rate will always make the majority of believers. When it is confidered, that perfons of mean endowments must always be the majority of a body, collected, as the church is, from all ranks of men ; it were no wonder, if the followers of the Unitarian preachers were more numerous than they really are.' This, Sir, is the natural expofition of the paffage, which you cite as Tertullian's teftimony to the popularity of your favourite opinions in his own time. It is no fuch teftimony. It is a charge of ignorance against your party; of fuch ignorance as would invalidate the plea of numbers, if that plea could be iet up.' Dr. Horley.

(5.) "The church, though difperfed over the face of "the whole earth, having received the true faith, pre

ferves it carefully and uniformly; as though its mem"bers dwelt in one houfe, and poffeffed one heart and "one foul."-" Believing in one God, the maker of "heaven and earth and all things by Jefus Chrift, the "Son of God, who, on account of his tranfcendent love "towards his own work, fubmitted to be born of a virgin, uniting God and man." Mr. Badcock.

86

66

III.

IO. In the paffage of Athanafius the words are they ought to have been rendered a good reafon," not a "fpecious pretence : and the words μετά πολλή, συνέσεως "with much fa"gacity," not "with great prudence."

66

The

You know, Sir, that the Jews are twice mentioned. Jews of that age being deceived themselves, and having deceived the Gentiles. And again, 66 the bleffed apoftles taught what

related to the humanity of our Saviour to the Jews." Is it your opinion, Sir, that they are the fame or different perfons, who are mentioned under the name of Jews, in thefe two different claufes? If they are different perfons, I defire to know, what circumstance or note of difference you find in the author's expreffions? If you find none, on what is your opinion of a difference founded? Or not to entangle you again in grammatical difquifitions, I will for a moment fuppofe the perfons different, and defire you to fhew me, what will then be the fenfe or coherence of the writer's argument. If you allow that the fame perfons are defigned in both places under the fame name, I must defire you to remark that the Jews, mentioned in the fecond inftance, were perfons who were at any rate to be perfwaded (at any rate, that is the force of aws, which you have errone"oufly rendered by the word fully) at any rate to be perfuaded, "from the actual ftate of things, and from the evidence of the mi

66

racles which had been wrought, that the Chrift was come." Could thefe, Sir, be converted Jews? Could they be already Chriftians, in whom this general perfuafion, that the Chrift was come, was yet to be wrought? Wanting this perfwafion, they were clearly Jews, whofe converfion was not yet begun: and of the fame defcription, fince they were indeed the very fame perfons, were the Jews, to whom it is imputed, that they held the erroneous belief of the Meffiah's meer humanity, and that they spread the like error among the Gentiles.

But

But the Gentiles, you fay, who were thus mifled, must have been Chriftian Gentiles; and by confequence the Jews, who mitled them, were Jewish Chriftians. But, Sir, whence is the certainty that Christian Gentiles were intended by Athanafius? It hangs upon this principle, that to any other Gentiles the whole doctrine of a Meffiah must have been uninterefting. Have you forgotten, Sir, have you never known, or would you deny, what is not denied by candid Intidels, that the expectation of a great deliverer or benefactor of mankind was univerfal even in the Gentile world, about the time of our Lord's appearance? If you acknowledge this, where is the impro bability, that the general opinion concerning this perfonage should' be modified by the opinions which prevailed in Judæa, which was the center of the tradition? Especially when it is confidered, that the profelytes of the gate made an eaty channel of communication between the Jews and the idolatrous Gentiles. But whatever you may be difpofed to grant or to deny, this argument is easily inverted, and turned against you. It hath been fhewn, that none but Jew Jews can be intended by Athanafius, when he speaks of the Jews as mifleaders of the Gentiles. They were Gentile Gentiles therefore who were mifled: for from unbelieving Jews Chriftians of the Gentiles would hardly take inftruction.'

The Apofiles indeed, found it neceffary to perfuade the Jews, that Jefus had been approved of God by figns and wonders as a man; before they could hope to perfuade them, that he was, so much more than man, that his being found in fashion as a man was really the most extraordinary part of his hiftory and character. It is in no other way than this, that Athanafius fpeaks of the Apoftles as teaching the Jews the humanity of Chrift. The holy Father never fpeaks of any caution which they ufed in divulging the doctrine of his full divinity; unless an hiftorian's diâribution of the matter of his narrative, or a matter's accommodation of his lefions to the previous attainments, of his pupils, is to be called a caution of divulg ing, what in the natural, order of tradition, is to be last disclosed. Was it ever faid of Livy, that he relates the tragedy of Lucretia's death, from a caution of divulging the expulfion of the Tarquins 2Of Porphyry, that he treats of the five words, from a caution of di vulging the doctrine of the Categories? The beginning of every ftory must be first told. The eatieft part of every fcience must be first taught. Of the great ability, and judgment with which the Apoftles conducted the first preaching of the Gofpel; of their happy art in the perfpicuous arrangement of their lofty argument; with what readiness they led their Catechumens on from the fimpleft prin ciples to the highest myfteries; of this confumma ability of the Apoftles in the capacity of teachers, Athanafius peaks with due commendation. Their caution, he never mentions. On the contrary, the rapid progrefs of their instruction, how they paffed at once from the detail of our Lord's life on earth, to the mystery of his Godhead, is one principal branch of his encomium.' Dr. Horley,

IV.

12. You will fay, perhaps, that fince Origen, in his fifth book against Celfus, makes, as you obferve, only two forts of Ebionites, the one believing, the other denying the miraculous conception ;'.

the

the deduction might have feemed not unfair, that Origen knew of no Hebrew Chriftians that were not Unitarians.

If I could admit the univerfality of the name upon Origen's teftimony, I fhould infiit that his defcription of the twofold Ebionites, in the fifth book, is not exactly what you take it to be. I fhould remark, that the words, cones, "in like manner as we do," make an important branch of the cha racter of the milder fort "there" fays he, 66 are the double "Ebionites; who either confefs Jefus born of a virgin, in like man66 ner as we do, or think he was not born in that manner, but like "other men." I fhould contend, that Origen affirms of these better Ebionites, that they held the catholic doctrine concerning the nature of our Lord. And in this manner the words of Origen feem to have been understood both by Grotius and Voflius; when they allow, that the Nazarenes, though orthodox in this part of their faith, are included, in this paffage of Origen's fifth book, in the appellation of Ebionites. I fhould contend, that if the former paffage prove the name general for the whole body of the Hebrew Chrif tians; the latter equally proves, that the notion of an Unitarian was not neceffarily included in it. The connection therefore of thefe two paffages makes little for your purpofe, fince the fecond ferves but to overthrow the argument which might be built upon the firft. It juftifies what I advanced in my Charge, upon a pre fumption that the first fingly would be made the foundation of the argument from Origen; that the word Ebionite, in Origen's time, or at least in his ufe of it, had outgrown its original meaning.

6

In this manner I fhould combat your argument from these two paffages; were it not that I think too lightly of the testimony of Origen, in what relates to the Hebrew Chriftians, to be folicitous to turn it to my own advantage. Let his words be taken as you understand them; and fo far as the faith of the Hebrew Christians of his own time is in question, let him appear as an evidence on your fide,* I fhall take what you may think a bold ftep. I fhall tax the veracity of your witnefs of this Origen. I fball tell you, that whatever may be the general credit of his character, yet in this bufinefs the particulars of his depofition are to be little regarded, when he fets out with the allegation of a notorious falfhood. He alleges of the Hebrew Chriftians in general, that they had not renounced the Mofaic law. The affertion ferved him for an answer to the invective, which Celfus had put in the mouth of a Jew against the converted Jews, as deferters of the laws and customs of their anceftors. The anfwer was not the worfe for wanting truth, if his Heathen antagonist was not fufficiently informed in the true diftinctions of Christian fects, to detect the falfehood. But in all the time which he fpent in Palestine, had Origen never converfed with Hebrew Chriftians of another fort? Had he met with no Chriftians of Hebrew families, of the church of Jerufalem? Was the Mofaic law obferved, was it tolerated, in Origen's days, in the church of Jerufalem, when that church was under the government of bifhops of the uncircumcifion? The fact is, that after the demolition of Jerufa

lem

lem by Adrian, the majority of the Hebrew Christians, who must have paffed for Jews with the Roman magiftrates, had they continued to adhere to the Mofaic law, which to this time they had obferved more from habit than from any principle of confcience, made no fcruple to renounce it; that they might be qualified to partake in the valuable privileges of the Ælian Colony, from which Jews were excluded. Having thus divested themselves of the form of Judaifm, which to that time they had born, they removed from Pella, and other towns to which they had retired, and fettled in great numbers at Ælia. The few, who retained a fuperftitious veneration for their law, remained in the North of Galilee, where they were joined perhaps by new fugitives of the fame weak character from Palestine. And this was the beginning of the fect of the Nazarenes. But from this time, whatever Origen may pretend to ferve a purpose, the majority of the Hebrew Chriftians forfook their law, and lived in communion with the Gentile bishops of the new-modelled church of Jerufalem; for the name was retained, though Jerufalem was no more, and the feat of the bifhop was at Ælia. All this I affirm with the lefs hefitation, being fupported by the authority of Mofheim. From whom indeed I first learnt to rate the teftimony of Origen, in this particular queftion, at its true value.

For the paflage adduced from his commentaries, the expreffions taken by themselves may feem to intimate, that the fect of the Ebionites, in its two great branches, embraced, in the time of Origen, the whole body of the Hebrew Chriftians. But let the learned reader attentively peruse the whole difcourfe, let him confider well the fubject and the ftile; and he will perceive, that as the fubject is not hiftory, neither is the ftile of the fedate hiftoric kind. The object of the difcourfe is to fpiritualize a plain ftory. An attempt in which the imagination of the writer is always bufier than the judgment:, and the ftile, even in allufion to hiftorical facts, is generally rather, warm than exact, and is apt to border on the vehement and the exaggerated. This is in fome degree the cafe in this difcourfe of Origen's. His expreffions are therefore to be interpreted by the. known tenor of Ecclefiaftical History: Ecclefiaftical History is not to be accommodated to his expreffions.' Dr. Horfiey.

6

13 To affirm,'" as the truth is, that Chrift was begotten of Mary by the Holy Ghoft," in Epiphanius's fenfe of thofe words, was to affirm much more than the miraculous conception, in any fenfe in which an Unitarian might affirm it. It was to affirm our Lord's di vinity. Epiphanius's confeffion, that he had no ground to affett, that the Nazarenes held the contrary opinion, amounts to much more than a doubt. It amounts to an unwilling confeflion of a base ac cufer who had not the liberality to abfolve in explicit terms, when he found himself unable to convict.'

The paffage in which Ebion is faid to have borrowed his opinion, or fentiment, (y) from the Effenes, the Nazarenes and the Nafareans, contains much too general an affertion, ever to enable us to determine to which of thefe three fources any particular opinion maintained by him is to be referred. The Nafareans and the Effenes were Jew

ish

ifh fects, one of them the fifth, the other the fixth in Epiphanius's lift of the feven, which were fubfifting at the time of our Lord's appearance.

1

The fucceeding extract unfortunately wants to be fet in order before any ufe can be made of it: and when we have made the best of the prefent text, which I fear is too corrupt to be perfectly restored without MSS., it will little ferve your purpofe. Much indeed of the confufion arifes from a falfe punctuation, which your own tranflation fets in a moft confpicuous light.- And firft he afferted that Chrift was born of the commerce and feed of a man, namely, Jofeph, as we have already related.' But we have no fignification of Ebion's denial of the miraculous conception, previous to this claufe, which is now mentioned for the first time. It must connect, however, with fomething in the writer's prefent narrative, or it hath no meaning. Now in the words which immediately precede the claufe which regards. Ebion's hetorodoxy upon the article of the conception, that is in the initial claufes of this fection, Epiphanius actually repeats what he' had faid before. With thefe claufes therefore this reference to the former part of his narrative is to be connected; and the intervening claufe, regarding the conception, fhould be fet out as a parrenthefis.

The manner in which Ebion's opinion concerning the conception of our Lord is mentioned, in parenthefis, feems to exclude it from thofe principles, which he borrowed from other fectaries. If those other fectaries therefore were the Nazarenes, then this opinion, as it should feem, was no principle with them; and this paffage, like moft of your quotations, contradicts what you have brought it up to prove.

But to deal fincerely, I must confefs, that is not at all clear to me, that the Nazarenes are the fect intended, in the beginning of this fection, under the defcription of Ebion's contemporaries, from whom he borrowed his principles. If they were not, this fection will' neither afford any proof of your opinion, nor be conclufive on the other fide. The perfons intended are not named, otherwife than by the pronoun : and for this pronoun, if you examine the ori ginal text, you will be much at a lofs to find an antecedent. This" pronoun, ufed as it is here as a relative, is generally to be referred to the perfons mentioned laft before in the author's difcourfe. But in all the preceding part of this difcourfe about the Ebionites, the Nazarenes are no where mentioned, except in that fentence in which' they are joined with the Offeans and the Nazarenes, and at the very beginning of the chapter, where they are intended by this fame pronoun as the fect defcribed in the chapter next preceding. The per fons last mentioned in the prefent difcourfe are the Jews and the Samaritans and of these the pronoun lav may be edditive. Or it may be redditive, not of the Nazarenes fingly, but of all the fects which are mentioned in the preceding part of the narrative, as furnifhing the conflituent parts of Ebion's fyftem; namely, of the Jews, the Samaritans, the Offæans, the Nazarenes, the Cerinthians, and the Carpocratians.

Which