CHAP. III. The Socinian Plea for the Antiquity of their Doctrine examined.

BUT this is not the age our Vnitarians will stand or fall by. They are for going backward; and they speak with great comfort about the old Ebionites and Nazarens as entirely theirs;

This is the substance of their Plea, which must now be examin'd.

I begin with those Primitive Vnitari∣ans, the Ebionites, concerning whom, I observe these things:

Page  161. That they were a distinct, separate body of men from the Christian Church. For all the ancient Writers who speak of them, do mention them as Hereticks, and wholly divided from it, as appears by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Theodo∣ret, S. Augustin, and others. Eusebius saith of them,*That although the Devil could not make them renounce Christianity, yet finding their weakness,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he made them his own. He would never have said this of any whom he look'd on as Members of the Christian Church. But wherein is it that Eusebius blames them? He tells it in the very next words; that it was for the mean opinion they entertained of Christ; for they look'd on him as a meer Man, but very just. And although there were two sorts of them; some owning the miraculous Conception, and others not; yet saith he, They at last agreed in the same Impiety, which was, That they would not own Christ to have had any Pre-existence before his Birth; nor that he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, God the Word. It's true, he finds fault with them afterwards for keeping to the Law of Moses; but the first Impiety he charges them with, is the other. That which I inferr from hence is, that Euse∣bius himself (to whom they profess to Page  17 shew greater respect than to most of the ancient Writers,* for his exactness and di∣ligence in Church-History) doth affirm the Doctrine which overthrows the Pre∣existence and Divinity of Christ to be an Impiety.* And therefore when he affirms the first fifteen Bishops of the Church of Ie∣rusalem who were of the Circumcision, viz. to the Siege of it by Hadrian,*did hold the genuine Doctrine of Christ, it must be understood of his Pre-existence and Divi∣nity; for the other we see he accounted an Impiety. And he tells us the Church of Ierusalem then consisted of believing Iews, and so it had done from the Apo∣stles times to that of Hadrian's Banishment of the Iews. Which is a considerable Te∣stimony to two purposes:

1. To shew that the Primitive Church of Ierusalem did hold the Doctrine of Christ's Pre-existence and Divinity. But say our Vnitarians, this doth not follow. For what reason? When it is plain that Eusebius accounted that the only genuine Doctrine. No, say they,*he meant only the miraculous Conception, and that they held that, in opposition to those Ebionites who said that he was born as other men are. This is very strange; when Eusebi∣us had distinguished the two sorts of Ebi∣onitesPage  18 about this matter, and had blamed both of them, even those that held him born of a Virgin, for falling into the same Impiety. What can satisfie such men, who are content with such an answer? But say they, Eusebius only spake his own sense. Not so neither: For he saith in that place, that he had searched the most ancient Records of the Church of Ierusa∣lem. Yes, say they, for the Succession of the first Bishops; but as to their Doctrine he had it from Hegesippus, and he was an Ebionite himself. Then Eusebius must not be the man they take him for. For if Hegesippus were himself an Ebionite, and told Eusebius in his Commentaries, that the Primitive Church of Ierusalem consisted of all such, then Eusebius must suppose that Church guilty of the same Impiety with which he charges the Ebio∣nites; and would he then have said, That they had the true knowledge of Christ a∣mong them? No, say they, Eusebius spake his own opinion, but Hegesippus being an Ebionite himself, meant otherwise. But Eusebius doth not use Hegesippus his words, but his own in that place; and withal, how doth it appear that Hegesippus him∣self was an Ebionite? This, one of their latest Writers hath undertaken, but in Page  19 such a manner, as is not like to convince me. It is thus,*Hegesippus was himself a Iewish Christian, and made use of the Hebrew Gospel, and among the Hereticks which crept into the Church of Jerusalem, he never numbers the Ebionites or Cerinthi∣ans, but only the Gnosticks. I will not dispute, whether Hegesippus was a Jew∣ish Christian or not. Grant he was so, yet how doth it appear that all the Iewish Christians were at that time Ebionites or Cerinthians? It seems they were neither of them Hereticks, although they were opposite to each other; the one held the World created by inferiour Powers, the o∣ther, by God himself: the one, we see, made Christ a mere Man; but the Cerin∣thians held an illapse of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 upon him, and so made him a kind of a God by his Presence, as Nestorius did afterwards. But honest Hegesippus took neither one nor the other for Hereticks, if our Vnitari∣ans say true. But yet it doth not appear, that Hegesippus was either one or the o∣ther. For he speaks of the Church of Ie∣rusalem, as is plain by Eusebius,* and the Cerinthians and Ebionites, were in other parts; the former in Egypt and the lesser or Proconsular Asia; and the latter about Decapolis and Coelesyria, from whence they Page  20 spread into Arabia and Armenia, as ap∣pears by Epiphanius. But Origen saith, That all the Iewish Christians were Ebio∣nites. What! no Cerinthians among them? Were not those Iewish Christians? Or were they all turned Ebionites then? No such thing appears by Origen's saying. But we are not enquiring now, what they were in his time, but in the Church of Ierusalem. Doth Origen say all the Iew∣ish Christians there were such? And as to his own time, it is not improbable that those who then made up the separate Bo∣dy of Jewish Christians were Ebionites. But what is this to the first Christians of the Church of Ierusalem? Very much, say they, because the first Christians were call∣ed Nazarens, and the Nazarens held the same Doctrine with the Ebionites. But the title of Nazarens did not always sig∣nifie the same thing. It was at first used for all Christians,* as appears by the Sect of the Nazarens in Tertullus his Accusati∣on of S. Paul; then it was taken for the Christians who stay'd at Pella and setled at Decapolis and thereabouts, as Epiphani∣us affirms;* for although all the Christi∣ans withdrew thither before the Destru∣ction of Ierusalem, as Eusebius saith, yet they did not all continue there, but a great Page  21 number returned to Ierusalem, and were there setled under their Bishops; but those who remained about Pella kept the name of Nazarens, and never were united with the Gentile Christians, but kept up their old Jewish customs, as to their Synagogues, even in S. Ierom and S. Augustine's time. Now these Nazarens might be all Ebio∣nites, and yet those of the Church of Ie∣rusalem not so at all.

2. The next thing observable from this place of Eusebius is, that while the Naza∣rens and Ebionites were setled in Coelesy∣ria, and the parts thereabouts, there was a regular Christian Church at Ierusalem, under the Bishops of the Circumcision, to the Siege of Hadrian. Eusebius observes, that before the destruction of Ierusalem, all the Christians forsook not only Ierusalem,*but the Coasts of Iudea. But that they did not all continue there, is most evi∣dent from what Eusebius here saith of the Church and Bishops of Ierusalem; between the two Sieges of Titus Vespasian and Ha∣drian,* which was in the 18 year of his Em∣pire, saith Eusebius. Who produces ano∣ther Testimony out of Iustin Martyr, which shews that the Christians were re∣turned to Ierusalem. For therein he saith, That Barchochebas in that War used the Page  22 Christians with very great severity to make them renounce Christianity. How could this be, if all the Christians were out of his reach, then being setled about Pella? And although Eusebius saith,*That when the Iews were banished their Country by Hadrian's Edict, that then the Church of Ierusalem was made up of Gentiles; yet we are not so strictly to understand him, as though the Christians who suffer'd under Barchochebas, were wholly excluded. O∣rosius saith,*That they were permitted by the Emperor's Edict. It is sufficient for me, if they were connived at, which is very probable, although they did not think fit to have any such publick Per∣sons as their Bishops to be any other than Gentiles. And Hegesippus is allow'd after this time, to have been a Iewish Christian of the Church of Ierusalem: so that the Church there must consist both of Iews and Gentiles; but they can never shew that any of the Ebionites did admit any Gentile Christians among them, which shews that they were then distinct Bodies.

2. They were not only distinct in Com∣munion, but had a different rule of Faith. This is a point of great consequence, and ought to be well consider'd. For, since our Vnitarians own the Ebionites as their Page  23Predecessors, we ought to have a particu∣lar eye to the rule of Faith received by them, which must be very different from ours, if they follow the Ebionites, as I doubt not to make it appear. They say, The Ebionites used only S. Matthew's Go∣spel. But the Christian Church then,* and ever since, have receiv'd the four Gospels, as of divine authority. Eusebius, one of the most approved Authors in Antiquity by our Vnitarians, reckons up the four Evangelists and S. Paul's Epistles, as wri∣tings universally received by the Christi∣an Church; then he mentions some ge∣nerally rejected as spurious; and after those which were doubted, among which he mentions the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which the Iewish Christians fol∣low'd. Now here is an apparent difference put between the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and S. Matthew's Gospel; as much as between a Book receiv'd with∣out controversie, and one that was not. But if the Gospel according to the Hebrews were then acknowledged to be the true Gospel of S. Matthew; it was impossible a man of so much sense as Eusebius, should make this difference between them. But it is worth our observing, what our Vni∣tarians say about this matter. And by Page  24 that we may judge very much of their o∣pinion about the Gospels. I shall set down their words, for fear I should be thought to do them wrong.

If this be true, they must have the same opinions as to the Books of the New Te∣stament; and hereby we see what sort of men we have to deal with, who un∣der the pretence of the old Ebionites, un∣dermine the authority of the New Testa∣ment. As to S. Matthew's Gospel, I see no reason to question its being first writ∣ten in the Language then used among the Jews, which was mixt of Hebrew, Syri∣ack, and Chaldee: since this is affirmed, not merely by Papias, whose authority never went far; but by Origen, Irenaeus, Eusebius,* S. Ierom, and others. But I must distinguish between S. Matthew's Authentick Gospel, which Pantaenus saw in the Indies, and that which was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and the Nazaren Gospel. S. Ierom in one place seems to insinuate, that S. Matthew's Go∣spel was preserved in the Library of Pam∣philus at Caesarea,* and that the Nazarens at Berrhaea in Syria had given him leave to transcribe it. But if we compare this with other places in him, we shall find, that he question'd whether this were the Page  26 Authentick Gospel of S. Matthew or not; he saith,*it is so called by many; but he confesses it was the same which the Ebi∣onites and Nazarens used. In which were many interpolations, as appears by the collections out of it in S. Ierom's Works and other ancient Writers; which some learned men have put together. And S. Ierom often calls it the Gospel according to the Hebrews.* And so do other ancient Writers. From the laying several passa∣ges together, Erasmus suspects,* that S. Ierom never saw any other than the com∣mon Nazaren Gospel, and offers a good reason for it, viz. That he never made use of its authority to correct the Greek of S. Matthew, which he would not have failed to have done in his Commentaries; and he produces the Nazaren Gospel upon sleight occasions. But how came the Pre∣face to be curtail'd in the Ebionite Go∣spel? Of which Epiphanius gives an ac∣count, and shews what was inserted in∣stead of it: No, say the Ebionites, the Preface was added by the Translator into Greek. From what evidence? and to what end? To prove that Christ was born of the Holy Spirit. This then must be look'd on as a mere Forgery; and those Ebionites were in the right, who held him to be Page  27the Son of Ioseph and Mary. What do these men mean by such suggestions as these? Are they resolved to set up Deism among us, and in order thereto, to un∣dermine the authority of the New Testa∣ment? For it is not only S. Matthew's Gospel, but S. Luke's and S. Iohn's which they strike at, under the pretence of re∣presenting the arguments of these wretch∣ed Ebionites. If their arguments are mean and trifling and merely precarious, why are they not slighted and answered by such as pretend to be Christians? If they think them good, we see what we have to do with these men; it is not the Do∣ctrine of the Trinity, so much as the autho∣rity of the Gospels, which we are to main∣tain against them: And not those only, for the Ebionites rejected all S. Paul's E∣pistles; and called him an Apostate and a Transgressor of the Law. What say our Vnitarians to this? Why truly,*This comes from Epiphanius, and because he quotes no Author, it seems to be one of his malicious Tales. This is a very short way of an∣swering, if it would satisfie any men of sense. But they ought to have remem∣bred that within a few Pages,* they alledge Epiphanius as a very competent Witness about the Ebionites, because he was born Page  28 in Palestine, and lived very near it. But we do not rely wholly upon Epiphanius in this matter. For those whom they allow to be the best Witnesses as to the Doctrine of the Nazarens, say the same thing con∣cerning them.*As the most learned Ori∣gen, as they call him, who lived a long time in Syria and Palestine it self; and he affirms, that both sorts of Ebionites re∣jected S. Paul's Epistles: and Theodoret,* who they say, lived in Coelesyria, where the Nazarens most abound, affirms of them, That they allowed only the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and called the Apostle an Apostate: by whom they meant S. Paul. And the same is said by S. Ierom who conversed among them;*That they look on S. Paul as a Transgressor of the Law, and receive none of his Writings. Have we not now a very comfortable account of the Canon of the New Testament from these ancient Vnitarians? And if our modern ones account them their Predecessors, we may judge what a mean opinion they must have of the Writings of the New Testament. For if they had any concern∣ment for them, they would never suffer such scandalous insinuations to pass with∣out a severe censure, and a sufficient an∣swer. But their Work seems to be rather Page  29 to pull down, than to establish the autho∣rity of revealed Religion; and we know what sort of men are gratified by it.