opinion, rather than among those who were most apt to receive a new one. Surely then we have a better chance of finding the truth on this fubject among these Idiota, the common and unlearned people, than with fuch men as Juftin Martyr, who had been a heathen philofopher, Irenæus, or any other of the learned and fpeculative chriftians of the fame age,

On the contrary, fuppofing the christian religion to have been gradually corrupted, and that, in a long courfe of time, the corrupt doctrine fhould become the most prevalent among the common people, the reformation of it by the recovery of the genuine doctrine is naturally to be looked for among the learned and the inquifitive, who in all cafes will be the innovators. This is remarkably the cafe in the prefent ftate of things. The common people in the Roman Catholic countries are bigots to the old established faith, while the learned are moderate, and almoít proteftants. In proteftant countries the common people ftill adhere moft ftrongly to the doctrines of their anceftors, or thofe which prevailed about the time of the reformation, while the learned are every where receding farther from them; they being more inquifitive, and more enlightened than the uninquiring vulgar. But ftill, if any man fhould propofe fimply to enquire what were the opinions moft generally received in this country a century ago (which was about the

fpace

fpace that intervened between Victor and the time of the apoftles) we should think him very abfurd, if he should look for them among the learned, rather than among the common people. We have experience enough of the difficulty with which the bulk of the common people are brought to relinquifh the faith of their ancestors.

Is it, then, at all probable that when the doctrine of the fimple humanity of Chrift is acknowledged to have been held by the Idiota, or common people, and who are exprefsly faid to have been the greater part of the believers (major credentium pars) this fhould not have been the general opinion a century before that time, but on the contrary that of the deity of Chrift, which was held by Tertullian, and other learned chriftians; and who fpeak of the common people as being fhocked (expavefcunt) at their doctrine? Sufficient caufe may be affigned why the learned in that age fhould be inclined to adopt any opinion which would advance the perfonal dignity of their mafter, and the fame caufes would produce the fame effect among the common people, but it would be more flowly, and require more time, as appears to have been the fact.

Let any person of common fenfe then judge between thefe antient Unitarians, with respect

to

to the probable account of their origin and antiquity, and Eufebius, or his author.

That Eufebius himself fhould take fo violent a part as he always does against these antient Unitarians, is not difficult to be accounted for. He himself was ftrongly fufpected of Arianism, at a time in which the Athanafian doctrine was moft prevalent, and though a learned man, he was not of the firmeft tone of mind. In these circumstances, he would naturally make the most of fuch pretenfions to orthodoxy as he had, and would be inclined to fhew his zeal by invectives against those who were more heretical than himself. This we fee illuftrated every day. This was the cause why many of the reformers from popery joined with the papifts in the perfecu tion of those who were defirous of carrying the reformation a little farther than themselves. This might, in fome, measure contribute to produce the zeal of the Calvinifts against the Arminians, that of the Arminians against the Arians, that of the Arians against the Socinians, and that of Socinus himself against Francis David.

SECTION

SECTION V.

Of my being charged with advancing that Justin Martyr was the first who started the notion of Chrift's pre-existence.

NOTHER heavy charge advanced against

met, is, that I have afferted that "the no"tion of the pre-existence of Chrift cannot be "traced any higher than Juftin Martyr." Now this is to all intents and purpofes a mif-quotation, that part of the fentence which was neceffary to give the true fenfe of what is quoted being omitted. It muft, therefore, neceffarily mislead the reader; and independently of that, it is a maniifeft mifreprefentation of my opinion, not only fimply mentioned, but frequently urged, and enlarged upon in the courfe of the work.

I have no where faid that fimple pre-existence was never afcribed to Jefus Chrift before Juftin Martyr. I must have been a child in ecclefiaftical history, and fhamefully inconfiftent with myself, if I had faid any fuch thing. The doctrine of the pre-existence was certainly that of the Gnoftics in the time of the apoftles themfelves, and is always reprefented by me as fuch. What I fay is that, "we find nothing like divinity afcribed to Chrift before Juftin Martyr;"

+ P. 524.

and

and though, in one particular fentence, I mentioned pre-existence, as what we cannot with certainty trace any higher, it is in conjunction with divinity and not feparately, as it is here exhibited. The whole fentence is as follows: "Whether Juftin Martyr was the very firft who ftarted the notion of "the pre-existence of Chrift, and of his fuper-angelic or divine nature, is not certain, but we are not able to trace it any higher ‡. Had the disjunctive or been used instead of and (which would have implied that neither the opinion of the divinity, nor that of the pre-existence of Chrift, were prior to Juftin) a reader of common fenfe and candour would have feen that it must have been mifprinted. My reference to both the opinions by the pronoun it, which is in the fingular number, fufficiently fhews that, however improper and unguarded the expreffion may happen to be, I could not really mean to confider the two opinions separately.

But my criticifer, inftead of making any allowance for a cafual ungrammatical construction, and of afcertaining my meaning by comparing one expreffion with another, has abfolutely tortured my language, in order to make me contradict myfelf; and has even employed more than one page out of fix only of his own compofing to confute an opinion of which my history

↑ Vol. 1, p. 32.

itself