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.

ducing another Father besides the maker of the world; others saying that the world, and the matter of it, was made by angels," &c. and after mentioning other similar opinions, he adds, "others not knowing the dispensation of the virgin, say, that he (Jesus) was begotten by Joseph. Some say that neither the soul nor the body can receive eternal life, but the internal man only*, *" i. e. that they denied the resurrection.

Now, as Cerinthus and Carpocrates, and other Gnostics, denied the miraculous conception, as well as the Ebionites, and all the rest of this description, both before and after this circumstance, evidently belongs to the Gnostics only, and as in no other place whatever does he comprehend them in his definition of heresy, it is natural to conclude that he had no view to them even here, but only to those Gnostics who, in common with them, denied the miraculous conception. If there be any other passage in Irenæus, in which he calls, or seems to call, the Ebionites heretics, I have overlooked it. The Ebionites were Jews, and had no communion with the Gentiles, at least that appears; and Irenæus says nothing at all of the unitarians among the Gentiles, who generally believed the miraculous conception, though, as appears from other evidence, they constituted the great mass of the unlearned christians.

Clemens Alexandrinus makes frequent mention of

* Indocti omnes hæretici, et ignorantes dispositiones Dei, et inscii ejus quæ est secundum hominem dispensationis, quippe cæcutientes circa veritatem, ipsi suæ contradicunt saluti. Alii quidem alterum introducentes præter demiurgum patrem. Alii autem ab angelis quibusdam dicentes factum esse mundum, et substantiam ejus, &c. Alii autem rursus ignorantes Virginis dispensationem, ex Joseph dicunt eum generatum. Et quidam quidem neque animam suam neque corpus recipere posse dicunt æternam yitam, sed tantum hominem interiorem. Lib. v. cap. xix. p. 429.

heretics, and expresses as much abhorrence of them as Justin Martyr does; but it is evident that, in all the places in which he speaks of them, his idea of heresy was confined to Gnosticism. He considers it as an answer to all heretics to prove that "there is one God, the almighty Lord, who was preached by the law and the prophets, and also in the blessed gospel *." He also speaks of heresy as "borrowed from a barbarous philosophy;" and says of heretics, that "though they say there is one God, and sing hymns to Christ, it was not according to truth; for that they introduced another God, and such a Christ as the prophets had not foretold." Strom. lib. vi. p. 675. See also p. 542. 662.

He likewise speaks of heretics in general, as having a high opinion of their own knowledge, omo YVWσEW'S EIN POTwv. Strom. lib. vii. p. 754. He calls them dopo, men who think that they have found the truth, p. 755. and úо dooσopias Engμvoi, elated with a conceit of their knowledge, p. 759. He says that "heresy began in the time of Adrian," when it is well known that Basilides and the most distinguished of the Gnostics made their appearance. Strom. lib. vii. p. 764. He says the heretics went by different names, as those of Valentinus, Marcion, and Basilides, mentioning none but Gnostics, p. 765. It may only be conjectured that he meant the Ebionites by the Peratici, enumerated by him among those who had their denomination from the place of their residence. But this is the only passage in which the word occurs. He never includes the Gentile unitarians among heretics,

* Και άπασαις εντευθεν ταις αίρεσεσιν ἕνα δεικνύναι θεον και κυριον παντοκρατορα, τον δια νομου και προφητων, προς δε και μας καρίου ευαγγελιου γνησίως κεκηρυγμένον. Strom. lib. vi. p. 475.

and even your great authority, Mosheim, allows (what indeed he could not deny) that the unitarians lived in communion with the catholic church in the early ages.

As the strict Ebionites held no communion with the Gentile christians, it is very possible that Clemens Alexandrinus might insert them in a catalogue of heretics, and allude to them under the name of Peratici, without intending any censure of their doctrine with respect to Christ. Besides, this was a name given them, as he says, from their place of residence, and therefore did not include the unitarians among the Gentiles.

It is clear to me, from the attention that I have lately given to this subject, that even long after the doctrine of the divinity of Christ was established by councils and the decrees of emperors, the common people were well known to believe nothing of the matter; and yet, if they made no disturbance, and did not think proper to separate from the communion of the orthodox themselves, they were not excommunicated. This may be inferred from the passage which I quoted from Athanasius; but of which you have taken no notice, from which it appears that the unitarians were the of noλλ, the many. In the time of Tertullian they were the major pars credentium, the greater part of believers; and in the time of Origen they were the To λneos, the multitude, and the ra Anon, the multitudes.

I am, &c.

LETTER VII.

Of the State of Heresy in the Time of Tertullian.

REV. SIR,

NOTHING can well be more evident than that Tertullian represents the great body of unlearned christians in his time as unitarians, and even holding the doctrine of the trinity in great abhorrence. It is hardly possible in any form of words to describe this state of things more clearly than he does. Indeed, with respect to this you are pleased to make some concession, though by no means such as the case requires.

"I must confess, Sir," you say, p. 74, "here seems to be a complaint against the unlearned christians, as in general unfavourable to the trinitarian doctrine;" but you add, "the complaint is of your own raising. Tertullian will vouch but for a small part of it. Simple persons, says Tertullian, (not to call them ignorant and ideots,) who always make the majority of believers, because the rule of faith itself carries us away from the many gods of the heathens to the one true God; not understanding that one God is indeed to be believed, but with an ECONOMY (or arrangement) startle at the economy. They take it for granted that the number and disposition of the trinity is a division of the unity. They pretend that two, and even three, are preached by us, and imagine that they themselves are the worshippers of one God. We, they say, hold the monarchy. Latins have caught up the word MONARCHIA, Greeks will not understand CECONOMIA. Let our author's words be thus exactly