the speculations of the Ebionites: this would afford no very logical proof of the Humanitarianism and Unipersonalism of the primitive Church of Jerusalem anterior to its dissolution in the year 136.

But, in truth, those descendants from that ancient Church were, neither Humanitarians themselves, nor identical with the confessedly humanitarian Ebionites.

The authorities, which prove that the Nazarenes were not Unipersonalists who denied the divinity of Christ, are so constructed, that they equally prove the Ebionites to have been not identical with them.

I. Augustine, in his book on heresies, enumerates, in three successive sections, three distinct sects: that of the Cerinthians; that of the Nazarenes; and that of the Ebionites.

1. His account of these three sects, in regard to their religious opinions, is as follows.

(1.) The Cerinthians asserted: that Jesus was a mere man. And, along with this opinion, they maintained the necessity of observing the Ceremonial Law.

Cerinthiani a Cerintho, iidemque Merinthiani a Merintho, mundum ab angelis factum esse dicentes: et carne circumcidi oportere, atque alia hujusmodi Legis præcepta servari. Jesum hominem tantummodo fuisse, nec surrexisse, sed surrecturum, asseverantes. August. de hæres. § Sub at SERW

(2.) The Nazarenes confessed: that Christ is the Son of God. But, at the same time, they observed the ordinances of the Law: which, by apostolical tradition, Christians had learned, not to observe carnally, but to understand spiritually.sión

Nazaræi, cum Dei Filium confiteantur esse Christum, omnia tamen veteris Legis observant: quæ Christiani, per apostolicam traditionem, non observare carnaliter, sed spiritaliter intelligere, didicerunt. August. de hæres. § 9. ad of

(3.) The Ebionites asserted: that the Christ ALSO, as well as Jesus into whom the Cerinthians fabled the separate spirit Christ to have entered, was a mere man, being in truth identical with the mere man Jesus. And, conjoin this tenet, they likewise

observed the ceremonial commandments of the Law, from the burden of which Christians are liberated by the New Testa

ment.

Hebionæi Christum ETIAM tantummodo hominem dicunt. Mandata carnalia Legis observant, circumcisionem scilicet carnis, et cætera, a quorum oneribus per Novum Testamentum liberati sumus. August. de hæres. § 10.

2. Here we have three distinct sects, placed in mutual juxtaposition, because they agreed in maintaining that the ancient Ceremonial Law was still obligatory. But, in their doctrinal tenets respecting our Lord, they severally differed from each

other.

(1.) The Cerinthians asserted: that Jesus was a mere man, born of Joseph and Mary.

But they added: that, at the time of his baptism, a supercelestial spirit, denominated Christ, entered into him; which spirit quitted him in the day of his crucifixion. Iren. adv. hær. lib. i. c. 25. Epiph. adv. hær. lib. i. tom. 2. hær. 28.

(2.) With them the Ebionites agreed, in maintaining the mere humanity of Jesus: though some of these Ebionites held, and some denied, his birth from a virgin. Orig. cont. Cels. lib. v. p. 272. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. c. 27.

But they differed from them, in asserting that the Christ ALSO was a mere man : for, discarding the notion that the Christ was a supercelestial spirit distinct from the man Jesus, they contended, like our modern Unipersonalists; that the single individual Jesus-Christ was, in point of nature, a mere man, united neither to a supercelestial spirit nor yet to the Supreme Divinity.

(3.) From both these sectaries, the Nazarenes differed most essentially. For, as Augustine observes, They CONFESSED Christ to be THE SON OF GOD.

Each of his expressions is full of meaning.

The Nazarenes CONFESSED: the Cerinthians and the Ebionites asserted.

The Nazarenes confessed Christ to be THE SON OF GOD: the

Cerinthians asserted Jesus, and the Ebionites asserted Jesus-
Christ, to be a mere man.

Here, then, lay the difference.

In the language of Augustine and of the early Catholic
Church from the very first, To CONFESS Christ as THE SON OF
GOD is To CONFESS, as a necessary article of faith, THE ESSEN-
TIAL DIVINITY of Christ.

Thus, when the Simonian Gnostics asserted the mere hu-
manity of Jesus; Origen expresses this idea by saying: that
They did not CONFESS Jesus to be THE SON OF GOD. Οὐδαμῶς
τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὁμολογοῦσι Υἱὸν Θεοῦ Σιμωνιανοί. Orig. cont. Cels.
lib. v. p. 272. And thus, when Julian alleged that no Evange-
list before St. John taught THE DIVINITY of Christ; Cyril
promptly met him, on the ancient hermeneutic principle of the
Church, by replying: that the title of THE SON OF GOD was ap-
plied to Christ by all the earlier Evangelists, and that the ap-
plication of this title was equivalent to an ascription of Es-
SENTIAL DIVINITY. Cyril. Alex. cont. Julian. lib. x. p. 328.
See below, append. ii. numb. 10.

Now, on this point, namely, A CONFESSION of Christ as THE
SON OF GOD, the Nazarenes (for, in truth, their sole heresy was
their insisting upon the religious obligatoriness of the Cere-
monial Law) agreed with the Catholics and hence, by Au-
gustine, their CONFESSION of the common faith in regard to THE
ESSENTIAL DIVINITY of Christ is placed in studied contradis-
tinction to the Cerinthian and Ebionitic ASSERTION of dogmas
wholly incompatible with it.

II. The testimony of Jerome is exactly to the same purpose
and with exactly the same arrangement.

1. In his statement, on account of their mutually concurring
adherence to the necessary observation of the Ceremonial Law,
the Cerinthians and the Ebionites and the Nazarenes appear as
three several semi-jewish sects. But, distinguishing the Naza-
renes from the other two, of them he specially says that They
believed in Christ as THE SON OF GOD born from the Virgin Mary;
in whom also, he adds, we ourselves believe.

Usque hodie per totas Orientis synagogas inter Judæos hæresis est, quæ dicitur Minæorum, quos vulgo Nazaræos nuncupant: qui credunt in Christum Filium Dei natum de virgine Maria; et eum dicunt esse, qui sub Pontio Pilato passus est et resurrexit: in quem et nos credimus. Sed, dum volunt et Judæi esse et Christiani, nec Judæi sunt nec Christiani. Hieron. Epist. lxxxix. c. 4. Oper. tom. ii. p. 266. Colon. Agripp. 1616.

2. This language of Jerome at once corroborates and explains the account given by Augustine, if indeed that account required any corroboration and explanation.

So far as respected the doctrine of Christ being the son of GOD born from the Virgin; or, in other words (according to the well known purport of the phraseology then and from the first employed by the Catholic Church), so far as respected the doctrine of The Son's COETERNAL AND CONSUBSTANTIAL GODHEAD with the Father: the Nazarenes agreed with the Catholics.

On this point, their CONFESSION, as Augustine speaks, was orthodox.

Their error lay in insisting upon the necessity of observing the Ceremonial Law: an error, from which the great collective body of the primitive Church of Jerusalem was exempt; an error, which in his epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul had clearly shewn to be inconsistent with the true evangelical doctrine of Salvation through the alone merits of Christ.

III. We may still note the same arrangement and the same discrimination in the ancient author of the Apostolical Constitutions though, specifically, he mentions not the names either of the Cerinthians or of the Ebionites or of the Naza

renes.

1. The method, which he adopts in the treatment of his subject, is the following.

(1.) In his account of confirmed and inveterate heretics, he first notices those who insisted upon the necessity of observing the Ceremonial Law, while they believed in Jesus merely as a holy man and a delegated prophet.

Τὰ κατὰ νόμον καθαρὰ ἐσθίειν καὶ περιτέμνεσθαι νομίμως,

πιστεύειν δὲ εἰς Ἰησοῦν, ὡς εἰς ὅσιον ἄνδρα καὶ προφήτην. Constit. Apost. lib. vi. c. 10.

(2.) After this, he states the sound catholic doctrine, respecting the true nature and character of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and respecting the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law.

Τὸν Χριστὸν οὐ ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον ὁμολογοῦμεν, ἀλλὰ Θεὸν Λόγον καὶ ἄνθρωπον, μεσίτην Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἀρχιερέα τοῦ Πατρός. Οὔτε μὴν μετὰ Ἰουδαίων περιτεμνόμεθα. Constit.

Apost. lib. vi. c. 11.

(3.) And he then proceeds to write against those who conFESSED, indeed; but who, at the same time, wished to judaise. Πρὸς τοὺς ὁμολογοῦντας, ἰουδαΐζειν δὲ θέλοντας. Constit. Apost. lib. vi. c. 12.

2. Now, as the Cerinthians and the Ebionites are evidently intended by the persons, who observe the Ceremonial Law, while they venerate Jesus under the aspect of a mere holy man: so are the Nazarenes no less clearly meant by the persons, who wish to judaise, though they nevertheless CONFESS; for there are no other individuals, with whom such a description will correspond.

What, then, was the import of their CONFESSION?

Doubtless, as the whole context shews, its import was that acknowledgment of the godhead of Christ, which immediately before had been set forth as the CONFESSION of the Catholics. For the entire statement runs in manner following.

(1.) The Cerinthians and the Ebionites, together with the observance of the Ceremonial Law, believed in Jesus as a mere holy man.

(2.) The Catholics, without the observance of the Ceremonial Law, CONFESSED Jesus Christ, not as a mere man, but as GOD

THE WORD AND MAN CONJOINTLY.

(3.) The Nazarenes, together with the observance of the Ceremonial Law, made the same CONFESSION respecting Jesus Christ, as that which was made by the Catholics.

3. It will be observed: that the author of the Apostolical Constitutions employs the self-same word CONFESS, to set forth