Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, Discourse · Chapter 3
CHAP. III. The Socinian Plea for the Antiquity of their Doctrine examined.
BUT this is not the age our Vnitarians will stand or fall by. They are for going backward; and they speak with great comfort about the old Ebionites and Nazarens as entirely theirs; And that they had considerable men among them, as Theodotion and Symmachus, Hist. of the Unit. p. 10. Edit. II.two Translators of the Hebrew Bible. And among the Gentile Christians, they value themselves upon three Men, Paulus Samosatenus, Lucianus, the most learned Person, they say, of his age, and Photinus Bishop of Sirmium. As to the Vnitarians at Rome, (whom they improperly call Nazarens) they pretended that their Doctrine was Apostolical, and the general Doctrine of the Church till the times of Victor and Zepherin.
This is the substance of their Plea, which must now be examin'd.
I begin with those Primitive Vnitarians, the Ebionites, concerning whom, I observe these things:
1. That they were a distinct, separate body of men from the Christian Church. For all the ancient Writers who speak of them, do mention them as Hereticks, and wholly divided from it, as appears by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Theodoret, S. Augustin, and others. Eusebius saith of them,Euseb. l. 3. c. 27. That although the Devil could not make them renounce Christianity, yet finding their weakness, foreign, he made them his own. He would never have said this of any whom he look'd on as Members of the Christian Church. But wherein is it that Eusebius blames them? He tells it in the very next words; that it was for the mean opinion they entertained of Christ; for they look'd on him as a meer Man, but very just. And although there were two sorts of them; some owning the miraculous Conception, and others not; yet saith he, They at last agreed in the same Impiety, which was, That they would not own Christ to have had any Pre-existence before his Birth; nor that he was foreign, God the Word. It's true, he finds fault with them afterwards for keeping to the Law of Moses; but the first Impiety he charges them with, is the other. That which I inferr from hence is, that Eusebius himself (to whom they profess to shew greater respect than to most of the ancient Writers,Ante-Nicenism. p. 37. for his exactness and diligence in Church-History) doth affirm the Doctrine which overthrows the Preexistence and Divinity of Christ to be an Impiety. Answer to Milb. p. 20.And therefore when he affirms the first fifteen Bishops of the Church of Ierusalem who were of the Circumcision, viz. to the Siege of it by Hadrian, Euseb. l. 4. c. 5.did hold the genuine Doctrine of Christ, it must be understood of his Pre-existence and Divinity; for the other we see he accounted an Impiety. And he tells us the Church of Ierusalem then consisted of believing Iews, and so it had done from the Apostles times to that of Hadrian's Banishment of the Iews. Which is a considerable Testimony to two purposes:
1. To shew that the Primitive Church of Ierusalem did hold the Doctrine of Christ's Pre-existence and Divinity. But say our Vnitarians, this doth not follow. For what reason? When it is plain that Eusebius accounted that the only genuine Doctrine. No, say they,Resp. ad Judic. Eccles. p. 176. he meant only the miraculous Conception, and that they held that, in opposition to those Ebionites who said that he was born as other men are. This is very strange; when Eusebius had distinguished the two sorts of Ebionites about this matter, and had blamed both of them, even those that held him born of a Virgin, for falling into the same Impiety. What can satisfie such men, who are content with such an answer? But say they, Eusebius only spake his own sense. Not so neither: For he saith in that place, that he had searched the most ancient Records of the Church of Ierusalem. Yes, say they, for the Succession of the first Bishops; but as to their Doctrine he had it from Hegesippus, and he was an Ebionite himself. Then Eusebius must not be the man they take him for. For if Hegesippus were himself an Ebionite, and told Eusebius in his Commentaries, that the Primitive Church of Ierusalem consisted of all such, then Eusebius must suppose that Church guilty of the same Impiety with which he charges the Ebionites; and would he then have said, That they had the true knowledge of Christ among them? No, say they, Eusebius spake his own opinion, but Hegesippus being an Ebionite himself, meant otherwise. But Eusebius doth not use Hegesippus his words, but his own in that place; and withal, how doth it appear that Hegesippus himself was an Ebionite? This, one of their latest Writers hath undertaken, but in such a manner, as is not like to convince me. It is thus,Answer to Dr. Bull, part I. p. 41. Hegesippus was himself a Iewish Christian, and made use of the Hebrew Gospel, and among the Hereticks which crept into the Church of Jerusalem, he never numbers the Ebionites or Cerinthians, but only the Gnosticks. I will not dispute, whether Hegesippus was a Jewish Christian or not. Grant he was so, yet how doth it appear that all the Iewish Christians were at that time Ebionites or Cerinthians? It seems they were neither of them Hereticks, although they were opposite to each other; the one held the World created by inferiour Powers, the other, by God himself: the one, we see, made Christ a mere Man; but the Cerinthians held an illapse of the foreign upon him, and so made him a kind of a God by his Presence, as Nestorius did afterwards. But honest Hegesippus took neither one nor the other for Hereticks, if our Vnitarians say true. But yet it doth not appear, that Hegesippus was either one or the other. For he speaks of the Church of Ierusalem, as is plain by Eusebius, Euseb. l. 4, c. 22.and the Cerinthians and Ebionites, were in other parts; the former in Egypt and the lesser or Proconsular Asia; and the latter about Decapolis and Coelesyria, from whence they spread into Arabia and Armenia, as appears by Epiphanius. But Origen saith, That all the Iewish Christians were Ebionites. What! no Cerinthians among them? Were not those Iewish Christians? Or were they all turned Ebionites then? No such thing appears by Origen's saying. But we are not enquiring now, what they were in his time, but in the Church of Ierusalem. Doth Origen say all the Iewish Christians there were such? And as to his own time, it is not improbable that those who then made up the separate Body of Jewish Christians were Ebionites. But what is this to the first Christians of the Church of Ierusalem? Very much, say they, because the first Christians were called Nazarens, and the Nazarens held the same Doctrine with the Ebionites. But the title of Nazarens did not always signifie the same thing. It was at first used for all Christians, Act. 24.5.as appears by the Sect of the Nazarens in Tertullus his Accusation of S. Paul; then it was taken for the Christians who stay'd at Pella and setled at Decapolis and thereabouts, as Epiphanius affirms;Epiphan. haer. 29 n. 7. for although all the Christians withdrew thither before the Destruction of Ierusalem, as Eusebius saith, yet they did not all continue there, but a great number returned to Ierusalem, and were there setled under their Bishops; but those who remained about Pella kept the name of Nazarens, and never were united with the Gentile Christians, but kept up their old Jewish customs, as to their Synagogues, even in S. Ierom and S. Augustine's time. Now these Nazarens might be all Ebionites, and yet those of the Church of Ierusalem not so at all.
2. The next thing observable from this place of Eusebius is, that while the Nazarens and Ebionites were setled in Coelesyria, and the parts thereabouts, there was a regular Christian Church at Ierusalem, under the Bishops of the Circumcision, to the Siege of Hadrian. Eusebius observes, that before the destruction of Ierusalem, all the Christians forsook not only Ierusalem, Euseb. l. 3. c. 5.but the Coasts of Iudea. But that they did not all continue there, is most evident from what Eusebius here saith of the Church and Bishops of Ierusalem; between the two Sieges of Titus Vespasian and Hadrian, L. 4. c. 8.which was in the 18 year of his Empire, saith Eusebius. Who produces another Testimony out of Iustin Martyr, which shews that the Christians were returned to Ierusalem. For therein he saith, That Barchochebas in that War used the Christians with very great severity to make them renounce Christianity. How could this be, if all the Christians were out of his reach, then being setled about Pella? And although Eusebius saith,L. 4 c. 6. That when the Iews were banished their Country by Hadrian's Edict, that then the Church of Ierusalem was made up of Gentiles; yet we are not so strictly to understand him, as though the Christians who suffer'd under Barchochebas, were wholly excluded. Orosius saith,Oros. l. 7. c. 13. That they were permitted by the Emperor's Edict. It is sufficient for me, if they were connived at, which is very probable, although they did not think fit to have any such publick Persons as their Bishops to be any other than Gentiles. And Hegesippus is allow'd after this time, to have been a Iewish Christian of the Church of Ierusalem: so that the Church there must consist both of Iews and Gentiles; but they can never shew that any of the Ebionites did admit any Gentile Christians among them, which shews that they were then distinct Bodies.
2. They were not only distinct in Communion, but had a different rule of Faith. This is a point of great consequence, and ought to be well consider'd. For, since our Vnitarians own the Ebionites as their Predecessors, we ought to have a particular eye to the rule of Faith received by them, which must be very different from ours, if they follow the Ebionites, as I doubt not to make it appear. They say, The Ebionites used only S. Matthew's Gospel. But the Christian Church then,Answer to Dr. Bull, p. 42. and ever since, have receiv'd the four Gospels, as of divine authority. Eusebius, one of the most approved Authors in Antiquity by our Vnitarians, reckons up the four Evangelists and S. Paul's Epistles, as writings universally received by the Christian Church; then he mentions some generally rejected as spurious; and after those which were doubted, among which he mentions the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which the Iewish Christians follow'd. Now here is an apparent difference put between the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and S. Matthew's Gospel; as much as between a Book receiv'd without controversie, and one that was not. But if the Gospel according to the Hebrews were then acknowledged to be the true Gospel of S. Matthew; it was impossible a man of so much sense as Eusebius, should make this difference between them. But it is worth our observing, what our Vnitarians say about this matter. And by that we may judge very much of their opinion about the Gospels. I shall set down their words, for fear I should be thought to do them wrong. Symmachus and the Ebionites, Answer to Dr. Bull, p. 39.say they, as they held our Saviour to be the Son of Ioseph and Mary; so they contended that the first Chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel was added by the Greek Translators. S. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, when it was translated into Greek, the Translator prefaced it with a Genealogy and Narration that our Saviour was conceived by the Holy Spirit of God, and was not the Son of Ioseph, but this Genealogy and Narration, said Symmachus and the Ebionites, is not in the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew, nay is the mere invention of the Translator. As for the other Gospels, the Ebionites and Symmachians did not receive the Gospel of S. Luke: and for that of S. Iohn, they said it was indeed written by Cerinthus, to confirm his Platonick Conceits about the Logos or Word, which he supposed to be the Christ or Spirit of God, which rested on and inhabited the person of Jesus. Let us now but join to this another passage, which is this, Those whom we now call Socinians, were by the Fathers and the first ages of Christianity called Nazarens; and afterwards they were called Ebionites, Mineans, Symmachians, &c.
If this be true, they must have the same opinions as to the Books of the New Testament; and hereby we see what sort of men we have to deal with, who under the pretence of the old Ebionites, undermine the authority of the New Testament. As to S. Matthew's Gospel, I see no reason to question its being first written in the Language then used among the Jews, which was mixt of Hebrew, Syriack, and Chaldee: since this is affirmed, not merely by Papias, whose authority never went far; but by Origen, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Euseb. l. 3. c. 24, 39. L 5. c. 8.10. L. 6. c. 25. Hieron. c. Pelag. l. 3.S. Ierom, and others. But I must distinguish between S. Matthew's Authentick Gospel, which Pantaenus saw in the Indies, and that which was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and the Nazaren Gospel. S. Ierom in one place seems to insinuate, that S. Matthew's Gospel was preserved in the Library of Pamphilus at Caesarea, Hieron. de script. in Matth.and that the Nazarens at Berrhaea in Syria had given him leave to transcribe it. But if we compare this with other places in him, we shall find, that he question'd whether this were the Authentick Gospel of S. Matthew or not; he saith,Comment. in Matth. c. 12. it is so called by many; but he confesses it was the same which the Ebionites and Nazarens used. In which were many interpolations, as appears by the collections out of it in S. Ierom's Works and other ancient Writers; which some learned men have put together. And S. Ierom often calls it the Gospel according to the Hebrews. In Isa. c. 11. In Ezek. c. 18.And so do other ancient Writers. From the laying several passages together, Erasmus suspects,Erasm. advers. Stunic. c. 1. that S. Ierom never saw any other than the common Nazaren Gospel, and offers a good reason for it, viz. That he never made use of its authority to correct the Greek of S. Matthew, which he would not have failed to have done in his Commentaries; and he produces the Nazaren Gospel upon sleight occasions. But how came the Preface to be curtail'd in the Ebionite Gospel? Of which Epiphanius gives an account, and shews what was inserted instead of it: No, say the Ebionites, the Preface was added by the Translator into Greek. From what evidence? and to what end? To prove that Christ was born of the Holy Spirit. This then must be look'd on as a mere Forgery; and those Ebionites were in the right, who held him to be the Son of Ioseph and Mary. What do these men mean by such suggestions as these? Are they resolved to set up Deism among us, and in order thereto, to undermine the authority of the New Testament? For it is not only S. Matthew's Gospel, but S. Luke's and S. Iohn's which they strike at, under the pretence of representing the arguments of these wretched Ebionites. If their arguments are mean and trifling and merely precarious, why are they not slighted and answered by such as pretend to be Christians? If they think them good, we see what we have to do with these men; it is not the Doctrine of the Trinity, so much as the authority of the Gospels, which we are to maintain against them: And not those only, for the Ebionites rejected all S. Paul's Epistles; and called him an Apostate and a Transgressor of the Law. What say our Vnitarians to this? Why truly,Answer to Dr. Bull, p. 35. This comes from Epiphanius, and because he quotes no Author, it seems to be one of his malicious Tales. This is a very short way of answering, if it would satisfie any men of sense. But they ought to have remembred that within a few Pages,P. 40. they alledge Epiphanius as a very competent Witness about the Ebionites, because he was born in Palestine, and lived very near it. But we do not rely wholly upon Epiphanius in this matter. For those whom they allow to be the best Witnesses as to the Doctrine of the Nazarens, say the same thing concerning them.P. 39. Origen c. Cels. l. 5. p. 274. As the most learned Origen, as they call him, who lived a long time in Syria and Palestine it self; and he affirms, that both sorts of Ebionites rejected S. Paul's Epistles: and Theodoret, Theodor haeret. l. 2. c. 1.who they say, lived in Coelesyria, where the Nazarens most abound, affirms of them, That they allowed only the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and called the Apostle an Apostate: by whom they meant S. Paul. And the same is said by S. Ierom who conversed among them;Hieron in Matth. c. 12. That they look on S. Paul as a Transgressor of the Law, and receive none of his Writings. Have we not now a very comfortable account of the Canon of the New Testament from these ancient Vnitarians? And if our modern ones account them their Predecessors, we may judge what a mean opinion they must have of the Writings of the New Testament. For if they had any concernment for them, they would never suffer such scandalous insinuations to pass without a severe censure, and a sufficient answer. But their Work seems to be rather to pull down, than to establish the authority of revealed Religion; and we know what sort of men are gratified by it.