POST SCRIPT.

IN

N this Postscript, befides adding a few notes and obfervations relating to the subject of the preceding letters, I fhall infert a few larger articles, that refpect the controverfy in general.

I.

The original extracts from Origen's works referred to, p. 19, 20, are the following:

The old Latin Verfion.

Et cum videris eos qui ex Judæis crediderunt in Jefum, aliquando quidem ex Maria et Jofeph cum effe putantes; aliquando autem de fola Maria et fpiritu fanéto, videbis, &c. In Matt. Tract. 13, Opera Latine, vol. ii. p. 88.

The Greek of Huetius's edition.

Και επαν ίδης των απο Ι«δαίων πιςευοίζων εις τον Ιησαν την περί το σωτηρος πιςιν, οτε μεν εκ μαρίας και το Ιωσή εἰομένων αυτον ειναι, οτέ μεν εκ μαρίας μεν μονής και το θείο πνευματος, οι μην και μετα της περι αντκ θεολογίας, οψές, &c. Comment in Matt. Ed. Huetii, vol. i. p. 427.

The paffage referred to, p. 21.

Ζητω εἰ δυνασαί πολλές μεν ειπειν επιτιμωντας να σιωπήση το εβιωναίο και πλωχευτι περι την εις Ιησε πιςίν, τις απο των εθνών, οι τινες παρ ολίγος απαντες πεπιςευκασιν αυτόν ex waptions gegerna. Ibid. p. 428.

II.

Of Herefy in early times.

P. 33. That Irenæus did not mean to pass a fentence of what we should now call damnation upon the Ebionites is, I think, evident from what he fays concerning them in the 21ft chap. of his third book, and which has the appearance of great harshnefs. "If they perfift," he says, " in their error,

not receiving the word of incorruption, they "continue in mortal flesh, and are fubject to death, "not receiving the antidote of life *." The idea of this writer, and that of the Fathers in general, was that Chrift recovered for man that immortality which Adam had lost; fo that without his interference the whole race of mankind must have perished in the grave. This he reprefents as the punishment of the Ebionites. But he certainly could not mean that the Ebionites, as fuck, fhould continue in the grave, while all the rest of mankind fhould rife from the dead. He muft, therefore, have meant, not that they in particular, but that mankind in general, could have had no refurrection, if their doctrine had been true.

P. 34. Clemens Alexandrinus makes frequent mention of berefies. Almoft the whole of his feventh book of Stromata, relates to that fubject. He

• Non recipientes verbum incorruptionis perfeverant in earne mortali, et funt debitores mortis, antidotum vitæ non aecipientes. Lib. 3, cap. 21, p. 248.

mentions

mentions fourteen different herefiarchs by name, and ten herefies by character; but none of them bear any relation to the Ebionites, or any fpecies of unitarians, all of them respecting Gnostics only. He particularly fpeaks of the pride of heretics in general, in pretending to deep science; whereas the Ebionites were always defcribed in a very different manner, and were generally treated with contempt, as well as abhorrence. On the other hand, Whitby fays, that this writer speaks of the doctrine of the Logos being emitted from the Father at pleasure, and recalled into him again, (which Juftin Martyr mentions, and which was hardly different from proper unitarianifm, being the doctrine of Noetus, Praxeas, Sabellius, and Marcellus of Ancyra) with approbation. He also fays it is particularly remarkable, that Justin Martyr, though he did not approve of this doctrine, paffes it without any cenfure, or mark of heresy *.

P. 34. I have not been able to find any particular account of this excommunication of the Ebionites by the Fathers, mentioned by Jerom; but I think it very poffible, that it might have been nothing more than what was done by Victor, bishop of Rome, when he excommunicated all the Eastern churches (of whom the Ebionites were the chief) because they obferved the Jewish rules in fixing the time of Eafter; fo that in this

* Sententiam hance, quam poft Noetum et Praxeam, Sabellius propugnavit, Clementi Alexandrino ex pædagogia fua placuiffe non fine ratione exiftimo. Difquifitiones Modestæ, p. 173.

excommunication no mention might be made of any other tenet or custom of theirs, beides this in-. ftance of their obftinate adherence to Judaisın. The rule laid down by Victor was afterwards confirmed by the council of Nice, but I believe without any fentence of excommunication on those who did not conform to it. If any person will give me any more light with respect to this fubject, I fhall be truly thankful for it.

III.

On the conduct of the Apostles, p. 53.

To these obfervations I would add, that as. among the twelve apofties, there must have been men of very different tempers and abilities, it is not probable that they should all have agreed in conducting themselves upon the plan, of not divuiging the doctrine of the divinity of their master, till their hearers were fufficiently perfuaded of his reffiahfhip. Some of them would hardly have been capable of fo much refinement, and they would certainly have differed about the time when it was proper to divulge fo great a secret. Befides, the mother of Jefus, and many other perfons, of both, fexes, must have been acquainted with it. For that this fecret was ftrictly confined to the twelve Apostles, will hardly be maintained. And yet we have no account either of their instructions to act in this manner, or of any difference of opinion, or of conduct, with respect to it.

It might have been expected also, that the information that a person whom they first conversed with as a man, was either God himself, or the maker of the world under God, fhould have been received with fome degree of doubt and hesitation by fome or other of them; especially as they had been so very hard to be perfuaded of the truth of his refurrection, though they had been so fully apprized of it before hand. And yet, in all the history of the apoftles, there is the fame profound filence concerning this circumftance, and every other depending on the whole scheme, as if no fuch thing had ever had any existence, but in the imaginations of Athanafius, Chryfoftom, and those other Fathers who maintained it; which I therefore believe to have been the cafe, and that they invented this hypothefis, in order to account for the early rife and general spread of the unitarian doctrine, which they could not deny, and of which it may therefore be confidered as very good evidence.

IV.

Of the excommunication of Theodotus by Victor.

It may be objected to the evidence of Tertullian concerning the major part of chriftians being unitarians, that about the fame time Victor, bishop of Rome, excommunicated Theodotus of Byzantium for denying the divinity of Chrift; which it may be thought he would not have ventured to do, if the popular prejudices had not

been