VII.

Of the firft Author of the Doctrine of the permanent Perfonality of the Logos.

I have given a good deal of attention to this fubject, and from a careful perufal of a confiderable part of Juftin Martyr's writings, I think it very probable that he was either the firft, or one of the firft, who advanced the doctrine of the permanent perfonality of the Logos. I think he writes as if this was the cafe; but I wish that fome other perfon would give his works a more careful perusal with that particular view. He was probably the oldest of the authorities quoted by the anonymous writer referred to by Eufebius, as the Clemens mentioned along with him, was probably not Clemens Romanus, but Clemens Alexandrinus, who was later than Juftin Martyr. Had there been any pretence for quoting Hegefippus as a maintainer of the divinity of Chrift, he would certainly have been mentioned in preference to Juftin Martyr, or any others in the lift; not only because he was an earlier writer, but chiefly because he was one of the Jewish christians, who are well known not to have favoured that opinion.

As to the hymns used by chriftians, and faid to have been from the beginning (anagxns) by those who were friends to the fuppofed doctrine of them, no inference can fafely be drawn from them; because

divinity

divinity may be ascribed to persons in very different senses, and some of them very innocent ones; and as to their antiquity, it is very poffible, for any thing that appears to the contrary, that they might have been those very hymns which were rejected by Paulus Samofatensis on account of their novelty.

VIII.

Maxims of biftorical Criticifm.

Though the maxims of hiftorical criticism are things that are well understood by all perfons who attend to them, and indeed as they are the ultimate principles of all reafoning on thefe fubjects, it would otherwise be in vain to appeal to them at all) it may not be unufeful to enumerate them, and to illustrate fuch of them as may feem to require it. Things of a fimilar nature have been done by all mathematicians and critics. By the former these ultimate propofitions are called axioms, and by the latter canons of criticifm; and as I wish to reduce the fpecies of criticifm with which I and my opponents are now converfant, to the greatest certainty, I have followed their example. I have, however, made no general fyftem, but have only noted fuch particulars as I myself have had occafion for; and even this I am far from pretending to have executed with perfect accuracy; but I give it as a sketch, to be examined at leifure, and to be rectified where it fhall appear to be requifite,

These maxims are adapted to the following Jummary view of thofe arguments, which I apprehend establish my principal pofition, viz. that the chriftian church was originally unitarian; and therefore I have annexed to each of them the number of that article in the fummary view to which they correfpond, that they may be compared together. I wish that Dr. Horfley, and other trinitarians, would in like manner reduce into axioms the principles on which they proceed, that they may be compared with mine; and perhaps we may by this means be affifted in coming to a proper iffue in this controversy. If my opponents will advise any other method that shall appear to be better adapted to gain the fame desirable end, I fhall heartily concur in it, and conform to it.

I.

When two perfons give different accounts of things, that evidence is to be preferred, which is either in itself more probable, or more agreeable to other credible teftimony.

2.

Neither is entire credit to be given to any set of men with respect to what is reputable to them, nor to their enemies with refpect to what is difreputable; but the account given by the one may be balanced by that of the other. Summary View, No. 10.

3. Accounts

3.

Accounts of any fet of men given by their enemies only are always fufpicious. But the confeffions of enemies, and circumftances favourable to any body of men, collected from the writings of their adverfaries, are deferving of particular regard.

4.

It is more natural for men who wish to speak difparagingly of any sect to undervalue their numbers, as well as every thing else relating to them; and it is equally natural for those who wish to speak refpectfully of any party, to represent the members of it as more numerous than they are. Summary View, No. 13.

5.

When Perfons form themselves into focieties, fo as to be distinguishable from others, they never fail to get fome particular name, either affumed by themselves, or impofed by others. This is neceffary in order to make them the fubject of converfation, long periphrases in difcourfe being very inconvenient. Summary View, No. 8.

6.

When particular opinions are ascribed to a particular class of men, without any distinction of the time when those opinions were adopted by them, it may be prefumed, that they were fupposed to hold

thofe

those opinions from the time that they received their denomination. Summary View, No. 4.

7.

When a particular defcription is given of a class of perfons within any period of time, any person who can be proved to have the proper character of one of that class, may be deemed to have belonged to it, and to have enjoyed all the privileges of it, whatever they were. Summary View, No. 9.

8.

When an hiftorian, or writer of any kind, pro-. feffedly enumerates the several species belonging to any genus, or general body of men, and omits any particular fpecies, or denomination, which, if it had belonged to the genus, he, from his fituation and circumstances, was not likely to have overlooked, it may be prefumed that he did not confider that particular species as belonging to the genus. Summary View, No. 7.

9.

Great changes in opinion are not ufually made of a fudden, and never by great bodies of men. That hiftory, therefore, which reprefents fuch changes as having been made gradually, and by eafy steps, is always the more probable on that account. Summary View, No. 16.

10. The