66

Justin, according to Dr. Priestley, speaks of not being overborne by the authority of numbers. He, as will be recollected, renders a part of the passage of Justin thus-“ With whom [that is with those who believe Christ a man born like other men] I do not agree, nor should I do so, though ever so many, being of the same opinion, should urge it upon me." Different translations however of the words in question have been given, by which, if correct, the remark of Dr. Priestley is set. aside. According to one of them, Justin says, that neither he, nor the majority who thought with him agreed with those who considered Christ as a man born like other men-" With whom I do not agree, nor would the majority who think with me say so." This translation may perhaps be thought not to connect itself so naturally as that of Dr. Priestley with the words that immediately follow; " since we are commanded by Christ himself not to obey the teachings of men, but what was taught by the holy prophets and himself." According to another translation however the words of Justin are thus rendered" With whom I do not agree, nor should I, if the majority who think with me should say so." In both these translations Justin asserts that the majority were of the same opinion with himself; and this meaning is thought to be confirmed by a part of the reply of Trypho, who says-" those who maintain that he was a man, and anointed by election, and made Christ, seem to me to say something more credible than you" i. e. as it is understood your party'"who assert the same which thou dost.” [πιθανώτερον ύμων λέγειν των ταύτα άπερ φῂς λέγοντων—in which words of Trypho there is thought to be a reference to the former expression of Justin—πλειστοι ταυτα μοι δοξασαντες.]*

The original of that part of the passage in Justin, concerning the translation of which there is any dispute, is as follows-dis & avrilquaiz εδ' αν πλείστοι ταυτα μοι δοξασαντες ειποιεν. There are four principal modes of translating these words.

1. That given by Perionius, (who published a Latin translation of Justin in 1554,) by Langus, (who published one in 1565,) and since adopted by Bishop Bull and others, which is as follows-quibus ego minime assentior. Neque sane plerique eadem mecum sentientes illud dixerint.

“I am no doubt," says Dr. Priestley, "influenced in my construction of this particular passage by the persuasion that I have, from other independent evidence, that the unitarians

Vide Bull De necessitate credendi, and the note in the Paris edition of Justin, Mart. 1742.

2. That which is given and defended by the Paris editor of 1742, which is as follows-quibus ego non assentior, nec assentirer etiamsi maxima pars quæ mecum consentit idem diceret. This mode of translation is adopted by the Monthly Reviewer in the review of the "Remarks in Vindication of Dr. Priestley," though he had formerly given two different renderings, as I have mentioned in the text. [See Rev. vol. Ixix. pp. 314, 315.] It is adopted likewise by Mr Belsham, who supposes however that Justin, in the words ταυτα μοι δοξασαντες, refers merely to the belief of the miraculous conception then common among the Gentile Christians. [See his Scrip. Doct. concerning the Pers. of Christ, pp. 405, 406. note.]

In a

3. Thirlby in his edition gives the translation of Langus, which he sometimes corrects, but has not altered in the present passage. Its rendering in the present passage has been already mentioned. note however, Thirlby proposes the following translation-quibus ego non assentior, neque etiamsi multo plures essent, assentirer. This is similar to that of Galenius, one of the earliest translators of Justin, (A.D. 1555) who renders quibus non assentio nec si maxima quidem esset turba sic opinantium. These, it will be seen, are more concise, but essentially the same with that of Dr. Priestley." With whom I do not agree, neither should I, though ever so many, being of the same opinion, should urge it upon me." Thirlby observes, that his translation connects itself very well with what follows-" because we are commanded by Christ himself not to obey the teachings of men, but what was taught by the holy prophets and himself;" and he produces the following passage of Plato as an ex ample of a similar construction-dev is modis aga όλη τοιςτον ποιη 8 Saison. De Rep. p. 426.

4. The author of the remarks in vindication of Dr. Priestley, (men. tioned in the Repository vol. i. p. 27.) whom I find to have been Mr Cappe, (see Mr. Belsham's work ubi sup.) gives the following transla tion:-" to whom I do not assent, although the greater part may have told me that they had [or have] been of the same opinion." Mr. Cappe considers δοξάσαντες είποιεν as equivalent εαυτες δοξοσασθαι είποιεν. And he contends that the words of the passage properly express, that the majority of Christians held opinions different from those of the writer. I am acquainted with his work principally from the review of it before men.

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 judgment till he has attended to my other arguments, and afterwards he may perhaps see this passage in the same light in which I do."*

But whatever construction may be given to particular parts of it, Dr. Priestley thinks there is such a difference in the general air of the passage, in its freedom from all injurious and acrimonious expressions respecting the unitarians, and in the kind of importance attributed to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, from the language and sentiments of those who have written when this doctrine has been generally prevalent, that one may from these circumstances infer, that it was not thus generally prevalent, but on the contrary, a novel doctrine in the time of Justin.

THE next writer from whom Dr. Priestley quotes is Tertullian, and the passage produced from him is a very remarkable one. "Nothing," says Dr. Priestley," can be more decisive than the evidence of Tertullian, who, in the following passage, which is too plain and circumstantial to be misun,

tioned, where may be found the criticisms by which he has supported his translation, and the answers of the reviewer.

It should be mentioned in addition to the above, that Bishop Bull, in his work De necessitate credendi, conjectures, that instead of the present reading rigs in this passage of Justin, according to which Justin says that there are some of our race-who believe that Christ is only a man born like other men, the true reading is vurig, of your race, and that Justin refers only to the Ebionites, who as Jews were of the same race with Trypho. This however is the reading of neither of the two manuscripts of Justin which are extant.

*First Letters to Dr. Horsley, Postcript § vi. B. iii. c. 14.

Hist. of Earl. Opp.

derstood by any person, positively asserts, though with much peevishness, that the unitarians, who held the doctrine of the divinity of Christ in abhorrence, were the greater part of Christians in his time."

'The simple, the ignorant, and unlearned, who are always the greater part of the body of Christians, since the rule of faith,' (meaning, probably, the apostles' creed,) transfers the worship of many gods to the one true God, not understanding that the unity of God is to be maintained but with the economy, dread this economy; imagining that this number and disposition of a trinity is a division of the unity. They, therefore, will have it that we are worshippers of two, and even three Gods, but that they are the worshippers of one God only. We, they say, hold the monarchy. Even the Latins have learned to bawl out for the monarchy, and the Greeks themselves will not understand the economy."

As this passage will appear to every reader of no small importance, I will give, without abridgement, the whole which Dr. Horsley says concerning it in his Letters to Dr. Priestley;—

"But you think," says he, "if Justin Martyr and Hegesippus fail, you have still the positive testimony of Tertullian to oppose to my conclusions from the faith of the first Christians. Tertullian, who was little younger than Justin, complains that in his time the unitarian doctrine was the general persuasion.

* "Simplices enim quippe, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotæ, quæ major semper credentium pars est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis seculi, ad unicum et deum verum transfert; non intelligentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua œconomia esse credendum, expavescunt ad œconomiam. Numerum et dispositionem trinitatis, divisionem præsumunt unitatis; quando unitas ex semetipsa derivans trinitatem, non destruatur ab illa, sed administretur. Itaque duos et tres jam jactitant a nobis prædicari, se vero unius dei cultores præsumunt.—Quasi non et unitas inrationaliter collecta, hæresim faciat; trinitas rationaliter expensa, veritatem constituat. Monarchiam, inquiunt, tenemus. Et ita sonum vocaliter exprimunt etiam Latini, etiam opici, ut putes illos tam bene intelligere monarchiam, quam enunciant. Sed monarchiam sonare student Latini, œconomiam intelligere nolunt etiam Græci." Ad Praxeam, sect. 3. p. 502. History of Early Opinions, B. iii. c. 13. sec. 2. History of the Corruptions, P. i. sect. 4

The simple, the ignorant, and the unlearned, who are always a great part of the body of Christians, because the rule of faith transfers their worship of many gods to the one true God, not understanding that the unity of God is to be maintained, but with the economy, dread this economy.' I must confess, Sir, here seems to be a complaint against the unlearned Christians as in general unfavorable to the trinitarian doctrine. But the complaint is of your own raising. Tertullian will vouch but for a very small part of it. 6 Simple persons, says Tertullian (not to call them ignorant and idiots) who always make the majority of believers, because the rule of faith itself carries us away from the many gods of the heathen to the one true God, not understanding that one God is indeed to be believed, but with an economy (or arrangement) of the Godhead, startle at the economy. They take it for granted, that the number and disposition of the trinity is a division of the unity. They pretend that two, and even three are preached by us, and imagine that they themselves are the worshippers of one God. We, they say, hold the monarchy. Latins have caught up the word monarchia, Greeks will not understand œconomia.' Let the author's words be thus exactly rendered, and you will find in them neither complaint, nor acknowledgment, of a general prevalence of the unitarian doctrine among Christians of any rank. Tertullian alleges, that what credit it obtained was only with the illiterate; nor with all the illiterate, but with those only, who were ignorant and stupid in the extreme. To preclude the plea of numbers, he remarks that the illiterate will always make the majority of believers. Some simple people, he says, take alarm at the notion of a plurality of persons in the unity of the Godhead. Simple people, said I! I should have said, ignorant and dull; who have never been made to comprehend the true sense of the apostles' creed; which speaks of one God, in opposition only to a plurality of independent gods worshipped by the heathen, without any respect to the metaphysical unity of the Deity. When it is considered, that persons of mean endowments must always be the majority of a body, collected, as the