tarians understood that introduction as we now do, taking the logos to mean not Christ, but the wisdom and power of God residing in him, and acting by him. The Noetian, in Hippolytus, says, "You tell me something new when you call the Son logos*." And the oldest opinion on the subject is, that in that introduction John alluded to the Gnostics only, as he did in his epistles.

Ignatius also frequently mentions heresy and heretics, and, like John and Polycarp, with great indignation; but it is evident to every person who is at all acquainted with the history, learning, and language of those times, and of the subsequent ones, that he had no persons in his eye but the Gnostics only. I desire no other evidence of this besides a careful inspection of the passages. I shall recite only one of them, from the Epistle to the Smyrnæans, sect. iv. v. in Wake's translation, p. 116. Speaking of his own sufferings he says, "he who was made a perfect man strengthening me. Whom some not knowing do deny, or rather have been denied by him, being the advocates of death rather than of the truth, whom neither the prophets, nor the law of Moses, have persuaded, nor the gospel itself, even to this day, nor the sufferings of every one of us. For they think also the same things of us. For what does a man profit me if he shall praise me and blaspheme my Lord, not confessing that he was truly made a man? Now he that doth not say this, does in effect deny him, and is in death. But for the names of such as do this, they being unbelievers, I thought it not fitting to write them unto you.

* Αλλ' ερει μοι τις, ξενον μοι φερεις λογον λεγων υἱον. Contra Noetum, sect. xv. p. 16.

P

Yea God forbid that I should make any mention of them till they shall repent, to a true belief of Christ's passion, which is our resurrection! Let no man de ceive himself," &c. He afterwards speaks of these persons abstaining from the eucharist and the public offices, "because they confessed not the eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness raised again from the dead. It will therefore," he adds, " become you to abstain from such persons, and not to speak with them, neither in private nor in public."

apostle John, Here we see which Justin

How like is this to the writings of the and how well they explain each other! the blasphemy ascribed to the Gnostics, mentions, their separating themselves from the communion of christians, their denying the resurrection, and their pride. Now, how came this writer, like John, never to censure the unitarians if he had thought them to be heretics? That they existed in his time there never was a doubt, except what is just started in this last publication of yours. It can only be accounted for on the supposition that he himself as well as the apostle John were unitarians, and that they had no idea of any heresies besides those of the different kinds of Gnostics.

Pearson says that Ignatius refers to the doctrine of the Ebionites in his Epistle to Polycarp, and in those to the Ephesians, the Magnesians, and the Philadel phians; but I find no such references in them, except perhaps two passages, which may easily be supposed to have been altered; because, when corrected by an unitarian, nothing is wanting to the evident purpose

of

the writer; whereas his censures of the Gnostics are frequent and copious; so that no person can pretend to leave them out without materially injuring the epistles.

Besides, there are in these epistles of Ignatius several things that are unfavourable to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. Thus to the Ephesians he says, sect. v. "How much more must I think you happy who are so joined to him [the bishop] as the church is to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ to the Father, that so all things may agree in the same unity!" To the Magnesians, sect. vii. he says, " As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to him, neither by himself nor yet by his apostles, so neither do ye any thing without your bishop and presbyters."

What this excellent man said when he appeared be fore the Emperor Trajan, was the language of an unitarian."You err," he said, " in that you call the evil spirits of the heathens gods. For there is but one God, who made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that are in them; and one Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, whose kingdom may I enjoy!" Wake, p. 131. I am, &c.

LETTER VI.

Of the Sentiments of Justin Martyr, Irenæus, and Clemens Alexandrinus, concerning Heresy.

REV. SIR,

IF, after what I have seen in your Charge and in these Letters, I could be surprised at any thing you say on these subjects, it would be at your so confidently main

taining, p. 79, that Justin Martyr had a view to the unitarians in those accounts of heresy in general which I quoted from him; when any person, with a small portion of that reading of which you pretend to so much, must know that every word and phrase in those accounts, especially the charge of pride, atheism, and blasphemy, is appropriated to the Gnostics, and the Gnostics only. I must take the liberty to say that you know nothing at all of the ancient ecclesiastical writers, if you can imagine that the unitarians are ever described by them in this manner. I am even ashamed to argue with any man who, if he has read the early fathers at all, has read them to so little purpose.

To me it is indisputably clear that Justin Martyr considered no other class of persons as heretics, unfit to have communion with christians, but the Gnostics only. Let any reasonable man but compare these passages in which he censures the Gnostics with so much severity, with those in which he speaks of the unitarians, (in which I still am of opinion he makes an apology to them for his own principles, but which certainly imply no censure,) and I think he cannot but conclude with me, that unitarianism was considered in those times in a very different light from what it was afterwards, and is now.

Justin also particularly mentions his having no objection to hold communion with those Jewish christians who observed the law of Moses, provided they did not impose it upon others. Dial. p. 23.* Now who

* This circumstance may throw some light on the passage in Jerom, in which he speaks of the Ebionites as anathematized solely on account of their adherence to the Jewish law. The Ebionites, at least many of them, would have imposed the yoke of the Jewish law upon the Gentile christians, they would not

could those be but Jewish unitarians? for, agreeable to the evidence of all antiquity, all the Jewish christians were such.

It is truly remarkable, and may not have been observed by you, as indeed it was not by myself till very lately, that Irenæus, who has written so large a work on the subject of heresy, after the time of Justin, and in a country where it is probable there were fewer unitarians, again and again characterizes them in such a manner, as makes it evident that even he did not consider any other persons as being properly heretics besides the Gnostics. He expresses a great dislike of the Ebionites; but though he appears to have known none of them besides those who denied the miraculous conception, he never calls them heretics. I had thought that in one passage he had included them in that appellation; but observing that in his introduction and other places, in which he speaks of heretics in general, he evidently meant the Gnostics only, and could not carry his views any further, I was led to reconsider that particular passage, and I found that I had been mistaken in my construction of it.

"All heretics," he says, "being untaught and ignorant of the dispensations of God, and especially of that which relates to man, as being blind with respect to the truth, oppose their own salvation; some intro

communicate with those who were not circumcised, and of course these could not communicate with them; so they were necessarily in a state of excommunication with respect to each other. This would also be the case with the Cerinthians as well as the Ebionites, and therefore Jerom mentions them together, the separation of communion with respect to both arising from the observance of the law of Moses; though Jerom might write unguardedly, as he often did, in confounding the case of the Cerinthians so much as he here does with that of the Ebionites.