was the only hiftorian of that age, and had always been held in efteem. A man who is once in poffeffion of the general good opinion will not be cenfured lightly, especially by fuch men as Eufebius. Can it be fuppofed alfo that Eufebius, in exprefsly quoting antient authorities against thofe who held the opinion of the fimple humanity of Chrift, would not have cited Hegefippus as well as Irenæus, Juftin Martyr, and others, if he could have found any thing in him for his purpofe? This may be confidered as a proof that there was nothing in that work unfavourable to the doctrine of the Ebionites. A negative argument can hardly be tronger than this.

My critic calls the argument for Hegefippus being an Ebionite, from his omiffion of the Ebionites in his lift of Jewish heretics, "a * weak and impotent conclufion" and because I infert it in my Summary View of the evidence for the primitive chriftians holding the doctrine of the fimple humanity of Chrift; he fays, "We are forry to see a man of such superior

qualifications reduced to an expedient fo pre"carious as this." Let the reader attend to the confiderations I have now urged, and fay whofe conclufion is weak and impotent, mine that Hegefippus probably was one, or his that he could not have been an Ebionite. I fhall continue this argument in my fummary view till I fee much better reafon for difplacing it. SECTION

Of what may be inferred from Justin Martyr concerning the ftate of opinions in his time.

MY

Y critic fays Is "Our greateft. objec"tion lies against Dr. Priestley's re"prefentation of the opinion of Juftin Martyr. "He first tranflates a paffage of that antient "father's writings in equivocal terms, and then "draws a conclufion from it in direct oppofition to its original defign. Nor fhould I be pre"vailed upon by ever fo many who "hold that opinion. This Juftin is made to "fay."

Now I maintain that my tranflation of the paflage, though not literal, is just and, not in the least equivocal, and moreover it is, of the two, lefs favourable to my own purpofe than his translation, viz. the majority of Chriftians; and therefore I could not poffibly mean to take any unfair method. in drawing my conclufion, whether on the whole, it be well or ill-founded. For certainly the phrase ever so many, carries the mind beyond the idea of a bare majority, viz. as nearly as poffible to the whole number, leaving as few as any perfon pleases for the fom: perfons Tues, who are opposed to the ever fo many, or majority,

Befides the critic, by confidering the whole fentence as a conclufion from Juftint, miftakes the ground of my obfervation; imagining it is wholly founded on the quotation from that writer, whereas it is in part a probable, opinion of my own. That the reader may judge, for himself I fhall here give the fentence intire. "This language has all the appearance of an "apology for an opinion contrary to the general. "and prevailing one; as that of the humanity, "of Chrift (at least with the belief of the "miraculous conception) probably was in his "time." The latter part of the fentence is wholly my own; and not an inference from Juftin, and it is an opinion, for which I fhall foon give fufficient reason.

It is enough for me if I do not mifreprefent my author, by a wrong interpretation of his own words. As to the ground, or colour that there, may be for my own obfervation, the reader muft judge between us, and to this. I have no objection. And indeed I am fully fatisfied that the T; or fome, of Juftin Martyr were in fact, the or the majority, and I even think it not improbable, from the complexion of the fentence, that Juftin might be aware that it might be objected to him, that even the majority of chriftians held an opinion, different from his; and that with a view to this, he

+ P. 5128

faid

faid that he fhould not be influenced by it, though it should be fo.

Tertullian exprefsly fays that it was the prevailing opinion fifty years after that, and it is well known that that doctrine kept lofing, and not gaining ground, in all that period. According to him, it was held by the idiota, the common unlearned chriftians, who he fays, are always the majority of believers (quæ major femper credentium pars eft.)

Befides this direct teftimony, the thing is highly probable from other confiderations. If this had not been, at leaft, a very general opinion, it can hardly be fuppofed that any writer would have spoken of it with fo much tenderness and respect as Justin has done, confidering how very different it was from his own opinion, for which I ftill think that his language wears a fufficient appearance of an apology. He also seems to intimate, fome degree of doubt with refpect to his opinion, when he fays that "if he should not be able to prove "the pre-existence of Chrift, the doctrine of his

Meffiahfhip would not be affected by it." Why should he provide this retreat, if he had no fecret fufpicion of the ground on which he ftood?

If we confider the time in which Juftin wrote, viz. about A. D. 140, that is about

eighty years after the time of the apoftles, and compare with it the account that Athanafius gives us of the ftate of opinions among the Jews and Gentiles in their time, we can hardly doubt (whether Juftin Martyr confeffes it or not) that the doctrine of the fimple humanity of Chrift must have been the prevailing one in his time. Athanafius fays that the Jews, meaning the Jewish chriftians were fo fully perfuaded concerning the fimple humanity of their Meffiah, that the apoftles did not chufe to inform them, except in an indirect manner (of which he gives many inftances) that Chrift was any thing more than a man, and that the Gentiles were drawn by the Jews into the fame opinion.

Since, therefore, according to this moft unexceptionable account, as it was only an indiret evidence of the divine or fuper-angelic nature of Christ that the Jewish chriftians (by whom the gofpel was communicated to the Gentiles) were ever favoured with; can it be thought probable, fo highly averfe as the account itself states the Jews to have been to the idea of any fuper-human nature in Chrift, that they should, by their own reafoning alone on the fubject, have generally abandoned their favourite doctrine, in fo fhort a time as fourfcore years? Or if, from fome moft unaccountable cause, and without any perfon of great authority to lead them into it (for no fuch authority can we B

trace