this particular passage, by the persuasion that I have, from other independent evidence, that the unitarians were in fact the majority of christians in the time of Justin; that he therefore knew this to be the case, and could not mean to insinuate the contrary. Another person, having a different persuasion concerning the state of opinions in that age, will naturally be inclined to put a different construction upon this passage. In this case, I only wish that he would suspend his judgement till he has attended to my other arguments, and afterwards he may perhaps see this passage in the same light in which I do.

The word γενος, I think with my learned friend, refers to natural descent; and I therefore conclude that Justin here meant not christians in general, but gentile christians in particular; because, as he is opposing the opinion concerning Christ, which made him to be a man born of men, not to the doctrine of the miracu lous conception, but only to his pre-existence, the only idea that he had in his mind, and to which he attended, was that of his simple humanity; and we have positive evidence that this was the doctrine of all the Jewish christians, so that he could not speak of some of them holding it, and others not. Whereas the gentile christians were divided on that subject; and some of them even later than this, viz. in the time of Origen, held that, in the strictest sense of the expression, Jesus was a man born of man, being the son of Joseph as well as of Mary. I therefore think that Justin meant the gentile christians; omitting the Jewish christians, whose sentiments he might suppose to have been well known to the learned Jew with whom he was conversing.

Tillemont somewhere says that the majority of the

Ebionites seem to have believed that Christ was the son of Joseph; and as I find no mention of two sorts of Ebionites (one of them believing the miraculous conception, and the other not,) before the time of Origen, it is probable that in the time of Justin the Jewish christians were almost wholly Ebionites of the oldest denomination, believing Christ to be man born of man, in the strictest sense of the phrase; and therefore that, in this respect also, there could have been no pretence for any insinuation that the Jewish christians were divided on this point; and still less, that those among them who believed Jesus to be a man born of man, were not a very great majority of

them.

It is plain from the existence of such christians, both among Jews and Gentiles, in the time of Origen, and probably much later, which was long after the publication of the gospels of Matthew and Luke, even in their present form, (admitting that there might be some doubt relating to the introductions to them when they were first published,) that they considered these evangelists simply as historians, and by no means as inspired writers; so that they thought themselves at liberty to admit or disregard their testimony to particular facts, according to their opinion of their evidence being competent or not competent in those particular cases. I have frequently avowed myself not to be a believer in the inspiration of the evangelists and apostles as writers, and have given my reasons pretty much at large for my opinion. I therefore, with these ancient unitarians, hold this subject of the miraculous conception to be one with respect to which any per son is fully at liberty to think as the evidence shall ap

pear to him, without any impeachment of his faith or character as a christian.

I shall conclude this article with observing that, without attending to minute criticisms, it is quite sufficient for my purpose that these ancient unitarian christians, whether they held the miraculous conception or not, whether they were Jews or Gentiles, or whether Justin meant to represent them as (strictly speaking) the majority of christians, or otherwise, were not treated by him as heretics. From this circumstance alone it may be concluded that they were very numerous; because, whenever unitarians have not been very numerous, and made a respectable figure among christians, they have always been considered with great abhorrence, and have been cut off from communion with those of the orthodox persuasion.

With what rancour does Eusebius treat this class of christians, both in his History, and in his Treatise against Marcellus of Ancyra! when we know, from Athanasius and other authorities, that they were at that time very numerous, (though among the lower classes of people,) and probably in all parts of the christian world.

When these things are duly considered, it can hardly be imagined but that, let this passage in Justin be construed in any manner that the words can possibly bear, it will be sufficiently to my purpose, and authorize all the use that I have made of it. But I can very well spare the passage altogether; thinking that I have evidence enough of my general position without it. After all the attention which I have given to this subject, I see no material objection to the manner in which I have expressed myself concerning it in my History. If, however, there should be a demand for a new edi

tion of that work, I shall endeavour to make it as little exceptionable as possible, consistent with my own real opinion.

VII.

Of the first Author of the Doctrine of the permanent Personality of the Logos.

I have given a good deal of attention to this subject; and from a careful perusal of a considerable part of Justin Martyr's writings, I think it very probable that he was either the first, or one of the first, who advanced the doctrine of the permanent personality of the Logos. I think he writes as if this was the case; but I wish that some other person 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 Eusebius, as the Clemens mentioned along with him was probably not Clemens Romanus, but Clemens Alexandrinus, who was later than Justin Martyr. Had there been any pretence for quoting Hegesippus as a maintainer of the divinity of Christ, he would certainly have been mentioned in preference to Justin Martyr, or any others in the list; 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 christians, and said to have been from the beginning (añaρxns) by those who were friends to the supposed doctrine of them, no inference can safely be drawn from them; because 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 possible, for any thing that appears

to the contrary, that they might have been those very hymns which were rejected by Paulus Samosatensis on account of their novelty.

VIII.

Maxims of historical Criticism.

Though the maxims of historical criticism are things that are well understood by all persons who attend to them, (and indeed, as they are the ultimate principles of all reasoning on these subjects, it would otherwise be in vain to appeal to them at all,) it may not be unuseful to enumerate them, and to illustrate such of them as may seem to require it. Things of a similar nature have been done by all mathematicians and critics. By the former these ultimate propositions are called axioms, and by the latter canons of criticism; and as I wish to reduce the species of criticism with which I and my opponents are now conversant to the greatest certainty, I have followed their example. I have, however, made no general system, but have only noted such particulars as I myself have had occasion 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 leisure, and to be rectified where it shall appear to be requisite.

These maxims are adapted to the following Summary View of those arguments which, I apprehend, establish my principal position, viz. that the christian church was originally unitarian; and therefore I have annexed to each of them the number of that article in the Summary View to which they correspond, that they may be compared together. I wish that Dr. Horsley and other