tullian, and inconfiftent with himself, to call thofe perfons heretics, who could not fubfcribe to that form of the creed which includes the article of pre-existence, and which was not affented to at baptism.

Tertullian alfo recites the articles of the creed in a third form, in his book against Praxeas. But as in the former he evidently had a view to the Gnoftics only, fo in this, he had a view to the opinions of Praxeas, whom he was refuting. This, therefore, as well as the other, though delivered in the form of a creed, and faid to be held by all chriftians, can only be confidered as his own comment upon it, and as containing his own opinion. It is as follows:

"We believe in one God, but under that difpen"fation which we call the economy; fo that there is "alfo a fon of this one God, his word, who proceeded "from him, by whom all things were made, and " without whom nothing was made that was made; "that he was fent by the Father into a virgin, and "of her born man and God, the fon of man, and "the fon of God, and called Jefus Chrift; that he "fuffered, died, and was buried, according to the fcriptures; that he was raifed by the Father, and "taken up into heaven; that he fits at the right"hand of the Father, and will come to judge the "living and the dead; who thence, according to "his promise, fent from the Father the holy fpirit, "the comforter, and the fanctifier of the faith of "thofe

F 3

"those who believe in the father, the fon, and the holy fpirit."

Let the impartial reader then judge, whether we are not more likely to find the genuine proper creed, which was confidered as containing the faith of all chriftians, unmixed with any peculiar opinions of Tertullian's own, in the treatife de Virginibus Velandis, in which he is not oppofing orthodoxy to beterodoxy, but fimply faith to practice.

I am really furprized that you should lay fo much ftrefs on the teftimony of Tertullian, admitting it to be clear and uniform, which it is far from being, and alfo on that of Eufebius, with refpect to the general faith of chriftians even in their own times, and much more in times preceding them; when it is fo common for men to reprefent the opinions of those whom they efteem as the fame with their own. Every man fhould be heard with caution when he

* Unicum quidem deum credimus, fub hac tamen difpenfatione quam œconomiam dicimus, ut unici dei fit et filius fermo ipfius, qui ex ipfo procefferit, per quem omnia facta funt, et fine quo factum eft nihil; hunc miffum a patre in virginem, et ex ea natum hominem et deum, filium hominis et filium dei, et cognominatum Jefum Chriftum. Hunc paffum, hunc mortuum, et fepultum, fecundum fcripturas, et refufcitatum a patre, et in cælos refumptum, federe ad dextram patris, venturum judicare vivos et mortuos, qui exinde miferit, fecundum promiffionem fuam, a patre fpiritum fanctum, paracletum, fanctificatorem fidei eorum qui credunt in patrem et filium et fpiritum fanétum, Hanc regulam ab initio evangelii decucurriffe, &c. Ad. Praxeam, f. ii. p. 501.

praises

praises himself; and what he says in one place fhould be compared with what he says in another, and especially what he drops, as it were, accidentally, and when he was off his guard. As I faid before," their evidence in thefe cafes is not to be regarded, unless they bring fome fufficient proof of "their affertions."

Had Tertullian, Origen, and others, thought more highly of the common people than they did, we fhould probably never have known from them what their opinions were. But happily for us, they thought meanly of them, and, without being aware of the use and value of the information, have given us fufficient lights into this very important circumftance in the hiftory of their times. But in this, as well as in feveral other refpects, you, Sir, have been led into feveral mistakes through your ignorance of human rature; the knowledge of which, and a due attention to it, would have been of much more fervice to you in thefe enquiries, than your knowledge of Greek, in which, however, I do not perceive that you greatly abound. This ignorance of human nature appears in your infifting, p. 174. that if I admit the evidence of Eufebius for the existence of the Ebionites in the time of the apoftles, I must admit his teftimony to their condemnation of them.

As Theodotus who appeared in the time of Tertullian is called a heretic in the appendix to Tertullian's book De Præfcriptione; I think it probable that, after his excommunication, he forined a church

F 4

72

LETTERS TO THE

a church of pure unitarians, and might be the first who set up a separate place of worship on that account, and therefore was denominated an beretic in the original fenfe of that word; and this circumftance might give rife to the opinion that he was the first who taught the doctrine.

When Eufebius wrote fo as evidently to fuppofe that the Ebionites exifted in the time of the apoftles, you fay, p. 173, "I confider it as an hafty affertion "of a writer over-zealous to overwhelm his adverfary by authorities." I suspect that he may have been guilty of fomething like this, when he said that Theodotus was excommunicated by Victor on account of his unitarian principles. That he was excommunicated I admit, but that his unitarian principles was the fole ground of his excommunication, I have fome doubt, confidering your own idea of the credit of the witness, which indeed is pretty much the fame as my own.

I am, &c.

LETTER

WHAT I have faid concerning Clemens

Alexandrinus and Tertullian, is true also of Origen, and these writers may help to explain each other. No man took more pains to inculcate the doctrine of the logos than Origen, and he thought meanly of those chriftians who did not adopt it, confidering them as of an inferior rank; but I believe he never claffes them with beretics; and whenever he fpeaks of beretics in general, he, as well as all preceding writers, evidently had a view to the Gnoftics only. See his Commentary on Matt. vol. I. p. 156, 159, 212, 287, 475, and many other paffages in his writings.

In his treatise entitled Philofophumena, which is the firft of his books against the heretics, it is evident that he confidered none in that light befides the Gnoftics, fee p. 6. 8. and 16. of that work, as published by Wolfius, at Hamburg, in 1706.

In one place he evidently confiders the unitarians and heretics feparately, as two diftinct claffes of men; but fuppofes that the unitarians confounded the perfons of the father and the fon, on which account they were called Patripaffians. But notwithstanding