trace) they should have abandoned their original and favourite doctrine, is it probable that they would have been fo extremely active and fuccefsful in the propagation of their new opinion, and withall have found the Gentiles fo very pliant, as to have been able to induce the generality of them to make the fame change, when at the fame time they are known to have had but little connexion, and indeed but little refpect for each other? Is a period of eighty years a space fpace naturally fufficient for these two fucceffive changes?

But if we take in another well authenticated circumftance, we fhall be obliged to reduce this fhort space (too fhort as it already is for the purpose) to one ftill fhorter. Hegefippus, as explained by Valefius, in his notes on Eufebius's ecclefiaftical hiftory ‡, fays, that the church of Jerufalem continued a virgin, or free from herefy, till the death of Simeon, who fucceeded James the juft, that is, till the time of Trajan, or about the year 100, or perhaps 110, for his reign began A. D. 98, and ended A. D. 117. Knowing, therefore, from other circumstances what this purity of christian faith was, and what Hegefippus must have known it to be, we have only the space of 40, or perhaps 30 years for fo great a change. So

Lib. 3, cap. 32, p. 128.

tapid at that particular period must have been that movement, which we find by experience to be naturally one of the very flowest in the whole system of nature, viz. the revolution of opinions in great bodies of men *. Can it then be thought probable that, confidering the Jewish and Gentile chriftians one body, the generality of them, the οι πλείστοι fhould have abandoned the doctrine of the fimple humanity of Chrift, in the time of Juftin Martyr?

On the contrary, it is certainly not at all improbable that the more learned and philofophical of the chriftians, beginning to be afhamed of a crucified man for their faviour, and firmly believing the doctrine of the preexistence of all fouls, and of their defcent into human bodies, fhould have begun to fancy that Chrift muft have had fome origin fuperior to that of other men; that this fhould first of all produce the opinions of the Gnoftics, who thought that the Chrift, who came down from heaven, was quite diftinct from the man Jefus, and felt nothing of his pains or forrows; or that, thefe opinions being nearly exploded, the generality of chriftian teach

This is a movement which I could easily fhew Mr. Gibbon, that he has not much studied, though it behoved him to have given the closett attention to it, preparatory to his account of the overthrow of paganism by the spread of christianity.

ers, or bishops (many of whom were educated in the Platonic fchool at Alexandria) fhould afterwards apply the Platonic doctrine of the Logos to the fame fubject, and that by their influence, opinions leading to the deification of Chrift fhould gradually gain ground among the common people. But this must have been a work of time, fo that the majority of chriftians could hardly have been infected with these principles fo early as the time of Juftin Martyr.

The philofophical chriftians, however, being the only writers whofe works are extant, it is eafy to account for our knowing no more than we do of the common people and their opinions, and that we are obliged to collect what we do know concerning them from incidental circumftances, as I have endeavoured to do. But these are often the leaft fufpicious intimations of the real ftate of things. By fuch circumstances as thefe, the detail of which may be seen in my Hiftory, it will, I think, fufficiently appear, that it was with great difficulty that the generality of chriftians were reconciled to the doctrine of the deity of Christ, and that of a Trinity, in any form. As Tertullian expreffes himself, they were at firft exceedingly fcandalized at it, holding firmly to their juftly favourite doctrine of the fupreme monarchy of the Father. This alfo fufficiently accounts for the great number of fol

lowers,

5

lowers which ecclefiaftical history gives to every perfon of learning who avowed the then popular opinion, as Artemon, Noetus, Sabellius, Paulus Samofatenfis, and Photinus.

On the fubject of this part of my accufation, which my critic fays, is the greatest that he has to bring against me, I now appeal to the impartial reader; whether, instead of proving me to have mifreprefented Juftin Martyr, he has not mifreprefented me, and alfo whether I have not brought fufficient evidence of the opinion I maintained, viz. that the doctrine of the fimple humanity of Chrift was that which was moft generally received in the time of Justin Martyr; and of this I fhall produce more evidence in the next fection,

SECTION IV,

Of the quotation from Eufebius; and Tertullian's account of the antient Unitarians, more particularly confidered,

Mx

Y criticifer fays †, "If Dr. Priestley will turn to Eufebius, and read the chap"ter with fuch deliberation as befits an histo"rian writing on fubjects of the greatest importance, he will find that his charge of un

"fairness (even if it be true) is not to be ap"plied to Eufebius, but to a more antient wri"ter, from whofe book the tranfcript was made "which has fo highly offended Dr. Priestley.”

I have reperused this chapter of Eufebius, and do not think it quite clear that he is quoting the work of any prior writer in the paffage that I have cited: for he sometimes only gives an account of the work, and not always exprefs quotations from it; and he feems to me to infert obfervations of his own in what he does quote from this anonymous writer; fo that, upon the whole, I am of opinion (though I may be mistaken) that Eufebius fpeaks in his own perfon in what I have quoted from him. However, it is fufficiently evident that he adopts the language, and makes himself answerable for it. Where then is the foundation for the tone in which the above remark is delivered?

I acknowledge however, that I should not have stopped at Justin Martyr, but have proceeded to mention the other authorities, quoted either by Eufebius, or his author. They are, however, of no fort of weight in the decifion of the question, and all of them that are extant I had confidered in the course of my work. There is no mention of the divinity of Chrift in the first and only authentic epistle of Clemens *; it

In the second section of this epiftle we find the phrafe the fufferings of God; but this is language to exceed