now deny that the heresy of the Ebionites was at least as dangerous, and as deserving of animadversion, as that of the Gnostics. And so, no doubt, would the apostle have thought, had he believed the present popular doctrine concerning the person of Christ.

The ancient Unitarians always maintained that theirs was the prevailing doctrine in the church till the time of Victor bishop of Rome, about A. D. 200, who excommunicated Theodotus of Byzantium, a learned Unitarian. This assertion of the Unitarians is contradicted, but not disproved, by Eusebius and others 12.

&

The early Unitarians being the mass of believers, few of whom were philosophers and speculative men, had not many writers among them, and few of their works are now extant 13. All that we know of them is from the writings of their adversaries. It is however certain that they abounded in the apostolic age; and that they long constituted a very large proportion,

* Euseb. Hist. lib. v. cap. 28. Priestley, ibid. lib. ii. chap. XV. §1.

18 The Clementine Homilies, supposed to be written about the time of Justin Martyr, are the production of an Unitarian, and is almost the only Unitarian Treatise of Ecclesiastical Antiquity now extant. See Pricstley, ibid. vol. i. p. 113. beangs

prove the [Part I. and probably even the majority, of believers, may be reasonably inferred from their having no appropriate name; also from their not having been excommunicated like the Gnostics, and branded as heretics, which they certainly would have been if Arians or Trinitarians had at that time possessed the ascendancy. The respect with which they are mentioned by Justin Martyr, the first who taught the divinity of the Logos, plainly indicates that their numbers were not to be despised, In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, his opponent says: "This doctrine,—that Christ was a God existing before the ages, and then born a man,-is not only extraordinary, but ridiculous." Justin replies: "I know that this doctrine appears strange, and especially to those of your race (Jews): but it will anot follow that he is not the Christ, though I -Should not be able to prove that he pre-existed as God, and that he became a man by the Vir-gim It will be right to say that in this only I have been mistaken; and not that he is not the Christ, though he should appear to be a mán bborn as other men are, and to be made Christ

by election. For there are some of our race (Gentiles) who acknowledge him to be Christ,

10 001979, 90ti od zotit botnssl gesit To agoitslengt but hold that he was a man born like other

men. With them I do not agree, nor should I do so, though ever so many being of the same opinion should urge it upon me *; because we are commanded by Christ himself not to obey

31.18. Οἷς, ο συντίθεμαι, εδ' αν πλείσοι, ταύτα μοι δοξασαντες, είν TOLEY, Quibus ego non assentior, neque, etiamsi multo plures essent, assentirer." Thirlby, p. 235, not.-" To whom I could not yield my assent; no, not even if the majority of christians should think the same:" Badcock, in the Monthly Rey, for *June 1783, who considers it as a declaration that the majority of christians coincided in opinion with Justin himself." To whom I do not assent, though the majority may have told me that they had been of the same opinion:" Mr. Cappe, who in his vindication of Dr. Priestley contends, that the words properly express that the majority of christians held opinions contrary to those of the writer.-At any rate, and whatever be the meaning of Justin, how different the language of this virtuous and candid, though mistaken, writer, from that of the angry op ponents of the same doctrine in modern times! "If your opi nion is true," said one of Dr. Priestley's carly and zealous antagouists, "I will throw my Bible into the fire.? But what says the venerable martyr in a similar case? If your doctrine be true, it only follows that I am mistaken as to the pre-existence and deity of Jesus; but he is still the Christ, though he became so only by election." What occasions this remarkable difference between Mr. Venn and Justin Martyr? The true reason is this: Mr. Venn Venn wrote in an age when Trinitarianism was triumphant, and Unitarianism in disgrace: Justin Martyr wrote at a time when Unitarianism was held in honour, and the pre-existence and divinity of Christ were novel and obnoxious opinious. After all, I must confess t that I am not quite on translations of these learned writers. The true version of this

66

eng satisfied with any one of the

celebrated passage appears to me to be the following i « With

the teachings of men, but what was taught by the holy prophets and himself." This is plainly the language of one who wishes to conciliate regard to a novel and offensive opinion, which might possibly be erroneous; and not of one who advocates the cause of a triumphant majority.

The testimony of Origen, who wrote in the beginning of the third century, to the proper Unitarianism of the body of Jewish christians in his time, is direct and full. "The word Ebion," says he," in the Jewish language signifies poor and those of the Jews who believe Jesus to be the Christ are called Ebianites." And in his Commentary upon Mat thew, he introduces a distinction among the Jews who believed in Christ; "some thinking bazy bow wf duty

whom I do not agree nor should I, even though the majority, who are of the same opinion with me, raura po dokaσavres, had affirmed it." Taura doğayev añλyλors, eandem habere opinionem?Xenoph. ap. Constantin. Lex. in Verb.It is probable that Justin here particularly alludes to the fact of the miraculous conception, which was at that time pretty generally credited by the Gentile christians. And this was the subject last mentioned, that Christ was a man born as other men. He cann He can hardly be supposed to refer to the pre-existence and divinity of the Logos, which he had just acknowledged to be a strange doctrine, zapaJogos Aoyos, both to Jewish and Gentile believers, though prin cipally to the former.

him to be the Son of Joseph and Mary, and others of Mary only and the divine Spirit, but not believing his divinity." And in another passage he speaks of the Ebionites of both sorts, as not receiving the Epistles of Paul ↳1⁄2.

Eusebius, who wrote a century afterwards, confirms the testimony of Origen concerning the Ebionites. "Those by the ancients called Ebionites, think meanly," says he, "concerning Christ for they think him to be merely a man like other men, but approved on account of his virtue, being the son of Mary's husband, Others, called by the same name, do not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit; but, disallowing that he pre-existed as God, the logos, and wisdom, they were perverted to the impiety of the former." He adds, that "they observed the Jewish Law, and used only the Gospel according to the Hebrews 16"

To this argument it has been objected, that the Ebionites were merely a sects of Hebrew christians; that they coincided with the Naza

24Origen in Cels, lib. ii. p. 56. Comm. in Matt. vol. i. p. 427. Edit. Huet. in Cels. lib. vi. p. 274. Priestley, ibid. vol. iii. p. 166. 16 Euseb. Hist. Ecels lib. iii. 27. Priestley, ibid, p. 168. I have a little altered Dr. Priestley's translation, to what appeared to be both more literal and more pertinent. Emm