Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, Cerinthus, the Ebionites, &c. It surely is impossible to deny that this classification directly and expressly includes the Ebionites in the number of heretics. But, in another place, Irenæus speaks still more expressly: adverting to the principles of the Gospel, he says, "There is such a certainty about the Gospels, that even heretics themselves bear testimony to them, and each of them endeavours to confirm his own doctrine out of them; for the Ebionites, who use the Gospel of St. Matthew only," &c. &c. - I think therefore, that I have established the contrary position, and proved decidedly that the Ebionites were not first called heretics in the time of Tertullian.'

Belsham. The witness has quoted St. Paul, where, speaking of Christ, he says, “By whom, also, he made the world;" and infers from hence, that Christ was the Creator, whereas the words of St. Paul should be rendered, "For whom, also, he constituted the ages," or, "with a view to whom he even constituted the former dispensations; "2 the preposition did ought here to be rendered for, not by.

Witness. Do you not render the word, in your version of St. John, i. 3., and in the first chapter of

Burton, p. 444. See Iræn. iii. 11. 7. p. 189.

2 Improved Version of the N. T., Heb. i. 2.

the Colossians and 16th verse, "by" and not "for"? And in the second chapter of Hebrews, verse 10, where the word occurs twice in the same line, but where it is applied differently, do you not come back to the rendering of the common version?

Belsham. I allow that I do, but not so in the eleventh chapter of Romans, verse 36; because in these several passages I have considered the proper and appropriate force of the word.

Witness. Excuse me; your reasons are much more apparent: wherever the term is applied to God the Father, you consider it to mean the instrumental cause; but when it is applied to the Son, you understand it as denoting the final cause.1

Belsham. I feel my sense of it to be correct; and I will add that Jesus Christ is no where in the New Testament said to be the Creator or Maker of the heavens, the earth, the sea, or of any visible natural objects.2

Witness. If you would admit, as you ought, that the Christian writers of the earliest times were best able to interpret the Christian doctrines, you would have reason to speak differently, for these writers indifferently style the Son, the Maker or Creator. I have already alluded to the passage of Irenæus,

Burton, p. 50.

2 Calm Inquiry, p. 281.

"2

where he calls Christ "the only begotten Son of God, Maker of all things— Maker of the world;" and "The Word of God, the Framer and Creator, and Maker of all things," and also speaks" of the Son creating."— Clement of Alexandria speaks of "the Son in the Father, the Creator; and says, that "the Son has boldness of speech, because he is God the Creator," -and again, "Such is the WORD, the Creator of the world and of man — God the Creator; -the WORD, the cause of creation." Hippolytus calls him "the Creator of the universe;" and "the Maker of all things.' Gregory of Neocæsarea calls him "Creator and Governor of all things." - And Dionysius of Alexandria styles him "the uncreated Creator," and "Creator together with his Father." - And, in conclusion, by way of summing up the whole, I will show that the Apostle has distinctly and unequivocally declared that Christ was the Maker of the world, for

4

5

Priestley. You may save yourself the trouble of doing so; for I do not see that we are under any

1 I. 9. 2.; i. 15. 5.; iv. 38. 3.

2 Pæd. i. 8. p. 142.; i. 11. p. 156.; iii. c. p. 310. Strom. iv. 8.

v. 3.

3 Beron. et Hel. i. p. 230., and In Theop. 2. vol. i. p. 262. 4 Orat. Paneg. in Orig. c. 4.

obligation to believe it, merely because it was an opinion held by an Apostle.1

Witness. Then I have done. It is useless to argue with one who holds language and belief such as this.

Att. Gen. One thing at least we gain from this extraordinary avowal; by saying this, the Defendant at least admits that there was an Apostle who had maintained such a doctrine.

Lindsey. The witness has attempted to prove that Christ was not only divine, but almighty, which I think he has wholly failed in doing.

Belsham. Mr. Lindsey agrees with me in conceiving those expressions which appear to attribute personal dignity and authority to Christ as wholly figurative. The witnesses plead that the kingdom of Christ is uniformly opposed to that of Satan ; but Satan we conceive to be a symbolical and not a real person, and that his government expresses, not the rule of a powerful evil spirit, but the prevalence of idolatry, superstition, and vice. It is therefore reasonable to conclude, that the dominion of Christ is to be understood in the same figurative sense.2

Witness. I can only urge that the Fathers

1 These are the very words of Priestley. See History of Early Opinions, i. p. 163.

2 Calm Inquiry, p. 320.

never entertained any such notion as this, when they affirmed that "The WORD was Almighty God," and that he "wanted nothing," and that "he was God Almighty in his own right:" and as to the fanciful notion of Satan being a figurative person, it is so completely at variance with the opinions and belief of the whole Christian world, that no refutation of the doctrine can be expected from me. 1

Lindsey. To come to another point; I beg to deny, not only that Christ was the Creator, but to affirm that he himself was created; for, to meet your quotation from the Fathers by another, I aver that Dionysius of Alexandria hesitated not to call Christ a creature one made.

Witness. Where, let me ask?

Lindsey. At least, he speaks of God as a Maker (Пomτns), with reference to the Son; and hence I conclude, with others, that the Son is a

creature.

Witness. This strikes me as exceedingly perverse; for when they who first started this objection brought it against Dionysius, how did he himself answer it? "If," says he, " any of my accusers

1 Upon this subject of Evil Spirits, see the elaborate note prefixed to Townshend's New Testament, arranged in chronological and historical order, vol.i. p. 156.

2 Apology, p. 204.

I