(Belsham, p. 402);-and that " if John did not write against them, it is highly probable that he agreed with them," (ib.); so, according to this, ST. JOHN was an Ebionite or Unitarian! I should not have thought it necessary to discover an antient synonyme for Unitarian, had not Mr. Rowntree considered himself so hardly used by being called Socinian, and I am anxious to take no "advantage" of him whatever; though he will pardon me again reminding him, that Mr. Belsham himself, speaking about these very names, (Unitarian and Socinian,) says, "that the controversy is only about a name, and, "therefore, not deserving of that warmth with which it has, of "late, been conducted; that the title (Unitarian) was first "given to the SOCINIANS, when it was not regarded in so honourable a light as at present," &c., &c. ;—and then he on to say, "Their Arian BRETHREN ought not to be offended "at this limitation of the title of Unitarian," (p. 474-5). All Mr. Rowntree's ado about the word "Socinian" is thus proved to be a mere trail to draw off the scent, as it were, another way; and to make the "unlearned" of the day believe, that the good gentleman has been shockingly ill-treated! But, it must not serve his turn ;-for the word "Ebionite" will make all straight again. So let us see what is known of these Ebionites, or old-fashioned Unitarians.

goes

In the first place, they rejected the word (Logos, 1 John i.), and also the gospel of St. John, admitting that only, written by St. Matthew. They likewise refused all the epistles of St. Paul, whom they accounted a blasphemer and an apostate from the law of Moses. Pretty company, truly, for Mr. Rowntree to keep! But he will kick at this;-then, say 1, you are not one of those Unitarians, whom you profess to be, who were "co-eval with the Apostles;" though there be one point in common between you and them. The Ebionites (so say Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius,) mutilated and interpolated, added to, and subtracted from, those books which they did receive, what they thought prejudicial or favorable to their private opinions. This is precisely what the Unitarians do now. They reject as of doubtful authority the 17 last verses of 1st chapter of St. Matthew and all the second chapter; and all the first chapter of St. Luke, (save the first four verses,) and the second chapter likewise; (see Belsham's Version)—and to shew how this system works, even with their preachers, let

* Will Mr. R. take upon himself to say, that the "Improved Version," as it is impudently called, of the New Testament is not a Socinian Version, under a Unitarian namo?

66

my readers observe what one of them, who recently recanted, said in his farewell sermon to his congregation. "There are other points of belief on which I feel it to be my "duty to be candid with you. I need not inform you, that "I HAVE NEVER READ the first two chapters of Matthew's Gospel, nor the first two of Luke's. Why? Because, in "consequence of the suspicion thrown over those chapters in "the Improved Version, and from some other works, I enter"tained strong doubts of their genuineness. Do I still "doubt? No, my brethren, I could as soon doubt of the "truth of any other portion of the Scripture. The reason is, "that there is the same evidence existing to prove their "genuineness as exists for the remaining portions of the gospels in which they appear." Mr. Ketley, be it remarked, had preached-[the gospel, I was going to say]for 14 years, without having ever READ these 4 chapters !!!!!!

66

66

But to return to the Ebionites, whom the Unitarians look to as their fathers in the faith, and whom they consider believers, on the testimony of the Christian Fathers. "Ignorant," indeed, must be that pretender to lecture others on "IGNORANCE" (see Remarks, p. 9) who does not know, that the whole testimony of the Fathers goes to prove, that the Ebionites were held to be in the times spoken of as "coeval with the apostles" "HERETICS;"-who does not know, that the Ebionites were a branch of the Gnostics, against whom Mr. Belsham allows, St. John wrote his gospel! (p. 401.) Never," says the late learned Dr. Burton (Enquiry into the Heresies of the Apostolic age, p. 240), "Never, I conceive, was there a more unfortunate and fatal alliance "formed, than between the Ebionites and modern Unita"rians. We find the Ebionites referred to, as if they agreed "in every point with the Socinian or Unitarian creed: and "yet it may be almost asserted, that in not one single point "do their sentiments exactly coincide." "So far" (continues this powerful reasoner)" from the Socinian or Unita"rian doctrine being supported by that of the Cerinthians or "Ebionites, I have no hesitation in saying, that not one single "person is recorded, who ever imagined that Christ was a

66

66

mere man." (p. 246.) The Ebionites are appealed to by the Unitarians as denying the divinity of Christ, which they never did. "So convinced were they of Christ's descent

Scriptural Views concerning the Great and Important Doctrine of the Atonement: the substance of a discourse delivered on Sunday, Dec. 13, 1835, at the Unitarian Chapel, Ipswich, by Joseph Ketley, the late Pastor, in consequence of his change of sentiment on that subject." Second ed. Longman and Co.

"from heaven, so wholly irreconcileable was it with their "creed to question or deny it, that they would not BELIEVE "EVEN AN INSPIRED APOSTLE, when he said that Christ "was born of a human mother! What shall we say, then, "of those men who follow the Ebionites in mutilating the "Scriptures, but with a purpose which would have filled "the Ebionites with horror and contempt? Let us say in charity, and with humble hope, that blindness in part is "happened unto them, but that the time will come, when the "day spring from on high shall visit them; and when the "Son of God whose nature they have mistaken, will shew to "them not in horror, but in mercy, that he is indeed GoD "and mighty to save." (p. 252.)

The Cerinthians are another sect of the same period-a heresy of the Gnostics also-whom the Unitarians also claim as their fathers in the faith. Now, of these, Artemon was the founder of a sect, and there is no question that he was, what the Unitarians consider extremely " orthodox." This Artemon, to establish the opinions to which the Unitarians look as 66 Co-eval with the apostles," had the assurance to affirm, that the apostles and their successors, till the time of pope Victor, asserted our Lord to be a mere man; yet the said Victor actually excommunicated Theodotus, who preceded Artemon, because he denied the divinity of Christ. Against these Cerinthians and their congeners, we are told by Irenæus, St. John wrote his gospel; St. Peter and St. Jude also parts of their epistles. An ancient writer of the times of Artemon refuted his blasphemies, by quoting the 'sense' of the Scripture; the opinions of his contemporaries and predecessors, and the ancient hymns and psalms; all which proclaimed the divinity of Christ. If then the Unitarians appeal to the Cerinthians, they must be told, that the Cerinthians, as well as the Ebionites, were considered, in the ages called “co-eval with the apostles," to be heretics and schismatics. The modern Unitarians may, if they please, trace themselves up to those worthies; but they must inherit the honors of their descent, and put their sinister bend on the escutcheon of their Christianity.

Let the Unitarian minister refer to the work from which I have quoted respecting the Ebionites, and he will see his fairy fabric of human device melt under the beams of truth, as the hoar-frost under the sun;-he will see Priestley's hypothesis and Belsham's pretence hammered to pieces by an array of proofs, almost" countless," which nothing but obstinacy

can resist. But why do I allude to this? To shew where evidence can be found, to establish my assertion, that the doctrine of Christ's humanity professed by Mr. Rowntree, was NOT "coeval with the apostles," but was introduced at the end of the second century;-and that so far, from its being apostolical in character, that they who held it were, by the Fathers, considered to be "HERETICS."

66

Such being the case, what censure can Mr. R. pronounce upon the Church of England, which I believe to be a true branch of the Catholic Church, (or, in Mr. Dudley's proper words, "A national and a true Church of Christ,") for excluding him from communion?-or what blame can he attach to those, who hold it inconsistent in him, to think that Church bigoted, which his party brands, as "POLYTHEISTICAL," IDOLATROUS, and UNSCRIPTURAL,' "in "excluding from her portals" one who, if he be true to his profession, is according to the testimony of the Church for 1600 years, the testimony of the apostles, and the assertion of Christ, in heresy and schism?" Or, how can he consistently venture to include himself amongst dissenters, "conscientious dissenters," knowing what sense is attached by churchmen to the word "dissent," when THEY are also, by his communion, branded POLYTHEISTICAL, IDOLATROUS, and UNSCRIPTURAL ?” On the other hand, what must be thought by every candid and honest man, of a person, who, presuming to tax others with "contending more for victory than for TRUTH" misquotes, half-quotes, and on so solemn a subject as the mediation and atonement [which if he does not believe in, he ought at least to respect, "for conscience sake,-I mean not thine own," says St. Paul, (in the improved version,) "but that of another," 1 Cor. x. 29], employs his ingenuity to entangle an opponent in words, quibbling about the words "SIMPLY," and "reconciler," and by inuendo, insinuating that I had ever implied that the "FATHER became a MAN:" what, I ask, can be thought by every candid and honest mind, but that

as

66

Which, Rowntreeised-reads "The Church of England" to "be the true Church of Christ." (Remarks, p. 6.)

"How could he utter the thing which is not ?" says Mr. R. How, indeed, retort I -throwing the quibble about "SIMPLY" back to its proposer. How could this honest person who professes to see meanings where none were intended, dare to insinuate, that I believe the FATHER to have become MAN, for Mr. Clarke can make nothing else of the quotation from "DR. CLARKE ?" Mr. R. affects to see the Father only and not the Son, in the word " GOD"-(see also Reply, p. 18)-he knows that we of the Church of England believe the Father and the Son to be distinct, yet that the Son is "very God of very God;" Nay, he quotes the words (p. 9). If his quotation from Dr. Clarke proves any thing, it is, that he is either hopelessly blind, or incorrigibly perverse. He reminds one of a person who wishing to stir a fire, refuses to handle the poker at the cold end, because the hot end burns his fingers. The same pretended difficulty is started in the second note to p. 10 of the Reply; and Col. iii. 17, is brought in to the conflict. In the Improved

either the expositor of 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16, is himself "contending more for victory than TRUTH," or so utterly incapable of managing an argument, that he scarcely knows what he believes himself, nor what others profess to believe, nor by what motives they are, or profess to be, actuated!

66

Mr. Rowntree evidently thinks, that in noticing his "Remarks" on Mr. Dudley's Sermon, which were altogether uncalled for, and which he says, originated in a supposition that Mr. Dudley implied a secret attack on his followers,—I was induced by the same motives which he insinuated respecting Mr. D.;-and that it was "the loaves and fishes" I contended for :-but I will tell him my motive. “Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's word?"-Was a question to which, at my ordination, I answered "I will the Lord being my helper." Was this motive sufficient or not, to point out "the erroneous and strange doctrine" Mr. R. had smuggled into his "Remarks." Is it not the business of every man who sees heresy" stalking about in day light to banish and drive it away? With the purport-or the general application of the "Sermon," I have nothing to do;-I care not whether the subject were well or ill chosen, rightly or wrongly made suitable to the occasion;-but I do care to vindicate the Church of Christ, whose minister I am, when attacked by "heresies," or the Church of England, in which I serve, when assailed by clamour and falsehood, -the veriest proofs, if they were wanted, that Mr. R'.s was not a spirit of Christian charity and mutual forbearance," but a desire to take advantage of the first opening that suggested itself, for the commencement of a discussion on his opinions; and that "more solemn truths than those which pertain to the establishment of civil government," (Reply, p. 6,) were not the only incentives to the zeal

Version" "the Lord" in that text is expelled to make Jesus nothing more than man: and Mr. R.'s own party by that bear evidence against themselves; he ought to know that prayers are offered to the Father, through Jesus in his capacity of Mediator and Intercessor, according to Heb. ix. 24-26,

་

One word, however, for Mr. Dudley, despite the SNEER about PROTEGE! Mr. Rowntree affects (Reply, p. 6) to consider the language of the Sermon at p. 5 unjustified, and contrary to Scripture, and the opinions even of the greater part of reflecting Christians. Notwithstanding his horror of TRAPS,' he is always being caught, in attempting to catch others! Let him refer to Waterland's Sermons on Christ's Divinity, (Sermon 3, p. 85-90,) and he will see that Mr. Dudley's language is moderate in comparison with what has been said on the very topics in question; and all the while in accordance with Scripture! Will Mr. R. pretend that Waterland was NOT "a reflecting Christian? The good people whom Mr. R. alludes to so complacently in the third paragraph of p. 6, be it known, are the "proper Deity" folks, against whom Waterland wrote, and who under another shape now pounce upon Mr. Dudley for asserting that which Waterland stated before him. "It is" says Waterland, with pleasure that the same texts (only taking "in the same Scriptures which they and we own) will almost equally serve against Arians or Socinians, or any that presume to deny the Divinity of God the Son !"