I am not difpofed to take any advantage of Dr. Horsley's fuppofition, that Theodotus might hold the unitarian doctrine in fome more offenfive form than that of the ancient Ebionites, and therefore might be more liable to excommunication; because both Tertullian and Theodoret fay that he believed the miraculous conception, and it is only Epiphanius (who lived long after the time of Tertullian) who afferts the contrary*. It is, indeed, pretty certain, that the opinion of Jefus being the son of Jofeph began foon to give way early to the authority of the gofpels of Matthew and Luke, and that it became extinct long before the doctrine of the fimple humanity of Christ.

V.

Of Justin Martyr's Account of the Knowledge of fome Chriftians of low Rank.

It is likewife faid that the teftimony of Tertullian is expressly contradicted by Justin Martyrs, who in giving an account of the circumstances in which the platonic philosophy agreed, as he thought, with the doctrine of Mofes, but with respect to which he supposed that Plato had borrowed from Mofes, mentions the following particulars, viz. "The power which was after the first, God, or the "Logos," affuming the figure of a cross in the univerfe, borrowed from the fixing up of a ferpent

Tillemont's Memoirs, vol. vii, p. 116. + Edit. Thrilby, p. 88.

(which reprefented Chrift) in the form of a cross in the wilderness; and a third principle, borrowed from the Spirit which Mofes faid moved on the face of the water at the creation; and alfo the notion of fome fire, or conflagration, borrowed from fome figurative expreffions in Mofes relating to the anger of God waxing hot. "Thefe things," he fays,

we do not borrow from others, but all others "from us. With us you may hear and learn these

things from those who do not know the form of "the letters, who are rude and barbarous of speech, " but wife and understanding in mind; and from "fome who are even lame and blind; fo that you may be convinced that these things are not faid by human wisdom, but by the power of God."

But all that we can infer from this paffage is, that these common people had learned from Mofes that the world was made by the power and wisdom (or the Logos) of God; that the ferpent in the wilderness represented Chrift; and that there was a fpirit of God that moved on the face of the waters; in fhort, that these plain people had been at the fource from which Plato had borrowed his philofophy. It is by no means an explicit declaration. that these common people thought that the Logos, and the fpirit, were perfons diftinct from God. Justin was not writing with a view to that question, as Tertullian was; but only meant to fay how much more knowledge was to be found among the lowest of the christians than among the wifeft of the heathen philofophers. Befides,

Besides, Juftin is here boasting of the knowled of these lower people, and it favoured his purpose make it as confiderable as he could; whereas T tullian is complaining of the circumstance which mentions, so that nothing but the conviction c disagreeable truth could have extorted it from h The fame was the cafe with respect to Athanafiu

That the common people in Juftin's time the understand his doctrine concerning the perfoni tion of the Logos is, in itself, highly improb That this Logos, which was originally in Goc fame thing that reason is in man, fhould at the tion of the world affume a proper personality, afterwards animate the body of Jefus Chrift, e in addition to a human foul, or instead of it, i only very abfurd, but also so very abstruse, that in the highest degree improbable, a priori, tha common people fhould have adopted it. The f tures, in which they were chiefly converfant, never teach them any such thing, and they coul have been capable of entering into the philofop refinements of Juftin on the fubject. Wh that the common people fhould have believ Tertullian and Athanafius represent them to done, viz. that there is but one God; and Christ was a man, the messenger or prophet of and no fecond God at all, the rival as it were first God, is a thing highly credible in itsel therefore requires less external evidence.

C

VI.

Of the Paffage in Juftin Martyr concerning the Unitarians of his time *.

I think myself poffeffed of fo much evidence in favour of the unitarian doctrine having been maintained in the firft ages of chriftianity, that I have no occafion to be folicitous about trifles with refpect to it; and even with regard to the muchcontefted paffage in Juftin Martyr, above referred to, and of which I made fome ufe in my late Hiftory, vol. i. p. 17, it is quite fufficient for my purpose

* Και γαρ εισι τινες, απο το ημέτερα γενας ομολογωνίες αυτόν Χρισον είναι, ανθρωπον δε εξ ανθρώπων, γενόμενον αποεαινόμενοι· οἷς 8 συντιθεμαι, εδ' αν πλείσοι ταύτα μοι δοξασανίες είποιεν, επειδη εκ ανθρώπειοις διδαγμασι κεκελευσμεθα υπ' αυτό το Χριςε πεία θεσθαι, αλλα τοις δια των μακαρίων προβήλων κηρυχθείσι και δι αυτ διδαχθείσι. dax. Edit. Thirlby, p. 234.

Thus rendered by my opponent the Monthly Reviewer.

There are fome of our profeffion who acknowledge him to be the Christ, and yet maintain that he was a man born in the natural way; to whom I could not yield my affent, no not even if the majority of chriftians should think the fame; because we are commanded by Chrift himfelf not to rely on human doctrines, but to receive those which were published by the bleffed prophets, and which he himself taught

There are fome of our race [viz. Gentiles] who acknowledge him to be the Chrift, and yet maintain that he was a man born in the natural way, to whom I do not affent, though the majority may have told me that they had been of the fame opinion, &c.

Some conjecture that the original reading was vuelɛps, instead of nuslepe; and then it fhould be rendered fome of your race, meaning the Jewish chriftians. But there is no authority for this from any manufcript.

that

that the writer here fpeaks of unitarians with tenderness, and is far from treating them as beretics; and in this I think every reasonable man, who confiders the manner in which this writer speaks of beretics in general (on which occafion he specifies none but Gnoftics) will agree with me. If any perfon think otherwise, I have nothing farther to fay, and our readers must judge between us.

1

I cannot help thinking, however, with my learned Vindicator, that this paffage more critically examined, furnishes a ftill ftronger evidence in favour of the prevalence of the unitarian doctrine in the time of Juftin.

1. Let it be confidered that, in this place, as well as in his writings in general, he labours the proof of the pre-existence of Chrift, fhewing that it is confonant to the principles of Platonism, and also deducible from the writings of Mofes, and other parts of the Jewish scriptures, without referring to any other writer in fupport of what he advances.

2. He does not use a single acrimonious expreffion against those who differed from him with refpect to it; which is just as any man would do who fhould write in defence of a novel, or not very prevalent opinion, and one, of which himself was the principal abettor. He even provides a retreat in cafe he fhould not be able to prove his point; faying that, though he should fail in this, it would not follow that he was mistaken in the other; for that