felf a jew, and therefore probably an Ebionite, enumerating the herefies of his time, mentions feveral of the gnoftic kind, but not that of Chrift being a mere man. He moreover fays, that in travelling to Rome, where he arrived in the time of Anicetus, he found that all the churches he vifited held the faith which had been taught by Chrift and the apóftles, which, in his opinion, was probably that of Chrift being not God, but man only. Juftin Martyr alfo, and Clemens Alexandrinus, who wrote after Hegefippus, treat largely of herefies in general, without mentioning, or alluding to, the unitarians. Maxim 8. H. p. 8. R. p. 8.

8. All those who were deemed heretics in early times were cut off from the communion of those who called them felves the orthodox chriftians, and went by fome particular name; generally that of their leader. But the unitarians among the gentiles were not expelled from the affemblies of chriftians, but worshipped along with those who were called orthodox, and had no particular name till the time of Victor, who excommunicated Theodotus; and a long time after that Epiphanius endeavoured to give them the name of Alogi. And though the Ebionites, probably about or before this time, had been excommunicated by the gentile christians, it was, as Jerom fays, only on account of their rigid

adherence

adherence to the law of Mofes. Maxim 5. H. p. 14. L. p. 25.

9. The Apostles creed is that which was taught to all catechumens before baptifm, and additions were made to it from time to time, in order to exclude those who were denominated heretics. Now though there are feveral articles in that creed which allude to the gnoftics, and tacitly condemn them, there was not, in the time of Tertullian, any article in it that alluded to the unitarians; fo that even then any unitarian, at least one believing the miraculous conception, might have fubfcribed it. It may, therefore, be concluded, that fimple unitarianism was not deemed heretical at the end of the fecond

century. Maxim 7. L. p. 27.

10. It is acknowledged by Eusebius and others, that the ancient unitarians themselves conftantly afferted that their doctrine was the prevailing opinien of the chriftian church till the time of Victor. Maxim 2. H. p. 18. R. p. 25.

11. Juftin Martyr, who maintains the pre-exiftence of Chrift, is fo far from calling the contrary opinion a herefy, that what he fays on the subject is evidently an apology for his own; and when he fpeaks of heretics in general, which he does with great indignation, as no chriftians, and having no communication with chriftians, he mentions the gnoftics only. Maxim 12. H. p. 17. R. p. 15. L. p. 127.

12. Irenæus,

12. Irenæus, who was after Juftin, and who wrote a large treatise on the subject of herefy, fays very little concerning the Ebionites, and he never calls them heretics. Thofe Ebionites he speaks of as believing that Chrift was the son of Joseph, and he makes no mention of those who believed the miraculous conception. Maxim 12. H. p. 15. L. P. 32. 118.

13. Tertullian represents the majority of the common or unlearned chriftians, the Idiota, as unitarians; and it is among the common people that we always find the oldeft opinions in any country, and in any sect, while the learned are most apt to innovate. It may therefore be prefumed, that as the unitarian doctrine was held by the common people in the time of Tertullian, it had been more general ftill before that time, and probably univerfal in the apoftolical age. Athanafius also mentions it as a fubject of complaint to the orthodox of his age, that the many, and especially perfons of low understandings, were inclined to the unitarian doctrine. Maxim 4. 10. R. p. 26. L. p. 49.

14. The firft who held and difcuffed the doctrine of the pre-existence and divinity of Christ acknowledge that their opinions were exceedingly unpopu lar among the unlearned chriftians; that these dreaded the doctrine of the trinity, thinking that it infringed upon the doctrine of the supremacy of God the Father; and the learned chriftians made

frequent apologies to them, and to others, for their own opinion. Maxim 10. H. p. 54.

15. The divinity of Chrift was first advanced and urged by those who had been heathen philofophers, and especially those who were admirers of the doctrine of Plato, who held the opinion of a fecond God. Austin says, that he confidered Chrift as no other than a moft excellent man, and that he had no suspicion of God being incarnate in him, or how " the catholic faith differed from the "the error of Photinus" (one of the last of the proper unitarians whose name is come down to us) 'till he read the books of Plato; and that he was afterwards confirmed in the catholic doctrine by reading the scriptures. Conftantine, in his oration to the fathers of the council of Nice, fpeaks with commendation of Plato, as having taught the doctrine of "a fecond God, derived from the fupreme "God, and fubfervient to his will." Maxim 11. H. p. 20.

16. There is a pretty easy gradation in the progrefs of the doctrine of the divinity of Chrift; as he was first thought to be God in some qualified sense of the word, a distinguished emanation from the fupreme mind, and then the logos or the wifdom of God perfonified; and this logos was first thought to be only occafionally detached from the deity, and then drawn into his effence again, before it was imagined to have a permanent perfonality,

perfonality, distinct from that of the fource from which it sprang. And it was not 'till 400 years after that time that Chrift was thought to be properly equal to the Father. Whereas, on the other hand, though it is now pretended that the apostles taught the doctrine of the divinity of Chrift, yet it cannot be denied that, in the very times of the apostles, the jewish church, and many of the gentiles also, held the opinion of his being a mere man. Here the transition is quite fudden, without any gradation at all. This must naturally have given the greatest alarm, fuch as is now given to those who are called orthodox, by the prefent Socinians; and yet nothing of this kind can be perceived. Befides, it is certainly moft probable that the chriftians of those times, urged as they were with the meannefs of their master, should incline to add to, rather than take from, his natural rank and dignity. Maxim 9. H. p. 20. &c. L. p. 73. 134.

V. Maxims of Historical Criticism, by which the preceding Articles may be tried.

1. 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 testimony.

2. Neither is entire credit to be given to any fet of men with respect to what is reputable to them, nor to their enemies with respect to what is difreputable;

S 2