of our Saviour's birth and family; and this 
 prejudice is the cause assigned, by the first two 
 Evangelists, for their incredulity. This, as far as I 
 can discover, is the only historical evidence, which 
 has ever been adduced, to prove that the humility 
 of his birth was the great stumblingblock to the 
 Jews. But this, it ought to be observed, was an 
 extreme, and extraordinary case : it was noticed as 
 such by Jesus himself: he marvelled because of their 
 unbelief, and intimated that he was not without 
 honour, except in this petty city. 
 
 It is once mentioned in the Gospel that some of 
 the inhabitants of Jerusalem drew conclusions un- 
 favourable to his claims, because he came from 
 Galilee 2 ; and it is once mentioned that some of them 
 of Jerusalem said, "We know this man, whence he 
 is: but when the Messiah cometh, no man shall 
 know whence he is 3 ." Immediately after this, when 
 he declared his divine mission only, they sought to 
 take him ; but, " no man laid hands on him." These 
 
 1 Luke iv. 16, 24. 2 John vii. 41. 3 John vii. 27.
 
 51 
 
 are, I think, the only instances on record in the 
 New Testament, where prejudices of any sort re- 
 specting 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 men- 
 tioned, that many of the people believed on him, and 
 said, " When Christ cometh, will he do more mira- 
 cles than this man hath done ?" 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 prejudice, against his appearance in 
 the character of a teacher, instead of a king and 
 conqueror, is still less sufficient to account for his 
 persecution by the Jews. Sometimes they murmured 
 at him ; sometimes they consulted by what means 
 they might put him to death; and sometimes they 
 took up stones to destroy him. Without a separate 
 examination of each of these cases in which their 
 displeasure was shown, in a greater or less degree 
 it is enough to observe, that the cause of their in- 
 dignation, 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 character of the 
 
 1)2
 
 52 
 
 Messiah, combined with the Jewish prejudice against 
 his humble appearance only, drew down their per- 
 secution upon him. On that single occasion, when 
 they sought to take him, after he had affirmed that 
 he was sent by God, their disbelief of his claim is 
 not ascribed to their prejudice against his want of 
 external splendour and temporal power, but to the 
 notoriety of his parentage and country : " When 
 the Messiah cometh, no man shall know whence he 
 is." A few days afterwards, when some declared 
 him the Messiah, it was objected, not that he ap- 
 peared as an humble teacher, instead of a king and 
 conqueror; but that he was not born in Bethlehem 1 ; 
 and could not, on that account, be really invested 
 with the character which he affected. 
 
 IV. Ecclesiastical writers have enumerated most 
 of the prejudiced opinions of Jews and Gentiles, 
 which caught alarm at the person and doctrines of 
 Christ : in this they have acted like rational inquirers. 
 They have not indeed taken for granted that the 
 reasoning of either Jews or Gentiles 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 respects defective, they have, at least, been 
 judiciously, and not unsuccessfully directed. They 
 have enumerated prejudices sufficient to account for 
 the conduct of the Jewish nation : but they have 
 not attempted to show how far each of them actually 
 
 1 John vii. 42.
 
 53 
 
 operated ; which was the leading and most efficient 
 motive with the Jews, and which were only sub- 
 sidiary and subordinate : whether some of their most 
 inveterate opinions were not, in a considerable de- 
 gree, subdued by the force of our Saviour's miracles ; 
 and whether some of them continued not, on all oc- 
 casions, to act with unabated influence. It has been 
 sometimes asserted that " the united force of all 
 their prejudices must have been irresistibly 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 actually 
 borne down by the influence of Christ's miracles 
 among a considerable part of the Jewish people. The 
 Messiah was expected to shine forth in the power 
 and splendour of a conquering monarch : A poor 
 Galilaean appeared teaching the mysteries of a spi- 
 ritual kingdom in a future life : his miracles induced 
 five thousand men to acknowledge him as the Mes- 
 siah : and it was not till he had alluded to his 
 divine origin, that they murmured. Notwithstand- 
 ing the force of the same delusive expectations, on 
 another occasion, he was hailed with Hosannas as 
 the Messiah, 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. Immediately before his trial, such mul- 
 titudes were disposed to receive him as a prophet,
 
 54 
 
 and the Messiah 1 , 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 magis- 
 trates "feared the people." On this account, pro- 
 bably, the trial was conducted in the middle of the 
 night; and it was probably to overawe their own 
 people, that they anxiously strove to make his pun- 
 ishment appear the act of the Roman governor, in- 
 stead of their own 2 . Allow the prejudiced opinion 
 of the Jewish people, in favour of a brilliant and 
 conquering monarch in the person of their Messiah, 
 to have been very great as it undoubtedly was 
 the influence of his miracles, then, was great, in 
 subduing this prejudice. It is no where to be found 
 in the New Testament, as an active cause of incre- 
 dulity, much less of persecution. It appears to have 
 been so far counteracted by the effect of his miracles, 
 that, when another of their prejudices was not awak- 
 ened, 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 impartial examination of original and 
 authentic documents: without a bias to any theolo- 
 
 1 See Matthew xxi. 46. 
 
 2 "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, crucify him." 
 John xix. 6. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment.
 
 55 
 
 gical system, or prejudice against it. Let the testi- 
 mony of the Evangelists be collected by the same 
 rules of common sense, as those by which we dis- 
 cover the sense of profane historians on a subject 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 occa- 
 sioned by the claim of Divinity, which the Jews 
 believed him to have advanced 3 . Forming our opi- 
 nion of the principal motive of the Sanhedrim, by 
 the general conduct of the Jewish people, 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 
 previously expected, that he was condemned for de- 
 claring himself the Son of God. 
 
 3 See the preceding Chapter.
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 WHETHER THE TERM " SON OF GOD" WAS ONE OF THE APPRO- 
 PRIATE TITLES OF THE MESSIAH, WITH THE JEWISH NATION, 
 IN THE TIME OF CHRIST. 
 
 1. Foundation of the opinion that Jesus was condemned for simply declaring 
 himself the Messiah. Three combinations of opinions relating to this sub- 
 ject 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. Application of this conclusion to the History of Jesus 
 Christ's trial. 
 
 I. WHEN 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, convinced 
 the Jewish Sanhedrim of his imposture ; and, on 
 this account, they condemned him to death. In 
 support of this opinion it is sometimes asserted, that 
 the expected Messiah of the Jews was called "the 
 Son 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 de- 
 clared, is the silent supposition, the covered founda- 
 tion, on which the whole superstructure is supported. 
 If the Sanhedrim condemned Jesus for professing to 
 be the human .Messiah, whom they expected, when
 
 57 
 
 he acknowledged himself the Son of God it must 
 have been, because custom, which always determines 
 the signification of language, had connected this 
 meaning and this term together. Having shown 
 the fabric itself to be without solidity, it is not 
 indeed necessary, for my purpose, but it will not be 
 altogether useless, to inquire into the soundness of 
 the foundation. 
 
 Three different combinations of opinions on this 
 subject may just be mentioned. 
 
 1. According 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, 
 expected a divine being as their Messiah. If both 
 these opinions be just when Jesus declared himself 
 the Christ without exception 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 expected 
 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 
 Jpsus declared himself the Son of God in a higher
 
 58 
 
 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 
 not have condemned him as a blasphemer. 
 
 The opinions of this class of writers are not often 
 so clearly and distinctly expressed as in the following 
 note of Cocceius. " Re vera constat eum habitum 
 fuisse blasphemum, quod divina videretur de se dicere, 
 Johan. v. 18. et. x. 33. ubi clare explicatur quod ea 
 causa reputandi eum blasphemum fuerit, quod ' Deum 
 dixerit patrem proprium, se sequalem Deo faciens.' 
 Quare et hoc loco (sc. Joh. xix. 7.) verbum hoc * se 
 ipsum filium Dei fecit' non ad hunc modum intelli- 
 gendum est, quo et Messiam vulgo dicebant filium 
 Dei ; sed secundum ilium modum IO-OT^TO? cum Deo. 
 Et ita accepit Pilatus, ut ex interrogatione ejus ap- 
 paret; quum quaerit, ' Unde tu es?' r Cocceius in 
 Joh. xix. 7. 
 
 If we agree, with all these three descriptions 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 age, we are still forced to 
 conclude, with the last, that Jesus offended many 
 of the people, and was condemned by the magis- 
 trates, for asserting his Divinity ; for professing to be 
 the Son of God, in a higher sense than they thought 
 applicable to the Messiah. This has been 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
 
 59 
 
 to the Messiah had really any place in the language 
 of the Jews of our Saviour's age. They might, in- 
 deed, 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 expected Messiah was 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 
 people 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 expected deliverer was then 
 commonly 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 used as his appropriate titles in the 
 time of Jesus Christ. 
 
 II. One class of evidence on this subject I 
 propose to dismiss without much examination. Some 
 divines, of great reputation in the last and preced- 
 ing century, by comparing certain passages in Philo 
 with others in the Targums and Rabbinical writers, 
 were enabled to produce many plausible reasons for 
 supposing, in direct opposition to the united testi- 
 mony of Jewish and Christian antiquity, that the 
 
 .'
 
 60 
 
 Jews of our Saviour's age expected a divine being 
 as their Messiah. By a few of these same reasons, 
 and only by a few, it was attempted to prove that 
 this divine personage was also then called the Son 
 of God. Rittangelius 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 without advocates of real and high 
 respectability in the present age, the great position 
 in it respecting the national opinion of the Jews 
 will probably be thought untenable; but the part 
 of it relating to the language, rather than the 
 opinion of the Jews, which their Unitarian oppo- 
 nents will be found to be most interested in de- 
 fending, 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 arid those of Philo 1 , that their 
 expected Messiah was called by the Jews the Son 
 of God, in the time of our Saviour, it is only be- 
 cause 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 2 . 
 
 If then this class of evidence be admitted to 
 prove the phrase "Son of God" to have been one of 
 
 1 Though the term, Son of God, is found in Philo, both in 
 more literal and a more allegorical sense, it is no where applied to 
 the Jewish Messiah. 
 
 2 See the Chapters in Allix, on this part of his subject.
 
 61 
 
 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 only appearance of legitimate evi-^ 
 dence, in favour of the opinion which I am consi- 
 dering, is to be collected from the New Testament ; 
 and is very fully stated by Limborch. " Ut pres- 
 sius respondeam, dico 2. Quando exigitur fides in 
 Jesum Christum, nusquam in toto Novo Testamento 
 exigi, ut credamus Jesum esse ipsum Deum, sed 
 Jesum esse Christum seu Messiam olim promissum, 
 vel quod idem est, esse Filium Dei, quoniam appel- 
 lationes Christi, et Filii Dei, inter se permutantur. 
 Cui denomination! occasionem dedisse videntur verba 
 Davidis, Psal. ii. 7- 'Filius meus es tu, ego hodie 
 genui te:' et Dei, 2 Sam. vii. 14. 'Ero illi in 
 Patrem, et ille erit mihi in Filium.' Quae sensu 
 sublimiore Messise applicata sunt. Inde factum ut 
 denominatio ilia Christi seu Messice et Filii Dei 
 inter Judaeos et discipulos Christi pro eadem habita 
 fuerit : quod variis locis Novi Testamenti evidenter 
 comprobari potest. Quando Philippus Nathanaeli 
 dixit, ' Inveuimus quern scripsit Moses in Lege et 
 Prophetis,' &c. postea Nathanael, viso domino Jesu, 
 inquit, ' Tu es films Dei, tu es rex Israel.' Johan. 
 i. 46. 50. Petrus omnium Apostolorum nomine re- 
 spondens qusestioni Domini, interrogantis quern se 
 esse dicerent, ait, * Tu es Christus Filius Dei vivi,'
 
 62 
 
 Matt. xvi. 16. quae verba Marcus recensens solum- 
 modo habet; 'Tu es Christus,' c. viii. 29- et Lucas, 
 * Tu es Christus Dei,' c. ix. 20. Sic Matt. xiv. 33. 
 Discipuli dicunt Jesu, noctu ad ipsos super mari 
 ambulanti, postquam in navem adscendisset 'Vere 
 Filius Dei es tu,' et Act. viii. 37- eunuchus reginae 
 Candaces ' Credo Jesum Christum esse Filium Dei.' 
 Et, quod omnem dubitationem tollit, Pontifex Domi- 
 num Jesum coram tribunali suo stantem adjurat per 
 Deum vivum, ut dicat, 'si sit Christus Filius Dei.' 
 Matt. xxvi. 63. Quod clarius apud Lucam expri- 
 mitur, c. xxii ; nam postquam v. 66. seniores et prin- 
 cipes sacerdotum interrogaverant, * Si tu es Christus, 
 die nobis;' eandem quasstionem repetentes, ver. 70. 
 quaerimt, * Tu ergo es Filius Dei ? ' Manifesto in- 
 dicio, Messiam seu Christum., et Filium Dei esse, 
 idem plane significasse." 
 
 " Et ne forte vir doctus excipiat, hanc esse meam 
 peculiarem explicationem, operae pretium est osten- 
 dere etiam prasstantissimos et maxime eximios inter 
 Christianos Theologos loca haec in eandem mecum 
 sententiam explicare. Non hie producam explicati- 
 ones Episcopii, cum meis plane easdem, sed duorum 
 maxime eximiorum, et cum quorum eruditione et 
 ingenii acumine vix ulli inter erudites comparari 
 rnerentur, Desiderii Erasmi et Hugonis Grotii 1 ." 
 
 Notwithstanding the subtilty with which this 
 evidence is stated by a professed disputant on at- 
 tending to the several arguments, they will be found 
 to fall short of the object, which they are brought 
 
 1 Araic. Coll. p. 218. 

 
 0* 
 
 to establish. They, in fact, prove only that Jesus 
 had declared himself Messiah the Son of God, in- 
 stead 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 necessary. 
 
 1. And first, with respect to the two questions 
 of the Jewish Sanhedrim, to our Saviour, recorded 
 in St Luke: to affirm that one of these is a mere 
 repetition of the other, that they are the same ques- 
 tion ("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 direct or indirect terms. 
 
 But, according to St Matthew and Mark, the 
 high priest asked our Saviour, "Art thou the Mes- 
 siah, the Son of God?" and the question, it is con- 
 tended, 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 fact two; 
 
 f
 
 64 
 
 as may be inferred from St Luke's narrative ; it is 
 sufficient to observe, that the questions of the San- 
 hedrim would be regulated by the accounts that 
 they had received of the nature of our Saviour's 
 claims, not by their own opinions on the subject of 
 their Messiah : nor would their questions be confined 
 to language, which custom had sanctioned ; when 
 their only object was to discover what terms Jesus 
 had actually applied to himself, whether custom had 
 justified their use, or not. They would ask him 
 about his doctrines, not about their own ; about lan- 
 guage 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 1 infor- 
 mation of the circumstance ; 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. Two contending classes of Theologians 
 have united in insisting strongly on this point. On 
 examining the whole account, however, it is found 
 that Nathanael uttered this declaration two days after
 
 b'5 
 
 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 informed of the circumstances 1 
 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, probably induced him to exclaim " Thou 
 art the Son of God, thou art the king of Israel." 
 Thou art really possessed of the divine nature, and 
 invested with the royal office, which John has just 
 proclaimed 2 . The application of the first of these 
 titles to the Messiah, by a disciple or follower of 
 John or of Jesus, after the former had appeared to 
 
 1 " 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." John i. 34. 
 
 2 Dr Horsley and Dr Priestley have attempted to support two 
 opposite opinions by the declaration of Nathanael. " So far as they be- 
 lieved in Jesus as the Messiah, in the same degree they understood 
 and acknowledged his Divinity.... It was in Nathanael's very first inter- 
 view with our Lord, that he exclaimed, ' Rabbi, thou art the Son of 
 God : thou art the king of Israel :' and this declaration is drawn from 
 Nathanael by some particulars in our Lord's discourse, which he 
 seems to have interpreted as indications of Omniscience." Letters to 
 Dr Priestley, p. 107. [p. 239, ed. 1812.] 
 
 "With respect 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 to the Archdeacon 
 of St Alban's. Part n. p. 107. [p. 254. ed. 1815.] " 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." Chrysostom. 
 ap. Priestley, Hist, of early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 67. 
 
 It will be sufficient to refer Dr Priestley to the testimony of Origen 
 on this subject, whose veracity he has very ably and successfully defended. 
 
 E
 
 66 
 
 prepare the way for the new economy, 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 objects 
 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 pre- 
 viously informed by John, that the Messiah, whose 
 kingdom was at hand, was to be in some very emi- 
 nent and peculiar manner the Son of God, and not 
 a mere descendant of David. 
 
 3. When "they that were in the ship 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 
 JKunuch of Candace answered Philip, " I believe that 
 Jesus Messiah is the Son of God 1 ;" 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 first 
 three Evangelists, at first sight, seem to prove some- 
 
 1 Matthew xiv. 33. John xi. 27. and Acts viii. 37.
 
 67 
 
 thing more. In St Matthew, Peter says " Thou art 
 the Messiah, the Son of the living God";" in St 
 Mark, "Thou art the Christ;" in St Luke, "Thou 
 art the Christ of God." When these answers, se- 
 parated from their respective 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 inevitable, were it true that the same subject 
 matter is always to be found in all the Evangel- 
 ists, set forth only in different language. If one 
 Evangelist never omitted to relate what is mention- 
 ed 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 conferences 
 of Christ with his disciples, are mentioned at length 
 by St Matthew, which are either wholly or par- 
 tially omitted in the others. 
 
 By what reasons the Evangelists were sometimes 
 led to omit the recital of some of the words and 
 actions of our Saviour and the Apostles, can now 
 only be a matter of mere conjecture. In the present 
 instance, 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 
 
 2 Matthew xvi. 16. Mark viii. 29. and Luke ix, 20. 
 >' .2
 
 68 
 
 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 present. Luke 
 and Mark, who wrote principally for the information 
 of Greek and Roman Christians about A; D. 59 
 and 65, would 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 im- 
 press on their minds a truth, of which they had but 
 lately been informed, It was necessary to teach 
 them, that their Messiah was not merely a descend- 
 ant of David, but the Son of God 1 . 
 
 None of these indirect testimonies (and 110 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 age. 
 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. When- 
 ever Jesus openly declared, or indirectly intimated, 
 that he was the Messiah only, without teaching any 
 new doctrines respecting his nature and origin, his 
 words gave no offence to the great body of his 
 hearers. On one occasion, indeed, after a general 
 
 1 Cave, Historia Literaria, p. 14, 15.
 
 69 
 
 declaration of his divine mission, some of them en- 
 tertained 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 
 character. Some heard him advance this claim with- 
 out emotion ; by others he was eagerly desired to 
 declare himself more openly; and by many he was 
 actually acknowledged as the Messiah. But, when 
 he professed to be the Son of God, or, by an equi- 
 valent phrase, called God his Father, they believed 
 him to have incurred the guilt of blasphemy. Had 
 they been accustomed to combine the terms Messiah 
 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 expressions of rage, when 
 he appropriated to himself the second. 
 
 Great stress, however, it must be acknowledged, 
 cannot be laid on this argument. 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 a higher sense 
 than they thought applicable to their expected de- 
 liverer. 
 
 2. When our Lord asked the scribes and pha- 
 risees 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 tinac 
 
 3 Matthew xxii. 42.
 
 70 
 
 denominated in any sense, the Son of God, this 
 question must have drawn from them a declaration 
 to that effect ; 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 com- 
 monly distinguished by this title. 
 
 3. When Peter said, " Thou art the Messiah, 
 the Son of the living God 1 ," our Saviour replied, 
 " Flesh and blood hath 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 received opinions 
 and above the comprehension of a Jew. Had the 
 two terms been synonymous, in the public opinion ; 
 had Peter, in using these two terms, simply declared 
 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 
 
 1 Matthew xvi. 16.
 
 71 
 
 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 connection 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 :" and, consistently with this omission, they 
 have both left out our Saviour's observation, " Flesh 
 and blood hath not revealed this to thee, but my 
 Father which is in heaven." 
 
 4. The profession of the Eunuch * is so far from 
 proving the two terms to have been commonly con- 
 sidered as synonymous, that it rather tends to in- 
 validate the supposition, which it has been brought 
 to support. From the very structure 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 Messiaship of Jesus) 
 formed the great object 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 Mes- 
 siah is the Son of God." 
 
 ' Acts viii. 37.
 
 72 
 
 5. It appears to have been one of the objects 
 of Ori gen's researches, to gain information on the 
 opinions of the Jews respecting the nature and cha- 
 racter of their expected Messiah. No individual had 
 ever greater opportunities of gratifying his curiosity 
 on this subject, by a continual residence among mul- 
 titudes of Jews in Alexandria and Palestine ; and 
 no one probably ever gained more copious or more 
 accurate information. The greatest scholar of the 
 age, whose knowledge of Jewish literature in parti- 
 cular 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 
 information on this particular subject, by conversing 
 with many well-informed persons among that people 1 ; 
 and the result of his inquiries would, without any 
 other evidence, be sufficient to decide on this ques- 
 tion. Celsus, who lived little more than a century 
 after the time of Christ's crucifixion, had introduced 
 a fictitious Jew asserting, that his prophet had pre- 
 dicted 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 character ; and one 
 part of the objectionable language is the phrase in 
 question. A Jew, he affirms, would not acknowledge 
 
 Kyoi ot Kai 7ro/\Ao(<; Iouc<o(v nut <ro(b(n<: yt e f ira.yye\\o/j.evoi<: 
 ttvni (rvp.j3a\tav, ou3ei/c nKtjKoa c-rratvovvTos TO, \iryov eti'ai TOI> 
 
 v'tov rov Qeov. L. ii. Cont. Gels. p. 79. Ed. Spenc.
 
 73 
 
 that any prophet had predicted 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 if no such personage existed, or 
 had been predicted. We do not say this, that a 
 Son of God is not predicted 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 -V 
 
 Origeu, instead of allowing the propriety of the 
 expression, and only explaining its meaning, 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 whatever in forwarding the great design of 
 his work, the defence of Christianity. 
 
 Upon the whole : with no direct testimony what- 
 ever 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 
 
 ! 'IfCa?ej tie OVK av d/j.o\o^r}(rai on irpoQijTtj* TIC eiirev fj^av 
 0eoi' vlov o yap \t<yovaiv ea-T\v, OTI f]ft 6 XpicrToV TOV Qeov, na\ 
 iroAAuKi? 76 fyiTowi irpoi t//juzc eu'fle'w? ire pi v'tov Geou' a>? oiJSei/os 
 
 OI/TtK TOIIWTOV, OU6e TT pO(pr)TV0VTO<:' Kdl OV TOVTO (pafJL6V, OTI 
 
 ov Trpo(j)r]TevTat via? Oeov' d\\' OTI ov% a'p^o^ir>i/TW<? -ria 'lovou- 
 tK.<f TTpoo-wTTw, fjnj o/uoAoyoui/Ti TO ToiovTo, TrfpieBtjue TO, " elirfv 
 C/AOV -npoip^Tti*; ei' 'lfpo<ro\v(jiOi<; wore, OTI *tfi Qtov viov. L. I. 
 p. 38 Ed. Spenc.
 
 74 
 
 seems necessary 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 
 he condemned by the Jewish Sanhedrim, for claim- 
 ing the office of their Messiah, because he applied 
 a term to himself, which, among them, had no fur- 
 ther relation to the Messiah, than to any other being 
 who was favoured and protected by God ? Is it 
 credible that they themselves in their questions 
 should use an old term, which with them was not 
 exclusively appropriated to any individual, in a new 
 and a definite sense, on so serious an occasion as a 
 trial for a capital offence, without any previous ex- 
 planation or notice? It is hardly probable that 
 they should convict him of this offence by his own 
 confession, unless he had directly declared himself 
 the Messiah. The term "son of David" appears to 
 have really been an appropriate title of their expected 
 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 distinguished from 
 themselves. 
 
 They expected 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
 
 75 
 
 than they admitted in the great king and prophet, 
 whom they expected under that title: they could 
 not have totally misunderstood the purport of his 
 former questions to the scribes when he had raised 
 difficulties, which they had not removed, against the 
 received opinion of the Messiah being a mere descend- 
 ant of David. They had probably received intelli- 
 gence, that he had spoken of his own omnipotence 
 and eternity, in terms too plain to admit of much 
 doubt ; that he had claimed the privilege of for- 
 giving sins, and of judging the world at the general 
 resurrection; powers which they admitted not their 
 expected Messiah to possess, and which they held 
 impious in any individual to claim. Consistently 
 with, what they thought, these new and too exalted 
 pretensions, they would also probably have been in- 
 formed that he had appropriated to himself a new 
 language (though he had, in reality, only revived 
 the language of the Old Testament) at once sig- 
 nificative 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 strict and proper sense, than was consistent 
 with the notion of simple humanity: that great 
 numbers of his countrymen, who had heard him 
 speak of his divine mission, as Messiah, without 
 emotion, or who had ardently expected him to de- 
 clare himself openly, and who had even acknow- 
 ledged him in that character, were immediately 
 alarmed, and enraged at language, which indicated
 
 76 
 
 his divine nature. The circumstances of his bap- 
 tism 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 acknowledged 
 him not as the Christ the son of David, but as the 
 Christ the Son of God. The great object therefore 
 of the trial would not be to ascertain whether he 
 had professed to be the Messiah simply, either in 
 direct or indirect terms, but to prove him a false 
 Messiah ; to prove the falsehood of one of his claims 
 by the supposed extravagance and guilt of his other 
 pretensions; and, in their opinion, he was proved 
 to be a false Messiah, and to merit death, by de- 
 claring himself the Son of God.
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 \\HKTHER THE JEWISH SANHEDRIM REALLY BELIEVED JESUS CHRIST 
 GUILTY OF THE CRIME FOR WHICH THEY CONDEMNED HIM. 
 
 1. Regularity of their proceedings, length of the trial, their earnestness and 
 unanimity. 2. Their conduct on the second trial. 3. They had no mate- 
 rial object to gam, by pronouncing Jesus guilty without being persuaded 
 of his criminality. 4. Their sincerity appears from the silence and con- 
 duct of Christ. 5. And St Peter's address to his countrymen. 6. From 
 a general view of the conduct of the Jewish people. 
 
 I. FROM the history of our Saviour's trial, com- 
 pared 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 condemned 
 to death for asserting his own Divinity. But, it may 
 be objected 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 con- 
 demning him to death without being convinced of 
 the reality of his guilt. 
 
 And, it certainly might admit of dispute, whether 
 the supreme national court of justice consisting of 
 seventy-two persons, were capable of immediately 
 and unanimously 1 pronouncing the sentence of death 
 on Jesus Christ, without believing him guilty of the 
 crime for which he suffered : but, the question is not 
 what degree of wickedness that tribunal was capa- 
 ble of committing but, whether unequivocal marks 
 
 1 Mark xiv. 64. 
 
 (
 
 78 
 
 can, or cannot be discovered, to prove the reality of 
 their belief in his guilt. If prevarication be a proof 
 of the insincerity of his accusers before Pilate, con- 
 sistency and unanimity will probably be thought no 
 less marks of the sincerity of his judges in the court 
 of Caiaphas. 
 
 With respect to the witnesses, it may be ob- 
 served, that those, who are called false witnesses by 
 the Evangelists, were considered 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 strictly observed : whereas, had it been deter- 
 mined to put Jesus Christ to death without estab- 
 lishing his supposed criminality by their Law, they 
 would probably have been satisfied with the first 
 witness, who could attest any fact sufficiently strong 
 for their purpose; without risking the danger of an- 
 nulling the force of his testimony by introducing the 
 contradictory evidence of others. When " two wit- 
 nesses at last came," no sentence is yet pronounced, 
 either because of inconsistency in their testimony 
 also, or, as commentators on St Mark have supposed, 
 because they thought the fact not sufficiently strong 
 to convict him : la-ai a\ iu.apTvpiai OVK yvav, 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 witnesses: or perhaps, to hear how he
 
 79 
 
 explained his own words to hoar satisfactory reasons 
 why some inferior punishment should not he inflicted, 
 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 alleged crime : and, immediately after he had 
 acknowledged himself the Son of God, and not he- 
 fore, the high priest rends his clothes, with the ex- 
 clamation " Ye have heard his blasphemy :" and 
 the members of the court immediately and unani- 
 mously 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 what- 
 ever. Had they previously determined 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 circuitous and 
 tedious. If they at length pronounced him guilty 
 by their Law, knowing their sentence to be unjust, 
 how is it that they should have gone through the 
 lingering process of a long 1 examination of " many 
 witnesses," attending to their inconsistencies, and, 
 at length, on account of these inconsistencies, setting 
 aside their evidence? 
 
 II. If their backwardness in pronouncing the 
 sentence, before they had heard our Lord's own con- 
 
 1 From a circumstance mentioned by St Mark, it is probable that 
 the trial began sometime before midnight, and lasted sometime after 
 the second cook-crowing. Mark xiv. 68, 7'2.
 
 80 
 
 fession, be an argument in favour of their sincerity 
 the presumption will gain additional strength by the 
 consideration of their perseverance after the first trial. 
 In the second trial, they, at first, endeavour to 
 persuade Pilate, that he is guilty of treason against 
 the Roman government ; but, the great offence, they 
 at last acknowledge, 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 con- 
 duct on the preceding trial, " because he made him- 
 self the Son of God." 
 
 III. Another reason for believing the Sanhe- 
 drim to have been sincere, when they adjudged 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 pronouncing 
 him guilty of this crime, without being persuaded 
 of the justice of their sentence. He was arraigned 
 before them on the charge of blasphemy ; tried, and 
 declared guilty by their unanimous suffrages, for pro- 
 fessing to be the Son of God : and had the punish- 
 ment 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 common 
 cases, at first intended as an intermediate step to 
 lead to his punishment. HTS accusers suggested 
 other reasons to Pilate, which might be supposed to 
 have more weight, with a Reman, than the crime
 
 81 
 
 of blasphemy, as ascertained by the Mosaic law. 
 They endeavoured to convince Pilate of his treason 
 against Caesar, in declaring himself king of the Jews, 
 and in stirring up the people from Galilee to Jeru- 
 salem ; and it was not till the governor had acquit- 
 ted him of this charge, and shown great disinclina- 
 tion 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 accu- 
 sation before 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 ac- 
 counting for their conduct, to suppose that these 
 unhappy men were sincere, when they unanimously 
 pronounced 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 sentence would express their real thoughts; 
 and if that was not, we are totally at a loss to dis- 
 cover what was the object of their investigation. 
 They must have gone through the tedious process of 
 a long trial, without any proposed end; and at last 
 have solemnly uttered a falsehood, without any dis- 
 coverable motive, and to answer no purpose. Setting 
 aside this extravagant supposition which, indeed, 
 is almost without an advocate the real object of 
 
 F
 
 82 
 
 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 possible for Jesus to be the Son of God 1 : 
 the action and the words of Caiaphas, and the sen- 
 tence of the whole court expressed their real thoughts : 
 and it was principally, if not solely, on account of 
 their conviction of his guilt, that they endeavoured 
 to prevail on Pilate, by any reasons, which they 
 thought likely to be effective, to put him to death. 
 
 IV. It appears not only from their own proceed- 
 ings, but from the conduct of Jesus himself, that 
 they understood the phrase "Son of God" in the 
 same sense in which he spoke it ; without any wil- 
 ful misrepresentation. Had he used the expression in 
 one sense, and perceived that it was misunderstood 
 or wilfully perverted to another, he would have cor- 
 rected the mistake, or have animadverted on the 
 wilful perversion. This may be collected from the 
 second trial. After he had been interrogated by 
 Pilate, and had acknowledged himself a King, to 
 prevent any erroneous impression from the use of 
 
 1 They might have learnt from their Sacred Books that Jesus was 
 placed above the Law by which he was condemned. "The Lord thy 
 God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of 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. i. p. 196. Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, 
 1751.) and Sherlock (Disc. 2.) From other parts of their sacred writ- 
 ings, they might have known that their Messiah would be different 
 from Moses in one particular, in being the Son of God, and God.
 
 83 
 
 this term, he immediately explained 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 under- 
 stood, had he only intended to announce 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 man made himself God ;" and not knowing that 
 it was possible for him to be invested with Divinity, 
 they thought him criminal. The language of his 
 benevolent prayer is rather more consistent with this 
 opinion, than with the notion of a wilful perversion 
 of his meaning by the Jewish court. " Father, for- 
 give them, for they know not what they do." 
 
 V. A belief that he claimed Divinity, and an igno- 
 rance 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 Prince 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 2 ." That is, ye did it, not through a 
 
 ' Acts iii. 1417.
 
 84 
 
 wilful perversion of his meaning, but through igno- 
 rance of his divine nature, which placed him above 
 the law, by which he was condemned. 
 
 VI. Before one of the assemblies of the Jewish 
 people, Jesus called God his Father : and it fully 
 appears, from the relation of St John 1 , that they sin- 
 cerely 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 another body of the Jews, he said, "Before 
 Abraham was, I am 2 ." And that they sincerely be- 
 lieved him to have claimed in this assertion more 
 than simple humanity, 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 his Father 3 : and they evinced the 
 sincerity of their belief of his blasphemy (accord- 
 ing 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 me, and 
 I in him ;" the same people again went about to 
 take him. A fifth occurrence is related; which also 
 shows 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 is it then that he saith, I came down from 
 heaven 4 ?" 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 
 
 1 John v. a John viii. 3 Ch. x. * Ch. vi.
 
 85 
 
 have mentioned that certain scribes said within them- 
 selves, " Who is this that speaketh blasphemy 5 ?" 
 On the seventh occasion ; when he had declared him- 
 self the Son of God before that body of Jews called 
 the Sanhedrim the president immediately rent his 
 clothes, and exclaimed, "Ye have heard his blas- 
 phemy;" and they all immediately pronounced the 
 sentence of death. A connected view of the six 
 preceding cases enables us to decide, with moral cer- 
 tainty, were there any preceding doubt, on the sin- 
 cerity of the Sanhedrim in the seventh. 
 
 5 Luke v. 17. and Matthew ix. 3.
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS OF JESUS CHRIST, BY HIS 
 CONTEMPORARIES AND COUNTRYMEN. 
 
 1. The general opinion of readers of the New Testament, on the meaning of 
 the passages in it relating to the nature of Christ. Different methods of 
 explaining difficulties 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 Celsus and other ancient heathens, probably just. The general con- 
 currence of the Christian writers of the first centuries, in any one opinion 
 relating to the sense of certain passages in Scripture, affords a strong pre- 
 sumption 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 Testa- 
 ment by the first Gentile Christians. 3. Concurrence of several bodies of 
 Jews and of the Roman governor in annexing the same sense to the words 
 of Christ. Their interpretation confirmed by the acquiescence of Christ him- 
 self and the Evangelists. 4. Whether the Jews supposed Christ to allude 
 to the doctrine of transubstantiation. 
 
 I. THE opinion of the Jews, respecting the na- 
 ture and extent of our Saviour's claims, evinced on 
 many occasions by their words and actions, is of 
 some importance in confirming one of the leading 
 doctrines of the New Testament, which has some- 
 times 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, how- 
 ever, been perfectly unanimous in this opinion. Jews, 
 Mahometans, and perhaps all men who have read the 
 New Testament, a small though respectable body of
 
 87 
 
 Christians excepted, have found this amongst its 
 other doctrines. The Jews insist on this point with 
 just confidence ; and on this ground offer their most 
 plausible apology for the conduct of their ancestors. 
 Mahometans contend for the same thing; but ad- 
 venturously assert that our Scriptures contain not 
 the tenets which Christ taught ; and refer to Apocry- 
 phal works for the genuine representation of Christ- 
 ianity 1 . If the readers of the New Testament be 
 divided into two classes believers 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 doctrine 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 doctrine, which is almost 
 universally admitted. 
 
 Let all the passages, however, on this subject, 
 be supposed so obscure, that their meaning cannot 
 be collected with certainty by an immediate com- 
 parison with the context, and that recourse must be 
 had to the usual means for solving difficulties in 
 common authors. 
 
 When difficulties occur in an ancient writer, a 
 commentator sometimes endeavours to explain differ- 
 
 > Mahomet himself took his account of Christianity from the Gospel 
 of Christ's infancy, the Prot-evangelium of James, and other spurious 
 works. See Jones on the Canon, p. 584. and 589. The Gospel of 
 Barnabas, which modern Mahometans have used, is a forgery of later 
 date. 
 
 >'
 
 88 
 
 ent parts of his writings by comparing them with 
 one another; and sometimes he discovers the signifi- 
 cation of a doubtful word or phrase in his author 
 by comparing it, in the same manner, with passages 
 collected from the works of others, who lived in or 
 near the same age. In this way the Gospels have 
 been explained by themselves, by one another, by 
 the Acts of the Apostles, by the Epistles, by Philo, 
 and by Josephus. And thus, most writings of nearly 
 the same age reflect mutual light on each other. 
 
 Sometimes ancient authors are elucidated by com- 
 paring them with others of higher antiquity ; whose 
 language and train of thought they may sometimes 
 have taken up. To understand the scope of their 
 reasoning and the force of their allusions, it is fre- 
 quently 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 Testa- 
 ment by the Old. 
 
 It is of some importance also to know in what 
 sense a passage in an ancient author has been un- 
 derstood by subsequent writers, not far removed from 
 his own age; or what 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 Quintilian, *or what Columella con- 
 ceived to be one of the objects 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 writers after
 
 89 
 
 the Apostles, and of learned and philosophical hea- 
 thens, respecting the doctrines of the New Testament, 
 as well as their interpretations of particular passages 
 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 1 , his 
 testimony would deserve great credit, though he had 
 not mentioned his authority ; and when we know, 
 that Celsus found the Divinity of Christ acknow- 
 ledged in the Gospel of St Matthew 2 , it is, on this 
 account, highly probable, that this doctrine has really 
 a place in that Gospel. A common passage in a 
 Greek book, written about a century before his own 
 age, would hardly be misunderstood by Celsus. 
 
 If both the heathens 3 in a very early age, and 
 the whole body of Christian writers in the first three 
 centuries, almost without exception, agree in repre- 
 senting this doctrine 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 
 
 1 Qtov UVTOV dvrjyopfv&e. Celsus ap. Origen. L. I. p. 22. 
 
 2 Ch. ii. 11. MfTtt Taina 6 irapd TO> Ke'Xcrw 'Joi/ccuo? avr\ rtav 
 ev Tta evayyeXita fidymv " XaAca<ous" tp^div " tnro rov lt]<rov XeXf^Sat, 
 Kivtldevras ev\ Trj feveaei UVTOV e\tj\vdfvat TrpoaK.vvrjffov'ras avruv ert 
 vtjirtov w? eov." Orig. cont. Cels. L. i. p. 45. 
 
 3 The heathens asserted that the disciples of Christ were guilty of 
 falsehood in declaring him God. " Discipulns ejus non solum de illo 
 fuisse mentitos dicendo ilium Deum, per quern facta sunt omnia." 
 Augustin. de consensu Evang. L. i. c. xxxiv.
 
 90 
 
 us; the concurrence of so many competent judges* 
 so near the time when it was written, whose views, 
 interests and opinions, were so various the concur- 
 rence 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 they lived near the 
 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 comprehended fifteen hundred years 
 later. When we allow, and it cannot be denied, 
 that they frequently show themselves injudicious and 
 ill-informed commentators on the New Testament, 
 we grant that the opinion of any one, or, even of 
 a considerable number of them respecting the doc- 
 trines of this book, ought not to have any very 
 great weight. But the concurrence of the whole 
 body of Ante-nicene Fathers, almost without excep- 
 tion, in any one sentiment, when they differ from 
 one another, or are inconsistent with themselves on 
 most other subjects, is surely of some importance. 
 The Scriptures, in their opinion, taught the co- 
 existence and consubstantiality of the Son 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 Father 
 
 " You argue against our Lord's Divinity... from the manner in which 
 he speaks of himself, saying, ' My Father is greater than I.' If from 
 
 such
 
 91 
 
 shown to have been the doctrine 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 themselves. 
 Attempting to explain a subject beyond the reach 
 of the human mind, they naturally fell into incon- 
 sistencies. " It is remarkable that, though all the 
 Ante-nicene Fathers were of opinion that the Son 
 derived his being from the substance of the Fkither, 
 and before his generation was even his own proper 
 wisdom, power, and all his other essential attributes, 
 they uniformly asserted that he was inferior to the 
 Father, and subject to him. This was certainly un- 
 natural, and a real inconsistency. For, admitting the 
 Son to be what they represented him, he was, to say 
 the least, fully equal to every thing that could con- 
 stitute the Father 2 ." Respecting the equality of the 
 Son to the Father, they differed, in 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 dis- 
 agreed with one another, about matters of compara- 
 tively little moment: they agreed in the main. It 
 was one of Origen's singularities to maintain, that 
 
 such expressions you would be content to infer, that the Almighty 
 Father is indeed the fountain and the center of Divinity, and that the 
 equality of God-head is to be understood with some mysterious subor- 
 dination of the Son to 'the Father; you would have the concurrence of 
 the ancient Fathers, and of many advocates of the true faith in all ages." 
 Horsley's loth Letter to Priestley, p. 145. 1784. [p291. ed. 1812.] 
 
 3 History of early Opinions, B. n. c. iv. p. 145. 
 
 f
 
 92 
 
 prayer ought not to be offered to the Son, but to 
 the Father through the Son : yet Origen was a stre- 
 nuous vindicator of the doctrine of Christ's Divinity. 
 The extraordinary 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 neglected, has not been applied with much 
 success to confirm or refute the commonly received 
 interpretation of the parts of the New Testament 
 relating to the nature of Christ. The method, to 
 which I allude, is that by which the sense of a pas- 
 sage is collected 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 perfectly 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 mean- 
 ing of expressions in the Greek language regulated 
 by theirs. And were we informed on good authority, 
 that the same, or equivalent expressions of the Athe- 
 nian orator, were understood in the same sense by 
 two different bodies of the Athenian people, at dif- 
 ferent times and that the court of Areopagus had
 
 93 
 
 unanimously agreed to act in conformity to the same 
 interpretation such a coincidence would raise pro- 
 bability into certainty; and we should be sceptical 
 indeed not to submit to such a combination of au- 
 thorities, without the slightest fear of being misled. 
 
 A remarkable coincidence, similar to this, in the 
 interpretation of the same or equivalent phrases by 
 different bodies of people, is recorded in the Evan- 
 gelical history. 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 exclaimed ; " We stone thee 
 for blasphemy, and because thou, being a man, 
 makest thyself God." And it appears by the con- 
 text, that this was because he had called himself 
 the Son of God, and professed to be one with his 
 Father. After this, the Sanhedrim also, the Areo- 
 pagus 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 
 contemporaries shown the sense, in which they under- 
 stood them, our doubts would be, in a great degree, 
 removed; but, when different people, in different 
 situations, concur in proving both by words and 
 actions their decided conviction of the real existence 
 1
 
 94 
 
 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 con- 
 sideration. If the words, by reason of any obscurity 
 or ambiguity, fail of leading us to this object, the 
 best medium for discovering his thoughts is the sense 
 (when it can be clearly ascertained) in which he was 
 understood 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, expres- 
 sions occur, which to us appear ambiguous had 
 history incidentally recorded 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 lan- 
 guage, and are conversant about the same objects, 
 are the best judges of the train and state of his 
 thoughts : and his words, when erroneously or im- 
 perfectly understood by others, would to them mostly 
 appear in their real and adequate meaning. 
 
 A Philosopher of the present age has considered 
 the interpretation of contemporaries as a means of 
 discovering, with certainty, whether the Divinity or 
 simple humanity of Christ be taught in the New 
 Testament 1 ; and has completed a controversial His- 
 
 1 "But this historical discussion, when the nature of it is well 
 considered, cannot but be thought to decide concerning the whole con- 
 troversy : for, if it be true, as I have endeavoured to prove by copious 
 historical evidence, not only that the proper Unitarians were in com- 
 munion
 
 95 
 
 tory, and an historical controversy of several thou- 
 sand pages, for the purpose of determining in what 
 sense the historical and epistolary parts of the New 
 Testament were understood by the Christians to 
 whom they were addressed. His purpose in these 
 works is best 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, and to de- 
 termine what must have been the sentiments of 
 the Apostles, by means of the opinions of those, who 
 received their instruction from them only 2 ." 
 
 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 Christians indeed, but because they were con- 
 temporaries of Christ and his Apostles ; and more 
 particularly, because many of them were Jewish con- 
 temporaries. But, this interpretation has not been 
 discovered by Dr Priestley ; and the legitimacy of 
 
 munion with the established Church, and were not classed with Here- 
 tics ; but, that the great body of unlearned Christians continued to be 
 simply Unitarians till the second and third century, it will hardly be 
 doubted, but that their instructors, viz. the Apostles and first disciples 
 of Christ were Unitarians also ; and therefore that no other interpret- 
 ation 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. 
 
 " Letter to Parkhurst, p. 2.
 
 96 
 
 every part of the prescriptive argument, by which 
 he has attempted to ascertain the religious opinions 
 of the first Christians, and through them, the sense 
 in which they understood the hooks of Scripture, 
 may reasonably be called in question. If the lan- 
 guage of Scripture be not clear on this subject, he 
 has fallen into a common fault of commentators, by 
 attempting to explain what is obscure by a greater 
 obscurity. 
 
 When a reader tries to discover the sense of an 
 ancient book by means of certain mediums the me- 
 diums themselves ought to be clear, or it will be 
 safer to apply, without their intervention, directly 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 
 ancient versions of the New Testament in different 
 languages; and Latin translations of some common 
 Greek Authors have likewise reached our times ; but 
 no critic would think of explaining passages in the 
 originals by means of obscure and ambiguous sen- 
 tences in the versions. It is only when the original 
 is doubtful, that we need the assistance of the ver- 
 sion ; and it is only when the version is clear, that 
 we can avail ourselves of its assistance. 
 
 To apply a similar remark to the subject in ques- 
 tion : 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 contain this 
 doctrine very clearly. But, suppose them all doubt-
 
 97 
 
 I'ul we should not attempt to discover their meaning 
 by the sense, in which they were understood by the 
 first Christians, unless their interpretation of them 
 were clearly and decisively made out. 
 
 Dr Priestley has adopted the following method of 
 proving the interpretation of the first Gentile Christ- 
 ians. 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 collecting the po- 
 pular opinions of any age from the general spirit of 
 the writings of that age, he supposes, and endea- 
 vours to prove, by the testimonies of Tertullian 
 and Origen, that the great body of the common 
 people, at the end of the second century and the 
 beginning of the third, were Unitarians; that they 
 maintained opinions directly opposite to those of the 
 learned in that and some following ages; that the 
 teachers were of one opinion, and the people taught 
 of another 1 . 
 
 On this hypothesis, the opinions of either the 
 learned or the unlearned must have undergone a to- 
 tal change. Then, reasoning on this supposed prin- 
 ciple of human nature, that the common people are 
 less liable to change than the learned, he concludes 
 
 1 " The distinction of the opinion of the early writers, from that 
 of the common people, was never before observed by any one; and 
 being a thing wholly unknown to the first Socinians, they were exceed- 
 ingly embarrassed in the defence of their sentiments, in point of anti- 
 quity." Lindsey, Vindicise Priestleianse, p. 341. Dr Priestley's discovery 
 has effectually relieved them from the embarrassments, in which history 
 and common sense had involved them. 
 
 f G
 
 98 
 
 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 doctrine can be taught in the New 
 Testament 1 . 
 
 Without examining the several steps, which lead 
 to this conclusion it is obvious, that the interpre- 
 tation of the first Christians, established only by 
 such circuitous and uncertain, not to say false, rea- 
 soning, can never be admitted as a medium for dis- 
 covering the true sense of passages in the Scriptures, 
 or any other book. A similar attempt to ascertain 
 the true meaning of any sentence or collection of 
 sentences in Homer would not be answered by serious 
 argument, but would be instantly exploded with just 
 ridicule. The interpretation of contemporaries, by 
 which Dr Priestley has endeavoured to ascertain the 
 sense of scripture, is of very considerable importance ; 
 but he has not succeeded in discovering it. His fun- 
 damental 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 overturn ; and whether his Theological system 
 
 1 "Tertullian represents the majority of the common or unlearned 
 Christians, the Idiotse, as Unitarians; and it is among the common 
 people that we always find the oldest opinions in any country, and in 
 any sect, while the learned are most apt to innovate. It may therefore 
 be presumed that, as the Unitarian doctrine 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, Part i. p. 146. [p. 136. ed. 1815.]
 
 99 
 
 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 their 
 sacred books; he had submitted to their laws; their 
 manners and customs were familiar to him ; the ob- 
 jects, 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 discover his 
 meaning, when they comprehended it but imperfectly, 
 it would more frequently happen that his country- 
 men and contemporaries would see the full force of 
 his words, when they are not so fully understood by 
 us. We are not to appeal to the Jews of his time, 
 as the best judges of the truth of his doctrines; but 
 we may confidently appeal to them as competent 
 interpreters of words spoken in their own language, 
 addressed to them, intended first for their informa- 
 tion, and next, for that of the whole world. Of the 
 meaning of these words, our Saviour's contempora- 
 ries and countrymen were unquestionably the best 
 judges; and his contemporaries and countrymen were 
 convinced that he claimed Divinity. This circum- 
 stance is not notified to us 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 dif- 
 ferent occasions are distinctly related by four histo- 
 
 G2
 
 100 
 
 rians 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 ex- 
 pressly mentioned, and sometimes strongly marked, 
 hy 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 inter- 
 pretation of our Saviour's words to rest solely on their 
 own assertions ; though these would have been deci- 
 sive. They have mentioned also, at the same time, 
 the words and actions of the Jews, from which we may 
 draw the same conclusions, for our own satisfaction. 
 
 They have related, that the high priest rent his 
 clothes, and declared that Christ had spoken blas- 
 phemy ; that the supreme court of judicature of Jeru- 
 salem unanimously 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, alleging 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 
 equivalent assertion, that he was the Son of God. 
 
 The concurrence of several bodies of Jews in an- 
 nexing the same sense to the words of Christ, inde- 
 pendently of any further consideration, falls little 
 short of actual demonstration. But the truth of
 
 101 
 
 their interpretation is also confirmed by the silence 
 of the Evangelists, with respect to any perversion or 
 mistake of the Jews, on this subject. 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, 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 re- 
 markable a mistake : and their silence on the subject 
 is a proof that no such mistake existed. This remark 
 will have the more weight, when it is recollected that 
 the Evangelists have adverted to less important oc- 
 casions, on which the Jews erroneously or imperfectly 
 comprehended their master's meaning. 
 
 It is not by their silence only that the Evan- 
 gelists have confirmed the truth of the Jewish inter- 
 pretation : On one occasion the language of St John's 
 narrative clearly proves that, in his opinion, their 
 interpretation was just. He describes one of their 
 attempts or consultations in these words : " There- 
 fore, 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. ''On ov povov e\i/e 
 TO cra/3j3aToi/, aXXa KOI irarepa ^iov eXeye TOV OeoV 
 making himself equal with God." 
 
 Had St John's interpretation of the words of 
 Christ been different from that of the Jews, this 
 f
 
 102 
 
 sentence must have had some qualification to point 
 out the difference. He would not have affirmed that 
 Jesus actually " called God his proper Father, making 
 himself equal with God ;" hut that the Jews mis- 
 takenly helieved him to have done so ; whereas, as 
 the passage now stands, it contains a positive decla- 
 ration from St John himself, that Christ called God 
 his Father, in such a sense, as to make himself equal 
 with God. This single testimony would fully prove 
 the Divinity of Christ to be one of the doctrines of 
 our religion. 
 
 Had only a single individual among the Jews, or 
 one body of people, shown the sense in which they 
 understood the language of Christ, relating to his 
 own nature, we should not be perfectly free from 
 suspicions of a mistake ; but the same interpretation 
 of his words is to be observed among several differ- 
 ent bodies and different classes of men. He was 
 understood in the same sense by the common people, 
 the scribes, the pharisees, and the great national tri- 
 bunal. The magistrate and the subject, the learned 
 and the ignorant, the inhabitant of the city and the 
 country, the Jew and the Roman 1 , unite their suf- 
 frages in deciding this question. Their interpreta- 
 tion is determined by the conjoint evidence of their 
 words and actions; it was acquiesced in by Christ 
 himself; and is confirmed by the manner, in which 
 it is recorded by the Evangelists. 
 
 . ' It has frequently and justly been observed, that the interpretation 
 of the phrase, " Son of God," by Pilate the Roman governor, is deter- 
 mined by his question; "Whence art thou?" after the Jews had in- 
 formed him, that Jesus had "made himself the Son of God."
 
 103 
 
 IV. The interpretation of our Saviour's words 
 by one body of the Jewish people is collected from 
 the conference in the sixth Chapter of St John. In 
 the opinion of some Christians, the doctrine of tran- 
 substantiation, as well as that of Christ's Divinity, 
 may be proved from the interpretation 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 doc- 
 trine of the New Testament, not by the interpreta- 
 tion of one body of Jews, but by an immense mass 
 of various evidence. 
 
 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," &c. the ques- 
 tion is simply, whether this and similar language is 
 literal or metaphorical. We, who know that Christ 
 afterwards taught the doctrine of his atonement, sup- 
 posing 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 comprehension of his meaning, when 
 it is not quite so fully seen by us ; here, for want of 
 a key, which we possess, they would be unable to 
 understand him. The doctrine of his atonement was 
 unknown to them ; and therefore 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 their murmurs,
 
 104 
 
 (ver. 14) their strife, (ver. 52) and the secession of 
 many of his disciples (ver. 60). 
 
 If this be really so, let their interpretation have 
 all the weight which, under their circumstances, it 
 deserves. Let the fact, however, be first examined. 
 He informed them, that he was " the bread which 
 came down from heaven;" and they asked in mur- 
 murs, " How is it that he saith, / came down from 
 heaven ?" They were not offended because he de- 
 clared 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 doctrine of transubstantiation, figura- 
 tively ; that part, which is commonly believed to refer 
 to his divine origin, literally. After this, it only 
 appears that his metaphorical language seemed to 
 them harsh and unintelligible. " Many of his dis- 
 ciples, 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 
 sense can he give us his flesh to eat? In what me- 
 taphor is he speaking? Their decisive interpreta- 
 tion can never be collected from a question which 
 seems only to express their doubts : it cannot be 
 concluded, that they understood him literally, from 
 language, which only proves that he was not under- 
 stood at all.
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OP THE NEW TESTAMENT, BY THE FIRST 
 JEWISH CHRISTIANS, COLLECTED FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. 
 
 1. 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 testimony 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." 
 
 I. THE 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 hloody purpose into exe- 
 cution. It is therefore perfectly in character, that 
 the unbelieving 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. All descriptions 
 of the Jews believed Christ to have asserted his 
 divine nature. And since there could be no medium 
 between rejecting him as an impostor, and admitting 
 all his claims, it seems a necessary consequence, that 
 the great body of Jewish converts to Christianity, in 
 the first age of the church, would believe in his 
 Divinity. We need not however, in this instance, 
 form our opinions by deductions either from a pre- 
 ceding or a subsequent fact. We are not necessi-
 
 106 
 
 tated to conclude, from the opinions of the unbe- 
 lieving Jews respecting the claims of Christ, what 
 were the religious opinions of the first Jewish Christ- 
 ians; nor must we, with Dr Priestley, collect 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 rea- 
 soning. 
 
 In considering this like any other historical ques- 
 tion, the first remarkable circumstance is the total 
 want of testimony on one side. No ancient writer 
 has recorded, that the great body of Jewish Christ- 
 ians in the first century disbelieved the Divinity of 
 Christ. But, the testimony 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 addressed him- 
 self, 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 ; show- 
 ing that different parts of the Christian system con- 
 tain the substance, of which the Mosaic ceremonies 
 are only types.
 
 107 
 
 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 whe- 
 ther it was addressed to Gentiles only, or to a mis- 
 cellaneous body of Jews and Gentiles, such as con- 
 stituted most of the primitive churches, or, to an 
 unmixed assembly of Jewish Christians it appears 
 with as much probability 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 1 than 
 
 1 " To say nothing of the doubts entertained by many learned 
 men concerning the genuineness of this Epistle, the most that is possi 
 ble 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 
 interpolations respect the very subject of which we treat. Two passages 
 in the Greek, which assert the pre-existence 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 read thus : 
 \e76i yap >j jpa(f)tj ire pi tffuiv, to? A eyei TU> vi<o, iroHja-ta/jicv KOT eluova 
 Kcti Ka.6* o/jioiu>cnv ijudav, TOV avdptaTrov. For the Scripture says con- 
 cerning us, 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 passage, is simply this, Sicut dicit Scriptura, Faciamus homi- 
 nem, &c. i. e. As says the Scripture, Let us make man. 
 
 " Again, in the same section, after quoting from Moses, 'Increase and 
 multiply, and replenish the earth,' the Greek copy has TOMTO. TT^O? TOV 
 v \ov these things to the 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 respect to the general object 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 expressions that you note are such as an 
 Unitarian will find no difficulty in accommodating to his principles. 
 On these accounts, your evidence from this Epistle of Barnabas will by 
 / no
 
 108 
 
 that of the Greek copy now extant, which is also 
 much mutilated. The Author's belief of the Divinity 
 of Christ is clearly collected from passages found in 
 both; and his opinion on that subject is identified 
 with that of the Christians, to whom his letter is ad- 
 dressed. I shall state the evidence, from which this 
 inference may be drawn, in the words of Dr Horsley; 
 without, however, being convinced, that the great 
 body of people, to whom the Epistle was addressed, 
 consisted of Jewish Christians. 
 
 " I suppose, however, that you will allow, what 
 all allow, that the book is a production of the apos- 
 tolic age: in the fifth section of your history of the 
 doctrine of atonement, you quote it among the writ- 
 ings of the apostolic Fathers. I think it fair to re- 
 mind you of this circumstance, lest you should has- 
 tily advance a contrary opinion, when you find the 
 testimony of this writer turned against you. You 
 allow him a place then among the Fathers of the 
 apostolic age : and will you 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 suffer for our soul, although 
 
 no means bear the stress that you lay upon it." Letters to the Arch- 
 deacon of St Alban's, Part n. p. 7. [pp. 171,172. ed. 1815.] 
 
 The reason assigned by Dr Priestley for supposing the Latin 
 version interpolated will never be admitted by the critics. " Can it be 
 thought at all improbable," he asks, " that if one person interpolated 
 the Greek, another should make as free with the Latin version ?"
 
 
 109 
 
 he be THE LORD OF THE WHOLE EARTH, unto 
 whom lie said, the day before the world was finished, 
 Let us make man after our image and our likeness 1 ." 
 Again, " for if he had not come in the flesh, 
 how could we mortals seeing him have been pre- 
 served ; when they who behold the sun, which is 
 to perish and is the work of his hands, are unable 
 to look directly against its rays 2 ?" 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 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 3 ." And again, " Mean 
 while thou hast [the whole doctrine] concerning the 
 majesty of Christ ; how all things were made for him 
 and through him; to whom be honour, power, and 
 glory, now and for ever 4 ." He who penned these 
 sentences was surely a devout believer in our Lord's 
 Divinity. It is needless to observe, that he was a 
 Christian ; and almost as needless to observe that 
 
 1 Dominus sustinuit pati pro anima nostra, cum sit orbis terrarum 
 dominus, cui dixit die ante constitutionem sseculi, " Faciamus hominem 
 ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram." $ v. 
 
 * - el <ydp /j.rj tj\dev ei> crankl, iru><; av eoiaQrmev avOptairoi 
 pAfTroi/Tes avrov ; OTI TOV /jie\\ovTa fjitj eivai ri\tov, ep^ov ^etpiav 
 avrov virdp^ovTa, OUK Iff^vovcriv eh otKT7i/ae dvTO(pda\fj.r](rat. v. 
 
 3 - el ovv 6 vlos TOV Qeov, wv Ku'pio?, KO\ fjte\\<av Kpivetv ^COI/TO? 
 
 KOI veKpovs, CTraOev, t'va tj irXrj^rj UVTOV ^caoTrtoitja'r} tj/jid.<;' iri<TTevcra>iJifi>, 
 OTI 6 vuk TOV Qeov OUK ijtvvaTo tradelv, el p.rj 6td tjnus. vii. 
 
 4 Habes interim de majestate Christi, quo modo omnia in ilium et 
 per ilium facta sunt: cui sit honor, virtus, gl r i a > nunc et in ssecula 
 sseculorum. ^ xvii. 
 
 f
 
 110 
 
 he had been a Jew. For in that age none but a 
 person bred in Judaism could possess that minute 
 knowledge of the Jewish rites, which is displayed in 
 this book. In the writer therefore of the Epistle of 
 St Barnabas, 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 addressed. 
 The discourse supposes them well acquainted with 
 the Jewish rites, which are the chief subject of it : 
 and indeed to any not bred in Judaism the book 
 had been uninteresting and unintelligible. They 
 were Hebrew Christians therefore, to whom a bro- 
 ther of the circumcision holds up the doctrine of 
 our Lord's Divinity. He upholds it, not barely as 
 his own persuasion, but as an article of their com- 
 mon faith. He brings no arguments to prove it 
 he employs no rhetoric to recommend it. He men- 
 tions it as occasion occurs, without showing any 
 anxiety to inculcate it, or any 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 writer we have not only 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.
 
 Ill 
 
 " This, Sir, is the proof, which I had to produce, 
 of the consent of that church with the later Gentile 
 churches, in this great article. It is so direct 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 ambiguous allusions, in 
 the other, 
 
 "The latter will fly up, and kick the beam 1 ." 
 
 p 
 
 1 Letters in reply to Priestley, pp. 6668. [pp. 184187. ed. 1812.]
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, BY THE FIRST 
 JEWISH CHRISTIANS, COLLECTED FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. 
 
 1 2. Misstatements of the testimonies of Justin Martyr and Irenaus, on 
 
 the subject of the Jewish Christians corrected. 
 
 I. THE 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 had he any where de- 
 clared what were the tenets of the great body of 
 this people in the first century, his testimony would 
 be conclusive. But, he has neither described the 
 tenets of the great body of Jewish Christians of his 
 own time, nor mentioned those of the first century; 
 and it is not without the utmost surprise that we 
 find his name and that of Irenaeus 1 brought forward 
 to countenance a most unwarranted assertion on this 
 subject. 
 
 " Originally the Jewish Christians did not be- 
 lieve the doctrine of the miraculous conception. Both 
 Justin Martyr and Irenaeus represent them as disbe- 
 
 1 The assertion relating to the testimony of Irenseus is repeated in 
 the fourth Volume of the History of early Opinions. " All the Jewish 
 Christians are by Irenaeus called Ebionites, and he always describes 
 them as believing Jesus to have been the son of Joseph." p. 318. It 
 is curious that this should have been affirmed of Irenseus, when he has 
 treated on the Cerinthians in the same chapter with the Ebionites.
 
 IK 
 
 lieving it, without excepting any that did 8 ." The 
 use of this language, without any citation or re- 
 ference, is extremely objectionable; because it might 
 create a belief, in common readers, that Justin and 
 Irenseus had described the tenets of the original 
 Jewish Christians. Irenaeus, however, has written 
 nothing on the subject. In his account of the here- 
 sies which preceded that of Valentinus, he mentions 
 the Ebionites, who disbelieved the miraculous con- 
 ception and Divinity 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 whole testimony of Justin, relating to this 
 subject, may soon be collected. In one part of his 
 Dialogue he observes, " There are some of our race 
 (diro TOU rjnerepov ytvovy) who acknowledge him to 
 be Christ; yet maintain that he was a man, born of 
 human parents; with whom I do not agree; no, not 
 even if the majority should inform me that they 
 entertained these sentiments 3 ," &c. 
 
 The rj/uLCTepov 7eVos of Justin is supposed by some 
 to mean Jews and Samaritans 4 : by Dr Priestley and 
 his Vindicator it is considered as referring to Gentile 
 
 2 History of early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 202. 
 
 3 Kai yap eieri rive? aVo TOU ij/j.fTpov yevovs o/j.o\oyouvTe<: O.VTOV 
 \pt0Tov ei'vai, avOpunrov ce e' dvdptaircav yevu/jievoii dtro^nivo^fvoi' oj? 
 ov <rvvTiQen.cn, ovS' aV 7r\eiVrTOj rai/ra /uo Soa'(rai/T f'iiroiev, eVeiS/ 
 OI/K dvdpuTretois 8i2a'7/ta<n KexeXevv/jLeda i>V ai/Vou TOU Xpia"rov TrfiQecr- 
 6ai, a'AAa rtm Sio TWI> pCUtapitHf Trpocpr/Tiav Kt]pv^Qei<Ti, KO\ oj avTov 
 3<Sa^0e?<ri. Dialog, p. 235. 
 
 4 Bingham, Vindication of the Doctrine and Liturgy of the Church 
 -of England, p. 23. 8vo. 1774. 
 
 H
 
 114 
 
 converts, (on which supposition, the testimony has 
 no connection with the present subject of inquiry): 
 and it may, consistently with the language of Justin, 
 stand for Christians in general. In another place, 
 speaking of all Christians, he observes, 'lapar 
 
 yap TO a\r)0ii>ov, Trvev/UiaTiKov . . . yeVos >;/ue?s 
 
 In this case also, nothing could be concluded respect- 
 ing the tenets of all or any part of the Jewish Christ- 
 ians in particular. 
 
 Whichever supposition we take, whether he be 
 speaking of Samaritan and Jewish, or Gentile Christ- 
 ians, or Christians in general, the common rules of 
 grammar compel us to conclude, in opposition to the 
 interpretation of Dr Priestley 2 and his Vindicator, 
 that some of them were Unitarians, but that the 
 great body were of another opinion. He is speaking 
 also, it must be observed, of persons of his own time 
 (A.D. 140), not of the original Christians, whether 
 Gentiles or Jews. He is so far from representing 
 " the Jewish Christians as originally not believing 
 the doctrine of the miraculous conception, without 
 excepting any that did" that he never mentions 
 the faith of the original Jewish Christians at all ; 
 and he has no where intimated that all, or any 
 considerable part of those of his own time, disbe- 
 lieved the Divinity of Christ. 
 
 1 P. 159. ed. Thirlby. 
 
 2 " By my Vindicator rendered more literally : ' There are some 
 of our race, viz. Gentiles, who acknowledge him to be the Christ, and 
 yet maintain that he was a man born in the natural way ; to whom I 
 do not assent, though the majority may have told me that they had 
 been of the same opinion.'" Letters to Dr Horsley, Part i. p. 127. [p. 120. 
 ed. 1815.]
 
 115 
 
 II. Another misrepresentation on this subject 
 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 extraction 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 he- 
 retics, but only those of them who refused to com- 
 municate with Gentile Christians. With respect to 
 the rest, he says, that he should have no objection 
 to hold in communion with them. (Dial. p. 231). 
 He describes them as persons who observed the Law 
 of Moses, but did not impose it upon others. Who 
 could these be but Jewish Unitarians? For accord- 
 ing to the evidence of all antiquity, and what is 
 supposed by Justin himself, all the Jewish Christians 
 were such. It is probable, therefore, that the Naza- 
 renes or Ebionites were considered as in a state of 
 excommunication, merely because they would have 
 imposed the Law of Moses upon the Gentiles, and 
 refused to hold communion with any, besides those 
 who were circumcised ; so that, in fact, they excom- 
 municated themselves 3 ." 
 
 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. 
 
 3 History of early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 201. 
 ' H2
 
 116 
 
 Trypho asks Justin 1 whether, if a Jew were to 
 be so far converted to Christianity, as to admit Jesus 
 to be the Christ of God, but to retain the Mosaic 
 ritual, he might hope for salvation. Justin gives his 
 opinion, that, if a Christian of such a description 
 were neither to attempt the imposition of the same 
 burden on others, nor avoid the communion of 
 other Christians, he might be saved. Others, how- 
 ever, he observes, were not so charitable; and, with 
 respect to the historical facts, whether all or a great 
 part of the Christians of Jewish extraction either 
 retained the observance of the Mosaic law, or were 
 Unitarians, he has made no declaration or intima- 
 tion of any sort. 
 
 Though Justin's evidence is wanting, it is, not- 
 withstanding, highly probable that the Christians of 
 Samaria and Judaea, who had fallen under his obser- 
 vation, before his conversion to Christianity and jour- 
 ney to Rome, were, for the most part, followers of 
 the Law of Moses. They would be the objects of 
 , his notice, a few years before the destruction of Je- 
 rusalem, and the dispersion of the Jews under Adrian ; 
 and till that time we know, on other authority 2 , that 
 the church of Jerusalem joined the observance of 
 the Law of Moses with the religion of Christ. 
 
 The general opinion respecting 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 
 
 1 P. 230, and seq. 2 Eusebius and Sulpicius Severus.
 
 117 
 
 more and truer Christians from among the Gentiles 
 than from among the Jews and Samaritans. 
 
 nXeiova's re Kal aXj/fleoWpous TOI/S e efli/eov rwv cnro 
 'lovcauav Kal ^.a^apewv Xpurnavovs eiooTee 3 . 
 
 Here closes the testimony of Justin. A reader 
 of this Father must he surprised at finding it affirmed, 
 by a modern writer, that all or the greater part of 
 the Jewish Christians, either of his own age, or before 
 it, are either declared or " supposed " by him to be 
 Unitarians. 
 
 3 Page 78.
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, BY THE FIRST 
 JEWISH CHRISTIANS, COLLECTED FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. 
 
 ] . Importance of determining the opinions of the primitive church of Jerusalem. 
 The opinions of this Church identified with those of Hegesippus. Hegesip- 
 pus 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. 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 Hegesip- 
 pus to the purity of the faith of the church of Jerusalem. 
 
 I. IN examining the opinions of the first He- 
 brew Christians, our inquiries are naturally directed 
 to the church of Jerusalem ; 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 com- 
 posed, for the most part, of Gentiles ; and in them, 
 after the first struggle about the obligation of the 
 Law of Moses had ceased, all distinction seems to 
 have been at an end. The Jew seems to have been 
 soon lost in them by a complete assimilation of him- 
 self to the Gentilism of Christianity ; or rejected 
 from them by excommunication. 
 
 The great attachment of the Christians of Jeru- 
 salem to the Law of Moses is first mentioned in the* 
 New Testament 1 ; and, from the testimony of two 
 
 ' Acts xxi. 20.
 
 119 
 
 ecclesiastical historians, it is known to have con- 
 tinued till the dissolution of their church, under 
 Adrian. From the same respectable authority, by 
 which we know that these Christians remained a 
 full century in the profession of Judaism, we are 
 informed also that they were believers in the Di- 
 vinity 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 ex- 
 pressly mentioned. The former has happily preserved 
 a few fragments of Hegesippus, the first Christian 
 historian, after the writers of the New Testament ; in 
 which, while relating some particulars of the Christ- 
 ians of Jerusalem, he takes occasion to mention, that 
 the church continued a virgin, or free from heresy, 
 till the death of James the Just, at the end of the 
 first, or the beginning of the second century. The 
 opinions, therefore, of the first Hebrew Christians 
 are identified 2 with those of Hegesippus: what he 
 conceived to be the purity of the Christian faith 
 was, by his testimony, the faith of his Jewish breth- 
 ren. On this account, to ascertain with certainty 
 the religious opinions of this ancient historian, is a 
 matter of considerable importance. 
 
 2 The opinions of other Churches are also identified with those of 
 Hegesippus, and hence he has been brought forward by Dr Priestley 
 as a voucher for the prevalence of Unitarianism in those churches. 
 " He moreover says, that in travelling to Rome, where he arrived in 
 the time of Anicetus, he found all the churches that he visited held 
 the faith, which had been taught by Christ and the Apostles, which, 
 in his opinion, was probably that of Christ being not God, but man 
 only." History of early Opinions, Vol. iv. p. 308.
 
 120 
 
 The Ebionitism of this historian, and conse- 
 quently 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 supposition 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 consideration 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 Ebion- 
 ite, has also maintained, that only one sort of Ebion- 
 ites existed in his age 1 ; those who disbelieved the 
 miraculous conception and Divinity of Christ, and 
 whose Gospel was without the first two chapters of 
 St Matthew. 
 
 Were this all that we had to refute were it 
 only necessary to prove, that Hegesippus was not 
 one of those Ebionites, who denied the miraculous 
 conception, and rejected the first two chapters of St 
 Matthew, Dr Lardner would decide on this subject. 
 
 " The next fragment of this writer contains an 
 account of Domitian's inquiry after the posterity of 
 David. At that time, says he, there were yet re- 
 maining of the kindred of Christ, the grandsons of 
 
 1 Dr Priestley supposes that all the Hebrew Christians disbelieved 
 the miraculous conception till after the age of Irenseus, A.D. 170. 
 " Originally the Jewish Christians did not believe the doctrine of the 
 miraculous conception. Both Justin Martyr and Irenseus represent 
 them as disbelieving it, without excepting any that did." History of 
 early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 2J5.
 
 121 
 
 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 Domi- 
 tianus C&sar. For he too was afraid of the coming 
 of Christ as well as Herod 2 This passage de- 
 serves to be remarked. It contains a reference to 
 the history in the second chapter of St Matthew; 
 and shows plainly that this part of St Matthew's 
 gospel was owned by this Hebrew Christian. But, 
 Epiphanius informs us, that the gospel of the Ebion- 
 ites begins thus : It came to pass, in the days of 
 Herod the king of Jud&a, that John came baptizing 
 with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan: 
 which is the beginning of the third chapter a little 
 altered, and he there says expressly, that their go- 
 spel, called according to St Matthew, is defective and 
 corrupted. It is plain from this passage, that He- 
 gesippus received the history in the second chapter 
 of St Matthew; so that he used our Greek gospel. 
 Or, if he used only the Hebrew edition of St Mat- 
 thew's gospel, this history must have been in it 3 ." 
 
 III. The first reason assigned for supposing He- 
 gesippus an Ebionite is, that he has given "a list 
 of all the heresies of his time; in which he enumer- 
 ates a considerable number, and all of them Gnos- 
 tics, without making any mention of the Ebionites;" 
 though they were at that very time in full vigour*. 
 
 a Matt. ii. 3 Lardner on Hegesippus, Vol. H. p. 140. ed. Kippis. 
 
 * * History of early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 222. " Hegesippus, the 
 
 first Christian historian, himself a Jew, and therefore probably an 
 
 Ebionite,
 
 122 
 
 1. "It is remarkable that Hegesippus, in giving an 
 account of the heresies of his time, though he men- 
 tions the Carpocratians, Valentinians and others, who 
 were generally termed Gnostics (and who held that 
 Christ had a pre-existence and was man only in 
 appearance) not only makes no mention of this sup- 
 posed heresy of the Nazarenes or Ebionites, but 
 says, that in his 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 
 doctrine that was taught in the law, by the prophets, 
 and by our Lord. What could this be but the proper 
 Unitarian doctrine held by the Jews, and which he 
 himself had been taught 1 ?" 
 
 2. Eusebius is stated to be silent respecting the 
 tenets of Hegesippus ; (" That Eusebius doth not 
 expressly say what this faith was, is no wonder, con- 
 sidering his prejudice against the Unitarians of his 
 own time 2 ;") and not to have quoted him, among 
 other ancient authorities, against those who held the 
 opinion of the simple humanity of Christ 3 . 
 
 3. It is stated that Hegesippus has quoted the 
 gospel according to the Hebrews, and in the Hebrew 
 tongue: "Shewing, as Eusebius observes, that he 
 was one of the Hebrew Christians. We may there- 
 fore conclude that he quoted it with respect: and 
 
 Ebionite, enumerating the heresies of his time, mentions several of 
 the Gnostic kind, but not that of Christ being a mere man." Letters 
 to Dr Horsley, Part i. p. 144. 
 
 1 History of Corruptions, Vol. i. p. 8. 2 Vol. i. p. 8. 
 
 3 History of early Opinions, Vol. HI. p. 227.
 
 123 
 
 this was not done, except by those who were Ebioii- 
 ites, or who favoured their opinions'." 
 
 4. " Had there been any pretence for quoting 
 Hegesippus as a maintainer of the Divinity of Christ, 
 he would certainly have been mentioned in preference 
 to Justin 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 Christians, who are well known not to 
 have favoured that opinion 5 ." 
 
 5. Hegesippus has related, that James the Just 
 uttered this exclamation : " Why do you ask me 
 concerning Jesus the son of man 6 ?" 
 
 6. Valesius, a learned commentator on Eusebius, 
 has intimated a suspicion, that the works of Hegesip- 
 pus were neglected and lost on account of the errors 
 in them : " Ob errores quibus scatebant 7 ." 
 
 IV. How extremely trivial these reasons are, 
 were we even to admit all the facts on which they 
 are founded, must be obvious to the commonest 
 reader. 
 
 The "errores" of Valesius are probably only his- 
 torical blunders, instead of heretical errors ; and were 
 we to admit him to decide on the opinions of He- 
 gesippus, Hegesippus was a Trinitarian. An expres- 
 sion in a fragment of this Historian, preserved in 
 Eusebius, n Ovpa TOV 'I/croi/, is explained by Valesius 
 
 4 History of early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 228. 5 Ib. p. 228. 
 
 B P 229. Euseb. Hist L. n. c. xxiii. 
 
 P. 229. Valcsii Annot. in Euscb. L. v. c. xi.
 
 124 
 
 to mean Fides in Patrem et Filium et Spiritum 
 Sanctum 1 . 
 
 "Son of man" is used in Scripture as one of the 
 appellations of the Messiah : the great ohject 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 expres- 
 sions 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 Busehius 
 copied by Jerom, which Eusebius himself corrected 
 in another part of his History. Justin lived about 
 A.D. 140: Hegesippus A. D. 160 or 170, as Valesius, 
 Lardner, and Cave have shown 2 . 
 
 From the narrative of Eusebius it cannot be 
 inferred, whether Hegesippus quoted the gospel of 
 the Hebrews with respect or not: much less can we 
 discover that he acknowledged its authority. " Let 
 this passage," says Lardner, " be ever so obscure ; 
 I think it affords proof, that there was a Hebrew 
 gospel in the time of Hegesippus, and that he made 
 use of it ; but how far we cannot say 3 ." 
 
 The first and principal reason assigned for the 
 Ebionitism of Hegesippus, is founded on the mis- 
 statement of an historical fact. He never professed 
 to give a catalogue of all the heresies of his time : 
 it can only be inferred from Eusebius that he had 
 
 1 History Ecc. L. n. c. xxiii. 
 
 2 Valesius on Euseb. L. iv. c. viii. and L. n. c. xxiii. and Lardner 
 and Cave on Hegesippus. 
 
 3 Lardner on Hegesippus, Vol. n. p. 144.
 
 125 
 
 left an account of the *' original stocks" from which 
 the heresies of his time had ramified, TWV KO.T avrov 
 aipeaewv ras ap-^d^. He has only mentioned eleven 
 heresies, one of which is that of the Carpocratians. 
 Irenseus, his contemporary, has mentioned the names 
 of fifteen, observing, at the same time, that there 
 were many others 5 ; and this, before he came to the 
 different sects of the Valentinians, against whom he 
 professedly wrote. 
 
 Hegesippus has only given an account of the 
 origin of Unitarianism, without specifying each of 
 the sects, of his time, which professed it. The ap- 
 pendix to Tertullian's Prescription is, in this case, 
 an appendix also to Hegesippus. The writer is 
 supposed by Pagi to have been of Tertullian's age; 
 and Dr Priestley observes, " The appendix is probably 
 as good an authority as that of Eusebius 6 ." In this 
 work also, Carpocrates is mentioned as the first 
 Unitarian : and " after him Cerinthus arose teaching 
 similar doctrines ; and his successor was Ebion, not 
 agreeing in every respect with Cerinthus T ." 
 
 Hegesippus wrote a slight, and perhaps inaccu- 
 rate sketch of the origin of heresies, and in them 
 of Unitarianism in particular: others have followed 
 him, and traced them further. Some have made 
 
 * History, L. iv. c. xxii. 
 
 5 " Ab his autem, qui prsedicti sunt, jam multae propagines multa- 
 rum haeresium facta? sunt." Irenaeus, L. i. c. xxviii. 
 
 6 History of early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 304. 
 
 7 " Post hunc (i. e. Carpocratem) Cerinthus haereticus erupit, similia 
 docens et hujus successor Ebion fuit Cerintho non in omni parte 
 
 /consentiens." (Tertull. Op. p. 252. ed. Rigalt. 1634.]
 
 126 
 
 Carpocrates the first Unitarian, others have placed 
 Cerinthus before him. Hegesippus was probably one 
 of the first class of these ancient historians. 
 
 To show that Hegesippus did not consider Uni- 
 tarians as heretics, and thence to infer that he was 
 one himself, a very whimsical fiction has been brought 
 into action. By some inadvertence or other, it has 
 been actually taken for granted, that the Carpocra- 
 tians, one of his heretical sects, were believers in 
 the simple Divinity 1 of Christ, instead of the simple 
 humanity 2 . " Though he mentions the Carpocratians, 
 Valentinians, and others, who were generally termed 
 Gnostics (and who held that Christ had a pre-exist- 
 ence, and was man only in appearance) he not only 
 makes no mention of this supposed heresy of the 
 Nazarenes," &c. This is one of the most incredible 
 mistakes that ever was committed. 
 
 In order to prove Hegesippus an Unitarian, it 
 was also necessary to suppose that Busebius is silent 
 respecting his tenets. And the passages in which 
 he has expressly written on the tenets of this ancient 
 Historian have been unaccountably overlooked. It 
 is necessary, however, to attend to the real testimony 
 
 1 " Hegesippus the first Christian historian, enumerating the here- 
 sies of his time, mentions several of the Gnostic kind, but not that 
 of Christ being a mere man." History of early Opinions, Vol. iv. 
 p. 307. 
 
 2 " Carpocrates preeterea hanc tulit sectam. Unam esse dicit 
 
 virtutem Christum non ex virgine Maria natum, sed ex semine 
 
 Joseph, hominem tantummodo genitum. Appendix ad Tertull. Prsescrip. 
 adv. Hseret. Carpocrates autem, et qui ab eo, dicunt Jesum e Joseph 
 natum, et cum similis reliquis hominibus fuerit, &c." Irenseus, L. i. 
 c. xxiv.
 
 127 
 
 of Eusebius, instead of deducing preposterous con- 
 clusions from his fictitious silence. 
 
 V. To see the full force of the testimony of 
 Eusebius, it will be proper to keep in view the gene- 
 ral 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 Victor at the end of the 
 second century 3 . Paul of Samosata, one of the few 
 believers in the simple humanity of Christ in the 
 third century, was deposed from his bishopric 4 . Mar- 
 cellus of Ancyra, if Eusebius may be credited, had, 
 in his time, formed an incongruous mixture of two 
 different systems of Unitarianism Sabellianism, and 
 the faith of Paul of Samosata 5 . 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 6 ." Had Hegesippus, while 
 treating on the subject of the first Christians 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 
 
 3 Eusebius, Ecc. History, L. v. c. xxi. L. vn. c. xxix. xxx. 
 
 5 Eusebius cont. Marcellum, L. in. c. vi. 
 / 6 History of early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 316.
 
 128 
 
 visited held the same doctrine Busebius would have 
 been prevented, by prudential reasons, from commend- 
 ing a writer, and citing his words, after he had pub- 
 blished such a relation. 
 
 If the prevailing bias and temper of mind of 
 Eusebius 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 
 suppose his contemporaries would endure to hear 
 them. It cannot be supposed that " he who speaks 
 of Ebionites with hatred and contempt 1 ," should 
 pronounce an unnecessary encomium on an Ebion- 
 itish writer. "That Eusebius should take so violent 
 a part, as he always does, against the ancient Uni- 
 tarians, is not difficult to be accounted for"." " With 
 what rancour does Eusebius treat this class of Christ- 
 ians both in his history and in his treatise against 
 Marcellus of Ancyra 3 ! " These observations are per- 
 fectly just; and conformably to their spirit, we may 
 venture to declare it impossible, that he should zeal- 
 ously take the part of any ancient Unitarian. Euse- 
 bius, however, has not simply spoken of Hegesippus 
 " with respect," and been silent about his tenets, as 
 has lately been stated : he has borne the fullest tes- 
 timony to his orthodoxy; and has assigned him a 
 distinguished place among a class of writers, who are 
 the subject of his panegyric. 
 
 In the seventh and eighth chapters of the fourth 
 book of his History, after having mentioned that the 
 
 1 History of early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 222. 
 
 2 Vol. in. p. 316. 3 Page 287.
 
 129 
 
 reputation of the Christian church suffered severely 
 in the second century, by the misconduct of the 
 sectaries, and of one sect in particular, which had 
 disgraced the profession of Unitarianism 4 he ob- 
 serves, that in time the truth cleared itself, and 
 shone brighter after its temporary obscurity; the 
 sects split into parts of various sorts, and their old 
 opinions died away, or were lost in new ones ; the 
 calumny became confined to those sects, to which it 
 properly belonged ; " the splendour of the Catholic 
 and only true church was magnified;" and the su- 
 periority of its doctrines became universally acknow- 
 ledged. He then immediately observes "Truth 
 brought forward many champions for its own cause, 
 who contended, against the impious sects, in debates 
 and writings. Among these Hegesippus was distin- 
 guished b :" from whose works, he continues 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, Dionysius, Pinytus: and after these 
 
 4 Carpocratians. 
 
 5 Tlpoyei S' els av^rjcrlv KCU /ueyedos i/ T^S Kado\ov KO\ 
 
 /JLOVIJS d\r]6ov<: 6KAjcr('as XapirpoTr]*:. P. 149. ed. Reading. 
 
 "Ejuei/e Se v p-ovt] apa Trapd -rrdai upa-rovcra xa\ dvo/jioXoyovnevtj TO 
 /uaAjo-Ta tiairpeTreiv eVi <refjivoTr]Ti KOI & to (f)p navvy, 6eiot<: TC KOJ 
 ^>(Aocro0oi? c&Yfjiaa'iv, tj KaO f/pia? Sj0a<TKa\i'a. P- 150. 
 
 Haptiyev ek fj.f<rov t] aXtjdeta irXetovs auT;s vTrepnajOvs, ov S' 
 d^'p^Kpwv avro fjiovov eAeyvwi/, aAAa KCTI ?>i eyypa(f)(ov aTroceiffcav, KOTCI 
 / Tiai> dOetav a'tpeaeiav o'TpaTei/ojuei'oii?. Ibid. 
 
 'E TOUTOI? eyviapife'To 'klytjawjros. Ibid. 
 
 I
 
 130 
 
 Philippus, Apollinarius, and Melito: Musanus also 
 and Modestus, and last of all Irenaeus: the ortho- 
 doxy of whose sound faith of the Apostolic tradition 
 has come down to us in their writings :" <av KOL ei? 
 ?//jias TJ/S 'AvrocrToAtK^s 7rapaoo<r(a$ tj T*)$ vyiovs 
 
 v op9oco%ia. 
 
 It was not from any thing ambiguous or obscure 
 in the writings of Hegesippus, that Eusebius col- 
 lected his religious opinions. His sentiments were 
 shown by the most unequivocal marks. For, in con- 
 tinuation of the last sentence, Eusebius observes 
 " Hegesippus, indeed, in the five books of memoirs 
 which have come to us, has left the fullest testimony 
 of his own sentiments." 
 
 'O fnev ovv H^j^riTTTroe ev TreVre rots els yuas eXOovffiv 
 V7ro/u.v^ /zctcn, TJ/S ioias 'yvw/xj/s TrXrjpea'TdTriv fjLVt)/u.r]v /cara- 
 Xe'XotTrev. C. Xxii. 
 
 This evidence has been entirely overlooked, by 
 those who have maintained that Eusebius is silent 
 on the subject of the religious opinions of Hegesippus; 
 and who have concluded, with unparalleled extrava- 
 gance, in defiance of all the ancient testimony on 
 the subject, that both this ancient historian, and 
 the whole church of Jerusalem, before the time of 
 Adrian, were Unitarians. 
 
 To render these testimonies complete, it is only 
 necessary to recollect what were the known and un- 
 doubted opinions of some of the illustrious persons, 
 with whom Hegesippus is classed, on the subject of 
 the nature of Christ ; or, what combination of opi- 
 nions formed the system of the Catholic church.
 
 131 
 
 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 Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus, by the 
 testimony of an ancient writer cited by Eusebius 1 . 
 
 When Eusebius wrote these testimonies to the 
 character of Hegesippus, the Nicene creed, (to which 
 he had subscribed, though not without some scruples,) 
 represented the leading doctrines of the church, 
 which, he observes, had always been the same 2 . I 
 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 consulted. However Eusebius may 
 have differed from his brethren in some points, most 
 of which will probably be thought very unimportant, 
 he uniformly and zealously contended for the Divinity 
 and pre-existence of Christ, and his eternal gene- 
 ration from the Father. But, it is only necessary 
 to observe at present, that what he considered as 
 the church (e/c/cX^o-ta) and its orthodoxy were directly 
 opposite to Unitariamsm. He frequently quotes the 
 authority of the church, against Marcellus of Ancyra 3 ; 
 and, in his history, speaking of a writer, whom he 
 
 1 Eccl. History, L. v. c. xxviii. 
 
 'Ac Kara -rd avrd KOI toVauTOK e^overa, tj Ttj<: KaQoKov xai 
 /JLOVI]<; aAgdovt fKK\t]<ria<; \a/jiirporr]<;. Hist. EC. L. IV. c. vii. p. 149. 
 
 3 Euseb. cont. Marcell. L. i. c. iii. vi. vii. viii. L. n. c. vi. vii. 23. 
 L. in. c. 6. 
 
 12
 
 132 
 
 classes among those, to whom he annexed the epithets 
 opOo&o^wt' ical eKK\r)cnaariKu>v, he observes, that this 
 author wrote a book against the celebrated Unitarian 
 Artemo 1 . 
 
 Upon the whole : Eusebius, a Bishop of the 
 Catholic church a believer in the Divinity and pre- 
 existence of Christ, in an age extremely intolerant 
 towards Unitarianism not of a firm tone of mind, as 
 some say, and therefore not disposed to shock pre- 
 vailing opinions not without a considerable portion 
 of bitterness against Unitarians, and therefore not 
 inclined to praise an Bbionite an accomplished and 
 critical scholar, well acquainted with mankind, and 
 on these accounts incapable of inserting in his history 
 a well-known falsehood has related, that Hegesippus, 
 Melito, Irenasus, and others, flourished in the church., 
 the opinions of which he has in other places opposed 
 to Unitarianism, and that their writings contained 
 orthodox opinions agreeable to the Apostolic tradi- 
 tion and the true faith. He has also related that 
 Hegesippus was distinguished as a champion of the 
 church against the errors of sectaries, and particu- 
 larly against the extravagancies of the Carpocratians, 
 who were Unitarians. The abstract term dp9o$o%ia, 
 by which he has characterized the opinions of Hege- 
 sippus, he has afterwards applied in concrete to a 
 body of writers, one of whom wrote against the Uni- 
 tarianism of Artemo. He has commended the faith 
 and zeal of Hegesippus; he has drawn materials 
 from his writings, and ranked him among the most 
 
 1 L. v. c. xxvii. xxviii.
 
 133 
 
 distinguished members of the church in the second 
 century. Stronger testimony 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 Ebionite. He is expressly declared 
 to have been a member of the church, at a time 
 when the Ebionites and Nazarenes were neither 
 members of the church of Jerusalem, nor of any other. 
 And " Eusebius 2 relates, that he cited the Proverbs 
 of Solomon, by a title which implied his acknowledge- 
 ment of the book : whereas the Ebionites," according 
 to Epiphanius, "acknowledged no part of the Old 
 Testament but the Pentateuch, nor the whole of 
 that 3 ." 
 
 VI. Hegesippus then, a Hebrew Christian, a 
 believer in the Divinity of Christ, born at the end 
 of the first century or in the beginning of the second, 
 before the extinction of the Hebrew church of Jeru- 
 salem, with some of the members of which he was 
 probably acquainted, has borne testimony to the purity 
 of the Christian faith before the time of Trajan, in 
 the most pointed language: and, as his testimony 
 was given while writing on the subject of the church 
 of Jerusalem, he must be considered as a more im- 
 mediate voucher for the purity of the faith of that 
 church 4 . Tertullian, Eusebius, and many others have 
 
 2 Eccl. History, L. iv. c. xxii. 
 
 a Horsley's Letters to Priestley, p. 71. [Letter ix. p. 190. ed. 1812.] 
 / 4 Valesius is of opinion that Hegesippus spoke of the church of 
 Jerusalem only. See his note on Euseb. Hist. L. in. c. xxxii. The 
 
 criticism
 
 134 
 
 declared, in general terms, that the Catholic faith 
 was more ancient than that of the sectaries. Clemens 
 Alexandrinus, Cyprian, and Chrysostom, who con- 
 sidered Unitarians as heretics, have declared, with 
 Hegesippus, that the first age of Christianity was 
 clear from heresy 1 . But, when these writers were 
 speaking of the church in general, they might possi- 
 bly 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 confirma- 
 tion of the truth of his relation. 
 
 The modern writers, who have supposed Hege- 
 sippus an Unitarian, have rather over-rated his au- 
 thority, when they thought 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 sim- 
 plicity which is said to have marked his character, 
 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 2 ." 
 
 criticism of the historian is, in this case, to be followed in preference 
 to that of his very learned and judicious commentator. Some of the 
 sects, which Hegesippus has mentioned, were not Jewish. 
 
 1 "Quse intelligenda sunt de apertiore fallacis doctrinse sparsione, 
 majoreque nnmero pravorum doctorum et vehementiore conatu: nam a 
 tempore quo scriptse sunt altera Petri, item Epistolse Judse et Joannis, 
 jam fraudes illse eruperant." Le Clerc. 
 
 2 AICE TOVTO eKct\ovv Trjv fKK\t](ri'av Trapdei'ov' ovirw yap S(f>BapTO 
 
 . Eusebius, L. IV. c. xxii. p. 182.
 
 135 
 
 This testimony and that of Clemens Alexan- 
 drinus were probably never meant to be taken in a 
 strict literal sense, as Spanheim, Jones and Le Clerc 
 have observed. "This could not be strictly 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 3 ." Had the entire 
 works of Hegesippus come down to us, we should 
 probably have found, that he had explained this 
 testimony in the same manner : for the explanation 
 of Eusebius 4 is exactly the same in substance with 
 that of the modern writers, which I have mentioned; 
 and Hegesippus has named heresies (the Simonians 
 and others) which he knew existed in the time of 
 the Apostles. 
 
 After due deductions 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 impartial judge will 
 be disposed to express his opinion, formed on the evi- 
 dence of Hegesippus, in the language of another 
 ancient writer on the same subject : " Pene omnes 
 Christum Deum credebant 5 ." 
 
 3 History of early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 261. 
 
 4 Hist. L. HI. c. xxxii. 5 Sulpicius Severus.
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OP THE NEW TESTAMENT, BY THE FIRST 
 JEWISH CHRISTIANS, COLLECTED FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. 
 
 1. Testimony of Eusebius to the priority of the opinions of the church. 
 Claim of Marcellus to the priority of his opinions. Claim of the Arte- 
 monite Unitarians to the priority of their opinions. Refutation of these 
 claims. Inconsistent with one another. Refuted as soon as they were ad- 
 vanced by Caius and Eusebius. 2. Credibility of the testimony of Eusebius 
 on the subject of the primitive church of Jerusalem. Appeal to his testi- 
 mony and that of Sulpicius Severus on the subject 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 be- 
 lieved in the Divinity of Christ. 
 
 1. EUSEBIUS, a native of Palestine, born about 
 A.D. 265, has left the most ample testimony to the 
 priority of the 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 Unitarianism 
 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 inter- 
 vals 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
 
 137 
 
 the great body of Christians of their time, they 
 stepped back out of sight into antiquity, and boldly 
 asserted that theirs had been the prevailing religion, 
 at the time to which they referred. 
 
 Marcellus of Ancyra, in the age of Euscbius, 
 never thought of contending for the general preva- 
 lence of his opinions in his own time, but affirmed 
 that Unitarianism was the common religion till the 
 time of Origen 1 . The Unitarians in the time of 
 Origen (the Artemonitcs about A. D. 220) instead of 
 assuming with Marcellus that Unitarianism was then 
 the religion of the majority, insisted that it hud 
 prevailed universally till the time of Victor'-. 
 
 These bold pretensions, thrown out by these per- 
 sons at random, without the slightest knowledge of 
 the history of the times, on which they presumed 
 to speak, were refuted by Eusebius in the manner 
 that might be expected from a learned and critical 
 historian. 
 
 When Marcellus asserted, that the doctrines 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 acts of the Synods before Origen's age, in which 
 the Divinity of Christ was universally maintained, 
 without any exception whatever 3 . 
 
 1 Eusebius contra Marcellum, L. i. c. iv. 
 
 2 Euseb. Hist. L. v. c. xxviii. 
 
 3 'EYM Se KOI 'Qpr/e'i'ous -!ra\nio~efxav dvdpiav, TrAe.'o-Toi? OCTOK 
 'EKKA;o-iao-TiKoi<; <Tiiyypd/Ji/*a<riv IvrfTV^rjKa, ETTJO-KOTTWI/ -re KCII 
 "SvvoCcov e7n<TTo,\TV ?(a(!oic, TroTroAai 7yja0ei'<ri9, Ci tav eis KU\
 
 138 
 
 With respect to the pretensions of the Artemon- 
 ites, he observes, that they had been refuted by a 
 writer, whom he has cited, supposed to be either 
 Caius or Origen. They had ignorantly asserted, that 
 all the ancient Christians till after the time of Victor, 
 together with the Apostles themselves, were Unita- 
 rians. A brief answer was sufficient to refute so 
 preposterous a claim. Accordingly, this writer im- 
 mediately produced the names of Justin, Miltiades, 
 Tatian and Clement, before the time of Victor's suc- 
 cessor ; observing that the Divinity of Christ also was 
 taught in the writings of many others. And he 
 insultingly asks, " Who is ignorant of the books of 
 Irenaeus and Melito, and the rest, teaching that 
 Christ is God and Man ?" One of the first religious 
 services, performed by the Christians, consisted in 
 singing psalms and hymns to their God and Saviour: 
 this writer, in answer to the Unitarians of his time, 
 appealed to these hymns written in the first age of 
 Christianity, in which the learned and the ignorant 
 joined, and in which Christ was celebrated as the 
 
 Word of God. "^aX/uot oe off 01 /cat fpSal d$e\(p(av aTrapyfis 
 VTTO TTKTTWV ypacpeiffat TOV \oyov TOV 0eov TOV Xpcrroj/ 
 
 vfjivovffi fleoXcryoJWes 1 . That he has not misrepresented 
 the meaning of those ancient hymns, or given only 
 an account of supposititious ones, instead of the genu- 
 ine productions of the first century, we know from 
 the testimony of Pliny ; who in his letter to Trajan 
 
 o f T(7<? TriVrew? -^apaKTtjp d-n-oSeiKvurai. Contra Marcellum, 
 L. i. c.iv. p. 20. ed. Vi.<?er. 1628. 
 
 1 Eusebius Hist. Eccl. L. v. c. xxviii. p. 252.
 
 139 
 
 (A. D. 110) mentions the custom of the Christians to 
 sing hymns to Christ as God, or as a God 2 . What 
 Pliny relates as an existing custom in the year 110, 
 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 testimony to 
 the priority of the opinions of the Christian churches 
 in general of his time, and this on the authority of 
 the acts of the churches themselves: he had also 
 laboured to gain information on the subject of the 
 Hebrew church of Jerusalem in particular, before its 
 extinction under Adrian. When it is recollected 
 that he was a native of Palestine, that he collected 
 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 autho- 
 rity of ancient records, at a time when their exist- 
 
 2 " Adfirmabant autem, hanc fuisse sumraam vel culpae suso, vcl 
 prroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire, carraenque 
 Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem." L. x. Epist. 97.
 
 140 
 
 ence would afford the easy means of convicting him 
 of a falsehood ; his evidence is of great weight in- 
 deed. 
 
 Dr Priestley has sometimes, with great propriety, 
 insisted strongly on the superior authority of Euse- 
 bius and Sulpicius Severus, on the very subject of 
 the Hebrew church of Jerusalem and other Jewish 
 Christians. " If any regard is to be paid to Euse- 
 bius, the oldest historian, or to Sulpicius, who is 
 much more circumstantial than Orosius, and on that 
 account better entitled to credit, no Jews, Christ- 
 ians, or others, were allowed to remain in the place 1 ." 
 Eusebius 2 says that the first heralds of our Saviour, 
 (xpwTOKripvKe's) 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 3 ." 
 
 This might seem to imply an admission of this 
 ancient historian's authority. Yet we find in an- 
 other place : " As to the general testimony of Euse- 
 bius 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 regarded, 
 unless they bring some sufficient proof of their as- 
 sertion. They were, no doubt, willing to have it 
 thought so ; and without considering it very par- 
 
 1 Letters to the Archdeacon of St Alban's, Part in. p. 12. 
 
 2 Eccl. Theol. L. i. c. xiv. p. 75. 
 
 3 History of early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 162.
 
 141 
 
 ticularly, might presume that it was so : hut the 
 facts, which they themselves record, and the account 
 which they give of the conduct of the Apostles in 
 divulging this doctrine to the Jews, make it highly 
 improbable that 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 rea- 
 soning, 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 facts, 
 the truth of which Dr Priestley admits without 
 scruple, he has not mentioned on what authority 
 he wrote : whether he related them on the authority 
 of ancient records, or tradition, or mere conjecture, 
 he has not said. On the subject of the faith of 
 the church of Jerusalem he expressly declares that 
 he speaks on the authority of written documents. 
 Yet Dr Priestley, resting on the character of the 
 historian, has not withheld his assent to the two 
 first-mentioned testimonies ; but affirms, that the last 
 " is not to be regarded 5 ." 
 
 < Letters to Dr Horsley, Part i. p. 23. 
 
 5 " With respect 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 age ; a suffrage so full and explicit that it 
 hath been deemed a decisive argument against Dr Priestley's hypothesis; 
 with respect to this testimony, \ve say, the Doctor could only find one 
 way of getting rid of it. It is not, says he, to be regarded. What a 
 prodigious advantage this short and compendious method of decision 
 gives a man over his opponent. It saves all the needless expence of 
 criticism. It serves instead of a thousand arguments ; and it hath the 
 singular felicity of being sheltered from all reply." Monthly Review 
 for January, 1784, p. 59.
 
 142 
 
 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 despised 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 1 . The Ebionites were distinguished 
 from other Christians by two leading marks their 
 observance of the Mosaic ritual, and the profession 
 of Unitarianism. Had Eusebius really been more 
 influenced by prejudice than by a regard for truth, 
 on finding that the members of the church of Jeru- 
 salem 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 actually found, that they were both 
 Judaizers and Unitarians, he, " who speaks of Ebion- 
 ites with hatred and contempt," would not have been 
 disposed to vouch for the purity of their faith ; nor 
 would he have dared to publish the following Tes- 
 timony : 
 
 B. IV. CHAP. V. 
 
 " THE BISHOPS OF JERUSALEM, FROM OUR SAVIOUR TO THOSE 
 TIMES." (l. E. TIME OF ADRIAN.) 
 
 " I have not found any written account preserved 
 of the times which the Bishops in Jerusalem presided: 
 for the account is that they were very short-lived. 
 So much I have collected from written records, that 
 till the siege of the Jews under Adrian, fifteen suc- 
 
 1 Hieron. Augustino Epistola, LXXXIX. Vol. i. p. 634.
 
 143 
 
 cessive Bishops lived there, all whom they declare 
 to have been Hebrews, and to have received the 
 faith of Christ in its genuine purity ; so as to have 
 been esteemed worthy of the Episcopal ministry by 
 those who were capable of judging on such matters 2 ." 
 
 The meaning of the term yvSxrvs is very inade- 
 quately expressed by the word "faith." The early 
 Christian writers distinguished between TT'KTTIS faith, 
 and yvcaa-K perfect Christian knowledge 3 . The first 
 they held to be a summary knowledge of the most 
 necessary truths ; which they supposed all true mem- 
 bers of the Christian church to possess: the second 
 implied the purity and perfection of Christian faith 
 joined to perfect knowledge 4 , which they supposed 
 to be the lot of only a few. 
 
 Eusebius mentions, in the same Chapter, that 
 all these Bishops were of the circumcision. " The 
 Bishops," it has lately been observed, " were Jews, 
 
 KEO. E. 
 
 * Oi dveKadev aVo rov ZMTOOS ai eV roue d 
 
 Ta>c 76 ft.riv ev '\epocro\v port 'ETno-xoTroji/ TOUS jpdvov<: <ypa(ptj 
 ^ofievov: ov$a/jito<: fvpov. KO/JUCI] yap ovv ppayvfiiovs OVTOVS 
 KaTe^ei feveaQai. TCHTOVTOV S' e' eyypdtytov trapeiXrj^a, <o 
 j TTJ<: Kara 'ASpiavov 'loi/Sa/wv iroXtopKtas Wi/re ca Se'a rov 
 ov avTodt f </e f f6va<riv 'ETTJO-KOTTCOI/ ^ta^o^ai' ovv wai/ra? 
 <f>aa-\v OVTO? dvexaQtv, Ttjv yvioo'iv TOM Xpj<rTOU 
 ^aaQat. CO<TT' rjStj irpo 1 : TUV ra -rotate firmpiveiv 
 TWI/ EiriffKOTriov \eiTovpy'ta<: d'tov<: f>OKifj.aa-&tjvai. P. 143. 
 
 3 Clemens. Alex. Strom. L. v. sub initio; Euseb. Eccl. Hist. L. n. 
 c. i. Valesius, Note on Eusebius, p. 24. 
 
 ** Ov-re tj 71/wfft? avev Tr/o-rew?, ou0' rj irians avev fi/weeta*. . . 
 ovv 6 'A7ro(TTo\os 8iTT/i/ KaTayfeXXiav iri<rrtv 
 
 fjLO\\OV
 
 144 
 
 because the people were so 1 ." 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 Sulpicius Severus (about A.D. 400) 
 compiled his history of the first four centuries, he 
 was enabled, like Eusebius, to draw materials from 
 books which are now lost : and the accounts of these 
 two historians, though expressed in different ways, 
 perfectly coincide, and confirm one another. Sul- 
 picius declares, in 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 2 ." The re- 
 mark of Dr Priestley on this passage will probably 
 be consigned to the fate, to which he would destine 
 the decisive evidence contained in it 3 . Those, who 
 wish to support a system, by supposing the primitive 
 church of Jerusalem to have been Unitarian, will 
 find it necessary to set aside the relations of Euse- 
 bius and Sulpicius Severus: but, an unprejudiced 
 inquirer after truth will attend to them, for this 
 
 i>' tj /j.ev 'yap 
 
 KCtBaTrep 6e/j.e\io^ viroKfiTai. Strom. L. V. pp. 544, 545. 
 ed. Par. 1629. 
 
 1 History of early Opinions, Vol. m. p. 197. 
 
 2 L. n. c. LXV. 
 
 3 "This writer's mere assertion, that the Jewish Christians held 
 Christ to be God, in the proper sense of the word, unsupported by any 
 reasons for it, is even less to be regarded than that of Eusebius." 
 Letters to the Archdeacon of St Alban's, Appendix m. p. 218. This is 
 certainly too summary a method of disposing of ancient testimonies.
 
 145 
 
 powerful reason, because they are not simply the only 
 ancient writers of credit, but the only ancient writers 
 of any sort, in whose works any direct testimony on 
 this subject has been preserved. 
 
 IV. Though no direct testimony to the ortho- 
 doxy of the primitive church of Jerusalem can be 
 produced, in addition to that which I have stated 
 in this and the preceding 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 observ- 
 ance of the Mosaic ritual and an attachment to 
 Unitarianism. 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 be- 
 lievers 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, when three thousand Jews were 
 converted to Christianity 4 . 
 
 The passage in Eusebius, in which the first 
 heralds of our Saviour are said to have given the 
 name of Ebionites to certain Christians, may seem 
 to favour this supposition. And if the hypothesis 
 be true if that combination of opinions and habits, 
 which constituted Ebionitism, really existed at Jeru- 
 salem before the time of Vespasian Eusebius him- 
 self, and several other historians of credit will pro- 
 bably have noticed it, in some parts of their works. 
 ,' 
 
 * Acts ii. 
 
 K
 
 146 
 
 But, if no such notice can be found ; if, on the con- 
 trary, Busebius 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 begin- 
 ning of the second century; the supposition must be 
 reversed, and we may conclude with certainty, from 
 this indirect testimony, that the members of the 
 primitive church of Jerusalem were not Unitarians. 
 
 The general expression " primitive heralds" (Trpw- 
 To/c77/ou/ces) 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 subject of their antiquity is to be collected. In 
 his history, he first treats of them under Trajan, and 
 makes them of the same antiquity with the Cerinthian 
 heresy, and that of the Nicolaitans 1 . The author 
 of the Alexandrian Chronicle 2 also fixes their origin 
 under Trajan, in the year 105. Theodoret, professing 
 to follow Eusebius, places the origin of the Naza- 
 raeans, Ebionites and Cerinthian s, in the reign of 
 Domitian 3 . It is not, perhaps, easy to determine 
 whether he misunderstood or forgot Eusebius, or 
 whether he judged this to be the true date, by com- 
 paring him with other writers. Irenaeus says, that 
 all the heretics were later than the Bishops, to whom 
 the Apostles committed their churches 4 ; and, in his 
 catalogue of heresies, he places several sects before 
 the Ebionites 5 . The testimony of Irenaeus on this 
 
 1 Eccl. Hist. L. in. c. xxvii. xxviii. xxix. 2 Chron. Alex. p. 596. 
 
 8 Hseret. Fab. L. n. c. i. ii. hi. 4 L. in. c. iv. 
 
 5 The Heresiarchs Simon, Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, Carpo- 
 crates, are placed, by Irenseus and Theodoret, in chronological order 
 
 before
 
 U7 
 
 subject is that of the Christian Fathers in general. 
 " Epiphanius 6 makes hotli Kbion (for in his time it 
 was imagined that the Ebionitcs were so called from 
 some particular person of that name) and Cerinthus 
 contemporary with the Apostle John ; and he could 
 not tell which of them was the elder. He likewise 
 makes the Ebionites contemporary with the Naza- 
 rencsV In another passage, "after mentioning the 
 places, where they chiefly resided, viz. Peraea, Crcle- 
 Syria, Pella and Cochabae," he mentions that they 
 had their origin after the removal of the Jewish 
 Christians from Jerusalem, on the approach of the 
 siege 8 . 
 
 On a general view of the evidence on this sub- 
 ject, not a single ancient writer is found, who has 
 placed the origin of the Nazarseans and Ebionites 
 before A. D. 70; they are commonly supposed to have 
 been of later date ; and on comparing ancient docu- 
 ments, modern writers have found it difficult to de- 
 cide whether they were sects of the first, or second 
 century. Le Clerc 9 fixes one in the year 72, the 
 
 before the Cerinthians and Ebionites. Though the order is not exactly 
 the same in Epiphanius, Augustine and Philaster, many sects, how- 
 ever, are placed before the Ebionites in all their catalogues. 
 
 Kat>t-1]<: TODTOJ9 eTTUVTCtt, Cl/JiCl T6 UVTOtl OVT6?, t] 
 KO.I TTpO ai/TtOI/, } (TUl/ 011X0??, >; /X6T rtl/TOU? O/iO)5 CTVJ^pOVOt' OV 
 
 yap tiKpifievrepov tvvafjiai e^ettreTv rii/e? TiVa? ciece^ai/To. Epiphan. 
 User. xxix. initio. comp. Hrer. xxx. p. 149. 
 
 OI)TO<T 7cip <> I'./jiwi/ frwyypoi'o? |Wi' TODTOII' vTrtjp^fv. Hser. 
 xxx. $ ii. 
 
 History of early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 164. 
 Haer. xxx. $ vii. 
 
 9 Dr Priestley, without the testimony of any ancient writer, and 
 without the countenance of any individual among the moderns, has 
 
 K o reduced
 
 148 
 
 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 ignorance 
 excited the astonishment of every scholar : and he 
 was immediately refuted hy an appeal to the ancient 
 writers ; a part of whose testimony I have just stated. 
 " Those heretics," says one of his 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 expected from a writer, when his ignorance or ill 
 will leads him to mistake the name, the sentiments 
 and chronology of that sect, which he defends 1 ?" 
 
 The professed object of Dr Priestley's history is 
 to collect the sense of the New Testament, on the 
 subject of the nature of Christ >t from 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 religious opi- 
 nions ; and he ascertains (though not with accuracy) 
 the sentiments of the Nazarseans and Ebionites, by 
 the testimony of ancient writers. This is one material 
 
 reduced the three or the two sects of Ebionites and Nazarseans to one. 
 The title of one of his Chapters runs thus : " Of the Nazarenes and 
 Ebionites, showing that they were the same people, and that none of 
 them believed the Divinity or pre-existence of Christ." In this Chapter 
 he seems to intimate, (Vol. in. 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 Clerc, and the most eminent 
 critics of the last age") : whereas he has placed the origin of that sect, 
 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. 
 
 1 Mangey's Remarks upon Nazarenus, p. 59.
 
 149 
 
 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 pur- 
 pose is not accomplished, unless he proves the 
 Ebionites and Nazarenes to have been the very first 
 Jewish Christians. Knowing probably, from the fail- 
 ure and disgrace of Toland, that this is impossible, 
 he sometimes contents himself with cautiously affirm- 
 ing " that both Ebionites and Nazaraeans were ex- 
 isting in the time of the Apostles 2 :" and the evi- 
 dence, which he has adduced, tends only to prove 
 that they existed before the death of the Apostle 
 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 3 . 
 
 The body of collateral evidence which I have 
 just stated, falling in with, and confirming the direct 
 testimonies of Hegesippus, Eusebius and Sulpicius 
 Severus, completely sets aside this unwarranted sup- 
 position. 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 
 
 2 History of early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 166. 
 
 3 P. 189, and 210 where he takes it for granted, that the original 
 Jewish Christians were the same with the Ebionites. " No person can 
 reflect upon this subject with proper seriousness, without thinking it 
 a little extraordinary that the Jewish Christians, in so early an age as 
 they are spoken of by the denomination of Ebionites, should be ac- 
 knowledged to believe nothing either of the Divinity, or even of the 
 ^ire-existence of Christ, if either of those doctrines had been taught 
 
 them by the Apostles."
 
 150 
 
 in relating a palpable falsehood than writers are 
 usually observed to be in recording truth. 
 
 V. The whole evidence on this subject may be 
 summarily stated under the following heads: 
 
 1. Several ancient Christian writers, who consi- 
 dered 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 doctrines of 
 the church were of greater antiquity than those of 
 any of the sects : and the claims of the Unitarians of 
 the third century to superior antiquity were imme- 
 diately disproved by the members of the church : 
 they were inconsistent with one another; and were 
 advanced at random, without any knowledge of the 
 history of the times, in which they asserted that 
 their opinions had prevailed. 
 
 2. In the works of two historians, believers 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 writers were men of 
 learning, 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 centuries after the extinction of that 
 church, expressly declares that he published his 
 testimony on the authority of written records ; and 
 has happily preserved a fragment of Hegesippus, a 
 Jewish Christian, a member of the Catholic church 
 in the middle of the second century : the fragment
 
 151 
 
 is taken from his history of the Christians of Jeru- 
 salem, 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 testimony of several 
 ancient historians, at the end of the first, or the 
 beginning of the second century : and the first indivi- 
 duals, 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 
 Divinity 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 mem- 
 bers of the primitive church of Jerusalem believed 
 in the 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.
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OP THE NEW TESTAMENT BY THE FIRST 
 JEWISH CHRISTIANS, COLLECTED FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. 
 
 1. The ancient testimonies, to the opinions of the first Jewish Christians, un- 
 opposed by any evidence except a prescriptive argument founded on the 
 opinions of Ebionites, in the third century as described by Origen. Exami- 
 nation 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 
 extinction accounted for, from the combined influence of several causes. 
 Judaism had been abandoned by some members, even of the church of Je- 
 rusalem, before the time of Adrian. It would probably be abandoned by 
 the greater part of them after the edict 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 Jews, professing the Christian 
 religion in his time, were Ebionites, his testimony would not be inconsistent 
 with that of Hegesippus, Eusebius and Sulpicius. 
 
 I. IN the discussion of some historical questions, 
 strong evidence is found on both sides; and it is 
 necessary to attend with great care to repugnances, 
 to weigh opposite testimonies, and to he decided 
 by the preponderance of that side, on which sound 
 judgment discerns the greater weight. In the pre- 
 sent case, we have little labour beyond the easy 
 task of stating coincidences. The only evidence ad- 
 duced on one side, against strong testimony on the 
 other, is an argument founded on a declaration of 
 Origen, respecting the faith of Jewish Christians in 
 the beginning of the third century.
 
 153 
 
 An impartial inquirer after historical truth has 
 great reason to complain, that, while the testimony 
 on one side has not been fully and fairly stated in 
 the History of early Opinions, or in any part of 
 the long controversy before and after that history, 
 the prescriptive argument deduced from Origen has 
 been expanded beyond all reasonable bounds, and 
 has been made to decide on a question, with which 
 it has little or no connection. 
 
 One of the objects, of the philosophical compiler 
 of this history, was to determine the interpretation 
 of the New Testament, by the Jewish Christians in 
 the first century, through the medium of their re- 
 ligious opinions. This object necessarily required 
 him to give attention to all the testimony of credi- 
 ble historians among the ancients, on that particular 
 subject; but instead of listening to the only evi- 
 dence by which the opinions of the church of Je- 
 rusalem 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 atten- 
 tion 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 argu- 
 ment from Origen might also have been set forth in 
 all its force. It would have been reasonable, after 
 having collected and weighed the testimony of an- 
 tiquity on this subject, to have given due attention
 
 154 
 
 to the objections against it: it would have been 
 proper, after having stated the common historical 
 testimony, to have started the " historical doubts." 
 
 It might have been asked, with great propriety, 
 How could it happen, if most of the Jewish Christ- 
 ians of the first century were believers in the Di- 
 vinity 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 
 third., should speak of no Jewish Christians then 
 existing, but Ebionites of two kinds? " This tes- 
 timony of such a person as Origen, to the Unitarian- 
 ism of all the Jewish Christians in his time, goes 
 so near to prove the Unitarianism of the great body 
 of Jewish Christians, and consequently of the Christ- 
 ian church in general, in the time of the Apostles, 
 that I do not wonder at your wishing to set it 
 aside 1 ." 
 
 This would have been a reasonable, though not 
 a powerful objection. The writer, by whom it has 
 been advanced, has suggested one of the means of 
 its refutation. The force of the objection depends 
 on the degree in which it is probable that the opi- 
 nions of the Judaizing Christians continued the same, 
 from the time of Adrian 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 be- 
 
 1 Letters to the Archdeacon of St Alban's, Part HI. p. 4.
 
 155 
 
 ginning 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 immutability of the opinions of the 
 Ebionites, during the second century, Dr Priestley 
 has determined against himself. 
 
 In one part of his works, he has supposed that, 
 before the time of Irenaeus (A.D. 170), there existed 
 only one sect of these Jewish Christians, and that 
 sect denying the miraculous conception of Christ, as 
 well as his Divinity. Now as Origen (A. D. 230) 
 speaks of one sect of Ebionites denying, and another 
 believing the miraculous conception, a great revolu- 
 tion must have taken place in the religious opinions 
 of one part of the Ebionites in the space of forty 
 or fifty years. 
 
 This supposition, I allow, is not consistent with 
 history 2 : but, since Dr Priestley has admitted the 
 possibility of such a change, since he has stated it 
 as a fact (" Originally the Jewish Christians did not 
 believe the doctrine of the miraculous conception. 
 Both Justin Martyr and Irenceus represent them as 
 believing it, without excepting any that did. Origen 
 is the first, who has noticed two kinds of Ebion- 
 ites, one believing the miraculous conception, and 
 
 5 Epiphanius, with more means of information than we are possessed 
 of, was unable to determine with certainty which sect was the more 
 ancient the Nazarseans, who helieved in the miraculous conception of 
 Christ, or the Cerinthians : but, he has placed both before the Ebion- 
 ites, in his catalogue : from his account, however, as well as from that 
 qf Eusebius and Theodoret, it appears that these three sects began to 
 exist about the same time.
 
 156 
 
 the other denying it 1 :") since he has even drawn 
 important inferences from this supposed fact against 
 the authenticity of the two first Chapters of St Mat- 
 thew's Gospel ; his argument, founded on the immu- 
 tability of the opinions of Jewish Christians from 
 the first to the third century, is destroyed by his 
 own authority. 
 
 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 hody 
 might have altered between the ages of Adrian and 
 Origen. And, in fact, 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.T). 230, had related, that all Christ- 
 ians of Jewish extraction 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 Christ- 
 ians, 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 eight- 
 teenth century have represented the great body of 
 Englishmen in the fifteenth 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 
 
 1 History of early Opinions, B. in. c. ii. p. 215.
 
 157 
 
 not inconsistent. There is nothing very improbable 
 or absurd, we should say, in the representation of any 
 of these writers: the fact, attested by Hegesippus, 
 Eusebius and Sulpicius Severus, is totally distinct 
 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, particularly in times of great 
 political convulsions, is liable to change : in the second 
 century, several causes existed, sufficient to effect a 
 change in the opinions, customs and manners of Ju- 
 daizing Christians: and these causes, we know, ac- 
 tually produced, at least, a partial effect : for in most 
 of the churches, which in the first century were com- 
 posed of Jews and Gentiles jointly, Judaism had dis- 
 appeared, 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 number, residing in Pella, and a few 
 other parts of the East: whereas Jewish Christians 
 had existed in considerable numbers in every church, 
 in the beginning of the first century, and had, in 
 fact, been the original stocks, from which the Gentile 
 churches had sprung. How these Jews, professing 
 the Christian religion, disappeared is a question in- 
 timately connected with the present inquiry, and is 
 in itself a subject deserving some consideration. 
 
 The difficulty and obscurity, with which this 
 subject has been enveloped, are strongly expressed
 
 158 
 
 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 was taken by Adrian ; but, what became of 
 those, who were driven out of the city by Adrian, 
 does not appear. It is most probable that they 
 joined their brethren at Pella or Bersea in Syria, 
 from whence they had come to reside at Jerusalem ; 
 and indeed what became of the whole body of the 
 ancient Christian Jews (none of whom can be proved 
 to have been Trinitarians) / cannot tell. Their num- 
 bers, we may suppose, were gradually reduced, till 
 at length they became extinct 1 ." 
 
 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 2 were the 
 last, who, in inconsiderable numbers, had a separate 
 existence: and even they were gradually mingled 
 
 1 Vol.m. p. 231. 
 
 2 Epiphanius has related, that Ebion himself preached in Rome 
 and Asia Minor : but, he says, the roots of their thorny doctrines were 
 principally in Nabate, Paneas and Cochabse, and even in Cyprus. 
 OUTO? [lev ovv o 'E/3io>i/ icat avTos eV TJ; 'AoYct ti'^e TO Ktipvyjjia 
 KCti 'Pto'/u/, TC? e pilots riav aKavtj<o$(ot> Trapa^vaSaiv c^ova-tv dvd 
 T TJJS Na/Jare'as KCII FlaveceBo? TO 7r\e?crTov, Mtoa/3(VjSo'c re Kat 
 Kfc>yd/?a>i> TfJ? ev T; Ba(Tai/<Vi<5< jrj tVeKeii/a ASpatov, d\\a KO\ ev 
 TJJ Kv-rrpca. Hser. xxx. xviii.
 
 159 
 
 with other Christians or with Jews, and disappeared 
 altogether in the fifth or sixth century. 
 
 The extinction of the great body of Christian 
 Jews, or in other words, their complete union with 
 the Gentile Christians, may be accounted for, from 
 the combined influence of several different causes, 
 which 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 
 completely epitomized in these words : " Circumci- 
 sion is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but 
 the keeping the commandments of God 3 ." 
 
 2. The prevalence of an opinion strongly insisted 
 on by some of the earliest Christian writers 4 , that 
 the Gospel was the substance of the ceremonial law; 
 and that an observer of the precepts of Christianity 
 was, in the utmost strictness of speaking, a follower 
 of the precepts of Moses. This opinion seemed to 
 remove all objection against the abandonment of this 
 law; when Jews, by relinquishing its literal obser- 
 vance, ceased not to follow it, according to the com- 
 mon opinion, in a more perfect manner. Whatever 
 pre-eminence they ascribed to the name of Israelites, 
 
 ' 3 i Cor. vii. 9. 
 
 f * Barnabas, n. 10. Irenaeus, L. iv. c. xviii. xix. Clemens Alex. 
 Psedap. L. in. c. xii. sub initio. Origen. Philocalia, c. i.
 
 160 
 
 that pre-eminence they still enjoyed, and even ac- 
 quired a superiority over their brethren, whose cus- 
 toms they had deserted. They considered Jews as 
 carnal., and themselves as the true spiritual Israelites. 
 
 Non genus ohlationum reprobatum est: oblationes 
 enim et illic, oblationes autem et hie : sacrificia in 
 populo, sacrificia in ecclesia ; sed species immutata est 
 
 tantum 1 Mun era autem et oblationes et sacrificia 
 
 omnia in typo populus accepit, quemadmodum osten- 
 sum est Moysi in monte 2 . 
 
 They would be the more readily induced to fol- 
 low what was called the spiritual interpretation of 
 the law, instead of its " carnal, " i. e. literal signifi- 
 cation, because some of the unbelieving Jews them- 
 selves had long been accustomed to receive many 
 parts of it in an allegorical sense. Of these Philo 
 is an instance. In this writer, the allegorical method 
 of interpretation is carried to the highest pitch of 
 extravagance: and it was probably an abuse of this 
 sort of interpretation, that our Saviour alluded to, 
 when he complained of the law having been ex- 
 plained away, or made of no effect by foolish tradi- 
 tions. 
 
 3. A third cause, which greatly contributed to 
 effect a complete union between Gentile and Jewish 
 Christians, was the general prevalence of the Greek 
 language, in most parts of the world, where Jews 
 resided. Many thousands of this people, who had 
 lived in Alexandria ever since the time of the first 
 two Ptolemies, and many others in different parts 
 
 1 Irenseus, L. iv. c. xviii. 2 L. iv. c. xix.
 
 161 
 
 of Asia Minor and Greece, spoke and understood no 
 other language. Even in Palestine, after the acra 
 of the Seleucidae, 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 Scotland. Some of the inhabitants 
 spoke Greek 3 , which thus became of easy access to 
 all; the greater part of them were only acquainted 
 with the Syriac 1 ; many would probably have a fa- 
 miliar knowledge of both ; and some of their Roman 
 masters were perhaps only acquainted with the Latin 
 language. It was for the information of all descrip- 
 tions of persons that the superscription on our Sa- 
 viour's cross was in Hebrew (i. e. Syriac), Greek and 
 Latin. All the New Testament, except the Gospel 
 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 Hegesippus, 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 Gen- 
 tile and Jewish Christians, would be much facilitated 
 by a common language, and would materially con- 
 tribute to destroy all disagreement between them on 
 the subject of the spiritual observance (/. e. in other 
 words, the literal desertion) of the Mosaic Law. 
 
 s Acts xxi. 37. Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in Matth. i. 23. 
 
 4 Josephus, Prscf. in Antiq. Judaic, et Prjef. in Bell. Judaic, and 
 Acts xxi. 40.
 
 162 
 
 4. The prevalent opinion of most of the Gentile 
 Christians, at the end of the first and the beginning 
 of the second century, on the sinfulness of Judaism, 
 and their violence against Judaizers, particularly those 
 who refused to communicate with them, must also 
 have had some effect in detaching a part of these 
 Christians from the observance of their Law. About 
 A. D. 140, the intolerance of the Gentile Christians 
 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 nega- 
 tive, against those who attempted to impose the Jew- 
 ish yoke on Gentiles, or who refused to communicate 
 with them 1 . 
 
 5. Another cause of the diminution of the num- 
 bers 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 sepa- 
 ration from their native country would induce many 
 to abandon customs, which some of their fellow Christ- 
 ians had long thought indifferent, which others be- 
 lieved to be wicked, and which had 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 irre- 
 sistible : and when their force is properly appreciated, 
 
 * Justin Martyr, p. 230. et seq. Ed. Thirlby.
 
 16:* 
 
 it will cease to be a matter of wonder that so few 
 Christian Jews existed in the third century. Ob- 
 scure, as the early part of the history of Christianity 
 confessedly is, one complete 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 Acts of the Apostles, and 
 their Epistles in the New Testament, it appears, 
 that Christians at first formed a body of incoherent 
 parts. The Jews, at first, were the majority, and 
 in some of the churches continued for a considerable 
 time to bear a great proportion to their Gentile 
 brethren ; on whom they attempted to impose the 
 burdensome and painful ceremonies of their law. 
 Violent contentions, as it might be expected, were 
 the consequences of this attempt : and the Gentile 
 converts, after having defended themselves from the 
 encroachments of Judaizers, were driven by the bit- 
 terness of opposition and a detestation of customs, 
 which had been nearly forced on them, to an in- 
 tolerance of the same nature with that, from which 
 they had received so much annoyance; and actually 
 declared it absurd even for Hebrews " to call them- 
 selves by the name of Jesus Christ and to Judaize." 
 This hard sentence was pronounced by Ignatius 2 , 
 about A. D. 107. At first the contest was, whether 
 all should follow the Law of Moses: it was finally 
 decided, that it should be observed by none. 
 
 * Epist. to the Magnesians, $ x. 
 L2
 
 164 
 
 The Christian Jews, in this situation, taught to 
 relinquish their ancient customs, or at least to con- 
 sider them as indifferent, by the lessons of the Apos- 
 tles; relieved from their scruples by the common 
 opinion, that an observer of the precepts of the Gos- 
 pel was really and truly a follower 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 
 more complete; had hardly any resource left, but to 
 abandon one party or the other, to become either 
 mere Gentile Christians, or mere Antichristian Jews. 
 Mixing with other Christians, who neither literally 
 observed sabbaths, nor new moons, nor feasts, nor 
 sacrifices but who were persuaded, that they ob- 
 served all these when understood in their true spi- 
 ritual sense they would gradually fall into the same 
 opinions and practices ; and the same neglect of the 
 literal, or, as it was more commonly termed, the car- 
 nal interpretation of the Mosaic Law. To avoid the 
 opprobrium annexed to Judaism, they would gladly 
 lose their old name, connect themselves by inter- 
 marriages with other Christians, and sink into their 
 customs; so that, in the time of Origen, it would 
 not have been a matter of wonder, if no distinction 
 could have been discovered between the great bodies 
 of Jewish and Gentile Christians. They would be 
 mixed and incorporated in one mass, being all in 
 reality Gentile Christians, and all calling themselves 
 " true spiritual Israelites."
 
 165 
 
 The first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were cir- 
 cumcised Jews. This was the only church, which 
 continued for any length of time to be composed 
 entirely or principally of that people. But, before 
 its extinction under Adrian, some of the causes which 
 have been specified had operated so far as to have 
 induced a few of the members even of this church 
 to abandon the ritual parts of their Law. This may 
 plainly be inferred from the account of Sulpicius 
 Severus: who, after having mentioned that the vio- 
 lence of Adrian, in driving all Jews from Jerusalem, 
 was useful to the Christian religion, immediately 
 observes, "Because then nearly all" (the members 
 of the church of Jerusalem) " believed Christ to be 
 God, with the observance of the Law 1 ." 
 
 But, after Adrian had prohibited all Jews from 
 residing at Jerusalem when their attachment to 
 Judaism was already loosened by the example and 
 precepts of the Apostles, arid by the current of 
 public opinion in all the other Christian churches, 
 which had already begun to operate in their own 
 many of the members of this church would probably 
 purchase the privilege of continuing in their own 
 country, by relinquishing odious customs, which were 
 beginning to grow out of date even among them- 
 selves, 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 dis- 
 tinctive customs and ceremonies, sink into the Gen- 
 
 1 L. II. C. LXV.
 
 166 
 
 tilism of Christianity, and be in reality " one fold 
 under one shepherd." Actuated by no motive but 
 the force of former habits to continue in the pro- 
 fession of the Mosaic Law impelled by the most 
 violent reasons to abandon it, with the loud and 
 terrifying voice of Christianity raised on all sides 
 against Judaism, with the thunder of the synagogue 
 already directed against apostates 1 , and with the 
 sword of an imperious conqueror driving them from 
 their native country 2 if they remained Jews, the 
 few deserters of their ancient Law would increase, 
 and soon become the multitude, and falling into the 
 religion and customs of Gentile Christians, they 
 would be so 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 argument against their existence. 
 
 Had the Ebionites been disposed to lay aside the 
 observance of the ritual law, the peculiarity of their 
 opinions on another subject would have prevented 
 them from uniting with other Christians. They 
 believed in the simple humanity of Christ; and this 
 obnoxious article of their creed formed a perpetual 
 bar against their admission into any of the churches; 
 but, which existed not with the great body of Jew- 
 ish Christians, "qui Christum Deum credebant." 
 
 1 Ka.Tapto/j.evoi ev ra?<? avva.'yus'yai'i TOU? TriaTevovTas eir\ TOV \t]<rovv. 
 Justin M. Dial. p. 169. 
 
 " " Adrianus militum cohortem custodias in perpetuum agitate 
 jussit, quae Judseos omnes Hierosolymae aditu arceret." Sulpiciu* 
 Severus.
 
 167 
 
 Had Origen then asserted, that the Ebionites 
 were, as far as he knew, the only Jews professing 
 the Christian Religion in his time, without explain- 
 ing 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.
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OP THE NEW TESTAMENT BY THE FIRST 
 JEWISH CHRISTIANS, COLLECTED FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. 
 
 1 2. Opinions of Petavius, Tillemont, Mosheim, Horsley, Priestley, on the 
 meaning of two passages in the opening of the second Book of Origen's 
 treatise against Celsus, on the subject of the Christians of Jewish extraction 
 in the third century. 3 4. Explanation of these passages. Both Celsus 
 and Origen bear testimony to the existence of Christians of Jewish extrac- 
 tion, who had abandoned the observance of the Mosaic Law. 5. General view 
 of Origen's reply to the first charge of Celsus, against the Christians of Jew- 
 ish extraction. 6. Testimony of Celsus to the belief of the great body of 
 Christians of Jewish extraction in the Divinity of 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. FROM the united testimony of several ancient 
 writers it appears that the Jewish Christians of the 
 first century, in general, believed in the Divinity of 
 Christ; and that no individuals appeared, who as- 
 serted his simple humanity, till towards the end of 
 that century. Against this fact, so established, no 
 testimony whatever has been opposed: and nothing 
 has been advanced to call it in question, except a 
 presumptive argument founded on the supposed tes- 
 timony of Origen ; who, it is asserted, has spoken of 
 the Ebionites, as if they were the only Christians 
 of Jewish extraction in his time, without having al- 
 luded to any others. 
 
 Had Origen really mentioned no others, it could 
 only be concluded, that a complete intermixture had 
 taken place between the Jewish Christians (described 
 by Hegesippus, Eusebius and Sulpicius Severus) and
 
 169 
 
 the Gentiles; not that those historians had asserted 
 a falsehood. But, in fact, 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 forward to 
 prove, what we might previously expect would be 
 the fact, that most of the Christians of Jewish ex- 
 traction, before the end of the second century, had 
 deserted the Mosaic ritual, and believed in the Di- 
 vinity of Christ. 
 
 II. In the opening of the second Book against 
 Celsus, an apparent inconsistency between two pas- 
 sages, very near each other, has long since been ob- 
 served. In the first of them it seems to be implied, 
 that all Christians of Jewish extraction observed the 
 ritual law in the age of the writer, and were called 
 Ebionites. M;oe TOUTO KaTavoija'as, OTI o't diro 'lovoaiwv 
 ets TOV lr)(rovv inaTevovTes ov /carctXeXoiTracn TOV iraTpiov 
 ' fttovai yap KO.T O.VTOV, eTrwvvjmoi ri/s Kara Trjv 
 tjv TTTwyeias TOV VO/ULOV yeyevrj/uLevoi. 'E/3/wi/ re 
 o TTTOJ^OS irapa 'louoaiots /caXelrat* /cat 'E/Stw^atot 
 Ti(ovaiv o'l aTro lovoa'aav TOV Jirjaovv, a>9 
 Trapa$e%dfj.evoi l . " Not having been aware of this, that 
 the Jews who believe in Jesus have not deserted 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 2 of it : for a beggar is 
 called among the Jews Ebion : and they of the Jews, 
 
 , ' P. 56. Ed. Spencer. 
 3 SeeValesius, on the term en^o^ij, in a note on Eusebius, L.vi. c.xiii.
 
 170 
 
 who have received Jesus as the Christ, go by the 
 name of Ebionseans." 
 
 Though the second passage has been very imper- 
 fectly and erroneously understood, it is universally 
 allowed that mention is made in it of two sorts of 
 Jewish Christians at least, some of whom had de- 
 serted the literal observance of the law. 
 
 Kett ws (ryy/ce^i/jUeVtos ye T y ^' napd T<> KeXaw 
 'lofocuos Xeyet, oyya/uei/os TriOavutTepov e'nreiv, on rives 
 fiev rjfjitov /caraXeXoiTracri ra e9rj, Trpotyacrei cujytjaewv Kal 
 dXXqyopiwv' rives oe Kal oHjyov/mevoi, ws eTrcryyeXXecrfle, 
 Tri/ev/uariKftJs, ovcev VJTTOV TO. TTCLTpia TrjpeiTe' Tti/es oe 
 ovoe ciqyovfjievoi, flovXeaOe KO.I TOV lyaovv Trapace^aaOai 
 w? 7rpo(f)riTev6evTa, Kal TOV Mft)i/crect>s VO/ULOV Tr)prj(ra.i /caret 
 Ta iruTpia' ws ev TY\ \e%ei e^ovre? TOV TcavTa TOV 
 
 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 men- 
 tions them merely as persons who call themselves 
 Christians. 
 
 Petavius 2 has attempted to reconcile Origen with 
 himself and other writers, by supposing, that in the 
 
 1 P. 59. Origen, in another work, has distinguished between the 
 true spiritual interpreter of Moses (the true Christian) and the two par- 
 ties among the unbelieving Jews, one of which understood the words 
 of the Lawgiver 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, History of the Jews, B. n. 
 c. ix. s. 2 and 9, and the first passage in Origen, to which he refers. 
 
 2 Verum Ebionseorum nomen latius extendisse videri potest Ori- 
 genes; ut Ebionscos illos appellet, qui cum alioqui de Christi Divini- 
 
 tate
 
 171 
 
 first of the passages he has used the term ' 
 in a more enlarged sense than usual, having extended 
 it to all Jewish Christians, whether Ebionites pro- 
 perly so called or not. 
 
 Tillemont supposes an inaccuracy of expression in 
 the first passage ; but, with equal candour and jus- 
 tice, allows Origen the privilege of explaining him- 
 self, and supposes the error corrected, or rather the 
 obscurity removed, in the second. "Origen seems 
 to say, that in his time all the converted Jews still 
 observed it (the Law). For, when Celsus accused 
 them of having changed their name and life, Origen 
 answers, that they followed the law, and were called 
 Ebionites. However he explains himself a little 
 afterwards, and declares, that of the Jewish Christ- 
 ians there were some who had quitted the law, and 
 others, who joined it together with the faith of Jesus 
 Christ 3 ." 
 
 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 Priestley contends that the first passage is 
 true, as a general proposition, and that the excep- 
 tions 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 them (described 
 
 tate recte sentirent, cum Christiana religione Judaicas ceremonias 
 amplectendas crederent: quod quidem tomo n. sub initium significare 
 A-idetur. Petavius, Annot. in Epiphan. de Haer. Ebion. 
 3 Tillemont. Mem. Eccl. under Cerinthus.
 
 172 
 
 in general terms in the first 1 ) had not. He 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, -rWs IJ/J.MV KaTa\\o'nracri TO. eOr/, irpo- 
 (bdvei $Lrjyri<jwv KOI aXXijycapiwv '. " Some of US have 
 
 deserted the established customs, under the pretext 
 of following allegorical interpretations." 
 
 III. Great obscurity in the opening of Origen's 
 second Book there certainly is ; but, I think, no 
 contradiction. The second of the passages in ques- 
 tion 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 improbable, 
 on this account, as well as others, that he should 
 assert a wilful falsehood in the one, and directly con- 
 tradict 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 Christians on 
 this subject, was carried by Origen, as it had been 
 
 1 Letters to the Archdeacon of St Alban's, Part in. Letter i. He is 
 not very consistent with himself, when he says, that " Origen expressly 
 informs us, that in his time all the Jewish Christians went hy that name" 
 (Ebionites). Hist. "Vol. iv. p. 72. And, " You make very light of the 
 Ebionites: but, according to the testimony of Origen, they were the 
 wMe body of Jewish Christians." Letter iii. to Dr Geddes.
 
 173 
 
 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 dif- 
 ferent parts of the Gospel dispensation. The Gospel, 
 in his opinion, was the substance of what many parts 
 of the law were only a shadow. He thought, that 
 the primary object of the Mosaic ceremonies was the 
 prefiguration of different parts of the Christian sys- 
 tem ; that the ritual law was intended by God, when 
 delivered to the Israelites, to serve, as it were, for a 
 model of the great work of Christianity; and that its 
 design and meaning were never seen till the veil was 
 removed from before it, at the appearance of Christ 2 . 
 
 It was reserved for the successful labours of Mai- 
 monides and Spencer to discover, that ,the primary 
 objects of the laws of Moses was the extinction and 
 prevention of idolatry of every kind : and that injunc- 
 tions, which at first sight appear absurd or trifling, 
 derived significancy and wisdom by acting in subser- 
 vience to so important an end. Origen, not pos- 
 sessed of this key, persuaded himself, that some parts 
 of the Pentateuch were nugatory, others impracti- 
 cable and delusive 3 , and false 4 in their literal sense; 
 
 To evvirap%ov 2e 0cos Tta OJO-COK vofj.(a, 
 
 v, avi>e\an\]se ry 'Irj<rov eiriCrm'ta, -irepicupedevTos TOV KO\V/J.- 
 /uaTo<;, Koi Ttav dyadtav KOTO /3pa^y eis jviaatv ep^fOfieviav, cov amdv 
 e?^e TO ypdnna. Philocalia, c. i. p. 5. 
 
 3 A'tTia Se irdffi TO?? irpoeiptj[i.evois \^/-ei;SoSo<a>i/ KOI dcreftfitav 
 t] IcKariKuv Tr(p\ deov \oytav OVK a\.\tj T<? fivat BOKC? tj rf jpad)^ 
 Kara rd irvtv pa-rind fttj vevotmevt], d\\' ia<! irpo? TO \}/i\ov ypdfj./jia 
 ^i\rjij./j.vrj. Philocalia, c. i. p. 7. Ed. Spenc. 
 
 f 4 He supposes the History in the beginning of Genesis to be only 
 true in a figurative sense. Philoc. c. i. pp. 12, 13.
 
 174 
 
 that some laws had even no meaning except an 
 allegorical one relating to Christianity; and he has 
 formally laid it down, as an established 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 literal, "meaning 1 ." All 
 true Christians, all the members of the Christian 
 church, he maintained, were strictly and truly fol- 
 lowers of the Mosaic Law ; the Gospel sanctioning 
 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 themselves 2 . 
 
 Without attending to these sentiments of 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 has placed him 3 ; and had 
 probably been witness, in the early part of his life, 
 to the desertion of the Mosaic Law by great numbers 
 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 fel- 
 
 1 E<<ri Tivee ypCKpai TO crwfjiaTiKov oJSa/nw? (^ovcrou 
 oirov oiovei rrji> \l/v^tjv KOI TO nvevfjia. TJJS ypafyrj'; juoi/a 'X 
 Philoc. c. i. p. 9. 
 
 A(ai<e'tjue0a 70t|0 tinels irepi Traces TJJ<: Beta'; jpa(prj<;, on Tracra 
 fj.fv t'^ei TO irvevfuaTiKov, ov Tracra Se TO crw/xaTiKoi/. P. 16. 
 
 1 Philoc. c. i. pp. 16, 17. 3 Grig. cont. Cds. L. i. sub initio.
 
 175 
 
 low-countrymen ; " who," the Jew says, " had been 
 very ridiculously duped in having relinquished the 
 law of their country by the seduction of Jesus, and 
 had gone over to another name and another mode 
 of life 4 ." He seems to intimate, that some had 
 abandoned their ancient laws in his time : " You 
 have left the ancient law of your country both yes- 
 terday, and a little time since, and when we punished 
 this author of your delusion 5 ." 
 
 In answer to this, Origen observes, " They of 
 the Jews 6 (i.e. those who have continued mere Jews 
 by remaining unmixed with other Christians) who 
 
 4 Ti iraQovTfs KCtT\iireTe TOV Trdrpiov vopov, KO VTT eneivov 
 
 \lfv^ayu!y r]devT<;, irdvv <ye\oi(o<; e^rjirctTtjcrdtjTe, KCU a'0* ijfjuav dirr}v~ 
 TojuoAr/o-are els a\\o ovo/ia KU\ eis d\Xov fiiov, P. 57. 
 
 X0es Kai Trptotjv KOI oirtjvtKa TOVTOV {KO\aj^ofjiev (3ovKO\ovvra 
 v'/jas, aVecrTf/Te TOV WttTpiov VO/JLOU. P. 59. 
 
 6 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 which Origen had frequently recourse, it will not appear im- 
 probable, that this part of his answer was only intended as a captious 
 objection against the language which Celsus had employed. He had 
 probably introduced his Jew addressing THE JEWS (instead of the 
 Christians of Jewish extraction) who believed in Jesus (rwv OTTO TOV 
 \aov Ttav lovcctltav els TOV Irjcrovv irta-TewavTiov or, TOUS ciiro 
 'lovda'itav, see p. 56.) Though this language could not be misunder- 
 stood, it was not strictly proper: for if they had really abandoned 
 Judaism and mixed with other Christians, they had actually ceased to 
 be Jews : and the only proper Jews believing in Christ were Ebionites, 
 who preserved their nationality by remaining distinct from other Christ- 
 ians. It is observable, that as soon as Origen begins to speak of Christ- 
 ians of Jewish extraction, who had deserted the literal observance of 
 the Mosaic law, instead of 'louSalbt, he introduces the more general 
 and less odious term 'Io-^af;X?Tai (pp. 58, 59,) a title by which even 
 Gentile Christians thought themselves honoured. It is the fastidious 
 accuracy of a carping controversialist, and not either wilful or inadver- 
 tent misrepresentation, that we mostly recognize in Origen's treatise 
 Against Celsus.
 
 176 
 
 believe 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, accord- 
 ing 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 Ebionaeans." 
 
 Origen, however, knew that it would be a very 
 insufficient answer to Celsus, to say that the Ebion- 
 ites, or "those of the Jews" (properly so called) pro- 
 fessing the Christian religion, had not deserted the 
 laws of their ancestors : these were two extremely 
 inconsiderable sects, totally unknown in all the 
 countries through which Christianity was then dif- 
 fused, except a few parts of the East; where they 
 existed in small numbers: and Origen himself has 
 treated them with great contempt by calling them 
 heresies 1 , who boasted that they were Christians 2 ; 
 and who betrayed the poverty of their intellect by 
 not being able to ascend to the spiritual interpreta- 
 tion of their law 3 . He knew that, besides these two 
 petty bodies of men, hardly numerous enough to 
 merit the name of heresies, many Christians of Jew- 
 
 1 Elff* jap Tti/e? aipfaeis TO? TIav\ov eirta"ro\ds TOV dtroa-roXov 
 fit] Trpoffiepevat, uxrirep 'E/Siwi/aibi d/jityorepot. L. V. cont. Gels. p. 274. 
 
 2 "EffT&xrai' Se -ni/e? KCU TOV 'lr]<rovv aVoBe^o/xei/oi, we "jrapa TOVTO 
 XpurTtavo\ elvai av%ovvT6<i' e-ri d>e KCU Kara TOV 'lovSa'itov vopov OK ra 
 'loi/Bai'cui/ ir\t]dr] (3iovv fde\ovre<:' OVTOI o elaiv 01 SJTTOI 'EjftitavaTot, 
 tjTOi CK irapdevov d/jLoXoyovvTes o^io<a>e tjn^v TOV 'I^crouv, 17 "Jv OVTUI 
 jejevvfjff6ai, a'X\' os TOUS AOJTTOI)? avBpttirow. P. 272. 
 
 3 OU'K eAajU/Sai/ojuei/ raura ai? ol ITTWVol T; (iiavola 'E/3iwi/a?o Trfi 
 
 i'a? Trjf Siavoias cVcoi/v/uoi. Philocalia, c. i. p. 17. Ed. Spenc.
 
 177 
 
 ish extraction 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 demonstrate, that 
 they too had not deserted the Law of Moses a mat- 
 ter of far more difficulty, and which none but an 
 allegorist would have thought of attempting it was 
 necessary for him to show in what the true spiritual 
 Law of Moses consisted: r<9 o a\rj6t}s vo/mos*: 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 in- 
 structed after the 'crucifixion of Christ ; this being 
 the great mystery, which was to be revealed to them, 
 and which they could not bear before 5 . The several 
 parts of the Christian system formed, in Origen's 
 opinion, the true Law of Moses. 
 
 Having thus prepared the way for a complete an- 
 swer to Celsus, he asks, " How is it, that those have 
 deserted the law of their country, who censure the neg- 
 lect of it in others ?" He then instances St Paul, who 
 presses on the Galatians and Corinthians the observ- 
 ance of the moral part of the Mosaic Law, and the 
 ritual law also in its allegorical sense 6 : (he has after- 
 wards spoken of Christians being taught by Christ 
 " to relinquish bodily circumcision, bodily sabbaths, 
 
 4 L. u. cont. Cels. p. 57. 
 
 5 See p. 57. 'E 8' aVaf, K.r.e. ' Page 59. 
 
 M
 
 bodily feasts, bodily new moons, and clean and un- 
 clean meats ; and to transfer the mind to a law 
 worthy of God, and true and spiritual 1 "): and he at 
 last proceeds to a full and accurate answer 2 ; in 
 which, consistently with his usual practice, he retorts 
 the accusation of the Jew of Celsus on the unbeliev- 
 ing Jews themselves. 
 
 " How confusedly the Jew in Celsus speaks on 
 this subject, when he might more credibly say, that 
 some of us" (unbelieving Jews) "have deserted the 
 established customs, under a pretext of" (following) 
 "allegorical interpretations: but, some of you" (Christ- 
 ians of Jewish extraction, to whom the Jew of Celsus 
 professedly addresses himself) "guided, as you al- 
 lege, by a spiritual interpretation 3 , nevertheless" (in 
 following this interpretation) " observe the ancient 
 Jaws of your country" (in their spiritual sense, with- 
 
 1 51 H dvoffiov juei/ TO d(J)i<TTaveii/ <rfc>/uaT/K>j? Tre^iTOjuf}?, Kai ffiafia- 
 TIKOU <ra(3/3aTov, KOI O-WJUOTIKWI/ fopToav, KCLI trw/iaTtKWc vovfjirjvtiov, KOI 
 
 Kadapuv KOI UKaQapTiav' neTartOtvai 2e TOV vovv 67rl vopov deov uiov 
 KO\ d\r]dfj KO.\ irvev/jiaTtKov. p. 61. 
 
 2 See p. 170. of this Volume. 
 
 3 " Guided by a spiritual interpretation" (^upyovpeKM -rruei/jua- 
 TKOK.) TlveufjLaTtKtj 2e Sttjyrio-K TU> Bt/ca/ue'co) aVoSer^ai iroitav C'TTOI/- 
 pavitav viro$ei i y(jicni KOI trKia ol KOTU ffdpua 'Ioi/Sa?oj e\drpevov' KO\ 
 TIVWV fjie\^.ovTiav d-faQiav 6 vo'/uoc e^e ffKidv. "The spiritual inter- 
 pretation is that of the person, who is able to show of what heavenly 
 things the carnal Jews served the model and shadow, and of what 
 future blessings the law contains the shadow." Philocalia, c. i. p. 10. 
 In this place he produces the same instance from St Paul, by which 
 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 lan- 
 guage, carnally) by the Jews, was understood and followed by Christ- 
 ians in its true spiritual sense.
 
 179 
 
 out 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) 
 " predicted by the prophets, and also to observe the 
 Law of Moses agreeably to the ancient practice 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 monument 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 effect by foolish 
 traditions." In his time, some of the scribes, or 
 interpreters of the Law, adhered to the literal sense, 
 others called in the aid of allegory 4 : 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 practised by 
 the Patriarchs 5 : and, by comparing Josephus with 
 Philo, it appears, that the Essenes considered them- 
 selves as strictly followers of the Law, but not in its 
 literal sense ; that they adopted the allegorical 
 method of interpreting it, and thought that it was 
 not to be understood without divine inspiration 6 ; and 
 
 * See the two Chapters in Beausobre's Introd. to the New Test on 
 "The Jewish prophets and scribes," and on "The Jewish sects." 
 6 Epiphanius de Haer. Judaic. Ossen. p. 42. 
 
 6 Philo, Vol. ii. p. 458. Ed. Mangey ; Josephus, L. n. c. viii. de Bell. Jud. 
 
 M2
 
 180 
 
 it must probably have been in consequence of their 
 allegorical explanations, that they insisted on the 
 inutility of sacrifices 1 . 
 
 In this passage of Origen, the Christians of Jew- 
 ish extraction are divided into two classes, both of 
 whom, he asserts, in answer to Celsus, were observers 
 of the Mosaic Law: those, whom he first mentions, 
 were followers 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 con- 
 tinues to attack the same people : " How is it that 
 you set out from our holy religion, but despise it as 
 you go on ? since you can mention no other founda- 
 tion of your doctrine than our law 2 /' Origen, con- 
 tinuing 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 under- 
 stood by the Jews, who only touch their surface 3 ." 
 
 fj KO.V TOIS yua'Ato-TCt Oepairevrai 6eov yeyovaviv, ov toa (cara- 
 6uov-re<! aAA lepoirpeireK role eavriav Siai/oi'as KaTa<TKevd(^6iv aiovK76C. 
 Phil. Vol. ii. p. 457. Ed. Mangey. The same sense is perhaps conveyed 
 in the words of Josephus, eft aJrwi/ rac 6vo-ia<; eviTe\ov<nv. Antiq. 
 Jud. L. xvin. c. i. See the context. 
 
 cip-^ecrde fj.ev d-no TWC tjnerepiav ieptav, irpdiovre<; Se ai/Va 
 ; OVK e^oi/rt? a\\rjv dpjfijv elire'tv TOV Soyparm, fj rov 
 vo/jiov. p. 59. , 
 
 Oin^, oj? Xeye-re, 3e 01 irpdiovTev drt/j.d(ov<ri rd ev vd/jua yeypait.- 
 fieva' d\\d irXeiova Ttffjjv auro?? "neptriOeacrtv, awooeneitKTt mrov 
 e^ci /3a'0o? cto<pwv KUI dTropptjTtav \oytv eKewa -rd ypannaTa, -rd viro 
 IOVCKIMV ov Te6ecapr)/jieva, Ttav eirnroXaioTepov (xai n\>QtKtaTepov) av 
 v. p. 59.
 
 181 
 
 Though liis answer to the accusation of Celsus, 
 against the Jewish Christians for deserting the law 
 of their ancestors, is highly laboured, and is, on his 
 principles, perfectly accurate, its legitimacy will not 
 be allowed by any but those, who, with him, admit 
 all the extravagances of allegorical 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 as- 
 cended to the spiritual meaning of the Law, like 
 their brethren among the Gentiles, and therefore 
 could not be Ebionites of either kind; since, by his 
 express declaration, both sorts of Ebionites received 
 their name from the poverty of their intellect in not 
 admitting any besides its "carnal" or literal mean- 
 ing, and observed its precepts like other Jews. 
 
 The evidence of Celsus is clear and strong: and 
 as he lived, at least, near the time of Adrian, when 
 the greatest desertion from the Mosaic Law probably 
 took place, it must have great weight, even had it 
 not been confirmed by Origen: but, when the latter 
 writer also reports, that some Jewish Christians fol- 
 lowed the law in a literal, and others in a "true 
 spiritual" sense, a sense, which he affirms to be un- 
 known to the Jews and Ebionites of both kinds ; he, 
 in other words, asserts that it was adhered to by 
 some, and relinquished by others ; and fully confirms 
 'the testimony of Celsus. The two writers are recon-
 
 182 
 
 ciled 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 Ori- 
 gen's answer as was necessary to explain two difficult 
 and disputed passages in the opening of the second 
 book. His whole reply to this charge, when ex- 
 plained by a comparison with other parts of his 
 works, may be reduced under the following 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 ac- 
 count would have appeared highly credible, had it 
 been written to us," Gentile Christians 1 . Gentile 
 Christians have really deserted their ancient laws 
 and customs, in order to follow the Mosaic Law 2 in 
 its true spiritual sense. 
 
 2. " Those of the Jews" at present, who believe 
 in Christ, (the Ebionites of both kinds) who have 
 remained mere Jews by keeping themselves distinct 
 from Gentile Christians, and "who boast that they 
 are Christians," have not deserted the Mosaic Law, 
 
 1 Kctf avTO 'ye TOVTO irpwrov {(fiifTTCifjiev, TI btjiroTC cnra Kpiva<; 
 
 v o KeXow, J TTpoaurtroTToiei TouSaToi/ irpm TOI/C diro 
 eQviav 7r/<rTeu'oi/Ta<? Aeyoi/Ta, d\\d irpos TOW dvo 'louSauoi/. 
 taTdTos o av nai ebo^ev o Ao^oc flvai avria TTOOS tj/j.a<: ypatyo/j.evos, 
 p. 56. 
 
 2 flao-a Be 'EA.\a5, KOI (3dpf3apo<: rj Kara Trjv oiKov/jievtjit, fy\ta r ra.<; 
 (%ft nvpiov<i KaTa\iir6vra<: TOVS Trarptaovs vopovs KOI vo/jii(^ofjiei'ov^ 
 0eoi)c, Tijc Ttjptjffeio 1 : TIOV Mwcrew? i/o/uwi/, nat Ttji /jia^^reia? T<av 
 
 v Xpjo-Tou \oytov. Philocalia, c. i. p. 2. Ed. Spenceri.
 
 1*8 
 
 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 exalted 
 sense; and they are still mere Jews, mere carnal 
 Israelites (a-apKiKol 'loymj/Xlrai 3 ). Celsus has urged 
 his accusation, without having been aware even of 
 
 this : fj.rjoe TOVTO /caTavoJ/tras. 
 
 3. The 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 . 
 
 4. Those of the Jewish Christians cannot 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 allegorical 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 
 always in their mouths, and say, Does not the law 
 teach this 5 ? 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 
 altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, 
 it is written 6 ." 
 
 5. Celsus, then, has written confusedly on the 
 subject: his Jew would have spoken more credibly 
 
 3 Compare Orig. cont. Cels. p. 56 with p. 274, and Philocalia, p. 1 7. 
 / 4 See pp. 56 and 57. 4 1 Corinth, ix. 8. * Pages 58 and 59.
 
 184 
 
 1 ) had he declared, that all Christians of 
 Jewish extraction 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 relinquished bodily circumcision, and all other 
 distinctive marks of Judaism ; others, who are now 
 the only proper Jews believing in Christ, rejecting 
 the explications of St Paul, and calling him a de- 
 serter of their law, still adhere, like other Jews, to 
 the literal observance of its precepts 2 . 
 
 VI. Origen, if he be allowed the usual privilege 
 of explaining his own words, has not asserted a wilful 
 falsehood in one page, and flatly contradicted himself 
 in the next: nor has he related, that all the Christ- 
 ians of Jewish extraction were Ebionites: it would 
 have been truly wonderful, if he had. For his se- 
 cond book against Celsus contains the most decisive 
 proofs that the great body of Jewish Christians had 
 both relinquished the literal observance of the cere- 
 monial law, and believed in the Divinity of Christ. 
 
 St Paul, whom both sects of Ebionites rejected, 
 is made, as it were, the representative of Israelitish 
 Christians 3 . Both the Jews and Gentiles, who may 
 have deviated from the letter of the law, are de- 
 fended 4 . ("It is not to be inferred, because John 
 the Baptist was a Jew, that every believer either 
 
 i V. Steph. Thesaur. * Compare pp. 59 and 274. 3 Page 58. 
 
 4 OJ 70^, eVcl 'louBcuos ijv ('IwaVi'^?), fftivdyerai, OTI ce? irdvTU 
 TOV iriffrevovra, err' airu Tiav eOvuv -Trpoa-cp^rai Tia Xoyta, e'tre d-no 
 'Jot/a/wi/, Kara TO ypdnna TOV Mwi/Wws Ttjpeiv vo/nvv. p. 60.
 
 185 
 
 of the Gentiles or Jews 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 5 , &c. 
 which will neither apply to Ebionites, who still ob- 
 served them, nor to Gentile Christians, by whom 
 they had never been practised. 
 
 The second book, it must be recollected, is par- 
 ticularly set apart to answer the criminations urged 
 by Celsus against the Christians of Jewish extrac- 
 tion. Having mentioned the subject of the first 
 book, he says " We propose to draw up this, in 
 answering the accusations urged by him against 
 those, of the people of the Jews, who have believed 
 in Jesus 6 ." In this book, he has fortunately cited 
 many passages from the work of Celsus, in which 
 the philosopher has introduced a Jew reproaching 
 his countrymen, who were converted to Christianity, 
 for deifying Christ. He repeatedly speaks of Christ 
 as their God, accuses them of calling their Son of 
 God, the Word, avroXoyov, and complains that they 
 criminate the Jews for not believing Christ to be 
 God. It will be sufficient to cite one out of a mul- 
 titude of passages to this purpose, without more than 
 a bare reference to others 7 . 
 
 Origen, having observed 8 that the Jew of Celsus 
 was addressing his countrymen converted to Christ- 
 ianity, soon after cites this sentence from his address; 
 
 > Page 61. 8 Page 56. 
 
 ; Pages 61 63, 71, "!, 74, 75, 78 S'2. " Page 93.
 
 186 
 
 " He (Christ) certainly no longer feared any one ; 
 and being, as you say, a God," Sic 1 . 
 
 This testimony seems decisive. We have the re- 
 iterated declarations of Celsus, in the middle of the 
 second century, confirmed 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 accusations alleged against this body 
 of men : and few literary works have ever been ex- 
 amined 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 Cel- 
 sus, which professedly or incidentally treated on the 
 opinions or practices of Jews and Jewish Christians; 
 and has frequently selected passages merely for the 
 purpose of pointing out a mistake, though the ex- 
 posure was of no consequence in forwarding the great 
 design of his work, the defence of Christianity. In 
 the very opening of his second book, after having 
 mentioned that the Jew of Celsus had been intro- 
 duced expostulating with his countrymen for desert- 
 ing the laws of their ancestors, he immediately 
 denied the fact; and 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 
 
 1 Ou yap B; eti e(f>o/3e?To Tiva uvdptairiav uiroQavcov, KOI, wV 0art\ 
 MI/, p. 101.
 
 187 
 
 produced a multitude of extracts from Celsus, in 
 which the Christians, against whom the philosopher 
 directed his attacks, are accused of considering Christ 
 as God. 
 
 Had all, or even the majority of Christians of 
 Jewish extraction, been Unitarians, Origen's triumph 
 over his adversary on this subject would have been 
 complete, and he would have insulted over his want 
 of information with the utmost exultation : con- 
 tinually on the watch for inaccuracies of any sort, 
 either in favour of the cause, which he was support- 
 ing, 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 subject, 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 the Divinity of Christ, whom 
 they, with few exceptions, hold to be a mere man." 
 
 Instead of this correction of his adversary's mis- 
 take, he has acquiesced in the whole of this accusa- 
 tion : instead of denying the truth of the fact, he has 
 endeavoured to prove its reasonableness, and has con- 
 sidered the faith of the great body of these Christ- 
 ians 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 
 
 " Page 93.
 
 188 
 
 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 decidedly of others 
 besides Ebionites : this is all that it is necessary to 
 observe, in order to set aside the objection against the 
 testimonies of Hegesippus, Eusebius, and Sulpicius 
 Severus. But, in addition to this, Celsus has by many 
 repeated declarations borne the fullest testimony to 
 the belief of the Christians of Jewish extraction, in 
 general, in the Divinity of Christ ; and Origen acqui- 
 esces in, and allows this part of his adversary's charge. 
 
 To this it will perhaps be objected, that the 
 acquiescence of Origen is problematical ; since he has 
 perhaps raised doubts, about the truth of every part 
 of the statement of Celsus on this subject, in the 
 very opening of his second book. He expresses his 
 surprise that his opponent has not introduced his 
 Jew addressing himself to the believers of the Gen- 
 tiles rather than to the believing Jews: "his words 
 addressed to us would have appeared very highly 
 credible. But he, who professes to know every thing, 
 in this place knows not what is suitable to the pro- 
 sopopoeia 1 ." 
 
 After this declaration, it may be said, Origen's 
 posterior silence on any particular part of the charges 
 
 1 Kcu avTo 75 TOVTO npcarov ctpio-Ta/jLev, T'I Crfiro-re a-jra^ Kpiva^ 
 vpofftairo-jroieiv o KfiXcrov, ov irpoffca'rroiroie'i lov^cuov irpos TOVV dtro 
 TMV edvuJv TTivrfvovTCis \eyovTa, aA\ct irpoi TOV<S atro -lovcaitov, 
 Trt^ai/ajTaTO? 8' uv KO.\ eiio^ev o \oyos eivai avrta TT^OC r/'/xac ypacftofj.evo';. 
 'A\\a ntj TroTe o iravr' eiray<ye\\o/jievos E/o/waij, TO axoXovQov OVK di$f- 
 Kara TOI TOTTOI/ T;S irpovttiroirciiaK. p. 56.
 
 
 189 
 
 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 
 are charged with worshipping Christ as God, which 
 Origen never denies still, it may be alleged, we 
 may conclude from this notice at the outset, that the 
 accusation will only be applicable to the great body 
 of Gentile Christians 2 . 
 
 In order to be convinced of the futility of this 
 objection, we have only to fix our attention on Ori- 
 gen's method of conducting a controversy. It is no 
 part of his character to speak in general terms of the 
 inaccuracy of his opponent, without distinctly speci- 
 fying the several errors, which fell under his notice. 
 In the second book, which is set apart to correct 
 the mis-statements of Celsus on the subject of Jew- 
 ish Christians, the slightest misconception of his 
 subject, the most inconsiderable misrepresentation 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 cor- 
 recting a trifling error in it; and we may have the 
 utmost assurance, that no gross mis-statement of a 
 matter of fact, of which he was aware, could have 
 escaped a distinct 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- 
 
 2 We may observe, by the way, that, if this objection were admitted, 
 w/6 should have the testimony of Origen to the belief of the great body 
 of Gentile Christians of his time in the Divinity of Christ.
 
 190 
 
 cifying particular errors : and, if ever it be possible 
 to explain a part of an author's works by attending 
 to his character, 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 may be fully convinced, from, 
 his character as a disputant, that he means only 
 the words relating to the desertion of the Mosaic 
 Law, which he immediately labours, though not 
 very successfully, to refute at great length.
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OP THE NEW TESTAMENT, BY THE FIRST 
 JEWISH CHRISTIANS, COLLECTED FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. 
 
 1. Testimony of Sulpicius Severus to the desertion of the Mosaic Law by 
 Jewish Christians. Testimony of Basil and Chrysostom to the conformity, 
 in faith and manners, between Jewish and Gentile Christians. 2. The 
 observance 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 the members of the church of Je- 
 rusalem about A. D. 136. 3. Opinions of the Jewish Christians in the first 
 century, on the subject of the nature of Christ. Their interpretation of the 
 New Testament collected from their opinions. They must have thought 
 the doctrine of Christ's Divinity very clearly taught by himself and the 
 Apostles. 
 
 I. FROM the testimony of Celsus confirmed by 
 the acquiescence of Origen, it appears, that the great 
 body of Jewish Christians in the second century be- 
 lieved 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 distinctive marks of Judaism, and were not dif- 
 ferent from Gentile Christians. Several causes, we 
 know, existed sufficient to produce this last effect ; 
 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 and Origen of the 
 desertion of the literal observance of the Mosaic Law
 
 192 
 
 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 serviceable to the Christian faith ; be- 
 cause 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 V 
 
 This measure was serviceable to the Christian 
 faith, because from that time the great body of He- 
 brew Christians exonerated themselves from the ser- 
 vitude of the Law ; by which, as we know from Igna- 
 tius, Justin Martyr and Jerom, Christianity was then 
 supposed to suffer degradation. 
 
 In perfect conformity with these testimonies, Basil 
 has represented the believing Jews as perfectly similar 
 in their sentiments 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 whole of Israel: the election having been 
 found in a few only : which portion acting as leaven 
 
 1 " Quod quidem Christian fidei proficiebat ; quia turn pene omnes 
 Christum Deum sub legis observatione credebant. Nimirum id Domino 
 ordinante dispositum ut legis scrvitus a libertate fidei atque ecclesise 
 tolleretur. Ita turn primum Marcus ex gentibus apud Hierosolymam 
 episcopus fuit. Hist. L. n. c. xxxi.
 
 193 
 
 to the Gentiles, has drawn them all over to a re- 
 semblance of itself*" 
 
 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, ac- 
 cording to the common opinion, from future salva- 
 tion, and not considered as Christians. No bodies 
 of men could be more dissimilar than the Ebionites 
 and Gentile Christians. When, therefore, he de- 
 clares, 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 his- 
 torians, 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 collected with great pro- 
 bability. At first, they were all rigorous observers 
 of the Law of Moses, and insisted on imposing the 
 same burden on Gentile converts : this made it ne- 
 cessary for the Apostles, and others of the first 
 teachers of Christianity, to insist strongly on the 
 inutility of the ceremonial law: and the Epistle to 
 
 To fj.ei>Toi /jicpo<; Ttav Triff-revffdvriav tie \piffTov ttftrtoOt] airo TOV 
 irdvTos TOV 'lo-pcrf/A' ev 6\i>yoi<; evpede'urr]'; Ttj<i 6K\o<yt]<:' oirep to? 
 yevonevov TO?C eBvetrt, Trai/ras irpos Ttjv oiVeTai/ gXnvtrev ofj 
 Basil Comm. in Esaiara, p. 396. Ed. Paris. 1721. 
 
 N
 
 194 
 
 the Hebrews appears to have been written for that 
 purpose. 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 abolition of the literal observance of 
 the Law was regularly taught ; and Christians were 
 informed, that an obedience to the precepts of the 
 Gospel was the true spiritual observance of the law. 
 " God has manifested to us by all the prophets, that 
 he has no occasion for our sacrifices, or burnt offer- 
 ings, or oblations ; saying, ' To what purpose is the 
 multitude of your sacrifices, &cV These things there- 
 fore hath God abolished,, that the new law of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, which is without the yoke of any such 
 necessity, might have an offering becoming men 2 ." 
 "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 outside figure he com- 
 prehended three spiritual doctrines, that were to be 
 gathered from thence." " Moses therefore, speaking 
 as concerning meats, delivered indeed three great 
 precepts to them in the spiritual signification of 
 those commands. But they, according to the desires 
 of the flesh, understood him, as if he had only 
 meant it of meats 3 ." 
 
 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- 
 
 1 Isaiah i. 1114. 2 Ep. Barn. n. Wake's Transl. 3 Sect. x.
 
 195 
 
 selves by the name of Christians and to judaize 4 ;" 
 and, " If any one shall preach the Jewish Law unto 
 you, hearken not unto him 5 ." At that time, the 
 literal observance of the Mosaic Law was neither 
 tolerated nor entirely abolished: no separate privi- 
 lege is allowed to Gentile Christians as distinguished 
 from Jews, nor to Jewish Christians as distinguished 
 from Gentiles. The great object of his Epistles is to 
 inculcate uniformity of faith and manners ; to wor- 
 ship God in the same place, and in the same man- 
 ner: and in the Epistles to the Magnesians and 
 Philadelphians, in particular, 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 among you. But, 
 be ye united to your Bishop, and those who pre- 
 side over you, to be your pattern and direction 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 common prayer; one 
 supplication ; one mind ; one hope ; in charity and 
 in joy undefiled. There is one Lord Jesus Christ, 
 than whom nothing is better. Wherefore, come ye 
 all together as unto one temple of God ; as to one 
 
 f * Epistle to the Magnesians, $ x. 
 
 3 Epistle to the Philadelphians, $ vi. 
 x 2
 
 196 
 
 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 doctrines, nor 
 with old fables, which are unprofitable. For, if we 
 still continue to live according to the Jewish Law, 
 we do confess ourselves not to have received grace 1 . 
 These things, my beloved, I write unto you; not 
 that I know any among you that lie under this 
 error: but, as one of the least among you, I am 
 desirous to forewarn you, that ye fall not into the 
 snares of vain doctrine 2 ." 
 
 This was the language in which the Jewish 
 Christians were addressed by the rulers of the Christ- 
 ian 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 doctrines 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 3 . 
 
 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 Christians to abandon the laws 
 of their ancestors than the violence of their Gentile 
 brethren ; and these causes, joined to others, appear 
 to have produced the effect that might reasonably 
 be expected: for, after the middle of the second 
 century, there are neither any traces of churches 
 
 1 Epistle to the Magnesians. vi. vn. vm. Wake's Translation. 
 '- Sect. XT. 3 Justin Martyr, p. 230. et seq. Ed. Thirlby.
 
 197 
 
 composed partly of Jews and partly of Gentiles, like 
 those in the first age of Christianity, nor of Ebion- 
 ites 4 existing separate from the churches any where, 
 except in a few 5 places in the east. 
 
 The Jewish Christians must therefore, in general, 
 have abandoned their distinctive customs in most of 
 the Christian churches in the first century, or the be- 
 ginning of the second : and they would probably be 
 followed in this by most of the members of the church 
 of Jerusalem, after Adrian had prohibited all Jews from 
 approaching the neighbourhood of their native city. 
 
 4 It is probable, that all the Ebionites, at the end of the second 
 and beginning of the third century, bore no proportion 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 (hyperbolically, no doubt,) of Justus, one of the Hebrew Bishops, 
 as one of the myriads of those of the circumcision, who believed in 
 Christ. 'lovtiatcK TJ? ovopa IOV<TTO<; } /jivpttav ocrtov CK irepiTOfjifjs els rdv 
 Xj0i<7Toi/ Tf/i/jKcci/Ta ireirt<TTVKOT<ai> e*e KUI CIVTOS <av. Hist. L. III. 
 C. XXXV. 
 
 5 We must not suppose, that the Nazarsen or Ebionsean Christians 
 existed in many parts of the east, from a confused sentence in Jerom. 
 Quid dicam de Hebionitis, qui Christianos esse se simulant? Usque 
 hodie per totas Orientis synagogas inter Judaeos hseresis est quse dicitur 
 Mineorum, et a Pharisseis nunc usque damnatur, 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 resurrexit, in 
 quern et nos credimus : sed dum volunt et Judsei esse et Christiani, nee 
 Judsei sunt nee Christiani. Opera Tom. i. p. 634. Ed. Lutet. 1624. 
 A very judicious explanation of this passage 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 Na- 
 zarenes, " were composed some years before the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem, according to the chronology of Semach David, and were not con- 
 cealed; 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 they meant only a sect of their own, called 
 
 xNazaraeans or Minseans, and imposed so far upon St Jerom as to make 
 him believe them." Mangey's Rem. on Nazarenus, p. 7.
 
 198 
 
 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 posi- 
 tive testimonies of these writers, joined to the con- 
 sideration of the disappearance of Jewish Christians 
 in the second century, in most parts of the world 
 where they had existed before, we may conclude 
 with certainty, that they had assimilated themselves 
 to Gentile Christians : 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 1 . 
 
 III. Respecting 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 por- 
 tion, direct and specific testimony is wanting. Two 
 classes of evidence may be just mentioned, which are, 
 however, too general and indeterminate to be of much 
 use on this particular subject. Irenseus, Tertullian, 
 and many others, have expressly declared, that the 
 opinions of the Christian church preceded 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 
 heretics. Others of the Christian fathers, who also 
 reckoned Unitarianism heretical, have affirmed that 
 
 1 Du Fresnoy's Chronological Table, and Echard's Ecclesiastical 
 History under the year 136, and Mosheim de Rebus ante Constantinum, 
 p. 324.
 
 199 
 
 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 im- 
 mediately 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 mentioned the first 
 individuals by name (Cerinthus and Carpocrates, 
 with whom some have joined Ebion) who taught 
 this doctrine, 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 2 and Samaritans, contended that Christ 
 was man only in appearance, and that he only 
 seemed to suffer. While the early origin of the 
 sects of this class, the only sects which gave much 
 concern in the second century, 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, 
 towards the end of the first, or the beginning of 
 the second century 3 . 
 
 2 " That the authors of heresy in the time of the Apostles were 
 chiefly Jews, is evident from a variety of circumstances." History of 
 early Opinions, Vol. i. 
 
 3 " The church was disturbed in its infancy with two opposite here- 
 'sies, each of which produced several sects. The principal tenets of one, 
 
 which
 
 200 
 
 The opinions of the Hebrew church of Jerusalem 
 (which may reasonably be considered as a just speci- 
 men 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 Hege- 
 sippus, Eusebius and Sulpicius Severus; with these 
 the testimony of Celsus, to the opinions of the Jewish 
 Christians in general, in the middle of the second 
 century, perfectly coincides; the whole is confirmed, 
 were additional authority wanting, by the acquiesc- 
 ence 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 really thought that their opi- 
 nions (whatever they were) were contained in the 
 Scriptures, as these were the standards to which they 
 constantly appealed 1 ," and by which their opinions 
 were formed; since the Gospel of St Matthew was 
 particularly intended for the use of Hebrew Christ- 
 ians 2 ; and since those who are of the same age and 
 country with a speaker or writer, are the most likely 
 
 which came from the Samaritans, and had Simon for its first author, 
 were, that there are two Gods, and two principles, the Creator and 
 another above him, and that our Saviour was man in appearance only. 
 These are they to whom are given in general the names of Gnostics 
 and Docetse ; under which are comprehended almost all the sects of 
 the two first ages, 
 
 The other heresy opposite to this came from the Jews, who em- 
 braced Christianity, but not in all its perfection. They owned one 
 principle and one God, and the reality of Christ's human nature. But, 
 they believed him to be no more than man, denied his Divinity, and 
 retained the ceremonies of the law with so much zeal, as to diminish 
 the liberty and glory of the Gospel." Tillemont on Cerinthus. 
 
 1 Priestley's Letter to the Dean of Canterbury, p. 8. 
 
 2 Euseb. Hist. L. in. c. xxiv.
 
 201 
 
 persons to know the true meaning of words addressed 
 immediately to themselves; we might conclude, even 
 if the New Testament had been totally lost, or grossly 
 corrupted or mutilated, that it originally taught the 
 doctrine of Christ's Divinity. 
 
 We may also conclude, that the language of the 
 New Testament on the subject of the Divinity of 
 Christ and the verbal instructions of the Apostles 
 did not appear to the first Hebrew Christians dif- 
 ficult or ambiguous. For, we know the force of that 
 association of ideas depending on habit too well, 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 expectation of a 
 great deliverer, when our Saviour appeared among 
 them; and their opinions respecting his nature and 
 character had been partly formed on the Old Testa- 
 ment, and partly by their own fancies. They had 
 expected, 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 Messiah, according to an- 
 other of their preconceived notions, was to be a 
 temporal prince, and a man; and, under the in- 
 fluence of such an opinion, they must have been 
 inclined to pervert the meaning of passages (if they 
 thought them in any degree obscure) which taught 
 
 Divinity.
 
 202 
 
 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 possessed of a divine nature, 
 unless his words and those of his inspired servants 
 had appeared to them very clear and explicit on 
 this particular subject. 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 commenced with Christianity itself. 
 
 When therefore we know that the dispute, in 
 the first age of Christianity, was between those who 
 maintained the union of the divine and human na- 
 tures in the person of Christ, and those who insisted 
 on his simple divinity, and that the first believers in 
 the simple humanity of Christ appeared not till after 
 the destruction of Jerusalem under Vespasian we 
 may be certain, that, in whatever obscurity the 
 other opinions taught by Christ and his Apostles 
 might be supposed to be involved, the doctrine of 
 his Divinity was thought to be very clearly and 
 plainly inculcated.
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BY THE EBIONITE8 
 COLLECTED FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. 
 
 1. Whether the Ebionites and Nazarasans of the second century were two or 
 three sects, a subject of dispute. Singular hypothesis of Dr Priestley, that 
 they were only one sect till after the age of Irenseus, and that sect enter- 
 taining the same opinions with himself on the subject of the nature of Christ. 
 Dr Priestley's method of collecting the sense of the New Testament on this 
 subject from the opinions of the Ebionites. The principle, by which their 
 interpretation of the New Testament is collected, false. Those among the 
 Ebionites, who had read the New Testament, probably thought it to con- 
 tain doctrines relating to the nature of Christ opposite to their own. Their 
 opinions the representation of doctrines taught in their own canonical books, 
 and not of those of the New Testament Consequence of appealing to the 
 opinions of the Ebionites as the just representations of the Doctrines of 
 Christianity. Consequence of appealing to their opinions in order to dis- 
 cover the sense of the New Testament. 2. Toland's attempt to destroy 
 the authority of the New Testament, and Dr Priestley's method of explain- 
 ing it compared. Summary view of the interpretation of the New Testa- 
 ment. 1. By the Jews. 2. Primitive 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 subject. 
 
 I. IN an inquiry into the interpretation of the 
 New Testament by the first Jewish Christians, the 
 sense in which it was understood by some of the 
 earliest of those Christians, who were usually called 
 heretics, would be highly valuable, if their inter- 
 pretation could be made out with any considerable 
 degree of probability: this, however, it would be 
 unreasonable to expect : and we may dismiss the first 
 Gnostics, without much concern about their opinions, 
 because it is not known by what means they were 
 'Termed.
 
 204 
 
 The opinions of the Ebionites would be less 
 entitled to our notice, as a medium for discovering 
 the sense of the New Testament, than those of the 
 first Gnostics, had not an improper stress been laid 
 on them by a modern writer; who has attempted to 
 establish his own system of religion by the help of 
 a system of historical mistakes. 
 
 It has been universally allowed, that a body of 
 Jews professing the Christian religion, and divided 
 into two sects under the name of Ebionites, existed 
 in Palestine at the end of the first or the beginning 
 of the second century. One of these is supposed by 
 many writers to have been sometimes denoted under 
 the title of Nazaraeans; while others contend, that 
 the Nazaraeans were a sect distinct from both. 
 
 Theodoret among the ancients, and Huetius and 
 Spanheim among the moderns, were of the latter 
 opinion ; while a great majority of the learned has 
 considered the Nazaraeans and those, whom Nice- 
 phorus called the lesser Ebionites, as one and the 
 same sect. Of this opinion were Grotius, Vossius, 
 Spencer, Le Clerc, J. Jones, Mosheim l and Gibbon. 
 
 Each of these two opinions has been supported 
 by arguments of some force : but, in direct opposi- 
 tion to both, the writer, to whom I have alluded, 
 has reduced the three or the two sects to one. He 
 has supposed, without producing any ancient tes- 
 timony in favour of his hypothesis, and without the 
 countenance of any modern writer, that those, who 
 
 1 Mosheim (de Rebus ante Constantinura, p. 330.) has committed 
 a slight mistake in ranking Huetius with Grotius, Vossius and Spencer.
 
 205 
 
 disbelieved the Divinity and miraculous conception 
 of Christ, and who rejected the first two chapters 
 of St Matthew, were the first and only Ebionites ; 
 and that they were not divided into two sects till 
 between the times of Irenaeus and Origen, at the 
 end of the second, or the beginning of the third 
 century. 
 
 This conjecture is founded on the silence of Justin 
 and Irenaeus respecting any Jewish 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 heresies ; though it 
 is probable enough, from the testimony of Theodoret 2 , 
 that Justin, in his work on heresies, wrote against 
 both Ebionites and Nazarasns; and though the silence 
 of these writers, were it real, could never be opposed 
 against the positive testimony of other authors of 
 credit, who had sufficient means of information. 
 
 One of these sects believed in the miraculous con- 
 ception of Christ ; but whether they admitted his 
 Divinity or not, is a matter of doubt. The degree 
 of uncertainty on this subject is very accurately 
 marked by Mosheim 3 . 
 
 They received the Gospel of St Matthew entire, 
 7rXv/>ecrraToi' 4 ; and the only fault of their copy, as 
 Le Clerc has observed, was, that it was vi 
 
 8 Ttti/Tac <Tva-Trjvai ra\ aipecret 1 ; AojU6Tai/oi/ /JaerjXeJoi/Ttxr o 'Ei'tre- 
 (3io<; flprjice. Kara TOVTUV ffweypa^ev 'lovtrr'ivov u <f>i\o<ro<po<; KO\ 
 fidpTu*, icai 'Eip;va?o?, icai 'Q^ryeVi;?. Theodoret. de Ebionseis et Na- 
 zaraeis, Hser. Fab. L. n. c. i. 2. 
 * 3 De Rebus ante Constantinum, p. 330. 
 
 4 Epiphanius, Haer. xxix. num. ix.
 
 206 
 
 having been augmented by the temerity of some of 
 their teachers with many interpolations 1 . 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 
 through the medium of their religious opinions were 
 they even fully known. 
 
 The opinions of the other sect are more certainly 
 ascertained ; and through them it has lately been 
 attempted to discover the true meaning of Scripture 
 on the subject of the nature of Christ. 
 
 It certainly would be interesting to know in what 
 sense the New Testament was understood, either by 
 them or any body of men, who lived near the time 
 when any part of it was written. The first Ebion- 
 ites were perhaps in existence, when the Apostle John 
 wrote his Gospel ; and some ancient writers have 
 asserted, what appears in itself not very unlikely, 
 that some parts of his Epistles were directed against 
 the opinions of the first members of that sect. 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 subject of 
 their own religion in either language ; and their in- 
 terpretations of them would form and regulate the 
 opinions of the body at large. 
 
 They believed that Christ was a man born of 
 human parents ; and it has lately been taken for 
 granted, that they supposed this doctrine taught in 
 
 1 See Jones on the Canon, Part n. c. xxv xxix. and Fabricius, 
 Codex Apocryphus, Vol. i. p. 355.
 
 207 
 
 Scripture, viz. in the Gospel of St John and the 
 other parts of the New Testament 2 ; and it has in 
 the next place been concluded, that no doctrine 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 
 investigations have been conducted. 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 imagine, that nothing short of mathematical accu- 
 racy 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 what 
 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 
 have contained their opinions." It is entirely on 
 
 2 " I have shown that the doctrine of the simple humanity of Christ 
 was received by the great body of the primitive Christians both Jews 
 
 . and Gentiles. They were in possession of the books of the New Tes- 
 tament, and for their use they were written; and yet they saw in 
 them no such doctrine as that of the creation of the world by Christ, 
 
 <or even that of his pre-existence." Fourth Letter to Dr Price, in " De- 
 fence of Unitarianism for 1787 1790."
 
 208 
 
 this principle, that the Ebionitish interpretation of 
 the New Testament 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 extravagant, 
 the errors which have flowed from it cannot excite 
 our surprise. A more reasonable principle would have 
 led, with some degree of probability, to an opposite 
 conclusion. It might have been laid down as rather 
 probable, that the Ebionites supposed the books, 
 whose authority they did not, like other Christians, 
 regularly acknowledge, to have contained doctrines 
 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 heretics, was not admit- 
 ted into the canon of the Ebionites: and, therefore, 
 it is rather probable that they believed it to contain 
 doctrines contrary to their opinions. 
 
 The Gospels of Luke and Mark are also very com- 
 monly thought to teach the Divinity of Christ, though 
 less clearly than the Gospel 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 acknowledged by any of this class 
 of Christians : and therefore it is in some degree pro-
 
 309 
 
 bable, that they interpreted these books as they are 
 understood by us. 
 
 The Gospel of St Matthew is commonly supposed 
 to teach the Divinity of Christ : both the miraculous 
 conception and Divinity are generally believed to be 
 taught in the first two chapters. This Gospel has 
 been always received entire by the Christian church: 
 those Ebionites, however, who disbelieved both these 
 doctrines, rejected the whole of the first two chap- 
 ters, and corrupted and mutilated the remainder; 
 and the first words, of the only Gospel whose au- 
 thority they acknowledged, contain an historical 
 falsehood 1 . It is highly probable, therefore, that 
 
 1 " 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 exactly the same with our copies. It is well known, that 
 their copies of Matthew's Gospel had not the story of the miraculous 
 conception; and they also added to the history such circumstances as 
 they 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 unani- 
 mous testimony of antiquity." Hist, of early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 212. 
 
 Compare this with the extract from the Letter to Dr Price, p. 207. 
 of this Volume. 
 
 " The beginning of their Gospel runs thus : ' It came to pass in 
 the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, that John came baptizing, &c.' 
 *H Se op^ij TCIV trap' OMTOK Eua7*yc\i'oi/ e^f'j on eyeveTo ev rare 
 rjntpats 'Hptatov TOV fia.<ri\eaK Ttji 'lowBaiac, fjXdev y \toavvtjt pairnfytv, 
 &c." Epiphan. Hser. xxx. 3. 13. 
 
 Now, " Herod the king of Judaea was certainly dead above twenty 
 years before John the Baptist began his ministry (See Josephus and 
 the Chronologists), and yet Dr Priestley (Hist, of early Opin. Vol. iv. 
 j>. 77, &c. p. 105, &c.) is inclined to prefer this Ebionitish Gospel to 
 'the genuine one of St Matthew !" Parkhurst, p. 42. 
 
 O
 
 210 
 
 the Gospel of St Matthew was understood by the 
 Ebionites as it is understood by us; that they be- 
 lieved it to contain the doctrine of the Divinity of 
 Christ; that on this account they rejected the first 
 two chapters, and mutilated and corrupted the re- 
 mainder. 
 
 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 ob- 
 servers of the law, rejected 1 these Epistles; and the 
 necessary inference is, that they believed one of these 
 doctrines at least to have place in them. Instead of 
 the genuine history of the Acts of the Apostles, in 
 which St Paul is a principal agent, they had some 
 spurious memoirs of their own 2 : 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 complete 
 metamorphosis. And yet an appeal has been se- 
 riously made to the opinions of the Ebionites, as the 
 true representations of doctrines taught in books 
 which they never acknowledged. 
 
 The authority and the authenticity of the New 
 Testament have been proved beyond all question by 
 writers 3 , whose arguments stand, at this moment, 
 unrefuted. This book, which has been proved to be 
 
 1 Origen cont. Celsum, L. v. p. 274. 
 
 * Epiphanius, Hser. xxx. 16. 
 
 3 J.Jones, Lardner, Michaelis, Bryant, Paley.
 
 211 
 
 the true and the only deposit of the doctrines of 
 Christianity, lies open before us : men of plain un- 
 derstanding and common information are enabled by 
 ordinary helps to discover its meaning: but instead 
 of looking directly at the book, they are recom- 
 mended to turn to the creed of the Ebionites, as 
 a sort of reflector, in which the images of the doc- 
 trines of the New Testament are to be more clearly 
 and distinctly viewed than the doctrines themselves 
 by direct inspection. On examining, however, into 
 the construction of this new panorama, a palpable 
 deception is discovered : 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 4 , but are the reflected pictures of 
 other objects substituted by fraud or inadvertence in 
 its place. 
 
 We can only look to the opinions of the Ebion- 
 ites, 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: and 
 these were not the genuine Gospels of St Matthew, 
 Mark, Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles, and 
 the Epistles written by the Apostles to the first 
 Christian churches ; but the Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews, some counterfeit memoirs of the Acts of 
 the Apostles 5 , the Clementine Recognitions', the pre- 
 
 4 See the extract from the Letter to Dr Price, p. 207. 
 * Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 13, 15, 23. 
 ' Grabe, Spicilegtum Patrutn, Tom. i. p. 57. 
 02
 
 212 
 
 tended Epistle of Peter to James 1 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 incon- 
 sistencies, which are sometimes observable in human 
 conduct, that the persons, who at present clamour 
 most loudly against the admission of any creed among 
 Christians, except the New Testament, should affirm 
 that the sense of this book, on one of the most im- 
 portant doctrines of our religion, is to be settled by 
 the unwritten creed of the Ebionites. 
 
 It undoubtedly must have happened, that in the 
 progress of his great work Dr Priestley lost sight 
 of the object for which 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 under- 
 stood by those for whose use they were composed 2 ." 
 This was a reasonable purpose : but instead of point- 
 ing out the sense of scripture by the interpretation 
 of those for whose use it was designed ; he collects 
 its doctrines 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 doctrines contained in our 
 four Gospels. 
 
 1 Fabricius, Codex Apocryphus, Tom. 11. p, 910. Grabe, Spicileg. 
 Tom. i. pp. 59, 60. Dodwell, Dissert, vi. in Irenroum, 10. 
 
 2 Letter to Parkhurst.
 
 213 
 
 Religion admits not of temporizing. It is neces- 
 sary 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 doctrines of Christianity? 
 We must admit then the authority of their canon- 
 ical hooks, by which those opinions were formed ; 
 and neglect our own, which they neglected. 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 sub- 
 ject of the Divinity or the simple humanity of Christ? 
 If their opinions must decide on this question, 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 simple hu- 
 manity 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 
 Gospel, because it very clearly inculcated the doc- 
 trines of Christ's Divinity and pre-existence, which 
 they thought impossible ; and he would have been 
 struck with amazement at an appeal being made to 
 his opinions as the proper representations of doc-
 
 214 
 
 trines taught in books, which he had either not 
 read, or not approved. 
 
 Let a case be supposed among the Mahometans, 
 similar to that which has lately astonished the 
 Christian world. A collection of writings termed the 
 Koran now regulates the faith of the Mussulmans. 
 Let us imagine a philosopher of Constantinople, of 
 high reputation, really persuading himself, that all 
 the passages in it, on some particular subject, are 
 of doubtful signification ; that, on considering the 
 general spirit of this book, it is uncertain, for in- 
 stance, whether Mahomet intended to declare him- 
 self a prophet, or not. To remove this doubt, 
 he appeals to the opinions of the faithful in the 
 time of the disciples or immediate successors of 
 Mahomet himself: but instead of directing his at- 
 tention 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 ex- 
 tremely small sect, hidden in an obscure corner of 
 the Mahometan dominions, which would scarcely 
 have been heard of, in modern times, had it not 
 been dignified with the name of an heresy. Though 
 Mahometan historians are not agreed about the very 
 year when this sect first appeared, they have, how- 
 ever, without exception, placed its origin about half 
 a century, or rather more, after the death of their 
 great Prophet. The religious opinions of this ob- 
 scure 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
 
 215 
 
 they received only one small part of the Koran, 
 which they had interpolated and garbled at pleasure. 
 By a bold fiction, the philosopher supposes, in con- 
 tradiction to the historians, that the members of this 
 sect 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. 
 
 We do not refer to the readers of Plato, in order 
 to discover the sense of the writings of Xenophon on 
 the subject of Socrates : we are not to collect the 
 meaning of the history of Cyrus written by Herodo- 
 tus 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 pro- 
 per method of ascertaining what the four Evangelists 
 and the other Apostles have taught on the subject 
 of the nature of Christ. 
 
 II. It is now almost forgotten, though the cir- 
 cumstance happened no longer since than the be- 
 ginning 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
 
 216 
 
 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 doctrines from Christ himself and his 
 Apostles; theirs therefore was the genuine, as it 
 was the original, Christianity. He then tacitly took 
 for granted, that the doctrines and sacred books of 
 the Ebionites, in the second, third and fourth cen- 
 turies, were the same with those of the primitive 
 Jewish Christians: from which it followed, that these 
 were Unitarians, that the gospel according to the 
 Hebrews contained the genuine doctrines of Christ- 
 ianity, and that our canon is therefore of no author- 
 ity 1 . This was the conclusion at which Toland 
 aimed, without troubling himself about concealing 
 his sentiments under much disguise. And, if the 
 premises of his reasoning 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 theirs was the original and genuine 
 Christianity, and 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 2 , and therefore that no doctrine at 
 
 1 "Since the Nazarenes or Ebionites are by all Church-Historians 
 unanimously acknowledged to have been the first Christians," &c. 
 Toland's Nazarenus, p. 76. This was certainly rather strong assertion ; 
 but it was necessary for the author's purpose. 
 
 3 " 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 standard to which they constantly appealed. 
 
 When
 
 217 
 
 variance with Uiritariamsm can be found in it. It 
 will hereafter be mentioned, as a striking inconsist- 
 ency 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 Testament, by appealing to the creed 
 of the Ebionites, and that the century should close 
 with a still weaker attempt to explain it by an ap- 
 peal 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 sa- 
 cred books : the supposition, of their opinions being 
 the proper representations of the doctrines of Christ- 
 ianity, implied the acknowledgement of the gospel 
 according to the Hebrews as the true deposit of 
 those doctrines. This was clearly seen by Toland : 
 and though only some fragments of this book have 
 survived the neglect of the primitive Christians and 
 the wreck of time, yet the Mahometans, as he as- 
 serted, having among them a book called the Gospel 
 of Barnabas, in which St Paul is vilified, and the 
 simple humanity of Christ taught, both on the Ebion- 
 aean system, he recommended it to the attention of 
 Christians, as of superior authority to our Gospels 3 , 
 and as a proper substitute for the gospel according 
 to the Hebrews. 
 
 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 
 
 ^directly to pieces, your conclusion is rather too hasty." Letters to the 
 Dean of Canterbury, p. 8. A Nazarenus, p. 69.
 
 218 
 
 However absurd this may appear to us, it is 
 the reasonable consequence of an admission of the 
 Bbionaean authority. The gospel, which, according 
 to this writer's account 1 , the Mahometans acknow- 
 ledge, contains the doctrines, by which the sacred 
 books of the Ebionites were distinguished: and, it 
 is certainly true, that the Mahometan and Ebionaean 
 opinions respecting the nature and character of Christ 
 are nearly the same. The Mahometans agree in part 
 with the milder sect, which believed that Christ was 
 born of a virgin 2 ; that he, no less than Moses, was 
 a great teacher and prophet; that he was the Messiab 
 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 doctrines 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 projecting their conversion, 
 Christians themselves ought to be converted to the 
 Christianity of the Turks. The author of Nazarenus 
 was not remarkable for winking at the consequences 
 
 " I will venture to affirm, that though the Mahometans do ac- 
 knowledge a Gospel to have heen formerly sent from heaven to Jesus, 
 whom, 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 testimo- 
 nies from it, nor do any of them read it as a sacred book." Mangey 
 on Nazarenus, p. 24. 
 
 2 In the Alcoran he is always called the son of Mary.
 
 219 
 
 which flowed from his own principles; and he made 
 no attempt 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 Bbionites: which, 
 he observed, were one and the same. 
 
 After having described the Christianity and the 
 Gospel of the Mahometans, he characterized 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, that I have represented them (the Mahomet- 
 ans) as a sort of Christians; and not the worst sort 
 neither, though far from being the best 3 ." From 
 another passage, however, in this author, and from 
 the general spirit of his book, we might conclude 
 that he considered them as the best Christians. 
 " You perceive," he says, " by this time, that what 
 Mahometans believe concerning Christ and his doc- 
 trines, 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 time of the Apostles, having been the sen- 
 timents of whole sects 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 anciently known, and still in some manner 
 
 3 Preface to Nazarenus, p. 3.
 
 220 
 
 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, in- 
 finitely 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 Bbionites. To guard against 
 such absurdities to prevent 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 
 denomination, that the New Testament is the genu- 
 ine and the only deposit of the doctrines of Christ- 
 ianity. This book is generally thought to teach the 
 Divinity of Christ very clearly. A few Christians, 
 however, think differently : and in support of their 
 opinion, they have lately professed to appeal to the 
 valuable interpretation of the first Christians contem- 
 porary with the Apostles, as one of the means by 
 which the sense of Scripture on the subject 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 
 others. We may admit the appeal to the contem- 
 poraries 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 de-
 
 cision of the judges, whose sentence they have drawn 
 down on themselves. 
 
 We may appeal to three hodies 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 
 primitive church of Jerusalem, before its destruction 
 under Adrian. 3. The Ebionites, (since their au- 
 thority 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 directly by the most de- 
 cisive testimony of four contemporary historians: who 
 have related that the Jews, at different times, at- 
 tempted to destroy Jesus Christ, and at last accom- 
 plished their purpose, because he, as they alleged, 
 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 directly, is collected with very 
 great probability through the medium of their reli- 
 gious opinions, as described by the only ancient his- 
 torians, who have expressly treated on them, and 
 whose accounts are confirmed by the collateral testi- 
 mony of others, without being opposed by any ancient 
 testimony whatever. This church, according to their 
 representation, believed in the Divinity of Christ:
 
 " Pene omnes Christum Deum sub legis observation e 
 credebant." 
 
 The interpretation of the New Testament by the 
 Ebionites, of whatever value it may be, is also not 
 proved directly, but is collected through the medium 
 of their religious opinions. By comparing two his- 
 torical facts, the sense in which they understood the 
 New Testament may be inferred with a considerable 
 degree of probability. The first of these facts, 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 authority 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 
 doctrines of the miraculous conception and Divinity 
 of Christ, which they disapproved. The probability 
 of this conclusion is increased by the consideration, 
 that in the Gospels there were no other doctrines 
 (whatever the Epistles of St Paul might contain) 
 which could be obnoxious to Jewish Christians. 
 
 III. In attempting to collect the probable inter- 
 pretation of the Ebionites, I have reasoned on the 
 common supposition (which 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 1 , and 
 the history of the Acts of the Apostles', in which he 
 is a principal agent. Several ancient writers also, 
 so far from countenancing 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 Cerin- 
 thians. And, according to the united testimony of 
 several ancient historians, they used the Gospel ac- 
 cording to the Hebrews, i.e. a mutilated and cor- 
 rupt copy of St Matthew's Gospel only. Irenaeus 
 says, " They use only the Gospel according to St 
 Matthew 3 :" Eusebius, " Using only the Gospel ac- 
 cording to the Hebrews 4 , they made little account 
 of the others." When 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 5 ." And, according to 
 Theodoret, " They (the Ebionites, who denied the 
 miraculous conception) receive the Gospel according 
 
 1 Irenseus, L. i. c. xxvi. Eusebius, Hist. L. in. c. 27. Origen contra 
 Celsum. L. v. prope finem. " Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 16. 
 
 3 " Solo autem eo, quod est secundum Matthseum, evangelio utuntur." 
 Iren. L. i. c. xx. 
 
 * 1/0776 A. i"w 3e novta T(O icad' 'ILflpaiovs XefopeiKa xptofjievot, rav 
 \onrtov ffpiKpov eiroiovvro \&yov. Euseb. Hist. L. III. 27. 
 
 5 Ae'voi/TCti fj.ev KOI avroi TO ica-re Mcrrdaiov evayyc\u>v. Tovrca 
 yap KCL\ avroi a/5 KOI ol Ka-rd K.t]piv6ov xptavrai /uoi/w. na\ovcri oe 
 avTO Kara 'Efipaiovs. Epiph. Hser. XXX. 3. 
 
 'Ei/ TCO yovv irap' auVo?? Evayye\iia Kara Ma-rBaTov ov 
 />uv' o\to Se TrA^eo-TaTw, a\\d i/evo^eu/jieVw, 
 'Efipainov B rovro KCtXovaiv. Hser. XXX. 13. 
 
 ca
 
 224 
 
 to the Hebrews only ;" and " They (the Ebionites, 
 who believed in the miraculous conception) use the 
 Gospel according to Matthew only 1 ." 
 
 To this no ancient testimony whatever is op- 
 posed 2 : and the only circumstance, which can raise 
 a doubt on the subject, is that of the citations from 
 the other Gospels in the Clementine Homilies and 
 Recognitions ; 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. 
 These citations furnished Lardner with an argument 
 for supposing, that one of the branches of the Ebion- 
 ites either received the four Gospels, or one compiled 
 from them. 
 
 " If this be the work of an Ebionite, as is gene- 
 rally supposed 3 , and seems not improbable*, it may 
 
 1 Moi/oi/ Be TO Kara 'EjfBpaiovs evayyektov Be^oj/Tdi. 
 Euc^yyeAito Se TO> (caret MaT0aiov K.e%pfjvTat p.6vta. Theodoret. 
 
 Hser. Fab. L. n. c. i. 
 
 2 Marius Mercator indeed (A.D. 430) mentions, that Ebion made 
 use of the authority of St Mark and St Luke, as well as that of 
 St Matthew, (Merc, in Nest. p. 128. xiv.) But, this only proves 
 that Ebion (if a person of that name ever existed) might refer to 
 those Evangelists, as an authority to which the generality of Christ- 
 ians submitted, though he would not allow it himself: in the same 
 manner as Cerinthus and Carpocrates appealed to the first two chapters 
 of St Matthew. Epiphan. Haer. xxx. 14. We may observe, by 
 the way, that according to these accounts the most important parts of 
 the New Testament were referred to by heretics, in the first twenty or 
 thirty years after they are stated to have been written. 
 
 3 Vid. Praefat. Clerici. et judicium Cotelerii de Clementinis, apud 
 Patres Apost. Mill. Proleg. 670. 
 
 4 Vid. Horn. in. xii. 7. viii. 16. xv. et alibi.
 
 85 
 
 be argued, that, when the author wrote, the four 
 Gospels were owned by that sect 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 thing 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 one Gospel used 
 by the Ebionites, called the Gospel of St Matthew, 
 or according to the Hebrews, or by whatever other 
 name it was distinguished. However, either way 
 our evangelical history is confirmed 5 ." This argu- 
 ment, 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 respecting that sect of Ebion- 
 ites, by whose opinions Dr Priestley attempts to dis- 
 cover 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 Clementine Homilies. But, even sup- 
 posing that the testimonies on one side, relating to 
 
 t 5 Lardner's Credibility of the Gospel History, Part n. c. xxix. 
 ' Vol. n. p. 358. Ed. Kippis.
 
 226 
 
 both sects of Ebionites, were nearly balanced by the 
 citations in the Homilies on the other, and that it were 
 a matter of extreme uncertainty, on comparing these 
 opposite evidences, whether those who believed Christ 
 to be a mere man born of human parents, received 
 the four Gospels, or not: who, in this case would 
 attempt, with Dr Priestley, to collect the meaning 
 of the New Testament through the medium of their 
 opinions? Either their opinions are of no use what- 
 ever in leading us to their interpretation of the New 
 Testament, or the probable inference from them is 
 that which I have just deduced.
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OP THE NEW TESTAMENT, BY THE FIRST 
 GENTILE CHRISTIANS, COLLECTED FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. 
 
 1. Observations on the interpretation of the words of the New Testament. 
 (1) By the Jews. (2) The great body of Jewish Christians. (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 sects denied the human nature 
 of Christ altogether. Correction of their errors by the Sacred Writers and 
 the Apostolical Fathers. In correcting 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 doctrine of his simple humanity. No declaration to this effect 
 is to be found in the New Testament; or in any Christian writing in the 
 first century after the establishment of Christianity. 
 
 I. IN order to ascertain the sense of disputed 
 passages in Scripture, and to confirm the meaning 
 of others, it is of considerable importance to know 
 how they were understood by persons, who lived in 
 or near the age, when they were written. The in- 
 terpretation of the words of our Saviour by the 
 unbelieving Jews, who heard him speak in their own 
 language, is in itself highly valuable in establishing 
 their real meaning. The interpretation of the pre- 
 cepts of Christ and the Apostles by the primitive 
 church of Jerusalem, and other Jewish Christians, 
 collected with considerable probability from the re- 
 ligious opinions of that church, as described by the 
 only writers, who have treated on the subject, de- 
 serves also much attention. And the sense, in which 
 the New Testament was understood by the indivi- 
 
 P2
 
 228 
 
 duals, who had the influence to mislead the small 
 sects, which appeared in a part of Syria, about the 
 end of the first century, under the name of Ebion- 
 ites, 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 perfectly 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. 
 
 To us the interpretation of the New Testament 
 by the first Gentile Christians would be very im- 
 portant, if it could be clearly ascertained. And 
 though the history of Christianity in the first cen- 
 tury is involved in great obscurity, it will not, how- 
 ever, be a matter of great difficulty to determine, 
 with a very high degree of probability at least, the 
 opinions of the Christians of that period on the par- 
 ticular 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 Scrip- 
 tures of the New Testament, the five Apostolical 
 Fathers, and the works of a few heathen writers. 
 
 The New Testament is commonly supposed to 
 teach the Divinity of Christ ; but this cannot be 
 taken for granted at present ; as it is the point,
 
 229 
 
 which we are aiming to prove, by means of the 
 interpretation of contemporaries. One observation, 
 however, even in this inquiry, may be extended not 
 only to the writings of the first Christian Fathers, 
 but also to the New Testament. 
 
 Soon after the Apostles had retired from Jeru- 
 salem to Samaria, a Samaritan appears to have con- 
 ceived 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 practised; he saw 
 the same beneficent and stupendous works wrought by 
 the Apostles, without knowing by what means they 
 were performed; and desirous to be possessed of the 
 qualification suitable to the character, 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 respecting 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 foundation and super- 
 structure of his scheme 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 own 
 Divinity, he would probably think it necessary to 
 
 1 Arts viii. 13. 18.
 
 230 
 
 advance the same claim : and, if he had learnt from 
 the Apostles, that Christ had declared himself a man 
 only, he would certainly not call himself God. Now, 
 when Simon Magus pretended, that Christ had re- 
 appeared in his person, he declared, that he had 
 first manifested himself in Judea as God the Son ; 
 where he only seemed to suffer; that he now ap- 
 peared in Samaria as God the Father, and would 
 visit other nations as the Holy Ghost 1 . From this 
 historical fact, without any reference to the New 
 Testament, had the Gospels even never been written, 
 we might conclude with some probability, that Christ 
 himself had claimed Divinity, and taught the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity in unity in some sense or other. 
 When, therefore, we read in the Gospels the words of 
 Christ, " I and my Father are one 2 " " Go ye there- 
 fore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghost 3 " we meet with nothing more than 
 what we were prepared by common history to expect. 
 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 
 evidence) and of the sense, in which they are com- 
 monly understood. 
 
 1 " Hie igitur a multis quasi Deus gloriflcatus est, et docuit semet- 
 ipsum esse, qui inter Judseos quidem quasi Filius apparuerit, in Samari& 
 autem quasi Pater descenderit, in reliquis vero gentibus quasi Spiritus 
 Sanctus adventaverit." Irenseus, L. I. c. xxiii. See also the Appendix 
 to Tertullian de Prsescrip. Eusebius. L. n. c. xiii. Epiphan. Haer. xxi. 1. 
 Theodoret. Hser. Fab. L. i. c. i. 
 
 * John x. 30. a Matthew xxviii. 19.
 
 The claims of Simon Magus were advanced be- 
 fore many of the books of the New Testament were 
 written ; and were so far crowned with success, that 
 he received divine honours among the Samaritans 4 . 
 Mosheim has observed that he has always been im- 
 properly termed a heretic ; but though he was a 
 false Messiah, it is with great propriety also that he 
 has always been represented as the father of heretical 
 opinions 5 : as both the Gnosticism 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 sects denied our Lord's humanity, 
 they at once set aside the doctrine of atonement, and 
 rejected the notion of a resurrection. All these errors 
 were corrected with great care by the Apostles. The 
 reality of our Lord's human body 6 , his sufferings on 
 the cross, and the atonement for the sins of the world 
 by his death, are clearly taught in the New Testa- 
 ment, and are also repeatedly insisted on by the first 
 Christian writers after the Apostles. To counteract 
 the doctrines of those, who maintained the simple 
 Divinity and impassibility of Christ, it was necessary 
 
 4 Ka< <r^eSoV irdvrfs ftev Sajuape??, oXtyot de na\ ev aXXoj? edvccriv, 
 we TOV TTptSTov Qeov eKelvov 0/j.oXoyovvTe 1 :. Justin M. p. 40. Ed. 
 Thirlby. 
 
 5 It was not Simon, but his followers, after his time (See Origen, 
 cont. Celsum, L. v. 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 Simonians 
 after his age. 
 
 / ' " For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not 
 that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." 2 Ep. John 7.
 
 232 
 
 to declare that the salvation of mankind was effected 
 by the suffering of the man Christ Jesus 1 . But, 
 though the principal tenet of the Gnostics was that 
 of the Divinity of Christ, it is no where asserted 
 either in the Apostolical 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 
 effect 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 declaration to 
 this purpose, under such circumstances, 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 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 Apostolical 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 
 
 1 Rom. Y. 1 Cor. xv. 1 Tim. ii.
 
 233 
 
 mere humanity, the circumstances of the times posi- 
 tively required of him to declare explicitly, that Jesus 
 was only 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, Hernias, Barnabas, Ignatius and Polycarp. 
 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 only. 
 On the contrary, in the writings of three out of 
 the five, the Divinity and pre-existence of Christ 
 are expressly taught: and it is at least probable, 
 that Clemens and Polycarp have also delivered the 
 same doctrines in the short compass of their Epistles.
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 THE INTERPBETATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, BY THE FIRST 
 GENTILE CHRISTIANS, COLLECTED FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. 
 
 1. 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 Parkhurst. Wakefield's argument to prove them corrupted. 
 Examination of this argument. 6. Dr Priestley's objection. 7- Pearson's 
 arguments not invalidated by the answer of Larroque. Larroque refuted 
 by other writers. Acknowledgement of Le Clerc. 8. Ignatius a believer 
 in the Divinity of Christ proved by external and internal evidence. 
 9. The religious opinions of Polycarp identified with those of Irenseus, his 
 scholar. 
 
 I. BEFORE a regular inquiry be made into the 
 opinions of the Apostolical Fathers, and their testi- 
 mony to the sentiments of Christians in general of 
 their age; it is necessary to consider, whether the 
 evidence contained in their writings be of any value, 
 or not. The author, on whom I have had frequent 
 occasion to animadvert, has adopted a most singular 
 mode of conduct towards these writings. He has 
 frequently appealed to them in support of his own 
 opinions 1 ; and at the same time has refused to sub- 
 mit to the conclusions deduced from them by his 
 opponents 2 . This equivocation is intolerable. If he 
 
 1 Letters to the Archdeacon of St Alban's, Part 11. pp. 47 54. History 
 of early Opinions, Vol. i. p. 258. and 195. 
 
 2 "The works that are ascribed to them (the Apostolical Fathers) 
 are almost entirely spurious." Hist, of early Opinions, Vol. i. p. 93. 
 " The evidence of the facts I refer to does not depend upon writings, 
 
 the
 
 235 
 
 rejects 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 his own 
 system, why are not others to be allowed the same 
 privilege ? 
 
 In fact, the writings under the name of Barnabas, 
 Clemens Romanus (I speak only of the first Epistle) 
 and Hernias are allowed, by the almost universal 
 concurrence of the learned, to have been compositions 
 of the first century ; whether they were all written 
 by the persons, whose names they bear, or not. It 
 is admitted also, that the Epistle of Polycarp was 
 written at the opening of the second century: and 
 those, which are called the genuine Epistles of Igna- 
 tius, are now generally allowed to have been of the 
 same age ; though considerable doubts are entertained 
 about their purity. 
 
 II. The Epistle under the name of Barnabas 
 was quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus, and before his 
 time an allusion seems to have been made to it by 
 Celsus 3 , who lived in the middle of the second cen- 
 
 the authenticity and purity of which are so questionable as those of 
 the Apostolic Fathers ; but, on the uniform concurrent testimony of all 
 the Christian writers from the age of the Apostles till 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. " As a proof has been required that the phrase coming 
 in the flesh is descriptive of the Gnostic heresy only, and not of the 
 Unitarian doctrine also, I would observe, that it is so used in the Epistle 
 /of Polycarp, the disciple of John." 
 
 3 Origen cont. Cels. p. 49.
 
 236 
 
 tury. In this Epistle the Divinity of Christ is clearly 
 taught ; and that in the old Latin version, where no 
 marks of interpolation have been discovered 1 . 
 
 Mr Wakefield, after having raised some imagin- 
 ary 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, be- 
 lieved in the pre-existence of Jesus Christ 2 ." 
 
 III. The pre-existence of Christ is also taught in 
 the Shepherd of Hermas. "We have competent 
 external evidence," in the testimonies of Irenaeus, 
 Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian, " that Hermas, 
 spoken of by St Paul, was the author of the Shep- 
 herd." And the genuineness of the passages on the 
 nature of Christ is unquestionable. The style of 
 this book, which no translation can disguise, and 
 which hardly admits of imitation, prevents all sus- 
 picion of interpolation. 
 
 In the third book, Simil. 5 3 , Hermas calls the 
 Holy Ghost the Son of God, and 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 
 
 1 See pp. 108, 109 of this Volume. 
 
 2 Inquiry into the Opinions of Christian writers of the three first 
 centuries, p. 309. 
 
 3 Page 427. Wake's Trans.
 
 
 887 
 
 the form of a servant 4 ." He answers the objections 
 likely to arise from considering Christ as a servant 5 ;, 
 and afterwards expresses himself in these remarkable 
 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 understand. The Sort 
 of God is indeed more ancient than every creature, 
 so that he was 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 king- 
 dom of God 6 ." 
 
 " The name of the Son of God is great and 
 immense, and the whole world is sustained by him 7 ." 
 These passages require no comment : and Mr Wake- 
 field has hardly acted with his usual frankness, i 
 not openly allowing, that they contain the doctrines 
 of the Divinity and pre-existence of Christ. 
 
 IV. It is unnecessary to repeat the ancient 
 testimonies, by which the first Epistle of Clemens 
 Romanus is proved to be genuine 8 . 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 doctrine of his Divinity. 
 
 * Philip, ii. 6, 7. 5 Page 435. 
 
 / Wakefield's Trans. 3. 9. 12. 7 Ibid. 3. 9. 14. 
 
 8 See Cave, Du Pin and Lardner.
 
 238 
 
 And " even in this Epistle mention is made of the 
 sufferings of God 1 , which was probably not ob- 
 served by Photius-." The pre-existence, and perhaps 
 the omnipotence, of Christ seem also to be expressed 
 in another passage of this Epistle. 
 
 " The Sceptre 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 has been observed, that the copy used by 
 Jerom had probably Ka'nrep iravra Suvdpevos instead of 
 Ka'nrep Swdfievos : since his translation runs thus : 
 " Sceptrum Dei Dominus Jesus Christus non venit 
 in jactantia superbiae cum possit omnia 3 :" " Though 
 he had all things in his power." 
 
 It seems to be admitted even by Unitarians, that 
 the expression Sufferings of God, implies the Di- 
 vinity 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 4 ." Mr 
 Parkhurst's reply to this observation will be found 
 in the subjoined note 5 . 
 
 1 To?? ^>oS/oj? TOV deov ctpKovpevot KCEI TO TraOtinctTO. avrov 
 
 t]i> Trpo 6(f)6a\fjL<at> VfJLtav. 2. 
 
 3 Tillemont, Mem. Eccles. under Clement I. 
 
 s Hieron. in Esaiam. c. Lii. 
 
 * History of early Opinions, Vol. I. p. 97. 
 
 6 And yet the Apostle Paul had directed the elders ofEphesus to feed 
 the Church of God, which he had purchased with HIS OWN blood, Sic? TOV 
 'JAIOY ai'yuaros, Acts xx. 28. And the expression, sufferings of God, 
 meaning of that man who was also God, is surely not more improper than 
 that of God's own blood, meaning the blood of him who was God as well 
 as man. I am well aware that some copies, in this text of the Acts, have 
 Kvp'tov instead of Qeov ; but it should be observed, that the Church of 
 
 the
 
 
 239 
 
 When we recollect the universal applause, with 
 which the name of Clemens was mentioned by 
 Trinitarians*, in the second, third and following 
 centuries, and attend, at the same time, to this in- 
 ternal evidence in his Epistle ; it will not he douhted 
 hut that he was a heliever in the Divinity of Christ. 
 
 the 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 
 1 Cor. i. 2. x. 32. xi. 22. xv. 9. 2 Cor. i. 1. Gal. i. 13. 1 Tim. iii. 5. 15. 
 and Dr Mitt on Acts xx. 28. And we have already seen Ignatius, Ephes. 
 $ 1, using the phrase, blood of God, which is a confirmation of the true 
 reading in Acts xx. 28. ; and this reading, and the expressions of Ignatius 
 and Clement, mutually support each other. But there is nothing won- 
 derful in Dr P's catching at Junius's opinion concerning the passage in 
 Clement ; because he certainly wished to get rid of the obnoxious words 
 iradrj/jiaTa avrov, 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 conjectural substitution of nadii/j.ara, precepts, for iraQrma'ra, suffer- 
 ings, yet the sense of the true reading is cleared in Cotelerius's note on 
 the place, and the reading itself satisfactorily defended against the con- 
 jecture of Junius, by the learned Dr Grade, in his Annotation on Bishop 
 Bulls Latin Works, folio, p. 57, 58. And as I have been led to take 
 notice of Clement's Epistle, I shall here cite the beginning of his 32d 
 Section : " If any one shall consider them singly and distinctly, he will 
 acknowledge the magnificence of the gifts given through him (i. 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" (* ' avrov 
 yap if pets KOI Aei/irai, wai/re? ol XeiTovpyovvre? TU> 6v(rtaa"Tr]ptta TOV 
 Qfov- e avTov KJ/jio? 'Itjffovi TO KATA 2APKA. See Dr 
 Lardner's Credibility, Part n. Vol. i. pp. 77, 78.) Now let the reader 
 attentively compare this quotation with Rom. ix. 4, 5, and then determine 
 for himself, whether, in the words, " from him the Lord Jesus according 
 to the flesh^ Clement did not refer to Rom. ix. 5 ; and consequently, whe- 
 ther, in using them, he had not respect to that Divine Nature in Christ, 
 which was not from Jacob. It is however, I hope, on the whole, evident, 
 how well Clement agreed, as to the doctrine of Christ's Divinity, not only 
 with Ignatius, but likewise with \\isfriend and fellow-labourer St Paul. 
 (See Phil. iv. 3.)" Parkhurst on the Divinity of Christ, p. 140, &c. 
 
 t " To mention only one instance of the approbation of the religious 
 tenets of Clemens, by a believer in the Divinity of Christ. Eusebius 
 
 stvles
 
 240 
 
 V. In those, which are called the genuine Epistles 
 of Ignatius, the Divinity of Christ is frequently and 
 strongly inculcated: this is universally allowed: but 
 it is at the same time, urged, and with reason, that 
 even these Epistles are not entirely without the ap- 
 pearance of interpolation. They are, however, so 
 generally allowed to be genuine in the main, and 
 their interpolations 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 perfect confidence, as authentic 
 documents of those times 1 . 
 
 Since the controversy on this subject, in the last 
 century 2 , the question relating to the genuineness of 
 
 styles Quadratus, Clemens, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias, 
 fj.adtiTct\ of the Apostles, " by whose writings," he says, " the tradition 
 of the Apostolical doctrine is still conveyed down to us." 'Qv en KO.\ vvv 
 elv tjnas BJ' vTro/jivrjfjidTiav Trj<; dTroa-ToXiKrjs S<SaerKCiA.<as tj Traoa'Soem 
 06/ocTai. Hist. L. in. c. 37. comp. cc.36, 38, 39. This tradition, which 
 Eusebius asserted was preserved in the Church, is particularly opposed 
 against Unitarianism by himself, L. in. cont. Marcellum, c. 6. 
 
 1 See the Testimonies to Ignatius, in Lardner and Du Pin. 
 
 2 " That Ignatius was bishop of Antioch in Syria, in the latter 
 part of the first, and the beginning of the second century after Christ, 
 is indisputable, and admitted on all hands. And Chrysostnm tells us, 
 that ' he was intimately acquainted with the Apostles ; enjoyed their 
 spiritual instruction, 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, rejected 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 interpo- 
 lated, that perhaps there is, at this day, scarcely a man of learning in 
 the world, who does not prefer the otheK : and as to the shorter epistles 
 themselves, there were, in the last century, different opinions concern- 
 ing them; till at length a warm and close controversy arose between 
 Mons. DailU, a celebrated French divine, and our eminent Bishop 
 
 Pearson ;
 
 241 
 
 the Epistles seems to have been at an end: no argu- 
 ment having been brought forward since that time, 
 
 Pearson; the former having attacked, and the latter defending, the 
 genuineness of the seven shorter Epistles of Ignatius. Bishop Pear- 
 sons work, intituled Vindicice Epistolarum Sancti Ignatii, was first 
 published in 1672; and gave such general satisfaction, that since that 
 time there have been few men of any note, who have maintained that 
 these Epistles were not, at least in the main, genuine. As for what 
 Dr Priestley asserts, Vol. i. p. 107, that ' Le Sueur, after having given 
 an account of the whole matter, says that Mr Daille has clearly proved 
 that the first, or small collection of Ignatius's Epistles was forged 
 about the beginning of the fourth century, or two hundred years after 
 the death of Ignatus* I answer, that both Bishop Pearson and Arch- 
 bishop Wake have entirely demolished this weak pretence of Dailies. 
 ' 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 Romans. But though the shorter 
 epistles are, on many accounts, preferable to the larger, I will not 
 affirm that they have undergone no alteration at all.' (Remarks on 
 Eccles. Hist. Vol. i. pp. 234. 239, 2d. Ed.) 'Considering then, says 
 Dr Lardner, these testimonies I have alleged from Irenesus, Origen, 
 and Eusebius, and also the internal characters of great simplicity and 
 piety which are in these epistles (I mean the smaller), it appears to me 
 probable that they are, for the main, the genuine epistles of Ignatius. 
 If there be only some few sentiments and expressions which seem in- 
 consistent with the true age of Ignatius, 'tis more reasonable to suppose 
 them to be additions, than to reject 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 affirm that there are in them, 
 any considerable corruption* or alterations.' 
 
 " Thus these two learned and able critics, Dr Jortin and Dr Lardner. 
 But not so Dr Priestley" 
 
 ' For my own part,' says he, p. 108, I scruple not to say that there 
 never were more evident marks 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 reconsidering them, 
 that, exclusive of manifest interpolation, there may be a ground- 
 work of antiquity in them. The famous passage in Josephus, con- 
 cerning Christ, is not a more evident interpolation than many in 
 f these Epistles of Ignatius.' 
 
 Q "And
 
 to prove them spurious or grossly corrupted, which 
 critics have thought worthy of attention, and which 
 had not been either satisfactorily answered, or ob- 
 viated, in Bp Pearson's Vindiciae Ignatianse. Lately, 
 indeed, Mr Wakefield has endeavoured to prove them 
 interpolated on the subject of the Divinity of Christ 
 by an argument, which has, at least, the merit of 
 originality. He produces passages from those, which 
 are called the genuine Epistles; and comparing 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 for- 
 mer than in the latter 1 : he then proceeds to reason 
 thus: 
 
 " And this last proposition I directly and positively deny ; and 
 though such vapouring may impose upon the ignorant and illiterate, 
 whether male or female, yet I helieve Dr Priestley will hardly find one 
 man of learning (Mr Gilbert Wakefield 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 of 
 Ignatius, he does not produce one. For the Doctor on this, as on other 
 occasions, finds it much easier to assert than to prove. 
 
 " Guided therefore hy my own deliberate judgement concerning the 
 genuineness of the seven shorter Epistles of Ignatius, and supported by 
 the authority of such critical scholars as Archbishop Usher, Grotius, 
 Hammond, Pearson, Bull, Grabe, Jo. Albert. Fabricius, Wake, and 
 Cave, I shall now produce what that blessed martyr, the disciple and 
 intimate companion of the Apostles, hath said, not only concerning the 
 Divinity and Pre-existence of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, but 
 also concerning his miraculous Conception, and the Doctrine of the 
 Trinity." Parkhurst, p. 130. 
 
 The genuine. 
 
 1 Endeavour, therefore, to be confirmed in the Doctrines of the 
 Lord and the Apostles; that ye may prosper in all that ye do, in 
 Flesh and Spirit, in Faith and Love, IN THE SON AND THE FATHER 
 AND THE SPIRIT, in the Beginning and in the End, with your mast 
 
 worthy
 
 *' \Vhen the notorious purpose of the interpolator 
 of these Epistles was the aggrandisement of the 
 person of Jesus Christ the establishment of his pre- 
 existence and Godhead, as the paragraphs allowed 
 to be spurious demonstrably evince, is it possible, 
 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 objection be refuted, 
 I will maintain that these genuine productions of 
 Ignatius have been notoriously adulterated, since the 
 days of the earliest interpolator*" 
 
 1. This objection appears to have arisen from 
 a want of sufficient attention to the design of the 
 interpolator. It is clearly proved by Grabe 3 , that 
 
 worthy Bishop, and that well-woven spiritual Crown your Presbytery, 
 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 Doctrines of the Lord 
 and the Apostles ; that all Things, which ye do, 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. Sub?nit 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 the two Passages, that 
 the genuine Epistles, as they are called, have been corrupted, as well 
 as the interpolated; and often to a much greater Degree? If any Man 
 will he contumacious enough to dispute what appears so extremely 
 manifest and undeniable, I must insist upon a satisfactory Answer to 
 the following Question." Wakefield. 
 
 * Enquiry into the Opinions of the Christian Writers of the three 
 fi/st Centuries, p. 337. 
 
 3 Grabe, Spicilegiuin, Not. p. 225. Tom. n. Ed. Oxon. 1714.
 
 244 
 
 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 
 perfectly consistent with his design. Mr Wakefield 
 would have suppressed his objection, if he had at- 
 tended to this circumstance. 
 
 2. Were his hypothesis respecting 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 originally 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 alter- 
 ations 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 perfect confidence 
 of their genuineness, any passages which can be 
 shown to have been in them, before the beginning 
 of the sixth century, when the interpolated Epistles 
 were composed 1 . Now, about the year 449? Theo- 
 doret cited passages from the Epistles of Ignatius, 
 in which the Divinity 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 
 
 i Cave, Hist. Literaria, p. 27, and Du Pin, under Ignatius.
 
 245 
 
 "Our God Jesus Christ;" and "The Son of Man 
 and the Son of GodV 
 
 The same doctrines and the same peculiarity of 
 language, which we at present observe in these 
 Epistles, were found in them by Theodoret, nearly 
 a century before " the time of the earliest interpo- 
 lator." 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 3 : but, on looking through his 
 writings, no critical 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 Christianity. " This, Sir, is 
 neither apostolical language, nor, indeed, that of any 
 writer whatever, in any age of the Church 4 ." 
 
 To an old objection we may repeat an old answer. 
 " The objections taken from the style," says Du Pin, 
 
 2 "OfTCt fn "fevovt Aa/31S KUTU crdpKa, vlov Qtov Kara 
 cat dvvafltv, feyevvrinevov d\r]0(a<; et irapQevov. 
 
 'O yap 6fo<; tj/Aosv lr]<rou<! XOJ<TTO?. 
 
 Tw vim TOV dv6p(OTrov, icai vl(a TOU Qeov. Ignat. in Theodoret. 
 Dial. Immutab. V. Pearson. Vindic. Part. i. c. i. p. 10. 
 
 3 " You must know that the genuineness of them is not ouly very 
 much doubted, but generally given up by the learned." Letter to 
 Dr Horsley, Part i. p. 13. 
 
 * Letter to Parkhurst. " This perpetual addition of the term God 
 to the word Christ is generally considered as an interpolation. It is, 
 indeed, a manifest and absurd one, such a phraseology not resembling 
 
 y thing in that age. or indeed in any subsequent one'' Letter to 
 
 r Knowles.
 
 246 
 
 " 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 1 ; Or, has he collected 
 this information from Clemens Romanus 2 , or Celsus 3 , 
 or Sulpicius Severus 4 ? Or, is it a mere conjecture 
 of his own? 
 
 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 argu- 
 ments of Pearson, by which the genuineness of the 
 Epistles of Ignatius was established, were invalidated 
 by the answer of Larroque 5 . This notion, however, 
 has only been just taken up. It was fully admitted, 
 soon after the controversy was over, that the reason- 
 ing of the latter a'uthor had not at all affected the 
 work of the learned Prelate, against which he wrote ; 
 and his objections were instantly refuted by Bull 6 , 
 
 1 Carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem. 
 
 8 Ha@ijfj.aTa CLVTOV. i. e. Qeov. 
 
 3 T2? (pare, 0eo<? wi/. " Being, * you say, a God." 
 
 * " Pene omnes Christum Deum sub legis observations credebant." 
 
 * " 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 suspect you have not looked into." Letter 2d. to the Arch- 
 deacon of St. Albans, Part n. 
 
 * Defens. Fid. Nic. Sect. in. c. i. $ 10. et seq.
 
 247 
 
 Nicolaus le Nourry 7 , J)u Pin 8 and others. The opi- 
 nion of the critics on this subject is very fairly and 
 accurately stated by a learned Unitarian at the end 
 of the last century. " Illarum rerum periti, utroque 
 opere diligenter perlecto, negarunt eruditum ilium 
 virum ulla ratione Pearsoni argumenta labefactasse V 
 
 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 contain- 
 ing an allusion to the miraculous conception of 
 Christ : and this passage is now found in the genuine 
 Epistles. 
 
 " Eleganter in cujusdam Martyris Epistola scrip- 
 turn reperi ; Ignatium dico, Episcopum Antiochiae 
 post Petrum secundum ; qui in persecutione Romse 
 pugnavit ad bestias, Principem sa3culi hujus latuit 
 
 7 Tom. i. Apparatus ad Bibliothecam max. Patrum. 
 
 8 History of Eccles. Writers Ignatius. 
 
 9 Clericus in Praefat. Epist. Ignat. prsemissa. [In a list of additions 
 and corrections subjoined to the first edition, the Author observes: 
 " I believe I have committed an error in representing Le Clerc as an 
 Unitarian. See his Life in the Additions to the English edition of 
 
 /Bayle."]
 
 248 
 virginitas Mariae'. The citation is from the Epistle 
 
 to the Ephesians, e\a6ev TOV ap^ovra TOV aliavos TOV- 
 TOV tj TrapOevia Ma^tas. 
 
 3. Ignatius suffered martyrdom about A. D. 107. 
 A circumstantial relation of that tragical event has 
 been preserved to our times; and, on its authority, 
 Dr Priestley has concluded, that he spoke the language 
 of an Unitarian. In this relation, a passage, which 
 shows his belief in the Divinity of Christ, has been 
 overlooked; while another, which only shows, that 
 he was not a polytheist 2 , has been preposterously 
 brought forward to prove him an Unitarian. 
 
 "All the brethren kneeling down, he prayed to 
 the Son of God in behalf of the churches'." 
 
 4. Without insisting on the genuineness 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 by corruption ; the 
 religious opinions of Ignatius may be identified with 
 those of the church of Smyrna: and it appears by 
 
 1 Horn. 6. Hieronymo Interprete. Pearson, Vindiciae Ignatianae, 
 p. 7. Part i. 
 
 2 " 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." Hist, of early Opinions, Vol. i. p. 262. 
 
 3 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 Acts of Ignatius can be used with 
 perfect confidence."
 
 249 
 
 other evidence 4 that they were believers in the 
 Divinity of Christ. 
 
 The general design of his Epistle to the Smyr- 
 naeans is not to convert them from any established 
 error, but to confirm them in their faith, to guard 
 them against the new heresy of the Gnostics, and 
 to persuade them to follow their Bishop and Pastors, 
 but especially their Bishop Polycarp, 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 5 ." 
 
 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 Polycarp their Bishop, must have 
 been that of Ignatius. 
 
 After this, it would be superfluous to state the 
 testimonies of Theophilus, Eusebius, Athanasius, 
 Jerom and Theodoret: one of whom mentions that 
 Ignatius confirmed the churches of the several cities, 
 through which he passed, in the true faith ; and 
 
 4 'Ajvoovvrei on OUTC TOV \purTOv TTOTC KaTaXiirfTv 
 ovTf fTepov Tiva <re(3eiv. TOVTOV fifv yap, v'tov ovra TOV deov,' 
 fV TOI/C oe ndpTupas, toe /jLa6t}Tct<; TOV Kvp'iov KO\ fJUfHtjTCtv, 
 o>?. $ 17. 
 
 " 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 w e adore : but for the Martyrs we worthily love them, 
 as the disciples and followers of our Lord." Circ. Epistle of the Church 
 of Smyrna. Wake's Trans. 
 
 This passage, together with most of the Epistle, was quoted by 
 usebius. 
 
 * Ign. Ep. to Smyrnseans, $ 1.
 
 250 
 
 admonished them to avoid heresies, by constantly ad- 
 hering to the Apostolical tradition 1 : which faith of 
 the Christian 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 mira- 
 culous conception and Divinity of Christ are taught 2 : 
 and the fourth has ranked him with the members 
 of the church, who were most distinguished for their 
 orthodoxy; Polycarp, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus 3 . 
 
 IX. It would be unreasonable to expect an ex- 
 position 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 4 . 
 In it, indeed, he calls God the Father of our Jesus 
 Christ; and Jesus the Son of God ($ 12.); but from 
 his Epistle alone it cannot be collected 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 
 
 1 Eusebius, L. in. c. 36, 37, 38, 39. 
 
 2 V. Pearson, Vind. Ignat. Part. i. c. ii. 
 
 * Nunqnid non possum tibi totam veterum scriptorum seriem com- 
 movere, Ignatium, Polycarpum, Irengeum, Justinum Martyrem, raul- 
 tosque alios Apostolicos et eloquentes viros, qui adversus Hebionem et 
 Theodotum Byzantinum et Valentinum hsec eadem sentientes plena 
 sapientise volumina conscripserunt." Hieronymus adv. Helvidium. 
 
 4 Spanheim, speaking of a writer, who had appealed to Clemens 
 Romanus and Polycarp against the doctrine of the Trinity, observes, 
 " Tuetur se silentio dementis Rom. et Polycarpi in epistolis quse eorum 
 nomen praeferunt: in quibus tamen nihil reperit, quod vel in speciem 
 sacrosanctis de Trinitate, aut divinitate Filii dogmatibus adversetur." 
 Introd. in Chronolog. p. 198.
 
 251 
 
 of Cerinthus, Carpocrates, Valentinus, Melito and 
 others, who either never wrote, or whose writings are 
 lost, we know, that Polycarp 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 was written on the subject 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 5 ." This is not 
 the language of an Unitarian 6 . 
 
 2. Irenaeus, 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 splendour in lower Asia, in the royal palace 
 with Polycarp, and endeavouring to gain his favour: 
 for I more thoroughly remember events of that time 
 than those of later date ; (for things learnt in child- 
 hood growing with the mind unite with 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 
 
 * These words, together with nearly the whole Epistle, are cited by 
 Eusebius, Hist. L. iv. c. xv. 
 
 8 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 Alban's, Part 11. p. 158. He will 
 have some difficulty in shewing the necessity of this inference, and in 
 reconciling the passage above cited with the doctrine of Socinus.
 
 252 
 
 discourses 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 received his 
 information from eye-witnesses of the word of life, 
 reported all things relating to his miracles and doc- 
 trine agreeable to the Scriptures^ ." 
 
 According to this testimony, the doctrines, which 
 Irenseus thought scriptural, were the doctrines of 
 Polycarp. 
 
 " Polycarp, who had not only been instructed 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 
 
 1 E/Boi/ 7'p <re 7ra?9 tav en, ev TJ nd-ruy 'Acna irapu. TU> HoXvKdpirto, 
 Xa/Z7rpaK TrpaTTovTa ev TTJ fiafftXixfi auAj;, KCU "rreipoifjievov tv^OKifH-eTv 
 Trap UVTW. /uaAAoi/ yap TU TOTC ^ta/jLvrnjiOvevw Tiav evay-j^o? jivofj.evu)v. 
 al yap eVc 7ra<8wi/ juaflj/'crei? avvav^ovcrai -rfj \|/u^>j evovvrai avrij' UHTTC 
 /j.6 SvvaffBat el-jrc-lv KOI TOV TOTTOV, ev u> Ka^/^io/xei/o? cteXeyero 6 /jiaKapios 
 rioAi/Ka|07ro?' KO* Tac irpoo&ows avTov Ka\ ra? elcroSoi/c' ai TOV ^apaK- 
 rripa TOV (3'tov, KI Ttjv TOV o-co'/uaTo? iSeav' KU\ TO? Sia\e'^6(<; a? 
 67rote?TO -npoi TO irhtjQos' KOI Ttjv fjLCTa 'lu)dvvov <rvvava<TTpo(pr]v we 
 aV^^eXXe, Kai Ttjv /uera TWV \oi7riav TWV etSfXtKOTtev TOV Kvpiov. not 
 (0? avefnvrj/jioveve TOVS \oyovs avTiav, KO\ irepi TOV Kvpiov Ttva r/v a. 
 "trap eKCivtov aKrjKoei. KUI trecn TWV tvva/Jifcav O.VTOV, ttai irtpi Trjs cttaa- 
 icaA/ac, toe itap avTOTrriav Trj<s Atari's TOV \o-yov r rrapet\ri<j)(a ( : <J IloAi- 
 KapTros, dirtjyyeXte -ntivTa trvfupttra ra?e ypaQaw. Iren. Epist. ad 
 Florinum ap. Eusebium. L. v. c. xx.
 
 learnt from the Apostles, and which the Church 
 hands down, and which alone are true, &c. " 
 
 " 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 xvith flesh for 
 our salvation, and in the Holy Ghost V <S:c. 
 
 '* The Church throughout the world diligently 
 keeps this faith, and believes these articles, as if it 
 had the same soul and the same heart 1 ." 
 
 IreiicTUS " in many places of his works, and almost 
 as often as he speaks of the Word*, insists on his 
 Divinity and eternity' 1 ." The testimony of such a 
 writer, with such means of information on the subject 
 on which he wrote, completely removes all doubt 
 about the religious opinions of Polycarp. 
 
 Kai llo\UKapTro<; cc ov iioi>oi> vrro airotTTO\taii /j.a6t}TeudeiS, KU\ 
 <Tvvavii(TTpn(fyei<; TTO\\O~S TO?? TOV \CA<TTUV eiapaKomv } oX.Xa KUI UTTO 
 fiVoo-ToKau/ KGtTaffTafViS (Is T;Y 'Acrlav tv T; tv uJpi'j; KK\t)(ria 
 
 tTTi.TKOTTOC, OV KUl tjfJtfTl eWpUKCtltCl' 1 1' T t} TrplOTI] tj/AUJV l]\tKia (eTTlTroXu 
 
 pr;cra<;, 6^i;\0 TOV ftiov) TUVTO Cica'^-Vjc a'el, a KO\ irnpii TWV 7ro<TTo'\(oi' 
 Irenaeus, L. in. c. iii. 
 
 3 'I I v v 'K -X itr'a KCt'tTTf KCifl* ">'Xiie T ?c ' te ' c ' 
 Ttav Ttjs 7>7 Cieffirapnevti, irapa ce Ttav \irocrTO\iav KUI TMV exetviov 
 fjLaOrjTtav 7rapa\a/3ov(ra Tt]v (Is ti/a 6eot> TrciTepa TravTOKpaTopa. 
 iriffTiv' KO\ fl<! era XoKTToy J \>]<rovv TOV vtov TOV Otov TOV <rapn(adevTa 
 v-nfp T;<; ;,aeTe'pH<r ataTiipiaf KCH els Tn>u/in a^iov. Iren. L. I. c. ii. 
 
 4 TOVTIJV TIJV -nl<TTtv t] L,KK\r)(ria t*7ripieA.&K (pv\a<r<ri KOI 
 (I/noico? 7ricrTei/i TOUTOK, to'? fiiav \!/vj'l v KON Trjv avTrjv f^ou<ra nap- 
 Ci'u". c. iii. 
 
 ' Du Pin, under Irenceus. 
 
 c Iren. L. i. r. xix. L. u c.xviii. xi.iii. xi.viii. and i.vi. L. m. c. vi 2".
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, BY THE FIRST 
 GENTILE CHRISTIANS, COLLECTED FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. 
 
 1. 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 collected from contemporary writings. 3. The opinions of the Christians 
 of Philippi collected from the epistle of Polycarp. 4, 5, 6, 7- The religious 
 opinions of the Ephesian, Magnesian, Trallian and Roman Christians identi- 
 fied 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 subject of the different Unitarian 
 sects. 
 
 1. IT is a maxim, which no modern discovery 
 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 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 actions 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 prayers 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, whether he
 
 255 
 
 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 1 . 
 
 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 imposing 
 on ourselves the additional labour of identifying, by 
 a regular demonstration, the opinions of the people 
 taught with those of their teachers. As soon as 
 external evidence informs us of the sentiments of 
 Cerinthus and Carpocrates, we suppose, even without 
 a momentary 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 satis- 
 fying themselves with Socinian interpretations of 
 Scripture 2 , we instantly suppose, that the body of 
 Christians, to whom his discourses were usually ad- 
 dressed, felt a difficulty similar to that of their 
 instructor. It is thus, after having discovered the 
 tenets of Polycarp and Ignatius, either by the internal 
 evidence in their writings, or by external testimony, 
 
 i Anab. L. in. 
 
 * " Speaking of the Socinian interpretations of Scripture, you say, 
 p. 135, ' I must own to you, that I am inclined to wonder, that good men 
 can satisfy themselves with such explanations.' However you candidly 
 add, ' But I correct myself. I know that Christians, amidst their dif- 
 ferences 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 involved.' " Priestley, Letters to Dr Price, p. 165.
 
 256 
 
 that we conclude the members of the Christian 
 Churches in Asia, of which they were the principal 
 teachers, to have been believers in the Divinity of 
 Christ. 
 
 A discovery indeed of a very singular nature, 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 main- 
 tained, not only with every appearance of seriousness, 
 but with all the ardour of proselyting zeal 1 , that the 
 learned and the unlearned in those early ages were of 
 opposite opinions on a leading article of their religion ; 
 that the writers and the rulers of the Church believed 
 in the Divinity of Christ, while the common people 
 held him to be no more than man ; that the electors 
 and the elected, the teachers and the people taught 
 were uniformly opposed to one another in their senti- 
 ments on this subject, from the time of Justin Martyr 
 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 
 
 1 Mr Lindsey has shewn considerable zeal in spreading Dr Priestley's 
 Historical and Critical Discoveries, together with some of his own, among 
 " the Youth of the two Universities." 
 
 " HERETOFORE, many Christians, who saw that there was no 
 foundation in the Scriptures for the Divinity of Christ, or for his being 
 any thing more than a man with an extraordinary commission and power 
 from God, did not know what to make of some of the earliest Christian 
 writers embracing a contrary opinion." 
 
 " Concerning this large field, or more justly to speak, this overgrown 
 wood of Christian antiquity, which our author alone hath cleared up, and 
 in which he hath made such discoveries, &c." 
 
 " The distinction of the opinion of the early writers from that of the 
 common people was never before observed by any one." Lindsey, Vindic. 
 Priestley Postscript.
 
 opposition between the people and those whom they 
 had elected for their instructors, or who had received 
 their appointments from the Apostles, hefore 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 in- 
 credulity of the people of their own age; if they 
 complain of persecution on account of the doctrines 
 which they teach ; if they apologize for their own 
 sentiments, and take great pains to remove prejudices 
 against them; if they betray doubts and fears, that 
 their opinions are not suitable to the spirit of the 
 times; if the obvious design of their writings be ra- 
 ther 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 commend the 
 opinions of those, to whom they address themselves ; 
 when they appear solicitous to confirm them in their 
 
 R
 
 258 
 
 present persuasions; when they try to guard them 
 against the error of new opinions, instead of attempt- 
 ing to eradicate old and inveterate prejudices; when 
 they show no apprehension, that the doctrines which 
 they teach will he denied or doubted; when the 
 writers, who maintain any system of theological 
 opinions, either commend the faith of the people, 
 and complain only of their want of knowledge ; or 
 represent them in plain terms as entertaining a com- 
 mon 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 tenour of their Epistles has not 
 been materially altered by interpolation ; and without 
 laying any stress whatever on those passages in 
 Ignatius, in which Christ is directly or indirectly 
 called the God of Christians: though some of these 
 are so connected with the substance of the Epistles, 
 that no doubt can be entertained of their genuineness. 
 
 III. Let Polycarp speak to the opinions of the 
 Church of Philippi. 
 
 "Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him 
 to the Church of God, which is at Philippi." " I re- 
 joiced greatly that ye received the images of a true 
 love as also that the root of faith, which was preached 
 from ancient times, remains firm in you to this day."
 
 259 
 
 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 
 tenour, we may conclude with certainty, 
 
 1. That the faith of the great body of the people 
 coincided with his own. 2. That there were, how- 
 ever, among them some individuals, who maintained 
 the doctrines of the Gnostics ; who denied the reality 
 of Christ's human body, and consequently his suffering 
 on the cross, and who rejected the notion of a future 
 resurrection and judgement 1 . 
 
 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 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 2 .'" 
 
 IV. The religious opinions of the Christians of 
 Ephesus (about A.D. 107.) are easily collected, by 
 attending only to the general design of the Epistle 
 written to them by Ignatius. In it he strongly re- 
 commends subjection to their bishop, and warns them 
 against the novel opinions of the Gnostics 3 , exhorts 
 them to perseverance in their present faith, and bears 
 the fullest testimony to its purity 4 , asserting that no 
 
 t ' Sect. vi. vii. * Circular Letter of the Church of Smyrna. 
 
 3 Sect. vii. xvi. xvn, &c. * Sect. i. vni. x. xi. 
 
 R 2
 
 260 
 
 heresy dwells among them 1 . "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 doctrine ; 
 whom you did not suffer to sow among you, but 
 stopped your ears 2 . To their blasphemies return 
 your prayers: to their error your firmness of faith 3 ." 
 
 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 directed 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 assembled to 
 worship God in different places 4 ; and the purpose of 
 his Epistle seems to be to exhort them to unity, 
 and to caution them both against Judaism and 
 Gnosticism. 
 
 The Jewish Christians are strenuously exhorted 
 against following their old customs by a literal ob- 
 servance of their Law : and all are at the same time 
 cautioned against some new and strange doctrines, 
 which had found their way among them. Ignatius, 
 after asserting Christ to be the eternal Word of the 
 
 1 Sect. vi. - Sect. ix. 3 Sect. x. 4 Sect. vn.
 
 Father, and not to have come forth from silence 11 , 
 immediately observes, that some deny his death''. 
 
 From one of these expressions (poming forth from 
 silence) it was inferred by J)alhnus and others that 
 an allusion was made to a notion of the Yalentinians; 
 and therefore that the Epistle, or, at least, this part 
 of it was written after the age of Ignatius. In 
 answer to this, Pearson Jirst endeavoured to prove, 
 that it was the Ebionaean 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 sects of his age, his censure 
 will not necessarily apply to them. And if this 
 part 7 of Bp Pearson's argument had never appeared, 
 his cause would not have been weakened by its 
 suppression ; for in his sixth Chapter he has esta- 
 blished the opinion of Usher, Vossius and Hammond, 
 beyond all question : having proved, beyond the 
 possibility of contradiction, that Gnosticism had ex- 
 isted early in the first century; that Yalentinus 
 copied the body of his system from Basilides and 
 the other early Gnostics ; and consequently, that an 
 
 r 
 
 1 Sect. vni. r Sect. ix. ('. v. Yiml. K r n. part, poster.
 
 262 
 
 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 1 , 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 2 : but that 
 ye be fully instructed in the birth and sufferings 
 and resurrection of Jesus Christ, our hope ; which 
 was done in the time of the government 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 resur- 
 rection, and not against Ebionites. 
 
 Though Ignatius, in this Epistle, appears not to 
 think highly of the firmness of some of the Mag- 
 nesians, the religious opinions of the great body of 
 them must have coincided with his own. " These 
 things I write, not that I know of any among you, 
 who lie under this error, but am desirous to fore- 
 warn you, that ye fall not, &c." "Study therefore 
 to be confirmed in the doctrine of our Lord and of 
 his Apostles." 
 
 1 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 superangelic 
 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. 
 
 * Sect. xi.
 
 263 
 
 VI. The Epistle to the Trallians contains un- 
 qualified approbation of their conduct : and the design 
 of it is to guard them against new doctrines, those 
 of the Gnostics, not to dissuade them from perseve- 
 rance in established opinions and habits. " They 
 that are heretics confound together the doctrine of 
 Jesus Christ with their own poison 3 ." " Not that 
 I know there is any thing of this nature among you 4 ." 
 
 VII. In the Epistle to the Romans, Ignatius 
 requests them to pray to Christ for him 5 : and 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 consider- 
 able schism had taken place; and Ignatius, in his 
 letter to them, approves of those who adhered to 
 their Bishop, and finds no division among them 6 . 
 The others he exhorts to repent, and to return to 
 the unity of the Church. The faith of those, who 
 followed their Bishop, must have corresponded to the 
 
 3 Sect. vi. 4 Sect. vm. 
 
 / * AtTavevtraTc rov \pi<rrov virep e^ov. Sect. IV. ' Sect. HI.
 
 264 
 
 notions of Ignatius ; but whether they composed 
 the majority of the Church cannot be collected 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 of the great 
 body of Christians, with whom he corresponded, co- 
 incided with his own : that several Christians of his 
 age denied the reality of Christ's human nature, 
 and consequently refused to acknowledge his suffer- 
 ing on the cross, his resurrection, and the atonement 
 for the sins of the world by his death : but it can- 
 not 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 have fully 
 admitted one of the premises of an argument, by 
 which it has lately been attempted to prove Uni- 
 tarianism the religion of Christians in general in the 
 first century, and of these two writers in particular: 
 it will now be necessary 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 here- 
 tics ; and, like John, with great indignation ; but it 
 is evident to every person, who is at all acquainted 
 with the history, learning and language of those
 
 265 
 
 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 1 , if he had thought them to be heretics? 
 Their conduct 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 2 ." 
 
 A slight attention to history and chronology, will 
 enable us to discover a satisfactory reason why St John, 
 Polycarp and Ignatius should write with great severity 
 
 1 When Dr Priestley wishes to prove the antiquity of the Ebionites, 
 he produces passages from ancient authors in which St John is de- 
 clared to have written directly against this sect and that of the 
 Cerinthians. (" You, Mr Archdeacon, are pleased to deny the existence 
 even of the Ebionites in the time of the Apostles, contrary, I will 
 venture to say, to the unanimous testimony of all antiquity. Jerom, 
 giving an account of the reasons that moved John to write his Gospel, 
 mentions the Ebionites not only as a sect, but a flourishing sect in the 
 time of the Apostles." Joannes scripsit evangelium, rogatus ab Asiro 
 episcopis, ad versus Cerinthum, aliosque haereticos, et maxime tune 
 Ebionitarum dogma consurgens, qui asserunt Christum ante Mariam 
 non fuisse, unde et compulsus est divinam ejus naturam dicere. 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, Part 11. p. 19.). 
 Having proved their antiquity by such evidence as this, he soon after 
 reasons on the supposition, that St John did not write directly or in- 
 directly 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 doctrine of the Ebionites, I conclude that in the latter, 
 which is allowed to have existed in his time, he saw nothing worthy 
 of censure ; but, that it was the doctrine, which he himself had taught." 
 Hist, of Early Opinions, Vol. i. p. 195. 
 / 2 History of Early Opinions, Vol. i. pp. 258. 260.
 
 266 
 
 against Gnosticism, without directing their attention 
 to the opinions of Unitarians. 
 
 In Irenaeus, the early heresies are ranked in this 
 order: Simon, Menander, Saturnilus, Basilides, Car- 
 pocrates, Cerinthus, the Ebionites and Nicolaitans. 
 In Epiphanius: Simon, Menander, Saturnilus, Basi- 
 lides, the Nicolaitans, the Gnostics, the Carpocratians, 
 the Cerinthians, the Nazaraeans, the Ebionites ; whose 
 origin he has fixed some time after the taking of 
 Jerusalem, without mentioning the year 1 . In the 
 Appendix to Tertullian's treatise : Simon, Menander, 
 Saturninus, Basilides, Nicolaus, the Ophitae, Cain- 
 aeans, Sethians, Carpocratians, Cerinthus, Ebionites. 
 In Theodoret, Carpocrates is placed under Adrian 2 , 
 after Simon, Menander, Saturnilus and Basilides. 
 And 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 3 ; i. e. between the years 80 and 97. This 
 writer also says, that Simon, Menander and other 
 disciples of Simon appeared while the Apostles were 
 living; and that even Cerinthus spread his doctrine 
 before the death of the Apostle John 4 . In Euse- 
 bius, (whom Theodoret seems to have mistaken) the 
 Ebionites and Cerinthians are first mentioned under 
 Trajan 5 ; and are both declared to be of the same 
 antiquity : and the Carpocratians are mentioned after 
 
 1 Teyove Se ij <*p"Xrj TOVTOV perd Ttjv Ttav 'lepocro\v/juov aXuxrtv. 
 Epiph. Haer. xxx. 2. 
 
 2 Theodoret. Hser. Fab. L. i. c. 5. p. 197. 
 
 3 Hser. Fab. L. n. c. i. 2, 3. 4 Heer. Fab. Prsef. in Lib. n. 
 * Euseb. Hist. L. in. cc. 27, 28.
 
 267 
 
 them, under Adrian 6 . In Augustine, the same order 
 is observed as in Epiphanius. 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 against the Cerinthian and 
 Ebionaean heresies from this view of the testimonies 
 of the ancient historians on the antiquity of the 
 different sects, it must be allowed to be in some 
 degree doubtful, whether any Unitarian sects existed 
 in his time, or not. The age of Cerinthus (whose 
 peculiar opinion, respecting the union of the divine 
 and human natures in the person of Jesus Christ, 
 prevents him from being properly classed among 
 Unitarians) 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 7 ." 
 
 " Basnage speaks of the Carpocratians at the year 
 112 ; Tillemont thinks they might appear about the 
 year 130." Le Clerc supposes those Ebionites or 
 Nazaraeans, 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. Mo- 
 sheim places the Cerinthians in the first century; 
 but refers the Nazaraeans, Ebionites and Carpocra- 
 'tians to the second. 
 
 ' L. iv. c. 7. 7 Lardner, Hist, of Her. c. iv. 2.
 
 268 
 
 According to the unanimous testimony of all an- 
 tiquity, Gnosticism had appeared more than half a 
 century before St John wrote his Epistles and 
 Gospel; and had become an inveterate, an increas- 
 ing, and a dangerous error, in different parts of Asia, 
 where he and Ignatius and Polycarp 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 informed of the general prevalence of Gnosticism 
 at the end of the first century, leave us in some 
 degree of doubt whether the Unitarianism of Car- 
 pocrates and the Ebionites appeared a few years be- 
 fore, 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 " fre- 
 quently mentioned heresy and heretics; and like 
 St John with great indignation;" and if it be 
 " evident to every person, who is at all acquainted 
 with the history, learning and language of those 
 times, that they had no persons in view but Gnostics 
 only;" they have followed the line of conduct, that 
 a view of the history of those times would lead us 
 to expect from them: and the negative argument, 
 which has often been moved by Dr Priestley in op- 
 posite directions as it best suited his purpose, must 
 necessarily be turned at last against himself. 
 
 From the testimony of some ancient writers, 
 we should be led to suppose, that the Nazaraeans,
 
 269 
 
 Ebionitcs and Carpocratians first appeared towards 
 the end of the first century: from others we should 
 infer that they were not in existence till the be- 
 ginning of the second. In this case, we are obliged 
 to balance these opposite accounts: and in a compa- 
 rative 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 1 , and since they have very fre- 
 quently treated those Gnostic heretics with severity, 
 who are known to have been in considerable numbers 
 in their time, without ever alluding 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 pro- 
 bable, either that these sects were not in existence 
 in their time, or that they were very inconsiderable, 
 and confined to some remote, or obscure countries, 
 without having appeared in any of the churches, to 
 which their Epistles were addressed. 
 
 1 See the preceding Chapter.
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, BY THE FIRST 
 GENTILE CHRISTIANS, COLLECTED FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. 
 
 1. Hymns, in which the Divinity of Christ was 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 dispute between Christians of the third century on this 
 subject decided by the testimony of Pliny. View of this testimony in con- 
 nection with other evidence to the opinions of the first Christians on the 
 subject of Christ's nature. 2. General view of the testimony of the writers 
 in the second and following centuries on the same subject. The claims of 
 the Unitarians in the third century to superior antiquity, contradictory and 
 false immediately refuted 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. Apos- 
 tolical Fathers. 4. 5. 6. 7- Testimony to the religious opinions of Aristides, 
 Agrippa, Quadratus, Papias, and Aristo of Pella. 8. Only one Unitarian 
 writer before the time of Justin. All the others, except Cerinthus, either 
 believed in the simple Divinity of Christ, or entertained opinions correspond- 
 ing to the orthodoxy of the second and third centuries. 
 
 I. THE first converts to Christianity were direct- 
 ed by St Paul to sing hymns to their God and 
 Saviour 1 : and it is highly probable, antecedently to 
 all testimony, that some of these very first compo- 
 sitions 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 valuable, 
 as far as they exhibited a picture of the opinions of 
 their age. The ancient hymn in our Liturgy 2 is not 
 
 1 Coloss. iii. 17. 2 Te Deum.
 
 271 
 
 sufficiently near the age of the Apostles for our pur- 
 pose : and it is not certain whether that, which 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 were it 
 the genuine production of this writer, the opinions 
 of the Christians of the first century could not be 
 collected from it. 
 
 By the united testimonies, however, of an accom- 
 plished heathen in the reign of Trajan, and of 
 a Christian writer about 110 years later, it may be 
 proved that the Divinity of Christ was celebrated in 
 the Christian 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, con- 
 fidently appealed to them in proof of the priority of 
 the doctrines of the Church. "All the psalms and 
 hymns, written by faithful brethren from the earliest 
 times, celebrate and ascribe Divinity to Christ as the 
 word of God 3 ." From comparing this passage with 
 another in the thirtieth chapter of the seventh book 
 of Eusebius, it appears, 1. that certain hymns were 
 
 'i'aAjuoi 3e oaot KOI aJBai d$e\(ptov dirap^rjii v-rro vitrTtov ypa- 
 TOV \oyov TOV Qeou TOV \pi<TTov vfjivovcrt OeoXoyovvres. 
 Euseb. Hist. L. v. c. 28. He first appealed against the Artemonites 
 to the Scriptures, 0e?a* ypa<j)ai; in which the works of three of the 
 Apostolical Fathers were often included; he then mentioned a few of 
 the writers in the second century, before the time of Zephyrinus, in 
 whose works the Divinity and pre-existence of Christ were taught; 
 and lastly he appealed to the ancient hymns.
 
 272 
 
 used by the Christians of the third century in their 
 religious assemblies, which were commonly believed 
 to be ancient compositions. 2. That, about A. D. 
 260, an Unitarian appeared, who was guilty of several 
 irregularities both in his opinions and conduct, and 
 who suppressed the use of these hymns in his own 
 church ; pronouncing them supposititious compositions 
 of the more modern Christians. Neither he, it must 
 be observed, nor the members of the church appear 
 to have assigned any reasons in favour of their re- 
 spective opinions on the subject of the age of these 
 poetical pieces. 
 
 3. From the rejection of the hymns used in the 
 third century by Paul of Samosata, a believer in the 
 simple humanity of Christ, as well as from the posi- 
 tive declarations of the Trinitarians, we may conclude 
 with certainty, that they contained the doctrine of 
 Christ's Divinity. Their antiquity is the only point 
 in dispute. 
 
 Caius, or whoever was the writer cited by Euse- 
 bius, asserted, that hymns of this 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 in his time were 
 not ancient. These accounts are not absolutely in- 
 consistent with one another: but had he even con- 
 tended, in direct 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
 
 273 
 
 the dispute between tlieni by calling in an impartial 
 and competent witness, under strong obligations to 
 relate the truth, and without any temptations to 
 distort, or suppress it. iSuch a witness we have in 
 Pliny, in his letter to Trajan on the subject of the 
 Christians in his province of Bithynia : 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 1 . 
 
 According to Baronius, this letter was written A. D. 
 104. Pagi, Basnage, and others have placed it with 
 more probability in A. D. 110, i.e. about sixty-seven 
 years after the establishment of Christianity. Pliny 
 collected his account of the customs of the Christians 
 from some who had quitted their religion several years 
 before this time, and from one, who had ceased to be 
 a Christian twenty years, i. e. about forty-seven years 
 after the resurrection of Christ. What was an estab- 
 lished custom, while these persons professed the Christ- 
 ian religion, must have existed at a still earlier period. 
 The testimony of Pliny will therefore prove the 
 Divinity of Christ to have been acknowledged by 
 the very first Christians in Bithynia. 
 
 1 Propositus est libellus sine auctore, multorum nomina contincns, qui 
 negant se esse Christianos, aut fuisse ergo dimittendos putavi. Alii ah 
 indice nominati esse se Christianos dixerunt ; et mox negaverunt, fuisse 
 quidera, sed desiisse: quidam ante triennium, quidam ante plures annos, 
 non nemo etiam ante viginti quoque. Ouines et imasrinem tuam, Deo- 
 rumque siraulachra venerati sunt ; ii et Christo maledixerunt. Adfirma- 
 ' bant autem, hanc fuisse suramara vel culpse sua?, vel erroris, quod essent 
 spliti stato die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicerc 
 s'ecum invioem. Pliny, L. x. Ep. 07.
 
 274 
 
 Mosheim says that he dares not determine the 
 force of the expression, "Quasi Deo;" because it is 
 uncertain whether Pliny has given us the language 
 of the Christians, or his own 1 . And whether the 
 Christians considered Christ as one with God the 
 Father, or a totally distinct intelligence ; whether 
 they believed him to be a being of some subordinate 
 nature, or not, cannot be determined by this single 
 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 connection with the 
 whole of the evidence to the opinions of the Apostoli- 
 cal Fathers, and the Christians in general of the first 
 century, and also with the account of the Christian 
 hymns of the first century by the writer just cited, 
 who affirms that Christ was celebrated in them as 
 the Word of God ; when it is recollected, at the same 
 time that, in the very first Christian writings after 
 the time of Pliny, A.D. 140, about whose authenticity 
 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 must be considered as completely deter- 
 mined, 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 
 
 1 De Rebus ante Constantinum, p. 148.
 
 275 
 
 the Christians of the first, is so full, consistent and 
 clear, that, when we consider the means of informa- 
 tion, 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 refuted, we might rely on them, with- 
 out much fear of being misled. 
 
 Their testimony stands thus : The Church, the 
 great body of Christians, TO Tr\rjOos z , believed in the 
 pre-existence and Divinity of Christ ; which doctrines, 
 as well as others, it had received from the Apostles, 
 before any heresies existed 3 . Of the Christians called 
 heretics, the great body believed in the simple 
 Divinity of Christ, denying the reality of his human 
 body ; which 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 persuasions. 
 
 In the beginning of the second century, according 
 to some accounts at the end of the first, according 
 to others and after the seventieth year of the Christian 
 aera, according to all a few Christians appeared, who 
 
 * Origen cont. Cels. L. v. p. 272. Ed. Spencer. 
 
 3 Hegesippus, ap. Euseb. Hist. L. iv. c. 22. Irenaeus, L. in. c. 3, 4. 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. L. vn. prope finem. Tertullian, Prsescrip. 
 adv. Hser. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. L. iv. c. 7. et adv. Marcellum, passim. 
 
 Chrysostom also has ranked Unitarians of both descriptions, Sabellians 
 and Alogians, among heretics (Tom. n. p. 233. Ed. Montfaucon. Paris. 
 1 734) ; and he has declared, that in the time of the Apostles there was no 
 heresy. Tore TO'IVVV, tjv'tKa CKtjpvTTov avroi Kara TYJV olKovfjLevrjv 
 airaorav, a'l'peo-^ ov%ffj.ia ijv. Ser. 61. oper. Vol. v. p. 809. citat. a Priestley, 
 History of early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 261. Yet, Dr Priestley actually 
 Asserts, that even "Chrysostom considered almost all the Christians as 
 being Unitarians in the age of the Apostles." 
 
 s2
 
 276 
 
 asserted the simple humanity of Christ. Even they 
 never thought (and this is the only point, about 
 which we are concerned at present) their doctrines 
 taught in the books of the New Testament 1 ; but 
 were so far imposed on by some unprincipled teachers 
 as to submit partly to writings improperly sanctified 
 with the names of the Apostles, which are known and 
 acknowledged to have been palpable forgeries, and 
 partly to a copy of St Matthew's Gospel, which some 
 of their leaders had interpolated, mutilated, and 
 falsified. This book, the first words of which con- 
 tained an historical falsehood, was most commonly 
 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 
 
 1 Will any learned Unitarian of our time undertake to produce an 
 instance of any individual, in the second century, who thought that the 
 Divinity of Christ was not taught in the Gospel of St John ? Can it be 
 proved by historical evidence, that any individual before the year 200 
 (I might fix 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 
 St John's Gospel, appears to have been the same with Dr Priestley's 
 method of referring to the Apostolical Fathers. They cited certain 
 passages from it against their adversaries, without allowing it to be 
 genuine. Compare Lardner, Hist, of Heretics, B. n. c. xvii. 5. and 
 c. xxiii. with Tillemont, under the article Alogi. " That there was a sect 
 of Christians (says Lardner) who rejected John's Gospel, &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, con- 
 sidering the general testimony of the ancients in favour of St John's 
 Gospel, and his first Epistle."
 
 277 
 
 the third century. After this time, indeed, the claims 
 of the believers in the simple humanity of Christ 
 to the antiquity of their opinions highly deserve to 
 be noticed, because they contain their own refuta- 
 tion. 
 
 Marcellus of Ancyra, at the end of the third, and 
 the opening of the fourth century, asserted that his 
 system of Unitarianism had been the universal religion 
 of Christians, till Origen (A. D. 230) introduced an- 
 other doctrine. The Artemonite 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 inconsistency and contradiction of 
 these claims, they manifestly could not have been 
 advanced 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, Irenseus and many 
 others before the time of Zephyrinus (without men- 
 tioning the writings of the Apostolical Fathers ; some 
 of which were publicly read, like the books of Scrip- 
 ture in churches) and since a very distinguished 
 Unitarian had been excommunicated by the immediate 
 predecessor of Zephyrinus. 
 
 Contradictory 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, Irenasus, 
 Siemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian and Eusebius.
 
 278 
 
 Irenaeus was born in the beginning of the second 
 century, and had conversed with Polycarp, a general 
 bishop over the Asiatic Churches at the end of the 
 first. Hegesippus 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 Alexan- 
 drinus and Tertullian must also have conversed with 
 persons who had lived near the first century ; and 
 their testimony is as full and decisive as that of 
 Hegesippus and Irenaeus. 
 
 III. Before the general statement of the evi- 
 dence, in this and the preceding chapter, by which 
 it is proved, that the Christians of the first century 
 were believers in 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 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 
 severity against the Gnostics. This is considered as 
 a presumptive proof, that St John, together with these 
 two Fathers, and the great body of Christians in 
 general, of their time, were Unitarians. 
 
 This negative evidence has been already ex- 
 amined: and I shall only observe on it at present, 
 that an opposite conclusion might be drawn from
 
 5479 
 
 \ 
 
 an argument of this sort, with at least as much pro- 
 priety as the deduction in favour of the antiquity 
 and general prevalence of Unitarianism. Since nei- 
 ther St John, nor Ignatius, nor Polycarp, nor any 
 of the Apostolical Fathers have censured that system 
 of faith which Trinitarians profess, and since no 
 writer of the first three centuries ever ventured to 
 stigmatize Trinitarians with the name of heretics, 
 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 first three 
 centuries believed in the Divinity of Christ. 
 
 2. The second and principal reason assigned for 
 supposing the Christians of the first century Unita- 
 rians, is an argument of a very 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 Council of Nice, were believers 
 in the Divinity of Christ. And to avoid the con- 
 clusion, 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 main- 
 tained opinions directly opposite to those of the 
 learned of their time ; that the teachers were of one 
 opinion, and the people taught of another : on which 
 hypothesis, the opinions of either the people or their 
 rulers and instructors must have undergone a total 
 / change : then, on the supposed principle of human
 
 280 
 
 nature, that the common people are less liable to 
 change than the learned, it is concluded, that Unita- 
 rianism was the universal religion of the very first 
 Christians ; and it is next inferred, that no doctrine 
 at variance 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 writer who advanced 
 the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ. All the evi- 
 dence, I think, which Dr Priestley has produced in 
 different parts of his works, except, indeed, the testi- 
 monies of Hegesippus 1 and Chrysostom 2 , falls under 
 one of these three heads. 
 
 When a question arises about the opinions of the 
 writers of any period, there are two methods by which 
 it is usually decided: 1. By the internal evidence 
 found in the writings themselves, after due deductions 
 for casual or wilful corruptions, where such deductions 
 are necessary, as in the case of the Epistles of 
 Ignatius: 2. By the testimony of other writers of 
 credit, who had sufficient means of obtaining informa- 
 tion. It is by this external evidence, that we learn 
 the opinions of Simon Magus, Cleobius, Basilides, 
 Cerinthus 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. 
 
 1 See p. 120 of this Volume, Note. 
 
 2 See p. 275. Note.
 
 281 
 
 The writers before Justin Martyr, most of whose 
 characters are fully ascertained either by their writ- 
 ings, or the testimony of others, are Simon, Cleohius, 
 Basilides, Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hennas, Igna- 
 tius, Polycarp, Papias, Cerinthus, Epiphanes, Valenti- 
 iius, Isidorus, Quadratus, Aristides, Agrippa and Aristo 
 Pellams. This is perhaps not a complete catalogue 
 of the writers before Justin ; but no one is omitted 
 in it, who had ever the character of an Unitarian. 
 
 Justin Martyr, it is asserted, was the first Christian 
 writer in whose works the doctrine of Christ's Divinity 
 was taught. Now of the writers before Justin, whom 
 I have enumerated, we know, by the testimony of 
 antiquity, that Basilides, Valentinus, 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 apolo- 
 gies for the first sects 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 Apostoli- 
 cal Fathers. 
 
 The external testimony 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 cor- 
 rupted, and that the forgeries, corruptions and cur-
 
 282 
 
 tailments have all been purposely on one side. He 
 adopts a mere conjecture of Junius, supposes an error 
 in the only existing MS. of Clemens Romanus, and 
 
 for 7ra.9qfJLa.Ta avrov (i. 6. Geoi/) proposes fj.a.0q/u.a,Ta. He 
 
 cites, what he terms, the prayer of Polycarp to God 
 the Father, which is preserved in the circular Epistle 
 of the Church of Smyrna, but neglects to mention his 
 conjoint doxology to Christ ; and he totally overlooks 
 the testimony of Irenaeus, who has identified the 
 religious tenets of Polycarp with his own. The multi- 
 tude 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 translation also. Dr Priestley, how- 
 ever, asks, " Can it be thought at all improbable, 
 that if one person interpolated the Greek, another 
 should make as free with the Latin?" The Divinity 
 and pre-existence of Christ are also taught in the 
 Shepherd of Hernias. But he removes this difficulty 
 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 actually reckons on their silence, a silence 
 of his own creation, in favour of his own opinions ; 
 and confidently affirms, that " we find nothing like
 
 283 
 
 Divinity ascribed to Christ before the time of Justin 
 Martyr." This is the most extraordinary method of 
 conducting an historical inquiry that ever was adopted. 
 
 IV. The Apostolical Fathers were not the only 
 writers before Justin, whose opinions coincided with 
 the orthodoxy of their successors in the Church in 
 the second and third centuries. Aristides is called 
 by Eusebius TTKTTOS dvrjp 1 , the title which he has in 
 some part of his history given to Irenaeus and Clemens 
 Alexandrinus, two of the most distinguished cham- 
 pions of the Church : and the old Roman Mar- 
 tyrologium 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 testantur. 
 Philosophorum sententiis contextam earn scribit Hie- 
 ronymus Epist. 84. ad Magnum. Ob quas quilibet 
 illius particeps fieri desideraret ; Catholicus vero 
 Christianus ideo maxime quod Deitas Jesu Christi 
 in ilia egregie fuerit adserta. Ita enim antiquum 
 Martyrologium Romanum. Hadriano principi de 
 religione Christiana volumen obtulit, nostri dogmatis 
 continens orationem (forte rationem) et quod Jesus 
 Christus solus esset Deus, prasente ipso Imperatore, 
 luculentissime peroravit 2 " 
 
 V. That the religious opinions of Agrippa co- 
 incided with the orthodoxy of later times may be 
 
 1 Hist. L. iv. c. iii. 
 /' s Grabe, Spicilegiura Patrura, Tom. 11. p. 125.
 
 284 
 
 collected with some probability from the testimony 
 of Theodoret: "Against these," he says, (i.e. against 
 some Valentinians) "Agrippa and Irenseus and Cle- 
 mens the stromatist and Origen contend, contesting 
 for the truth\" 
 
 VI. The same may be proved of Quadratus and 
 Papias. Eusebius speaking of several contemporaries 
 of Quadratus, to whom he gives the title of 0eo7Tj067re?s 
 fMa6r]Tal of the Apostles, specifies the names of those 
 " by whose writings," he says, " the tradition of the 
 Apostolical doctrine is still conveyed down to us";" 
 these are Quadratus, 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 with great contempt, and in whose 
 works the Apostolical tradition is particularly opposed 
 against Unitarianism, would not have written this 
 sentence, nor indeed any part of the thirty-seventh 
 Chapter of the third Book of his history. Had he 
 entertained the slightest suspicion, that any of these 
 writers had deviated so far from his notions of the 
 true Apostolical doctrine, 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 
 
 ai e TOVTOWS 'AypiTr-nus, 6 KCH I\da"r<ap cirixXf/v, 
 KOI ItLlprjvuio*:, KCII K\tj/J.t]<; o o-T^w/jtareJ?, KOI 'ftpt-yew^ Trjs a\tj6cia* 
 
 ?. Theod. Hser. Fab. L. i. c. iv. 
 
 'Qv i-ri KOI vvv 61? f/jia9 St' viro/jLvrj/JLaTtav Trjs diroa-ToXiKt]': 
 f'a? tj Trapa'Sotrjs (peperat. Hist. L. III. c. xxxvii. Comp. c. xxxvi, 
 xxxviii, xxxix.
 
 comparatively trifling error of one of thcm\ would 
 have reprobated any of their heretical opinions with 
 great severity ; and instead of an unqualified pane- 
 gyric on four of these writers, we should have had 
 to witness the language of censure, which he has 
 frequently applied to Paul of Samosata and Marcellus 
 of Ancyra. 
 
 VII. The belief of Aristo of Pella (author of 
 the dispute between Jason and Papiscus) in the 
 Divinity and pre-existence of Christ, may be collected 
 from his manner of expounding a passage of the 
 Old Testament; which is casually, and perhaps in- 
 accurately, noticed by Jerom. 
 
 Hieronymus in Traditionibus Hebraicis in 
 Genesin 1 . 
 
 " In principio fecit Dens ccelum et terrain. 
 Plerique existimant, sicut in altercatione quoque 
 
 3 The notion of Papias respecting a Millenium, c. xxxix. 
 
 4 In Tertulliani libro cont. Prax. c. v. diversa prorsus habentur: 
 Aiunt quidem, inquit, ft Genesin in Hebraico, ita incipere : In prin- 
 ciple Dens fecit sibi /ilium. Neque Hilarius in dictis Commentariis 
 alicubi ait, in Hebrseo extare ; in filio creavit Dens ca>tum et terram ; 
 sed hacc solum in Comment, ad Palm. n. habet Bresith verbum 
 Hebraicum est. Id tres significantias in se habet, id est, in principio, 
 ft in capite, et in filio. Quse ut Hebraicoe linquac ignarus scripsit, 
 diversas patrum expositiones pro diversis significationibus vocis Bresith 
 accipiens. Atquc MYSTICAM ISTAM principii DE FILIO EXPOSITIOXEM 
 AB ARISTONE IN DISPUTATIONS ADHIBITAM FUISSE facile credo: sicut 
 et Clemens Alexandrinus ex Prsedicatione Petri eandem protulit, 
 (V. Spicileg. Tom. i. p. 328.) Basilium, Ambrosium aliosque recentiores 
 ut taceam. Ast quod in Hebrseo lectum fuerit; In filio Deus fecit 
 ccelum et terram, uti Tertullianus et Hilarius baud effutiverunt ; ita 
 
 ' nee ab Aristone dictum, sed Hieronymum in hoc, perinde ut prioribus 
 jluobus citandis, memorise defectu aut nimia festinatione lapsum puto. 
 Grabe, Spicileg. Tom. n. p. 132.
 
 286 
 
 Jasonis et Papisci scriptum est, et Tertullianus in 
 Lib. contra Praxean disputat, necnon Hilarius in 
 expositione cujusdam Psalmi affirmat, in Hebraso 
 haberi: In Filio fecit Deus ccelum et terrain. Quod 
 falsum esse ipsius rei veritas comprobat." 
 
 VIII. Justin Martyr, it appears, is so far from 
 being " the first writer tbat we can find to have 
 advanced the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ," 
 that of the seventeen writers before Justin, whom 
 I have enumerated, all were believers in the Divinity 
 of Christ, except one. It is determined with as much 
 certainty as can mostly be attained in matters of 
 ancient history 
 
 1. That the Gnostics, Simon, Cleobius, Basilides, 
 Valentinus and Isidorus, contended for the simple 
 Divinity of Christ, and denied his human nature 
 altogether. 
 
 2. That the Gnostic Cerinthus maintained Jesus 
 to have been a man bom 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 Carpocrates, a 
 Gnostic in Adrian's reign, maintained the doctrine of 
 Jesus Christ's simple humanity. 
 
 4. That the religious opinions of Clemens Ro- 
 manus, Barnabas, Hernias, Ignatius, Polycarp, Qua- 
 dratus, Papias, Aristides, Agrippa and Aristo Pellseus 
 coincided with the orthodoxy of the rulers of the 
 church in the second and third centuries.
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 EXAMINATION OF DR PRIESTLEY^S PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE TO PROVE 
 THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS, IN THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES, 
 GENERALLY UNITARIANS. 
 
 1. Statement of his presumptive evidence to prove Unitarianism the religion of 
 the common people in the tecond and third centuries. 2. Observations on 
 a part of this evidence. 3. Jewish and Gentile Unitarians censured as He- 
 retics in the first writings of Christians professedly on the subject 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 Tertullian. If Unitarians were on any account considered as Heretics 
 in the second century, they were few in number. 6. Recapitulation. Uni- 
 tarians of every description considered as Heretics in the second century. 
 
 I. THE only reason for supposing Unitarianism 
 the religion of the first Christians, 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 dis- 
 miss without examination. 
 
 It is first fully allowed, that from the time of 
 Justin till the Council of Nice, the writers among 
 Christians, the rulers of the church and the learned 
 in general believed in the Divinity of Christ : but, 
 the common 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.
 
 288 
 
 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 opinions, ought to be supported by a strong 
 body of testimony before reasonable and unprejudiced 
 persons can bring their minds even to doubt on the 
 subject. The presumptive evidence which Dr Priestley 
 has stated, to prove the common people of the second, 
 third and fourth centuries, Unitarians, while the 
 writers were Trinitarians, is this: 
 
 1. There was no creed or formulary of faith to 
 prevent Unitarians from communion with what was 
 called the catholic church : the Apostles' Creed con- 
 taining "no article that could exclude Unitarians 1 ." 
 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 Unitarian 
 Gentiles having no separate name is, of itself, a 
 proof that they had no separate assemblies, and were 
 not distinguished from the common mass of Christ- 
 ians 2 ." This circumstance is also thought to be a 
 proof that they were the majority of Christians 3 . 
 
 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 written against them." " They 
 were first mentioned without any censure at all, 
 afterwards with very little; and no treatise was 
 
 1 Hist, of Early Opinions, Vol. in. c. xiii. p. 235. 
 1 Page 237. 3 Page 241.
 
 289 
 
 written expressly against them before Tertullian s 
 against Praxeas" " Theophilus of Antioch, about 
 the year 170, wrote against heresies, but only his 
 book against Marcion is mentioned by Eusebius 4 ." 
 " He also mentions many of the works of Melito, 
 Bishop of Sardis, but none of them were against 
 Unitarians 5 . Rhodon, he also says, wrote against 
 the Marcionites 6 . 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 
 written expressly against the Unitarians long before 
 the time of Tertullian, if they had been considered 
 in any obnoxious light, or had not been a very 
 great majority of the Christian world 7 ." 
 
 " The Apostle John never censures them" (the 
 Unitarians). " I observed the same with respect to 
 Hegesippus, Justin Martyr, and Clemens Alexan- 
 drinus. I now find the same to be true of Polycarp 
 and Ignatius ; and that even Irenaeus, 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 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 orthodoxy of the 
 
 Hist. L. iv. c. xxiv. * L. iv. c. xxvi. 
 
 6 L. v. c. xiii. 7 Pages 252, 253. Anno 1786. 
 
 8 Letters to Dr Horsley, Part n. p. 47. Anno 1784. 
 
 T
 
 290 
 
 subsequent period, had made but little progress when 
 this book was written: which, as some think, was 
 about the middle of the second century 1 . 
 
 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 communion 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 actually 
 considered as heretics, it is a matter of indifference, 
 whether this was effected by means of a written 
 creed, or without one. 
 
 Nor will it be necessary to examine the Clemen- 
 tines, in order to discover whether the Trinitarian 
 doctrine be ever alluded to in them ; because we 
 have better evidence of the existence and universal 
 prevalence of that doctrine in the Christian churches, 
 than can be derived from a single forgery of an 
 uncertain age, and by an unknown author. On 
 this subject, however, we may just notice one in- 
 stance of the ambidextrous management with which 
 Dr Priestly conducts his historical inquiries. All his 
 readers must have noticed a very remarkable use 
 to which he has turned the negative argument, in 
 
 1 Hist, of early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 254.
 
 291 
 
 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 puhlicly and di- 
 rectly censured till the end of the second century 
 by Tertullian. From this supposed silence of the 
 first Christian writers on the subject of Unitarianism 
 he concludes, that St John, Ignatius and Polycarp, 
 (though, in Ignatius, Christ is frequently called God) 
 together with all the Christians of their age, except 
 Gnostics, were Unitarians; and that the great body 
 of the Christian people 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 Cle- 
 mentine homilies, he draws an opposite conclusion, 
 and is disposed to infer, that these opinions are not 
 noticed, because they " had made but little progress 5 ." 
 
 III. It is asserted that the Unitarian Gentiles 
 had no separate name; that Unitarians were not cen- 
 sured by St John, Polycarp, Ignatius, Hegesippus, 
 or Clemens Alexandrinus ; and " that even Irenaeus, 
 Tertullian and Origen did not treat them as heretics." 
 The circumstance of Unitarians being distinguished 
 
 * "What is particularly remarkable relating to this work is, that 
 it contains no mention of that doctrine, which made so great a figure 
 afterwards, and which in time bore down all before it, viz. that of the 
 personification of the Logos. No person, I should think, could peruse 
 that work with care, without concluding, that the orthodoxy of the 
 /subsequent period had made but little progress then." Hist, of early 
 Opinions, Vol. in. p. 254. 
 
 T ^
 
 292 
 
 by no particular name, and having " no treatises 
 written against them," is thought to be a presumptive 
 argument, that they were 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, Dr 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 extraordinary 
 severity : and after having repeatedly denied, that 
 Irenaeus (A. D. 170,) had considered the Ebionites as 
 heretics, he at last, in the year 1789, retreated from 
 this ground ; and acknowledged, that Bishop Horsley 
 had produced a passage, in which Irenseus calls them 
 heretics, and which he had overlooked 1 . 
 
 The origin of the Carpocratians, Cerinthians and 
 Ebionites, (including under this name two or three 
 petty sects of Jewish Christians, as Origen seems to 
 have done,) is placed by all the ancient historians, 
 who have treated on the subject of their antiquity, 
 at the end of the first, or the 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 what- 
 ever, can be produced, in which any Unitarians are 
 said to have existed before these sects. St John 
 wrote his Epistles and Gospel either a few years 
 
 1 Letters to the Bishop of St David's, Part in. p. 32.
 
 293 
 
 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, indirectly attacked their opinions. And 
 as far' as teaching a doctrine opposite to theirs may 
 be called opposing their opinions, so far St John 
 in his Gospel, and Ignatius, will be generally 
 allowed to have written against the Ebionites: but 
 whether they had these sectaries 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 Apostle. Some of the first Christian writers, 
 however, after Ignatius, wrote professedly against he- 
 resies : none of the surviving works of Justin are 
 on this subject : the work which, he informs us 2 , 
 he wrote against all heresies, is unfortunately lost : 
 but we know, that the sects of Jewish Christians, who 
 believed in the simple humanity of Christ, were at- 
 tacked in it. On the testimony of Eusebius, Dr 
 Priestley very reasonably admits, that Theophilus of 
 Antioch and Rhodon wrote against the Marcionites; 
 and, on the authority of Theodoret, we are also com- 
 pelled to conclude, that Justin, (A.D. 140) in his work 
 on heresies, censured the sects of Nazaraeans and Ebio- 
 nites 3 . To the Carpocratian, Nazarsean and Ebiona?an 
 Unitarians, I know not whether the Ophites or 
 
 * Eusebius Hist. L. iv. c. xi. 
 
 3 KctTct TovTiav ffvveypcufiev 'lovarTvos 6 0i\o<ro0os KOI JUQ^OTIK, 
 KOI Kip^i/cubc 6 TWI/ \\-rroaTo\wv Bia'So^oc, KOI 'Qptyevr}*. Theodoret. 
 f Hser. Fab. L. n. c. ii.
 
 294 
 
 Sethians of Adrian's time are to be added : but, ex- 
 cepting these, there are no discoverable traces of any 
 individual believing in the simple humanity of Christ 
 before the end of the second century, when the 
 Alogi appeared. The Carpocratians were Gentile 
 Christians 1 (for we must not be led, by an erro- 
 neous interpretation of Hegesippus by Valesius 2 , to 
 think them Jews), and though Carpocrates himself 
 perhaps lived in the first century, his followers ac- 
 quired no distinction 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 3 , which has come 
 down to us, the Ebionites, Carpocratians, Cerinthians 
 and Sethians are classed among heretics, and cen- 
 sured with great severity. In this work the Carpo- 
 cratians are placed in chronological order before the 
 others. 
 
 A small fragment of the Jirst Christian historian, 
 who was contemporary with Irenaeus, is preserved in 
 Eusebius: and in this also the first Gentile Uni- 
 tarians, the Carpocratians, are ranked among heretics. 
 This writer, it appears, while treating on the Church 
 of Jerusalem, was led by his subject to mention the 
 original stocks of the heresies, which prevailed in his 
 own time, and by which the Christian Church had 
 been disunited. As his work was not professedly 
 written on the subject of heresies, and as his only 
 
 1 They rejected the Law of Moses. See Epiphanius, p. 53. Ed. Petav. 
 Colon. 1682. 
 
 * Euseb. Hist. L. iv, c. xxii. s Irenseus.
 
 295 
 
 purpose was to give some account of their origin 4 , 
 without entering on the subject at large, like Irenaeus, 
 he has only mentioned the Carpocratian Unitarians; 
 and has left it to other authors to trace out the 
 variations, which their doctrine received, in the suc- 
 ceeding sects of Cerinthians and Ebionites. Though 
 the Carpocratian s are found in his short catalogue, 
 in which only eleven sects are mentioned, Dr Priestley 
 has affirmed, that " Hegesippus, the first Christian 
 historian, enumerating the heresies of his time, men- 
 tions several of the Gnostic kind, but, not that of 
 Christ being a mere man 5 ." 
 
 The gradations, through which Dr Priestley re- 
 luctantly descended on the subject of the testimony 
 of Irenaeus, deserve also to be noticed. 
 
 1. He affirmed, that Unitarians in general were 
 not censured as heretics by this writer : " Irenaeus, 
 Tertullian and Origen did not treat the Unitarians 
 as heretics 6 ." 
 
 2. He asserted of the Ebionites in particular, 
 that Irenaeus had indeed expressed some dislike of 
 their doctrine, 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. Irenaeus, in his large treatise concerning 
 heresy, expresses great dislike of their doctrine ; but 
 he never confounds them with the heretics 7 ." 
 
 * Ttov KOT' avTOv alpetretov TOS ap^ds. Euseb. Hist. L. IV. c. xxii. 
 
 5 History of early Opinions, Vol. iv. p. 307. 
 
 6 Letter to Dr Horsley, Part n. p. 47. 
 
 " The whole of this account is inconsistent with Tertullian's consider- 
 / ing Unitarians as heretics." History of early Opinions, Vol. i. p 289. 
 
 7 History of early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 201.
 
 296 
 
 3. " Irenaeus's treatise against heresy shews that 
 the Gnostics only were considered as coming under that 
 description. The Ehionites indeed are censured in it, 
 but no mention is made of the Gentile Unitarians 1 ." 
 
 4. " In one passage however you think, that it 
 does appear that he must have considered them (the 
 Ehionites) in that light (i. e. as heretics) : but, ad- 
 mitting this, &c. c> 
 
 5. " I further added, that, if there was any other 
 passage, in which Irenaeus called the Ebionites here- 
 tics, I had overlooked it. Such a passage, however, 
 your Lordship now produces, p. 455, for among other 
 heretics he there enumerates the Ebionites 3 ." " But 
 this is of no consequence to my argument, &c." " To 
 have been consistent with himself, Irenaeus ought not 
 to have considered the Ebionites as heretics 4 ." 
 
 After holding out so long, and surrendering 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 surprised are we 
 then at the next step ! 
 
 6. " There is an evident reason, why the Ebionites 
 were pretty soon considered as heretics 5 " " and a 
 reason which did not affect the Unitarians among the 
 Gentiles. For the Jewish Christians, on account of 
 their using a different language, held separate assem- 
 blies from those who used the Greek tongue ; and 
 besides Jerom expressly says, they were deemed here- 
 tics only on the account of their attachment to the 
 
 1 Vol. in. p. 252. * Letter to Parkhurst, p. 179. 
 
 8 Letters to the Lord Bishop of St David's, p. 32. 
 4 Id. p. 35. s Id. p. 33.
 
 297 
 
 institutions of Moses." The objection from Jerom 
 has heen 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 " Irenaeus 
 makes no mention of any Gentile Unitarians in his 
 works against heresy, but only of the Ebionites":" 
 but, at some future period, after taking a few more 
 steps, he will perhaps grant, that the Carpocratians 
 were not Jews ; that they are the only Gentile Unita- 
 rians of whose existence in the beginning of the 
 second century we have any evidence ; and that they 
 are very severely censured by Irenaeus, and ranked 
 by him among heretics, in a treatise written pro- 
 fessedly on the subject of heresy. 
 
 IV. Dr Priestley has imagined a body of Unita- 
 rians long before the time of Theodotus (A. D. 190), 
 to whom Epiphanius, at last, gave the appellation of 
 Alogi: and, as they were not marked by any dis- 
 tinguishing title by any preceding writer, he con- 
 cludes, that they were not considered as heretics, 
 and therefore, that they must have formed the ma- 
 jority of Christians. This is his favourite use of the 
 negative argument : if ever he can discover a period 
 in which no mention is made of Unitarians, in that 
 period he sets them down at once as the majority 
 of Christians. This argument was however turned 
 
 8 History of early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 291.
 
 298 
 
 the other way by Dr Lardner, on this very same 
 subject: from the silence of Irenseus, Eusebius and 
 all other ancient writers before Philaster and Epi- 
 phanius, respecting the Alogi, he concluded that they 
 had no existence 1 . There was no reason for Lardner 
 to suppose that these two writers had dealt in fiction : 
 for it is not a heresy, which was ancient about 
 A. D. 190, that Epiphanius has described under the 
 title of Alogi, but a sect which sprang into existence 
 under different leaders (who, with their respective 
 followers, 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 Xoyo? of the Father. An 
 anonymous writer (supposed to be Caius), quoted by 
 Eusebius, appears to have considered Theodotus as 
 the first of these 2 . Theodoret seems to have placed 
 Artemon before him 3 : and it is still a petty subject 
 of dispute, to which leader the origin of this sect is 
 
 1 " It is time to deliver my own opinion, which is, that this is a 
 fictitious heresy. There is not any notice taken of them in Irenseus, 
 Eusebius, or any other ancient writer before Philaster and Epiphanius." 
 History of Heretics, B. n. c. xxiii. 2. 
 
 * See Euseb. Hist. L. v. c. xxviii. 
 
 8 Theodoret. Hser. Fab. L. n. c. iv, v.
 
 299 
 
 to be ascribed. Whether Artemon, or Theodotus, or 
 Asclepiades, or Hermophilus, or Apollonius first began 
 to teach the Unitarian doctrine towards the end of 
 the second century, is a question which perhaps can- 
 not, 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 de- 
 scription of the whole body of the Alogi, which con- 
 sisted 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 included under the more 
 extensive title of the Alogi, and his suffrage is per- 
 haps indirectly given to the precedence of Artemon 
 before Theodotus; who is described by him as an 
 
 aTrocrTracrfjia. of the Alogi 4 . 
 
 However this may be, that the whole heresy of 
 the Alogi arose about the age of Theodotus, and 
 not in any early period, as Dr Priestley supposes, 
 may be proved with the utmost certainty. Montanus, 
 the father of the Cataprhygian heresy, began his 
 prophecies, A. D. 171, or 172. In fixing on this date, 
 learned moderns, as Lardner has observed, have 
 generally submitted to the authority of Eusebius 5 . 
 Pearson and Beausobre have followed Epiphanius, 
 who says that Montanus set up his pretensions in 
 
 4 'AvecrTr] ird\tv SedSord? TI?, aTrdtrTrao-jwa vvap-^tav CK TJ;? irpoft- 
 pr)fiievt]<; 'AXoyoH a'ipe<r<o<; } TJ? apvov/jLevt}^ TO Ka-rd 'Iioavvtjv 1)0776- 
 \iov. Hser. LIV. i. 
 
 f 5 Euseb. Chronicon. Ann. xi. Marc. Antonin. et Hist. Eccles. L. iv. 
 c. xxvii.
 
 300 
 
 the 19th year of Antoninus Pius, i.e. A.D. 156 1 . 
 Lardner has mentioned only one modern writer, 
 (Barratier) who has imagined, that Montanus ap- 
 peared as early as A. D. 126. 
 
 Out of his sect grew another, that of the Quin- 
 tilians 2 : which was followed by a third, whose tenets 
 were composed of the errors of both, to which the 
 name of Quartodecimans (Tecra-ajoeo'/cai^e/caTfTai) was 
 given 3 . And at last " sprang up in order after" 
 the Phrygian, Quintilian and Quartodeciman heresies, 
 the sect of the Alogi 4 . 
 
 If we allow only a very few years to have inter- 
 vened between these sects, 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 hypo- 
 thesis of Dr Priestley on the antiquity of the Alogi, 
 which rests solely on the testimony of Epiphanitis, 
 is completely destroyed by the very writer, who was 
 imagined to have given it his support. 
 
 V. From the time of Justin (the first father, 
 the genuineness and purity of whose writings Dr 
 
 1 Epiph. Hser. XLVIII. i. 
 
 , * K.vtvTt\Xiavo\ Se ird\iv ol avro\ juei/ cWe? Kar 
 avriav 6pn<afitvoi. Epiph. Hser. XLIX. i. 
 
 3 'ATTO Tovfiav TWI/ Si/'o atpe<riav O/JLOV d\\tj\ai<: 
 (bpvyas TC Kai K.vtvn\\tavtav i avKV\j/e ira\tv TO> Kooyxto e 
 aTtTwi/, OU'TOK KaXovnevrj. Hser. L. i. 
 Se TOVTWV TUV alpeveiav, perd TY\V KUTU <f>pvya<: TC 
 KOI TeffffapeffKaiSeKariTa*; ovrto KaXovufvovs, dve 
 TW (3iu> atpeffrt erepa. Hser. LI. $ i.
 
 301 
 
 Priestley has admitted : for he supposes even the 
 Epistle of Clemens Romanus corrupted) to Tertullian, 
 Unitarians were classed among heretics. Clemens 
 Alexandrinus (A. D. 180) wrote no treatise professedly 
 against them, but he has incidentally noticed the 
 Carpocratiau heresy 5 , and some are of opinion, that 
 he has also mentioned the Bbionites under the title 
 of the Peratic heresy, among a few other sects whose 
 names he has introduced in the seventh Book of his 
 Stromata. This, however, is questionable : the 
 TIKOI of Clemens are perhaps the same with the 
 of Theodoret*. 
 
 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 antiquity 
 he contends 7 : the opinions of the Church were his 
 own : and " he not only mentions three divine per- 
 sons, but invokes them as one only God 8 ." 
 
 The age of Tertullian is memorable for the ap- 
 pearance 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 
 
 5 'II TCOI/ KapTTOKpa-rtavtav afpeats. Strom. L. in. sub initio. 
 * Heer. Fab. L. i. Haer. xvn. 
 
 7 'Etc Ttav elprj/jieviov apa (f>avepov oi^ai i yejevr}(r6ai, ftiav etvai rijv 
 a \tj6i] KK\t]<riav Tr\v Tip UVTI ap-^aiav. Strom. L. VII. prop. fin. 
 f * Psedag. L. i. c. viii. and L. in. c. xii See Du Pin, on Clemens 
 Alex.
 
 302 
 
 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 philosophising 1 . 
 
 At Byzantium, Theodotus contended for the simple 
 humanity of Christ, about A. D. 190. Artemon ad- 
 vanced the same doctrine 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 instant that 
 the opinions of these Alogi were published, they were 
 treated as heretics : Theodotus was excommunicated 
 by Victor, the doctrines of the whole sect were ex- 
 posed by a writer quoted by Eusebius, and they 
 appear to have been actually extinguished for a con- 
 siderable time 2 ; since no trace of them can be dis- 
 covered for some years, and since Paul of Samosata 
 is said to have revived their heresy in the latter 
 part of the third century 3 . 
 
 Praxeas had no sooner begun to preach his Unita- 
 rian doctrines at Carthage, which are represented by 
 contemporary writers as totally different from those 
 
 1 Hoc cseteris observatu dignius est, quod Theodotiani seu Artemonitae 
 Philosophise ac Geometrise magnum statuisse pretium, immo majus 
 quam sacri codicis et religionis dignitas ferebat. Mosheim, de Reb. ante 
 Constant p. 430. 
 
 * Pauca de his sectis, quse cito periisse videntur, memoriae prodita 
 sunt. Mosheim, de Reb. ante Constant, p. 430. 
 
 3 TovTtav ev Ttvos (TTTOv^dcrfjiaTi KOTO TTI<! ' A prefjiiavov atpe(reta<; 
 irevovti/Jieixa, ^v avdis 6 e 2a/uo(TCtTO)i' flauXoc Ka0' */'ju a? uvavtw- 
 eratrBat iteTre'iparai. Euseb. Hist. L. V. c. xxviii.
 
 303 
 
 of Theodotus 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 " avenae 
 Praxeanae" seemed to be entirely eradicated 4 . The 
 treatise, which he afterwards wrote against the 
 Praxeanites, is still extant ; and we may judge of 
 its effect by the orthodoxy of the Carthaginian Church 
 some years after his death: where Cyprian, his ad- 
 mirer and follower, ruled with uncontrolled sway. 
 Tertullian, in other parts of his works, speaks also 
 of the Ebionites, as heretics : Bbionis Haeresis est, 
 et eos in Epistola (Johannes) maxime Antichristos 
 vocat, qui Christum negarent in carne venisse, et qui 
 non putarent Jesum filium Dei : illud Marcion, hoc 
 Hebion vindicavit 5 . 
 
 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 Irenaeus, it is just such a critical question as to 
 determine, whether Dr Priestley, in his Biographical 
 Chart, has ranked Bacon and Newton among philoso- 
 phers. It is not however very difficult to account for 
 Dr Priestley's reluctance to concede this point to his 
 adversaries. For, after it is once granted, that 
 Unitarians were ranked among heretics in the second 
 ,and third centuries, particularly by Tertullian, it 
 
 / 4 Vid. Tertull. adv. Praxeam, sub initio. 
 
 Praescrip. adv. Hser. p. 119. Ed. Basil. 1539.
 
 304 
 
 follows that, so far from forming the great hody of 
 Christians, they bore only a small proportion to those, 
 who were separated from the Church : since the same 
 Tertullian, who esteems Unitarianism heretical, de- 
 clares the Valentinians the most numerous body of 
 heretics 1 . 
 
 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 Apostle 
 John and Ignatius have been very commonly supposed 
 to be directed : 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, 
 have been few in number, obscure, and despised : 
 whereas the Gnostics had flourished for some time, 
 and were numerous, proud and insolent. Unitarians, 
 however, increased in the beginning of the second 
 century, and Justin Martyr, perhaps about half a 
 century after their very first appearance, wrote against 
 the Bbionites; 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 
 Irenaeus his contemporary, though he wrote immedi- 
 
 1 Valentiniani frequentissimum plane collegium inter hsereticos. 
 Tertull. adv. Valentinianos, initio.
 
 305 
 
 atcly against tlie Valentinians, has ranked Ebionites^ 
 Carpocratians and Cerinthians among heretics : and 
 their belief in the simple humanity 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 sect of Unitarians arose, consisting of 
 several branches, to which Epiphanius has given the 
 name of Alogi, from their denial of the pre-existence 
 of Christ as the Word of God. Theodotus was one 
 of their most distinguished leaders: but excommuni- 
 cation immediately followed the public declaration of 
 his sentiments : their pretensions were completely re- 
 futed by a writer, cited in Eusebius, who lived about 
 A. D. 212, or perhaps 220: and the whole sect seems 
 to have suffered a temporary extinction. 
 
 About the time of Theodotus, or rather before it 8 , 
 Praxeas, an Unitarian of a very different description, 
 who, like the Swedenborgians of our time, maintained 
 that Christ was 0?^, both in substance and person* 
 with God the Father, appeared at Rome. As he had 
 distinguished himself by detecting 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 
 Victor, who had excommunicated Theodotus 3 . He 
 
 * See Pagi, in A. D. 171. 
 
 3 Dr Priestley has employed a section (Hist. Vol. in. p. 303, &c.) to 
 prove, in opposition to the writer in Eusebius, that Theodotus was not 
 excommunicated for asserting the simple humanity of Christ. And the 
 principal reason, which he has brought to overturn one historical fact, 
 rests on the perversion of another. 
 
 U " II
 
 appears to have had a numerous body of followers, for 
 a time, at Carthage ; but his doctrines were soon 
 reckoned heretical, and a violent treatise was written 
 against his sect by Tertullian, about A. D. 205. His 
 opinions 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 
 complete 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 
 among heretics before Tertullian, that they had no 
 distinct names, that no treatises were written against 
 them, and that they were not excluded from com- 
 munion with the Church ; and thence it is inferred, 
 that they formed the majority of Christians. 
 
 The whole of this representation is totally incon- 
 sistent with history and truth. All the Unitarians 
 of every description, of whose existence we have any 
 
 " It cannot be supposed," he says, " that Victor would have patronized 
 in Praxeas THE SAME DOCTRINE, for which he had before excommuni- 
 cated Theodotus." Undoubtedly, if we take for granted, that Praxeas 
 and Theodotus maintained the samp, doctrine, we cannot admit, though 
 history informs us of the fact, that Victor patronized the one, and excom- 
 municated the other.
 
 307 
 
 intimation in the second century, were distinguished 
 by names annexed to their several sects: treatises 
 were written against them, as soon as they attracted 
 notice, some of which are still extant: their leaders 
 were excommunicated, their doctrines controverted, 
 and their pretensions refuted : they were formally 
 placed among heretics by some writers, and inci- 
 dentally 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. 
 
 u 2
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 EXAMINATION OF DR PRIESTLEY's *' DIRECT EVIDENCED TO PROVE 
 THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS, IN THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES, 
 GENERALLY UNITARIANS. 
 
 1. Dr Priestley collects the opinions of the Apostolic age, from the opinions 
 of unlearned Christians very remote from that age. 2. He neglects the 
 testimony of heathen writers to the opinions of the great body of Christians 
 in the second and third centuries. 3. Statement of his testimonies from 
 Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius and Jerom. 4. Examination of these tes- 
 timonies. Origen, Athanasius and Jerom are speaking of a want of know- 
 ledge 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 doctrine of Christ's Divinity. 5. Examination 
 of Tertullian's testimony. View of the two kinds of Unitarianism in 
 Tertullian's time. Correction of Dr Priestley's misstatement. The Unita- 
 rians of Tertullian are represented by him as followers of Praxeas, 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 converted to this faith 
 in Tertullian's time. Tertullian's testimony to the belief of Christians in 
 general in the Divinity of Christ. 
 
 I. THE philosophical writer, whose historical 
 statements I have taken the liberty to examine in 
 this, and the preceding chapter, proposes to discover 
 the true meaning of Scripture, relating to the nature 
 of Christ, hy the interpretation of Gentile Christians 
 contemporary with the Apostles, from whom they 
 received their information. This interpretation he 
 intends to collect through the medium of their re- 
 ligious opinions. But their religious opinions he de- 
 termines neither by the general spirit of the reputed 
 writings of their time, nor by the opinions, nor the
 
 309 
 
 testimony of the writers in the next ages after them ; 
 who affirm that the orthodoxy of their own time con- 
 stituted the prevalent religion of the very first Christ- 
 ians. He allows the testimony of Pliny to have no 
 weight ; 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 comprehensive view of the whole. To deter- 
 mine the religion of the first century he retreats to 
 the third 1 , to the fourth, to the fifth, to the sixth, 
 to any century sufficiently remote from that, whose 
 opinions he attempts to discover. And after having 
 fixed on his first period, a full century after the last 
 of the Apostles, it is observable, that even there, in- 
 stead of availing himself of all the light which the 
 imperfect literature of that age affords, he takes ad- 
 vantage 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 writings at all ; and thus by step- 
 ping back into utter darkness, if he fails to defeat, 
 he, at least, hopes to elude his opponents. 
 
 II. His method of ascertaining the religious 
 tenets of these unlearned Christians' also deserves 
 
 1 Tertullian wrote his treatise against Praxeas, from which Dr 
 /Priestley has collected his first and principal testimony, at the opening 
 of the third century: some time after he had become a Montanist.
 
 310 
 
 notice. It might be thought, that an appeal might 
 reasonably be made to learned and inquisitive hea- 
 thens, in order to determine, whether the great body 
 of Christians really considered Christ as God, or not : 
 but the heathen testimony on this subject has been 
 either totally suppressed, or not fairly stated. Adrian, 
 it might be supposed, if too late to decide on the 
 opinions and practices of Christians in the first cen- 
 tury, might however be brought forward 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 Christians. Yet this accusation has been over- 
 looked. A similar charge was alleged by Porphyry 
 and Hierocles, and never contradicted. Several 
 Christian writers also have borne the fullest testi- 
 mony to the belief of the great body of their con- 
 temporaries in the Divinity of Christ. But, when- 
 ever any notice has been taken of small parts of 
 this evidence, they have been uniformly perverted. 
 
 In addition to the few artificial arguments, to 
 which he has given the name of "presumptive evi- 
 dence," Dr Priestley has satisfied himself with a very 
 inconsiderable body of direct testimony. From a 
 single passage in Tertullian, he fancies that he has 
 proved the great body of common people among 
 Christians, at the end of the second century, to have 
 been believers in the simple humanity of Christ. 
 From two or three passages in Origen, he finds
 
 311 
 
 Unitarianism to have been the popular religion about 
 the year 230. From a sentence in Athanasius, he 
 discovers that the common people, after the counsel 
 of Nice, were Unitarians, in the middle of the fourth 
 century. From a passage in Jerom, he makes a sin- 
 gular discovery respecting the popular opinion of the 
 fifth century : from another in Facundus, he sets 
 down the "grex fidelium" in the sixth century as 
 Unitarians 1 : 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 direct 
 testimony to the opinions of the common people, 
 before the council of Nice, consists in a few pas- 
 sages of Tertullian and Origen which he has mis- 
 understood; and he has not noticed the great body 
 of evidence, which is found even in these two writ- 
 ers, by which his hypothesis is completely destroyed. 
 Even supposing that he had rightly represented the 
 sense of the passages which he has selected from 
 their works, it surely required far more testimony 
 than is contained in them, to prove so paradoxical 
 a proposition as that of the people taught, entertain- 
 ing an opinion directly opposite to that of their 
 teachers. An hypothesis, so contrary to general 
 experience, demanded far more support than testi- 
 mony consisting of only two or three doubtful sen- 
 tences, aided by a few artificial arguments founded 
 on a series of misstatements of historical facts, which 
 
 1 Hist, of Early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 336.
 
 312 
 
 have been improperly dignified with the name of 
 presumptive evidence. 
 
 II. " That the common people," says Dr Priestley, 
 "among Christians were actually Unitarians in the 
 early ages, and believed nothing of the pre-existenee 
 or Divinity of Christ before the council of Nice, 
 we have as express testimony as can be desired in 
 the case. These sublime doctrines were thought to 
 to be above their comprehension, and to be capable 
 of being understood and received by the learned 
 only. This we see most clearly in the general strain 
 of Origen's writings, who was himself a firm be- 
 liever and zealous defender of the pre-existence and 
 Divinity of Christ 1 ." 
 
 1 Kaj TOVTO Se ej'SeVcu e%pfjv, on. tovrrep eVrn 
 
 T(ov /ueA/\Ji/TO>i/ dyadwv, viro TOV KCCT' dXtjdetav 
 v vo/jiov Bf/Aoujue'i'toi/* OVTU> KOI fvayyeXiov a-Ktav 
 %pivTov SiSa'o-Kei, TO vofju^ofievov VTTO TrdvTtav -rdov 
 voeia-Qai. 'O Se (firjcrtv 'IwaYi/jjs evayje\iov altavtov, oiKet(a<; av 
 rrofjifvov Trvev/jiUTiKov, aa(p<a<; trapia-Trjo'i TO?? voovvi -rd irdvra evutiriov 
 frept avTou TOV viov TOV Qeov. AjbVe/j dva^fKaiov irvv/jiaTiK(a<; Kat 
 irw/xaTJKW? %pi(TTtavi^ftv KO.} OTTOV nev ^pn T " crw/^arncoj/ Kt)p\>(r<rei 
 evayyeXiov, (pdvKovTa fjtrj^ev el^evat TO?? crapKivols, fj 'lij(rovv X^JCTTOC, 
 KO.I TOVTOV ecTTavpw/jievov, TOVTO iroirfTeov. eirdv Se evpeQiafft KCtTrjp- 
 
 TTjU6fO Tip TTVeV/JLCtTt, Ktt\ KCtplTOCpopOVVTeS CV ttVTlp, fptOVTEV T6 TO 
 
 ovpauiov <ro0(a<f, neTCtdOTeov avToTs TOV \oyov firave\6dvTo<: diro 
 TOV (reirapKua-dai, e^> o r\v ev dp%rj irpo<i TOV Geo'i/. Comment, in 
 Joan. Op. Vol. iv. ed. Delarue, p. 9. 
 
 " 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 properly called the spiritual, instructs the intelligent 
 very clearly concerning the Son of God. Wherefore the gospel must 
 be taught both corporeally and spiritually, and when it is necessary, 
 we must preach the corporeal gospel, saying to the carnal, that we 
 
 know
 
 313 
 
 " But nothing can be more decisive than the 
 evidence of Tertullian to this purpose, who, in the 
 following passage, which is too plain and circum- 
 stantial to be misunderstood by any person, positively 
 asserts, though with much peevishness, that the 
 Unitarians, who held the doctrine of the Divinity of 
 
 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 must impart to them the Logos returning 
 from his bodily state, in that he was in the beginning with God." 
 
 Oj' fiev yap aJrw TU> \oyui KeKOfffjLrjvTat' ol Be 
 TIVI avTw, na\ SOKOVVTI etvat avTto -r<a irpioTta \oyio, ol pijitev 
 ei fitj 'Irjffovv XpurTov, na\ TOVTOV f<TTavp<afj.evov, ol TOV \oyov 
 capita. optavTe*;. Comment. Op. Vol. iv. p. 53. 
 
 " 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 
 know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified, who look at the 
 word made flesh." 
 
 OvTta Toivvv ol jue'v TIVC? ueTf^ovfftv avTitv TOV ev dp^fj \oyov, 
 KCU Trpos TOV 6eov \ofov, KO.\ Qeov \oyov, tatr-jrep 'CLa-rje KOI Hircua? 
 Kai leyoc/ui'ac, KOI et Ttc erepo? TOIOVTOV eauTov 7rape<rTt](rev, a? TOV 
 \oyov Kvpiov, 17 TOV \6fov <yeveaQai irpos OVTOV. fTepot $ ol 
 eftorct, el jur; 'Ir](Tovv Xpta-Tov KU\ TOVTOV effTavpfapevov, TOV 
 vov rrapKa \6fov, TO trdv vo/jLtvavTec eivai TOV \ojov \pta-Tov Kara 
 ffapKCt novov yivtacTKOvtrt. TOIOVTOV oe <TT< TO ir\r l Qo<; Ttav ireiniTTevKevai 
 vopifyneviav. Comment. Op. Vol. iv. p. 53. 
 
 " There are, who partake of the Logos which was from the beginning, 
 the Logos that was with God, and the Logos that was God, as Hosea, 
 Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and any others that speak of him as the Logos 
 of God, and the Logos that was with him ; but there are 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 of 
 those who are called Christians." 
 
 Tct Se irXtjdt] Ttoit ire-JttffTCVKtvai vofju^onevtav TJJ a-Kt'a TOV \uyov, 
 xai ov%i Tip d\t]6ivM \dytf Qeov ev T<O dvewyoTi ovpavia Tvy^avovTi, 
 fjiadrjTeveTai. Comment. Op. Vol. iv. p. 56. 
 
 "The multitudes" (i.e. 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."
 
 314 
 
 Christ in abhorrence, were the greater part of 
 Christians in his time 1 ." 
 
 " It is impossible not to infer from this passage, 
 that, in the time of Tertullian, the great body of un- 
 learned Christians were Unitarians. Common sense 
 cannot put any other construction on this passage, and 
 Tertullian is far from being singular in this acknow- 
 ledgement. 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 Tertullian considered the more simple and 
 unlearned people as those, among whom the Uni- 
 
 1 Simplices enim quippe, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotoa, quro 
 major semper credentiura pars est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluri- 
 bus diis seculi, ad unicum et verum deum transfer!; non intelligentes 
 unicum quidem, sed cum sua ceconomia esse credendum, expavescunt 
 ad ceconomiam. Numerum et dispositionem trinitatis, divisionem prse- 
 sumunt unitatis; quando unitas ex semetipsa derivans trinitatem, non 
 destruatur ab ilia, sed administretur. Itaque duos et tres jam jactitant 
 a nobis prsedicari, se vero unius del cultores prsesumunt. Quasi non 
 et unitas, inrationaliter collecta, haDresim faciat ; trinitas, rationaliter ex- 
 pensa, veritatem constituat. Monarchiam, inquiunt, tenemus. Et ita 
 sonum vocaliter exprimunt etiam Latini, etiam opici, ut putes illos tarn 
 bene intelligere monarchiam, quam enunciant. Sed monarchiam sonare 
 student Latini, oeconomiam intelligere nolunt etiam Graeci. Adv. Prax- 
 cam, Sect. iii. p. 635, ed. Rigalt. 
 
 " The simple, the ignorant, and unlearned, who are always the 
 greater part of the body of Christians, since the rule of faith," (mean- 
 ing, probably, the Apostles' Creed,) " transfers the worship of many 
 gods to the one true God, not understanding that the unity of God 
 is to be maintained but with the ceconomy dread this (economy; 
 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 (Economy."
 
 315 
 
 tarian doctrine was the most popular, is evident from 
 his saying, that the tares of Praxeas grew up, while 
 many slept in the simplicity of doctrine 2 ." 
 
 " Athanasius also, like Tertullian, acknowledged 
 that the Unitarian doctrine was very prevalent among 
 the lower class of people in his time," i. e. in the 
 middle of the fourth century 3 . 
 
 " This being the language of complaint, as well 
 as that of Tertullian, it may be the more depended 
 on for exhibiting a state of things very unfavourable 
 to what was called the orthodoxy of that age. And 
 it was not the doctrine of Arius, but that of Paulus 
 Samosatensis, that Athanasius is here complaining of. 
 These humble Christians of Origen, who got no 
 farther than the shadow of the Logos, the simplices, 
 and idiotte of Tertullian, and the persons of low 
 understanding of Athanasius, were probably the 
 simplices credentium of Jerom, who, he says, ' did not 
 understand the scriptures as became their majesty.' 
 For had these simple Christians (within the pale of 
 
 * Fruticaverant avenae Praxeansc hie quoque superseminata?, dormi- 
 entibus niultis in siraplicitate doctrinse. Adv. Praxeam, p. 634. 
 
 3 Ai/irt? 8e KGJ vvv TOV<; dvre^ofjifvov<: Ttj<! dyias Trio-reta?, ; 
 irep\ Ttav av-rtav /3\aff(prif.ii(ai> ftXavrova-a TUVS TroAAoJs" juaATTa 
 TOW? jAaTTti)jueVou? irep\ Ttjv (rvvtffiv. Ta yap peyaXa. nat Svcnca- 
 U>V irpafiJidTtav TciaTft TJ; irpo<; -rov 6fov Xa/jLJSdveTai. 
 ol irfp] Ttjv yviaa-iv dSvvaTovvTes diron tirTovfftv, el pi] -neiffdeltv 
 u' TJ; ir'nr-ret, KOI rac -jrepiepjov: ty]Tt]<Tfi<; eicrpeTreffdai. De 
 Incarnatione Verbi, contra Paulum Samosatensem, Opera, Vol. i. p. 591. 
 
 " It grieves," he says, " those who stand up for tlie holy faith, 
 that the multitude, and especially persons of low understanding, should 
 be infected with those blasphemies. Things that are sublime and 
 difficult are 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."
 
 316 
 
 the Church) inferred from what John says of the 
 Logos, and from what Christ says of himself, that 
 he was, personally considered, equal to the Father, 
 Jerom would hardly have said, that * they did not 
 understand the scriptures according to their majesty,' 
 for he himself would not pretend to a perfect know- 
 ledge of the mystery of the Trinity. ' For these 
 simple Christians,' he says, 'the earth of the people 
 of God brought forth hay, as for the heretics it 
 brought forth thorns'.' For 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 
 doctrine of the eternal Logos, who was in God, and 
 who was God, was long considered as a more ab- 
 struse and refined principle, with which there was 
 no occasion to trouble the common people ; and that 
 the doctrine of the simple humanity of Christ con- 
 tinued to be held by the common people till after 
 the time of Athanasius, or after the Council of Nice. 
 And if this was the case then, we may safely con- 
 clude, that the Unitarians were much more nu- 
 merous in a more early period, as it is well known 
 that they kept losing, and not gaining ground, for 
 several centuries-." 
 
 1 Quod dicitur super terrara populi mei, spinse ct fcenum ascendent, 
 referre potest et ad haereticos, et ad simplices quosque credentium, qui 
 non ita scripturarn intelligunt ut illius convenit majestati. Undc sin- 
 gula singulis coaptavimus, ut terra populi dei hsereticis spinas, imperitis 
 quibusque ecclesiso fop.num afferat. Jerom. in Isai. xxxii. 20. Opera* 
 Vol. iv. p. 118. Priestley's Citations and Translations. 
 
 2 Hist, of Early Opinions, Book in. c. xiii.
 
 '517 
 
 IV. With the Christians after the Council of 
 Nice I have no concern : and Dr Priestley can hardly 
 be serious, when he intimates, that the Unitarian 
 doctrine 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 doctrine 
 of the Trinity without understanding it, which" 
 Dr Priestley continues to observe, " is in fact no 
 belief at all 3 ." 
 
 It surely may be admitted, that 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 
 doctrine of the Trinity without understanding it, 
 the fact 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 is 
 from inattention to one of the most common dis- 
 tinctions, 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 
 
 3 Letter to the Archdeacon of St Albans, p. 81.
 
 318 
 
 in their time. They distinguished between TT'K 
 Christian faith and yvwais, perfect Christian know- 
 ledge : to which discrimination Athanasius has di- 
 rectly alluded in the passage just cited. " Things 
 that are sublime and difficult are apprehended by 
 aith in God." (-Trio-ret TY\ ^09 TOV 9eo i/.) " Whence, 
 those who are incompetent in knowledge" (o\ irepl 
 TYIV yvwcriv aovvaTovvTe<i) " fall off, if they be not 
 persuaded to rest in faith." (r>7 TriVrei), &c. "Faith" 
 they defined to be "a summary knowledge of the 
 most necessary truths :" " Knowledge" (<yvwai<i) " a 
 strong, and steady illustration of what is learnt by 
 faith, a superstructure raised on faith, as its found- 
 ation, by the instruction of Christ 1 ," The former, 
 they maintained, might be possessed by all pious 
 persons, by all true Christians: the latter, they 
 thought, fell only to the lot of a few 2 . In this 
 yvwcfi-s 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 
 
 rl fiev ovv Tri'tr-ri^, ITVVTO/W; ea"rtv } <o<s eiTreu>, Ttav KC 
 ' r; "/viocris ce rtTrocei^t? Tiav diet 7r(<TTew<? TrapfiXtfUfteviav IfT^vpn 
 
 v KOI ,uer' eflriiTT q/uip K<X\ Ka-raXriTrrov -napmrffi- 
 Trovtra. Clemens Alex. Strom. L. vn. p. 732. Erl. Paris. Sylburg. Vid. 
 etiam L. v. sub initio. 
 
 " 'H 7i'WfTi<r Se auVi; / Kurd ciaoo^a? CK OAITOYS eV' Ttav 
 airocrroXtav a'/pri(f)a)<; irapatoQe'icm KareXt'iXvQev. Clemens Alex. Strom. 
 L. vi. citat. a Valesio, Annot. in Euscb. Hist, p. 24. (p. 44. ed. Reading). 
 
 T;i' /lev OKpifieiav avrns tivity-rcu> ttXiytav e<rr\, rtjv te TT'HTTIV 
 
 Karexftv 'AFIANTflN TON OPO2 TON 0FX)N EYHKienN. 
 
 Athanasius de Incarnatione, contra Paul. Samos. Vol. T. p. 592. citat. a 
 Priestley, Letters to the Archdeacon of St Albans, Part n. p. 82.
 
 that they completely comprehended 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 per- 
 ceive, that it is not any defect, or error in the 
 faith of the multitude of Christians, to which that 
 Father alluded, but a deficiency in their knowledge*, 
 That sort and degree of knowledge (not of faith) 
 which Athanasius thought it dangerous for persons of 
 low understanding to affect, that sort and degree of 
 knowledge, Origen and Jerom, in the passages cited 
 from them, declare, is not to be found among the 
 great mass of Christians. And not the slightest 
 intimation of the general prevalence of Unitarianism 
 is discoverable in this testimony. In this place, an 
 error may be corrected, which runs through a whole 
 section in the History of Early Opinions. It is 
 there asserted, that " according to the acknowledge- 
 ment of the Christian Fathers/' John was the first, 
 who taught the doctrines of the Divinity and pre- 
 existence 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 
 subject, 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 pas- 
 sages to this purpose, from almost every part of it: 
 
 3 Origen (see Comm. in Joan. Op. Vol. iv. p. 5.) also asserted, that 
 only a few could understand St John's Gospel : but he never thought 
 /of affirming that only a few bettered it.
 
 320 
 
 but John, they asserted, what is allowed by all, was 
 the first who published to mankind the knowledge 
 of the manner in which Christ pre-existed as the 
 Word of God. None of the disciples, they contended, 
 had taught the Divinity (0eoV^?) of Christ fre- 
 quently, fully, and clearly as this Apostle ; and he 
 was the first, who explained the 9eo\oyia, the doc- 
 trine of the divine \oyos or Word: which, they 
 maintained, none but Christians, with minds more 
 than commonly illuminated, could understand, though 
 all true Christians, on the authority of Scripture, 
 believed the truth of the doctrine. 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 cen- 
 tury. And in a multitude of passages from preced- 
 ing writers, in which it is declared, that John first 
 taught the 6eo\oyia of Christ, he has erroneously 
 expressed this term by the English word Divinity: 
 though every thing but a formal definition is given 
 of it by Chrysostom 1 . 
 
 V. In order to understand the passage from 
 Tertullian, it is necessary to recollect the two oppo- 
 site systems of Unitarianism in his age. The Alo- 
 gians believed in the simple humanity of Christ. 
 The Monarchists, afterwards known by the name of 
 
 1 Uptort] dvd\l/a(ra TOV TJ<J Beo\oy'ia<! Xv^vov, iraaau Ttav irepa- 
 Ttav al eKK\rjff!at irpm tre Spafiouvai, fKczcrrrj rtjv eavTrji Acr/iTraSa 
 *rt)v QeoXoyiav avt)\f/, KCI\ virecfrpe^/e -^aipovtra, 'EN 'APXH< UN 
 'O AOFO2. Chrysost. in Joan. i. citat. a Priestley.
 
 Sabellians, who formed a considerable sect in several 
 parts of Africa, strictly maintained the doctrine of 
 Christ's Divinity, but denied his distinct personality. 
 The term Alogians is sufficiently extensive to com- 
 prehend the Ebionites and Carpocratians; though it is 
 confined by Epiphanius to those Gentile believers in 
 the simple humanity of Christ, who first appeared at 
 the end of the second century. The most distin- 
 guished leaders of this very inconsiderable sect were 
 Theodotus of Byzantium, Artemon, and Paul of Sa- 
 mosata. Praxeas was the first Monarchist. His suc- 
 cessors were Noetus and Sabellius, who maintained, 
 with little difference, the doctrines 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 beginning of the fourth century 2 . 
 After which time, pure Sabellianism disappeared; and 
 if, with Beausobre, we attempt to collect its princi- 
 ples from the opinions of Marcellus, we shall make 
 the system appear indeed more agreeable to human 
 reason but we shall not discover the truth. As the 
 opinions of sects, 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 
 
 * Marcellus is accused by Eusebius of combining the opinions of 
 Sabellius, Paul of Samosata and the Jews. Ma'^KeAXo? Se -rravra <pvpa<;, 
 TTOTC ntv tic auroV o\ov TOV 2a/^\A/oi/ (3vdov -^apfl, iroTf 
 TOV 2a^o<rQT6to9 avavenvaQai iretparai Ttjv a'l'peatv, TTOTC Se 'l 
 wV avTtKpvn aVf Xtj^e-rat. Euseb. cont. Marcell. L. in. c. vi. 
 
 X
 
 322 
 
 earlier. About A. D. 205, Tertullian was their ac- 
 cuser, and about A. D. 230, Origen was in some 
 degree their apologist. Since both these writers per- 
 fectly agree with one another, and with many others, 
 in representing them as believers in the Divinity of 
 Christ, in the highest possible sense of the word, no 
 room seems left for conjecture 1 . To this evidence no 
 
 1 Origen, alluding to the Monarchists, speaks of those who confound 
 the Son with the Father, under the notion of doing him honour. 
 Oil vofjuffTtov yap en/cti virep avrov TOIK TO \]/evr] (j)povovv r ra<; irepi 
 avTOv, (puvTaaia TOV 6od(eii> CLUTOV oiroToi clcrtv (TfyveopTec 'na.Tpos 
 na\ viov evvoiav, not Trj uVcxrTacrei fva otSovTes elvat TOV irarepct KOI 
 TOV viov. Comm. in Matt. Op. Vol. in. p. 789. And he accurately distin- 
 guishes between the Monarchists and Alogians, in these words : "H-roi 
 apvovpevavi iCioTrjTa viov e-repav irapa TtjV TOV -nctTpos fj apvovfievow 
 Trjv deoTrjTct TOV viov. " Either those who deny that the identity of the 
 Son is different from that of the Father, or those who deny the Divinity 
 of the Son." Comm. in Joan. Op. Vol. iv. p. 50. ed. Delarue. 
 
 Alluding to the high opinion, which the Monarchists entertained of 
 Christ's Divinity, Novatian says, " Usque adeo manifestum est in scripturis 
 esse Deum tradi, ut plerique hsereticorum divinitatis ipsius magnitudine 
 et veritate commoti, ultra modum extendere honores ejus ausi essent, 
 non filium, sed ipsum Deum Patrem promere vel putare." C. xxiii. p. 87. 
 citat. a Priestley Hist. Vol. n. p. 166. 
 
 It would be easy to produce a multitude of authorities, perfectly coin- 
 ciding with the accounts of Tertullian, Origen and Novatian, to prove 
 that the Monarchists or Sabellians believed Christ to be God the Father ; 
 and not a mere man ; as Dr Priestley supposes the Monarchists in Ter- 
 tullian to have believed. Sandius, the Arian champion of the last 
 century, accused the Trinitarians of borrowing their notions of the perfect 
 equality of the Son with the Father from Praxeas, Sabellius and the 
 Montanists. See Spanheim Introd. ad Chronol. p. 197. The same ac- 
 cusation had been urged by Arius himself. 
 
 " After Peter, who suffered martyrdom under Diocletian, succeeded 
 Achillas in the bishopric of Alexandria, and to him Alexander: it hap- 
 pened that he and his presbyters were one day exercising themselves in 
 a disputative way upon the doctrine of the Trinity. Arius, one of his 
 presbyters, a subtle disputant, pretended to be apprehensive, that the 
 Bishop's discourse tended to Sabellianism, and carried his own to a con- 
 trary extreme ; alleging, with no little vehemence, that if the Father 
 
 begot
 
 testimony 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 Christians: who, if they still profess 
 all the tenets of their founder, are Patripassians in 
 the strictest sense 2 . 
 
 The account of these two different systems 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 doctrine 
 of Christ bring 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 Unita- 
 rianism, or an explanation of the doctrine 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 doctrine ; if such a doctrine was ever 
 really maintained 3 ." " This however would never 
 
 begot the Son, he, that was begotten, had a beginning of existence; 
 that therefore there was a time when the Son was not." Theodoret. Hist. 
 L. i. c. ii. Parker's Translation. See the testimonies of the Christian 
 Fathers, to the opinions of Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius, in Tillemont 
 and Lardner. 
 
 f * See the Chapters in Swedenborg, " De Domino." 
 3 History of Early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 376. 
 
 x2
 
 apply to any but philosophers. The COMMON PEOPLE 
 
 ARE DESCRIBED AS SIMPLE UNITARIANS, without 
 
 having any such whimsical hypothesis as this 1 ." 
 This philosophical Unitarianism is the doctrine 
 ascribed by Tertuttian to Praxeas ; though HE 
 SPEAKS of the common people as simple Unitarians 2 ." 
 
 According 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 idiotee, of whose perversity 
 he complains. This representation is entirely ficti- 
 tious. The common people of the Carthaginian 
 Christians are described by Tertullian as having just 
 become Monarchists, followers of Praxeas avence 
 Praxeance vanissimi Monarchiani Monarchiam, 
 inquiunt, tenemus : and he has no ivhere intimated, 
 that any considerable 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 distinguished himself at Rome 
 by his confutation of the false prophecies of Mon- 
 tanus : but, soon after, introduced what was thought 
 a heresy of his own, and preached his doctrines with 
 some success : " the tares of Praxeas sown upon" (the 
 true corn) " had produced fruit here too" (i. e. at 
 Carthage 3 ). The sectaries, however, were brought 
 
 1 History of Early Opinions, Vol. HI. p. 381. * Page 387. 
 
 3 Fructicaverant avense Praxeanae hie quoque superseminatae. Tert. 
 adv. Prax. sub init.
 
 back to communion with the Church by the exertions 
 of one of its members, probably Tertullian himself, 
 and the heresy seemed eradicated. Traductce dehinc 
 per quern Deus voluit, etiam evulsce videbantur 4 . 
 Praxeas signed a recantation of his error, and this 
 was lodged in the hands of the members of the 
 Church. After this, a division took place among the 
 latter, owing to the lapse of Tertullian himself into 
 the absurdities of Montanism ; Praxeas, or his fol- 
 lowers, 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 dis- 
 tinguished leader of the Carthaginian Christians had 
 embraced, assailed with great effect the genuine doc- 
 trines of the Church : which thus suffered by their 
 accidental and temporary connection with falsehood. 
 Availing himself 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 barba- 
 rous eloquence against the new sectaries. To expose 
 the errors of Praxeas, and to bring back the deluded 
 people to the true faith, he wrote the vehement 
 
 4 Vid. Tertull. adv. Prax. sub init.
 
 piece, in which Dr Priestley has lately discerned 
 testimony to the belief of common, unlearned Christ- 
 ians, in the SIMPLE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. In 
 this treatise, the errors into which the unlearned 
 Christians of Carthage had fallen, are explained in 
 a few words. Ipsum dicit (Praxeas) patrem descen- 
 disse in virginem, ipsum ex ed natum, ipsum possum : 
 denique ipsum esse Jesum Christum 1 . After some 
 further observations, Tertullian next describes the 
 Catholic faith, and. like the other Fathers, asserts 
 its priority, not only before " Praxeas of yesterday" 
 but before the first heretics 2 : observing, that the 
 doctrines of the Church might be supported on the 
 ground of antiquity ; that being true which was the 
 original doctrine, that spurious which appeared late 3 . 
 But, not to rest the matter on this, he undertakes, 
 like other early Christian writers, to show the reason- 
 ableness of the doctrine of the Church, to explain 
 how the Trinity is consistent with unity, since the 
 " perversity" of the Monarchists insisted on the unity 
 of God in such a sense as to exclude the distinction 
 of persons in the Godhead 4 . 
 
 1 Adv. Prax. sub init. 
 
 2 Hanc regulara ab initio Evangelii decucurrisse, etiam ante priorcs 
 quosque hsereticos, ncdum ante Praxean hesternum, probabit tarn ipsa 
 posteritas omnium hscreticorum, quam ipsa novellitas Praxes) hestenii. 
 
 3 Quo perseque adversus universas haereses jam hinc prsejudicatum 
 sit, id esse verum quodcunque primum : id esse adulterum quodcunque 
 posterius. 
 
 > Sed salva ista prsescriptione, ubique tamen propter instructionem et 
 munitionem quorundam, dandus est etiam retractatibus locus : vel ne 
 videatur unaqusequeperversitas, non examinata, sedprsojudifcata damnari: 
 maxime hsec quse sc existimat meram veritatem possidere, dum unicum 
 Deum non alias putat credendum, quam si ipsum cundemquc et Patrem 
 rt Filium et Spiritum Snm-tum dicat. Vid. Tertull. ibid.
 
 827 
 
 How the persons of the Trinity '' admit of num- 
 ber," he says, " without division" (of substance) " the 
 following tract shall demonstrate." For, " all the men 
 of simplicity" (alluding probably to their affectation 
 of simplicity of doctrine, as well as to their ignorance) 
 " not to call them unwise and unlearned, who always 
 form the majority of Christians 5 ," &c. "hold that 
 two and even three Gods are preached by us, and 
 affect 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 lan- 
 guage of the Carthaginian colonists, and the latter 
 was understood and spoken by many individuals in 
 almost every part of the Roman empire 7 ) amuses 
 
 5 Quomodo numerum sine divisione patiuntur procedentes tractatus 
 demonstrabunt. Simplices enim quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et 
 idiotse (quao major semper credentium pars est), &c. See p. 314. of this 
 Volume Note. 
 
 6 Anno ab urbe condita 627, Carthago in Africa restitui jussa, deductis 
 civium Romannrum farailiis, quae earn incoleret, restituta et repleta est. 
 Orosius. L. v. c. xii. 
 
 7 Si quis rainorem gloria; fructum putat ex Gratis versibus percipi, 
 quara ex Latinis, vehementer errat : propterea quod Grseca 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 lived only a few years before the 
 age of Tertullian. Addressing himself to the Carthaginians, he says, 
 " Vox mea utraque lingua jam vestris auribus ante proximum sexennium 
 probe cognita." Florid. 18, p. 813. Ed. Delph. 
 
 And, "EjusDei (sc. ^Esculapii) hymnum Graeco et Latino carmine 
 
 vobis hie canam. Hymnum ejus utraque lingua canam : cui dialogum 
 
 /similiter Grsecum etLatinumpractexui: in quo sermocinabuntur Sabidius 
 
 Severus
 
 328 
 
 himself with deriding the ignorance of the new con- 
 verts to Monarchism. " 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 know what o'lKovo^ia 
 means 1 . 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 Christians, at the end of 
 the second century. Nearly all were Monarchists, 
 believers in the Divinity of Christ, in the highest 
 possible 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 was written, 
 
 Severus et Julius Persius. Persius, quaravis et ipse optirae Latine possit, 
 tamen hodie nobis ac vobis Atticissabit." p. 818. 
 
 " Jamdudum scio, quid hoc significatu flagitetis, ut caetera Latinse ma- 
 teriae persequaraur (Schoppius ex Libro Fulvii legebat Latine narrare 
 prosequamur). Earn et in principio vobis diversa petentibus, ita memini 
 polliceri, ut neutra pars vestrum, nee qui Greece, nee qui Latine petebatis, 
 dictionis hujus expertes abiretis. Quapropter, si ita videtur, satis oratio 
 nostra Atticissaverit. Tempus est in Latium demigrare de Grcecia." 
 Florid. 24, p. 830. 
 
 1 Tertullian has before defined oiKovofjiia. " Unicum quidem Deum 
 credimus : sub hac tamen dispensatione, quam olnovofjitav dicimus, ut 
 uniei dei sit et filius sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso processerit, per quern omnia 
 facta sunt, et sine quo factum est nihil." Adv. Prax. sub initio.
 
 329 
 
 Cyprian, the admirer and follower of Tertullian, was 
 elected Bishop of Carthage by the people and clergy, 
 and governed that Church with the most uncontrolled 
 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 divided 
 and disturbed the Carthaginian Church are considered, 
 it is no wonder that all the ignorant people of the 
 place, to use the hyperbolical language of Tertullian, 
 were for a short time Monarchists. But even at 
 Carthage there is not the slightest trace of an Unita- 
 rian, who believed in the simple humanity of Christ, 
 in the time of Tertullian. The Christians of that 
 place were Monarchists, and not Alogians: they be- 
 lieved that Christ was truly one and the same in 
 substance and person with God the Father, not that 
 he was a mere man like themselves. 
 
 The notion of Tertullian's testimony to the popu- 
 larity of the doctrine of Christ's mere humanity has 
 arisen from two enormous mistakes. 1. That Ter- 
 tullian, in mentioning the objections of simple, igno- 
 rant people against the doctrines of the Church, was 
 speaking of the common people in the Christian world 
 at large, instead of those only who were immediately 
 under his own eye at Carthage. 2. That Monarchists 
 denied the Divinity of Christ ; whereas, in denying 
 his personality to be distinct from that of the Father, 
 they asserted his Divinity in the highest possible 
 degree. Tertullian, when speaking of the Car- 
 thaginian Christians, declares that all the ignorant 
 'people (simplices quique, or idiotes quisqiie) were just
 
 330 
 
 become Monarchists : when he speaks to the opinions 
 of Christians in general throughout the world, he 
 affirms that they all held Christ to be God 1 . These 
 two accounts are perfectly consistent : but both must 
 unquestionably be understood with some limitation. 
 
 It is hardly worth observing, that Dr Priestley, 
 I believe without any authority, reads quippe instead 
 of quique. The expression " simplices quique" is pro- 
 bably one of Tertulliari's barbarisms, instead of simplex 
 quisque or unusquisque. He afterwards has it so. 
 Male accepit Idiotes quisque aut perversus hoc dic- 
 tum 2 . Dr Priestley also seems to have inadvertently 
 ranked Praxeas among the Montanists, though he was 
 their most formidable antagonist 3 . 
 
 1 " Christ! regnum et nomen ubique adoratur, omnibus Rex, omnibus 
 Deus et Dominus est." Lib. cont. Judseos c. vii. " Aspice universas na- 
 tiones de voragine erroris human! exinde emergentes ad Dominum Denm 
 creatorem, et ad Deum Christum ejus." c. xii. 
 
 2 Tertullian. adv. Prax. p. 473. Ed. Basil. 1539. 
 
 3 "Many of the Montanists, besides Praxeas, against whom Tertullian 
 wrote, were probably Unitarians." History of Early Opinions, Vol. in. 
 p. 323.
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, BY THE FIRST 
 GENTILE CHRISTIANS, COLLECTED FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. 
 
 1. The usual practice of Historians to determine the state of opinion in any 
 age by the general spirit of its writings. 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 government : 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 Unitarians. G. 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 doctrine 
 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 number from the first acts of Constantine after his conversion. 
 
 I. THE hypothesis relating to the opposition be- 
 tween the opinions of learned and unlearned Christ- 
 ians, in the second and third centuries, on the subject 
 of the nature of Christ, appears at first sight so 
 extravagant, that nothing but direct, 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 pas- 
 sages from Tertullian and Origen, having no con- 
 nection with the question, on which they have been 
 brought to decide; and the supposition of the Uni- 
 tarianism of the common people in those early ages
 
 332 
 
 stands at this moment without any testimony what- 
 ever in its support. It remains to be seen what 
 the advocates of this whimsical notion will say to 
 the evidence on the other side. Any testimony in- 
 deed to prove the common people, in any age, of 
 the religion which was openly professed, and con- 
 tinually taught by the learned, would be superfluous, 
 had not a contrary opinion been maintained by a 
 writer, whose well-earned reputation in some depart- 
 ments of philosophy is almost sufficient to give cur- 
 rency to the most palpable errors, in subjects 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 Christ- 
 ians in the three first centuries, consisting of Letters, 
 Orations, Sermons, didactic, moral and controversial 
 pieces, Apologies, Panegyrics, Histories, and Com- 
 mentaries: 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 peo- 
 ple is commonly collected ; and it is thus that the 
 religious opinions of Christians in the first ages of 
 Christianity have been determined by the most ac- 
 curate historians. " Doctrina Catholica hujus (i.e. 
 secundi) saeculi," says Spanheim, " qualis fuerit cer- 
 tissime colligitur, 
 
 1. Ex scriptis Apostolicis. 
 
 2. Ex scriptis Symbolicis. 
 
 3. Ex scriptis Apologeticis Justini, Athena- 
 gorse, &c.
 
 4. Ex scriptis aliis secuml;r hujus aetatis; ncmpf 
 ex gcnuinis Justini, Thcophili, Tatiani, &c. 
 
 Ex his omnibus colliguntur articuli fidci Christ- 
 iana'." 
 
 II. It is not without reason, that historians 
 usually determine the state and changes of opinions 
 in any age hy the general spirit of its writings. 
 Popular opinions and popular writings arc 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 doctrine opposite to the sentiments of 
 the majority of their brethren, the Unitarian faith 
 would have been immediately vindicated, against the 
 bold innovators, 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 fact so far removed 
 from the character of philosophers, that they pos- 
 sessed as little science or literature as many writers 
 of our age. In some of their works we might as 
 reasonably expect to find philosophy, as to meet with 
 sound knowledge and rational information in many 
 'of the political, and politico-theological pamphlets,
 
 334 
 
 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- 
 satisfaction, 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 Christians, every artizan 
 would have been converted into a writer: the Uni- 
 tarians of that age that is, all the Christians like 
 the Unitarians of our time would have exclaimed 
 with the utmost violence against the IDOLATRY of 
 the philosophizing Trinitarians; and instead of trea- 
 tises against heretics written by the latter, in the 
 name of the Church, we should have had to peruse 
 a mass of matter, the production of the Unitarian 
 Church., against the heresy, philosophism and idolatry 
 of the worshippers of Christ. Now, since out of a 
 multitude of volumes before the Council of Nice, 
 only one work is to be found, in which the doctrine 
 of Christ's simple humanity is defended, we may be 
 fully assured, on this account only, that Unitarianism 
 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 doctrine. 
 And, from the connexion which always subsists be- 
 tween the opinions of the learned and the ignorant,
 
 3*4 
 
 we might have a very strong assurance, that the 
 common people in general held the same tenets with 
 their superiors on this subject. A peculiarity in the 
 constitution of the Christian Church in the first ages 
 raises a high degree of probability to moral cer- 
 tainty. In the early state of the Church, the 
 Bishops, Presbyters and other ministers were elected 
 to their offices by the whole body of the people 1 . 
 The government of the Church before the Council 
 of Nice was elective and representative in the strict- 
 est sense. And it ought to be known, that two 
 modern leaders of a body of Christians 2 , 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 represen- 
 tatives were uniformly of opposite opinions for two 
 hundred years, in a government, where the rulers 
 were elected by the people at large : that the people 
 regularly appointed persons to govern, and instruct 
 them, whom they must have thought idolaters. 
 
 Dr Priestley's reasoning does not always lead to 
 such strange conclusions. On one occasion, he ob- 
 serves, " the Bishops were Jews, because the people 
 were so." And on the same just principle he ought 
 to have inferred, that the Bishops throughout the 
 whole Christian world in the second and third cen- 
 
 1 Prsecipua pars ecclesise populus erat, qui potestate valebat epis- 
 copum, presbyteros, et ministros designandi, leges ferendi, quse pro- 
 ponebantur in conventibus vel approbandi, malos et degeneres et ex- 
 cludendi et recipiendi : nee aliquid moment! alicujus, nisi conscio et 
 consentiente populo, decerni et geri poterat. Mosheim, de rebus ante 
 Constant, p. 145. 
 
 1 Dr Priestley and Mr Lindsey.
 
 336 
 
 turies were believers in the Divinity of Christ, and 
 Trinitarians, because the people, who elected them, 
 were so. Whatever were the opinions of the great 
 body of electors on matters of importance, the opin- 
 ions 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 1 . 
 
 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 Ebionaean, Cerinthian and Carpocratian sects, 
 they were attacked as heretics by Justin, Irenaeus and 
 Hegesippus; excluded from the common privileges, 
 and even the 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 professed his belief 
 
 1 Athanasius, after the Council of Nice, was appointed to his Bishopric 
 by the whole multitude of people of the Catholic Church. IIc 6 Xcto? 
 avefiotav, tKpa^ov, alrovvTe<! 'ABavdcrtov e-jria-KOTrov. Ep. Synod. Alex, 
 ap. Athen. Apol. n. T. n. p. 726. citat. a Bingham, Antiq. Christ. B. iv. 
 c. ii. Yet Dr Priestley supposes these people to have been believers in 
 the simple humanity of Christ.
 
 337 
 
 in the simple humanity of Christ, he was immediately 
 excluded from the communion of other Christians, 
 and stigmatized with the name of heretic. Could it 
 possibly have happened, that Theodotus should have 
 been excommunicated, and Paul of Samosata deposed, 
 for maintaining the same opinions with the people 
 in whose hands the controlling 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 Unita- 
 rians: and had a few philosophers first ventured to 
 teach Trinitarianism, as it has lately been asserted, 
 about A. D. 140 had they attempted to introduce 
 a new doctrine into Christianity from the writings 
 of the heathen philosophers it would have been im- 
 mediately 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, 
 which was lodged in their hands, to prevent such 
 blasphemy ? Would they tamely submit to see several 
 members of the Church successively excommunicated, 
 and deprived of all the advantages of Christianity, 
 by a few philosophers, for no other crime than en- 
 tertaining the same opinions with themselves ? Is 
 
 Y
 
 338 
 
 it likely that all this should happen, not only without 
 the punishment of the authors of these strange, phi- 
 losophizing doctrines, who audaciously excommunicated 
 those who opposed them ; but without any public 
 vindication of the rights of a degraded people, in- 
 sulted by a few philosophers without civil or military 
 power to support their usurpation, and, by supposition, 
 without sufficient influence over their minds to bring 
 them over to their own opinions? 
 
 Justin Martyr, it has lately been said, was the 
 first Christian, or one of the first, who introduced the 
 notion of the pre-existence and Divinity of Christ. 
 Had this been really so, Justin would have been 
 reckoned a heretic, instead of being ranked among 
 the most respected, and revered members of the 
 Church 1 . "If the Divinity and pre-existence of 
 Christ," it has been justly observed, " was not a tenet 
 of primitive Christianity, there must have been a 
 period prior to the Nicaean Council, when it was 
 accounted a heresy, and when the non-divinity was 
 as universally taught as the sole orthodox doctrine. 
 Be pleased then to point out that period, and prove 
 that it existed, not by negatives, presumptions and 
 arguments from improbability, but by clear, positive 
 testimony 2 ." 
 
 VI. If the great body of the common people 
 in the second and third centuries had been believers 
 
 ' " The appellation of heretics has always been applied to the less 
 numerous party." Gibbon, Hist. Vol. r. c. xv. p. 604. Ed. 4to. 
 Geddes, p. 32.
 
 339 
 
 in the simple humanity of Christ, a peculiar spirit 
 must have been infused into the writings of those 
 ages, different from any tiling which we now find 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 character. Had 
 the common people, in their opinion, really laboured 
 under an error on the important subject of Christ's 
 nature, all their efforts would have been put forth to 
 effect their conversion. Men, who intrepidly opposed 
 the opinions of the whole heathen world, would cer- 
 tainly not have been afraid of attempting the complete 
 conversion of their own people : all their labours 
 would have been employed 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 subject; and we 
 should see the opinions of the people every where 
 combatted in the works of the learned. Since the 
 writings of those times are not of this cast since 
 the learned, on the contrary, while delivering their 
 sentiments respecting the Divinity of Christ, speak 
 with confidence 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, 
 that no material difference of opinion called for their 
 exhortations. 
 
 The probability of this inference is increased by 
 the consideration of a w r ell known fact in the early
 
 340 
 
 history of the Christian Church. In a few places, 
 where the common people had been for a time con- 
 verted to a sort of Unitarianism by some of their 
 teachers, as at Carthage by Praxeas, and in Galatia 
 by Marcellus 1 , there we find the writers uttering 
 complaints, and hear of extraordinary exertions to 
 reclaim them from their errors. These complaints 
 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 their care, it was in the first 
 three centuries, before the Christian religion received 
 the patronage and support of the civil government. 
 This harmony was not destroyed in the time of Con- 
 stantine. 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 ini- 
 quity to come within any Churches under his juris- 
 diction, whatever pretended letters of communion any 
 of them should bring ; for, that they had not only 
 with the Gentiles and Jews 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 
 
 1 See History of Early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 340.
 
 341 
 
 court to his brethren of the episcopal college, for 
 recommendatory 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 2 ." The Arians would 
 not have chimed the authority of the Bishops in the 
 ears of the people, if the former had maintained 
 Christ to be coeternal and consubstantial with the 
 Father, and the great body of the latter had believed 
 him to be a mere man like themselves. 
 
 VIII. It is not unreasonable to collect the re- 
 ligious opinions of Christians in general, 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 commonly supposed, is a question 
 which it is not necessary to decide, when we are only 
 inquiring into the opinions of the common people 
 about the time of Tertullian and Origen. To prove 
 that the great body of Christians in the third century 
 were believers in the Divinity of Christ, it is suffi- 
 cient to observe, that hymns, either ancient, or novel, 
 in which the Divinity of Christ was celebrated, were 
 commonly used in the religious assemblies of Christ- 
 ians; and that one of the reasons for depriving Paul 
 of Samosata of his bishopric was his attempt to 
 
 * Theodoret, Hist. L. i. c. iv. Parker's Translation.
 
 342 
 
 abolish them 1 . It is far from improbable that the 
 hymns which Paul could not tolerate in his diocese, 
 according to the received custom, were the very com- 
 positions, in which, according to the testimony of 
 Pliny, the Christians, forty-seven years after the re- 
 surrection of Christ, were accustomed to address their 
 praises to Christ as God 2 . 
 
 IX. If the common people, the great body of 
 Christians, in the third and fourth centuries, had 
 believed in the simple humanity of Christ, as it has 
 lately been asserted, we should have heard of Theo- 
 dotus, Artemon, Paul of Samosata, Marcellus of 
 Ancyra and Photinus insisting, that all the Christians 
 of their own time,, except a few Platonizing philoso- 
 phers, 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 
 
 1 " Eusebius (Hist. L. v. c. xxviii.) gives a farther proof of this, in- 
 forming us, that the many hymns composed upon our blessed Lord by 
 the earliest Christians were arguments of his Divinity, and were so made 
 use of against the heresy of Artemon, who denied it. The same historian 
 likewise observes, (L. vn. c. xxx.) 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 bishopric. The testimony of an enemy may in this case 
 be as prevalent as that of a friend : for there seems no other reason why 
 the aforesaid heretic should take so much pains to abolish the hymns 
 relating to our Lord, if he had not thought the worship, which was paid 
 by them, an argument of his Divinity." Defence of the Bishop of 
 London's Letter (1719), p. 21. 
 
 Mosheim (p. 704.) has a curious conjecture, that Paul changed the 
 Christian hymns for the Psalms of David, to please Zenobia. 
 
 2 Quod essent soliti stato die, ante lucem convenire, carmenque 
 Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem. Pliny, L. x. Ep. 97.
 
 343 
 
 general prevalence of their opinions, virtually ad- 
 mitted 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, one hundred years before him, 
 introduced a different doctrine. The Unitarians of 
 Origen's age, or a little before it, asserted the uni- 
 versality of their religion, till the purity of the 
 Apostolical doctrine became corrupted under Zephyri- 
 nus : but no instance is found of any Unitarian affirm- 
 ing, or supposing, that the great body of Christians 
 were of his opinion at the instant when he was 
 defending his doctrine, and asserting its antiquity 3 . 
 The difference between the conduct 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, Athena- 
 goras, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and several 
 others, declared that Christians in general of their own 
 time believed in the Divinity of Christ 4 . The Unita- 
 rians affirmed their religion to have been generally 
 prevalent at some preceding period. 
 
 The common chronology brings the accession of Victor as low as 192, 
 and Zephyrinus 201. But there is great reason to question the accuracy 
 of these dates. See Dissert. Pra3V. in Irenseum, p. 80. Ed. Ren. Massuet, 
 Par. 1710. Where Victor is placed about 177. Without attempting to 
 settle the chronology, it is sufficient to observe, that it was some time 
 after the accession of Zephyrinus, when the Artemonites asserted the 
 antiquity of their doctrine. This appears from the language of the writer 
 quoted by Eusebius, Hist. L. v. c. xxviii. 
 / * See the last Chapter of this Volume.
 
 344 
 
 X. As a medium for proving Unitarianism 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 sixth, were be- 
 lievers in the simple humanity of Christ; that their 
 opinions on this subject were the same with those 
 for which Paul of Samosata was excommunicated. 
 " 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 under- 
 standing ; and these were the disciples of Paulus 
 Samosatensis 1 ." Among other methods, the reason- 
 ableness of this strange hypothesis may be tried by 
 the conduct of the first Christian emperor. " The 
 sects, against whom the imperial severity was directed, 
 appear to have been the adherents of Paul of Sa- 
 mosata, the Montanists of Phrygia the Novatians 
 the Marcionites and Valentiniaus 2 . " And can we 
 believe it possible, that the emperor, immediately on 
 embracing Christianity, should begin with the per- 
 secution of those tenets which formed the Christianity 
 of his time ? Are we seriously to learn from Dr 
 Priestley, instead of gaining our information from 
 Mr Gibbon, that Constantine was an oppressor, and 
 not a protector 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 
 
 1 History of Early Opinions, Vol. HI. p. 393. 
 * Gibbon, Hist. Vol. n. c. xxi. p. 232.
 
 345 
 
 there have been in that policy, which induced him 
 to desert his pagan subjects, and to show his attach- 
 ment to his new religion by acts of severity against 
 the great mass of its professors ! Constantine, we 
 may be well assured, would neither have shown 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 respecting the nature of 
 Christ, as well as in most of the leading doctrines 
 of Christianity 3 : and, on a further inquiry into their 
 opinions, " The Novatians were exempted by a par- 
 ticular edict from the general penalties of the law 4 ." 
 
 Mosheim, de Rebus ante Constant, p. 520. 
 4 Gibbon, Hist. Vol. 11. p. 233.
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OP THE NEW TESTAMENT, BY THE FIRST 
 GENTILE CHRISTIANS, COLLECTED FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. 
 
 1. General testimony of the heathens in the second and third centuries to the belief 
 of Christians in the Divinity of Christ. Never denied by the learned or un- 
 learned 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 Minucius Felix. 
 
 6. Testimony of Porphyry. 7- Testimony of Hierocles and another heathen 
 writer noticed by Lactantius. 8. Testimony of the heathens in general as 
 described by Amobius. 9. The general testimony of the heathens on this 
 
 subject unopposed by any individual among themselves Effect which the 
 
 objection of the heathens would have produced on the Apologies of the learned 
 and unlearned Christians, if it had been without foundation. 
 
 I. THE Christians for many ages were a sect 
 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 become 
 objects of curiosity, and, in some degree, of alarm. 
 To ascertain the manners, opinions and practices of 
 the first Christians, an industrious and careful 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 neglect, which hardly 
 admits of excuse, that the evidence derivable from 
 this last-mentioned source should have been almost 
 entirely overlooked by the writer of " the History of
 
 347 
 
 Early Opinions concerning Christ." Had the Car- 
 thaginian 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 Menandrians, the Cerinthians, or Valen- 
 tinians, 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 sect (considering the whole collective 
 body of Christians under whatever denomination as 
 one sect, with respect to the world at large,) have 
 come down to us, we shall hardly be actuated by 
 a proper regard for truth, if we determine to shut our 
 eyes on the picture of them which is drawn by the 
 heathens. We may suspect both the partiality of 
 friends and the malice of enemies: it will be ad- 
 visable to attend to the suggestions of both, and to 
 collect the truth from a comparative view of their 
 different representations. On many subjects, indeed, 
 a complete account may be obtained of the Christians 
 from their own writings : and we might also gain 
 sufficient information, on several particulars respecting 
 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 
 few of them could be acquainted with the writings 
 of the Platonic philosophers; and thence infer with 
 probability, that Christianity could not then
 
 348 
 
 have been generally corrupted from that source. When 
 Julian complained, that the impious Galilseans not 
 only supported their own poor, but many of those 
 also among the heathens; philanthropy and charity, 
 we should conclude, 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 them as 
 worshippers of Christ; when we know from history, 
 that the heathens in general considered the deification 
 of Christ by Christians as a well known fact, which 
 none of them ever questioned : " such evidence as 
 this," we should say, " cannot be controverted, the 
 fact substantiated by it will never be disputed, this 
 can be no calumny like some other groundless charges 
 urged against Christians, which they denied and re- 
 pelled: 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 Christians 
 before the Council of Nice, we find the case to be 
 exactly as we should previously expect. A few idle, 
 popular clamours raised against them, in which they 
 were accused of incest, cannibalism and atheism, 
 but which their more respectable 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
 
 349 
 
 well as others, from Pliny to Julian, and was some- 
 times 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 Tertullian and Origen described the 
 great body of Christians as believers in the simple 
 humanity of Christ, is an absurd fiction. Both of 
 them have strenuously asserted the general belief of 
 Christians in the Divinity of Christ. 
 
 II. The testimony of Pliny, to this article 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, ob- 
 serves that " the Patriarch himself, when he comes 
 to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by 
 others to worship Christ 1 ." 
 
 The whole picture 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 may sometimes 
 be collected out of the exaggerations of wit and 
 satire. At this time, when Christianity was perse- 
 
 1 ^Egyptum, quara mihi laudabas, Serriane dignissime, totara didici, 
 levem, pendulam et ad omnia famse momenta volitantem. Illi, qui 
 Serapin colunt, Christian! sunt : et devoti sunt Serapi, qui se Christi 
 episcopos dicunt. Nemo illic archisynagogus Judseorum, nemo Sama- 
 rites, nemo Christianorum presbyter, non mathematicus, non aruspex, 
 non aliptes. Ipse ille patriarcha, quum ^Egyptum venerit, ab aliis Se- 
 /rapidem adorare, ab aliis cogitur Christum. Adrian, ap. Histor. August. 
 Scriptores, Tom. n. p. 723. Lugd. Batav. 1671.
 
 350 
 
 cuted by its enemies, some Christians, we might be 
 previously assured, would so far dissemble, as to pay 
 a constrained homage to the popular divinities of 
 the country : we have the testimony of Adrian in 
 this letter, confirmed by other evidence, that this 
 actually happened in Egypt 1 . The testimony, by 
 which we gain this information, teaches us also, that 
 the Patriarch was compelled by Christians to ac- 
 knowledge in Christ the Divinity, which heathens 
 forced him to own in Serapis. 
 
 The testimony of Adrian perfectly accords with 
 that of Pliny. But from them we cannot learn the 
 whole Christian theology. Whether Christ was wor- 
 shipped as one among many gods: whether the 
 Christians of that age, like the Sabellians some time 
 later, and like the Swedenborgians in the present 
 age, considered him as God the Father, or as one 
 of the three persons in the Divine unity, or as an 
 inferior Divinity: cannot be known from these testi- 
 monies only. 
 
 In our disputes with those moderns who suppose 
 the Divinity of Christ to have been first acknow- 
 ledged by Justin, it is of some importance to notice 
 the time when Adrian visited Egypt, and made the 
 observations 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 
 
 1 See Casaubon's learned note on this page : which, I think, obviates 
 Lardner's ingenious conjecture (Hist, of Heretics, Book n. c. ii. 21.) 
 on the origin of Adrian's opinion, respecting the Christian worship of 
 Serapis.
 
 351 
 
 which Justin, in another part of the world, was con- 
 verted to Christianity. 
 
 III. The next heathen and Jewish testimony on 
 this subject is to be collected from the works of 
 Justin himself. The professed purpose of his Apology, 
 was to give an exact description of the conduct and 
 religion of the Christians: who had been much ca- 
 lumniated. The objections 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 conversion. 
 The doctrines, which had been the subject 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 Christianity A. D. 133, this 
 doctrine 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 2 . If 
 the worship of Christ was made a ground of objection 
 against Christians before A. D. 140, this worship must ' 
 have been some time established. Now, Justin him- 
 self, 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, 
 
 * See Mr Bryant's last work, on " The Sentiments of Philo Judseus/ 
 np. 60, 61, (1797) which has appeared since most of these sheets were 
 printed.
 
 352 
 
 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 ; while we 
 explain it 1 ." 
 
 From this passage, compared with the context, it 
 appears that, when Justin wrote his first Apology, 
 Jesus Christ was honoured next to the Father; and 
 that their extraordinary veneration for the founder 
 of their religion was objected against the Christians 
 as madness. He mentions it as a matter of common 
 notoriety; he takes no step to prove the existence of 
 the fact, hut only attempts to show the reasonableness 
 of the mystery, at which the heathens had expressed 
 their surprise. 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 Jupiter and Mercury, was, that Christ 
 was called the Word and the Son of God 2 . 
 
 ' 'Ei/Tau0a yap iiaviav tj/j.(ov KaracpaivovTat, SevTepav ^tapav 
 TOV aTpeiTTOv (cai aei ovra Oeov, Ka< yevvtjTopa TOV dtravriav, avQp<airta 
 (TTavpdoOevTt oicovut //xac Xeyovre*;, dyvovvTei TO ev TOUTW /j-vcrrrj- 
 ptov w irpoae^eiv vfj.dc, e^tjyovfjievtav tjfjiiov, 7rpoTpiro/j.eda. Justin 
 M. p. 20. Ed. Thirlby. 
 
 2 Tw Se KOI TOV \oyov, o effTt irptaTov jevvrj/J-a TOV Qeov, avtu 
 CTrijtu^i'as (pdtTKtiv /'juas yeyevfjffOai, 'Irjffovv X^KTTOI/ TOV SiSa'crKaA.oi' 
 ijfutov, KCU TOVTOV (TTavpwGevTa, KCII airodavovTCt, KUI av 
 dve\ri\vQevai ei? TOV ovpavov, ov irapa TOW irap J/x? 
 vi'ou9 TW Ait' KO.IVOV TI <pepo^e.v' Trocrous yap viovs <pd<TKOV<rt TOV Aio? 
 01 Trap' vfjLw Tijj.ta^evoi <rvyypa(j)e'i<:, eTrtaTOffde : Ep^fjv pev, &c. 
 p. 31. Vid. etiara p. 33.
 
 353 
 
 From the Apologies we are informed of the ob- 
 jections, which had been raised against Christianity by 
 the heathens, before Justin wrote : and the Dialogue 
 acquaints us with the accusations of the Jews. Justin, 
 in this last work, after having alluded to several 
 passages of the Old Testament, (Psalms xxii. xlvi. 
 and xcviii.) expressing, as he supposed, the omni- 
 potence, pre-existence and Divinity of Christ, is at 
 last interrupted by Trypho (p. 213) ; who accuses 
 him of 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 con- 
 cealed from them, (the Jews,) that they had misunder- 
 stood their own Scriptures, and (p. 215) cites the 
 forty-fourth 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 3 ." 
 
 Here we see, the application of passages in the 
 Old Testament to Christ by Christians, 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 4 . From which we 
 must conclude, that the Christians had endeavoured 
 to prove the Divinity of Christ in this manner be- 
 
 3 Kai ovBep GavfjiaffTov, el KO\ tjfj.a<: /uucretrc TOV<: ravra voovv- 
 Tcts, KOI e\ey^ovTa<! i'/iwr rrjv aVi <TK\rjpoKap%iov yvu>nrjv. Dialog, 
 p. 215. 
 
 4 For an account of Justin's manner of answering this objection of the 
 Jews, which must have been made some time before he wrote, se 
 
 / Note, p. 42. of this Volume. 
 
 z
 
 354 
 
 fore Justin's time; since he speaks of the hatred, 
 which originated from this cause, as then existing. 
 
 In 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 suhject 
 of ridicule, like Adrian whether it was mentioned 
 by heathens as an instance of a sort of madness, or 
 reprehended by Jews as impious and blasphemous 
 the doctrine 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 distinction. 
 
 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 observa- 
 tions on that subject which he committed to writing 
 must have been made during the preceding part of 
 his life. The opinions, which he ascribed to Christ- 
 ians, and which his antagonist allowed to be fairly 
 stated, 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 Divinity 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
 
 355 
 
 accuses all, whom he had noticed, of ignorance, and 
 represents them all as persons of low, and servile 
 condition, and without common information 1 . The 
 language of the Christians, he says, is this : " Let 
 no man of education, or wisdom, or prudence, come 
 to us (for these things we reckon evils) ; hut let any 
 man without information, and understanding and 
 common sense, come with confidence : for, in acknow- 
 ledging these to be worthy of their God, tho>y are 
 evidently willing and able to prevail on the simple, 
 the low-born, the stupid, and slaves, and silly women 
 and children only 2 ." The opinions, therefore, which 
 Celsus 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, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen, under the 
 title of idiwTai. Let Celsus, then, be heard on the 
 theology of the Christians. 
 
 Without citing all the passages preserved by 
 Origen, in which the heathen philosopher mentioned 
 the belief of Christians in the Divinity of Christ. 
 it will be sufficient to refer to many of them 1 ' ; and 
 to observe, that the faith, which Celsus had observed, 
 
 1 L. in. p. 120. 
 
 2 Mf/Bci? Trpoffirto Treiraicev/j.evos, ju>;cei? <ro0O5, fitjceii <pfiovtno<; 
 (KOIKCC yap Taura von'i'(e-rai trap f/jU'*') a\\' el TI<? ct/ma0;c, 61 T<<? 
 ai/ofjToc, e" TIC i/^Vio?, Qappuv tjnerea. rovrou<: ^dp aioi cr(perepov 
 Qeov avToQev ofnoXoyovvre^, $tj\oi e'tcnv, on juoi/ou? TOU? tj\t6iov<; 
 KCti a^cvi/e? 1 ;, Kai avcuaQtjTovs, KJ avdpcnroca, xat yvvaict, KCII iraitapia, 
 Treideiv ede\ova-i -re KU\ tivvavrai. Celsus, ap. Origen. L. m. p. 137. 
 
 3 See pp. 22, 27, 30, 72, 74, 75, 78, 80. 81, 82, 85, 89, 101, 106, 107, 136, 
 162, 163, 385,386.
 
 356 
 
 in the middle of the second century or earlier, in 
 the crowd of poor, ignorant Christians, as he describes 
 them, is the faith of our Church, and of Christians 
 in general of the present day. His principal ob- 
 jection, which he repeated to disgust, was urged 
 against their belief in the union of the Divine and 
 human natures in the person of Christ. " He objects 
 against us," says Origen, " I know not how often, 
 respecting Jesus, that we consider him as God with 
 a mortal body 1 ." 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*: in the others, he alludes 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 3 ; 
 observes that he is called the Word ; says the place 
 is shown, where Christ, " who is worshipped by 
 Christians, was born 4 ;" ridicules their inconsistency in 
 laughing at the worshippers of Jupiter, whose tomb 
 was shown in Crete, while they worship, as God, a 
 
 1 'Eire! 3' 67Ka\er t/juti/, OVK o?S' f)^r} oVoffctKK, irep\ TOV 'Itjffov, 
 OTI e< QvrfTov crtojuaToc ovra Qedv voftifofltv, L. III. p. 135. 
 
 * Origen, through the whole of that book, considers them all (except 
 the Ebionites, who continued mere Jews) as entertaining the same faith 
 with the Christian Church at large ; and answers the objections of Celsus, 
 as alike applicable to the great body of Christians. 
 
 Page 27. 
 
 4 Ka TO OflKWfievo* TOVTO S/a/3o/ToV ea-riv ev TO?C TOWOI? KCU 
 irapa TO?? TIJ? THO-TCW? d\\orptoi<;, OK apa ev Tta <rirri\ai(a TOI/TW 
 o viroXptffTtaviav wpocrKwovfievoi KOI 0au/i^ojut6i/o yefevvtjTat Tjo-ouc. 
 p. 39.
 
 357 
 
 man who was buried in Palestine 1 . He represents 
 the Christians as censuring the Jews for not admit- 
 ting the Divinity of Christ 2 ; 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 common people, without education and philosophy. 
 Yet it has lately been maintained, not only with 
 perfect seriousness, but with uncommon zeal and per- 
 tinacity, that all Christians, whether learned or igno- 
 rant, were believers in the simple humanity of Christ, 
 till about the age of Celsus; and that the great 
 mass of them continued in the profession of the 
 same faith many centuries later. And, *what will 
 excite some surprise, the philosophical author of this 
 whimsical hypothesis has found one Vindicator, who 
 has proclaimed the "discovery" with great solemnity 
 to the youth of the two English Universities; and 
 has recommended it to them as a medium for ascer- 
 taining, or confirming, the true sense of the New 
 Testament. 
 
 By comparing Origen's defence with the attack 
 of Celsus, it appears that the Jews, no Jess than the 
 
 ' Merc -ravra Aeyei irepi tipiav, OTI KaTa>yc\tiaft.(v riov irpotrnv- 
 VOVVTOIV TOV Auz, eirei Ta0a? O.VTOV fv K.pt]Tt] Se'iKwrai' KCLI ovttv 
 ffTTov fffftofiev TOV diro TOV TO(pov, OVK fi'Borec iru><; KQI ttaBo 
 TOVTO iroioucriv. p. 136. 
 
 <T\ oe TOVTO ejK\tjtJia diro TU>V fit TOV \pi<TTOi> Trt<rTevovTu>t> 
 'lovoai'ot<;, eire\ fiij -rreirttrTevKaa-iv we eic Geov TOV \rj<rouv. 
 p. 61.
 
 358 
 
 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 objections on this subject 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, 
 " They still worship that great man, who was cru- 
 cified in Palestine 1 ." 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 acknowledged 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 God by us, 
 or that a mere earthly being could be thought so 2 ." 
 
 VI. Porphyry, who wrote against the 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 3 :" and we know that this complaint had been 
 
 1 Toi/ p.ejav yovv GKtiVOV 6T1 ere /3ov<r tv avdpiaTrov, rov ev Trj Ila- 
 \ai<TTivr) uva.<rKO\o7ri<r6evTa, OTI Kaivrjv Tavrrjv TeXeTtjv elfrrjjayev 6? 
 rov fliov. Lucian. de morte Peregrini, p. 996. ed. Bourd. 
 
 2 Longe de vicinia veritatis erratis, qui putatis Deum credi aut 
 meruisse noxiiim, aut potuisse terrenum. Min. Felix, p. 33. Ed. Ouzel. 
 Ludg. Bat. 1652. 
 
 ov yap 
 Porphyr. ap. Euseb. Prsep. Evang. L. v. c. i.
 
 359 
 
 uttered long before his time. " Lucan, who wrote 
 his Pharsalia scarce thirty years after our Lord's 
 crucifixion, laments it, as one of the greatest misfor- 
 tunes of that age, that the Delphian oracle was 
 become silent: 
 
 Non ullo saecula dono 
 
 Nostra carent majore Deum, quam Delphica sedes 
 Quod sileat. L. v. 111. 
 
 And Juvenal 
 
 Delphis oracula cessant, 
 
 Et genus humanum damnat caligo futuri. 
 
 SAT. vi. 544."* 
 
 " The orator Libanius praises Porphyry and Julian, 
 for confuting the folly of a sect, which styled a dead 
 man of Palestine God, and the Son of God 5 ." 
 
 VII. Hierocles and another author, who wrote, 
 not against a few philosophers, but against the re- 
 ligion and name of Christians (about A. D. 300, or 
 earlier), are mentioned by Lactantius : and their ob- 
 jection against the Christian opinion, respecting the 
 Divinity of Christ in particular, is recorded. " Tot 
 semper latrones perierunt, et quotidie pereunt...Quis 
 eorum post crucem suam, non dicam Deus, sed homo 
 appellatus est 6 ." 
 
 If Philostratus may be credited, the term 0eoy, 
 God, was applied by many to Apollonius of Tyana ; 
 and he accepted the title, observing that every good 
 
 * Leland, Adv. and Nee. of Rev. Vol. i. p. 484. 4to. 
 
 '' Socrates, Hist. Eccles. iii. 23. Gibbon, Vol. i. c. xvi. 
 
 6 Lactantius, L. v. c. iii.
 
 360 
 
 man is honoured with it 1 . It appears, however, from 
 the united testimonies of Adrian, Celsus, Porphyry 
 and Hierocles, that the heathens considered Christians 
 as really attributing Divinity to Christ in a strict and 
 proper sense ; and that the terms 6eos and Qeov v\os 
 were not merely used as titles of honour. " In the 
 time of our ancestors," says Hierocles, " in the reign 
 of Nero, flourished Apollonius of Tyana ; who, after 
 having, when very young, sacrificed at ^Egae in Cilicia 
 to the benevolent God ^Esculapius, wrought many 
 and wonderful works." " To what purpose have I 
 mentioned these things? that all may perceive the 
 accuracy and solidity of our judgment in every thing, 
 and the levity of the Christians : forasmuch as we do 
 not 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 2 ." Hierocles 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 
 
 1 IlaXti/ tjp(TO t TOV ")(apiv ol avQpwnoi Qeov ere ovofid^ovatv ; OTI 
 Tras, e'iirev, avtfpwrrot;, dyaOos vo/j.i^ofjLvo^, Qeov tftovvfiuy 
 Apollon. vit. L. vm. c. v. p. 325. citat. a Lardner, Vol. vm. p. 258. 
 
 8 'ETrl T<av -rrpoyovoiv t]/J.(av Kara Tr)v Ne^wi/cK- ftaai\eiav, ' 
 vtoi ijK/j.a<rev 6 Ti/aveus, 6t en 7ra8o? nofjii&rj veov, KU\ d(j) ovirep ev 
 ' Avyais Tr]<! Ki\/ac lepatraTO TIO (j)i\av6pio i rru> AtrK\^7riw, TroAAa Kat 
 duv/jLua-Ta SteTrpd^aro. T/i/os ovv eWa TOVTWV efjLvrjffdtjv; "va efj; 
 ffvyKp'iveiv Ttjv tipeTepav aKpi/3rj KO\ (3e(3aiav 0' etao-Tia Kpia-iv, KO\ 
 Ttjv TWI/ X^ia-T/ai/wf Koi)0oTjTa. e'lirep fjVe?? [*ev TOV -roiavra weirotr]- 
 KOTO, ov Qeov, d\\d 0eo?? ne-^apicrnevov avtipa ijyovfjifBa, ol Be Si'o'A/'ya? 
 Tepareia? rica? TOV 'It)(rovi> Qeov dvayopevova-i. Euseb. contra Hieroc. 
 ad calcem Demon. Evang. p. 512. Ed. Paris. 1628.
 
 361 
 
 language of this objection must have been very ma- 
 terially altered. 
 
 VIII. It is not necessary to cite parts of ancient 
 history, to prove the hatred and persecution which the 
 Christians in general, and not a few Platonic philoso- 
 phers only among them, experienced from the hea- 
 thens. 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 incensed 
 at you, because you worship the omnipotent God, but 
 because you maintain 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 ; and 
 believe him to be still living, and worship him with 
 daily prayers*" A heathen would not have addressed 
 himself to the Christians in terms like these, if the 
 great body of them had believed Christ to have been 
 a mere man like themselves; and if a few philoso- 
 phers only had asserted his Divinity. The heathens 
 in the time of Arnobius, it appears, used nearly the 
 same language on this subject, that Celsus had em- 
 ployed a century and a half before. " If these people" 
 (the Christians) says Celsus, "worshipped no other 
 
 8 Non idcirco Dii vobis infesti sunt, quod omnipotentem colatis Deum, 
 sed quod hominem natura, et quod personis infame est vilibus, crucis 
 /supplicio interemptum, et Deum fuisse contenditis, et superesse adhuc 
 creditis, et quotidianis supplicationibus adoratis. Arnobius, L. i.
 
 362 
 
 but one God, they might, perhaps, have some ground 
 for attacking the others: but now they pay supersti- 
 tious honours to this man, who lately appeared, and 
 yet they imagine, that they do not offend God, if his 
 servant also be worshipped 1 .'* 
 
 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 2 ." But Cudworth, from these and similar 
 passages, with far more reason observed " Neither 
 indeed was that the chief quarrel, which the Pagans 
 had with the Christians, that they had deified one 
 who was crucified (though the cross of Christ was 
 also a great offence to them) but, that they, con- 
 demning the Pagans for worshipping others, besides 
 the supreme, omnipotent God, and decrying all those 
 Gods of theirs, did themselves notwithstanding wor- 
 ship one mortal man for a God 3 ." 
 
 IX. Upon the whole, it appears, that the opinion 
 of the Christians in general, respecting 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 
 
 1 Et (lev S>7 /xi/SeVa a\Xov eQepdirevov OVTOI Tr\rjv ei/a Qeov, rjv dv 
 TI? auTO?? urai? Trpo? TOUC aAAous drevtj<: \6yoi' vuv\ Se TOI/ ei/cry^oc 
 (pavevTa TOVTOV v7rep6pr](rK6vovfft, xcti o/utu? ovbev Tr\tjfJtfji.\eTv vofj.i^ov(rt 
 7rep\ TOV Qeov, el tcai virrjpert]*: avToii 0epa7rv0tj<reTat. Celsus apud 
 Origen. L. vm. p. 385. 
 
 - History of Early Opinions, Vol. n. p. 178. 
 
 3 Cudworth, Intellectual System, p. 278.
 
 seventy-seven years after the foundation of Christian- 
 ity, by Pliny; that it afforded Adrian matter for a 
 satirical observation in a familiar letter to a friend, 
 twenty- three years later ; and had been the object of 
 Jewish censure and heathen ridicule, before Justin 
 wrote his first Apology and Dialogue. As Christians 
 became more numerous, and more generally noticed, 
 this opinion became the subject 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 re- 
 peatedly 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 
 world at large, during the second and third centuries, 
 were thoroughly convinced 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 fact, which had 
 never been questioned or doubted. No heathen ap- 
 pears ever to have stepped forward to remove this 
 vulgar error. No writer ever attempted to correct 
 the erroneous 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 sect thought him a mere man. In 
 the second and third centuries, the Christian sect
 
 364 
 
 became an object of general notice. Several philoso- 
 phers appear to have read their books, and inquired 
 into their opinions with considerable industry and 
 care ; almost every heathen must have had a relation, 
 a friend, a domestic, or a neighbour, 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 ex- 
 ception whatever on record, observed Divinity ascribed 
 to Christ by Christians, the fact 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 writers of character, we are compelled to 
 allow that the Christian sect, which was just separated 
 from the heathen world, worshipped Christ as God. 
 
 But let it be supposed, that the heathens have 
 misrepresented the sentiments of the great body of 
 Christians on this subject. There were instances 
 certainly, when they applied the whimsical notions of 
 a few small sects to the whole body: and instances 
 might perhaps be produced, in which some of the 
 learned joined in the popular outcries against Christ- 
 ianity. 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 supposition however, of a con- 
 trariety of opinion between the learned and unlearned, 
 will not account for the mistake of the heathens before
 
 365 
 
 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 respect- 
 ing Christ, and the common people of another. Let 
 us take it for granted, that the heathens gained their 
 notions of the religious tenets of Christians 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 Hie- 
 rocles, had discovered the notion of Christ's Divinity 
 among these philosophers, and had concluded the same, 
 of the common people, without further inquiry. 
 Had this really been the case, we should certainly 
 have found the mistake of the heathens on this sub- 
 ject pointed out in the Apologies for Christianity. 
 The Christian writers who successfully removed other 
 unjust aspersions on their character, would be soli- 
 citous 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 urged against the heathens, 
 while the Christians themselves worshipped Christ. 
 
 The conduct 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, in- 
 curred much hatred, and created some alarm. Your 
 hatred and fears are alike groundless : and with re- 
 spect to the opinions and conduct of these people, 
 you all labour under a great mistake. The learned
 
 366 
 
 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 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 incorrect : 
 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 strict 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 polytheism : and you are the 
 more indignant at our expostulations, because, you 
 say, 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 victims of our 
 dishonest concealment, it is necessary to be explicit 
 with you on this subject. The Christian Church, in 
 this third century since the birth of Christ, inde- 
 pendently of its sects, 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 elected into their offices by the 
 common people, universally believe in the Divinity 
 of Christ, one only excepted, whom we are going to 
 depose 1 ; and, if we are not mistaken, we could prove 
 their notions to be perfectly consistent with that of 
 the unity of God. But, however this may be, whe- 
 
 i Paul of Samosata.
 
 tlicr their notions be agreeable to reason, or not, let 
 the men of learning only surfer for their own opinions. 
 You will, no doubt, be surprised, but it is strictly 
 true, that the great body of Christians have always 
 believed Christ to be a mere man like yourselves. 
 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 censurable for their 
 dulness and pertinacity ; but, in the name of heaven, 
 do not blame or punish them for opinions, which no 
 persuasion on our part can induce them to adopt. 
 Turn your ridicule, your arguments, your force against 
 us. Let our unhappy, ignorant brethren incur our 
 reprehension only, which they deserve : they merit, 
 on this account, no punishment and no censure from 
 you. We perceive you smile at this apology. You 
 are determined not to believe, that our people really 
 entertain an opinion essentially different from that 
 of their teachers on a leading article of our common 
 religion. You esteem this a mere fiction fabricated 
 to screen our followers from a part of your ven- 
 geance. No asseverations of ours, we see, will per- 
 suade you, that they have uniformly elected 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 surprise at a dis- 
 covery, which you have made in our character. 
 * These Christians', you say, ' with all their absurdity 
 and folly and madness, have till now appeared to us 
 'men of great simplicity : we thought that we could
 
 368 
 
 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 
 enough to believe, that the rulers and their com- 
 plying subjects, the electors and their representatives, 
 the teachers and the people taught, between whom 
 we have always observed far more than ordinary 
 harmony, are of opposite opinions ! No Christian, 
 who has a proper regard for truth, can advance such 
 a palpable falsehood: no writer, who has sufficient 
 respect for the intellects of his readers, can, either 
 now, or at any future period, hope to obtain a mo- 
 ment's credit to such an assertion.' Your objection 
 to our report is, we confess, not more than we ex- 
 pected. We cannot hope to obtain credit on this 
 subject. The fact, of which we inform you, is cer- 
 tainly contrary to every principle 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 1 , are believers in the Divinity of Christ, 
 
 1 In the middle of the third century, Mr Gibbon determines the pro- 
 portion between the Bishops and Presbyters and the rest of the people. 
 "The clergy at that time" (in Rome) "consisted of a Bishop, forty-six 
 Presbyters, seven Deacons, &c. The number of widows, of the infirm, 
 and of the poor, who were maintained by the oblations of the faithful, 
 amounted to fifteen hundred. (Euseb. L. vi. c. XLiii.) 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. i. p. 608. Ed. 4to. 
 This perhaps is nearly the proportion between the higher clergy and the 
 people through the whole Roman empire, in the middle of the third 
 century.
 
 .'369 
 
 while the great mass of Christians believe him to 
 have been a mere man." 
 
 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 
 conceal the truth, nor would 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 mentioned, but 
 in the conduct and worship of his own people, con- 
 cerning whom he professed to give the justest informa- 
 tion 2 ." 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 fact was strictly true. 
 
 But, let it be allowed, that all the learned Christ- 
 ians uttered a deliberate falsehood, when they re- 
 ported the religious opinions of their brethren to the 
 Roman emperors ; that Justin, Athenagoras, Theo- 
 philus, Tertullian, Minucius Felix and Origen agreed 
 in publicly asserting the same falsehood. What would 
 have been the conduct of the unlearned Christians on 
 such an occasion ? What must have been their lan- 
 guage on hearing a groundless accusation from the 
 heathens aggravated in a tenfold degree by the false 
 and treacherous defence of their Trinitarian brethren ? 
 Some very ignorant Christians, we know, were writers : 
 on such an occasion, all who could write, would have 
 
 * Lardner, on Justin. 
 
 A A
 
 370 
 
 taken up their pens with grief and indignation, and 
 have addressed themselves to the heathens in lan- 
 guage, which those emotions naturally inspired. " It 
 has been our fate," they would have said, " to have 
 our conduct and opinions perpetually misrepresented. 
 We were formerly traduced by the multitude, whom 
 some of your own poets have (it seems justly) styled 
 malignant, as monsters of wickedness : we are now 
 described as singular examples of human folly. We 
 have spoken out our sentiments 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 reproofs, you say, would be 
 tolerable, were we not to contradict ourselves. At 
 the very time, you allege, 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 dishonest 
 conduct of our own brethren, 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 effrontery 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 

 
 371 
 
 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 and his followers : but the corruption has ex- 
 tended no further than themselves. Christ is not 
 worshipped, as you have frequently objected 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 
 doctrines of Christ's Divinity and the Trinity in Unity 
 having been copied from Plato 1 ; and Christians from 
 that time would have been set down as persons totally 
 unworthy of credit, who would deal in any ridiculous 
 fiction, in order to forward their own purposes. 
 
 1 " It was reserved for the disputers of later ages to assert, that those 
 profound doctrines are in truth no part of genuine Christianity : that 
 they were the subtile inventions of men : and that they were originally 
 introduced into Christianity from the writings of Plato. As this assertion 
 has been frequently repeated, though without the shadow of a proof, it 
 deserved a minute inquiry," &c. Morgan, on the Trinity of Plato, p. 166. 
 (1795). 
 
 A A 2
 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OP THE NEW TESTAMENT, BY THE FIRST 
 GENTILE CHRISTIANS, COLLECTED FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. 
 
 1. 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. Tatian. 4. Theo- 
 philus. 5. Hegesippus and Irenseus. 6. Tertullian. ? Testimony of Origen 
 to the belief of Christians, particularly of the common people, in the Divinity 
 of Christ. He complains of the common people offering 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 Lactantius. 9. General view of 
 the evidence on this subject. Inference, respecting 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 collected from their religious opinions. 
 
 I. JUSTIN Martyr wrote his first Apology in 
 the year 140, only seven years after he had relin- 
 quished the errors of paganism. His professed purpose 
 in this treatise was to remove the prejudices enter- 
 tained hy the heathen world against Christians, by 
 giving a full and exact description of their lives 
 and doctrines. " It is our purpose," he says, " to 
 enable all to form a just judgment of our lives and 
 doctrines 1 ." 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 
 
 ovv epjov Kai (3'tov Kcti na6jfJiUT(av rtjv eTriffK6\l/tv traai 
 . p. 7. Ed. Thirlby.
 
 373 
 
 only. Having mentioned the worship paid by Christ- 
 ians to God the Father and the Son and the Holy 
 Spirit 2 , and the charge of madness urged against them 
 by the heathens, for placing Christ next to God the 
 Father; he reasons on the fact of this worship as 
 a matter of common notoriety, which it would have 
 been absurd to deny; and immediately professes his 
 intention to shew its reasonableness 3 . He afterwards 
 describes at length the initiation of Christians into 
 their religion by baptism in the name of the Father, 
 of Jesus Christ the Son, and of the Holy Spirit*: 
 and, what is of most importance to us at present, 
 he positively asserts that the common people were 
 accustomed to explain the Old Testament agreeably 
 to the doctrine of the Trinity. He asserts that Plato 
 had learnt from Moses to give the second place to 
 
 the Aayog (Sevrepav fjiev yap -^wpav TW irapa. 0eou Xoyip 
 
 Si&txn) and the third to the spirit, that was said to 
 
 move on the waters (T>}I> Se TP'ITTJV TW Xe^fleim 67rt0e- 
 
 peaOcu T(Z vSari Tri/eiWrt), and he immediately declares 
 that the same explications were understood and fol- 
 lowed by the common, unlearned Christians of his 
 
 * Kai o/jLoXoyovfjifi' Ttav ToiovTtav vofju^o/jievtav Oftav ddeoi etvat, 
 u\\' ov%i TOV a\t]6fa"rdrov 0eoi>* d\\' CKetvov TC, Kai TOV trap 
 OVTOV vtov e\dovT(i, KOI Ci^d^avra t]fj.a<: raura KOI TOV -rtav a\\tov 
 eiro/jifvwii KU\ efo/jLoiovufviav ayadiov dj f <fe\o)v trTpctTov, wevfjia TC TO 
 rrno(ptjTiKov cref3ofjie6a. KOI TrpocrKwou/jiev, K.T.C. p. 11. See the Note 
 in Thirlby, and Bryant's Dissertation on this passage. 
 
 3 Pages 19, 20. 
 
 4 'KTT* GvOjUCTo? 7p TOV iraTao<: Ttav v\<ov nai detnroTov Qeov, KOI 
 TOV a<aTtjf>o<: tjfjLtov 'Ii/o-oi; \pi<nov, KO.\ wfeujuaTOC dflov, TO f TW 
 
 Tore XovTpov irotovvrat. p. 89.
 
 374 
 
 time 1 . Dr Priestley's summary method of setting 
 aside this testimony will be seen in the subjoined 
 note 2 . Instead of following his elucidation, it will 
 be proper, by comparing Justin with himself, to 
 
 1 Apolog. i. p. 88. 
 
 2 " It may be said, that the testimony of Tertullian is expressly con- 
 tradicted by Justin Martyr, who (in giving an account of the circum- 
 stances in which the Platonic philosophy agreed, as he thought, with the 
 doctrine of Moses, but with respect to which he supposed that Plato had 
 borrowed from Moses) mentions the following particulars, viz. the power 
 which was after the first God, or the Logos, ' assuming the figure of a 
 cross in the universe, borrowed from the fixing up of a serpent (which 
 represented Christ) in the form of a cross in the wilderness;' and a third 
 principle, borrowed from the spirit, which Moses said moved on the face 
 of the water at the creation; and also the notion of some fire, or con- 
 flagration, borrowed from some figurative 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 from 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 you may 
 be convinced that these things are not said by human wisdom, but by the 
 power of God.' " 
 
 OJ TO. avTa oiiv j/jueFe aXXois 3oab/zei/, d\\' o'i travT^t TO. tj^erepa 
 fut/jiovfjievoi \ejova-i. Trap rjfuv ovv e<rTt TO.VTO. etKOVOtU KO\ naQelv Trapd 
 TUSV ovce TOUS %apaKTi>]pas Ttav (TToi^eitav eiriffTa/jLevtov, iSuaTtuv f*ev 
 KO.I /3ap(3dpu>v TO (pOt'y/j.a, (rocfxav 3e Kal TTICTTUV TOV vovv ovriav, na\ 
 irrjpcav KO.I -^rjpuiv TIVWV ra? o\^6K' to? crvveivai, ov <ro(pia dvQpunrela 
 Tavra >yeyoi>evai, d\\d Sui/a'juej Qeov \eyecr6ai. Apol. p. 88. 
 
 " But all that we can infer from this passage is, that these common 
 people had learned from Moses that the World was made by the power 
 and wisdom (or 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 short, 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 distinct from God. Justin was not writing 
 with a view to that question, as Tertullian was, but only meant to say 
 how much more knowledge was to be found among the lowest of the 
 Christians, than among the wisest of the heathen philosophers." History 
 of Early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 248.
 
 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 Aoyo? to which they assigned levrepav -^apav. 
 
 Tov oiodaKoXov T TOVTCOV yevojmevov y/uitv, ical ets TOVTO 
 yevvriQevra 'IH2OYN, 'YION 'AYTOY TOY 
 6EOY naOovres, Kai 'EN AEYTEPA, XttPA, 
 TTvev/u.a Te 7rpo<j)t}TiKov ev Tpirrj raet OTI pera \dyov 
 
 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 was not 
 consistent with his character and practice 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 Apologies. In 
 the Dialogue (p. 311), Trypho asks, whether Jerusa- 
 lem would be rebuilt, and whether Christians, with 
 Christ at their head, and all virtuous Jews, who had 
 lived before his appearance, would assemble, and pos- 
 sess 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 ; but I have 
 also intimated, that many true and pious Christians 
 do not admit this." Would a person, who was so 
 
 3 Pages 19, '.'0.
 
 376 
 
 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 doctrine, and if it 
 had been embraced only by a few individuals ? 
 Justin's knowledge of his subject precludes all possi- 
 bility of a mistake; his character 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 limitations 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 of being convicted of a design to 
 impose upon all the majesty of the Roman empire; and 
 that not in an affair incidentally 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 subject almost entirely in the language 
 which Lardner has applied to the same purpose on 
 another 1 . And it will be almost equally applicable 
 to the other Apologists. 
 
 1 See Lardner, on Justin.
 
 377 
 
 II. Athenagoras wrote his Apology (perhaps about 
 A. I). 170), after the worship of Christ had been a 
 subject of ridicule among the heathens ; as appears 
 from the treatise itself. In answer to the charge 
 of atheism, after having explained the Christian 
 notions on the existence of a (iod, Athenagoras adds 
 (speaking in the name of the Christian community, 
 and not of a limited part of it), " We also acknow- 
 ledge the Son of (iod. Nor let any one think that 
 there is any thing ridiculous in my attributing a Son 
 to (iod. For, onr sentiments, whether of (iod the 
 Father, or of the Son, are not like the fables of the 
 poets, who make their gods no better than men. 
 But the Son of (rod 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"," &c. After this he adds; " Who 
 then would not be perplexed at hearing people called 
 atheists, who declare the Father God, the Son (iod, 
 and the Holy Spirit 3 ," c. And he immediately sub- 
 joins: "Yon must not wonder, if I go through the 
 
 2 NoOl/jUtf ~fClp KUi VIOV TOU t)etl/. KUl fj-tj flOt */C\UU>V TK VOUlCTIj TO 
 v'lOV lVCll T(O df(O. OV "/Up OJ9 TTOltJTUl fJLL>6 OTT OlOVfflV, OVCV f3f\Tlf)VS Ttav 
 
 dvdputifiav CiKvuifTt<; TOVS 0eoJ<r, >} tr(p\ TOV Oeou KUI TTOTOO? >} Trcp\ 
 
 TOV VIOV TT(ppOl]KaUV. U\\ CCTTIV U VtO<S TOU QtOV \OJO<! TOV 7TUTpO<;, 
 
 fv Ictn KCII fvfp'/ein. TTpoi av~ov "yitn, KOI c< IIVTOV irnvra eytveTo, 
 
 61/OC Ol/TO? TOV TTaTpOS Hdl TOV VlOU' OVTOS Ce TOV VIOV fl> TTUTpl, KOI 
 
 Trarpo? e^ vita CVOTIJTI nai Cvvuaei nvtv/.ictTO^, vov<; KOI \oyoc TOV 
 
 irar^o? 6 via? TOV Qeou. Athenagoras, p. 10. ad. calcem Justini Mart. 
 Ed. Paris. 1615. 
 
 3 1 ic ovv OVK av UTToptjaai, Xfyoi/Ttt? 6euv iraTepa nctt vtuv 6fov KUI 
 trvevna ivyiov, cfiKuvvTas avTtav nat Ttjv iv TIJ fvuxrei cvvaniv t n.at Trjv 
 tv Tt] Tafcfi Cialptaiv, d< over as a&eow; KU\oi'H(i'ov<;', p. 11.
 
 378 
 
 account concerning us with accuracy: I speak accu- 
 rately, that you may not be carried away with the 
 vulgar and senseless opinion, but may be able to 
 learn the truth 1 ." 
 
 Athenagoras then, when professing to speak with 
 accuracy on the conduct and opinions of Christians,, 
 has represented them in general as believing in the 
 Divinity of Christ. Either he was guilty of a wilful 
 falsehood, or they were not Unitarians. Under this 
 article, it may be observed of the Apologists in 
 general: 1. When Christians were stigmatized as 
 atheists, they appealed to their religious tenets, pub- 
 lickly avowing the belief of their brethren in God 
 the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 2. When their 
 enemies, taking another ground, taxed them with 
 worshipping a crucified man, they admitted the fact 
 of the worship ; but denied that he was a mere man. 
 3. They made these declarations, when under very 
 strong obligations to relate the truth, and sometimes 
 when they professed to speak with the utmost care 
 and accuracy. 
 
 III. Tatiau, (about A. D. 170) after having no- 
 ticed the corruptions in the Greek philosophy, pro- 
 ceeds to describe the tenets of Christians as distin- 
 guished from those of the heathens. "I will give you," 
 he says, "a more clear exposition of our sentiments 2 ." 
 
 1 El oe ctKpi/3(o<: ^te^etfj.1 TOV xad' IJ/J.HS \oyov, [nrj 6av[jid<rt]T. 't'va 
 yap fjuj Trj Kotvrj KO\ a'Xoyw (rvvairotyeprjaOe yvtofjLr], e^rjTC Se Ta\rjGe<; 
 clSevctt, aKpifioXoyov/jiat. p. 11. 
 
 2 fyavcfiwrfpov ?c eKdrj<ro/jtcti Ta tjfjtercpa. Tatian, p. 145. Ed. Paris,
 
 .S79 
 
 And soon after, adds that the Word created angels 
 before men 3 . Alluding to the popular cry raised 
 against the Christians for worshipping, as God, a 
 man who was horn and crucified in Palestine, he 
 says, " We are not senseless, O Greeks, nor talk 
 trifles to you, when we declare that God was horn 
 in the form of man 4 ." 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 pre-existence 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 the Churches, which existed in the world, 
 and heresies separated from them, observes that the 
 luminaries of heaven were created on the 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 5 . 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 
 
 3 'O fj.ev ovv \oyoi -rrpo Ttjs TCOV dvdptav KaTa<rnevri<; ayyeAtov 
 dtjfjiiovp'Yo*:. p. 146. 
 
 4 Ov -yap fjLiapaivo/j.etf, avSpes 'EXAi/vec, ovce \tjpow; d-7rayye\\ofjiv f 
 Qfov ev uvQptatrov popfpri yeyovevai KaTayje\\ovre<:. p. 159. 
 
 5 Page 94.
 
 380 
 
 that of some of the other Apologists, he has in- 
 directly declared the Churches Trinitarian. 
 
 V. Hegesippus and Irenseus (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 Unitarian, his 
 evidence was brought forward with great confidence 1 ; 
 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 2 . This historian, after noticing 
 that the members of the Corinthian Church, with 
 whom he conversed in his way to Rome, "continued 
 orthodox" till the time of Primus, and after men- 
 tioning 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 3 ." 
 
 1 History of Early Opinions, Vol. iv. p. 308. See also the opening of 
 the History of Corruptions. 
 
 2 See Chap. ix. of this Volume. 
 
 3 Km eTTefievev rj eicic\ij<na ij Koptvd'twv ev TU> opQio \oj(a, M e X/" 
 Tlp'ifjiov eV/o-KOTreu'ocTo? ev ~K.opiv6ia' ok <rvve/jua TrAewv e<? 'Pia/Jrjv, KOI 
 <rvv$iTpi\l/a TO?? 'K.opivdiois ijnepai 'IKO.VCK;' ev a<? wvave-narjuev TU> 
 op6ta Ao-yw. Fevo^evo? 2e ev 'Pw'/uj;, Sia3o^jV eTroijyo-a'/juji/ pe^pis Ai/i- 
 
 KTJTOV Kd TTCtpd ' AviKIJTOV SiaSe'^eTCtt *5L(OTrjp, (U60' OV 'P>\6l/06|OOC. 
 
 ev CMUTTM 8e StaSovJj KOI ev CKOCTTJ; TroAei OUTWC e^e, w? o vonos 
 KOI ol troiJTat KOI o Ku'ioc. Euseb. Hist. L. iv. c. xxii.
 
 381 
 
 " The Church," says Irenaeus, " 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, 
 the Son of God invested with flesh for our salvation, 
 and in the Holy Spirit 4 ," &c. " The Church having 
 received this doctrine and this faith above-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 communicates them with perfect har- 
 mony, as if it possessed one and the same mouth. 
 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 
 doctrines 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 de- 
 livered to him ; for as there is one and the same 
 faith, neither he, who is able to describe it in many 
 
 4 See p. 253 of this Volume.
 
 382 
 
 words, says too much ; nor he, who has few, too 
 little 1 ." 
 
 We may suspect the accuracy of this pompous 
 and hyperbolical representation. But if any con- 
 siderable body of people among Christians had been 
 Unitarians, Irenaeus, 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". 
 " He also gives a plain proof that some of the public 
 offices at that time were sent up to God and Christ 
 together ; for, showing the inconsistency of the 
 Roman shows with a Christian's duty, * What is it,' 
 says he, ' to go out of the Church of God into the 
 
 1 TOVTO TO Ktjpujfjia irapei\ri<pvia, nai TavTrjv Trjv TT'KTTIV, to'? irpoe.- 
 fyatiev, tj 'E/cKAf/ena, Kaiirep ev o\u> TW Kua-/j.(a Cuea-TrapjjLevtj, eVi/ueAaic 
 (pv\d(T(rei, to'? eva OIKOV oiKovcra' KO.I d/j.oi<a<: irta-Tevei TOVTOIS, to'? /jLiav 
 V//-UY;I/ KOI TIJV avTrjv e^oucra KapStav, KCtl (7Uju0a)Vw? TOLVTO. KifjpVO'trei, 
 KOI SSa(7K6i, Ka\ Trapa&iiiiacriv, to? ev CFTO/AO. KeK-rrinevrj. KCLI yap at Kurd 
 TOV KO<T(J.OV SiaXenroi ctvopoiat, d\\' tj Si/i/ajucc Trjs napa&orrews fjLta KOI 
 ij avTij. KOI ovre at ev Yepnaviaf! iSpv/nevai 'EjKK\rj<riat aAAw? TreTrtcrTev- 
 Kaaiv t] a\\to? TapaSiSoacriv, oi/'re ev TO?? 'Ifiyptats, OVTC ev KeAro??, 
 ovre Kara ra? ai/aroAas, ovre ev ' Atyvir-rta, OVTS ev A.if3vr), OVTC al 
 Ka-rd fiecra TOV KOCTHOV idpv/j.evai' d\\' uxnrep 6 f]\io<: } TO KTiV/^a TOV 
 
 /-wf. ' T <t>\ fl \ \ i 
 
 \jeov, ev o\ta TW Ko<rfj.ca eii xat o ai/TO?, OUTCO xat TO Kr/pwy/jia Ttj<; 
 d\t]6eia<; Trai/ra^jJ (po-ivei, nai (piaTi'fei Trai/rac avdpiatrov; TOW? f3ov\o- 
 Hevovs 6i? eTriyvu)criv a\r]deias eXdelv. xai OVTG d iravv tvvaTos ev \6<yio 
 T(av ev TO?? 'EKK\jo-(a<? irpoeffTuoTiov, eTepa TOVTCOV epel ovre 6 
 a'cr^ei/jj? ev TW \oj(a e\aTTta<ret Trjv irapd^ocnv. /u?a? ^ap ai TJ? avTrjv 
 Tn'tTTeto? overt 1 ;, OVTC d iroXv Trep\ avTrj<: t*vvdfjLevo<; eltre'tv eir\eova<rii, 
 ovre d TO o\l^ov, r}\aTTovri<re. Iren. L. I. c. iii. 
 
 2 Page 329.
 
 assembly 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 say 
 from ages to ages to any other but God and Christ \' 
 Some have from hence conjectured, 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 from ages to ages being in all probability 
 a part of some antiphon or response of the people 
 to the minister 4 ." 
 
 VII. The testimony of Origen to the belief of 
 Christians in general in the Divinity 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 speaking of this 
 faith of unlearned Christians, have described them by 
 the very term " Idiotte," which Tertullian has applied 
 to the common people of Carthage, in the passage 
 which has lately been cited, by mistake, in support 
 of the Socinian hypothesis. " Of whose" (i. e. Christ's) 
 " Divinity" says Origen, " so many churches of men 
 converted from wickedness are witnesses 5 ." And, 
 
 3 Quale est enim de Ecclesia in Diaboli Ecclesiam tendere, de ccelo 
 (quod aiunt) in csenum, illas manus, quas ad Deum extuleris, postmodum 
 laudando histrionem fatigare, ek atcoi/a? aV aliavo<s, alii omnino dicere 
 nisi Deo et Christo ? De Spectaculis, c. xxv. 
 
 4 Defence of the Bishop of London's Letter, p. 17. (1719). 
 
 5 Ou T7? deioTrjTtx; (jidpTvpes al Tocravrai TU>V nera/3a\6i>Tiai> aVo 
 Ttj<: 2is<rta? Ttav KUKWV GKK\tjvi(u. Orig. cont. Celsura, L. i. p. 36.
 
 384 
 
 speaking of Christians in general, he observes : " We 
 affirm that God spoke to him (Christ) when he said ; 
 Let there be light 1 ;" and " Let those accusers know, 
 that he, whom we consider as God and Son of God, 
 and have been so persuaded, from the beginning, is 
 the very Word, the Wisdom, and the Truth 2 ." " 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 superstitious honours to a being who but lately 
 came into the world, as if he had not pre-existed : 
 for we believe him, when he says, ' Before Abraham 
 was, I am,' and when he says, * I am the Truth ;' and 
 there is no one 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 T*/ i/Trocrracret, but 
 one in harmony, concord and identity of will 3 ." 
 Arians and Trinitarians have severally claimed Origen 
 as their own. Huetius is of opinion, that in this 
 
 LovTia yap (pa/nev ev Trj Kara Mwcre'a Kocrfio-noua irpocrTaTTOvTa 
 TOV JTCtTepa elprjKevai TO YevrfQ^T<a 0ws. L. li. p. 63. 
 
 2 IffTtMfav ol fyKa\ovvTe<;, OTI ov fJ.ev VOfuftofUSV KOI 7retreia-/jt.e0a 
 apynQfv eivai Qeov KOI vlov Qeov, OVTOS o avTO\oyo<; err-rt } KO.I tj av- 
 Toa-ocfiia KOI avToct\rj6eta. L. in. p. 135. 
 
 3 "Ei/a ovv Qeov, tJ? aTroSeStoKa^tec, TOV iraTepa. KOI TOV vlov Bfpa- 
 7revo/j.v' KO,\ ^.evei tjn'iv 6 TT^JO? TOUC a\\ov<: ar6i/? Ao-yo?' KOI ov TOV 
 vayjO<: 76 (fravevTa, w? irpoTepov OVK OVTCI, VTTpOpt]ffKvofjLev t avrip 
 yap TreiOofjieda TOJ e'nrdvTt, Ylplv Appaetfi fV<r8at eyta tl/u' nat \e- 
 JOVTI, 'Ejju> el/jit tj d\tjdeia' KOI ov% OVTU TK tj/J.(Sv ea-Tiv dv^pdiro^ov, 
 ws nita-Qat OTI tj Ttj<; aAjy^e/a? ov<ria irpo TWV -^povwv TT)<: TOV \purTov 
 eirKpaveias OVK tjv. 6prj(TKevo/Jiv ovv TOV iraTepa Trjs a\tj6ela<; } KO.\ TOV 
 viov Ttjv d\t]deiav, OVTO. 8uo Trj virocfTatrei 7rpa.yiJ.aTa, ev Se Ttj onovoia 
 KO.\ TYI aviHpuivia KU\ TJ; TavTOftfTi TOV ftov\t)fnaTo<;. L. VIII. p. 386.
 
 985 
 
 passage he has distinguished between the substance 
 of the Father and the Son, agreeably to the Arian 
 hypothesis : others contend that by distinct yTroo-rao-ej? 
 he only meant a distinction of persons. He has in- 
 deed strongly insisted on the Divinity of Christ, and 
 has represented Christians in general as believing in 
 the same doctrine : but his own opinions on this sub- 
 ject were not exactly 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 acknowledgment, that 
 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 prac- 
 tice of praying to the Father only, through the Son. 
 
 He addresses himself to them with evident vexa- 
 tion : " 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 4 ." " It 
 is not reasonable for those, who are thought worthy 
 to be sons of the same Father, to pray to a brother : 
 for, ' You must send up your prayers to the Father 
 alone, with me and through me.' Hearing then Jesus 
 say this, let us pray to God through him, all speak- 
 ing the same words, and not divided about the form 
 of prayer : and are we not divided, if some pray to 
 
 4 'Eai> Se ctKOVca/Mfv o T! -nore e'crrt Trpocrev^t], HTJITO-TS nvcft>\ -riav 
 
 "/ewrjTtav irnofftvicreov e<f"r\v, oi/Se avTta Tia \pttrTtp' a\\a fiovta TO> BeiH 
 
 Ttov o\tov Kat iraTpi, u> KOI auro? o ffcoTTjp tjuiai' vpoffrfv^eTo. De 
 
 ' Oratione, c. xLiv. p. 78. ed. Reading, citat. a Priestley, History of Early 
 
 Opinions, Vol. 11. p. 161. 
 
 BB
 
 386 
 
 the Father, and some to the Son ? common people, 
 in great simplicity from a want of an examination 
 and investigation of the subject, committing an offence 
 in offering prayers to the Son, either with the Father, 
 or without the Father 1 " 
 
 Origen, 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 idiotas, had not 
 conformed to his practice ; 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 testimony. In his Letter to Dr Knowles, 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 transla- 
 tion, he has forced Origen to declare, that in praying 
 to the Father through Christ, and in not praying to 
 Christ, Christians are all agreed 2 . 
 
 1 'A8eA0w Se Trpoa-ev^ea'dai TOV<S KUT^iwjueVou? eVo? UVTOV ircfrpos 
 ova C<TTIV ev\oyov fiov<o 7^10 TU> iraTpi [ACT e'juou nai Si* e/xou ai/aTre/UTr- 
 TCOV f<TT\v V/JLIV -Trpofffv^v. TovT^ ovv AeyoiTos cucotforrct '\t]<rov, TU> 
 6e< S' avTov 6v<ojif6a, TO O.VTO XeovTfs TraWec u>/3e ire\ TOV 
 
 irep 
 
 > * ( * v ' P*" T '*' 7raT / t) '> 
 ol Sc TW wiw eiJ^cojU60a; Ifiwrutf d/jiapTiav Kara iroXXtiv aKepatOTtjTa., 
 Sia TO a/3a<raw<TTOi; KOI ai/e^craa-Toi', a/j,apTavovT<av TI> irpo<revjo- 
 tievMH TO) vita, CITC /neTCt TOV Trarpoc, cVe ^wp<<; TOV irctTpo<;. De 
 Orat. c. XLV. p. 84. citat. a Priestley. 
 
 2 "We are not to pray to a brother, who has the same common Father 
 with ourselves ; Jesus himself saying, that we must pray to the Father 
 through him. In this we are all agreed, and are not divided about the 
 method of prayer : but should we not be divided, if some prayed to the 
 Father and some to the Son ? Common people, (he says) through a great 
 mistake, and for want of distinguishing, prayed to the Son either with 
 the Father, or without the Father." Origen. Priestley's Translation. 
 
 When
 
 387 
 
 Even the silence of Origen on this subject is 
 almost 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 people, 
 of low condition. Instead of denying this representa- 
 tion, he has sometimes expressly, 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 pro- 
 fession of this faith. " That some 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 will come, is most scandalous: and but 
 few words are requisite for the refutation of this 
 notion 3 ." This unusual mark of limitation, ni/es, 
 some, may create a suspicion, that Christians of this 
 class were not very numerous. Origen, when Celsus 
 speaks of Christians in general believing in the Di- 
 vinity of Christ, acquiesces 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." 
 
 When Dr Priestley, in other parts of his work, appeals to the testi- 
 mony of Origen, to prove that the Christians of his age were not accus- 
 tomed to pray to Christ, he alludes to this passage: the beginning of 
 which, according to bis translation, holds one language, and the end 
 another. 
 
 3 "On Se KCI Xpia-navuv TII/CC KOI 'WSaToi oi fttv KarafiefitjKtvai, 
 ol Se KaTa(3t)fffa6ai fk TTJV jtjv Ttva Qfov, 17 Geoi/ viov, TUV TtjSf 
 / (iKa.ita-rrjvi (\e/7re la. \fjovffC Spencer.) TOUT' atff-^tffTOv, KCII ov$c 
 ?ecrai fictKpov \6jov 6 e\ey%tK. Celsus. ap. Orig. Lib. iv. p. 161. 
 
 BB 2
 
 388 
 
 His answer is this : " He" (Celsus) " appears to be 
 inaccurate in asserting of the whole body of Jews, 
 and not of some individuals of them, ' that they 
 expect a being will come down to earth,' and of 
 Christians, in declaring ' that some of them maintain 
 that he has come down 1 ." 
 
 Celsus, it is intimated by Origen, ought to have 
 spoken of all Christians, and only of some individuals 
 among the Jews. Three historical facts of great im- 
 portance are established by this testimony. 1. All, 
 whom Origen called Christians, i. e. every individual 
 of the Church", believed that Christ was a divine 
 being who had descended from heaven. 2. The great 
 body of Jews expected a mere man for their Messiah. 
 3. Some individuals of that people expected the Son 
 of God, a being more than man 3 . 
 
 Novatian says, " Si homo tantummodo Christus ; 
 quomodo adest ubique invocatus, cum hsec hominis 
 natura non sit, sed Dei, ut adesse omni loco pos- 
 sit 4 ? 
 
 1 Kai ov SOKC? 76 aptfi(a<s Trepi juei> lOvSattav ov TJI/WI/, a A Act Trdv-rtav 
 \eyeiv, OTJ oiovrai TWO. KaTaprjcrecfQai STTI TY\V "/fjv" Treat Se XoiffTjai/toj/, 
 OTI Tii/e? avTtav KctTafiefirjKevai Xeyovviv. P. 162. 
 
 2 'HjueT? 01 CITTO Ttjs f7r<avv/jLov X|Oi(rToi KK\r](rta<;. Orig. cont. Cels. 
 p. 388. 
 
 Origen, in answer to Celsus, having observed, that there were two 
 kinds of Ebionites, who adhered to the observance of the ritual law, one 
 sect of whom believed, and the other denied, the miraculous conception of 
 Christ, asks, Ti TOUTO <pepei jK\r^fji.a TO?? aVo TJ?? KK\t]<ria<;, ovs dtro 
 TOY flAHGOYS wi/o/xao-ei; o Ke'Affoc. L. V. p. 272. 
 
 3 By comparing this passage with another, (quoted p. 73 of this 
 Volume), it appears, that the individuals, who entertained this opinion, 
 must have been very few in number. 
 
 4 C. xiv. p. 45. citat. a Priestley, History of Early Opinions, Vol. in. 
 p. 419. Dr Priestley seems to think this testimony of some weight: 
 
 " but,"
 
 389 
 
 Having stated Origen's testimony to the belief 
 of Christians in general, and particularly of the un- 
 learned 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 testimony 
 as this, from so respectable a character (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 
 entirely bid farewell 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 character in all respects, 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 effect than 
 to expose himself. It is, in fact, 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 con- 
 sidered as at the head of the Christians, and of whom 
 the greatest men, which that and the following age 
 produced, such as Dionysius of Alexandria, Firmilian 
 
 " but," he says, " whatever might be the case in the time of Novatian, 
 (when what he says could not be true of any besides the Trinitarians) 
 this certainly was not the practice even with them in the time of Origen, 
 who flourished not more than twenty years before him:'" According to 
 Origen, the custom of Christians was to pray to God through Christ." 
 History of Early Opinions, Vol. in. p. 419. Dr Priestley is resolved to 
 ( compel Origen to bear testimony in his favour : whatever the other 
 Fathers may say.
 
 390 
 
 of Cappadocia, and Gregory of Neocaesarea, 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 liar ? 
 Can it then be supposed that such a man as this, in 
 the circumstances in which he wrote, would have as*- 
 serted concerning the Christians in general, that they 
 were all" believers in the Divinity of Christ, " if it 
 had been notorious (as, if it had been true, it must 
 have been 1 ") that the great body of them supposed 
 him to have been a mere man? 
 
 VIII. Arnobius, (A. D. 303) having mentioned 
 that the heathens object to the worship of Christ by 
 Christians, (natum hominem colitis] admits the fact 
 of the worship, but denies, that he was a mere man 2 . 
 Lactantius, (A. D. 303) comparing the heathens with 
 the Christians 3 , says, that the former are supersti- 
 tious, in 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 nevertheless assert that there are two, God the 
 Father, and God the Son '." Speaking of an objector 
 against Christianity, this writer observes, " In that 
 (the objector) says that he (Christ) performed miracles, 
 by which principally he obtained the credit of being 
 
 1 Letters to the Bishop of St David's, p. 50. 
 
 - Adv. gentes, L. i. 3 L. iv. $29 and 30. 
 
 4 Fortasse quserat aliquis, quomodo, cum Deum nos ununi colere 
 dicamus, duos tamen esse asseveremus, Deum Patrem et Deum Filium, 
 L. iv. 29.
 
 391 
 
 of Divine nature ; he appears to agree with us ; since 
 he affirms the very thing, in which we boast 5 ." 
 
 IX. Here the testimony to the opinions of the 
 Christians, on the subject of the nature of Christ, may 
 be closed. During the long period between Trajan 
 and Constantine, a number of heathen witnesses, or 
 rather, the whole Roman world agree in the same 
 accusation : they represent the belief of Christ's Di- 
 vinity as constituting one part of Christianity, and 
 not a single voice is raised among them, at the time 
 that they speak of all Christians as common, unlearned 
 people, to contradict this prevailing notion : the 
 learned and the ignorant among the heathens, the 
 violent and the moderate, the benevolent and the 
 malignant concur in this: those, who condemn 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 fact, as if it had never been doubted, 
 or disputed. If we examine the witnesses on the 
 other side, their testimony is equally full and ex- 
 tensive. The Christian apologists and others, without 
 a single exception, expressly admit, or silently ac- 
 quiesce in, this part of the heathen accusations, at 
 the time that they correct misrepresentations on other 
 subjects: they openly avow the belief of Christians 
 in general, particularly of the common people, in the 
 Divinity of Christ ; and labour to prove the reason- 
 
 5 Quod ait, portentifica ilium opera fecisse, quo maxirae divinitatis fidem 
 f meruit; assentiri nobis jam videtur; cum dicit eadem, quibus nos gloria- 
 mur. L. iv. 13.
 
 392 
 
 ableness of their faith. Christianity was then thought 
 a crime : and the truth or falsehood of many of the 
 accusations, which were brought against the Christians, 
 may be proved with as much certainty, as if 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 fact, 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 
 accusers ; when the prisoner himself, on different 
 examinations, repeatedly avows the same thing, with- 
 out 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 any 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 and third centuries, in the Divinity of 
 Christ. And even their interpretation of the New 
 Testament is not to be despised : the sense in 
 which any ancient book was understood by its readers, 
 particularly well-informed readers, only a short time 
 after it was written, being always of some importance 1 . 
 
 1 See c. vi. 1. of this Volume. 
 
 " It has been urged, that, if any doctrine is not to be found in the 
 Apostolic writings, no authority of the Fathers can give it a sanction. 
 
 This
 
 :*{);{ 
 
 Hut 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 dis- 
 covering the religion of (ill Christians in the time 
 of the Apostles, and through that, the true meaning 
 of the New Testament. Those who can satisfy them- 
 selves with proving the Unitarianism of the very first 
 Christians from the " simplices" and " idiotae" of Tcr- 
 tullian, will find it difficult to elude their own reason- 
 ing, when it is turned with additional force against 
 themselves. In the beginning of the fourth century, 
 the great body of the Christian 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 cen- 
 tury ; and can be distinctly traced back through the 
 second, among all Christians, except two or three 
 extremely inconsiderable sects, 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 successors. The chain, which we see 
 extended from the Council of Nice up to Justin 
 
 This is very true. But if any person through frailty and misconception 
 should imagine that any article was of doubtful purport, and attended 
 with obscurity, then the evidence of those, who had conversed with the 
 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 Sentiments of Pliilo Judteus. 
 p. (10.
 
 394 
 
 Martyr, could not suddenly stop there: but must 
 undoubtedly be continued to the first Christian con- 
 verts. When we read in Tacitus a description of 
 the religious 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 religion was taught 
 by the Druids in this island, in the time of Julius 
 Caesar, we readily 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 believed by the common 
 people, from the time of Justin Martyr down to the 
 Council of Nice, we may conclude with great proba- 
 bility, 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 1 . 
 
 The historical fact relating to the opinions of the 
 first Christians, which one writer has attempted to 
 establish 2 , and which another has recommended to 
 
 1 For the other evidence to the opinions of the Gentile Christians in 
 the Apostolic age, see c. xv, xvi, xvii, and xviii. of this Volume. 
 
 2 " The proper object of ray 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, and to 
 determine what must have been the sentiments of the Apostles by means 
 of the opinions of those who received their instruction from them only." 
 Priestley's Letter to Parkhurst, p. 2. " This historical discussion, when 
 the nature of it is well considered, cannot but be thought to decide con- 
 cerning the whole controversy : for, if it be true, as I have endeavoured 
 to prove by copious historical evidence, that the great body of unlearned 
 Christians continued to be simply Unitarians till the second and third 
 century, it will hardly be doubted, but that their instructors, viz. the 
 
 Apostles
 
 395 
 
 our notice as a discovery, being reversed, the inference 
 respecting 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 constantly appealed 3 ." " They were in possession 
 of the Books of the New Testament, and for their use 
 they were written 4 :" and their interpretation of these 
 Books, is determined by their religious opinions. 
 
 Apostles and first disciples of Christ, were Unitarians also, and therefore 
 that no other interpretation of the Scriptures than that of the Unitarians, 
 as opposed to that of the Trinitarians or Arians, can be the true one." 
 Preface to Letters to Dr Home. 
 
 3 Priestley's Letter to the Dean of Canterbury, p. 8. 
 
 4 Letter iv. to Dr Price, in Defence of Unitarianism, for 1787 1790. 
 
 THE END.
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 orm L9-42m-8,'49(B5573)444
 
 BT 
 
 198 
 
 W69i 
 
 '"A" 000 605 799 
 
 a