Hale, and the Devil, afterwards wrote against them." Most of your readers probably know that Bishop Lavington wrote The Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists compared," which having become very scarce, was lately republished. Mr. Coade having quoted and censured (pp. 111, 112,) the work of "a person of high rank and confessedly great abilities," and proposed that "the bulky performance" should meet with the same treatment as the famous Oxford Decree of 1683;" this Annotator remarks: "The book here referred to the common hangman, for the last and greatest honour it deserved, is entituled the Codex, by old Fryar Gibson, Bishop of London, who died about 40 years ago, and ought to have had his books buried in his coffin along with him. However, he was nobly handled, and as finely answered by Judge Foster, at that time Recorder of Bristol." The date of these remarks is "Aug. 27, 1790," with the initials, C. P. F. so far as I can ascertain them. APART of the difficulties alluded to in the conclusion of my letter, (p. 295,) on (what I consider) the Platonic phraseology of the New Testament, will be found stated in what follows. Dr. Priestley, in his History of Early Opinions concerning the Person of Christ, lays great stress upon the Ebionites being simple Unitarians. I see no reason to deny that they were; or that they believed Jesus Christ to be simply a man as to his person. But the Doctor tells his readers, they were "all the Jewish Christians." Upon the truth of this opinion, rests the weight of the cause he pleaded, so far as it depends upon the Ebionites. Now, Sir, I think he has not only failed to prove that they were all the Jewish Christians, but has inadvertently, yet clearly proved, by quotations scattered in different parts of his volumes, that they were actually hereties, and no true Christians at all. It was thought by him, and I believe has been thought by most Unitarians acquainted with his work, that his point was fully established by the following quotation from Origen, viz. "Those of the Jews who have believed in Jesus have not deserted the customs of their ancestors, but live according to them; having a name agreeing with the poverty of their legal observances; for the name Ebion in the Jewish language signifies poor: and those of the Jews who believe Jesus to be the Christ are called Ebionites."* Against Dr. Priestley's opinion, founded on this seemingly strong passage, I have to say, there are decisive reasons for believing that Origen was so far from meaning all the Jewish converts to Christianity, that he only intended certain deluded persons, inconsistently remaining in the Jewish communion, whom he did not consider as being Christians at all, hence he calls them, "Those of the Jews who have believed in Jesus." He does not call them the Jewish Christians, nor intimate that their belief concerning Christ entitled them to be considered as such-his language is very indefinite. His saying they "believed in Jesus," and "believed him to be the Christ," is no proof that he thought them to be any part of the true converts to the gospel, because he says, respecting them, in another place, (which the Diete rad u believ "Persons may believe and not believe at the same time," and he instances, says the Doctor, in "those who believed in Jesus crucified by Pilate in Judea, but who do not believe in the Son of Him who made the heavens and earth," &c. Now it cannot be reasonably supposed that Origen considered these persons as all the Jewish Christians, whose faith he esteemed as amounting to nothing, in the Christian sense of the word. He evidently viewed their not believing the divinity of Jesus Christ as reducing their belief concerning him, in other respects, to a mere nonentity, and therefore could not reckon them as the body of the Jewish converts to the gospel, except upon the monstrous supposition that no real Christian converts were made from among the Jews. That he really viewed the Ebionites as only an inconsistent faction in the Jewish communion, and no part of the church of * History of Early Opinions, III. 195. † Idem, IV. 86. Christ, not only appears evident from what he has said himself, but is an idea strongly corroborated by a quotation which Dr. P. has made from Jerom, viz. "It is to this very day, in all the synagogues of the East, a heresy among the Jews, called that of the Minei, now condemned by the Pharisees, and commonly called Nazarenes, who believe in Christ, &c.; but while they wish to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither Jews nor Christians." Here Jerom, who followed close after Origen in the church, speaks of this people as Origen had done before him, not as all the Jewish Christians, but as an inconsistent faction in the Jewish synagogues, and no part of the Christian church at all, much less the whole or main body of Jewish converts to the gospel. That those whom Jerom calls Nazarenes were the Ebionites, Dr. P. has himself professedly proved. But the proof that the Ebionites were not Christians does not depend either upon what Origen has or has not said respecting them; for should it be granted that he spake of them as the body of Christian Jews, (which, however, I am persuaded he did not,) it would only follow that he was in an error, because the description of the Ebionites, or their character, as given by Dr. P. himself, affords abundant proof that they were no genuine converts to the gospel, and never made any part of the true Christian church. After saying, "The Gnostics did not reject the Scriptures, &c.; but, as they did not consider them written by any proper inspiration, thought themselves at liberty to adopt what they approved, and neglect the rest, without disputing their genuineness;" the Doctor adds, "This, indeed, was not peculiar to them, but seems to have been a liberty taken by other primitive Christians, &c.; thus the Ebionites made no public use of any other Gospel than that of Matthew, &c. It is well known their copies of Matthew's Gospel had not the story of the mira-culous conception; and they also added to their history such circumstances as they thought sufficiently authenticated." In another place the Doctor Hist. E. O. III. 170. + Idem, I. 233. says, • "It is allowed on all hands that the Ebionites made no use of the Epistles of Paul, because of the slight which he seemed to put upon the law." In another place the Doctor says, t "Their dislike of the Apostle Paul, we know from ecclesiastical history, continued to the latest period of their existence as a church ;" and this dislike, he tells us a few pages before, was occasioned by his activity in preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised Gentiles." A monstrous crime, no doubt, in the eyes of all primitive Christians, who knew any thing of the peculiar spirit and catholic design of the gospel dispensation! In another place the Doctor says, "The Ebionites were Jews, and had no communion with the Gentiles." Again, § "The strict Ebionites hold no communion with the Gentile Christians." || Dr. P. having first assumed that these blind Jewish bigots were all the Jewish Christians, not only appears to approve of their low notions of the Evangelists and Apostles as writers, but also to wish to hold them up as examples of what the converts to the gospel originally were, and ought now to be, in their opinions of the authors of the Christian Scriptures. That the Doctor himself agreed with the Ebionites on this ground, I need not inform any one who is acquainted with his writings. It is their opinion, however, of the person of Christ, that he principally wished to be considered as an example of primitive Christian doctrine. But of what value the opinion of such persons can be on any point relating to Christianity, I am at a loss to imagine. Whatever he might think of their neglecting some of the evangelic history, and making additions of their own, and rejecting all the writings of Paul, and utterly contemning his apostolic commission, and living in opposition to the catholic and pecu * Idem, III. 216. + Idem, 187. Idem, I. 283. § Idem, 286. The words marked for italics are mark them because I wish the reader to not in italics in the Doctor's work. I take particular notice of them. I mean no impeachment of Dr. P.'s character; so far as I know any thing of it, I am led to believe it will ever appear great and amiable in the eyes of all impartial persons. liar spirit of the gospel, in refusing the 45th verse, which says, to hold communion with the Gentile, Christians, thus calling that common or unclean which God had cleansed, I cannot but deem these things as unequivocal proofs of their real heresy; for if it be not heresy wilfully to differ in religious sentiments from the divinely-commissioned teachers of religion, I know not what is. Such conduct is surely much more likely to lead to error than to religious truth; and persons guilty of it are no fit objects to be held up to our view as examples of original Christian purity, either in matters of faith or practice. But their wilful and entire ignorance of the grand design of the gospel, as the means of breaking down the middle wall of ceremonies between Jews and Gentiles, and of making them all the children of God by faith, (not circumcision,) is a decisive proof that they were no true converts to the apostles, much less all the Jewish believers. If we refer to the Christian Scriptures, which contain the best historical authority for Christians, we shall find that all the true Jewish converts to the gospel, submitted to the advice and teaching of the apostles, respecting its grand and distinguishing design, as to Jews and Gentiles, which, according to the apostle, was to make "both one" in Christ. This design appears to have been first specifically revealed to Peter in his vision, (recorded in Acts x.,) which instructed him that the faith of the Gentiles in Christ was their cleansing from that unholiness which had separated between them and the Jews. Thus Peter understood it; for, Acts xv. 7, &c., it is said, "Peter rose up and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago, God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel and believe: and God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between them and us, purifying their hearts by faith." And that Peter and other Jews, his companions, did not scruple to hold communion with the Gentile Christians, appears from the following passages: Acts x. 23, where it is said concerning his going to Cornelius, "Certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him :" compare this with 'They of the circumcision which believed, were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost:" compare this also with chap. xi. 2 and following verses, where it is said, "When Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them," &c. See also verse 18, where it is said, "When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God," &c. Thus we find the body of Jewish Christians, even at Jerusalem, assenting to the doctrine which Peter was taught in his vision, and to his conduct and that of his Jewish companions in having acted upon the doctrine, by holding communion with Gentiles who believed. And, no doubt, what the body of Jewish Christians thus allowed in Peter and his friends, individuals of that body did not scruple to do, upon proper occasions; not, indeed, at Jerusalem, the seat of Jewish prejudices and influence, to give occasion of scandal to the unbelieving of the Jews, and excite needless persecution by rashly shocking their prejudices, but in Gentile cities. Believing Jews commonly held communion with believing Gentiles, (as I shall presently shew,) nor does it appear that the propriety of so doing was ever disputed by the body of Jewish believers after the above explanation which Peter gave of his conduct in going to Cornelius. But we read of certain men which came down from Judea," (some of the early Ebionites, probably; they are not called brethren,) "who taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised," &c. But we find these "certain men” (who, like true Ebionites, thought they knew better than the apostles, and opposed the catholic spirit of the gospel) were overruled by the apostles and body of Jewish believers at Jerusalem, none objecting, except "certain of the sect of the Pharisees," and even these seem to have yielded to the arguments of Peter. See Acts xv. That the Jewish Christians not only allowed the holiness of Gentile believers by faith, but also held communion with them, appears from the fol lowing passages. Acts xiv. 1st and following verses, we read of a Christian church planted in a Gentile city by Paul and Barnabas, consisting of both Jews and Gentiles in one communion: "It came to pass in Iconium that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed." Here we find a great multitude of Jewish and Gentile believers who were fellow-converts to the same teachers; and no room at all is given even to suppose that they formed more than one communion. Acts xvii. we read of the planting of a similar church at Thessalonica; 1st and following verses it is said, They came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews, and some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of devout Greeks a great multitude," &c. Writing to this church, Paul congra. tulates the Gentile converts, saying, "Ye turned to God from idols," &c. Who that reads of Jews and devout Greeks that believed, and of persons turned from idols at Thessalonica, can doubt for a moment that a Christian church was formed in that city, consisting of believing Jews and Gentiles in one communion? Acts xviii. we have the history of another church of Christian Jews and Gentiles being planted in the great city of Corinth; 4th verse it is said of Paul, "He reasoned in the synagogues every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Verse 8 it is said, "Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized." Here one naturally thinks of the apostle's words in writing to this church-" By one spirit we are baptized into one body," I Cor. xii. 13; also vii. 18 and 19, where he addresses the church as consisting of both Jews and Gentiles: Is any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. ls any called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised," &c. At Ephesus, also, it appears very clearly that a Christian church was established, consisting of both Jewish and Gentile believers; it is said, Acts xix. 1st and following verses, "Paul came to Ephesus VOL. XVI. finding certain disci 3 G ples," &c. It appears these disciples were Jews; for, ver. 3, it is said they were "baptized with John's baptism." Ver. 8, we are informed, "Paul went into the synagogue and spake boldly for the space of three months;" in which we find he made some converts there of the Jews; for it is said, verse 9, "When divers hardened themselves, &c., he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus." It is added, this continued "by the space of two years, so that all they that dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks." From this it is surely reasonable to conclude, that converts were made from both parties; but especially from what follows respecting certain Jewish exorcists, who pretended to imitate the miracles of the apostles. 17 and following verses: "This was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified, and many believed, and came and confessed and shewed their deeds; many of them also which used curious arts brought their books and burned them," &e., "so mightily grew the word of God and prevailed." No one can reasonably suppose that the believers in the gospel, under the above circumstances, did not consist of both Jews and Gentiles, nor that these believers formed more than one communion or church. But what Paul says in his Epistle to the Ephesian Church places the subject beyond doubt; he congratulates them on the catholic union of Jews and Gentiles in one body. Chap. ii. 14, he says, "For he (Christ) is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments, consisting in ordinances, for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God, in one body by the cross." Again, chap. iii. 3 and following verses: "The mystery-which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto the holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs of the same body," &c. See also 15th and 16th verses; chap. iv. 3 and 4 verses; also Acts xx. 17 and following verses; but the 20 and 21 verses especially. At Rome also, that eminent Gentile city, it is clear the Christian church was formed of believing Jews and Gentiles. Acts xxviii. 24, it is said of Jews at Rome, "Some of them believed the things which were spoken." The whole Epistle to the Romans is written as to a church of Jews and Gentiles, and with a view to elucidate and establish the very point which the Ebionites disputed, and of which they appear to have been totally ignorant. Thus do we learn from the New Testament itself, that the apostles taught their converts, both Jews and Gentiles, that the middle wall which had separated between them, even the law of ceremonies, was removed by faith in Christ, so that they were made one body in him. Thus, also, do we find that according to this doctrine they planted churches, consisting of Gentile and Jewish believers in one communion. And after all this, can we be persuaded that the body of Jewish Christians despised and resisted the doctrine, and that thus, respecting them, so considerable a branch of the primitive believers, it utterly failed of its proper effect, although it held so conspicuous a place in the discourses and writings of the apostles, and even in the conferences of the elders and other members of the churches? That with some persons it should prove ineffectual, although they were partly overcome by the divine evidences which attended the gospel, might be expected, as in the case of Dr. P.'s Ebionites, and their worthy predecessors, "the certain men," who contested the matter with the apostles, and took the pains to go to Gentile cities, to preach in opposition to them. Nor is it surprising that more docile characters, even some among the true disciples should, as Jews, want much instruction and clear conviction, to induce them to assent to the doctrine in question. Nor need we wonder that towards such persons the apostles were mild and indulgent, whilst they were also cautious of shocking the prepossessions of those Jews in general who had not yet believed, especially at Jerusalem. But no one, I imagine, can fairly infer from these circumstances, that they intended to encourage or even to tolerate the opinion that the Law was still to separate between the Gentile and Jewish believers; for this would have been to contradict their own teaching, and discredit their own conduct in the planting of Christian churches. I have thus given my reasons for thinking the Ebionites real heretics, opposers of the true Christian teachers, and as such no proper examples of primitive Christianity, either as to faith or practice, being far more likely to lead us into error than truth on any point of Christian doctrine. As an Unitarian I have been used to hear the Ebionites appealed to, as furnishing important historical testimony, that simple Unitarianism was taught by the apostles and other primitive preachers of the gospel; but to me now the appeal appears utterly fallacious, inasmuch as the Ebionites seem not to have regarded what was taught by the apostles; and, therefore, their opinions can furnish us with no example of what the apostles taught. Dr. P. seemed to assume that the Ebionites must be the body of Christian Jews, because otherwise we know not where to look for that body, after they were driven from Jerusalem by the destruction of that city; and yet he uses these remarkable words: "What became of the whole body of ancient Christian Jews (none of whom can be proved to have been Trinitarians) I cannot tell." Now, Sir, I think it much more reasonable to suppose that, when dispersed (with the Jews in general) among the Gentile nations, they joined their Christian brethren in the Gentile churches, than to imagine they continued among the unbelieving Jews as inconsistent members of the synagogues, as the Ebionites certainly were. Reasons sufficient for this opinion I believe are contained in this letter. I would just add, however, that Dr. P. quotes Sulpicius, * as saying, that almost all the Christian Jews, driven out of Jerusalem in the time of Adrian, believed that Christ was God. He also quotes Grotius + as approving of this assertion of Sulpicius. The quotation from Origen in * History of Early Opinions, III. 192. + Idem, III. 200. |