they believed him to be mere man. The whole passage is perfectly scrutinized, and a shameful omiffion of Mr. Lindsey taken notice of in Mr. BINGHAM'S Vindication of the Doctrine, &c. of the Church of England, p. 23, 24, 25. See alfo Dr. RANDOLPH'S Vindicat. of the Trinity, part 3, p. 40. and Bp. BULL's Judic. Ecclef. Catbol. cap. 7mo, where he charges the Remonstrants with mutilating and curtailing this very passage. With what face will Mr. L. lay Socinianism, or Arianism at the door of Justin Martyr? The passage quoted from this father in the former part of this note is so strong and explicit, that it probably gave occasion to fome Socinians to aver, that He was the first who taught the doctrine of the Trinity. I said, Some Socinians, because, as we have already noted, most Socinians and Socinus himself fathers this doctrine upon the Council of Nice, with an absurdity which is exposed at large by Bp. Bull in his Defence of that Council. This duplicity is no small argument of Socinian distress. Dr. Middleton, in resentment, I prefume, of that explicitness with which Justin Martyr in the place referred to, and in many other, asserts the doctrine of the Trinity, and with a view to counteract it, takes much pains to represent his interpretation of Scripture as frequently abfurd, and his doctrine as neither more nor less than refined Platonism. But the ۱ the unfairness, or rather the falsity of both imputations has often been shewn. The triad of Plato, (whose admirer, &c. this holy father, it is well known, before his conversion was,) the mundane, animative, and intelligent nature of God, although it has been mentioned by some, improperly but honestly enough, to illustrate the doctrine in question, with an intention to adapt it in some degree to our apprehenfions, could not possibly give rise to it. It is as clear as words can make it, that Justin the Martyr was a Trinitarian on principles very different from those of Justin the philosopher. Dr. M. most uncandidly vilifies the typical and allegorical representations, which occur often in this primitive writer, and in which probably he gratified not fo much his own taste as that of those early ages. Dr. Whitby, in his treatise entitled, An Endeavour to evince the certainty of Christian faith, &c, cites historians of credit, who acquaint us, that when Julian's defign of falsifying the predictions of our Saviour, by rebuilding the Temple of Jerufalem, was defeated by miraculous eruptions of balls of fire, &c, (as the story is told by Ammianus Marcellinus, and many others,) almost all the Jews, who were eye-witnesses of this wonderful scene, were converted to the Christian Faith, and acknowleged Chrift to be God. The writers referred to are Sozomen, Nazianzen, and Socrates, and the following passage seems to be as plain and decisive as can be wished. wished. Εκ τουτων τοσαυτη των ορωμενων καταπληξις, ως μικρου μεν, απαντας ωσπερ εξ ενος συνθηματος, και μιας φωνης, τον χρισον ανακαλειθαι θεον, ευφημίαις τε πολλαις και ικεσίαις εξιλασκεθαι. It seems evident enough from these words, that the Jews who were converted on this occafion, and consequently Christians in general, at that time acknowledged Jesus Chrift to be absolutely God. Indeed the truth of this great doctrine is in some measure inferrible from the incredibility formerly objected to it by its adversaries. Καταβαινειν εις την γην τινα θεον, η Θεου φον, τουτ' αιχισον, says Celfus; and Trypho speaks rather resentingly in the following words to Justin; απιςον γαρ και αδυνατον σχεδον πραγμα επιχειρεις, αποδεικυνναι, ότι θεος υπεμεινε γενησθηναι, και ανθρωπος γενεσθαι. Agreably to this, the same Trypho declares, that to affert Christ to have been born of a virgin is τερατολογειν. Now I defire to ask, whether the doctrine of a miraculous birth, and bodily appearance of an inferior Deity for any supposable purpose whatever, be not sufficiently reconcileable both with Jewish and Pagan principles, and with what we know to have been the sentiments of Julian himself? Or, whether we are not in all reason to look for the chief ground of difference between Justin and Trypho in the coequality we are afferting? This will appear yet more clearly in a fubsequent note. It is, in short, this equality which conftituted constituted fuperftitionis novæ genus, as Christianity is called by Suetonius in the life of Nero. Dr. Willes, in his first discourse, prefixed to Sir Rog. L'Estrange's tranflation of Jofephus, fays that Pilate wrote to Tiberius de Christo Deo. But where does he find this? The Acts of Pilate, so called, are confefsedly spurious. CELSUS apud ORIG. 1. 4. JUSTIN's Dial. p. 292. LACTANTIUS. 1. 4. c. 12 and 22. Page 125. (q) the Atheism.] The venom of this calumny foon spent itself; and the honourable and often-noted teftimony of Pliny in his letter to Trajan, that the Christians were a simple and innocent people who worshipped Christ as God, at once vindicates their morals, and declares their faith. The fact was, the primitive Christians, like their immediate predecessors the Apostles, were reviled, defamed, and made as the filth of the world, and the off-Scouring of all things; they were charged with the most detestable vices; with rebellion, murder, incest, &c; and to free them from these infamous reproaches, was one main business of the fathers in general, and especially of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and Tertullian. WHITBY'S Endeavour, &c. ch. 8. p. 243. Page 126. (r) principles of polytheism.] Hefiod makes mention of many thousand Deities, and Varro of three hundred Jupiters; but both with a reservation of the properties and prerogatives of the the Supreme God. These subaltern Deities were supposed to act as his instruments, and under his direction. Some of the wiser heathens however were ashamed of this latitudinarian system; and pretended to refolve their theology into allegory, &c, as Zeno, Chryfippus, and other Stoics; and philosophers of later date found it necessary to have recourse to the same expedient to elude the charge brought against the multitude of the heathen Gods by Christians. With respect to the Pagan notion of a subordination of Deities, we may affirm in the words of Dr. Heylin, that God is not only unus, but unicus, or in the phrase of Mr. Hooker, that " our God is one, or rather very oneness, in which "essential unity, says he, a Trinity perfonal sub" fifteth." It will be well worth remarking, that the doctrine of the Trinity has often been represented as having no little colour or countenance both from Jewish and Pagan principles. A. Ross,* in his View of all religions, &c. undertakes to shew, that "the "doctrine of the Trinity was not unknown even " by the light of nature to the Gentile philofo"phers, poets, &c. Zoroastres, says he, speaks " of the Father, who, having perfected all things, " hath delivered them to the second Mind, which " Mind hath received from the Father knowlege * See Note at No. 38. : " and |