then immediately subjoins concerning these proofs which he was about to produce, "They may

seem strange to you, though you read them "daily. By this you ought to know, that God, "on account of your wickedness, has withheld "from you the power of understanding the wis"dom contained in his words; except to such as "Isaiah mentions, his great compassion has left "a seed to salvation, that your race might not "utterly perish, as the inhabitants of Sodom and "Gomorrah." Here any person may plainly perceive that those who are said to be left as a seed to salvation, were those Jews who believed in Christ, and embraced his doctrine. Though Justin plainly enough signifies, that these understood the wisdom or the mystery of God in Christ, as delivered in the ancient Scriptures; yet, at the same time, he did not think that all from among the Jews, who professed to believe in Christ, perceived that wisdom of God, either in the Prophets, or under the light of the Gospel, namely, the Ebionites, belonged to that seed reserved unto salvation; but rather judged them to be numbered with those reprobate Jews who have been judicially blinded of God. What has been said above of the ancient Nazarenes, or the Jerusalem Christians of the circumcision, may be consulted here; as they will throw light upon this passage of Justin, the one explaining the other.*

APPENDIX

TO THE SEVENTH · CHAPTER.

I. Some time after the preceding observations on the celebrated passage of Justin had been finished, I procured the second volume of the Theological Works of Episcopius, in which I found the last edition of "An Answer to the "Specimen of Calumnies extracted from the "Apology of the Remonstrants." In that Answer, the Remonstrants use many arguments to prove, that "The ancient and primitive Christian. "Church held communion with those who pro❝fessed and believed that Christ was only a mere man, or man of man, and made Christ by elec"tion," Of their arguments, they boast that some are self evident; and that others are highly probable. As it regards the former class, they will appear to every one divested of prejudice, from what I have already said, to be neither self evident, nor have even a claim to probability. But let us examine these self evident arguments of Episcopius and the Remonstrants.

* Oper, Episcop, Vol. II. par. 2, and Appendix, No. 15,

T

II. (I) "Justin," says Episcopius, "plainly "affirms it possible to demonstrate solidly that "Jesus is the Christ of God, or the promised "Messiah; though he could not demonstrate that "Christ pre-existed as the Son of God. There"fore Justin believed, that Christ might, by a true

faith, be believed in and worshipped as the "Messiah; though he might be denied to be the "eternal Son of God." This argument has been already answered.* The source of this error of Episcopius and the Remonstrants arose from their not having observed that Justin, in the passage in question, does not argue from his own opinion, but from the hypothesis of the Jews with whom he was disputing, Than which nothing can be plainer. 2ndly, "Justin," Episcopius adds, "affirms, if any one believe Christ to be only "man, begotten of man, and made Christ by "election, he only falls into an error, but does "not deny him to be the Christ. He therefore "believed, that such an error was consistent with "that faith by which Christ is believed to be the "Messiah, and upon whom the whole of the "Christian System rests." The antecedent is evidently false. For Justin no where affirms what Episcopius says he doth. The words of Justin which Episcopius fancied were his antecedent are these; "But if I should not demon"strate that he (i. e, our Jesus) pre-existed, and

Cap. VII. Sect. 4. 5.

"condescended to become man, subject to like “passions with us, becoming incarnate according "to the council and will of the Father; you can "with justice only say that I am mistaken, but "cannot deny that he is the Christ. If I am "mistaken in the pre-existence of Christ, and his "nativity of the Virgin, thou, Trypho, who art "a Jew, canst gain nothing by it, as thou expectest no other Messiah than a mere man, ❝ and born of man." (3) Episcopius goes on and reasons from the said passage of Justin," Justin "affirms, that if this can only be proved, that "Jesus was the Christ or Messiah, that ought to "be sufficient for a Jew; though he either knew "not, or denied, or could not prove that Jesus "pre-existed as the Son of God, and therefore "affirmed that he was no more then a mere man.* Indeed I do not know what the learned Man means here. Does he mean to say, that Justin asserts, that if it could be proved to a Jew, and he could be persuaded that Jesus is the Christ, or the Messiah, it would be sufficient for his salvation; though he either knew not, or denied that Jesus pre-existed as the Son of God, and therefore believed him to be no more than a mere man, and born of man? He must either mean this, or he has said nothing to the purpose. But where does Justin make such an assertion? If Justin thought so, he has spent much useless labour in this Dialogue, and collected many arguments every

* Cap. VII. Sect. 4. 5,