the Ebionites, in the introduction to his gospel, is not to be wondered at; as nothing is more common than for men to interpret the writings of others according to their own previous ideas and conceptions of things. On the contrary, it seems very evident that, in that introduction, the apostle alludes to the very same system of opinions which he had censured in his epistle, the fundamental principle of which was, that, not the supreme Being himself, but an emanation from him, to which some gave the name of Logos," was the maker of all things; whereas he there affirms that the Logos by which all things were made, was not a being distinct from God, but God himself, that is, an attribute of God, or the divine power and wisdom. The Unitarians of the third century charged the orthodox with introducing a new and strange interpretation of the word Logos by supposing it to mean Christ.

That very system, indeed, which made Christ to have been the eternal reason, or Logos of the Father, did not, probably, exist in the time of the apostle John; but was introduced from the principles of Platonism afterwards. But the Valentinians, who were only a branch of the Gnostics, made great use of the same term, not only denominating by it one of the æons in the system described by Ireneus, but also one of them that was endowed by all the other æons with some extraordinary gift, to which person they gave the name of Jesus, Savior, Christ, and Logos.

The word Logos was also frequently used by them as synonymous to con, in general, or an intelligence that sprung, mediately or immediately, from the divine essence.. It is, therefore, almost certain, that the apostle John had frequently heard this term made use of, in some erroneous representations of the system of christianity that were current in his time, and therefore he might choose to introduce the same term in its proper sense, as an attribute of the deity or God himself, and not a distinct being that sprung from him. And this writer is not to be blamed if, afterwards, that very attribute was personified in a different manner, and not as a figure of speech, and consequently his language was made to convey a very different meaning from that which he affixed to it.

Athanasius (A. D. 330) himself was so far from denying that the primitive Jewish church was properly Unitarian, maintaining the simple humanity and not the divinity

of Christ, that he endeavors to account for it by saying, "that all the Jews were so firmly persuaded that their Mes"siah was to be nothing more than a man like themselves, "that the apostles were obliged to use great caution in di"vulging the doctrine of the proper divinity of Christ." Many of the other early Christian writers give the same account of the caution with which they supposed the apostles taught the unpopular doctrines of the pre-existence and divinity of Christ. But what the apostles did not openly teach, I think we should be cautious how we believe.. The apostles were never backward to combat other Jewish prejudices, and certainly would have opposed this opinion. of theirs, if it had been an error. For if it had been an error at all, it must be allowed to have been an error of the greatest consequence.*

Could it rouse the indignation of the apostle John so much as to call those Antichrist, who held that Christ was not come in the flesh, or was not truly man, and would he have passed uncensured those who denied the divinity of his Lord and master, if he himself had thought him to be true and very God, his maker, as well as his redeemer? We may therefore safely conclude that an opinion allowed to have prevailed in his time, and maintained by all the Jewish christians afterwards, was what he himself and the other apostles had taught them, and therefore that it is the very truth; and consequently that the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, or of his being any more than a man, is an innovation, in whatever manner it may have been introduced.

Had the apostles explained themselves distinctly and fully, as its importance, if it had been true, required, on the subject of the proper divinity of Christ, as a person equal to the Father, it can never be imagined that the whole Jewish church, or any considerable part of it, should so very soon have adopted the opinion of his being a mere man. To add to the dignity of their master, was natural, but to take from it, and especially to degrade him from being God, to being man, must have been very unnatural. To make the Jews abandon the opinion of the divinity of Christ in the most qualified sense of the word, must at least have been as difficult as we find it to be to induce others to

* Appendix B..

give up the same opinion at this day; and there can be no question of their having, for some time, believed what the apostles taught on that, as well as on other subjects.

Of the same opinion with the Nazarenes, or Ebionites among the Jews, were those among the gentiles whom Epiphanius called Alogi, from their not receiving, as he says, the account that John gives of the Logos, and the writings of that apostle in general. But Lardner, with great probability supposes, there never was any such heresy as that of the Alogi, or rather that those to whom Epiphanius gave that name, were unjustly charged by him, with rejecting the writings of the apostle John, since no other person before him makes any mention of such a thing, and he produces nothing but mere hearsay in support of it. It is very possible, however, that he may give such an account of them, in consequence of their explaining the Logos in the introduction of John's gospel in a manner different from him, and others, who in that age had appropriated to themselves the name of orthodox.

Equally absurd is the conjecture of Epiphanius, that those persons, and others like them, were those that the apostle John meant by Antichrist. It is a much more natural inference that, since this writer allows these Unitarians to have been cotemporary with the apostles, and that they had no peculiar appellation till he himself gave them this of Alogi (and which he is very desirous that other writers would adopt after him) that they had not been deemed heretical in early times, but held the opinion of the ancient gentile church, as the Nazarenes did that of the Jewish church; and that, notwithstanding the introduction, and gradual prevalence of the opposite doctrine, they were suffered to pass uncensured, and consequently without a name, till the smallness of their numbers made them particularly noticed.

It is remarkable, however, that those who held the simple doctrine of the humanity of Christ, without asserting that Joseph was his natural father, were not reckoned heretics by Irenæus, who wrote a large work on the subject of heresies (A. D. 172); and even those who held that opinion are mentioned with respect by Justin Martyr, who wrote some years before him, and who, indeed, is the first writer extant of the gentile christians, after the age of the apostles. And it cannot be supposed that he would have

treated them with so much respect, if their doctrine had not been very generally received, and on that account less obnoxious than it grew to be afterwards. He expresses their opinion concerning Christ, by saying that they made him to be a mere man, wilos avdonos (psilos anthropos*) and by this term Irenæus, and all the ancients, even later than Eusebius, meant a man descended from man, and this phraseology is frequently opposed to the doctrine of the miraculous conception of Jesus, and not to that of his divinity. It is not therefore to be inferred that because some of the ancient writers condemn the one, they meant to pass any censure upon the other.

The manner in which Justin Martyr (A. D. 140) speaks of those Unitarians who believed Christ to be the son of Joseph, is very remarkable, and shows that though they even denied the miraculous conception, they were far from being reckoned heretics in his time, as they were by Irenæus afterwards. He says, "there are some of our pro❝fession who acknowledged him" (Jesus) "to be the Christ, yet maintain that he was a man born of man. I do not “ agree with them, nor should I be prevailed upon by ever 66 so many who hold that opinion; because we are taught 'by Christ himself not to receive our doctrine from men, "but from what was taught by the holy prophets and by "himself."

This language has all the appearance of an apology for an opinion contrary to the general and prevailing one, as that of the humanity of Christ (at least with the belief of the miraculous conception) probably was in his time. This writer even speaks of his own opinion of the pre-existence of Christ (and he is the first that we certainly know to have maintained it, on the principles on which it was generally received afterwards) as a doubtful one, and by no means a necessary article of christian faith. "Jesus," says he" may "still be the Christ of God, though I should not be able to 66 prove his pre-existence, as the son of God who made all things. For though I should not prove that he had pre"existed, it will be right to say that, in this respect only, "I have been deceived, and not to deny that he is the Christ, "if he appears to be a man born of men, and to have be

*We prefer to use the English spelling of the Greek words,, as being more familiar to the English reader..

"come Christ by election." This is not the language of a man very confident of his opinion, and who had the sanction of the majority along with him.

He

The reply of Trypho the Jew, with whom the dialogue he is writing is supposed to be held, is also remarkable, showing in what light the Jews will always consider any doctrine which makes Christ to be more than a man. says, "They who think that Jesus was a man, and, being "chosen of God, was anointed Christ, appear to me to advance a more probable opinion than yours. For all of us expect that Christ will be born a man from man (anthro"pos ex anthropou) and that Elias will come to anoint him. "If he therefore be Christ, he must by all means be a man "born of man."

46

It is well known, and mentioned by Eusebius, that the Unitarians in the primitive church, always pretended to be the oldest christians, that the apostles themselves had taught their doctrine, and that it generally prevailed till the time of Zephyrinus bishop of Rome, but that from that time it was corrupted; and as these ancient Unitarians are called Idiota (i. e. common and unlettered people) by Tertullian, it is more natural to look for ancient opinions among them, than among the learned, who are more apt to innovate. With such apparent unfairness does Eusebius, or a more ancient writer whose sentiments he adopts, treat these Unitarians, as to say that Theodotus, who appeared about the year 190, and who was condemned by Victor the predecessor of Zephyrinus, was the first who held that our Savior was a mere man; when in refuting their pretensions to antiquity, he goes no farther back than to Irenæus and Justin Martyr; though in his own writings alone he might have found a refutation of his assertion. Epiphanius, speaking of the same Theodotus, says that his heresy was a branch (apospasma) of that of the Alogi, which sufficiently implies that they existed before him.

The Alogi, therefore, appear to have been the earliest gentile christians, and Berriman supposes them to have been a branch of the Ebionites. In fact, they must have been the same among the gentiles, that the Ebionites were among the Jews. And it is remarkable that as the children of Israel retained the worship of the one true God all the time of Joshua, and of those of his cotemporaries who outlived him; so the generality of christians retained the