of their now superseded ritual, they affirmed a compliance with it to be the very condition of salvation. They maintained that "a man is justified by the law;" and thus "they were fallen from grace, and Christ was become of none effect to them." The apostle, therefore, was obliged to treat them as troublers of the church, who were labouring to "overturn the gospel of Christ," and endeavouring to set up in its place another, and consequently a spurious gospel.*

Those who, at this early period, took themselves away from the apostolic course of institution, must of necessity have been deprived of all the subsequent developements of the Christian system. The truth of heaven was communicated according to the advancing capacity and improvement of the disciples; but they broke off from the sacred connexion when they were as yet barely initiated into its elements. Nor would they remain at this point. The natural course of error is a "progress to the worse." these corrupters had set aside the work of Christ as the ground of a sinner's justification, it became a matter of course and even of necessary consequence, that they would entertain low thoughts of his person. His grace, his authority, and his

When

* Gal. i. 6, 7. ν. 4, κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ye are nuljified from Christ," i. e. he is to you as if he had not existed: ye are totally separated from him. v. 10, 12. vi. 17, and other passages, † 1 Tim. iii. 13.

dignity stand together: if we renounce one of these principles, we unavoidably subvert the others.

So far as the obscurity of the early periods of Ecclesiastical History permits us to form a judgment, it appears very probable that, from these Judaizing Christians were derived the Ebionites of the second century, who were distinguished by their Judaical prepossessions, their rejection of the authority of the apostle Paul, and their regarding Christ as merely a human teacher. I decline to enter upon the interminable disputes concerning this ancient sect, conceiving that we have not materials for arriving at a satisfactory. conclusion. No age has produced a more independent thinker, or a bolder writer, than the late Dr. Semler. He says on this subject: "Those who more rigidly maintained the Mosaic observances, and who were numerous in Palestine, are usually called Ebionites and Nazoræans. Some believe that they ought not to be reckoned heretics: others think that they were united in doctrine, differing only in name: others place them in the second century.-It is of little consequence whether we distinguish, or not, the Nazarenes or Nazaræans from the Ebionites. It is certain that both these classes were tenacious of the Mosaic ceremonies, and more inclined to the Jews than to the gentiles, though they admitted the Messiahship of Jesus in a very low and Judaizing manner. The Ebionites

held in execration the doctrine of the apostle Paul."*

Such, it is apprehended on grounds of reasonable probability, was the origin of Unitarianism; the child of Judaism misunderstood and of Christianity imperfectly received.

* Qui leges Mosaicas studiosius defendebant, qui non pauci erant numero in diœcesi Palæstinensi, Ebionæi et Nazoræi solent dici; quos alii negant hæreticis accenseri debere; alii nomine tantùm non sententiis divisos statuunt: alii in seculum secundum referunt. Parum verò refert, utrum Nazarenos seu Nazaræos distinguamus ab Ebionitis: illud satis constat, utrosque tenaces fuisse cærimoniarum Mosaicarum, et Judæis magis faventes quàm gentibus, etsi ipsi Messiæ provinciam Jesu imponebant, humilem sanè atque Judaicam. Pauli igitur doctrinam Ebionæi execrabantur. Commentarii Historici de Antiquo Christianorum Statu, tom. i. pag. 32, 76. Hallé, 1771.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

TO

CHAP. I.

Note [A] page 444.

Acts iv. 12. Dr. Priestley explains this clause thus, "No such cures are wrought by any other power:" and the Impr. Vers. renders the verse, "Nor is there healing in any other; for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we can be healed." This interpretation had been before maintained by J. D. Michaelis and others, and was probably approved by Wetstein and Archbishop Newcome. It must be confessed, also, that it derives some appearance of probability from the use of oleoba in verse 9. But against it there are strong objections:

1. This sense of wrapia is not supported by any scriptural example. The word is in a very few instances applied to signal deliverances from temporal calamities, (see chap. vii. 25. xxvii. 34. Heb. xi. 7.) but we do not find it specifically applied to recovery from disease. Its almost universal meaning in the New Testament is that spiritual and eternal deliverance from the guilt and dominion of sin, which is the capital blessing of the Christian religion.

2. The interpretation would be scarcely vindicable on the ground of truth. For, if we take the word to denote healing in the general sense, the assertion would not have been agreeable to fact since, even at that period, the medical art was adequate to the curing of many diseases; and many others must have been thrown off by the ordinary powers of men's constitutions. Or, if we conceive that a miraculous healing alone was intended,

(which, however would not comport with the absolute terms of the passage, and could hardly be defended from the charge of disingenuousness,) there would have been also a want of strict truth in the statement: for God had granted miraculous cures through the means of other prophets, in former ages; and it was by no means impossible that such favours might be shewn again.

3. The natural succession of ideas, and the usual manner of the sacred writers, render it much more probable that the apostle would rise, from the particular case, (which had been sufficiently disposed of in verse 10,) to that infinitely more important and glorious salvation which was habitually present to his thoughts, and which it was his ardent desire to recommend to mankind that salvation which, while it secured the highest good, involved also an eventual deliverance from every physical and temporal evil.

The remarks of the elder Rosenmüller well deserve to be transcribed.

"But what is this salvation, which Peter here declares? The sequel shews that he did not speak exclusively of the disordered in body and their healing. The signification of owrypía, though with the article, is any salvation, any deliverance from evils either felt or apprehended: and therefore, by way of eminence, deliverance from the penal consequences of sin, and the acquisition of eternal happiness. This is rendered the more probable from the fact, that diseases were always conceived to be penal visitations for sin. The sense, therefore, of Peter's words is this: CHRIST is the only Saviour of men; from him as the sole Author of these blessings, men obtain deliverance from all the calamities of the present life: at least upon this ground, that natural and outward sufferings are no more to be regarded as punishments of sin, or manifestations of the Divine anger: but, above all things in Jesus alone is reposed the salvation of souls." Schol. in loc.

Note [B) page 462.

Acts xx. 28. It would be superfluous and impertinent to readers of biblical knowledge, to introduce a disquisition on the reading of this text: since Griesbach's New Testament may be