An history of early opinions concerning Jesus Christ : compiled from original writers, proving that the Christian church was at first Unitarian

^ PRINCETON, N. J. "'

Division....

Section . . )

^^^//^ Number

sec

I

A N

HISTORY

OF

EARLY OPINIONS

CONCERNING

JESUS CHRIST,

COMPILED FROM

ORIGINAL WRITERS;

PROVING THAT THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH WAS
AT FIRST UNITARIAN.

By JOSEPH {PRIESTLEY, LL.D. F.R.S

AC. IMP. PETROP. R. PARIS. HOLM. TAURIN. AUREL.'MBD.
PARIS. CANTAB. AMERIC. ET PHILAD. SOCIUS,

VOL. III.

I^ verum quodcunque primum, id adulterum quodcunque
pofterius. Tertulliak.

' Et fiEv B^HT^vlo "sravJEj, sp sg to ovdfjta, ts Ses hoci <Tco%^og vsfim
f^a^HSK^^at^ ad'ev ctv vi*iv E^£t Myuv ev ra isa^ovli, Basil*

, BIRMINGHAM,

PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR, BY PEARSON AND ROLLASONi
AND SOLD BY J. JOHNSON, NO. 72, ST. PAUL's
CHURCH-YARD, LONDON.

MDCCLXXXVI,

C O N T

OFT

THIRD V O

BOOK III.

TH E Hiftory of the Unitarian Doc-
trine. Page 1

Introduction. ibid

CHAPTER I.

mjat the Jews in all Ages were Believers in
the Divine Unity. 7

SECTION L

The FaEl acknowledged by the Chrijlian Far-
thers. 9
SECTION II.

Of the Reafons why, according to the Chrif-
tian Fathersy the Dodrine of the Trinity
was not dfcovered to the fews, 1 8

SECTION III.

The Sentiments of the Jewsy as expreffed by
themf elves ^ on the Subjedl. 26

A 2 SEC-

iv CONTENTS.

SECTION IV.

of the Jewijld Angel Metatron, ^c. 40

C H A P T E R II.

General Confiderations relating to the fuppofed
ConduB of Chrijl and the Apojiles^ with
Refpedl to the Dodirines of his Pre-exijience
and Divinity. 50

CHAPTER III.

Of the Condudl of our Saviour himfef with
refpedl to his own fuppofed Pxe-exiflence and
Divinity » 64

CHAPTER IV.

Of the Tejlimony of Athanafius to the Caution
with which the Apofles divulged the Doc^
trines of the Pre-exiflence and Divinity of
Chrijl. 86

CHAPTER V.

Of the concurrent Tejiimony of other Fathers
to the Caution of the Apofles, in teaching
the Do5irines of the Pre-exifence and Di-
vinity of Chrift. 1 o i

CHAP-

CONTENTS. T

CHAPTER VI.

Of the Caution obferved by the Apojlles in
teaching the Do^rines of the Pre-exijlence
and Divinity of Chriji to the Gentile Con-
verts. ^ ^ 3
CHAPTER VII.
Of John being thought to have been the firjl
ivho clearly and boldly taught the DoBrines
of the Pre-exlftence and Divinity of Chrif.

123

SECTION I.

7he Acknowledgments of the Chriflian Fa^
thers that John was the firjl who taught
the Do^rines above-mentioned. 125

SECTION II.

Eef colons on the Subje^ 148

CHAPTER VIII.

Of the Nazarenes and the Ebionites ; Jhewing
that they were the fame People , and that
none of them believed the Divinity or Pre-
exljience of Chrif . 1 5 8

CHAPTER IX.

Of the fuppofed Church of Orthodox Jews
at ferufalem^ fubfequent to the ^ime of
Adrian. t()o

yi CONTENTS.

CHAPTER X.

Of the fuppofed Herefy of the Ebionifes and
Nazarenesy and other Particulars relating
to tbenu Page 201

CHAPTER XL

Of the f acred Books of the Rbionites. 212

CHAPTER XII.

Of Men of 'Eminence among the fewiflj Chrif-^

Hans. 219

CHAPTER XIII.

XJnitarianifn was the Dodtrine of the primi'

tive Gentile Churches. 233

SECTION I. . '

Prefumptive Evidence that the Majority of

the Gentile Chrijiians in the early Ages

were Unitarians. , * 235

SECTION II.

Diredi evidence in Favour of the Gentile

Chrifians having been generally Unitarians.

258
CHAPTER XIV.

An Argtwjetit for the Novelty of the DoBrine

of the Trinity, from the Manner in which

it was taught and received in early Times.

272

CONTENTS. vll

CHAPTER XV.

OhjeBlons to the preceding State of Things
conjidered. Page 295

SECTION I.

Of the Teftimony ofEufebius to the Novelty of
the Unitarian Do5irine. ibid

SECTION II.

Of the Excommunication ofTheodotus by ViBor.

SECTION IIL

Of the Fart t alien by the Laity in the 'Excom-
munication of the early UnitarianSf and
other Confiderations relating to the SubjeB.

308
CHAPTER XVI.
Of the State of the XJjjitarian DoBrine after
the Council of Nice ^ 3 1 8

SECTION L

Of the State of the Unitarians from the Time
of the Council of Nice y to the fixth Century.

SECTION II.

Of the State of the thltarians after thefixth
Century. 364

1 CHAP.

via

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER XVII.

OfPhiloJophical Unitarianifm Page 376

CHAPTER XVIII.

Of the FfmclpUs and Arguments of the ancient
Unitarians. 399

SECTION I.

Their Zeal for the Divine Unity y and their
Senfe of the Word Logos. ibid .

SECTION II.

Arguments of the ancient Unitarians from
Reafon. 415

SECTION III.

Arguments of the ancient Unitarians from the
Scriptures. 423

CHAPTER XIX.

Of the PraBice of the Unitarians with refpedl
to Baptifm. 439

E R R A A.

N. B. (b) {igiii^^ts from the bsttom of the page.
Page 20. line 4. for in fome places, read, to Tome pcrfons

ibid, line 5. for in, read to

136. line 1. for hirafelf, read him

' 154. line 15. y^r with, r<?ar/ of

• 264. line ^j.foT logos, read the logos im tt r^

277. line g. (b) for which, read in which THE

■ 292. line 11. forh^ read them

295. line 4. (b) for by, read that

' 347. line 6. /or his, r^ac/ their

422. line I. {b) for unto, read into

REFERENCES.
P.ige 140. line 3. for Ko(pop2i]ei,if read KinpofiilAi
' 207. line 3. for 'ziriivy.cf^cty read ^vivixa

261. note * line 4. read cilihi'jjidov ccfliJ

THE

HISTORY OF OPINIONS

CONCERNING

CHRIST.

BOOK III.

THE HISTORY OF THE UNITARIAN DOC
TRINE.

INTRODUCTION.

AFTER the view that has bcea
given of the rile and progrefs of the
doftrine of the trinity ^ which fprung
from the abfardity and myflery of Pla-
tonifm, and terminated in a myftery ftill
more unintelligible and abfurd, in which
every thing that is fimple and excellent in
chriftianity was wholly fwallowcd up and
loft, and a polytheifm little better than that
Vol. HI. B of

2 The Hijlory of the Book III.

of the heathens took its place (for the wor-
fliip of Chrift led to that of the virgin
Mary, and a thoufand other perfons, called
faints) it is with peculiar fatisfadtion that
I proceed to give an account of the doc-
trine of the divine unity, or the Hiftory of
JJnitarianfm.

If I had not given what I imagine will
appear to be a fatisfadory account of the
rife of cbrijiian idolatry , it might have ap-
peared a very extraordinary and unaccount-
able thing ; confidering that the Jews, from
whom the chriftians fprung, were all zealous
unitarians in the time of our Saviour, and
that they have continued fuch to this day.
It even appears to have been the great ob-
ject of the Jewifli religion, as contained
in the books of Mofes, to preferve in the
world the knowledge and Vv^orfliip of the
one true God, notwithftanding the univer-
fal tendency to polytheifm among all na-
tions in the early ages.

The docf )ine of one great omniprefent
being, the maker, and the immediate go-
vernor of all things, was too great and
fublime, I do not only fay, to have been dif

covered

Unitarian Do5irine* 2

covered by mankind, but even to be re^
tained by any of them, after it was revealed,
v^ithout particular proviiions for that pur-
pofe. Though, I have no doubt, but that
the firfl: parents of the human race were
inftrudled in the knowledge of the divine
unity, their pofterity foon adopted the no-
tion of different gods, to whom they ima-
gined the government of the world was
delegated ; and their attention to thefe in-
ferior deities, on whom they thought that
they more immediately depended, w^ith-
drew their attention, as it naturally would,
from the fupreme God, under whom they
at firft fuppofed that thefe leffer gods had
acled. Then, being left to their own
imaginations with refpeft to the charadlers
of thefe gods, and having no models by
which to frame them befides beings like
themfelves, they prefently conceived them
to be of very different difpofitions, fome
of them cruel and bafe, and others lewd;
and of courfe delighting in cruel, bafe, and
lewd adlions. To procure the favour, or
to avert the difpleafure, of thefe gods, they
B 2 would.

4 The Hi/lory of the Book III.

would, therefore, pradice many abomi-
nable, horrid, and atrocious rites.

The religious ceremonies, and the general
character and pradice of the heathen world,
abundantly prove, that idolatry was not a
mere fpeculative mifl.ake, a thing only
foolifh and abfurd, but of a very ferious and
alarming nature j and that it was therefore
nothing that could be called jealoiijy in the
true God, to take fuch extraordinary mea-
fures as the hiftory of revelation reprefents •
him to have talien, in order to cure man-
kind of their pronenefs to idolatrous wor-
fliip. It was a part which it became the
fupreme God, the benevolent parent of all
his offspring, to take, and what a regard
to their own happinefs required. The
mifchief was of fo alarming a nature, that
the greateft feverities were neceffary, and
therefore proper, to be employed for this
purpofe i and they muft know nothing of
the nature and tendency of the ancient ido-
latry, who find any thing to cenfure in the

feverity with which the Ifraelites were or-.

dered to ad, with a view to the extirpation

of

Unitarian Dodlrine, ^

of it from among theqifelves, or the nations
inhabiting the diftrid that was deflined
for them.

It is not poffible to iniagine any in-
ftrudions, or regulations, more proper to
effedl the extirpation of idolatry, and to
guard the people from it, than the laws
of Mofes, interpreted by his repeated and
earneft remonftrances on the fubjeft with
refpedt to the Ifraelites. Let the reader
only perufe the book of Deuteronomy, and
then form his judgment. And yet, fo fe-
ducing were the idolatrous cuftoms of thofe
times, that their whole hiftory fhews how
prone the Jews always were to abandon
their own purer religion, and more fimple
rites, though, to appearance, fufficiently
fplendid, and having little of aufterity in
them. For they had only one faft day in
the whole year, and three great feftivals.

But the intention of the Divine Being,
was equally anfwered by the obedience or
the difobedience of that people ; and after
a feries of difcipline, they returned from
the captivity of Babylon, with a new heart
B 3 and

6 . "The Hijlory, &c. Book III.

and a new fpirity in this refpeft. For they
never difcovered the leafl: pronenefs to ido-
latry afterwards ; but, on the contrary,
always ihewed the mod fcrupulous dread
and jealoufy on this fubjedl. Nay, to a ne-
gleft of their religion, there fucceeded the
moft fuperftitious attention to the fmalleft
pundilios relating to it.

CHAP.

Si x^ipes

iiso:;

C H A P T te R I.

That the Jews in all Ages were Believers in the
Divine Unity,,

TT is impoffible to read the facred books
of the Jews (with minds freed from the
ftrongeft prejudices) without perceiving that
the dodtrine of the divine unity is moft ri- ]
goroufly inculcated in them. It is the uni«
form language of thofe books, that one God,
without any affiftant, either equal or fub-
ordinate to himfelf, made the world, and all
things in it, and that this one God conti-
nues to diredt all the affairs of men.

This is fo evident from the bare infpec-.
tion of the books, and the w^ell known
principles of the Jews in our Saviour's time,
that even the chriftian Fathers, defirous as
they were to find advocates for their doc-
trine of the trinity, and preffing even Pla-
tonifm into the fervice, could not but allow
it. They ranfacked every part of the Old
B 4 Teftament,

8 The Jews believed Book III.

Teflament, as we have feen, for proofs, or
intimations, of the dodtrine of the trinity,
or of the divinity of Chrift ; but, though they
imagined they found many fuch, yet they
always acknowledged that the dodlrines
were delivered fo obfcurely, that the bulk
of the Jewifh nation had not perceived them.
They thought, indeed, that Mofes him-
felf, and the prophets, were acquainted with
thefe dodrines ; but that there were good
reafons why they did not endeavour to make
them intelligii Ic to the reft of their coun^
trymen ; partly, left it fhould have hindered
the operation of their religion to divert
them from idolatry, and partly, becaufe the
dodrines were too fublime to be commu-
nicated at fo early a period, and before men's
minds were properly prepared for them.

SEC-

Chap. L i^ the Divine Unity.

SECTION I.

The Fadi acknowledged by the Chrijlian
Fathers.

A

S thefe conceflions are of confiderable
confequence to my argument, I (hall
produce a number of them, from the ear-
lieft chriftian writers to a pretty late period,
to ihew that it was the uniform perfuafion
of all thofe who were the greateft friends
to the do(5trine of the trinity.

I fhall begin with Juftin Martyr, the firft
who advanced the dodrine of the perfoni-
fication of the logos. What the Jews
thought of their Mcffiah in his time, ap-
pears very clearly from a pafTage in his dia-
logue with Trypho, which will be pro-
duced hereafter. In the mean time, I lliall
give his opinion with refped: to the doc-
trine of the Jews in general on the fubjed:.
*^ The Jews/' he fays, *' thinking it was
** the father of all who fpake to Mofes,
f« when it was the Son of God, who is

'' alfo

lo T/j£ Jeivs believed Book III,

** alio called an angel, and an apoftle, are
*' juftly cenfured by the Spirit of God, and
*' by Chrift, as not knowing either him or
** his Father*/'

Clemens Alexandrinus confidered the
dodrine of the ceconomy (or that of the
incarnation of the logos) to be the dodrine
of the perfcSly alluded to by Paul in his
epiftle to the Coloffians, where he fpeaks
of their hting filled with the knowledge of his
willy and of the my fiery "which "was bid from
ages and generations ^ but nozv made manfefi
to the faints y '' fo that there are other myf-
'' tcries," he fays, ** which were hid till
** the times of the apoftles, and delivered
*' by them as they received them from the
*^ Lordf." In another paffage he fpeaks

* la^aioi av rr/nTaixivoi an rov "sjocls^a, rm. o>.av >.£7^a>:Yiii£vai ra
Mx7£L^ Ta ?va;\>j(rav7@" uulcii ov7@^ uis th Sex, oj x^ ayysA©" *^ aTToro-

au% Ts X^^^^t ^i ^^ '^^v 'ZJoils^oi, iile rov viov syvuaav, Apol. I.
p. 94.

■f To /xvTH^iov TO aTroKBHpviJLfjisvov ocTTo rav aiavav jy utto rav ys-
ncov, 0 vw Epavso'J^Yi tok; ayioig cx.uIh . 01; tiSeXiktev 0 hzoq yvco^icrai^ rt
TO 'srX^I©' Trjj ^o^Yii; ra /MfyjoiH nila sv roig eSi/f^riv . ojss oi»^ imev rex
fxuTyioiA roc a7roK£>c^viJLij.£VJC. ax^i' rm a'TioToT^v^ }y vtt aulcov 'Sfa^a.^O'-
r-Clx 0)$ 0,710 ra Hv^i'i 'za^siM^uaiv, Strom, lib. 5; p. 576.

of

Chap. I. in the Divine Unity. 1 1

of this oeconomy as what chriftians only
were acquainted with ^.

Tertullian had the fame ideas* '' I
'* adore," fays he, *' the fulnefs of the
*« fcriptures/' meaning thofe of the Old
Teftament, '' which manifeft the maker and
** the things made ; but in the gofpel I
<* find the minifter, or the perfon by whom
** it was made, and the judge, viz. the word
«* of the maker f /' '' It is the faith of the
** Jews fo to believe in one God, as not to
** acknowledge the Son, or the Spirit. — ■
** What is the difference between us and
*^ them, but this ? What need is there of
** the gofpel, which is the fubftance of the
*' New Teftament (faying, that the law and
** the prophets were until John) if from that
** period the Father, Son, and Spirit, being
** three, are not believed to make one God.

* H//£t J z(riJL£v — 01 Tw oiKovofAiav Ts $£a Kcclavevomols^. Ad
Gentes, Opera, p. 40.

t Igitur in principio deus fecit ccelum et terram. Adoro^
fcfipturae plenitudinem, quae mihi et fadlorem manifeftat
et fadla. In evangelio vero ampllus et miniftrum atque
arbitrum redloris invenio fermonem. Ad Herm. kd. 22.
Opera, p. 241.

" So

12 The Jeios believed Book III.

** So God would renew his covenant, that,
** in a new manner, he {hould be believed
*' in, together with the Son, and his Spirit ;
*^ that God may be known in his proper
** names and perfons *."

" The Jews," fays Hippolytus, " ho-
** noured the Father, but they did not give
** thanks; for they knew not the Sonf.''

Origen alfo fays, " the Jews were not
*' acquainted with the incarnation of the
♦* only begotten Son of God J/*

Eufebius fpeaks of the chriftians as dif-
fering from the Hebrews, in that the latter

* Judaicje fidei ilia res, fic unum deum credere, ut filiuni
adnumcrare ci nolis, et poft filium fpiritum. Qj-iid enina
erit infer nos et illos, nifi difFerentia ifta ? Quod opus
evangelii, qu2s eft fubftantia novi teftamenti, ftatuens legem
et prophctas ufque ad Joannem, fi non exinde pater et filius
ct fpiritus, trcs crediti, unum deum fiftunt ? Sic deus
voluit novare facramenturri, ut nove unus crederetur per
filium ct fpiritum, ut coram jam deus in fuis propriis no-
minibus et perfonls cognofcerctur, qui et retro per filium
et fpiritum prredicatus. non intelligebatur. Ad Praxeam,
fe£l. 30. Opera, p. 518.

w iiiiyviAca.v. In Noetum, fe6l. 14. Opera, p. 16.

X Deerat enim illis in trinltate etiam de unigeniti incar-
natione cognofcere. Opera, vol. i. p. 290.

did

C H A p . I . in the Divine Unity. 1 3

did not acknowledge the divinity of Chrlft*.
He confidered the dodtrine of the divinity
of Chrift as peculiar to chriftians, and dif-
tinguifhing them from Jews. *' If any
** Jew/' fays he, '' be afked, whether God
" has a logos^ he will fay, certainly. Every
** Jew will fay, that he has one, or more of
" them s but if he be alked whether he has
*' a Sony he will not acknowledge itt«'*

Cyril of Jerufalem fays, ** In this refped:
** our dodlrine is more fublime than that of
** the Jews, in that they acknowledge one
** God the Father, but do not admit that he
*' is the Father of our Lord Jcfus Chrift,
** in which they contradict their own pro-
** phets, who fay, in the fcriptures, The
** Lord fald unto me^ thou art my Sofi, this
*' day have I begotten thee%.'' Cyril of

* M»7e mv ^£o%lci a-uvo^covleg auiH, Demonilratio, lib. 4.
cap. I. p. 144.

t Et yav rt; la^cxiav s^oilo tivoc, si T^yov f%0{ 0 ^eog 5 rsjccvlu; '«r!e

Is5b:i05 wv, aTrag .si h >^ viov s^-' * ^^^ e^ civ oi^oXoynosisv^ e^uly]^eig.
Contra Marcellam, lib. i. p. 4.

X TavJy) yap av tojv la^acicov avcols^a (p^ovay^ev . ot fisP ya^ wm

tya Seov isotli^a Kola^sxovJou roig ^oyfxxcri — to ^e )y 'motle^/x eivai rk

Hu^m YifACsiv lr,<r^ %ftra, rmv a 'sra^a^EXOwai, Tcig oixeioig 'is^opi^aig

2 tvonltcc

1 4 7he Jews believed Book III.

Alexandria alfo fays, " the Jews believed
*^ that there was a God who was before all
** things, and after him the creatures, but
** nothing intermediate between them*."

Bafil ranks the unitarians with Jews.
*' If any one,'' fays he, " fuppofe the Father,
*' Son, and Holy Spirit to be one, one Being
*' under different names, and that they are
" but one hypoftafis, under three denomina-
'* tions, we rank him with the JeWs f."

** The Flebrews/' fays Leon ti us, '* have
*' only one hypoftafis, or perfon, and one
** nature of God ; plainly admitting no tri-
** nity, nor faying that God is Father, Son,
*' or Spirit, except that they call God Father,
*• as the father of all men. They prove this
*' one hypoftafis from the words of Mo fes :

vid; [MH a cv . £7^' <Tn[xz^cv yzynvYMa as. Cat. 7. p. 102:

'^ IntcHcxciunt cnim in Ms vmtc citdita funt, deum qui,
dcm cilc ante omnia, ct poll iliuin creatnrani. interme-
dium auti.m aliud cmnino nihil, Dc Trinitatc, lib. 3.
Opera, vol. 2. p. 398.

ftuchvuvu/xov vTToii^ilai^ iy fxiav oTiovaa^v vno tuv T^iuy 'js^oarr/orAccy
Tpili 72' ^^^- Z" r* ^^3'

'* liear^

Chap. I. «*« the Divine Unity. 15

<« Heary O Ifraely the Lord thy God is one
<* Lord^r

Laftly, Theophylaft fays, '' In the Old
** Teftament God was known to the Jews
*« only, but not as Father ; he was after-
*< wards revealed by the gofpel to all the
** world with the Son-f-."

This is a feries of teftimony, fufficiently
extenfive for my purpofe, as it clearly (hows
what was the general opinion among chrlf-
tians concerning the ancient faith of the
Jews 3 and it is uncontradided by any other
evidence whatever. Some writers of yef-
terday have maintained, that the Jews al-
ways believed in a trinity, and that they

* Igitur Hebraei unam dicunt hypoftafm (five perfonam)
unamque naturam dei ; nullam plane trinitatem admit-
tentes, ac neque patrem, neque filium, neque fpiritum
fandum dicentes : iiifi forte fic deum, Inquiunt, adpelle-
mus patrem ; ut qui omnium fit hominum pater. Unam
ex eo probant elTe hypoftafin dei, quia Mofes dixerit :
audi Ifraelitica natio, dominus deus tuus, dominus unus
eft. De Sedis. Bib. Pat. App. p. 1849.

maariiiA^a th ws. In Rom. Opera, vol. 2. p. 4.

I expedled

1 6 T^he Jews believed Book III.

expefted that their Meffiah would be the
fecond perfon in that trinity ; but the
chriftian Fathers, who fay jult the con-
trary, were as much interelled as any men
could be, in finding that docftrine among
the Jews, and they were nearer the fource
of information.

It was, indeed, imagined, as I have ob-
ferved, that Mofes and the prophets were
themfelves acquainted with the myftery of
the trinity ; but that they thought it was
not a proper time to make a full difcovery
of that dodrine for the fatisfadlion of the
body of the Jews. Eufebius fays, that
*' Ifaiah knew that there was a God in
" God**' '' The prophets,'' fays Chry-
foftom, *^ who foretold concerning Chrift,
** concealed their treafure in obfcure
*' words -|- ;'* which implies that, in his
opinion, they knew it themfelves. *' Adam,'*
fays Epiphanius, *' being a prophet, knew

* Hacciag 'JS5po<p^m (xiyiT©~ (Ta(pu; ot^t 5«ov zv Sew iiva,i» Dc-
monftratio, lib. 5. cap. 4. p. 225.

sH^v-^otv Tov %a-au^ov, De Sigillis, Opera, vol. 6. p. 169.

2 '' the

Chap. L in the Divine Unity, ly

" the Father, Son, and Spirit, and knew
*^ that the Father fpake to the Son, when he
«' faid, Let us make man */'

Pope Gregory likewife reprefents the
people of the Jews as ignorant of the trinity,
though the prophets might teach it -f.

Lib. I. p. 6.

f Ipfa enim dei cognitio quae apud illam in fpiritalibus
patribus fuit, nota omni Haebraeorum populo non fuit.
Nam omnipotentem deum, faniSlam videlicet trinitatem '
cum prophetae praedicarent, populus ignorabat : folum de-
calogum tenebat in fide, legem trinitatis nefciens. Super
Ezekiel, Horn. i6. Opera, vol. 2. p. 83. F

Vol. III. C SEC

1 8 "The 'Jeivs believed Book III.

SECTION 11.

Of the Reafons why^ according to the Chrljlian
Fathers y the Doctrine of the Trinity was
not difcovered to the Jews.

A S the ignorance of the Jews, concerning
the dodrine of the trinity, was an ob-
jedlion to the truth of it, which the chrif-
tian Fathers, who defended it, could not be
quite eafy under, and they were often urged
with it, as we fhall fee, by the unitarians ;
it may be amufing to know more particular-
ly in what manner they accounted for the
fad.

That there (hould be a gradual revelation
of fo great a myflery as that of the trinity,
the Fathers thought to be an argument of
great wifdom on the divine difpenfations,
as they were by this means better adapted tQ
the different flates of the world.

Chryfofcom reprefents Mofes as faying,
*' that the world was made by God, and not
** by Chrifl, as accommodating himfelf to
*' the ftupidity of. his hearers. Paul him-
*' felf," he fays, " was contented to teach
<* the fame dodlrine at Athens. But he af-

'* tef wards

Chap* I. vt the Divine Unify ^ ig

" terwards held a different language in the
*' epiftle to the Coloffians ; and fays, that
*^ God in Cbriji created all things that are in
*' heaven and in earth. And John, the foa
*' of Thunder, cried, faying, All things were
*' 7nade by him, and without him was not
*^ any thing made that was made. But not fa
** Mofes; and jaftly, becaufe it would not
*' have been proper to give thofe meat whq
** had need to be fed v^ith milk *.'*

*' As Mofes," fays Cyril of Alexandria,
*^ was flow of fpeech, fo the law of Mofes
*' was flow to explain the reafon of it, an4
'• to open the theology of the holy trinity-]-/'

■sv rn ;X>^pi}i, YiWicc Toaaulr] n E7ri^0(ng ysyovs th nnpuyf^l'^^ (xEKXuf
TOi^ iv A^vtxi; hahEysa^oci , a'^o rav opcc/xEvo^v 'sjoisilai rtspoi; aJIag Trgf
hoa(r)cc(,>,iiXv. iilco Xsym' o Ssoj o 7roin<ra(; rov Hocr(ji,ov, >t; 'sravla ra ef
ttulu. HvMx '^po; Ko7:Q(T<7ixii E7r£fE>^7^E^ f^mElnciiilr,v £pxofJ.svi: TW o^ov^
«m' Eltpxg-aJloig OiOi'KEyQfMEvov x^ Aeyov?©-, qIi Evau% ehIkt^yi tol zravlcf
TO, By roig apavoi^^ xj ra etti rng yng, rx opoclcz xj t<x aopoila^ eiJe ^povoi^
siIe KupiolrvE^^ eiIe apxai, eCis E^ac^iat^ "-ct 'mavla ^laulov iq Eig avlov £»-
lia^ ' xj Icoocvvn; ^£ o Tr.g ^povlr^g uiog, ECoa ?^£ycov ' usavla 3i aJlou EyEVE%p
t^ X^p^i ocuTH EyEVETo ou^E EV. aM ax 0 Mwy(7)i5 arug * emqtco;* ad^
yap nv ti/koyov roig eti ya>^)crorpGipsia^cci hoixEvoig rsoEocg f^Eroc^HVCii
Tpo(pY\q. In Gal. I. Opera, vol. 2. p. 13.

f Sicut Mofes erat tardiorls llnguge, ita etiam lex Mo-
falca eft tardioris linguae ad cxplicandam ejus quod ef^
ratlonem, et apericndam fantSl^e trinitatb theologiam. Col^
ki^ania. Opera, vol. i. p. 1036.

C 2 " Obferve,"

20 The Jews believed Book III.

'* Obfervc/' fays Job the monk, '' the
*' wifdom of divine providence, that to the an-
" cients the Father appeared fuperior; in the
*' new, the Son appeared in fome places to be
*' inferior. to the Father^ but in many equal
" to him ; the holy fpirit in many in-
" ferior, but in fome equal ; that what is
*' unequal in human apprehenfion, might be
** brought to a perfed: equality*." Ac-
cording to this writer therefore, the doc-
trine of the divinity of the fpirit was not
fully revealed even in the time of the apof-
tles, but was referved for a later period.—
However, Epiphanius thought that the di-
vinity of Chrift was taught by the pro-
phets, though not that of the Spirit. " One
** God/' fays he, ''was chiefly preached by
" Mofes, a duality by the prophets, and a
** trinity by the evangelilts -, this being
** fuited to a more advanced flate of know-

j^vycv* 0 izoifir,^ e^cxei roij isoCNXi to />te/^ov Z)(ji\v ; o ytoj ^£ TsraXiv Kcnct
T-nv ysav moig t^^v to EXxilovy rtoi; ' 'vso'h>>Dig Se to laov * to oe ayiov
'7!:\2ViM(, TOii "ssoT^^oig /oc£V TO Eharlov, oyayon; h to icrov, iva, ay to aw(7o»
TO aTTo T)5$ Twv av3/JCJ5rwy y:ToM%|^£W5 Hi iC"^TjjT« iTiamx^^' Piiot.
IJib. S. 222. p.62>

'^ ledge/'

Ch AP. L in the Divine Unity. 2 1

*^ ledge *.'* He fays the fame thing in his
Ancoratus, Sed:. 73. Opera, vol. i. p. 78.

The reafon that is generally given by the
Fathers why the Jews were not inftruded
in the dodrine of the trinity is, left it
fhould afford them a pretence for relapfing
into polythcifra ; and certainly there was
great danger of its operating in that man-
ner. ** The multitude of the Jews," fays
Eufebius, '* were in ignorance of this hid-
** den myftery, when they were taught to
<* believe in one God only, on account of
*^ their being frequently drawn into idola-
*' try ; they did not know that he was the
** Father of the only begotten Son. This
*'• myftery was referved for the Gentile
*^ church, out of fpecial favour to them "f*.'*

* 0wr>ij 5k iJLict EV MaviTYj ixoCHTot. xacraf/s>>'X£rat, d'ua^ Jk £v
TlfiO^nroag (Kpo^pot KYipuja-Erai. Tpijxg ^e £v Evaeyfey^ioig (psivspHTM^
'mhEiovKCLTcx, Koupag Hai yEvsag {xpfMo^aaaTco ^ixcua^ sig yyaaiVKOu 'u^tfiv,
H. 74. Opera, vol. i. p. 899.

f To ^£ TTT^/i^og Ta la^aiccv e^vou; ev ayvoia sri^fxccvs tk jtEupv/xfiEvou
THTS (AvrripiQu^ o^Ev SeDv/>t£V e^i^acTKsro Eva ei^evm^ 5ia ra rn ^oT^v^EOi
'ssy^'im dxTJEyjag uTToirypEa^M . 'srajspix ^e ovt« rov ^£cy viou <r» fJtovoyE-
voug nyvoEi • raTo ya^ E(pu?arlETO rr] si e^wv EKK'Krio-ioc, to fxuTY]^iovy
uala rw a^aipET-ov xapiv ccurn h^^^yji^Evoy , Contra Marcel,
lib. I. cap. 20. p« 99.

C 3 Gregory

22 ^e Jews believed Book III.

Gregory Nazianzen, therefore, reprefent-
ing the propriety of judaifm being abolifhed
by degrees, fays, ^^ the Father was preached
** in the Old Teftament, and the Son ob-
*' fcurely 5 in the New, the Son clearly, and
*' the fpirit obfcurely, he revealing himfelf
*' more clearly to us. For it was not fafe
*' to preach the divinity of the Son clearly,
*' while that of the Father was not under-
** flood, nor that of the Spirit, while that
** of the Son was not received, left too great
** a burden fhould be laid upon us, or left
*' we fhould be dazzled with too much
•Might, &c*." And Chryfoflom farther
obferves, that *' the precept, Heary O Ifrae/,
** t/pe Lord thy God is one Lord^ was not
" given till after the fin of the golden calf j^"

V'.ov a(/Aj^fGTEcGv. 2<piivs^o)(rEV Y) nMVi) Tov Viov^ vTCioii^s. Ts nsvwj^aiog
iw ^iOTAta^ EixTioHTtvCiaL vvv TO rnvEUfMOC^ C^^BrEpav xfJLiv rzctcEypv

Cfjio^oyv^EKm^i rov viov BHOti^a; hr]pVTi£(T^ai ' fM-^s ttd; t8 um 'rsstpa-
^£xSEi(77if, '5"o mviviia. to aytov, iv ^ittu ri ^ roX/xxpolspiv sTri^cfi'^ta--
^M, ^m KoBa'TEp rpofpy] tyi utte^ SWa/xa- $ccpy]^EviEg^ kai r>^coccij fdjli
foBpolEpocv eIi 'm^OQQcx.'^ovlt^ TY\ o4'»v, Kat «5 TO «jt7a hvajx],-} xiv^uvEU(rmu

Or. 37. Opera, p. 608, 609.

T 0?£ youv ETToimav rov ixocxp^ ^ ^o 7?u/7r7ov iss^oaiKirrf^traVt
lolEYiXovaav kj^iq; o Sfo; (ra xv^io^ u§ Bnv Ser« 24. Opera,
vol. 5. p. 350.

Tf as

Chap- L. in the Divine Unity. 23

as if it had not been the intention of pro-
vidence to give them any fuch precept, if
they had not previoufly fhewn a difpolition
to abufe more perfecfl inftrudlion.

Job the monk, of whofe writings we have
a particular account in Photius, comparing
the great revolutions in the ftate of religion
to earthquakes^ fays, ^* As the fir ft earth-
** quake had cured the world of idolatry,
** by contrary remedies, but concealed the
*' difference of hypoftafes ; fo in the laft
*' times, the Jewiih opinion of one perfon
** having gained ftrength in time, and by
*^ the law, and having deftroyed idolatry ;
** the Son then, in a manner worthy of
** God, and friendly to man, took flefh, and
*' revealed the myftery of the trinity by de-
** grees." He likewife fays, *^ the Saviour
^' very wifely fpake lowly of himfelf, and
" withheld the beams of his divinity, and
** prepared to let it fhine forth in works *."

• Yitu Ket^efTrip om^(o\oi CSljT/vto? ^let 7edViVdLv\ici>v ict<retIo T9
♦aroAufieoy e'^iicv»^a.iJ(.ivo^ ray v'7roTcL(rieov to S'ldL^o^ov » ale*

Canii KOA TO twj T^iatf'oi Kecjn y.m^QV aVAnawTrlu //urMf /oi'.
Q i tTTAyu

Z^ 7he Jews believed Book IIL

It was cuftomary, as we fliall fee, to re-
prefent the dodrine of the trinity as fome-r
thing fublime^ and of difficult apprehenfion ;
and therefore fit for perfons of ripe under-
ftanding, and deep refledion ; of which
on that account, even the chrlftiahs of the
firft ages were allowed to be ignorant, and
the common people in general, till a much
later period. It was natural, therefore, to
alledge this, alfo, as another reafon why
the Jews, living in the infant age of the
world, fhould not have this fublime and
difficult leffon taught them. '" The Jews,'*
fays Eufebius, *' were not taught the doc^-
** trine of the trinity, on account of their
^* infant ftate*." Bafil gives the fame ac-
count-f . Cyril of Alexandria, fays, ** The

vretyli ^i tjsJc/V, coi TAva-opa^ o a-corup rois fiiv fy\iJ.et<riv 6t«-

*^tlVQKoyiiTCf K,cti 1Y[V TM ^iQTYiTO^ (TvVi^iyO^lV eLVyVlV, TOl^ £ J-

Photii. Bib. fe£l. 222. p. 619.

■* Kct/ Tct viTTTiai^onl icov laJ^ctteov KcLcc, Ec. Theol. lib.
2. cap. 18, p. 130.

f Hr ycL^ 7/, coi ioiK^v, )y 'T^po t» kot^.h Tiija, 0 t« y.iv

Toii it(TdLyofAiVoi4 in x^ j/mt/o/; kolta tw yvuaiv etHTnTth
i'lioY* Bafil, vol. 1. p. 6.

'* dodrine

Chap. I. In the Dhme Unify. 25

** dodrine of the trinity was taught in
** types only, and not clearly. For what
** reafon ? Becaufe the light of divine
<* vifion is not eafily acceffible to thofe who
** are but lately called to the knowledge
" of the truth, and have not their minds
*^ exercifed to thofe fpeculations*/'

Our Saviour faid that divorces had been
allowed to the Jews on account of the
hardnefs of their hearts. This alfo is given
as a reafon by Eufebius, why the Jews were
not taught the dodrine of the trinity -f.

S'lA '^OletV CtflietV ; 07/ TOli ct{ji KiK-hi^^J-iVol^ 21? iTtyVaXTtV

ahnd-itag }y z'A ivl^id) toi^ iir aujn d-ico^-f^/j.ct^i mv S'lctvo'tciv
c,yni<TlV^ A'TT^otTtlov ^mwi iivai J^o/Ai }^ iTlv dLKiid-eoi^ to (pa$ th(
^ioTJias. Contra Jul. lib. i. Juliani, Opera, vol. 2. p. 19.
t On 'zrpof rttv cxAwpo^tctpsT/flfi' T« UJ^may Acia. Ec. Theol,
116.2. cap. 20. p. 13^.

SEC

26 The Jews believed Book III,

SECTION III.

7he Sentiments of the Jews, as exprejjed by
themfelvesy on the SubjeB,

TJ AVING ictn what the chrldian Fa-
thers lay in general of the ignorance of
the Jews concerning the doftrine of the
trinity, let us fee what the Jews themfelves
have faid on the fubjefl:, as far as we arc
able to colled: it, either from the writings
of the chriflian Fathers, or their own.

As the chriftian Fathers found the doc-
trine of the trinity obfcurely hinted at in the
Old Teftament, and particularly in the ac-
count of the creation, in which God is repre-
fented as faying, ^et us make many we may
wifli to know what the Jews replied, when
they were urged with this argument ; and it
is remarkable, that their anfwer was in general
the fame with that of the unitarian in th«
Clementines y in reply to Simon, who had urged
that very circumftance, as a proof that there
'Were more gods than one. However, there
is a variety in the anfwers given by th«
Jews to this queilion, but all of them fuf-

ficiently

Chap. I. in the Dhhie Unity. 27

iiciently natural, and not improper. Theo-
doret fays, '' the Jews fay that when God
*' faid let us make many he ufed the kingly
'^flyle*/' and this feems to be the moft
natural interpretation. But according to
Tertullian, the Jews faid that God addreiTed
himfelf to the angels. " Did he fpeak to
** angels, when he faid, let us make man, as
** the Jews fay, who do not acknowledge
" the Son ; or, as if he himfelf was Father,
** Son, and Spirit, did he, fay they, make
** himfelf more than one, and fpeak in the
*^ plural number t-** This alfo is the an-
fwer which Baiil reports. ** The Jews fay
•' God fpake to the angels, when he faid,
** let us make man^' addreffing himfelf to aii
unitarian, who he faid was *^ a Jew pre-
*^ tending to be a chriflian|.*' Cyril of

♦ In Gen. xix. Opera, vol. i. p. 15.

+ Autnumquid angelis loquebatur, ut Judaei interpre-
tantur, qiila nee ipfi filium agnofcunt \ an quia ipfe erat
pater, filius et fpiritus, ideo pluralem fe praeftans, pluraliter
fibi loquebatur. Ad Praxeam, fe6l. 12. p. 506.

Civcov iv /ipt^iAvicry.^ ':3-fo<T'7rotiiffii , tivj hiyn k^t* ukova
K//s72f«»'. Horn, 8. Opera, vol. li p. X05.

Jerufalem

28 The Jews believed Book III.

Jerufalem fays, that the Jews acknowledged
only one God the Father *.

We may form a very good judgment of
the fentiments of the Jews on this fubjed:,
from the account of a folemn conference be-
tween Gregentius, a chriftian bifliop, and
Herbanus, a learned Jew, in the prefence
of an Arabian prince, in the fifth cen-
tury. As it is the only work of the kind
that remains of fo early an age, I ihall
quote feveral extracts from it, to lliew how
the Jews of that age felt and reafoncd.

The Jew expreffes his dread of idolatry
in very ftrong terms. '* The prophet
** Mofes," he fays, ** if you read the penta-
*' teuch, pronounces a dreadful curfe upon
" the children of Ifrael, from God, the an-
*' gels, and faints, calling in all the ele-
** ments under heaven, if we fliould ever
** receive any other god befide the God of
** our Fathers. Why then fhould you make
*' any words on the fubjed: ; for God him-
** felf by the prophets ftridtly orders us,

J^.oyi/u.(/i, Cat. 7. p. 102.

« faying.

Chap. I. in the Divine Unity. 29

** faying, there fiiall be no other god in
'* thee, nor flialt thou worfhip a ftrange
*' god ', I am the Lord thy God, who
'* brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
*' What think you of this *?"

*' It is grievous to me to defert the God
*' of the law, whom you acknowledge to'
*'*■ be a true god, and to wor/liip a younger
** god, not knowing whence he fprung-f-/*'

** Whence do you derive your faith in.
*^ the Father, Son, and Spirit, and intro-
*^ duce three ftrange gods J/' "Where
** did any prophet foretel that Chrift was
*' to be God man^ as you fayj|/** " Why

%n±^tOV 7iQltKiV IDU.IV 701? V^Oti lfff>a.ilA, (/.TO -d-Zii '/y TCi)V cty-

y'i.Kci.v, )U Teov ctyiuv, -^-g/^ }y Tsrdt.v]ci ra. ^oiyjia. ta vt «fo-,f'or

VTTQ Kctjel^OLV, It aroTe i^a^OV d-ioy VTToS'i^oUidcf. ^a^c^ 7y

^m Tcov 'Z^ctjc^coy, T/ aV hoirov -^cAyr^jt^udi'S/? ; ;^ ycta n^
ad]og 0 ^iof cT/rt T» ^DcpnTis '^cti^iyfva. nuiy ?^iyuv • ^y^ ^^^^

ydf> iitJA nvpo^ 0 ^ioi a'\i, o avxyciyeov a sx tk? ym Aiyvyr'
7i; • T/ Bf J'ojiii CQi <srf6i lacjra,, P. 36.

t OijK'dV ^cL^o act €r( Kurxht-rttv rov -^tov m ro'/», oy ^"^

n«y7«p&), '5To6cir iTraa-a^'^dn'Ti k/. ?//«i". Ibid. p. iic,

^ s/<r^£f£7€ €/f 70 /USiTOt' 7fS/? -S-^K? A/O^.OKQTiSU Ibid. p. 6.
{{ KiSUSTK Hr/^^tro 7/f 7«C 'JirpO^^.'17«F, 07/ '3-4/7? £fJ'-5'<'4)T*f SrcU

0 ^piroff oi/ 7^o7rov hihAhiVKs^.f, Ibid. p. 112*

** did

20 The Jews Relieved Book III,

** did not God order Mofes and the pro-
** phets to believe in the Father, Son, and
*^ Holy Spu'it, but yourfelves only, who
" have lately difcovered it, as you pre-
*' tend*/'

** How do you call your Chrifl God, if
** my God has chofen him, 8cc. He cannot
*Vbe a god, of whom you acknowledge it
** is faid in the prophet, / have made thee
** Jlrong, How can you call him your God
** and Saviour, who, as the prophet witnef-
** tts, can do nothing without my Godf ?''

Laftly, having quoted the words of the
prophet, " / have heard thee in an acceptable
" time, I have fonned thee,'* he fays, ** How
** dare you then make him equal to him
** that formed him J?"

riviiu £if -T^ctiifA «J vtov KcfA ctyioi' 'srj'sy//cf, «Aa' « y.ovm
vy.iv picc^i T»7o i^iv^WitoaiVi cci L'//-5/5 <pciTs. Gregcnt. p. 7.

f Ko* it VTCOi iyjil, 'WOISJ cTs r^O-TTCO 7QV yjiTOV <jV ^ioV ^po"

wciyo^ivitiy €9 cor^ici 0 z(J.o<; eJiA^J^tTo, kcu vyct^uaz, K'Jli to.

T« 'nrpo^fiinvf oil iyeo yap itui 0 i/i(r'/jjaa.^ crs . '<7«s- cTs kai

Tittt y.A^TVfii, etviv Ta £MK ^in ^fctj^itv 7; a ^vvcLJcui Ibid,
p. III.

Ibid. p. 151.

" The

Chap. I. in the Divine Unity. ^i

** The dodlrlne of the trinity/' fays the
Rabbi Ifaac, in his Miinimen Fideiy ** as
*« held by learned chriftians, refts on the
** flighted evidence, and is contrary to the
** dodrine of the prophets, the law, and
*' right reafon, and even to the writings of
** the New Teftament. For the divine
** law gives its fanftion to the unity of
'* God, and removes all plurality from
''him*." This writer fhews, in many
places, that the dodlrine of the trinity is
not taught in the New Teftament. See p.
397. 403. 418, &c.

The contempt which the author of a
Jewifti treatife, entitled, JSizzachon Vetiis^
expreffes for the chriftian dodrine of God
being confined in the v/omb of woman, is
peculiarly ftrongf. As to thofe who faid

*

Accedit his, quod dogma de trlnltate falfum eft, et %,
<juibufdam eruditisNazarenorum, rebus leviffimls, fine ullo
vero prophetico fundamento recens fuperftrudlum, quodqu^
legidivina£, verbis prophetarum,humana2 rationi, didifquc
plurimis fcriptorum novi teftamenti repugnat. Quippe lex
divina comprobat del unitatem, omnemque pluralitatem abt
to fegregat. p. 113.

f Quomodo igitur ifle deus efle poflet, qui foeminam
plenum immunditiis Yentremhabe»tem,ingrcirus. eft ? Et

quem

32 'the Jezvs helieved Book III.

that Mary was not rendered unclean by the
birth of Jefus, he fays the contrary is evi-
dent, from the offering that fhe brought
for her purification*.

Having {ttvi what the chriflians, both
unitarians and trinitarians, and alfo what
the Jews, thought of the doctrine of the
Old Teftament concerning God, it may be
fome farther fatisfadion to know in what
manner the heathens decided in this cafe.
We have the opinion of the emperor Julian
on this fubjed:, and it is decifively in fa-
vour of the Jews, and the unitarian chrif-
tians. He fays, *' Mofes not only once, or
** twice, or three times, but many times

quern toties mater illiiis, novem gravidifatis menfibus, eo
detulit, quo fatura itabat ? Quiquc tempore nativitatis
editus eft inquinatus, et fordens, involutus fecundlnis, et
abominabilis fanguine partus ac profluvii. Nizzachon.
Vetus. p. 7.

* Quod fi dicat adverfarius: non inquinatus fuit intra
vifcera ejus. Nam, cum in Maria muliebris confuetudo
defeciffet, intravit earn fpiritus, exivitque fme dolore, et
fine fanguinis forditie. Ad haec refpondere licet : annon
vos fatemini eam obtulifle facrificium puerperarum, cujus
immundities caufa erat ? Idem enim facrificium ofFere-
bant leprofus, h.tmorrhoufa, ct puerpera, par turturum,
aut duos puUos columbarum. Ibid.

*^ commands

Chap. I. in the Dhme Unify. ^o

** commands to worlliip only one God,
*' who, he fays, is over all. He mentions
*^ no other God, but only angels, and lords,
'' and many gods,'' that is, the heathen
gods. ** This great Being he made to be
** the firft:, but he made no fecond, like him,
** or unlike him, as you have done. If you
** can produce a fingle expreffion in Mofes
*' to this purpofe, do it. That faying of
** his, A prophet fiall the Lord your God
*^ raife up unto yoUy of your brethren^ like
** unto me, hear him^ is not faid of the fou
'* of Mary. But if this be granted to you,
«* he fays that he fhali be like to himfelf,
** and not to God, a prophet like himfelf,
" of man, and not of God"*".''

* O Toivfv Miocru; hk acTa|, ade 3/^, «^£ r^ij, a'KKcx. 'siy^EiTaKv^ £vx
' Seov ixovov a^ioi rifxav^ ov dr] }y sTTi 'ssciaiv ovofJLct^si, ^£0v 3V eIe^ov a^a-

)y Toy 'Uj^oIov^ a'K'hov S'e s% v7r£i7'.Y](p£ ^euIs^ov, als oixoiov^ «?£ avofxoiov^

KOt^dTTE^ UfXSig a7r£^,£l^y0i(T^£ . £1 0£ £Ti '37S "^SOC^ VfMV VTTE^ TiTcUV (Aid

y[ta<T£ag ^Y]cn<;^ locvlnv £T£ ^ihmoi '!>r^o(p£^£iv. To yao, 's:^o(pyfir.v u/mv
ctvaTYicEi Kv^ioq 0 Sfcj y/^iojv, £}i rav a^£'>\(pav uiacov, cog £fji£ ' avla ctns-
C£a^£ ' ixanra iJL£V hv hk Ei^n^cci '57£^; th 'yEvvYi^£vl(B- zh. Ma^-.-^.g . si ^£
T15 wwy £'i/£Ktx cruyx,u^ncr£i£v^ £ocv1j (pYia-iv aulov opdoiov y£wm£<r^(Xt^ y a
Tw Sew • 'm^o^r]}nv ua-TTE^ zonJlov^ / f | av&f ojttwv, aM* «« ek ^eh. Cy-.
ril Contra J il. lib. ^.Juliaai, Opera, vol. 2. p. 253.

Vol. III. D It

• 34- The y CIVS believed Book II L

It has been feen that Pliilo perfonified
the logos as much as the chriftian Fathers^,
and that they probably learnt of him the
doctrine of a divine logos being the medium
of all the communications of God to the
patriarchs, and of this principle occadonally
affuming a vifible form. But Philo had no
idea that this dodtrine had any connexion
with that of the Meffiah, as he gives no
hint that this was a charadler to be ailumed
by the logos ; nor does it appear that the
Jews in any age had fuch an expedation ;
though this has been pretended by fome
modern chriflians.

It is unqueftionable that, in our Saviour's
time, the Jews expected no other than a
man in the charadler of their Mefliah,
' Mary, the mother of Jefus, evidently ex-
pe(5led that the Meffiah was to be born in
the ufual way, of two human parents. For
when the angel informed her that fhe (hould
conceive and bear a Jon, who fliould be
called the fon of the highejl, and to whom
God would give the throne of his father
David^ fhe replied, Luke i. 34. How fiall
I ' this

Chap. I. in the Divine Unify. 35

ibis be, f^^i-'^g I knozv not a man. Our Sa-
viour could not poffibly have puzzled the
Jewifh dodlors as he did, by alting them
how David could call the Meffiah his lord,
when he was his fon, or defcendant, on any
other principle. For if they had them-
felves been fully perfuaded that the Meffiah,
though defcended from David, was the
maker and God of David, a fatisfacStory
anfwer to his queftion was very obvious.
Origen reproaches Celfus for his ignorance,
in not knowing that the Jews never believed
that the Meffiah would be God, or the Son
of God'^. Facundus very properly fays,
that '' Martha and Mary would never have
** faid to Chrift, if thou hadjl been here, had
" they thought him to be God omniprefent."
This writer alfo fays, that the Jews always
had exped:ed, and that, in his time, they
did expedl, a mere man for their Meffiah.
*^ They did not know," he fays, *' that
*' Chrift, the Son of God, was God; but
*' they thought that Chrift would be a mere

y.^'sov Kola^mi^^ni^ r\ Sea vm. Con. Celfum, lib. 4. p. 162.

D 2 *' man,

36 The Jews believed Book IIL

" man, which any one may perceive that
** the Jews at this time alfo think *«"

Many chriftians imagine, that the child
called Immaniid by Ilaiah (chap. vii. 8.)
m^pft be God, becaufe the word fignifies,
God ivith us. But the Jews underftood
their fcriptures, and their own ideas with
refpedt to giving names, too well to draw
any fuch inference from this circumftance.
Eufebius fiys, that they afferted it was not
even the Meffiah that was intended by Im-
manuel, but only fome common child -f-.

Bafnage, who fludied the hiftory and
opinions of the Jews more carefully, per-
haps, than any other modern writer, and
who has written largely on this very fub-
jecfl, though a trinitarian himfelf, has ex-
ploded oil the pretences of Cudworth, and
others, to find the dodrine of the trinity,

* Sed non propterea Chriftum dei filium, deum fcie-
bant ; hominem autem purum arbltrati funt Chriftum. —
Quod etiam nunc putantes Judaeos quilibet vidtbit. Lib.
9. cap. iii. p. 139.'

cvry\<Taizv oi ek 's^E^ilo/x'/ig, In Ef. cap. 9. Montfaucon's Col-
Icdlio, vol. 2. p. 391.

either

Chap. T. in the Divine Unity. 37

either among the ancient or the modern
Jews. ** The chriftians and the Jews,'*
he fays, '* feparate at the fecond ftep in
** religion. For after having adored toge-
** ther one God, abfolutely perfedt, they
** find immediately after the abyfs of the
** trinity, which entirely feparates them.
** The Jew confiders three perfons as three
** Gods, and this tritheifm fliocks him.
*^ The chriftian who believes the unity of
** one God, thinks that the Father, the Son,
^^ and the Holy Spirit, fhould all be called
** God, and have the fame worfhip. It is
** impoffible to reconcile opinions fo con-
" trary*."

* " Les Chretiens s'ecartent des Juifs des le fecond pas
" qu'ils font dans la religion. Car apres avoir adore en-
" femble un dieu, fouverainement parfait, ils trouvent ua
** moment apres I'abime de^Ia trinite, qui les fepare, et les'
** eloigne fouverainement. Le Juif regarde trois perfon-
<« nes com me trois dieux, et ce tritheifme lui fait horrcur.
*' Le Chretien, qui croit Tunite d'un Dieu, veut a meme
" terns q'on donne ce titre au pere, au fils, au Saint Efprit,
'• et q'on les adore. II eft impoffible de concilier des opi-
'' nions fi contraires ; cependant il y a des theologiens
'' hardis, qui ont tente de le faire." Hift. des Juifs, lib. 4.
cap. 3, kdi, I,

D 3 This

38 The Jews kh'eved Book III.

This writer alfo fays, that " the Jews
** confider themfelves as bearing their tefti-
** mony to the unity of God among all the
" nations of the world"*." Kow far the
Jews of late years are from admitting the
divinity of the Mefiiah, we may judge from
what Orobio faid in his controverfy with
Limborch, viz. that, admitting what is Im-
poffible, that the Meffiah whom they ex-
pect fliould teach that dodlrine, he ought
to be Honed as a falfe prophet "f.

It has, however, been imagined by fome,
that the Jews had a knowledge of the doc-
trine of the trinity, that it fpread from them
among the Gentiles, and that traces of it
may be perceived in the myfteries of hea-
then religions. But if this be the cafe, it
is obvious to aik, why are no traces of this
doctrine to be found in the JewilTi fcrip-
tures, and the Jewilh worfhip? Or, if the

^ ••' Lcs temoins de rimlte dc dieu dans toutes les na-
<« tlons du monde." Hift. des Juifs, lib. 7. cap. 33. kd:,

f Dato impoflibili quod MelTias, quem expedamus,
earn doclrinam [v. g. fe equalem efle deo] Ifraelem edo-
ccrct, jurcforet, ut pfeudopropheta, lapidandus. Lim-
bcrch's Arnica Collatio, p. 1 1 1.

Jews

Chap. I. ^^ ^^-^^ Divine Unity,. 39

Jews had once been in pofleflion of this
knowledge, but had loft it in the time of
our Saviour, why did not he, who redlified
other abufes, reftify this, the moft impor-
tant of them all.

If an expedation of a Meffiah had been
prevalent among the Gentiles, we fliould
certainly perceive fome traces of it in their
writings. It might have been expeded,
both on account of the interefting nature,
and the obfcurity of the fubjed, that there
would have been different opinions about
it, that it would have been a common topic
in their philofophical fchools, and that
their hiftorians would have given fome ac-
count of the origin of fuch an expedation.

The lixth eclogue of Virgil may be al-
ledged as a proof of fuch an expedation.
But I do not imagine'that any perfon now
thinks that Virgil himfelf ever expeded
fuch a perfonage as he defcribes. The ufe
that a poet might make of a vague report
of a prophecy (brought probably from the
eaft, and ultimately from the Jewiih fcrip-
tures) but ferioufly believed by no perfon

D 4 that

40 The Jews believed Book III.

that we know of, merely to embellifh a
poem, is one thing j but the adual and uni-
verfal expectation of fuch a perfon, is ano-
ther

SECTION IV.

Of the Jewifi Angel Metatron, G?c.

TN the third of Een Mordecai's Letters,
written by the late Rev. Mr. Taylor of
Portfmoath, p. 72. I find the following ex-
traordinary paragraph : *' Among the no-
** tions of the more modern Jews, we muft
" alfo obferve, that the Cabbalifts believed
** El Shaddai to be the fame perfon as the
*' angel Metatron, whom they fuppofed to
*' be the inftrudior of Mofes, and the Mef-
*' fiah, i. e. as Dr. Allix exprefles it. He
*^ was, according to the chriftian phrafe,
** the logos before his incarnation, or, ac-
*^ cording to the jewifh phrafe, the foul of
" the Meffiah, whom they look upon as
^^ fomething between God and the angels,

" whom

Chap. I. i^J the Divine Unify. 41

** whom nothing feparates from God/'
Allix, p. 456*.

" Bijfhop Pearfcn, in proving, by feveral
*^ arguments, that Chrift is called Jehovah,
** fays, the Jews themfelves acknowledge
*' that Jehovah (liall be clearly known in the
*' days of the Meffiah, and not only fo,but
** that it is the name which doth properly
'• belong to him, for the proof of which he
*' quotes the book Sepher Ikkarim^ ii. 8.
*' The fcripture calleth the name of the Meffias
** Jehovah our righteoufnefs^ and Midrafh
*« Tillim, on Pf. xxi. God calleth the Mejias

* Here Mr. Taylor inferts the following note in French,
but I fhall give it in Engjifh ; Calmet, on the word Meta-
tron^ fays, " The Hebrews give this name to the firfl of
<' the angels, him who 'concluded them in the wildernefs,
*' and of v;hom it is faid, in Mofes, I Jh all fend my angel to
*'' go before you. He a6l:ed towards the Ifraelites the part
*' of the officer whom the Romans called Metator. He
'^ marked out the encampments, traced the form of them,
" the dimenfions, extent, &c. He is thought to be the
<« archangel Michael, who was at the head of the people
*' in the wildernefs, that it was he who wreftled with Ja-
♦' cob, who is called the face of God, in Exod. xxxiv. 14.
^* and who is the mediator between God and man ; that
^' he writes down good actions, and keeps a regifler of
'« them.'*

*' by

42 7h2 Jews believed Book III.

** by his own namey and bis name is 'Jehovah ^
*^ as it is, Ex. xv. 3. The Lord is a man of
** kvar, Jehovah is his name. And it is writ-
*^ ten of the Meffias, Jer. xxiii. 6. And this
** is the name which they Jloall call him^ Jeho-
** vah our righteoufnefs. Thus Echa Rab-
** biti. Lam. i. 6. What is the name of the
'^ Meflias ? Rabba faid, Jehovah is his
*' name, as it is faid, Jer. xxiii. 6. The
*^ fame he reports of Rabbi Levi ; and the
** Biihop concludes, that the Rabbins then
^' did acknow^ledge, that the name Jehovah
«« did belong to the MefTias.''

Confulting Dr. Allix's own work on the
fubjed:, I find the following reference to
authorities for what he advances : '* See
/* Reuchlin,L. i. De Cabala, p. 651. where
^' he proves Metatron to be the Mefiiah
'^ from their waitings ^ or, in fhort, take
** the confeffion of Manaffeh Ben Ifrael,
** Q^ 6. In Gen. f. 2.'' The former of
thefe authors I have not, and in the
latter I find no fuch pafiTage as Dr. Al-
lix quotes. But as there is abundant
evidence that the Jews in general^ and

in

Chap. I. in the Divine Unify. 4^

in all ages, from the time of our Savi-
our to the preient, confidered their Meffiah
as a mere mcm^ and a proper defcendant of
David, I own that I am difpofed to ex-
amine, v/ith fome rigour, any pretended evi-
dence to the contrary ; though the fpecula-
tive opinions of fome of the Cabbalifts
among them is a thingof little confequence,
when they can be proved to be different
from thofe that vv^ere entertained by the
nation in general.

What Calmet fiys concerning the angel
Metatron in Ben Mordecai's note, has no re-
lation to the Mefiiah y fo that the moil that I
fhould be difpofed to infer from what the
Jewifh Cabbalifts may have faidon the fub-
jedl would be, that this Met rat on v/as fome-
thingiimilar to what Philo reprefents the^g<?j
as being, namely an cflux of' the divinity^ but
no being y ov per/on^ permanently diftinguifh-
ed from him. And it is highly improba-
ble, that any Jew ihould have fuppofed that
their Meffiah, a map defcended from David,
would have no proper human foul, be-
lides^this Metatron, or logos, fupplying the
place of it ; though they might fuppofe the

Meffiah

44 575^ Jews believed Book III.

MelTiah to be diftinguifted by the prefence
and influence of this divine efflux.

The Jewifli Cabbalifts might eafily admit
even that the Meifiah might be called Jeho--
vahy without fuppofing that he was any
thing more than a man, who had no exift-
ence before his birth. That it muft have
been the mere ?7amey and ^not the iiature of
God, that the Jews fuppofed their Meffiah
to partake of, is all that can be admitted in
the cafe. Several things in the fcriptures
are called by the name of Jehovah, as Jeru-
falem, in the paiTage above quoted, is called
Jehovah our righteotifnefs *, but this never led
the Jews to fuppofe, that there were two
Jehovahs, a greater and a lefs. Nothing
can be more expreilly declared, than that
there is but one Jehovah ; and in the paf-
fages quoted by Bifliop Pearfon, there is no
intimation of there being two Jehovahs ; fo
that if the Meffiah be Jehovah, there muft
have beeni no other Being above him, which
Mr. Taylor would not fuppofe.
f From reading the above quoted paflage
from Mr. Taylor, the reader would con-
clude, that it was the univerfal opinion of

the

Chap. I. in the Divine Unity. 45

the Jewifli Cabbalifts, if not of the Jews ia
general, that this great angel Metatron was
the foul of the Meffiah. But this would be
aniiftake; for Beaufobre quotes fome of
them, who faid, that the foul of the Mef-
fiah was the fame that had been the foul of
Adam, and likewife that of David. The
Cabbaliftic proof ®f this myftery, he fiys, is
the letter A in Adam^ meaning Adam, the
D David, and the M the Meffiah. Hhloire
de Manicheifm.e, vol. 2. p. 492. So little
dependence is there on the whimfical and
uncertain notions of thefe Jewifli Cabbalifts.
However, when they are quoted, they ought
to be quoted fairly. Mr. Taylor probably
faw nothing of them, but what he found in
Dr. Allix.

Bafnage gives a large account of the
Jewifli angel Metatron^ fliewing that he is
the fame with the angel Michael, concern-
ing whom the Jews had many abfurd fan-
cies. He particularly fliews, that the name
of God being in this angel, means nothing
more than that the letters of the words Me-*
tatrouy pTtD'tOD, and thofe oiShadai, \^T^% con-
fidered as numerals exprefs the fame num-
ber

4.6 Tbe Jews believed Book IIL

ber, viz. 314. lib. 4. cap. 19, vol. 3.

P- 137-

Many miftakes en this fiibjedl have been

occaiioned by its being taken for granted^

that what is iliid of the logos may be applied to

the M'lf/iah, becaufe the generality of chrif-

tians have fuppofed them to be fynonymous.

But this was not the cafe with the Jews ;

and there is a paffage quoted by Bafnage, in

his Hiftory of the Jev/s, L. IV. c. xxiv. f. 9.

which fliews, that fome of their writers con-

fidered them as quite diflind: from each

other* " Jonathan fays, that the Mefiiah

*' and Mofes will appear at the end of the

'^ world, the one in the defart, and the other

*'• at Rome, and that the word, or the logos,

" will march between them.'*

Till I fee much more evidence than I

have yet met with (and I have not fpared

any pains to come at it) I cannot admit that

any Jew ever fuppofed that their Meffiah

either pre-exiflcd, or was, properly fpeak-

ing, God.

With refpe(5t to all thefe pretences to

make the Jews favourable to the dodrine

of the trinity, Mr. Bafnage fays, " They

*^ cannot

Chap. I. /// the Divine Unity. 47

*^ cannot be advanced without the authors
*' of them deceiving themielves. The
** Jews will never," he fays, *' be con-
*^ vinced by endeavouring to perfuade them
*^ that they believe what they do not believe,
*^ and that they do not oppofe the dodrine
*^ of the trinity, which is the principal ob-
*^^ jetfl of their blafphemies/'

He mentions a Jewifh writer, Jacob, the
fon of Amram, who laughs at the pretenlibns
of chriftians to bring proofs of the trinity
fi'om the cabbala. *' The cabbalifts/' favs
he, *' under feveral of the letters conceal
** myfleries which the vulgar cannot dif-
** cover, they only meant to teach the unity
*^ of God, and to explain his attributes, and
" they were very ignorant who looked into
*' their writings for the trinity*."

* Mais peut-on avancer, cela fans vouloir fe tromper,
puis que I'unite d'un dieu le dogme capital dejuifs, et que
la pluralite des perfonnes fait le plus grand obflacle a leur

converfion, On ne convaincra jamais les Juifs, lors

qu'on s'entetera de leur pcrfuader qu'is ont cm ce qu'ils
ne croient pas, et qu'ils ne s'oppofent point au dogme de
la trinite, qui eft le principal objeft de leurs blafphemes.

Jacob, fils d'Amram, dans un ouvrage mahufcrit

qu'il intitule la porte de la verite, fe mocque des chrctiens
qui tirent de la cabbale des preuves pour la trinitate. Car,

dit

' 4? ^he Jews believed Book TIL

How far Manafleh Ben Ifrael was from
fuppofing that there was any trinity in the
divine nature, appears from the very fection
that Dr. Allix has quoted, which contains
his interpretation of Gqw, i. 26. And God
faid. Let us make inan. After reciting a
variety of interpretations, he concludes as
follows, *' Or fliall we fay that, v/hat feems
'* to be of greater confequence, v/e gene-
*' rally undertake with more ftudy and de-
*' liberation, and therefore that the fcrip-
** ture, in defcribing the creation of man,
** makes ufe of the plural number. Let us
*' male, which is the language of a perfon
** commanding and exciting himfelf to un-
*' dertake and do any thing; fo that God
*^ would fhew that all other creatures were
*' made for the ufe of man. But whether
** God be fuppofed to fpeak to all fecond
" caufes, or to intelligencies only, or to the
** elements, or to fouls, or to ufe the ftile
** of a king, or laftly, whether he be fup-

dit il, les cabbaliftes cnferment fous I'ecorce de la lettre des
myfteres que le vuigaire ne decouvrc pas. Les theolo-
giens n'ont deffein que d' enfeigncr, I'unite de dieu, et
d'expliqucr fcs attributes ; et il faut etre ignorant pour
chercherdiezeuxlatrinite. L.y. c.31. vol.4. p.2i59.&:c.

** pofed

Chap. I. in the Divine Unity, 49

*^ pofeci to excite or command himfclf, all
'' ground of controverfy is removed. For
'* it does not follow, that there is any mul-
*« tiplication of the firft caufe, which is
*' moil fimple, and one, becaufe the phrafe,
*^ let us make^ is ufed. For Mof^-s might
*^ very ilifely make ufe of this language,
*' (ince he every where mod: clearly teaches,
*' that there is but one God; and, there-
*^ fore, he only will defend his error by
*^ thefe words, who knowingly and wil-
*' ingly errs *.''

* Aut dicemus, plerumque id, quod majoris momenti
videtiir, majori quoqiie ftudio et deliberatione nos aggredi :
ideoque fcripturam in creatione hominis peculiar! modo
loqui in plurali, faciamus : quad verbum videtur impe-
rantis fibi ipfi, et ad fufcipiendum ac faciendurxi aliquid
incitantis : eaque re oftendere dominus vuit, omnes reli-
quas creaturas fuo beneficio creatas. Sed five cum om-
nibus fecundis caufis loquatur deus, five cum intclligentiis
tantum, five cum elementis, five cum animis, five rcgio more
hiEC dicat, feu denique incitet femetipfum, fibique imperet,
conciliatione ejufmodi tota tollitur controverfia. Etenim
jion quia faciamus dicitur, inde fequitur multiplicatio ali-
qua prims caufse, quae fimpliifima eft et unica. Mofes
vcro caufam cur ita fcribcrct, juftam habuit, quia c!arif-
fime paffim docet unicum numcn efie- eoque falus is,
qui fciens volens errat, his verbis errorem fuam defenfurus
eft. Conciliator, p. 12,

Vol. III. E C PI A P.

:;o Chrlfi did not teach Book III,

C H A P T E R II.

General Confide rat ions relating to the fiippofed
Condiidl of Cbrift and the Apojiles, with
RefpeB to the Dodlrines of his Pre-exiftence
and Divinity,

'Tp H E whole nation of the Jews having
been fo well grounded in the great
dosftrine of the divine unity^ ever fince their
return from the Babylonifli captivity, and
their attachment to. it having ftrengthened
continually, as the whole of their hiftory
fhews, efpecially in confequence of their
perfecution by Antiochus Epiphanes, and
during their fubjeftion to the Romans (in
which their utter abhorrence of every thing
that had the appearance of idolatry, is feen
upon all occafians) and this being well-
known to, and allowed by all the chriftian
Fathers ; it could not but, even in their
idea, require the greateft caution and ad-
drefs to teach them any dodlrinc that could
be conftrued into an infringement of it.

That

Chap. II. his own Divinity. 51

That the dodrlne of the divinity of Chrift
had this appearance, thofe Fathers acknow-
ledged ; when they fuppofed that Mofes
and the prophets could not teach it, left it
fhould have given the Jews a pretence for
relapfing into the worihip of many Gods.

They could not imagine that this diffi-
culty would be at all removed by the chrif-
tian docftrine of Jefus being the Mefiiah.
Becaufe it was well known to them that the
Jews expedled nothing more than a man for
their Meffiah 3 and even a man born in
the ufual way, a proper defcendant of Da-
vid. Their higheft expedation concerning
the Mefliah was, that he would be a great
prince, a conqueror, and a legiflator, and
perhaps that he would not die. The pro-
bability is, that they imagined that the race
of their kings defcended from David would
be revived in him, and continue to the end
of time. But all this is far fliort of the
deification of the Meffiah, or the idea of his
being a great pre-exiftent fpirit, the m^aker
of the world under God, and who, in the
name of God, Had intercourfe with the pa-
triarchsr Such notions as thefe do not ap-
p 2 pear

5 2 Chrift did not teach Book III.

pear ever to have entered into the head of
any Jew, extravagant as their expectations
were concerning the dignity and power of
their Meffiah.

Flere then was a great dilemma in which
the chriftian Fathers, advocates for the doc-
trines of the prc-exiftence and divinity of
Chrift, found themfelves. They were un-
der the neceffity of maintaining that they
were dodrines taught either by Chrift or
the apofties, or they muft have abandoned
them themfelves. Doftrines of this great
extent and magnitude, and fo revolting to
the minds of all Jews, they could not but
fuppofe would alarm them very much ; and
therefore, that it v/as neceffary to introduce
them with the greateft caution. Still, how-
ever, they muft have been taught them fully
and explicitly at one time or other.

Accordingly, we find, in their accounts of
the preaching of our Saviour and his apof-
ties, that they did fuppofe that the greateft
poffible caution was ufed, and that this
cautious proceeding was continued even till
after the death of moft of the apofties ; fo
that the dc'ftrines of the pre-exiftenrce and
I divinity

Chap. IL hh oiso?2 Dlvhuty. 53

divinity of Chriil were not fully difcovered
till the publication of the gofpel of John,
which was one of the laft of all the books
of the New Teftament. But at that time
they thought it to be abfolutely neceffary ^
as otherwife there would hardly have been
any befides unitarians in the church ; the
knowledge of thofe great doftrines having,
in their opinion, been confined to the apof-
tles and the leading chriftians only.

A more improbable hypothefis was per-
haps never formed by man, to account for any
fact whatever ; and yet I do not know that
the chriftian Fathers could have done any
better. Let their fuccefibrs, who are equally
intereiled in the folution of the problem,
do better if they can. But certainly they
who were nearer to the times of the apoftles,
were in a fituation to form a better judg-
ment in this cafe than any perfons at this
day can pretend to be -, and therefore, I
cannot help concluding, that they were well
aware, that the fuppofition of this dif-
covery having been made at an earlier pe-
riod in the gofpel hiftory would have been
liable to ftill greater objedtions than the
E 3 hypothefis

54 CLr'iJl did not teach Book III.

hypothefis which they did adopt. It is
moll: probable that the ftate of opinions la
their own time made it abfolutely neceffary
for them to have recourfeto this hypothefis,
larrje and wretched as it is.

The primitive Fathers were not pre-
vented by the fuppofition above-mentioned,
from attempting to prove the pre-exiftence
and divinity of Chrift from fhofe books of
the New Teftament which were publifhcd
before the gofnel of John ; but neither
were, they prevented from attempting to
prove the fame doctrines, as we have {ten,
from the books of the Old Teftament,
though they acknowledged that the body of
the Jewifli nation never learned them from
thofe books. In like manner though they
fuppofed that the apoftles left fufficient traces
of thefe fublime dodlrines in their writings,
they thought that the common chriftians,
for whofe ufe they were written, did not
perceive them, or make the proper inferences
from them. That they fliould not have
done this will not be thought extraordi-
nary, if we confider the extreme caution
with which, according to the account of

thefe

Chap. II. his. owJi Divinity. 55

thefe Fathers themfelves, thofe dodrines
were taught in thefe books.

Such a revolution has time made in our
apprehenlions of things, that the doctrines
of the pre-exiftence and divinity of Chrift
are now taught to children, as fome of the
firfl; elements of chriflianity ; but formerly
the cafe was very different. They were
confidered as moil fublime and difficult
dodrines, and therefore, not to be taught
till after every thing elfe relating to the
gofpel had been admitted and ,well under-
ftood. That thefe doctrines were adually
confidered -in this light, appears from a
great number of palTages in the writings of
the Fathers, many of which I il^iall intro-
duce in other parts of this work, and efpe-
cially fome very ilriking ones from Origen.
But not to advance a thing of this confe-
quence without fome evidence, in a place
where it will be particularly wanted, I fhall
produce a few pafTages of this kind here.

Eufebius, after demonftrating the divine
miflion of Chrift as a prophet, introduces his
difcourfe concerning his pre-exiflence and

E4 divinity

^6 Chrijl. did not teach Book IIL

divinity as a '^ myfterioas and recondite
doi5lrinc*."

Aiiftin compares the doftrlne of the hu-
manity of Chrift to miik, and the doctrine
of the divinity to ftrong meat, fit for ment-

'' The doctrine of the incarnation," Chry-
foflom fiys, ^' Vv^as very difficalt to be rc~
*' ceived ."{;;" and then defcribing the .great
condefcenfion of the maker of all things in
fubmitting to be carried nine months in
the womb of a woman, he fays, that on
this account the prophets announced it
very obfcurely. Again, obferving that
it was neceffary to preach the humanity
before the divinity of Chrifl, he fays,
** this was the order refpeding his deity

aulov fjLVi-LJcciP.E^ag BsoXoyia^, Demonftratio, iib. 4.. cap. i. p.
144.

f Ut nutrltus atque robcratus perveniat ad manducan-
dum cibum, quod eft in principio erat verbum, et verbum
erat apud deum, et deus erat verbnm. Lac noftrum,
Chriilus humilis eft : cibus noller, idem ipfe Chriftus
aequalis patri. In i John. Opera, vol. 9. p. 594..

"^ Tlc>^u ^'ja7ra^a.^£Hio; w 0 ty.c, Cix^Kaazo:^ A070J, Serm. 8.
Opera, vol. 5. p. 131, 132,

'' and

Chap. II. his own Divbnty, ^j

<* and incarnation, though it is introduced
** by John in a different manner from the
*• reft, but in perfed: agreement with them.
^« But how ? I fay, that the dodtrine not
** being taught at firft, it was proper to
*^ dwell upon the incarnation, and to exer-
" ciie them in the dodrine of the flefh ;
^* teaching them, from things grofs and
*' fenfible; but when the do6lrine was fix-
^' ed, and the preaching received, it was
** then proper to afcend higher*.''

Cyril of Alexandria, explaining a paffage
in Ifaiah, fays, *' here he mixes a great and
/* profound myftery, which required a myf- r
'' tical initiation ; for fo it was revealed to
*' the divine Peter f."

fxiag^ £i ^ aTTtvsivliai; Toig a'Xhoii; yfyove zja^a lcf)OLVVi^ (X'KK oixcog (T(po~
"^^a cru(/,<puvco<; auloi§ . y] 'Zja; ; sya Xsyco • oli i^ja^ci fx£v nnw apx,v,v
ahTTco T3 T^oya a7ra^Ev%g^ anoT^sOov nv ro) mg cmovoaiag sv^ialciQeiv
y^oyco, )^ TTs^i ryig cra^nog yu/xva^siv ^i^a.ay.a'Mav airo tcov ^ax^lzoay
iUi ai<7^-i]luv '^^coi(Jt.ia.^C[X2]/^i; , £7[A Ss 2'?rci,yy\ tx mg yvcoasugf A
E^s^avlo TO K-A^vyiJLo.^ 7^01'jTov eukm^ov nv avcoBEv a^x^a^M. In Pf. 4.1
Opera, vol. 3. p, 223.

i Immifcec autem hie myfteriiim prcfundum et mag-
num, et quod fuperna quadam myllagogia opus habet.
Reveiatum eft enim fic divino Petro. In If. Cap. 49.
Opera, vol. i. p. 472.

Agobard

58 Chrijl did not teach Book IIL

Agobard confidered what John taught
concerning the divinity of Chrift as being fo
difBcult to be underftood, that, in order to
it, the fame infpiration was neceffary that
he himfelf had*.

" Perfedion,*' fays GEcumenious, *' is the
*^ doctrine concerning the divinity of Chrift,
^' as far as the human uaderftanding can
** comprehend itf." Again, he fays, '' by
^^ firji elements the apoftle means the incar-
** nation. For, as with refped to letters,
*' fo in the divine oracles, what relates to
'* the incarnation muft be learned in the
** firft place; for thefe were capable of
** being received by unbelievers and chil-
** dren ; but to philolophize concerning
** the divinity of Chrift, is left to grown
** men. Do you fee why he refts fo
*Mong in thefe low things? It is on

* Inde qui hsec dixit accepit Johannes ille, qui difcum-
bebat fuper pe(Stus domini, ct de pe6lore domini bibe-
bat quod nobis propinarct. Scd propinavit verba. Intel-
le£tum autem debes capere unde et ipfe biberat qui tibi
propinavit. De Imaginibus, p. 231.

ocvB^TTcii oiAialoyy oiHot^r,; i(cx^a>.Yi-^ii, In Hcb. Opera, vol. 2.

'^ account

Chap. IL his own Divinity. 59

'^ account of the weaknefs of his hearers,
*^ who were not able to receive the perfedt
'* doftrine. For which reafon, having in
^« the beginning of the epiftle philofophized
*« but a little concerning the divinity of
<^ Chrift, he prefently changed his dif-
<^ courfe, and the epiftle is full of low
** things*/' This he gives from Photius.
Again, after having obferved that the author
of the epiftle to the Hebrews had fpoken of
the naked word of God, he fays, that '' he
** returned to the incarnation, left he fhould
** confound his reader with the fublimity
** of his dod:rinet/'

We fee then, that, in the opinion of thefe
Fathers (and fome of them who write in

*^ 27cj;)(^f<a oc^x^'^-> "^iv zvav^^oiirmiv ^r>'st . aTW'^ yap tTti rav
y^a^fMxlav 'in^mv ra toix^ioc [/.xv^xvoixtv . nlcog ^ em ray ^siav T^zyiuv '

aTTiroig ell t^ v>]7rja($ txHooiig x^^^^ • ^^ '^^ y^ '^^f ' '^^^ Beoinlo; m %p<r«
(piho<jo(peiv^ TsAsiwv y\v "hoiTCOv . o^<xg rw ociliav 3i nv roi^ raTreivoi^ e/x^i-
^op(;aJpei j Jia rmv rm awdovlm ao-^evuav . hk {o-%yov7a;y ^a T£>.£ioe, S^la-
c^ai * ^io JcJ -srapa ja^ «f%a5 TVii eiriro'hYi; (^^ax,eoc (pi>.0(roipY}crccg iseoi
TYjg ^eol)Tlag m %^jcra, eu^ug KcCleTCavae tov Koyov . twv (aivtoi tw^elvuv
>j fTTjroXv] '/f//Eu Ibid. p. 352:

f E^mog 'mS^i yu/xva ts ^ea T^oya, ti^.^ev stg rnv evav^^uTrmiV^ ivcx, [xn
r(D v^t 7UV £ior/i£y«v (hiyy\Qi70i<Ti. In Heb. cap. I. vol. 2. p.
320.

this

6o Cbnjl did not teach Book III.

this manner lived pretty early, though others
of them wrote in a later period) there were
very myfterious and difficult dodlrlnes to be
revealed, of which no perfon to whom chrif-
tianity was preached had the leaft concep-
tion, and to which it was apprehended they
mufl be exceedingly averfe. Let us now
fee in what manner they fuppofed that our
Saviour and the apoftles conduced them-
felves in this nice circumftance, and what
period it was that they th6ught to be the
mofl: proper for making the great difcovery.
To give fome idea of the nature of this
queftion, I would obferve, that, if it fhould
appear that a difcovery of fo great magni-
tude, as the Fathers reprefent this to have
beep, made no noife at all at the time fixed
for the difcovery, if it excited no particular
attention -, neither occafioning any doubt
or controverfy among chriflians themfelves,
nor bringing any objection to their dodrine
from their enemies, it will afford a ftrong
reafon to fuppofe that no fuch difcovery
was made at that particular time. The
Jews, to whom the gofpel was firft preach-
ed, as the Fathers admitted, expeded no

thinp

Chap. II. hh own Divinity. 6i

thing more than a man for their Meffiah.
They were fully fenfible that no Jew had
any idea of his having pre-exifted at all,
and much lefs of his having held any of-
fice of importance before he came into the
world. When was it, then, that the Jews,
to whom the gofpel was preached, were
taught that Chrift had pre-exiftcd, that he
was the logos of God, the maker of the
world under God, or properly God himfelf ?
Was it in our Saviour's own life-time ?
Was it at the defcent of the Spirit at Pen-
tecoft? Or was it in a later period of the
gofpel hiflory ? If no traces can be per-
ceived of an y fuch difcovery, in any period
of the gofpel hiftory, an argument may be
drawn fiom the confideration of it, highly
unfavourable to the doflrine of Chrift hav-
ing any nature fuperior to that of man ; and
when this circum.ilance (liall be fufficiently
attended to (as I fufped it never has been
yet) the Arian hypothefis qiuft be greatly
iliaken, but efpecially that of the perfed:
equality of the Son to the Father.

Confiderations of this kind, if they occur
to him, no pcrfon, who thinks at all, can '

abfolutely

. 62 Chriji did not teach Book III.

abfolutely neglcd:, fo as to fatisfy himfelf
with having no hypothefis 'on the fubjecft.
We certainly find the apoftles, as well as the
reft of the Jews, without any knowledge of
the divinity of Chrifl, v/ith whom they lived
and converfed as a man ; and if they ever
became acquainted with it, there muft have
been a time when it was either difcovered
by them, or made known to them ; and the
efFefts of the acquiiition, or the communi-
cation of extraordinary knowledge, are, in
general, proportionably confpi,cuous.

Had we no written hiflory of our Savi-
our's life, or of the preaching of the apof-
tles, or only fome very concife oncj flill fo
very extraordinary an article as this would
hardly have been unknown, much lefs
when the hiflory is fo full and circumilan-
tial as it is.

Had there been any pretence for imagin-
ing, that the Jews, in our Saviour's time,
had any knowledge of the dod:rine of the
trinity, and that they expeded the fecond
perfon in it in the character of their Mef-
fiah, the queftion 1 propofe would have
been needlefs. But nothing can be more

evident

Chap. II. his own Divinity. Ci

evident than that, whatever fome may fancy
with refped to more ancient times, every
notion of a trinity was obliterated from the
minds of the Jews in our Saviour's time ;
It is therefore not only a curious, butaferi-
ous nnd important queftion. When was it
introduced, and by what fteps ? I have an-
fwered it on my hypothecs, of its being an
innovation and a corruption of the chriflian
dodrine ; let othei*s do the fame, on the
idea of its being an effential part of it. Let
us then fee, what it is that the chriflian
Fathers, who themfelves believed the pre-
exiftence and divinity of Chrifl^ and who
were much nearer than v/e are to the time
when the gofpel was promulgated, have faid
pa this fubjeft.

CHAP-

6 J. Chrift did not teach Book III.

CHAPTER III.

Of the CondvM of our Saviour himfelf with re-
fpecf to his ozvfi fuppcfed Pre-exiftence and
Divinity.

T F we lock into the gofpel hiilory, we
iliall find, that all that oar Saviour him-
felf taught, or infinuated, were his divine
miffiou in general, or his being the Mefiiah
in particular ; with the dodj:rine of the re-
furreftion, and that of himfelf coming again
to raife the dead and judge the world.
Thefe dodlrines, accompanied with moral
inftrudions, and reproofs of the Pharifc:es,
for corrupting the law of God, made up the
whole of his preaching. He never told his
difciples that he had pre-exiiled, or that he
had had any thing to do before he came into
the world 5 much ]efs that he had made the
world, and governed it 3 and there is abun-
dant

Chap. IIT* his own Divlniip • 6j;

dant evidence that this was admitted by ths
chriftian Fathers*

Athanafius expreffes his fenfe of the
difficulty with which the Jews admitted
that Chrift was any thing more than a
man very ftrongly in the following paf-
fage ; ** He calls his humanity the fon of
*^ man y for the Jews^ always oppofing God,
*^ held a twofold blafphemy with refpeft to
** Chrift ; for fome of them being offended
*' at his flefti, viz. the fon of man, thought
** him to be a prophet, but not God, and
^^ called him a glutton and a wine-bibber j
** who were forgiven, for it was then the
" beginning of the preaching, and the world
** could not yet believe him to be Godj
*' who was made man * wherefore Chrift
«^ fays, Whofoever ihall fpeak a word againft
** the fon of man, viz. his body, it (hall be
«« forgiven him. For I will venture to fay,
*^ that not even the bleffed difciples them-
** felves were fully perfuaded concerning his
«« divinity,till the holy fpirit came upon them
<« at the day of Penteceft. For when they
<« faw him after his re furred: ion, fome wor-
VoL. III. F '' fhipped

66 Clfijl did not teach Book IIL

** fliipped, but others doubted, yet they
** were not on that account condemned */'
The Fathers fay, that whenever our Sa-
viour faid any thing that might lead his dif-*
ciples to think that he was of a nature fu-
perior to that of man, they were offended,
and that he conciliated their efteem when-
ever he reprefented himfelf as a mere man,
fuch as they expeded a prophet, and the '
Meffiah to be. Chryfoftom reprefents John
the Baptift likewife as gaining profelytes to
Chrift, when he fpake of him in low terms,
but as deterring them when he feemed to
fpeak of him in a higher capacity.

f/Avya^ Tn a-A^Ki ttv7^,Y)y\iv tco via ra civ^fi}'^ 'zir§o(rKoT^
Tcvji^i 'nr^o(pifiiiv Avjov, ctAA' a -d-zov uvcja g;o///^o;', iy (payov
etvlcv 'jy or.c<T'iliii' ix.dLKiiv, Qii >0) crvtyvc-j ij.il i> zcf^ciK'-V " afy^n ytt^
mv r-< y^y^ftvyfxctjoc, iy ^itm 4%«yf£' o KO(ruo^ -d-iov ^ig-ivav yzvo-
y.v:cv o-V^^cdTOu. S'lo (piiavj q yj'^^? ^V> ^^ ^9 -*'^*' ^•^yoi' ^^^ct

T« VIOV T» ClV^yCOrt^S. Y>yO'JV T« (jCdlJLO^Oi CtV%, Ctipid-ilffijcli Avjco*

■7oKy.eo yap ?^<>yitv o^i acTg eivjoi oi uetKctpiot iJ.ctSiJTeu 70 T£-

MtCV 'nr^t 7 Hi clVTv .J'~OTil7 0^ -^X,°'' ODOPHfJO., iCO? 70 IZViVfJ.A TO
Cf.yicP Cf.VTOl^ 7M ^«!'7H>tori) «7rtS0;7J)<7sl' . iTni '/j (J.iTcLTW ti.ydL-

roMiv iJ^op7?f eivTov, oi (j.iv 'Ufc(T^.Kvvi](TctVy 01 oi iS'i^dLaav '
cr.?.x'' ^y. cit7-67ii y.<tTiKft^mciv. Sernio major de iidc, in
Montfaucon*£ Coiledlion, vol. 2. p. 39.

Obferve,

Chap. III. . his own Divinity 6j

*^ Obferve," iliys he, *' how, when he faid,
** He that cometh after me was before me,
*' and I am not worthy to loofe his fhoe
^'latchetj he took nobody. But when he
'^ fpake of his humanity, and ufed a lower
'* ftyle, then the difciples followed him.
** Nor is this the only cafe of the kind, for
** the multitude were never brought to him
*'• when anything high andlofty^asofa God,
** was faid of him, fo much as when they
** heard fomething mild and humble, and
** more adapted to the falvation of men */*

Accordingly Chryfoftom fpeaks of our
Lord's difciples as having regarded him as a
man in their intercourfe with him. Natha-
niel, he fays, *' confeffed Chrift as a man,
** when he addreffed himfelf to him, by the
•' title of Son of God, John, i. 49. as ap-
** pears by his adding, thou art the kitig of

• (diet cTi U.Ol ^itKilVQ Zr:^'§ OTt ^iV iKiyiV^ 0 QfrKTCd y.M

itiyoyjiv^ ii/.T^ocr^ey fiM yiyoV'^ iy on \iK s/y./ mcfy'^ KvdAi

roi> tl/.av](l T« VTToi'^lACLt^ AVTii, nJ^iVct S/ASj^ . OTt S'i 'Ul^l THJ

otKovoy.iAi Jiii\i^d-ti, ^ serf to retTriivoTipov tov KoyoV
Yiyetyi, TOTS ti'/.o^a^iia'civ oi ^.d^Y^r^t . y 7aTo /« y.ovQV i^t

KcLTlJ^ilV, ctXA.' OTt »/. «Tft>? 01 'TSOKxOl -Tff^oaoiyoVTAl OT Cf.V T/

//i>£6>9 V'^-AKov '^ipt -d-ia Kzyi]Tcti, coi or etV "X^^n^ov )y (pthav
•3-fiyTof }y ii^ Tm T6-JU ctKkovT&iv (TsoT^ficLV mov. In John i.
Horn. 17, Opera, vol. 8. p. 93,

F 2 ♦« IfraeV\

•68 Chrif. did not teach Book IIL

*' IJracW Ibid. p. io6. He fays, that when
Nathaniel was introduced to Jefus, his mi-
raculcus conception was not known*. As
Chrylbftom has v/ritten the mofl largely on
tliis fubjed, I fhall quote from him a paf-
fage or two of fome extent, that we may
more clearly perceive how he, and (as he
was by no means lingular in his ideas) how
the chriilian Fathers in general thought
with refped to this qutftion.

*' Another rcafon," he fays, *' why Chrift
*' reprefented himfelf fo much as a man, was
*^ the weaknefs of his hearers ^ and becaufe
** they who firit faw and heard him were
*' not able to receive more fublime dif-
*' courfes. And that this is no mere
** conjedure, I wdll endeavour to fhew
** from the fcriptures themfelves. If he
" delivered any thing great, fublime, and
" worthy of his glory ; but why do I ^
*' fay, great, fublime, and worthy of his
*' glory ; if he faid any thing above
** human nature" (fomething is here omit-
ted in the Greek, but fupplied in the
Latin verfion) ** they were thrown into

• Y I sT? VIQV lcL(ni(p ftVfOV >A'),il, lJ.il d-opvCi1^)1f. 171 y:lfiJ'6T<i

'o-aii iVQlj.nno iivcn. In John, Horn, 18. Op. vol. 8. p. 103.

'' tumult

<i

it

Chap. III. ^/j" own Bhifiiiy. 6g

*' tumult, and took offence ; but if he faid
*' any thing low, and becoming a man, they
*' ran to him, and received his dodrine.
'* And where do we fee this ? In John
'* chiefly. For when he faid, Abraham^ our
father rejoiced to fee my day^ and he faw it,
and was glacl^ they fay, Thou art not yet
forty years old, and haft thou feen Abra*
*' ham. You fee how they were affeded to-
*^ wards him as to a common man. What
*^ then did he reply ? Before Abraham was
** I am *y and they took up ftones to ftone
'* him. He fpake more difliindlly, faying,
<^ The bread which I fall give for the life of
** the world is my flejh. They faid, this is a
♦^ hard faying, who can hear it ; and many of
^' his difciples went backward, and walked no
** more with him,

*' Tell me, then, what muft he do ? Muft
** he always dwell upon thefe lofty topics,
<* fo as to drive away his prey, and deter all
** from his doflirine ? But this did not be-
** come his divine philanthropy. Again,
<* when he faid. He that heareih my words
*^ fall never tajie of death, they faid, Do we
^^ not fay well, that thou haft a demon. — ■
F 3 Abraham^

JO Chrijl did not teach Book IIL

** Ahraham is dead, and the prophets are dead^

^^ and thou J^yejf, he that heareth my words

''^ Jl:a!l not tafte of death. And is it to be

*' wondered at, that the common people

*«^ were thus aifeded towards him, v/hea

'^^ their rulers had the fame opinion." He

then proceeds to inftance in Nicodemus.-—^

^* How then muft he difcourfe with perfons

^^ who would hear nothing fublime. Is it

*' to be wondered at that he faid nothing

*' great or fublime concerning himfelf, to

^' men creeping on the ground, and fo

«*■ meanly affected. What he faid is fuffi-

«< cient to fliew this was the reafon, and the

^^ excufe for fuch mean difcourfes,

*' On the othpr hand, as you fee men
^^ fcandalized, thrown into confqfipn, flying
** back from him, railing at him, and de-
^* ferting him, if. he faid any thing great
** and lofty ^ fp will I endeavour to fhew
^' you that they ran to him, and received
^^ his dodtrine, if he faid any thing low
*^ and mean. For the very fame perfons who
^' had fled from him, immediately ran to
** him, when he faid, I can do nothing ofmy-
^^ Jetf but as the Father has fought me^fo I

''/peak.

Chap. III. his own Divinity, yi

^' /peak. And the evangelifts, defigning to
** fhew us that they believed on account of
'^ the meannefs of his difcourfe, faid, When
*^ he /pake thefe things many believed on hinu
** You will, on many occafions, find the
'' fame thing happening. On this account
" he fpake in many things as a man, but
*' fometimes not as a man, but as became
**agod*." He adds more to the fame
purpofe,

* En i^ sls^ci (Asia ravlm aflia, >i aa^svia rcov eiHiiCvIxn'^ }^ ro
fjLYt ^W(X<7^ai Tols 'STfcolov aulov i^cvlocg, kJ toIe "ss^cSlov aKHovlag Tag u-^vi^
hols^ag rcov hyi^alm l&^oca^ai Aoyxj , y^ qIih Toyjxaiioc, to Aeyo/xs j/oj;,
au: avlcov aoi ^a^ocrmccL thIq ^zi^aaoi^ai t«v y^a(po^v^ kJ ^ei^on. , sittoIs
Ti fieya. >u u^^^^^ov >o, m; aula ^o^ng a^iov ecp^ey^alo . ri >,eyco /jtsya >cj
i;4"i?^ov, >9 Tvi; aula ^o^n; a'iiov ; « ^ols. Ti [uttz^] rng av^^uTrmig (pv-
a-£u;-£i7re^ 'uiXzov B^opvQavlo «J £(7K(xvd':xXi^ofio . ei h "zols r; raTTBivov ^
ecv^ommv, 'U!^Q(7z\2xoVi ^ Tov Aoyoy e^e^wVo . ^' 'zrx ts7o 2tiv i^eiv
tpwi ; 'sra^a rco laavvr] ixcxXira . sivrovlog yot^ avla ' A<^^aafz o ^alr,P
vifxuv nya'K'.aaalo^ iva i^-a tv]V n/xE^av nw f/>tw, i^ ih, y^ ^xoi^v, "^syaai *
isaa-apaHovla £% httm £X^^^-, ^ AQ^aa[j, Eupanag ; o^ag olt cog 'm£Pi

(tV^pCOTTH 4'i7\8 Oi£H£lvlo 5 Ti HV (Xvlog . ^pO TH TOV AQ^dOifJi yivEa^cci

(pwiv^ £yo) sifxi . kJ -i^^av >.i^iig^ iva ^ot.'h'huaiv aulov . f^ rm /jLvrmav
fioM^sg i7r£l£iv£ T^oy-dg^ 7^£ym . :^ o afog ^e ov £yco ^mo) utte^ r-og Tis
Hoo-fxa <t«>??, Caf I {/,H £Tiv, £h£ycv auT^-A^og eti q ^oyog alog^ rig '^uvacion
avla au.H£iv ', t^ rsohhoi rm fca9nlojv aura aTrnT^ov ug rex, ottio-co, >jJ
audi (xil aul-d nsEpiETroclav , ri av e^ei 'sjoieiv, eitte [jloi ; TOig v^y]Ko-
^EOQig ev^ickI^iQeiv ^r]i/,xa-i ^invsKug, wrf aTrodoQmai rw ^n^av, it) rsocv-
%i ccwoH^aaag-^cci r% ^id'(XJHa>^ioig ; a>.?! an y^v ralo t>3j ra Ses f i^ay-

F 4 ^i'Mid^

.^i . Chrijl did not teach Book III,

x4gain, he fays, " if they took up ftones
^^ to Itone him, becaufe he faid that he was
^* befoje Abraham, what would th-y have
^' done if he had told them that he gave
^' the law to Mofcs. Wherefore, when he
^* faid, it "was faid to the ancients he did not
^' fiy l>y zvhom it had been faid '/'

^^^■^Tiia^ , :^ yap '>z^O-^iv £7r£<.0yj £(T£v o rov >>oyov fX8 afiacov^ ^^xvala
p /^>| ysuaflui Sic, rev cx-mya. ^hsyoy . a KuT^cog sMyof^sv o% ^m/mviov
^X^i^i AC^xdfA (X7r£^ixv£, }ij 01 'mpo(pY^ai «9re^cxvov. )y au J\£y£i^, oli
0 TQv Xoyov jwa uK-dcov a /^jj ysvcrzlM ^xvciln ; •'^ tj ^ocvijmTGV £i ro
'Sj?^yi9o^ a?aj oiSfcsilo.) otth ys ^ au%i gi ot^X'^'^^i rpivlvv ei%oi' rrjv yv(Of/.Yiv»
Ticog av raloi^ d'ia?.Ey£a-^cxi £hi , Tot j K^ev tuv v^n^o)v (p^^aaiv ; oil yap
cTsO); UK ELTTE Ti (jLzya '{J v-^riXov 'si£pi £(zv!h, h ^avixarov av^puTTOig ^^/-lai
a-jpcy,£voi;, }^ iilag ao-^y]vco; £-)Qi(TiV . y\oK£i fXEV av nca ra^sipnixsva ^si^ai^
on xu% 7] cx.Ch(X^ Koci n 'n7po<pacrig y\v lyi^ j&v 'Tol£ X£yotx£vm £vt£K£io(,§ «
Eyw ^£ Koii aTTo ^oile^H y>:^^g rn ro 'SJEipacrofiM '^omaicci ^avt^ov . WfX-
UTBp yoL^ aulag ihl£ !7Kav^a>.i^o{M£VH;^ ^opvQoix£Viig^ aTroTTYiOuvlag >,oi^O'
p^l^EV's; (p£uyoi^,cig £i7rol£ t; fXEya, Jtai v^ViT^QV £(p'^£yia}o o x^^fog. iilcog
Ufxiv aiPiag hi^xi "^a^ciJoixM '!ffpof^£^ovl(xg^ KcCia^£X,C(^^viig tjiv I'lOaaHa-
hiav^ £1 'SjoIe ri tutteivov koci sulEXsg siwev . aifoi yao auloi a uttott'^-
d'covJsg, EiTTOvlog avlk rzaXiv oil air EyMuls 'srojcj s^ev, a7<\a, xaQcog E^td'a^s
^i£ 0 '3:rx7rf />ts hciha^ £u^£Ci?g 'ss^oaE^^aixov . kca ^H'hOfjLivog nfjav Exhi^a-
cr^M 0 £Ucx.ly£nrAg^ oli d'lot t»v TaTTEivol-^a. rm ^nfyLciJav £7riT£u<ja.v^ etti.
o-yii^amlpii %£ym . rauia, au% 7\a,'k','\(ra{lQg 'sioK^oi eTrirsi/o-av si; aolcv '
:y aKKax^ "usoWayji Tiilo ev^oi rig av iP.oi <TU[jLQamy. • ^ioi, ralo nzo'K/^oc,
fixi ^oTO^/xKig avS^oj^TiVwj £<pS£y/£7o, ;^ ^a,>j,v. an av^^oTi'ivag. aM«
;^, ^EoTTpETTug. Or. 32. Opera, vol. I. p. 409, 410.

*-Ei yaf, £7r£i eitte, 's^po ra AQpccaf/, yEVEcr^ai Eyo) Eifju, >4^xa-<xi
avlov E7rE)CEi^mavy ei 'sr^oa-E^m£v oli >y Mcou(Tei aulog rov vofAov e^cokb,
11 ax qv £7ro:wc9V' Ser, ^i. Opera,, vol. 5. p. 696, 697.

Chap. III. his own Dhlnify, 73

** Our Saviour," he fays, " did not al-
^* ways teach his own divinity in exprefs
<* words, leaving the fuller explication of
r^' it to his difciples. If,'' fays he, ^' they
^'(meaning the Jews) were fo much of-
*' fended at the addition of another law
*' to their former, much more mlift they
*^ have been with the dod:rine of his di-
^' vmity •!•,''

Chryfoftom frequently obferves thatChrift
only intimated his divinity obfcurely, and
left the full difcovery of it to his apoflles.
Thus he fays, that ** he himfelf never faid
^^ pUinly that he made the heavens and the
♦^ earth, and the fea and all things vifible
** and invifible. And why,'' fays he, '* do
** you wonder that others Ihould have faid
*^ greater things of him than he faid of
*' himfelf, when he explained many things
*^ by actions, but never clearly in words,
** That he made man, he fhewed clearly

* Aia ^e T87o s5e 'are^ i T)1J ^solnlog m; Eau% ^avlax^ (pctivslai era-
^icg 'zzrajoeyajv . Ei yap » Ta vofia 'Bpoa-^Kyj Tca-alov aulag s^opv^-ei^
mQ7^\u /^a?^Xov TO $£ov savlov aTTo^cxivEiv. In Matt, v. Horn, j 6,
vol. 7. p. 154.

^^ enough,

74 Chrift did not teach Book II I»

** enough, as by the blind man ^ but when
** he was difcouriing about the formation of
** the iirft man, he did not fay / made
<^ them, but, he that m^dc them, made them
** male and female. And that he made the
** world, he fignified by the fiihes, by the
*^ wine, by the loaves, 5cc. but never clearly
** in words ^.'' He even fays, " that the
*'• high dignity of Chnft was more necef-
** fary to be concealed from his difciples,
** becaufe they would immediately have told
** every thing through an excefs of joy +•''

*' Chrift," he fays, '' did not reveal
** his divinity immediately, but was firft
** thought to be a prophet, and the Chrift,

qWfJt^cBayj cra<pa(; an. E^fycv; on ya,^ Toy av^^cc'TTov cwr(^ Z'^oiyktev
thi^e cr«<pwj y^ ^loc ts 7u(p>.s . y^hko. ^s 'sre^j mj ev ct^x^ 'zsj>.a(7£cog
0 ?voy@" nv avTu, hk eittev oti Eyco e'/Tolwo:^ uXk o 'Tsoixaag a^aEv nai
$-.i^y ETTomc^v auTug . TlIc^.7\iv on rov Hoa-fxcv Ed'rifM'^^ymi.v kxl ra ev

avTCO ^la rav ix^ocov o'a ra oiva ^la tccv a^Tuv ^v/xaa-i s5a/>ts

ravo aa(p(i); EITTEV, In Matt. v. Opera, vol. 7. p. 154.

'[ Ehi yc:^ TEcog T^avBavEiv, xai fxc^T^ira. ettl tuv ixod^iirm . nai,
yap EH, -sjo^v?.;'? yi5"on:j 'SjOivra ekv^v^uv. In Matt. cap. 8. Opera,
vol. 7, p. 271.

*< finiply

Chap. III. his own Divinity. y^

*' fimply a man, and it afterwards appeared
^* by his works and his fayings what he
^* really was *."

Bafil of Seleucia fays, that ** during the
*^ ftorm, the difciples of Chrift, judging by
** appearances, did not know that the deity
*' was concealed in him ; for they would not
^' have been terrified, if they had known
*^ that the author of the creation was giving
*' orders to the work of his hands/' He
adds, that *' the apoftles themfelves were as
*^ ignorant of his being God as the rell of
*^ the Jews, when fome faid that he was
** Elias, or Jeremias, or fome of the pro-
^* phets ;'' and that Chrift, '' knowing the
** ignorance of Peter, fuggefted to him the
** anfwer that he made -f/'

c^avjj, ^icx TO)v e^yav xj rm ^r]fx<xliov^ ralo otts^ v]V. In Johan. Horn,
2. Opera, vol. 8. p. 20.

-j- Tco yac^ ^aivoixEvci) 's^^oa-'TrlMavls;, rw HmfVfXfxsvYiv 'nyvokv Sscj-
lyjloi , a yap av i%Z'n'ha.yy\crav, HsXsvovla Ty\ tilusi ^m^avlsg 01 d^nfMH^yov
sivai ryi<; ulicrea^ zTiraixsvoi. — Touavly]; av ayvoiag jac, tcov ccv^^aTTcov,
■^'JX^g 'Z3'£ft ixuls 0oaxo{A.£\m<;^ a^s rcov aTTOTO'hm 0 x^^^^ ayvoicxg e>>su-

mTTQfc^iQ-iv, Or. 25. p. 1385 139. 141.

Job

76 Chrijl didnot teach Book III,

Job the monk obferves, that " Chrift
•* faid, thy Jins are forgiven thee^ without
** intimating that be himfelf forgave them,
<< by his own authority*/*

Photius fays, *• when our Lord faid,
«* My Father is greater than /, the difciples
** were Hill imperfecfl, and thought the
*' Father much greater. This they had
<^ learned from the Mofaic law, which
*' taught the Father rather than the Son,
*« This alfo our Saviour himfelf had perpe-
<* tually inculcated. This, therefore, being
*' their fixed opinion, they laid. Shew us
<< the Father, and it fufficeth us -f.'* Af-
terwards, he fays, " they knew him to be
<« God, after his fufierings and refurrec-
** tion:}:/'

* Ot( to jU?v a/pm{\cx.\. hk f%f< tojv ^nfMiclcov is^o^o^av^ cog £| i^iag
B^^iTia; '^s^ofE^QfJi-smv J^ 'Sj^oTay/xdJ^^ , Photii. Bib. fe<St. 222.
p. 622.

(paMT^fov, aJloig rev 'ssal^^a n rov viov KoclocyfET^ovruv ' Thlo h fa
ffoflr.poi; avu «^ ho^co 'sie^irosfpovTog auloig rov 'sials^a ' zttsi hv TOiaulyj
rig auloig bvstyi^ikIq n ^o^cty ^la ya^ rsio )y c^syov, ^ci^ov r\iMiV Tov 'ZSA^
Is^cc, )C) a^KEi Yif^iv, Epift. 176. p. 263.
% Ibid. p. 270.

Theodoret

Chap. III. his own Divinity, ^^

Theodoret fays, that '* before his fuffer-
*' ings all perfons held fuch an opinion
*< concerning him,'' viz. that he was a mere
man, '* but after his refurrediion and afcen-
** fion, the defcent of the Spirit, and the
** various miracles which they performed
** by invoking his name, all the believers
^* knew that he was God, and the only be-
*' gotten Son of God^\" This is exprefled
in general terms, but it will appear here-
after, that it is to be underftood with great
limitations ; the knowledge of the divinity
of Chrift being, according to Theodoret
himfelf, far from univerfal among the chrif-
tlans,long after the death of Chrift,

Sometimes the Fathers fpeak of Peter as
knowing that Chriil; was God before his
death, by immediate revelation from the
Father. Chryfoftom alfo fays, that before
our Lord's refurredion, the apoftles had
learned that God had a Son equal to the

* Tlpo fi£v HV T8 770^85 roixvTocg six,ov ^o^ag 'SJBpi aura . (jlbto. 3e

iTTi (ponYjcriv^ k^ rag '^ano^aTrag ^czviJUXTa^yixg ag ettcte^sv, Ko.'^svrsg
auTH TO crsCxaixiov ovo/AOi^ eyvojcrav ccTTcivrsg oi rsfifEuovTsg^ on '>y ^£og
en, y^i rt: ^sa fiovoyivng uiog. Ad Rom, i, 4, Opera, vol. 3*
p. II.

Father,

^8 Chriji did 7iof teach Book III.

Father*. But, in general, it was their
opinion, that even Peter, as well as the
other apoftles, was ignorant of this great
truth, till the defcent of the Spirit at Pen-
tecoft 5 and they thought that this v/as one
of the great truths alluded to, when our
Lord faid, that he had many things to
teach his difciples, of which he could not
inform them before his death.

Cyril of Alexandria, defcanting on this
*' text, fays, they who were not renewed by
** the new rule of living, and the new doc-
** trine of the Spirit, to them the recent
*' preaching of the gofpel, and the fublime
** myftery of the trinity, was not to be deli-
** vered. Juflly, therefore, was the interpre-
** tation of higher things referved to thefu-
** ture renovation of the Spirit. That before
*' the refurrecftioa of the Saviour, and the
•* coming of the Spirit, the difciples were as
*' Jews, is eaiy to provef.'' Auftin, however^

* E/Ao^oy oTi viog ts Ssa sr., t^ viov £XJi o Ss^ o/xonixov .
In Acta, vol. 8* p. 459.

•f Qui enim nondum nova vivendi norma, novaque doc-

trina per fpintum reformati funt, iis prsdicatio evangelii

recens, et myderium trinitatis fuolime tradendum non eft.

Jure igitur renovationi per fpiritum futurae, altiorum

2 rerum

Chap. III. his own Divimfy* yg

lays, that ** the dodrine of the divinity of
** Chrift could not be one of the things
** that Chrift would not reveal, becaufe
«* they were not able to bear it, though
«« fome had faid fo*/' And yet this wri-
ter himfelf, as v/e fhall fee, acknowledges
that the divinity of Chrift was not taught
with clearnefs, till it was done by the
apoftle John. Origen fuppofed that the
things which our Saviour referred to were
what related to the abolifhing of the Jewifh
lawf. But he thought that John was the
perfon who firft taught the do6lrine of
Chrift's pre-exiftence and divinity.

rerum Interpretatio refervatur. Ouod autem ante refur-
reiSlionem falvatoris, et ante fpiritus adventum, Judaice dif-
cipuli vivebant, facillimum eft probare. In John, lib. 1 1.
cap. 41. Opera, vol. i. p, 963.

* In princlpio erat verbum, et vcrbum erat apud deum,
Ct deus erat verbum, hoc erat in princlpio apud deum, et
alia quae fequuntur, quoniam poflea fcripta funt, nee ea do-
minum Jefu dixifle narratum eft cum hie eflet in carne, kd
hasc unus ex apoftolis ejus ipfo ac fpiritu ejus fibi revelante
confcripfit : ex his efie quas noluit tunc dominus dicere,
quia ea difcipuli portare non poterant, quis me audiat tarn
temere iftadicentem. In John, Tr. 96. cap. iG. Opera,
vol. 9. p. 478.

t Ad Celfum, lib. 2. p. 57.

Before

. 8o Chrijl d'4 mi teaCh Boojc IIL

Before I proceed to confider what the
Fathers thought of the apoftles' fentiments
and conduct on the day of Pentecoft, I fhall
take notice of another reafon which they
give for the care that was taken to conceal
the knowledge of our Lord's divinity,
which was to deceive the devil, left he,
knowing him to be the Meffiah, fhould not
have ventured to encounter him, and fo, not
being conquered by him, and efpecially by
means of his death, the great objed: of his
miffion would not have been gained.

This thought firft occurs in epiftles
afcribed to Ignatius, who fays, '* the vir-
** ginity of Mary, her delivery, and his
** death, were concealed from the prince of
** this world*." Jerom fays, that both the
demons and the devil, rather fufpedled, than
knew the Son of God ^. Chryfcftom, fpeak-
ing of the myftery of the incarnation being

t roHSTog aurr.g^ Ofxoiug k) o ^avarog m «ypi8, rpia (MUTy]^ia Kf>auyngy
ariva £v mvx^a ^ss ETTpax^n, Ad. Eph. S. 19. p. 16.

-j- Jam dasmones quam diaboli fufpicari magisiilium dei,
quam nolte iriteiligendi funt. In Matt. cap. 8. Opera,
vol. 6. p. 12.

concealed

Chap. lit. his o^jdji T)lvinityk 8t

concealed from many, fays, *' Why do I fay
** many? Mary herfelf, when (he carried him
*' in her womb, did not know the fecret. And
** why do I fay men ? The devil himfelf did
*' not know it, for if he had known it, he
** would not afterwards have aiked him upon
*' the mount, faying, If thou art the Son of
** God-y and he did this once, twice, and three
** times. On this account he faid to John,
*' who was beginning to reveal him, hold?2ow\
** that is, be filent now. It is not yet time
'* to reveal the fecret of the incarnation i I
** muft yet deceive the devil ; keep filence
** now, for thus it becomes us *." Again,
he fays, " the devil was at a lofs to know
** whether Chriftwas God or not. -f-/'

%^Ei TO ciTTo^pnlov, K.ai ti ^£yw av^vTra^^ xj aulov rov ^laSoT^oi^
i'hav^ciMiv . s^g ya^ av^ R9ref »j^<, >jf ai7a avloy f^slcc rocnilov x^ovov tin
T8 Of sj, 21 uiQs SI TH Se», ^ «7ra|, kJ 5ij }y r^ilov ralo i'Ttom . $io )y t»
Iwawn £^£7£v a^^txixivoi aulov EKHah.vn-lsiv : a(p£s ofk ' rnlsri^ aiya vw^
sSfTTw xai^og T8 ya^ £Ka>.v(p'btvai to aTTOp^-nJov tyi^ owovofjua; . iJihaV'
SavEiv TQv oiaQoT^ov ^hXo/jlcu . aiya toivuv (pwi . STw ya^ 'SJ^sttov enif
Tiixiv. In Pf. 49. Opera, vol. 3. p. 289.

uio^ nv ra $£oy, ^<c6 to /Saetts^v avlov ^iseifuvla^ In Matt. Opera,
vol. 7. p. iig,

VoL.IIL G There

8.2 CIrrifl did not teach Book III.

There is fornething pleafant in the man-
ner in which the Fathers fometimes fpeak
of the devil being deceived by the humani-
ty of Chrift. Cyril of Jerufalem fays, *' it
** was necelTary that Chriil fhould fufrer for
** us, but the devil would not have come
** near him, if he had known this; for if
'* they had known^ they would not have cruci^
** fied the Lord of glory, i Cor. ii. 8. The
** body, therefore, was the bait of death,
*' that the dragon, thinking to fwailow it
*' down, might vomit up all that he had
** fwallowed *."

Ruiiinus alfo reprefents the divinity of
Chrifh as concealed within his humanity, to
catch the devil as w^ith a bait ; and to prove
this, he adduces many paflages of the Old
Teflament, efpecially that of Ezek. / will
draw thee out with my hook^ &cf,

^£kV 0 oiaCo^5$, 2i y\0£i ralov . £i ya^ cyvaaav. hk av rev uuoicv T)ij ^o^vii
tTO'.v^(ticay . ^eAeap roiwv t» Sav«TS ysyove to cru/xa, iva z7mi(Ta^
HolaTTiSiV 0 c^ccuav, £^j/x£<ryi -^ Taj n^n ua}cc':so^£vlas. if, 25. 8.
Cat. 12. Opera, p. 155.

t Ita et is qui habet mortis imperium rapuit quidem in
morte corpus Jefu. non fentiens in eo hamum divinitatis
inclufum 3 fed ubi devoravit, haefit ipfe continue, et dirup-

tis

Chap. II L f^ls own Divinity^ §j

Theodoret fays, that Chrift concealed his
divinity in his temptation by the devil; and
fays, that when the devil heard him fpeak
as a man, he w^as encouraged to proceed
with the temptation. He reprefents him as
faying, ** I heard the voice that came dov^n
*' from heaven, calling you the Son of God,
** but I fhall not believe it till it appear by

*' fads* r

Job the monk alfo fays, " it v/as necef-
'* fary that the myftery of the incarnation of
'* the logos fliould be concealed, both to
'* make it more acceptable to the hearers,
'* and alfo to deceive the devil t*^'

Bafil of Seleucia fays, that, *' though the
** demons called Chrift the Son of God,
*^ they did not know that he was God, be-
ds inferni clauflris, velut de profundo extra6tus, trahltur
ut efca caeteiis fiat. In Symb. Opera, p. 179.

* K^U7r%i fjt,£v 7YIV ^EOTHTcc — 8}i cc^^Tjyo^svas Tnv vihysv oJiScra^ wf

ffz KcC^7^crr\i, amTU h^ iag av >a,^(a tw 'ssii^av ^i^aJKaT^ov, Opera,
vol. 5. p. 46.

■f AvayKam Se nv to tmaKia^Ea^M ro {ji.vrY]piov rvig ra ^oys aa^'
Kuasag 5<« ^s to yevEa^ai to;$ an^oaiAivoK; wcsaoa^^KToVi )L) iva t»
fHOTug rov a^xovTot ?«^»]; Fhotii. Bib. S. ?22. p. 622.

G z " caufe

■ 84 Chrijl did not teach Book IIL

*' caufe all very good men are called fons of
*' God, and Ifrael is called his firil born ^ .''

It was objected, that it was wrong in God
to conquer the devil by deceiving him, the
divinity of Chrift being concealed under his
human nature ^ but Gregory Nyflen replies,
that '^ it was fair enough to deceive the de-
'* ceiver f."

If it was imagined to be neceffary that the
devil, whofe cunning and penetration was
never thought very lightly of, fhould re-
main ignorant of our Lord's divinity, he
muft, no doubt, have concealed it with the
greateft care, and have condudled himfelf in
the moil; cautious manner. If the devil was
not able to difcover any thing of the matter,
how could men find it out, and efpecially
Jews, whofe moft fanguine expeftations
from the Meffiah went no farther than to a
man, born like other men ? Certainly they

^ Xiov /j,£v ^£s Hci>^a-i. Sfov Setewj rov vi09 UK emrccvrai . vioi yaf

ra.,e'r^ro "UTpuTOToxoguiog ,a8l^payjK Or. 23- p. 128.

^iKMov'^BiKw^iv, Or. 2. opera, vol. 2. P'5I5.

who

Chap. III. his own Divinity. 8 c

who thought that the devil continued igno-
rant of the pre-exiftence and divinity of
Chrift till after his death, muft have thought
that all the Jev^rs, and our Lord's difciples,were
ignorant of thofe dodtrines. If, as Chryfoftoni
fays, it was particularly necefl^iry to conceal
this great fecret from our Lord's difciples,
left they (hould have publiflied it through
joy, and alfo from his enemies, and the de-
vil, left they ftiould have counteracted the
defign of his coming, we may take it
for granted, that, in the opinion of the
writers who have given us thefe reprefenta-
tions, it was no more fufpecled at the time
of Chrift's death, that he had even pre-
exifted, or that he had had any thing to do
in the making or governing the world, than
that he was to be fo great a perfonage be-
fore he was born.

Let us now fee in what manner the apof-
tles were fuppofed to have conduded them-
felves in this refped after our Lord's afcen-
fion, and after the defcent of the Spirit on
the day of Pentecoft,

G 3 CHAP.

86 Of the Tejllmony Book III.

CHAPTER IV,

Of the Tejllmony of Athanafius to the Caution
with which the Jpofdes divulged the DoC"
f fines of the Pre-exiflence and Divinity of
Chrijl,

A S the Teftimony of Athanafius, on ac-
count of his known orthodoxy, and of
courfe his unwillingnefs to make any need^
lefs conceiTions to his adverfaries, may be
thought to have more weight than any
other, I fhall, in the firft place, produce
// ; and as exceptions have been made to it,
I ihall fhew that, independent of any con-
current teftiniony of others of the Fathers,
who have mentioned the fubjecft, and which
I fhall produce hereafter, it clearly proves
that, in his idea, the apoftles thought it ne^
ceffary to ufe great caution in divulging to
the Jews fo ofFenfive a dodrine as that of
the divinity of Chriftj though, in confe-s.
quence of their caution on this head, the
Jewifh chriftians did in their age continue

unitarians.

Chap. IV, of Athanajlus. 87

unitarians, believing Chrlft to be nothing
more than a mere man, and alfo propa-
gated the fame dodtrine among the Gentile
converts. The paffage itfelf is as follows :

'' Will they affirm,'' fliys he, '* that the
** apoftles held thedodlrine ofArius, hecaufe
*' they fay that Chrift was a man of Nazareth,
** and fufFered on the crofs ? or becaufe they
** ufed thefe words, were the apoftles of
** opinion that Chrift was only a man, and
*^ nothing elfe ? By no means : this is
*' not to be imagined. Bat this they did
** as wife mafter-builders, and ftewards of
** the myfteries of God; and they had this
** good reafon for it. For the Jews of that
*' age, being deceived themfelves, and hav-
** ing deceived the Gentiles, thought that
*• Chrift was a mere man, oqly that he came
*^ of the feed of David, refembling other
** defcendants of David, and did not be-
*' lieve either that he was God, or that the
*^ w^ord was made flefh. On this account
** the bleiTed apoftles, with great prudence,
*^ in the firft place, taught what related to
*' the humanity of our Saviour to the Jews,
*' that having fully perfuaded them, from his
G 4 ** miraculous

88 Of the Tejlimony Book III,

^^ TAiraculous works, that Chrift was come,
^Vthey might afterwards bring them to the
f^ belief of his divinity, fhewing that his
!*'* works were not thofe of a man, but of
*' God. For example, Peter having faid
^* that Chriil was a nian who had fuifered,
^^ immediately added, he is the prince of
<^Mife. In the gpfpel he confeiTes, thou
^* art the Chrift, the Son of the living God |
^' and in his epiftle, he calls him the bifhop
^^ of fouls*/'

^ OvS'iv yap Avjolf etjoKuYpiov, o]i Ktti Avjoi ct'^oroAo/ Tct

^liloif TOV ^^I'TOV CtTCtyy^T^XiiCril'y tnnv&^v. 70tVUV TO/Cf.v}(t (pdLV
']e(.^oiJ.i:6:Vi cf'f STg/(/*« To/f ftw.ctari T^jol^ iyjYiiTAvlo, [J.OVOV

^V-d-piO'TroU \)J\eji7CiV TOV 'X^^l'^OV 01 dLTTOTohOl^ '^ 'mhiOV mS'IV %
fj.-,) yiVOiTO' UK. i7tV b'/'i Hi V^V 'WOTll UTO KaCilV A».dL )^
TfcTO C;'? etp-^tTiKTOV'ci CCd^Oty x) QfitO.OU.Ol IJLV^H^l&V d-iiS 'ZTg-

^oir^KdLTi , :u TW aiiiAv iyj6<jiy guAo^ojr • sts.'/w yap o(
TOTS la/'c^/o/ -arAc/j'it-^-cj/TSf, iy 'isKetvnffeLvrii EM«istj, ivofj.i^ov
7of yjl'^ov '\-iMv etvd'fto'^o:', y.ovoy i'A, cryrip/J.a.7oi ActCtJ" cip"
-/i^ajt, Kci^ oy.oio7i)T<z Tc-jv £;t TOV ActCiJ' ci?.i).cov yivoy^ivcoy

TirlVUV • {J^e cTs ^iOV CtVTOl'y nJ'i CTl AO^/OJ (Tcip^ iyiViTo i'JTl'
^iVQV , T87« IViKHf /!/£T<* 'aroAAJJ^' 7«J CWi^ZC^^ 0/ lX£tKCL^!Oi
ttTTOTOKOl TO, CtV^^a'TTlVct TH (jC07r>pQi i^Hy^VlO 'ZSpCvTOV Iffl^
UJ^etlOti, U'O. cAfe'? 'ZffZKTO.VTi? CLV7ii?y *K 7C')V (^CUi/OUiVCOV J^

yiyQlJ.iVMV (7n!j.Z!coVj iKnKv^m'Cjt tov ;>^firoi', Koittov '/j «/? Toe.

'TSipl TYii -S-SOTHTO? rtUT» ^l^iV OLl/Taf (L^ (Ly Ay C: (F f' y S'tlKVVVTi^

oTi TtL yivouivct i§yet UK sr/f CtVdfeO'ZiS, olKka •3'2» . ct//sA«/
risTfof 0 Kiycov AvS'^a nsret^mov TOV ^f/roi', et^-Sl'f (rVVi)7r7iV
uToi cLpyjDyQ'; t«? f «i'M$ gr/>', &c. ^c. De Scnteniia Dionyiii,
Opera, vol. i. p. 553» 554*

There

Chap. IV, of Athanafiiis, 89

There is a paffage in the Pernio Major de
fide of this writer, publiihed in Mont fan-
con s Colleclio Patrum^ which bears fome
refemblance to this. Speaking of Peter
preaching Chrift as Jefus of Nazareth, a
man approved of God, he fays, ^* He calls
*' him a man, and not God, with refpeft
^* to the Jews, and others, who, like them,
^* coniidered things according to the flefli,
^' from that time to the prefent. And the
** apoflles of our Lord, and our Lord him-
** felf, anfwered concerning himfelf as a
^* man. Ye feek to kill me, a man Vho
*' has told you the truth ^*.

It has been faid, that Athannfius is here
fpeaking of the unbelieving Jews. The
expreffion is, c; to7£ laJixw the Jews of that
age; which includes both the believing
and unbelieving Jews. Had he been fpeak-
ing of the Jews of his own time, it would,
I own, have been probable that he meant
the unbelieving Jews ^ but fpeaking as he

mi CuOlCOi etUJOti KCLTO. (TctpKa (p^OVtsVJCii iK 7 OTi KdU l'll^' . K-Cfy
Ci CfTTO^Ohol' KOU CtVTOi 0 KV^lOi ■SJipt tXV7\i Ctl'd-fCOTTlV^^'i CtTTl':
KpiV^TO htym . 7i fJ.i ^YITiiTi et,'7fOK,'TZlycLl^ AV-^fOOTTQV Og mv.

OLM'd-ita.i' vy.lv MhahnKd. Wo\, 2. p. i6*

does

90 Of the T^efttmony nf Book III,

does of the Jews at the very firft promul-
gation of chrillianity among them, it is
moll natural to fuppofe that he meant all
the Jews. Paul, long after his converfion
to chriftianity, called himfelf a Jew, How-
ever, it wiil be fufficiently evident from
the whole tenor of the paffage, that he
muft have meant the believing Jews prin- .
cipally, and in fome refpecls, the believing
Jew^s only, exclufive of the unbelieving
ones. And in this conftru(ftion of the paf-
fage, I am by no means Angular, but have
the fandion of trinitarians themfelves, as
that of the Latin tranflator and Beaufobre.

The Latin tranflator of Athanafius, a ca-
tholic, and certainly no unitarian, had fo
little fufpicion of any other meaning, that
he renders x^,^^'''^- ij^ this place by Jefum.
The learned Beaufobre, a trinitarian, and
therefore, an unexceptionable judge in this
cafe, quoting this very paffage, does not
hefxtate to pronounce that they were be-
lieving Jews who were intended by the
writer, " Ces Juifs,'* he fays, ** ne font pas
*' ks Juifs incredules, mais cieux qui fa-
'' foient profeflion du chriflianifme. But

admitting

Chap. IV. of Athanaf.us. 91

admitting that the Jews here meant were
unbelieving Jews, they were fuch as the
apoftles wiihed to convert to chriftianity,
and many of them foofi became chriftians.

But the circumftance which decifively
proves that the Jews Athanaiius is fpeak-
ing of were chriftian Jews^ is their draw^
ing the Gentiles into the belief of the
fmiple humanity of Chrift. For certainly
the gofpel was preached to the Gentiles by
the believing, and not by the unbelieving
Jews, If it be fuppofed that the dodrine
Athanafius fpeaks of was not concerning
Jejus, but the MeJJiah in general, how could
it intereft the Gentiles ? The dod:rine,
therefore, muft have been that concerning
Je/iis, and confequently, the preachers muft
have been chriftian Jews, and their profe-
lytes chriftian Gentiles. It is ridiculous
to fuppofe that the queftion could be in*
terefting to any others.

Suppofing, however, the whole body of
the Gentiles (little as they were concerned
in the queftion) to have been previoufly
taught by the Jews, that their Meffiah,
whenever he ftjould come, would be no-
thing

92 Of the Tejlimony Book III,

thing more than a man ; if this was an
opinion that they were as fully perfuaded
of as Athanafius reprefents the Jev, s, their
teachers, to have been, the fame caution muil
have been as neceflary with refpedl to them,
as with refpedt to the Jews themfelves, and
for the fame reafon.

It has been faid, that Athanafius fays
nothing about the caution of the apoftles,
but only fpeaks of their prudence^ in teach-
ing what was more eafy and neceffary, be-
fore that which was more diiEcult and lefs
neceffary. But the term <^vv2a-i<;^ in the con-
nexion in which it ftands, can bear no
other fenfe than caution^ and great caution,
^£i« <!S(>hM^ rr;^ (Tvv£<Tso)i, and it appears from the
whole tenor of the difcourfe, that Athanafius
could have intended nothing elfe than to
'jdefcribe the prudence, or extreme caution of
the apoftles, and to account for it. He evi-
dently does not reprefent them as deferring
the communication of the dcdtfine of the
divinity of Chrift, on account of its being
more conveniently taught afterwards, as
part of a fyftem of faith ; but only left it
Ihould have given offence to the Jews,

If

Chap. IV* of Athanafius. c^^

If ilsLill, or prudence, in thefe circum-
fiances, be not the fame thing with caution^
I do not know what is meant by caution.

It has been faid that Athanafius fpeaks
of ^ the rapidity with which Peter proceeded
to teach the dodrine of the divinity of
Chrift. On the other hand, I find no trace
of rapidity in this account of the apoftles
condudl. All that approaches to it is that,
immediately after any mention of the hu-
manity of Chrift (which -he fpeaks of as
neceifary on account of the Jewifh preju-
dices) he fays the apoftles fubjoin fome
expreflions which might have led their
hearers to the knovv^ledge of his divinity j
but the inftances he produces are fuch as
plainly confute any pretenfions to their
being a diftind; and full declaration of that
dodtrine.

The firft inftance he gives us is from the
fpeech of Peter to the Jews on the day of
Pentecoft, in which he fays (Adlsii. 22.)
** Ye men of Ifrael;, hear thefe words, Jefus
** of Nazareth, a man approved of God
*' among you, by miracles and wonders, and
** iigns, which God did by him in themidfl:

'' of

94 0/* i^^ Tefimony Book IIL

** of you, as ye yourfelves alfo know.*' In
this Athanafius acknowledges, that Peter
preached the proper humanity of Chrift,
but fays that, immediately afterwards (re-
ferring to his difcourfe on the cure of the
lame man in the temple) he called him the
prince of life (Ads iii. lo.) *' and killed the
" prince of life whom God hath raifed from
** the dead;''

Had the apoftle meant that his audience
flaould have underftood him as referring to
the divinity of Chrift by that exprefTion,
his prudence muft have lafted but a very
fhort time indeed -, probably not many days.
If, therefore, his intention was, as Atha-
fius reprefents it, to preach the dodlrine of
the humanity of Chrift in the firft place^
and not to divulge the dodrine of his di«*
vinity till they were firmly perfuaded of his
mefliahfhip, he could not mea?i to allude to
his divinity in this fpeech, which was ad-
drelTed not to the believing, but to the un-
believing Jews. At leaft, he could only have
thought of doing it in fuch a manner as that
his hearers might afterwards infer the doc-
trine from it; and it muft have required great

ingenuity.

Chap. IV. of Athanajius, 5^

ingenuity, and even a ftrong prepofleffiou
in favour of the divinity of Chriil (the re-
verfe of which this v^riter acknowledges)
to imagine that this expreffion of prince of
life, which fo eaiily admits of another inter-
pretation, had any fuch reference. More-
over, in all the inftances which Athana-
fius produces concerning the condud: of
the apoftles in this refped:, from the book
of Ads, he does not pretend to find one in
which the divinity of Chrift is diftindly
preached, though he quotes four paflages in
which his humanity is plainly fpoken of.

Befides, had Athanalius thought that the
apoHle had preached the dodrine of the
divinity of Chrift with much efFed, it is
probable that he would have added this
circumftance to his narrative ; as, from the
objed of the work in which the paffage is
introduced, it may be inferred, that he could
not but have thought that it would have
been fufficiently to his purpofe. For, cer-
tainly, if he could have added that, not-
withftandiiTg their caution in preaching this
extraordinary dodrine (againft which he ac-
knowledges the Jews had the ftrongeft pre-
judices)

96 0/ i^^^ Teflimony Book III.

judices) the apoftles neverthelefs did preach
it with efFed:, and that it was the general
belief of the Jetv^ifti chrifliians in their time^
he would have done it. It would certainly
have favoured his great objcd in w^riting
the piece, viz. the vindication of Dionyfius^
in ufing a like caution with refped: to the
Sabellians, to have added, that this pru-
dence, or caution, was not, in either of th^
two cafes, finally detrimental to the caufe
of truth. I therefore confider the filence
of AthanafiDS on this head as a negative
argument of fome weight j and, upon the
whole, I think that Athanafius muft have
fuppofed that both the Jewifli and Gentile
churches were unitarian in the time of the
apoftles. At leaft, he enables us to infer
that it muft have been fo, which is quite
fufficient for my argument.

Now if this caution was requifite in the
lirft inftance, and with refpedt to the firft
converts that the apoftles made, it was
equally requiiite with refped: to the reft, at
leaft for the fake of others vvho were not
yet converted, unlefs the firft ftiould have
been enjoined fecrecy on that head. For
2 whenever

Chap. III. of Athanaftus. P7

whenever it had been known that the apof-
tles were preaching not fuch a meffiah as
they expe<fted, viz. a man like themfelves,
but the eternal God, the difference was fo
great, that a general alarm would have been
fpread, and the converfion of the reft of the
Jews (to a do(5lrine which hiuft have ap-
peared io highly improbable to them) would
have been impeded. We may therefore
prefume that the apoftles muft have con-*'
nived at this ftate of ignorance concerning
the divinity of Chfift, in the Jewifh chrif-
tians, till there was little hope of making
any farther converts among the Jews, and
till the gofpel began to be preached to the
Gentiles.

Indeed, this muft have been the cafe ac-
cording to Athanafius's own account ; for
he, fays, that thefe Jews, being in an error
themfelves, led the Gentiles into the fame
error. He muft, therefore, be underftood
to fay, that the Jewifh converts, while
(through the caution of the apoftles) they
were ignorant of the divinity of Chrift,
preached the gofpel in that ftate to the
Gentiles. And as he fpeaks of Gentiles in

Vol. III. H general.

93 , OfiheTLeJllmony Book II!*

generaU iind without any refpedl to timey and
alio of their being actually brought over to
that belief, it is impoiTible not to under-
ftand him of this caution, being continued
till the gofpel had been fully preached to
the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. Belides,
one of the inftances that Athanafius here
gives of the preaching of the limple huma-
nity of Chriil is taken from the difcourfe
•of the apoille Paul at Athens, which was
about the year 53 after Chrifl y and, in-
'deed, .at this time the gofpel had not been
preached to any great extent among the
Gentiles. For it w^as on this very journey
that this apoftle firil preached the gof|.cl
in Macedonia and Greece.

If, according to Athanafius, the apofloli-
cal referve with refpeft to the doctrine of the
divinit'/ of Chrifl continued till this time
(and he fays nothing concerning the termi-
nation of it) we'may prefume that this great
dcdrine, fiippofing it to have been known
to the apodles, had not been publicly taught
by them, till very near the time of their
difperfion and death ; and then I think it
muft have tome too late, even from them.

For

Chap. IV. of Athajiafiuu 99

For it appears frocn the book of A5bs> that
their mere authority was not fufficient to
overbear the prejudices of their country-
men. At leaft, the communication of a doc-
trine of fo extraordinary a nature^ of which
they had no conception, muft have occafionecf
fuch an alarm and contlernation^ as we muft
have fou^d fome traces of in the hiflory of
the AcSs of the apoftles. It could not have
been received without hefitation and debate.

If we can fuppofe that the apoftles, foms
time before their death, did communicate
this great and unexpected dodlhne, the ef-
feds oi. fuch communication muii have been
very tranfient. For prefently after the death
of the apoftles, we find all the Jewifti chrif-
tians diflinguifeed by the name of Naza-
renes, or Ebionites, and no trace of the
dodrine of the divinity of Chrift among
them.

When all thefe things are confidered, viz.
that Athanafius acknowledged that it re-
quired great caution in the apoftles to di-
vulge the dodrine of the divinity of Chrift,
and that the gofpel was preached with fuc-
cefs among the Gentiles, while the Jews

H 3 were

ioo Of the TefJmony Book. III.

were ignorant of it, it can hardly be doubt-
ed, but that he muft himfeif have con-
fidered the chriftian church in general as
unitarian in the time of the apoftles, at leaft
till near the time of their difperfion and
death.

According to Athanafius, the Jews were
to be well grounded in the belief of Jefus
being the Chrift, before they could be
taught the docftrine of his divinity. Now,
if we look into the book of A6ts, we fhall
clearly fee, that they had not got beyond
the firft leiTon in the apoftolic age, the great
burden of the preaching of the apoftles
being to perfuade the Jews that Jefus was
the Chriji. That he was likewife God^
they evidently left to their fucceffors, who,
indeed, did it moft efFecflually, though it
required a long courfe of time to fucceed
m it.

CHAP.

Chap. V. of other Fathers. i.oi

CHAPTER V.

Of the concurrent Tejlimony of other Fathers
to the caution of the Jpojlles^ in teaching
the DoBrines of the Pre-exijicrice and Di^
^jinity of Chrif,

T Have no great occafion to lay much ftrefs
on the tellimony of Athanafius, as there
is that of others of the Fathers fufficiently
full and clear to the fame purpofe.

Chryfoftom having faid, that Chrift
taught his divinity by his works only,
fays, that '* Peter alfo, in the beginning,
*' ufed the fame method. For that, in his
*^ firft difcourfe to the Jews, he taught no-
** thing clearly concerning his divinity ;
*' and becaufe they were then incapable of
** learning any thing clearly concerifing it,
•* he dwelt upon his humanity ; that, being
** accuftomed to this, they might be pre-
*' pared for what they were to be taught
" afterwards. And if any perfon,'* he iiiys,
*^ will attend to the whole of their preach-
H 7, ** ing,

I02 Of the Tejlhmny Book III.

^^ ing, he will fee what I fay very clearly,
*' For he calls him a ma^i^ and dwells upon
^'' his fuftering and refurreftion, and things
^* belonging to the fiefli. And Paul, when
^' he fpeaks of his being the Son of David
^\acc<jnling to the fcfj, teaches us nothing
'* farther, that what belonged to the huma-
^^ nity might be acknowledged. But the
*"* fon of thunder difcourfes concerning his
^' myfterious and eternal exiftence ; fo that,
*' omitting what he did, he relates what he

^' IV as '^ ,

The fame writer fays, that the apoftles
foncealed the dodlrine of the miraculous
conception on account of th? incredulity of

* t\i(X r^lo kJ 0 nE?^ (^ £v a^%Y, Ti:7a; y,%x%^^'^ '^^ r^OTTcC' . >^ *ya£
nocmv [zycxlyy'^ 'ji^og I^^aia; eor.iMr/OfSi dyijjir,yo^i(XV . y^ ettsicy, j^Jev
<aTE^{ TT.^ $foV3" aula rmc fTa(p?q ux^iv wyjjav^ ^io. liflo Toig 's^e^i rr,^;
OixcvcfjLia^ EVOialpi^si hoyoig ' ixoc t^oi:, vi asiOYi yu/AA/aq^Eiff:^ tvj ?.oi7t}i
'!!;forj007rciYi(Tr ^i^aa-Ka>4St . }C; ei ^y-hoilo .i;T TYy^ay\yo^iotv 'S^cxaxv ava-
S-y ^:£7^£n>, iv^yia'zi rnh o Myco C^c^^tx aiahocixTTOv ■ >^ yxp avop-x aCiov

y£vvvi7sai; sv^ioloi^Ei Myct; . >tj TiaoTKr'^ 5'e. ol av ?k£y>j, T8 yzvo/xsva £»
a-iTEfixoilog AaCi3' Kula axfHa, ahv flspov n/j-ccg Tiraihua, uaX" oil ra
sioiYics'j ETTi T«$ oifiovcfMix; 7!ia^^i?:ti7rlai ' o uxi Y,y,£ig o/xo>.07'«/,c£v . a>y
D 7Yi; ^^o\rY.; viot 'sje^'I tyi; af^r,Tii xai 'ajpocuMia Yifiiv uTTaf^EOi; SiaAe-
yfiMJ^uv, d^.cc ryto to zTTOtmEV a^wj, ro vjv e^,k?^j. In John, Hom.
G. Operg, vol. 8c p. 20.'

th^

CiTAP, V. of other Fathers » 103

the Jews with refped: to it, and that when
they begc^n to preach the golpcl, they in-
iifted chiefly on the refurredion of Chrift.
With refped: to the former (and the fame
iBay,'no doubt, be applied to the latter) he
fays, ** he did not give his own opinion
** only, but that which came by tradition
** from the Fathers and eminent men. He,
'* therefore, would not have his hearers to
^^ be alarmed, or think his account of it
** extraordinary*.'*

Thus, he fays, that *' it was not to give
*' otfence to the Jews, that Peter, in his
<* firft fpeech'to them, did not fay that
*^ Chrijl did the wonderful works of which
** he fpake, but that God did them by him ;
** that by fpeaking more mo.dellly he might
** conciliate them to himfelff." The fame
caution he attributes to him i.n '' not faying*
<^ that Chrill, but that God fpake by the

sficg 0 Xovoj oc>.>M "SJoik^ccv vi/jLslf^av ^ccu/xaTav kJ E9ri£rn|Kwy av^^cc: I

In cap. Matt. i. Horn. 3. vol. 7. p. 20.

t OuK^Ii >,eyei o% aul<^, aXh' oli ^i aula o ^£0,^ iva iaxT^ov ra //tc-
l^ioc^siv z(p£-KKW7Yim. In A6la Apoftolorum, cap. 2. Horn. 6,
vol. 8. p. 491.

H 4 " mouth

1 04 Of the Teliimony B o o K 1 1 1 ,

^' mouth of his holy prophets, that by thefe
** means he might bring them gradually to
'' the faith*/'

After treating pretty largely of the con-
duct of the apoftles, with refpedl to their
infifting on the dodlrine of the refurredioa
of Chrift, rather than that of his divinity,
immediately after the defcent of the Holy
Spirit, he fays, " As to the Jews who had
*^ daily heard and been taught out of the
^' law. Hear, O Ijrael, the Lord thy God is
*^ one Lordy and bejides him there is no otker^
** having feen him (Jefus) nailed to a crofs,
'* yea, having killed and buried him them-
** felves, and not having ittn him rifen
^^ again jj if they had heard that this perfon
•* was God equal to the Father, would not
*' they have rejedted and fpurned at it/' I
want words in Engliih to exprefs the force
pf the Greek in this place. The latin tranf-
lator renders it, nonne maxirne omnes ab his
verbis abhoruijfent^ ac refdijjhit et oblatraffeni,
** On this accpunt," he adds, '* they (the

Apoftolorum, Horn. 9. vol. 8. p. 51 1,

I «* apoftles)

Chap.V, • of other Fathers, 105

*' apoftles) brought them forwards gently
** and by flow degrees, and ufed great art in
** condefcending to their weaknefs^.'*

Chryfoftom reprefents the apoflle as be-
ginning his epiille to the Hebrews with
faying, that *^ it was God who fpake
^* by tJie prophets, and not that Chrift
*' himfelf had fpoken by them, becaufe
^' their minds were w^eak, and they were
*' not able to bear the dodlrine concern-
^' ing Chrijftf. He even fays, that when

K^ rau^cccaviEg ;ti ^oc'^l-avlsg, ^« ah scvaravlsc ^sacra/xEVQi, camovlsg oIi
$£©- cru' «J7©- «7©-, )^ Toj 'Sialyl fcr(^i ii« av fxuy\ira zjavlx^v ccTrs-
'7[y\^Yiiccv hJ aiTED^xyw^v . A'.dli nr'/lo v^s^oiy it) xczla (AiKpov. av%g
'm^QO-QiQa'CHcn^ K^ isoy^hYi (jlev Kzx^'n'jlai tn mg cruyxxlcihaiiecog oihovojjlicx..
In A(Sa Mom. i. Opera, vol. 8. p. 447.

KxiJoiys avl^'w o hcchwoig . ctAA* ETTeidVj aa^EVEig aulav ncrav ai ^y

iy\cc>.y\(Tzy. In Heb. cap. i. Opera, vol.10, p. 1756. i.e.
*' See how pru'JentI_y he fpoke : for he faid God fpake
*' though it was himfelf that fpake ; but becaufe their
•' minds were vveak and they were not able to bear the
'' things concerning Chrift, he fays God fpake hy hhn"^
N. B. The («) la the fecond claufe of this pufl'ige mud

be

io6 Of the Teftlmony Book IIL

" he there Ipeaks of Chriil: as above the
"- angels," he ftill fpakc of his huma-
nity. ^* See," fays he, ** his great cau-
*' tion, o^a 7ITV dvvs^ny ir,v '^ToA^w *, the Very expref-
fion ufed by Athanaiius on a iimilar occa-
fion.

Rut we find no trace of either Jews or
Gentiles having received thefe fublime doc-
trines that Chryfoftom alludes to in the
age of the apoflles. Nay we fee that he
himfelf reprefents the apoflle Paul as oblig-
ed to ufe the fame caution with refpe(fl" to
the Jews, when he wrote the epiftle to the
Hebrews, which was fo late as A. D, 62.
about two years before his death.

Thcodoret obferves, that *• in the genea-
^' logy of Chrifl given by Matthew, this
'* writer did not add according to the Jiefo^
** becaufe the men of that time would not
** bear it/' evidently meaning, that tJiey
would thereby have been led into a fufpi-

b^ in.crtca by miftake for (j^) or fome otlicr particle, as it
Cimtradicts what is faid in the clofe of the fentencc. and
the obvious fenfe of the whole. Or perhaps, the firil Ss^
IhouU have been ■/p\<^^.

* InHeb. cap. 1. Opera, vol. lO. p. i755'

ciou

Chap.V. of other Fathers. 107

cion that, in the idea of the writer, he had
fome higher origin, and that they would
have been offended at it. '* But the apof-
** tie Paul/' he fiys, *' could not avoid that
** expreflion in his epiftle to the Romans."
He adds that, '^ before his death, not only
'^ to the other Jews, but to the apoftles
•* themfelves, he did not appear as a God,
'^ nor did his miracles lead them to form
** that opinion of himf/' This writer alfo

-j" H "yoL^ ry Kixix ax^KX 'srpca^jcv, aivnlslxi w; t8 vSS ;q qsrccJocg
vici Efiv ahYi^ug Kcilx TYiV ^EoJrp.x,, 8^e yap £7n tuv ralo [xcvov ovtm

Q7i£p O^Uvlxi^ £r;V £V^£lV TO Kola ax^KX ':E^OCrK£l(JL£VOV . y^ fJLxplu(; o

IJLXKa^iO^ Mo^^xicg o evxyyE7^ifr}i • si^mco^ yxp ACcxx/x eyewYjcrE roif
1(7 a««, IcraccK d'g P'/evvyio'E tcv lxkCi)Q^ L-tx^^ ^f EyswYias tov lud'xv, it*
fsjxaxv £(p£^Yig t^v yEvsahoyixv S^jeIeA^wv, a^xfj^iS to }ialx cxoftx nsca-
r£^£iK£v . 8x yj^f^^orle ya^ auloi; av^^uTroig aaiv n toixJIy) '^coa^Kr^ ,

t]h!.V^X 5e, ETTEldh 8H. av^^Ci)7l(^- fjLOVOV EnVy DL'KhX Kj ^£0^ 'ST^Oaia)Vlcg

p Evav^pcoTTwag Sfo$ T^oya;, ts (fTTE^fxaloi ra Aa^i5^ fJiVYiju^ovsva-x; o
^uoi (XTToToXo^^ avayKxiai tc K<xix ax^tca. 'u^^ote^eike^ (Txipug yiixz^

^i^xlxt;. rssag (a^v viog Eft ts ^Sif, tstwj h th AxCiO ex^'^t^oclio-E Tlpg

1/.EV ra rau^H jtj tk 'mxOa^, o htTTtol-n; xp^^'^^ ^ A^'cvov rctj aT^oig
laoxioig, xTOvx. i^ avloig --oig xTTorcy^on m shu ei e.vxi ^£og . 'SjpoaETTr
laiov yx^ roig av^^uTnyoi;, scrhcFvla te ^C; 'mivovlx, ^ kx^eq^ovIx, )y Ka-
'TTmlx ^za/xEvot, lej ah rx >j:w(jLxla aijlag 'sr^o^ nrxvi'A'J E7ro^r]yEi rm
^ria-i . xvliKx Toivuv TO Kixlx Tuv SaiAaT?^^ ^EXcrxfiEvoi ^xu/jLX lUyov
'^olxTto; ?siv s7cj o xv^caTroc^ oli xj >j 'b.x^r4a-a-x k^ oi xve^aoi vTroH^acriy
cculcc ; Oix Toi ralo t^ o HV^iog sXEyE Tfpog nSlag , nsoTOsa f%w %£yEiy
y//iy, «m' d ^mx<j%i ^^x'tX^hv x^li, — Upo ixev av ra sir^Q^ TOLXiUag

3 ^'x^v

ic8 Of the Teftimofiy Book III,

fays, that the apoftles in mentioning the fub-
jedtion ofChrift to the Father (i Cor. xv.)
Ipake of him more lowly than was ne-
cellary for their advantage ^J'

CEcumenius alfo fays, that '* Peter in his
** firft fpeech, though by faying that Chrijl
*' 7' of e according to theflef^ he intimated that
" he was God, yet refers all to the Father,
** that they might receive his fayings-f*/*
He makes the fame obfervation on Peter's
faying, the promife of the Spirit was from the
Father. *' He refers things to the Father,

QaaiVy }^ ra "usxvoiym 'Zjvsuaccioi; £7n(poi!miv,, xj ret; Tsavlo^uTTug ^au-
fMccl'dpyia; ag sttsIsT^hv^ KccA-avlsg aula ro crsCaqxiov ovcfxa, syvuo-acv
arravlB; 01 ^irsvovlsg., oil y^ Shoj eh, ^ ts Sea //.ovoyBVY,; vicg. In
Rom. cap. i. Opera, vol. 3. p. 15. Ed. Halae.

VY\V U(pOPCOUEVGg ^?aCviV, TUulcC 'SJpOTE^SlKS, Ta^ElVols^Qig X^>](7-«/X£Wf

y^cyoii ^icc. rnv EKsivav u(pEhEiav. In I Cor. xv. Opera, vol. 3.
P-273.

t Kcju isJ'i hj&^g ',iK-3iv €1? Tov >'f/roi', ctA>.^ ^AKiv iy'/.eouto.-

^poi 1 ly.m Xj 70 yivoi to cfTr i/.n-a, t« y^fKJi S^ii^eovlau tov
mzpi tm avA^ct7icoi Koyov . xj b',^ 'iir/nv , ojt i'Z)]yJ<i,iKet\o etvjct
0 ^iOf ct>y 0 [x^l(^ov xj cfTra^ctCdijov iv, ro uy-otrf to c/^e ;c*7^

av]cfj 7 A Myouiva, Opera, vol, i. p. 21.

*' that

C H A p . V . of other Fathers. log

*' that he might draw his hearers */' Again,
he obferves, that he laid " the Father, and not
*' Chrift, promifed that appearance byjoelj.''
On another part of his fpeech, in which
mention is made of God glorify'mg his So?i
yefus^ he fays,' *' he fpake humbly concern-
** ing him %,'*

Quoting Theodoret, he '* calls low dif-
** courfcs concerning Chrift the firjl ele-
*^ merits. To thofe who were not capable
*^ of a perfeft faith, the preachers of the
** gofpel offered what relates to the huma-
** nity of Chrift. Thus the bleiTed Peter
*' preaching to the Jews, meafares his doc-
*^ trine by the weaknefs of his hearers,
** For he fays, Jefiis of Nazareth, a man
** approved of God among you. And ye
*' have need, he fays, from negligence,
*' not being fuch (i, e. perfed) of milk,
" not of ftrong meat. He calls low dif-

* Ktf,/ r^aji^iyri) 'uctr^t avaii^ncri TO yiyoV<ii , oiSeyaf
ma r>ii AK^QctTDLf lyrtffToiJ.iva^, Oecumen, vol. i. p. 21.

^!^ov ATctfynhcLS-ctt r^ro J^tdL IcoiTK r<i 'STpoynTtf. Vui. I. p.'ai,

X Ell Tfisjv raTTtivols'^av zyj\ai 3ia th eiTTsiv ax id'ix ^ii^ajASi

BavfxcclH§yYi(rai — tcj 'sipoo'^EivoiL rov 'izoiid'a. a ya^ to auioh^arov m
'ar/30<rS?j;^w 3cii?$ MC«y. Ibid. p. 28";

courfes

1 ley Off/je Tejlimony Book IIL

*' courfes concerning Chriil:, thofe that re-
*' late to the fle(h, milk^ and Jlrong ?neat
** for the perfedt, difcoaries concerning the
** divinity of Chrift. For thofe, there-
** f6re, who were babes in faith> there was
** need of low difcourfes^ as milk is fit
** for babes ; but for the perfed: in faith,
** there was need of ftrong meat, the fublime
•* philofophy concerning Chrift. Every
'* one, he fays, who partakes of milk, that
'* is, every one, vv^ho v/ants thefe low
** difcourfcs concerning the humanity of
** Chrift (for they are milk) is unfl^ilfuJ,
'* and not a partaker of the word of righte-
*' oufnefs. By the word of righteoufnefs,
** he means the dodrine of the divinity of
<* Chrift, &c.*"

xfipm£; . iilco; o /j-dnx^iog Uft^c^ I.v^^;^;? ^n/xrjyopm s/xzl^Yicre rnv ^i-
^aJHsz^av rn aa^svsiu tuv (vcaovicov. Incmv ya^, E(pn^ rov Na^w^aiov,
av^^ct WTTo Ts ^£H aTTo^E^siyfjLevcv £ig vy^a;. Kaj ysycvals Xj^v.av £X''^'
7f J. Auloi y£yo7(x\i^ (pv.aiv, £k ^aSj-Jixiag. hk oviEi- lomioi^ yccACcxbg )A
8 T£Q£a<; r^o(p£'Jiq . ytXha. Aeyej Tag ra7:£iv^; ra^i %f ir8 y^oyng^ ra; 'z:t£^-
't:/>g (Tap>cog : T£^£civ 3f rcoOnv, rng re>,£iii; t-d; "sjepl Tr,g ^solniog av% •
rcif 8v €?< vnTTioi; T'dv 'ZuiTiv-, E^si Tioywv rOiTTEivav [Kixla>^Yi>^ov yap tcjj
\Yi7ricig TO yotXoc) rcig h TeA5io/j '>?> wtriv, TKi fsozag rcopr,; «^ rng

Chap. V, of other Fathers. 1 1 i

'' Having called dlfcourfcs concerning
*' the humanity of Chrift, iho^firji principles^
*' and thofc concerning his divinity j^^^r/d'^:-
** tioriy left they (liould defpond, as not
** being worthy of the .moll perfeft dif-
♦^ courfes, he endeavours to give them thofc
** that were perfed:. And he fays fo, but
** not in the fame f^nfe in which he had
*' ufed the word perje^ before, for thty
** were not able to bear it. But he difpofes
*^ his difcourfe in another manner, caHing
*' firft principles, baptifm, the impofition of
*' hands, and the fign;'' perhaps that of the
crofs, *' and perfed:ion, the phiiofophy of
*^ works ^''

ttu^i^ [aloi yoic to ycOsa) aTTZipo; sri y^ ocf/Moxfii Ticya ^iKcuoavviig . >,oyQV

b V']^r\Ko<;'Koyo<;^ xj ra v^y\'ha 'zs?fi X^^^^ ^oyij>ai:x. In Heb. Opera,
vol. 2. p. 353.

* Avw EiTTiJv a^yy\v rcug 'S^i^i av^coTTcl-nlog ts hu^is Aoyoyj, rsXsuj-
lyfta ^e roug 'UJf^i ^£oVc^ iva jXr, cK^ry.Qvuaiv -dloiy cog fjLYi a^i^/x^voi rccv te-
7.£icl£^uv >.oyuv 7\syziv rag TfAsiy; 'rzu^ctlai . T^syii ce. a% o^g avu rsTKSt^g
SKCt7.E(7?.^ (s ycKo iQXP^^ ocH^aai ,) a?:7\ {ispcog fj^z^ohm tov >.oyov^
a^'/y,v (lEv ro (iUTrlicrfjuic hcxXuv^ >cJ t>;v £v aulu ruv XjEi^i^v sTii^ziJiv t^
stp^ayi^a, TFA£to7/j7a ?f, tw Ji £pyuv <pi>,Q7o(piav, Photl'is ill
CJEcumen. in Heb. vol. 2. p. 354.

Commenting

.112 Of the Tejlimony Book III.

Commenting on Heb. v. 7. loe wash^ard^
** ill that be fcaredy Qicumenius fays, *' this..
** he faid on account of the weaknefs of his
** hearers ^/' And again, fpeaking of Crod
having raijed up Chrift, he fays, •* the di-
*' vine Paul often fpeaks in a low ftyle • fay-
** ing. That the Father raifed up Chrift f /'

Theophylaft, commenting on Heb. i.
fays, *' Why did he not fay that Chrift fpake
*' to us ? It was both becaufc they were
** weak, and not yet able to hear concerning
*« Chrift, and to fhew, that the Old and the
«* New Teftament have the fame author J."^

I fhall now proceed to fhew, that, in the
opinion of the fame Fathers, the apoftles
thought it neceffary to obferve the fame
caution in teaching the doftrine of the di-
vinity of Chrift to the Gentiles, that had
been requifite with refped: to the Jews.

* Kat EKTaKHa^Eig . Tocra/ov, ^vicriv, Eamaa^j oli x) avenj . Ts7a

XP^^^ 5c|a;j. Tav d'2 tiXTrsivm rarm ^r](x^lav ^uo ailia^ yUe Cdif^y iu
ii aaBsvia Tuv aK^o\lojv- In Heb. vol. 2. p. 349*

-f- nc/A?»a%a yao TocTreivoie^a 0 ^eios Hccv'hc; (p^sfycfASvo;^ rov 'ma^tfiix
^(Tiv avania-aLTov x^^^ov. Ibid. p. 3 10.

X Ata ri $£ an EiTTvj^ fK&Maiv yj(juv 0 %f Jro^ ; A/xa pLiv^ S<a t«

p. 876.

Chap. VI. of Athanafms. nj

CHAPTER VI.

Of tbe Caution obferved by the Apojlles in
teaching the Do^frines of the Pre-exijlence
and Divinity of Chrijl to the Gentile Con--
verts.

npHE apoftles found the Jews fully per-
fuaded concerning the doftrine of the
divine unity, and on that account they are
reprefented by the Fathers as cautious how
they taught the dodrinc of the divinity of
Chrift, left their hearers fliould have been
ftaggered at it, as if they had preached two
Gods, The Gentiles were in a quite dif-
ferent fituation, believing in a multiplicity
of Gods ; on which account it might be
thought to require lefs caution to teach this
favourite doftrine to them. But then, for
the fame reafon for which it was thought
improper for Mofes and the prophets to
teach it to the Jews, in the former periods
of their hiftory, when they were in danger of
falling into idolatry, it was equally improper
to infift upon it with the Gentiles, left they
fliould have been encouraged to perfevere
Vol. III. I in

1 14 Divinity of Chrijl Book III.

in the fame fyflem. Alfo, after they were
brought to the worfhip of one God, they
would have been no lefs averfe to fuch a
dodlrine as the trinity than the Jews. On
this account it was not lefs hazardous, ac-
cording to Chryfoflom, to teach the doc-
trine of the divinity of Chrift to the Gen-
tiles than it had been to the Jews.

In the paffage, part of which I have quoted
above, after obferving, that if the apoftles had
not conduced themfclves in this cautious
manner with refpeft to the Jews, their whole
doctrine would have appeared incredible to
them, he adds, '* and at Athens Paul calls
** him" ( Jefus) ^' fimply a man, and nothing
farther, and for a good reafon. For if
they often attempted to ftone Chrift him-
felf, when he fpake of his equality with
*' the Father, and called him on that account
*' a blafphemer, they would hardly have re^^.
*^ ceived this docflrine from fifhermen, efpe-
** cially after fpeaking of him as crucified.
** And why do I fpeak of the Jews ? when
** at that time even the difciples of Chrift
*' himfelf were often difturbed and fcanda-
" lized at him, when they heard fublime

** dodlrines

Chap. VI. not preached early, 115

''dodtrines; on which account he faid, 2
*' have many things to fay to yoUy but ye are
*' not yet able to bear them. And if they
*' could not bear thefe things, who had liv-
" ed fo long with him, and had received fo
*' many myfteries, and feen fo many mira-
** cles,how could men, who were then firft
" taken from their altars, idols, and facri-
'* fices, and cats, and crocodiles (for fuch
*' was the worfliip of the heathens) and
" being then firfl brought off from thefe
*' abominations, readily receive fublimedoc-
'' trines*?"

Theodoret, commenting on i Cor. viii.
6 . "To lis there is one God the Father y and one

£i7rav . Ewo7w5 , £i yxp avlov rev x^^^'^v 3«a^Eyo/*Evov 's^spi trig £ig rovi

EKtxXaV) (TXoM 7<Xf> 'sra^a rcov anmv Tslov tov hoyov e^s^avlo, ^ Ta7o tov
Taupov 'ar^o%w^vi(Tav7o^. Kai ri Ssi "Kzy^iv t3; IsJitiaj * otth yz ^ avlit
toIe ^o'K'Koikk; 01 {juxBr?iM rm v-^iXolspcov aKnoylsg E^opu'^avlo t^ saKCCvoa-
>u^ovlo . ^ix Tula -A s^sys nzo'Khoi ?%« "^^yziv u(Mv aA^ a ouvaa-^s ^xra^siv
apli . £1 Sf £K£mi HH B^uvocvlo 01 (Tuyy£voiA,£voi %f owv TO(Tiilov^ }y to^hIcov
Hoivovy]cravl£i aTTO^^nluVi >cj TocraJlcc ^saaafisvoi BaufjLOila, 'Bag ocvB^cottoii
aTTO ^apicov, i^ EiSwAojv, >y Sf(7jwy, }C) aiXipuv^ '^y Ti^OHo^EiT^Wy Toiaulos
yap Y]v Tuv EXMvav aiQaaiAoJa ; ^ rm a'K^av rcov xoiKav rols 'sspulov
a7ro<J7raa^2vl£i;^ a^^oov ~85 ia^jiAs? tuv ^oyfxctlm B^^av^o T^yag. In
Adla, Horn, i. Opera, vol. 8. p. 447.

I 2 Lord

1 16 Divinity ofChrlJl Book IIL

Lord Jefus Chriji, fays, '' Here he calls the
*' one God^ and the other Loidy left he
** fhould give thofe who were juft freed
** from heathenifm, and had learned the
** truth, a pretence for returning to their
M heathenifm and idolatry*."

CEcumenius, on the fame place, fays,
'^ The apcftle fpeaks cautioufly concerning
*' the Father and the Son, calling the Father
** the one God, left they fhould think there
** were two Gods ; and the Son the one
*' Lord, left they fhould think there were
** two Lords. For if he had faid God and
** God^ the Greeks, from their ignorance,
*' would have thought it had been poly-
*' theifm ^ or if he had faid Lord and Lord^
** they would have thought there were many
'* Lords. This is the reafon why he now
** fays, that the Father was God, and the
<* Son Lord. For he had premifed that with
** us there was but one God. Had he called
•* both the Father and the Son God, and

* Ev7av^« txivloi rovfxiv Seov 'STpo<Tinyof)ev<J-i^ tov ?£ Hvpiov * ivctixn

IMt^nfft, tsapatrx^ ^^o^aviv sig rnv 'srohuhov tiu'T^ovrw >tsa>Av^^o^y\ffau
In Loc. Opera, vol. 3. p. 158.

** Lord

Chap. VI. not preached early. 117

*' Lord, he would have been found ading
*' contrary to his own affirmation to the
** Greeks, and would have appeared to have
*' introduced many Gods, and many Lords.
<* Therefore he calls the Father God, and
** the Son Lord ; condefcending to the ftate
*' of novices in the Greeks*/' Again,
fpeaking of God having raifed Chrift from
the dead, he fays, ** the apoftle herein con-
*' defcends to them as children, not that
** Chrift was not able to raife himfelf •f/'
Theodoret alfo, in his expofition of 1 Cor.
15. in which the apoftle fays, that the Son
** was fubje^ to the Father^ fays, *^ the divine
** apoftle, fearing the evil that might arife

"" Ato Kai alcoi; ao-fpccha; in ^otl^o; uai th vi^ Bfji,vr.a% • tov fXEv
'Sfstls^a eiTTUv eva Seov, iva /An ^vo Sssj vo(/,tauicn, tov hcci um svcc «y
fiov, iva (MY] d'uo Kopia; vQiMaaaiv ' 21 ya^ sitts ^eov xai Seov, 'zsroXySstaa/
av £| aTTEi^ia.^ Evo/xia-av E>iXnv£^, r] ku^iqv nai Ku^iov^ 'S^qT^vkv^iqI-^cc cat
£yo(Ma'av . core hou th vuv £i7reiv ^eov 'srolepa km hu^iov tov mov oculn n
atlia . Yiv 7«f vTTocrxoiJi'EVog ^a^ rf^iv zva ^sov Eivai . « av sittev kcu

TOV 'ST/xIb^CC KOU tov UlQV^ ^EQV Y\ HU^lOV^ 'S^O.UV EUplCTHelo TV] OltiSlOS. VTTO-

(7%£cr£( o<7ov '31^05 EXA>iva^ svavliUfASvog^ K(xi 'ssQ'Kv^eia.v v] '^o>.vKV^ioini(Z
Kcclcc TO (paivofxsvov £i(raym . ^lo Seov sittcov tov 'sroilspoc-, kv^iov £i7r£
TOV uiov^ TYi vnTTiolT^i (TuyHaJoiQaivm tcov Y.Xhwav. Opera, vol. I.
p. 492.

^ O ^£ ^BOq ^^ TOV KV^lOV Y\y£i^£V. E7l VYi'TTlOi; ii(TlV^ £^£l (TV^KoicC*

QaivEiv-, xoci 'STpog Tnv VYiTnolnia avlm 7\aX£iv . f^n Bo^v^^n^yig ahuaag olt
0 9go$ TOV xpiTOv r]y£i^£v , a yoc^ £7r£i hk ',<7x.^<Jiv swlov eyei^xi, Tifio
gimiv. Ibid. p. 469.

*' frpm

• ii8 BiviniiyofCbnjl. Book III.

*' from the Grecian mythology, added thefc
" things, fpeaking in low terms for their
" advantage*.'*

According to CEcumenius, thofe whom
John, in his iirft epiftle, addrefles as cfoiU
dren, were thofe who were acquainted with
the humanity of Chrift only, as the grown
men were thofe who knew his divinity.
Of the latter he fays, that '* they knew him
** that was from the beginning. But who
** is from the beginning, but God the logos,
*' who was in the beginning with God?**
He reprefents him as explaining his own
meaning in the following manner : *' Since
" I knew that you will receive my writings
*' according to the difference in your ages, I
" muftmeafure mydodrine according to your
** ages, and difcourfe with fome as children
" who know the Father,'* he means God the
Father only ; ** but to others as fathers, who
** know more than the children, and not as
** the father only, but as without origin and
*^ unfearchable, for he was in the begin-
** ning. To thefe I muft addrefs more per-

fiEvmf v(po^uix£vog |3?vaCnv, touIcx 'Z3'^orfSf/«s, raTrsivols^iog x,p»(r«|W£j'o;
>>oyQii ^M Trjv SKEivm u(pi'hnav. Opera, vol. 3. p. 201.

"fed

Ctt A P • VI. not preached early. 1 1 9

** feet difcourfes*/' Inconfiftently, how-
ever, with this, he fays, that •' by thofe who
** deny the Son^ in this epiftle, are meant
** they who fay that Chrift was a mere
*' man /' and yet he fays, that '* by thofe
** who denied that J ejus was the Chriji^ were
" meant the Gnoftics."

Theophyladl, commenting on i Cor, i. 8.
fays, '* Since Paul was writing to the
** Greeks, who worfhipped many Gods,
'* and many Lords, on this account ht
*' does not call the Son God, left they
** fhould think there were two Gods, as
** being accuftomed to polytheifm. Nor
" did he call the Father Lord, left they
*^ fhould think there were many Lords.
*^ For the fame reafon he made no mentiort

* Oij jtM E%fiy TW yvmiv ra «t «/J%»5 (Aa^ru^ei . t;j Je o ait
o-pX^i i £i f^y) 0 Seoj X(jyo$, og riv £v a^x^ 'SJ^og rov Bsov* Ettei sj;
(pmiv HTa; u/jLOi^ oi'^a Kccrot rag rcov yi^^ihkcv hx(po^acg ^s^oiASvag ra 'jraf
f/AH y^a,(pO(j(.BvoCy avafm Jiaf/s isa^ayi.zrpYiaaa th] ^la^ea-Ei mg nT^mag
viim Tuv '^i^aaKaT^av, kou Toig (jlbv ag 'SJocioioig sTrsyvuKoa-i tov 'ssotTspoc
(^.Eyet 0£ Toy ^£Qv^ ^ia\E-x^vcx,i , TOig 3e ag 'sjoiTpct^Lv^ ci 'zcAeov £%««
7Ci)V -zfraiSi^v Kara rw yva^cnv-t ro im ag isars^a [aqvqv eTreyKiOHEvat,
^y^Xa KOA cog ava^x'^g xoa ad'ts^nyirog , nv ya^ sv a^ %» • ruloig ^e ««t
reT^Bcalepcai' a^ihv tsa^cx^B7iv fsiomoi^^ai Xoyco', In John, Opera,
vol. 2. p. 570.

1 4 ''of

120 Divinity of Chrljl Book III.

** of the Holy Spirit, fparing the weaknefs
«* of his hearers; as the prophets do not
" mention the Son clearly, on account of
<* the Jews, left they fhould think of a
** generation with paffion*/' In his Com-
mentary on X Col. i. 12. he obferves, that
** Paul mentions giving thanks to the Fa^
** ther only. He does the fame," he fays,
** in the epiftle to the Corinthians, bring-
<* ing them gradually to the dodtrine con-
** cerning the Son -f*.''

The fame writer, in his Commentary on
I Tim. ii. 5. There is one God, and one me--
diator between God and Man^ the man Chriji
Jefus^ fays, ** he does not fpeak plainly
*^ concerning the deity of Chrift, becaufe
f * polytheifm then abounded, and left he

vol ' ii% }y 70V 'UdilifA KV§iov, tvet y.w 'sroMJJf Kv^i^^ }y 'sra^
7Hy.tv i'tVAt ito^atri. A/a ravlnv efg im ctfjietv, »/« th 'zs-viv^
ixetjoi «^.J'}1^^« ii/lav^et, (piiJ^o^ilQ^ r«? et^ti'UAi Tcov cLKHoVz
*luv* fiJ^cTsp }y ot ^^otpifjou T« via ffet^eo^ a y.iy.inivja.t, J\ieL 7ii$
lacTctiw, ivcL y.n ly.Tra.'^n voixKreoat rtiv yivvmiv. Opera,
vol. 2. p. 2s6.

f OuTco }^ iv Tit /u I OS Ko^iv^ivi ^oiii. Hpg//ot, /s £//^x-

Ctt'^ii AMTii its 70V aSifl \Jl^ hoyoV, Vol. 2. p. 63 I.

'' ihoul4

Chap. VT. not preached early. \ 2 1

** fhould be thought to introduce many
** gods ; where, though he fays, one and
*^ one, he does not put them together, and
** fay /W(?, but only one and one. Such is
** the caution of the fcriptures. On this
** account he makes no mention of the
*' Spirit, left he fhould feem to be a poly-
*< theift*."

Such abundant evidence as this, when
there is nothing to oppofe to it (and many
more pafTages to the fame purpofe might,
I doubt not, be collefted, if it could be
thought that they were at all wanting) muft
furely fatisfy all the impartial, that, in the
opinion of the chriftian Fathers, the doc-
trines of the prc-exiftence and divinity of
Chrift were confidered as being of fuch a
nature, as that it would not have been pru-
dent to rifk the communication of them
either with Jews or Gentiles, on their firft

ir'-'^}} 'OOhV^ilA 70TZ iK^ATity }^ IVcL [/.» POl^ta^ij )^ ctVTOi

'O'0a\»? ^mt <wa.f<iiaa.yiiv, o'myi aJ^i to, g/? ^ e/^, orav A«-
y»7cu, isfoam^f ffvvTi'HvAi, )^ Kiynv J'vo, clK\cl a^ j^ e^^ .
TocTAUTW ya,^ h ivKadia, t,^ y^ctpK . J" let t»to ^k g//^*)^^»)
«ePs T« ^ViV[xa.Tcf^ tfec ^»j /o^H ^oKvdsoi uva.1. Vol. 2.

/ converfion

122 Divinity of Chnji^^c. Book IIL

converfion to chrlftianlty. And the plain
inference from this is, that the orthodox
Fathers muft necefiarily have fuppofed,
that the chrilHan church, in general, was
at firft unitarian, and that it continued to be
fo a confiderable time. For none of them
fay, or hint, when this caution on the part
of the apoftles ceafed ; and they reprefent
them as ufing it in the very lateft of their
writings, as in thofe from Paul after his
confinement at Rome, and therefore not
long before the deftrudlion of Jerufalem.
At that time, therefore, they muft have
thought that the great body of chriftians
were unitarians, and without being con-
fidered as heretics on that account.

But the moft decifive proof of this is
their univerfally concluding, that the doc-
trines of the pre-exiftence and divinity of
Chrift were never taught clearly and expli-
citly till it was done by John, in the intro-
duction to his gofpel, which they fuppofed
to have been publiflied among the laft of
the books of the New Teftament, and after
the death of the other apoftles.

CHAP-

[ 123 ]

CHAPTER VII.

Of "John being thought to have been the firjl
who clearly and boldly taught the doctrines
of the Pre-exijlence and Divinity of Chrijl.

A S this is an article of confiderable con-
fequence, I fhall produce a redundance
of evidence in fupport of it ; nothing being
better calculated to fatisfy us, that, in the
opinion of the chriftian Fathers, the doc-
trines of the pre-exiftence and divinity of
Chrift v/ere not generally received in the
life-time of the other apoftles ; and, there-
fore, that fimple unitarianifm could not have
been confidered as any herefy in the early
ages. Thefe authorities I fhall produce,
as I have generally done others, nearly in
the order of time in which the w^riters
flourlfhed. I fhall only firft obferve, that
John feems to have got the title of Seo^oy©-,
divine, from this circumflance, of his teach-
ing the dodrine of the divine logos, which
was fuppofed to be peculiar to him. This

' 3 appellation

1 24 ^ohn firjl taught the Book III.

appellation is given to him in the title to
the book of Revelation. It is mentioned
by Athanalius in his Sermo Major de Fide*,
and alfo by Cyril of Alexandria "f. For a
fimilar reafon Ifaiah is ftiled Theologus by
Eufebius, in If. xxiv. lo.J

I fhall alfo remind my reader in this
place, that this hypothefis of John hav-
ing taught the docftrine of the divinity
of Chrift in the introduftion of his gof-
pel, does not occur in the earlieft writers.
Thefe being nearer to the fource of infor-
mation, fay that John had a view to the
Gnoftics only, both in his epiftles, and
the introdu6tion to his gofpel. This was
the opinion of Irenseus, who wrote about
the year 170; for which fee this work,
vol.1, p. 253. The firft writer who fays
that John meant the unitarians, I believe^
was Origen.

* Montfaucon's Collediio, vol. 2. p. 1.3.

\ Horn. Opera, vol. 2. p. 75.

J Montfaucon's Colki^io, yol, 2. p. 45Q,

B E C-

Chap. VII. Divinity of Chriji. 125

SECTION I.

The Acknowledgments of the Chrijiian Fa*
thers that John was the firjl who taught
the dodirines above-mentioned.

o

,RIGEN, though a zealous defender of
the doftrines of the pre-exiftence and
divinity of Chrift, yet, as will appear in
its proper place, only confidered them as
more fublime dodlrines, fit for the moje
perfect chriftians. He fays, that ** John
** alone introduced the knowledge of the
** eternity of Chrift to the minds of the
*^ Fathers*/' ** John himfelf was tranf-
*' formed into God, and fo became partaker
" of the truth, and then pronounced that
** the word oi God was in God from the
** beginning "f-."

* Joannes foia ejus aeterna in notltiam fidelium anima-
rum introducit. Opera, vol. 2. p. 428.

f Sanftus itaque theologus in deum tranfmutatus, veri-
tatis particeps, domini verbum fubfiftere in deo principio,
.hoc eft deum filiura in deo patre, pronunciat, . Ibid.

2 ** No

126 John Jirjl taught ihe Book III.

*' No one/' fays this writer, ** taught the
** divinity of Chrift fo clearly as John, who
** prefents him to us, faying, / a7n the light
** cf the worlds I am the way^ ihe truths and
** the lifey I am the refurre^miy I am the
** gate, I am the good JJjepherd, and in the
*' Revelation, / am the alpha and the omega,
♦* the beginning and the endy the firji and ihe
*' lafi. We may therefore boldly fay, that,
** as the gofpels are the firft fruits" (or the
*^ moft excellent part) " of the fcriptures,
*^ fo the gofpel of John is the firft fruits of
** the gofpels ; the izni^ of which no per-
** fon can conceive, except he who reclines
** on the breaft of Jefus, and who receives
** from Jefus his mother Mary, and makes
** her his own. He muft be another John,
** who was fhewn by Jefus as another Jefus.
*' For he who is perfed: does not himfelf
** live, but Chrift lives in him. And fince
" Chrift lives in him, he fays to Mary con*
** cerning him. Behold thy Son, Chrift
«^ himfelf*."

as Jeoctvi'iiiy 'sr:i^ct^il(Tai avtov hiyoVTd, iyu Hfxt 7o (^ug Tit

AVATAlTli •

Chap. VII. Divinity of Chrift. 127

The meaning of this is, that, to have the
knowledge of the fublime dodrines of the
pre-exiftence and divinity of Chrift, as taught
by John, a man muft be a chriftian of the
firjl clafs and rank, far above the ordinary
fort. He muft be a fecond John, and a
fecond Jefus, imbibing their fpirit, and
entering into their moft profound meaning.

Eufebius, fays, that '' John began the
*' dodtrine of the divinity of Chrift, that
'^ being refer ved for him, as the moft
'' worthy*."

But he who wrote the moft largely, and
the moft eloquently on this fubjed: is Chry-

IV T« a'7roiiAKv'\,it, lyco iiiai 7o cl iy to 0, y\ appi^M }y to tsAo^,

0 ^feoT'^ '^ 0 iO-'j(^ct7Q- . TOA/XHTSoy TOlVVf UTTttV dTA^^W
fj.iV 'vrcLdMV ypoLpeov HVcu 7ct ivetyyiAiA, reov <^ i iv cLyylKisaV
(L'n-cLfyjDV TO KATa. IcoAWm, tf TOV VHV nJ^H^ S'VVATAt KdCiiF fJitl
aVATiffCOV iTt 70 rM-S-Q- liKTU, ^H</^£ KaCcov A'TTO IlKTit TW

Ma^iav yiVofj-ivm }y avth [Ar,7ifA; }y rn^iKaTov <^i ykpza-^cu

cTs/ TOV iUOlJL^VOV A}^0V IcoA'^V^Vi ^i Ti OSOVil TOV IcoAVVtlV cTif-

X^^^VAA ovTA Imav ATo lri7^ — tiou yA^ isTA^; 0 TiTiKiia^jity^
Qn HKiTt, CtAA* iV AVTU <^n ^^l^-Q^y Kau iTTit ^M iy OLVTea
X?i^^f Aft^STcW '27Sp/ AVTH Til UAflO,, iJ'i 0 Vl^ (7S 0 %p/r@^.

Comment, in Johan, vol. 2. p. 5.
* Tng /e ^ioAoyiA^ A7rcLf>^Aa--d-£U, u^ av avtco 'zypo^ ts -S-g/s

'UHVlJ.ATOi OlA K§cn']Offl 'TTA^a.'Tnr^VhayiJ.iyMi . TAVTOt, (Jt-iV HV

JI/z/j/ "^zrgp/ 7H? Ta KATei leoawnv ivAyfihiv yfA'pni iis^is-d-a*
Hift. lib, 3. cap. 24. p. 117.

foftom

. 128 Johnjirjl taught the Book III.

foftom. And it will be feen that the great-
nefs of the myftery, its alarming appear-
ance to the Jews, and the extreme caution
of the evangelifts and apoftles in divulging
it, gave him great fcope fpr magnifying the
courage of John, in teaching what the other
apoftles had only ventured to hint at, and
which was referved for him, as ih^ fon of
thunder^ and whofe emblem was the eagle,
to exprefs his fearing higher than any other
that had gone before him.

•' John," he fays, *' alone taught the eter-
** naland fuper-celeftial wifdom*/' *' John
** firft lighted up the lamp of theology ; and
** all the moft diftant churches running to
" it, lighted up their lamps of theology, and
*' returned rejoicing, faying, In the begin-'
** ing was the logos -f,'*

Chryfoftom reprefents all the preceding
writefs of the New Teftament as children,
who heard, but did not underftand things,
" and who were bufy about cheefe-cakes

* Movof T>iv aiwm xj uTTs^Hoa-fxiov (piXoao(piav Hn^v^a^, In John
i, Opera, vol. 6. p. 235.

avr,^ii ««; vTTir^zifs p^ajfscr^, ev a^^rj nv o hoyo^. Ibid. p. 604.

'' and

Chap. VIL Dhlnlty of Chrij}, 129

'« and childifli fports*, but John," he fays,
*' taught what the angels themfelves did
. *'not know before he declared it ^ ;*' and
he reprefents them as his mofl attentive au-
ditors. ''Leaving the Father/' he fays,
'* he (John) difcourfed concerning the Son,
*• becaufe the Father, was known to all, if
*' not as a Father, yet as God, but the
'* unbegotten was unknown J."

Of the three firft evangelifts, he fays,
*' they all treated of the fleflily difpenfation,
** and filently by his miracles, indicated his
** dignity. The dignity of the logos of
** God was hid, the arrows againft the he-
*' retics were concealed, and the fortifica-
*' tion to defend the right faith was not
** raifed by the pious preaching. John,
*' therefore, the fon of thunder, being the

a^v^^iOL 'mai^iKtx. In Johan. i. Opera, vol. 8. p: 2.

-j- A /Ari^E ayyzT^oi 'u^piv n rsiov ysvEcBai ri^EKTciV . /-tsS* 7j(/.ay yao
^n Kai iiloi $ia thj Icoaws <pwvjjj hou 5i nixav sucn^ov oiTTS^ eyvuixev,
Jbid.

X Ti ^YiTTor Hv Tov 'STizlf.^cc a<ps(^^ 'SFE^i T8 I'lH ^liX^yelM : oil

ukQvoyzm Y\yvoBilo. Ibid; p. 1 1 .

Vol. HI. K "laft

130 Jobzfirjl taught the Book III.

*' lalT:, advanced to the dodrine of the lo-
** gos," or the divinity of Chrift*.

*^ In the beginning was 'the ivord. This
** flodrine was not publiihed at firft, for
*' the world would not receive it. Where-
** fore Matthew, Mark, and Luke'' (John
is here added, but it mull be an interpola-
tion) *^ began at a diftance. When they
** began the preaching, they did not imme-
** diately fay what was becoming his dig-
'^ nity, but what would fuit the hearers.
*' Matthew, beginning his gofpel, fays,
** The book of the generation of Jefiis Chriji^
** the fon of David^ the fon of Abraham,
** Why does he not fay the fon of God?

akioifjux^ 'Ek^uttHJo OS ra hoIoc rccv ai^slinav ^£?vrj, }y ro rng o^^v^
^o^Y,g £7ril£ixi<^{^<x a'^ETTols Tw m^uy{ji,ali rvg wcrsQeiag lyrr/i^o. luawYi;
Toivw- 0 yj©- T«$ ^^ovlyjg^ T£>,£ulaicg, ii^aoYiT^Ev ettl n:w Seo^oytav. De
Sigillis,Op. vol. 6. p 173. N. B. The fenfe of the pafiage
abfolutely requires eh^viPMo and not eu-zi^utVo in both the
claufes, and in the latter it is fo rendered by the Latin
tranflator, though not in the former. The obfervation, that
the firft verfes in the gofpel of John are a refutation of all
herefies is common with the Fathers. No perfon, except
one who is pretty well converfant with them, can imagine
how Qften thofe verfes occur in their writings.

ii Why

Chap. VII. Divinity ofChriJt. 131

<« Why does he conceal his dignity by poor
*' language ? Why does he conceal from
** men the things relating to his deity ?
*' He anfwers, I am preaching to the Jews,
*^ who do not even believe him to be
** a good man. They would not believe
*' Chrift to be the fon of Abraham, and
" will they believe his being called the fon
'' of God ?— The bleffed Mark, alfo, when
^' he applied himfelf to writing a gofpel,
*^ taking courage from what had been done
*^ before" (meaning perhaps, by Matthew)
'' calls him the Son of God ^, but he imme-
** diately contrads his difcourfe, and cuts
*' fhort what he had intended to fay, that
** he might footh his hearers. He there-
•* fore, introduces what he had to fay, con^
*' cerning the Baptift, faying, The begin-
** ning oj the go/pel of J ejus Chrijl^ as it is
■' written in Ifaiah the prophet ^ &c.''

** Luke follows in the third place, and
*' goes a middle way. He touches upon
^^ the do6trine of the logos, but does not ex-
" plain, or unfold his dignity 5 but fays,
<* Since 7nany have under taken to give an ac^
^* count of what has come to pafs among usy it
K % ''fee7md

j-% '^ohnjHrjl taught ihe Boofc lit.

•* fcemed good to me aljoy who have attended
*' to every thing from ihe be ginning^ to write
'' in order as has been delivered to lis, by thofe
'^ loho were eye-witnejfes and mirilfien of the
** logos. But though he mentions the lo-
** gos, he did not fay that the logos was
** God. What then does he do ? Touch-
*^ ing upon the fubjedt, and coniidering that
" he was fpeaking in the ears of the dead^
** he conceals his dignity, and brings on
•' the oeconomy," i. e. the dodtrine of the
incarnation or humanity of Chrill. '* There
'^ was a priefl; Zacharias, &c."

*' John, therefore, the fon of thunder,
*' laft of all advanced to the doctrine of his
** divinity, after thofe three heralds 3 and
** with great propriety he followed them^
** and they went before, lightening a little,
*' as the lightning precedes the thunder, left.
'* burfting from the clouds at once it fhould
*' fiun the hearer. — They therefore lighten-
** ed the economy^ or the humanity of Chrift,
'^ but he thundered out the theologyy' that
is, the doftrine of Chrift's divinity^.

* Ev oLi^yji -A'J 0 7.0-/^ . ax su^ug thIq bhyi^ux^ • Ou ya^ exeo^sio

C H A P . VI I . Biviniiy cf Chrijt. \ 3 3

Again, he introduces John as holding ^
ibliloquy with himfelf, and faying, after

A(X<^i^, Vi3 A'^pocafA, , ^lacli^ fiY\ um Sea ; ^ictli nsltox^ ^-^^^^ kpim%is
Tifiv a^iav ; ^laJi roi; av^pcoTroig la ^zicx. Kcc>>U7rl£ig ; 'ma^cx. la^aoig

^Y17i KYIpUrlcO^ TOli fm OV^ftiTTOV ^UIMOV £iVOtl 1SlT£U^(Ti. ToV X^^'^^

viov AQ^si,aiA aira eh^ccvlo, )C) viov ^s-d z£uyfE7\'^o/j,£V7V av£^ovlM. —
TlciXiv 0 (jLouia^ioq'M.ot^ito; «aS£i$ £Civlov sig to £ucx.yFsXiQV ., )y ^a^ayiaag
roig 'STpoysyu/xvaa-f/.svoii^ 7^£y£i /xsv uiov Ses, aM* £u^£cog tiv£T£'.'K£ rau
hoyov^ :tj £KO>.o^&}(j£ tvjv cj/vouv, tva jtta?.a|"4 rov aicpoixir,v . ^Traysi
8V sv^Ecag ra xixloc rov ^ccTrliTw y^sycoy, a^x^ ra BvayfeT^in l-Aaa x^^rrK,
Hct^'^g y£ypociTloci £v Heroiia. no 'u§o^;{ln. — O Asuag aK07^^£i nr^ilogf
Kj fx,£crog ^oj^ofr {xzlcc Tshv, xj uTrlslai (xtv t« ^t^ 'i.oyy^ a /^tuv zpixwcvu
^ 0LViXT%(Ttj£i T:m a^ijiv , aXAa <pr.o:v, ettsi^yittb^ 'sjq^^oi £9r£%£jo>}-
cav avccia^aa^ai 'oiyiyYicriv rsuBPi tuv 'SfBTThrPo'pomiJi^oyv £V vif^civ m-isy-
fAolcoy, s^ois xa/yLoi 'Ssa^aKoy.^i'^Yicrai roig "ssaa-iv aTra^X"''^ y^a-'l^aiy
^ct^a; ns^a^EOoiKdv r^i^iv oi aTT apx^i avioTflai^ xj uTT-n^iiai ysvo[X£VQi t«
9\oy8 . a7^.a >\oyov fASv eittev, hk sltts oe oli y^ Ssof r,v o >ioyog . n tv
^ ai/log 'jzoiii ; a-^aix&io; ro £ivxi, kJ £vvoy]<70i;, oil vEKoan; ajcGoa;
iwixii, JcpuTilsi Tw altav, kJ 'sy^o<ps^£i rw ciKCVOfiiav . eysvflo i£^£y;
Xaxoc^io:^ • f^ t>x £^Y]g ts euccyfsT^iH. Icoavvy]; toivuv o uic; Tn^ i%oi'-
%i r£>.£ulaiog^tx^'r]X^Bv etti tw ^Eo^^oyicuv., fxzlx rsg ro£ig mzivz; w^.^tj-
xaf, ^ BiHolag 0 (jL£v tikoXsSji(^£v, Gi 'o£ ^^OEXaQov^ xa {/.'.z^a TEOJ; wr^aTT'
7ov7£5, udTTE^ ya^ tvi; ^^cvlvig 'SJ^OYjyEfLxi arpxTTn, woe fXYi ac^oov £KEivn
$K jav v£(pcov pocyEicra -sr^nln rov tXKnovloi, Ouli}g ETTEm £/as?0K&'/3^ov-
*}(xv 0 laavvvig-, 'Zjr^oEXaCov oi rpEii; £vxyfs7Jsai d'lKm ar^aTrcov, ^ oi fxzv
tfT^d'^av T51V oiKOvofAiocv^ 0 ^£ ^pyjloi 7v)v ^£o%oyicx,v. De Sigillis,
Opera, vol.6, p. 171, &c. ^

K 3 *' confidering

^34 ^^^^ fi^fi taught the Book IIL

confidering the progrefs of herefy, *^ Why
** do I delay ? Why have I any longer pa^
*^ tience ? Why do I not bring forth the
" myftery hid from ages ? Why do I hide
'^ in myfelf, the wifdom which was before
" the ages, which I derive from the im-
** 'mortal fountain on which I lean ? Why
*' do I not publifh what angels are ignorant
*' of? Why do I hide from the ends of
*' the earth what no one knows, except the
^^ Father ? Why do I not write what Mat*
" thew, and Mark, and Luke, through a
** wife and praife-worthy fear, paffed in
*' filence, according to the orders that were
** given them. How fliall I fpeak what
** was given me freely from above ? Mat-
*' thew, according to what was granted to
" him, wrote according to his ability.
** Mark, and Luke, in like manner, accords
*' ing to the fupply of the Spirit, have writ-
*' ten their books in a becoming manner.
** I alfo will write, and add to thofe before^^
** the fourth fountain of life. For there
*^ remains to the divine voice the difcourfes
^^ of the divinity^ and the world is in dan-

♦♦ ger

Chap, VII. Divinity of Chrift, 135

*' ger on this quarter. I will write a book
^' which will ftop the mouths of all, who
"•' fpeak unjuftly of God. I will write a
'* book which will hide all the wifdom of
" the world. I will write a book which
*^ fhall not be confined to what concerns
** man. For the church is provided with
" what Mofes wrote concerning thefe
" things, about the heavens and the earth,
*' &c.

" But I, leaving all things which have
** come to pafs from time, and in time,
** will fpeak of that which was without
" time, and is uncreated, about the logos
** of God, which was generated from the
" Father in an ineffable manner, about
"which Mofes dared not to fpeak. But
'' I am able to do all things, through Chrift
*' who ftrengthens me."

" The apoflle John having reafoned thus
*' within himfelf, and having the pen of a
*' writer in his hand, and confidering how
** to begin the theology, rejoicing in fpirit,
*' but with a trembling hand, is carried up-
*' wards, being in the body at Ephefus, but
'* with a pure heart and holy fpirit leaves
K 4 *' the

136. Johnfirji taught the Book TIL

'* the earth," &c. Then reprefenting him-
felf as carried up into heaven, he fays, that
*' fishing out of the Father's bofom the
*' dodrine of the divinity, he wrote in his
*' body on earth. In the beginning was the
*' logos, &c^/'

ill ', Tin 'ST^C<7(pe^U £ig fjLSJOV TO OiTTO TWV UimUV il£K^ViX(JiEVCV (JLUTYl^lCV }

n a.TTOKpv'^oi sotvla ivjy ano rav aiavcov aoipiacv^ yiV £« rng a^avala
'sr«y>lj smTTEo-cov Ei'huacra ; rt a ^Yiixoaizvo)^ ov ayy£?^oi ayvoao-f, ti a«
aTTOKuKuTilu roig 'dtftaai^ ov sdetj ETTiymaHUj ei /x« 0 isaP^y)^ ; 11 a
y^a(pci), ote^ MotlBaiog ^ Mapnog >tj Ahku; ^i ETraivuf^evw SetAfav
's^ci^ocaiaTrwavls; 'ka^sopafjLDv, Tz'hiaa.vlE'; tot 'ss^orHa.yiiEvac wjlci;;
o^sv >^>.wco Hcxya tcccIx rm ^o^£ia-av (jloi ^capzxv avakv, Mccl^aic^
IXEV oaov ExoipEi^ Ey^a-^E nocJa rnv i^iuv ^uvafjLiv^ Mapnog ^e kJ Ahho^
c/MOiug Koloi Tw 7 8 aym m'suiAolo^ Xo^yi<x\) rag Eavlxv ^i<^?^oug ^eott^^^ •
•prcog EOoyfA,alii7av , ypa^ca nay^ kJ ispoa^ia^ Toig E^iirpoa^Ev tyiv teIcc^-
1m tsyryw tw {cc-^g , T^elttei ya§ Eig ^Eoawrotiov tpmm 0 Tx^spi S£o^oy;a^
>.oycgy }y kivqweuei 0 kca-iMg ev tw (XEpsi 7 bla . ypcc-^o) ^lQ^ov^ 3'i Yi;
ilM(ppccyyi ^av fOfAOi haT^v kola ^eov ad'imav y^a^(i) $iv>,ov rviv kol-
>jJ7n^(Tav 'SSOLaav ev hq(T\jim crofpiav . yp(x-^o) ^i<^AOv a msspi av^pcoTra
otrrya/AEvriv . « ya^ Ultiei tvi E}Ln>>wiay a 'sjeoi laruv Eypa^s M^jctj^^
m^i a^avs re ^ yvig kJ ^aXaa jojv ^ ix^wv jq 'mEkmv ^ ifl^aTro'
^cov, /tj EpTTElmiCjpvmv ^9 <7^£o/,ia?wv x) (pcorvipuv y^ (^p'j)fj.cchv ^l, UiTrr}';.
jcliffEug ', Eyco h Tuavla ra amo x^ovs >c,; sv xpom ymixEva tcaia'kEi'la;
rahma m^sfi m ax^ova ^ ««7ir«, ra ^po 's^avluv twv aiccvccv ek ts 'sra?-
fof af^)i7a)f yevyy]^Evlog ^eh Aov«, 'SiEpi a Muang -dlog eitceiv HKKTxvfTEv.
Eyu OS izavla laxvco ev ro) EvcuvccixHUt /xe x/J'rw . rjcvlcx, ev Eau% ckett-
lofxivogowTTorohog luayvr)g xj tov yca^iKcv Kd'hafjiov a- rr,xEipi hxIex^-, y)
imxviffcsg Tng^so>^{uyiag ap^jhi. ?c^/p'v (j.:v tm ^ux'-i- rrf/^wv^ETj;

%£lfl

Chap. VIL Divinity ofChriJl. 137

Chryfoftom introduces Matthew alfo rea-
fonlng on the fubjed: of his faying fo little,
or rather nothing, of the divinity of Chrift 5
and indeed, according to his account, it was
a very dangerous and hazardous topic. — ^
** Now,*' fays he, ^' let us awake, and arife,
*' Behold the gates are open to us, but let us
*^ enter with great regularity, and with
" trembling ; firft paffing the outer court.
** What is the outer court ? The book of
** the generation of Jefus Chrift, the fon of
*' David, the fon of Abraham. What is
** that you fay ?" (fays the hearer) *^ You
•* promifed to difcourfe concerning the
*' only begotten Son of God, and now you
*' talk of David, a man who lived a thou-
*' fand generations ago, and fay, that he was
^* his father and anceilor ? Hold" (fays the
evangelift) *^ and do not expedt to learn
" every thing immediately; but flowly, and
*' by degrees : For you are yet in the out^r
'* court, and only near the gate; and why
^* are you in hafte to get into the innermoft

XUpi^ (XElccpdiog yivslai, }y rco auf/,oili £vE(p£a-co uv,7yj Koc^apcc xa^^icc
TO) msui^ali ixslecopcg v7rYipx,s, <^ £« ra 's^ocI^ihh norma tw ^eo^or^ay
a>dEU(Tag, tco (Tu/xuIi hoIu zypaipsv^ £vxpx>] nv o T^oy^. De Jo-
hanne, Opera, vol. 6. p. 606, &c.

3 ** recefs ?

138 John Jirjl taught the Book III.

** recefs ? You have not yet well examin-
*^ ed all that is without : For I do not as
*^ yet relate to you the generation itfclf ^
*' nor indeed fhall I do it after this ; for it
*' is inexplicable and ineffable.'' Then re-
citing the dread that the prophet Ifaiah had
of the fubjedt, which led him to exclaim.
Who JJjall declare his generation y he fays, ** it
*' is not my bufmefs to treat of this genera-
** tion, but of the earthly one, of which
'* there were ten thoufand witnefles ; and
** concerning this I fiiall fo difcourfe as the
*' gifts of the fpirit fhall enable me : for I
'^ cannotevendeclare this with perfect clear-
*' nefs : for even this is very fearful. Do not,
** therefore, think that you hear a fmall thing,
** when you hear even this generation ; but
** raife your whole foul, and be full of hor-
*' ror when you hear that God is come
*' upon earth ;'* and then he proceeds to de-
fcribe at large all the awfulnefs of the in-
carnation, and the miraculous conception ^'.

* Aiocvctfu/Mv roivuv t^ ixn }iix'^£v^u;j.£v^ i^a yap o^cc Ta; 'ZJuKxg
yi;mv avoiyofj.sva^ ' aT^X SKna/xsv [Mzla. sula^jxg aTraang ii); rpoiJt,H^ lav
fSj^oBu^av au%)v su^sug ETTi^aivovlEg . riva as eti TotvJoi ra ^oo^uoa j
^iQh^ ymo-tcog Incra pc^^^a vi<i AaQi^ma. A^^ckocia, 7j ^£7fJf 5 'srff,'

Chap. VII. Divinity of Chxijl. 1^9

But this was far fliort of the eternal genera-
tion from the Father.

*^ Do not think/' fays this writer, " that
" you underftand every thing, when you are
*' informed that he was conceived by the
** Spirit ; for there are many things of
*' which we are yet ignorant, and which we
*' have to learn; as how he who is infinite
** can be comprehended in a woman \ how
'* he who fuftains all things can be carried

vsveig, avB^coTTa (terra fjLupiag ysvsccg ysvo/XEv^ : }y aviov Eivoci (prj^^ km
Tcocls^x KM '5;poyovov : ETTicrx^^t ^^^ {^^ TTixvIa aS^oug ^yjlst fj^a^si'/
a>^ vpsfia )y Kola (xih^ov . sv yap toi; 'srpo^v^oig sTmocg eli 'ujiccp aula
TO. 'UJ^QTCu'haici. , Ti TQivvv a7[Zv^£ig izT^oj T« a^vlcx, 8 uTTu TO, E^coKa7\ag
KalccTrliUdoig aTravla . a^s yap EMi'm crot rscog ^lYiyH/xai rnv yEvwidiv '
fAM'Khov h ah TYiv fjLsIa Taula . av£H(p^a'rcg ya^ it, a7ro^py]log, Tm
yevsav aula Tig '^iy]yy,(j{lai ; a romv 'zus^i sxEivng nf^iv o hoyog vvv, aXXa
-STf^i tuoItk Tvig Kalco, Tr.g £v r-t] yrj yevoy.nyig, 'XY^g pi,£Ta fxup'.oiv fxaplupojv,
xj ^£^1 raulr,g ^s, ug Yifjuv ^ijvalov eitteiv h^cxfiEvcig tav ra 'mveu/xocleg
%apiv^ iilo) vinywofAE^a , ah yap iamy\v iida crapyiviag ^auY^g ^apa~
Tr.crai svt • eyrei }y avln ^^Muhrali) . fxy^ roivuv /xiK^a vo^xiar.g anasiv,
^aulw owitcv TYiv y£vwi<nv * aKh avarmov an tw liavoxav ;^ Ev^£U)g-
(ppi^ov^ axaaag oli BEog etti yYigv?.^£v , ah ya^ teIq ^avixarov y^ ^apa-
hbv T^v^ cog xj' rag ayyEXag x^pc^ i^'^^p Ta7(i;v frKravlctg iw uTTEp r^g
VDia/xEVYjg ETTt toloig avoups^Eiv E,u<pYi^iav , In Matt. i. Opera,
vol. 7, p. i3j.

*' about

140, Jobnjirji taught the Book III,

«^ about by her; how a virgin can bring
" forth, and remain a virgin *.*'

On this fubjedl, which affords fo much
fcope for eloquence, Epiphanius writes as
follows : *' Wherefore the bleffed Joha
*' coming, and finding men employed about
*< the humanity of Chrift, and the Ebio-
'* nites being in an error about the earthly
'* genealogy of Chrift, deduced from Abra-
*• ham, carried by Luke as high as Adam,
" and finding the Cerinthians and Merin-
** thians maintaining that he was a mere
*' man, born by natural generation of both
*^ the kxt^y and alfo the Nazarenes, and
** many other herefies ; as coming laft (for
*' he was the fourth to write a gofpel) be-
" gan as it w^ere to call back the wanderers,
*' and thofe who were employed about the
'* the humanity of Chrift; and feeing fome
''of them going into rough paths, leaving
'* the ftrait and true path, cries, Whither
*' are you going, whither are you walking,

* Ms! e^iVOUKTiH T3 'ZffAV l^'.iy.A^jilKZVCfJy irl 'Ul 'iV UAT ^ «ijt»*'f

Matt. i. Opera, vol, 7. p. 31.

*^ who

C H A P . V 1 1 . Divinity of Chrijl, 1 4 j

** who tread a rough and dangerous path,
^' leading to a precipice ? It is not fo. The
*' God, the logos, which was begotten by
'* the Father from all eternity, is not from
** Mary only. He is not from the time of
•' Jofeph, he is not from the time of Sala-
'* thiel, and Zorobabel, and David, and Abra-
*' ham, and Jacob, and Noah, and Adam ;
*' but in the heginning was ike logos, and the
*^ logos was with God, and the logos was God.
** The was, and the ivas, and the was, do
** not admit of his having ever not been ^."

ACfAcj^f^ KcLJayouii'in't y^ AaKcttivcLyoucyiw ayjiTu A'Scty,ivccp

iivcti '^^i^cy oLV^pso'^rov, h.cu Tvi Nct^coociizi, kcu ctK\cr.i '^c'r^.o'i
a.ifZ:JiU, c-H Y^f^o-Jiv eA-^-fi'V, Tili^- fl'3~ ycto iPiOf ivxyyiKi^{]d.iy
etp'/jlcti cLv^.KcL\ijoJa.iy ec^ii-^niVyTai '^Actvih^'ivjctf, k^j n<ryjh;]-

//4 »? 'SrSp/ 7y\V KciPid^ yC?'^^ tl^ct^^OicLV, KOA KiyZlV ctl^'Ol^ (fcf

KAJoTTtv Cccivco:', KcuQpciiv 7iycti it? 7^'xyj,iA^ od\^ j'.e«A/;:c7a;

«aro/ 8a<^t(«.T5, ot rnv 7^'-iyiici,v q^qv kca CKcfj,S\:f.Kc:>ii] y.aj.atg
X<^'^V-^ !?Sf Kcr»v lirtJ'i{^ov7ii ; cii'ciKay.'^cL7i . Ouk c<^;v zto^, i^K.
l^tv ct-TTO Mfiip/otf yLOVcV Q '3-?(s? Koy(^^ o s;i -srctrp^j iLvcu'^iv yz-

yiVVY)lJ.Z\'(^^ HH, iS-tV 6t'/70 7C)V yjC'JVm IsoCY)^ rn TAViri O^y.sLCa,

vK gr/i' ctTo 7C0V XPc>)vc'jv:E,ciAci^n}A,Ka,i Zc^oCctCi-iA, kui ^-jlCiS^
KAl AC^ubLu, Kdi UkcoC, Kai Kii!if Kat AoAu, ssA/v' «;' ctpx^) r.r

c Aiyog

142 Johnjirfi taught the Book. III.

Another paflage ia this writer, in nearly the
fame words, may be feen, p. 433, 434.

Jerom fays, *' John the apoftle, whom Je-
*^ fus loved, the fon of Zebedee, and brother
<« of James, who was beheaded by Herod af-
** ter the death of Chrift, wrote his gofpel
«' the laft of all, at the intreaty of the bifhops
<« of Afia, again Cerinthus, and other here-
** tics, and efpecially the dodlrine of the
** Ebionites, then gaining ground, who faid
<^ that Chrift had no being before he was
*' born of Mary, whence he was compelled
** to declare his divine origin ■*.'*

Am-brofe fays, *^ If you enquire concern-
*' ing his celeftial generation, read the gof-

0 Koyoe^ HAt 0 \&y^ ill' 'UfQi 70V ^lov, H,ai d-ic^ m 0 Koyo^ * ro

69. fefl. 23. Opera, vol. i. p. 747.

^'Joannes Apoftolus quern Jefus amavit plurimum, filins
Zebcdrji, frater Jacobi Apoftoli, quern Herodes pod paf-
fionem domini decollavit, noviliimus omnium, fcripfit evan-
gelium, rogatus ab Afise epifcopis, adverfus Cerinthum,
aliofque hrereticos et maxime tunc Ebionitarum dogma
confurgsns, qui aflerunt Chriftum ante Mariam non fuifle,
unde et compulfus eft divinam ejus naturam edicere.
Opera, vol. i. p. 273.

'' pel

Chap. VII. Divinity ofChriJ. 143

** pel of John */* " If there be any other
** things/' fays Auftin, *' which intimate
*^ to the intelligent the divinity of Chrift,
** in which he is equal to the Father, John
*' ahnoft alone has introduced them into
** his gofpel 'y as having drank more fami-
** liarly, and more copioufly, the fecret of
" his divinity, from the breaft of our Lord,
" on which he was ufed to lean at meat -[•/'
On this account he compares John to an
eagle %. " The other evangelifts," he fays,
'* who treat of the humanity of Chrift, were
*' like animals that walk on the earth; but
** John, contemplating the power of his
^' divinity more fublimely, flies to heaven

* At vero de crelefta generatione fi quaerls lege evan-
gelium landi Joannis, In Luc. cap. 2. Opera, vol. 2. p»
26,

f Rt fi qua alia funt quae Chrifti divinitatem In qua
sequalis eft patri, re£le intelligentibus intiment, pene folua
Johannes in evangelic fuo pofuit : tanquam de petSlore ip-
fius domini, fuper quod difcumbere in ejusconvivio foli-
tus erat, fecretum divinitatis ejus uberius et quodammodo
familiarius biberit. De Confenfu Evangeliftarum, lib, i.
cap. 5. Opera, vol. 4. p. 37^.

X Ibid. p. 528, 529.

^' wi»th

«c

€C

144 Johnjirji taught the Book III.

** with the Lord*/' *' But now, with an
open voice, he iays, that he is God, and
was always with God, laying open the
myftery of Godi*.'* ,
A very particular and copious account of
the pre-eminence of John, in confequence
of his teaching the dod:rines of the pre-
exiftence and divinity of Chrift, which had
been omitted by the other evangeliils, n\ay
likewife be feen in the epiftle of Paulinus,
which I put in the notes :{:.

* Cssteri quippe evangeliflce, qui temporalem Chrifti
nativitatem et temporalia ejus facia, quse geflit in homine,
fufEcienter exponunt, et de divinitate pauca dixerunt,
quafi animalia greflibilia cum domino ambulant in terra :
hie autem pauca de temporalibus ejus gefiis ediflerens,
fed divinitalis potentiam fublimius contemplans, cum do-
mino ad caelum volat. In John Pref. Opera, vol. 9. p.

f Nunc autem aperta voce dicit eum efTe deum et Tem-
per fuifle apud deum, facramentum patefaciens dei. Quef-
tiones Mixtas, vol. 4. p. 858.

% Idem ultra omnium tempora apoflolorum aetate pro-
dudla poftremus evangelii fcriptor fuiile memoratur, ut
iiciit de ipfo vas ele6tionis ait, quafi columna firmamentum
adjiceret fundamentis ecclefias, prioris evangelii fcriptores
confona audloritate confirmans, ultimus auiStor, in libri

tempore.

a

Chap.-VII. Divinity of C/jriJi,. 145

Cyril of Alexandria fays, that ^* John
was the firfl: who taught more fublime
** things*/' Marias Mercator fays, that
the three former evangelifts, having fpoken
of Chrift as a man, John fliewed him to be
Godf."

tempore, fed primus in capite facramenti, quippe qui folus
e quatuor fluminibus ex ipfo fummo divini capitis fonte
decurrens, de nube fublinii tonat : in principio erat ver-
bum, et verbum erat apud deum, et deus erat verbum :
tranfcendit Moyfcn, qui ufque ad caput mundi et vifibilium
creaturarum exordia fcientiae terminos, et faciem mentis
extendi t. Ifte et evangeliftis caeteris, vel ab humane fal-
vatoris ortu, vel a typico legis facriiicio, vel a prophetico
prsecurforis baptiftas prseconio, refurreftionis evangelium
exorfis, altius voians penetravit et coelos. Neque in an-
gelis ftetit, fed archangelos quoque et omnes defuper crea-
turas, virtutes, principaius, dominationes, thronos, fu-
pergrefTus, in ipfum fe creatorem ardua mente direxit, et
ab i}l;i ineffabili generatione ordiens, et coeternum et con-
fubftantialem, et co-omnipotcntem, et co-opificem patri
filium nunciavit. Ad Amandum, p. 213.

* Joannes theologus, tonitrui filius, cui divina digna-
tione conceflum, ut fupra dominicum pe<Slus recubuerit,
indeque nobis fublimiora ac divina hauferit dogmata:
cum excelientem erga nos dei benignitatem commendare
vellet, primumquc quie diviniorafunt dixifTet, utpote ifta,
in principio erat verbum. Hom. Opera, vol. 2. p. 75.

t Poft quam praefationem fubdefcendens, ut oftenderet
quern illi ties evangeliftae hominem fcripferant, efle etiam
deum. Opera, p. 165.

Vol. Ill, L Cofmas

146 John jirjl taught the Book III.

Cofmas Indicopleuftes, defcribing John
as theologus, and the chief of the eviinge-
lifts, fays, that ** he wrote to fupply the
*^ defed:s of the former evangelifts, and
" efpecially in preaching clearly the divi-
*' nity of Chrift, making that the founda-
*' tion of his work, all which had been
*^ omitted by the others. Wherefore, be-
" ginning at his divinity, he immediately
*' palled to his humanity*/'

'' John,'' fays Nicephorus, ^' did not give
** an account of the carnal generation of
** Jefus, but he iirft taught his divinity ;
*' this being referved for him, as the moft
** worthy, by the Holy Spirit-}-."

" Wherefore, John," fays Theophyladt,
** began with the divinity of Chrift. For
** whereas others had made no mention of
*^ his exigence before the ages, he taught

^pfijTOTHTrt ciVT-d. De Mundo, lib. 5. Montfaucon's Col-
U£i'io, vol. 2. p. 248.

<r!f '^iia 'UiiVf/.ctros la^j.nv^iiavii avTco, Hift. lib. 2. cap.
43, vol. I. p. 214.

" that

Chap. VII. Divinity ofChrift. 147

*^ that dodrine, left the logos of God
** fhould have been thought to be a mere
" man, without any divinity*." '' Again/'
he fays, " John v^rote left men fhould never
*^ think highly concerning Chrift, and ima-
" gine that he had no being before he was
*^ born of Mary, and that he was not gene-
^^ rated from God the Father, which was the
*' cafe with Paulus Samofatenlis +•'* '' As
*' John," he fays, '* has more lofty things
*' of Chrift than any other of the evange-
*' lifts, fo he has recorded fome of a lower
** nature ; to fliew that, as he was God, fo
** he was truly man J."

Laftly, an account of John's teaching the
pre-exiftence and divinity of Chrift, may

A07©- ^l,lMg av^aTCOi Eivai. In Matt. Pref. vol. I. p. I, 2.

^vvaixEvoiy vo/JAcrcoc-i tov %('ircv to% "sifcolov ei; vttoc^^iv E>^m oil amo Ma-
' f »«$ EycvvviSn, ;^ s%t -uT^o Mmm ek t-a 'ssal^o^ yEvvY,%vM, o 'SJavluv
'ZjETTov^Ellav?^ 0 y.xf^oo-oil£ug. In John, cap. I. vol. i. p. 553»

'zreft T(f KV^ia <pd-i[yi}au, ^ d-'io?^oyit yizyctha TiVet, S'ict thto

Xj iV Ton ffUlJ-dTlKOK; TSOKV TO.'TrHVOTii^Ct (p^ifyiTOA • O^ZV Kj

iV Ta ':Fi:d-2l 'ZFOhV TO AV^^fOTTlVQlf ^X^'^ 9«£?"/^i «''^^ '^»'^»

. L 2 J'ilKVVUV

148 John jirjl taught the Book III.

be ktn in the orations of Nicetas the Pa-
phlagonian*."

The late introduction of the dodlrine of
the divinity of Chrift is obferved by the
emperor Julian. He fays, that " none of
«* Chrift's difciples, except John, faid that
«* he made the heavens and the earth, and
<^ that not clearly and plainly +•''

SECTION IL

Reflediions on the JuhjeB.

\ FTER reading thefe teftimonies, fo co-
pious, and fo full to my purpofe, and
uncontradidted by any thing in antiquity, it
is not poffible to entertain a doubt with
refpecl to the opinion of the chriftian Fa-
thers on this fubjevft. They muft have

^2of m, ctMct i^ eLV^^GOTTOi m. In John ii. vol. i, p. 726.
* Combefis Auduarium, vol. i. p. 362.

Cyr. Con. Jul. lib. 6. Juliani, Opera, vol. 2. p. 213.

thought

Chap, VII. Divinity of Chrijl. 149

thought that the dodtrines of the pre-exift-
ence and divinity of Chrift had not been
preached with any efFedt before the writing
of John's gofpel; and, confequently, that
before that time the great body of chrif-
tians muft have been unitarians ; and they
are far from giving the leaft hint of any
of them having been excommunicated on
that account. On the other hand, the ap-
prehenfion was, left thofe who preached
doftrines fo new and ofFenfive, as thofe of
the pre-exiftence and divinity of Chrift,
fhould have been rejected with abhorrence.
When we confider how late the three
firft gofpels were written, the laft of them
not long before that of John, which was
near, if not after, the deftrudion of Jeru-
falem, and that, in the opinion of the
writers above-mentioned, all this caution
and referve had been neceflary, till that
late period, on the part of the chriftian
teachers ; how is it poffible that, in their
idea, the chriftian church in general (hould
have been well eftabliftied in the belief of
our Lord's divinity? It could only have
been great and open zeal on the part of the
L 3 apoftles

1 50 Johnfirjl taught the Book III.

apoftles, and not the timid caution and ma-
nagement which thefe writers afcribe to
them, that could have effedually taught a
docftrine which, according to them, the
people were ill prepared to receive. And
the hiflory of both Peter and Paul fuffi-
ciently prove that the influence of mere
apoftolical authority was not fo great at
that time as many perfons now take it to
have been. Whatever power they had,
they were not confidered as lords over the
faith of chriftians.

The chriftians of that age required fome-
thing more than the private opinion of an
apoftle. They required fome fuper-natural
evidence that his dodlrine was from God ;
and we have no account of the apoftles pro-
posing to them this additional article of
faith, and alledging any fuch evidence for
it. Chryfoftom fays, " if the Jews were
** fo much offended at having a new law
** fuperadded to their former, how much
** more would they have been offended, if
<^ Chrift had taught his own divinity.'*
May it not be fuppofed, therefore, that they
would have required as particular evidence

of

Chap. VII. Divinity of Chrijl, 151

of a divine revelation in the one cafe as in
the other ? And v^hat remarkably ftrong
evidence v^^as neceffary to convince them
that the obligation of their law did not
extend to the Gentiles ? Would they,
then, have received what Chryfoftom con-
fidered as the more offenfive dodrine of
the two, without any pretence to a parti-
cular revelation on the fubjedl?

It may be faid, that all the caution of
which we have been fpeaki.ng was neceffary
with refpecSt to the unbelieving Jews only,
into whofe hands thefe gofpels, and the
other writings of the New Teflament,
might fall. But how impoffible muft it
have been to conceal from the unbelieving
Jews the doctrine of the divinity of Chrift,
if it had been a favourite article with the
believing Jews. If this had been the cafe,
it could not but have been known to all
the world ; and, therefore, all the offence
that it could have given would have been
unavoidable. So that this fuppofed cau-
tion of the evangelifts, &c. would have
come too late, and would have anfwered no
purpofe whatever.

h 4 This

152 John firji taught the Book III.

This caution, therefore, muft neceffarily
have refpefted thofe perfons into whofe
hands the gofpels, &c. v/ere moil: likely to
come, and who would give the moft atten-
tion to them; and thefe were certainly the
believing Jews, and the chriftian world at
large, and not unbelievers of any nation.
We are authorifed to conclude, that in
the opinion of the writers who have fpoke
of it, of whatever weight that opinion may
be, this caution in divulging the doftrine
of the divinity of Chrift was neceffary
with refped: to the great body of chriftians
themfelves, and efpecially the Jewilb chrif-
tians. Confequently, they muft have fup-
pofed, that at the time of thefe publica-
tions, which was about A. D. 64, the doc-
trine of the divinity of Chrift was not ge^
nerally held by chriftians, and that there
would have been danger of giving them
great offence if at that time it had been
plainly propofed to them by the apoftles
themfelves. At this period, therefore, it
may be inferred, that, in the opinion of
thefe writers, the chriftian church was
principally unitarian, believing only the

jfimple

Chap. VII. Divinity of Chrijl. i^j

fimple humanity of Chrift, and knowing
nothing of his divinity or pre-exiftence.

From the acknowledgment which thefe
orthodox Fathers could not help mak-
ing (for certainly they would not do it
unneceflarily) that there were great num-
bers of proper unitarians in the age of the
apoftles, it feems not unreafonable to con-
clude, that there were great numbers of
them in the age immediately foliowdng, and
in their own. And their knowledge of
this might be an additional reafon for the
opinion that they appear to have formed of
that prevalence in the apoftolic age. Would
thefe Fathers have granted to their enemies
fpontaneoufly, and contrary to truth, that
the Jews were ftrongly prepoffeffed againft
the doftrine of the divinity of Chrift, and
that the unitarians were a formidable body
of chriftians while the apoftles wete living,
if it had been in their power to have denied
the facts ? The confequence of making
thefe acknowledgments is but too obvious,
and muft have appeared fo to them, as well
as it now docs to others, which makes them
fo unwilling to make it after them.

I cannot

1^4 Johnjirft taught the Book III.

I cannot conclude this chapter without
obferving, in how unworthy a manner, and
how unfuitably to their real charader and
condudt, thefe Fathers reprefent the apoftles
as ading. They were all plain meriy far
from being qualified, or difpofed, to act fo
cunning a part, as is here afcribed to them.
There is nothing like art or addrefs in the
condud: of any of them, as related in the
fcriptures, except that of Paul ; and this
was only with refpedl to his preaching the
gofpel to the uncircumcifed Gentiles, be^
fore it was generally approved of at Jerufa-
lem ; on which account, he informed the
chief of the apoftles only with what he had
done. But this was no fecret long, and
indeed a thing of that kind could not, in
its own nature, have been much of a fecret
at any time. On all other occafions he failed
not to inform thofe to whom he preached
of the whole counfel of God ; as he fays that
he had done with refped to the church of
Ephefus, A6ts xx. 27. Much lefs can it
be fuppofed that he would have concealed
a dcdrine of fo great magnitude and im-
portance as that of the pre-exiftent dignity

of

Chap. VII. Divinity of Chrijl, 1^5

of his mafter ; and, communicating it only
to a few, have left it to be taught after

• his death. For it is not to be fuppofed that
the other apoftles were in the fecret of
John's intending to do it after their deaths.
Befides, the inftrudions of the apoftles
enjoined them to teach all that they knew,
even what their mafter had communicated
to them in the greateft privacy. Whereas
upon this fcheme, they muft have fuifered
great numbers to die in the utter ignorance
of the mod important truths of the gofpel,

. left, by divulging it too foon, the conver-
fion of others Ihould have been prevented.

To thefe obfervations I would add, that
as among the twelve apoftles, there muft
have been men of different tempers and
abilities, it is not probable that they fliould
all have agreed in conducing themfelves
upon this plan, viz. of not divulging the
doftrine of the divinity of their mafter till
their hearers ftiould be fufficiently per-
fuaded of his mefiiahfliip. Some of thern
would hardly have been capable of fo much
refinement, and would certainly have dif-
fered about the time when it was proper to

divulge

^ 56^^ ^ohn firji taught the Book III.

divulge fo great a fecret. Befidea, the mo-
ther of Jefus, and many other perfons of
both fexes, muft have been acquainted with
it. For that this fecret was ftridtly con-
fined to the twelve apoftles, will hardly be
maintained. And yet we have no account
either of their inftrudlions to acft in this
manner, or of any difference of opinion, or
of conduft, with refped to it.

Never, fure, was a more improbable hy-
pothecs ever formed to account for any
thing, than this of the chriftian Fathers to
account for the late teaching of the doc-
trines of the pre-exiftence and divinity of
Chrift. But their circumilances left them
no alternative. They muft have had feme
very cogent reafon for admitting that the
teaching of thefe dodlrines was fo late -, and
this could not have been any thing but the
want of that general prevalence , which they
Would have had, if they had been taught
with effed: in the life-time of the apoftles,
and which would have continued to their
own times. They muft, therefore, have
known that there were more unitarians in
th? church in the early ages than they could

account

Chap. VII. Divinity ofChriJl. \ 57

account for on any other hypothefis than
that of the dod:rines of the pre-exiflence
and divinity of Chrift, not having been
taught till very late. At prefent, the
fadls which forced the Fathers upon this
hypothefis are forgotten, and the orthodox
themfelves wonder that they fliould have
adopted a fcheme fo abfurd and improbable.
But the different manner in which fuch an
hypothefis is received, is a proof of a great
difference in the circumftances and views
of things in the different periods. We fee
nothing to make fo ftrange an hypothefis
neceffary. They would not have had re-^
courfe to it, if it had not been neceffary.

CHAP.

158 Ncizarenes and Ebkn'ites Book IIL

CHAPTER VIII.

Of the Nazarenes and the Kblonitesy /hewing
that they were the fame People, and that
none of them believed the Divinity or Pre^
exifence ofChrif.

TT7 E have fecn that, according to the
unanimous and very exprefs teftimony
of the chriftian Fathers (a teftimony which
is greatly againft their own caufe, and there-
fore, the more to be depended upon) there
could not have been many perfons w'ho be-
lieved the dodrines of the pre-exiftence and
divinity of Chrift in the age of the apoftles;
one of the laft books of the canon, viz. the
gofpel of John, being the firft. in which
thofe dodrines were clearly publifhed.

If we look into the gofpels, and the book
of Adts, we (hall find that one part of their
teftimony is true, viz. that thofe fublime
doBri?ies, as diey call them, were not taught
in an early period. For none of the three
firft gofpels make the leaft mention of any

thing

Chap, VIII. the fame People. i^p

thing in the perfon or nature of Chrift fu-
perior to thofe of other men. In like manner,
all ih^ preaching of Chrift, of which we have
an account in the book of Afts, is that
Jefus was the Meffiah, whofe divine miffion
was confirmed by miracles, efpecially that
of his own refurredion, and by the gifts
of the Spirit. i\nd all . the controverjies
of which we find any account, either in
that book, or in the epiftles, refpedied
either the je-wijh teachers, who v/ould have
impofed the obfervance of the law of Mofes
upon all the Gentile converts, or elfe thofe
who held the principles of the Gnoftics.

The erroneous dodrines of thefe perfons
are diftindly marked, fo that no perfon can
read the New Teftament without perceiv-
ing that there were perfons who held thefe
dodrines, and that they were the caufe of
great uneafinefs to the apoftles. Rut there
is no trace of any other opinions at which
they took the leafi; umbrage.

As to the efFed of the publication of
John*s gofpel, from which fo much feems
to have been expeded by the chriftian Fa-
thers, it is impoflible that we fhould leara
^ any

i6o Nazarenes and Ebionites Book III.

any thing concerning it in the New Tefta-
ment, becaufe that was one of the laft of
the books that was publiflied. However,
we have no account in ecclefiaftical hiftory
that it produced any change at all in the
fentiments of chriftians. Though it is faid
to have taught a new and a fublime doc-
trine, it does not appear to have been re-
ceived with any degree of furprize. There
are no marks of the publication having
given any peculiar pleafure to fome, or alarm
to others ; or that it occafioned the leaft
divifion among chriftians on the fubjedr.
We may, therefore, very fafely conclude,
that thofe chriftians for whofe ufe this
gofpel was written, faw it in a very different
light from thofe Fathers who gave the pre-
ceding account of it. We know, indeed,
that to them it did not appear to teach any
other do6trine than what was contained in
the three former gofpels. For by the logos
of which John treats in this famous intro-
duction, they never imagined to be meant
Chriji, and therefore they could fee nothing
of J^is perfonal pre-exiftence or divinity in
it. In their opinion, the logos was that
2 wifdotn

Chap. VIII. the /a?ne People. i6i

wifdom and power of God^ by which all
things were made.

Though this gofpel was written in Greeks
there were not wanting among the Jewifh
chriflians men of learning who would not
have failed to give an account of it to their
more ignorant countrymen, or to tranflate
it for their ufe, if it had been thought
neceflary. Yet, notwithftanding this, all
the Jewifh chriflians continued in the very
fame ftate in which the chriftian Fathers
reprefent them to have been before the pub-
lication of this gofpel, viz. believers in
thtjlwple humanity of Chrifl: only, and ac-
knowledging nothing of his pre-exiftencc
or divinity. The fame was alfo the ftate
of the Gentile chriftians in general, long
after the publication of this gofpel.

As no entire writings of any Jewifh
chriftians are come down to us, all that
we know concerning them muft be de-
rived from the writings of the Gentile
chriftians i and as thefe chriftians were
trinitarians, and had very little communi-
cation with the Jewifh chriftians, we can-
VoL. IIL M not

1 6 2 Nc2zarenes and Ebionites ^ E o o k 1 1 L

not expedl any favourable, or indeed any
impartial accounts concerning them. If,
however, v/e may depend upon the earliefl
accounts that we have of them, and thofe
given by psricns who were the beft quali-
fied to give us good information, they were
all unitarians, and were diflinguifhed from
the Gentile chriftians by the name oi Rbio-
Elites, or Nazarenes. But as it has been pre-
tended by thofe who, being trinitarians.
diemfeives, were willing to believe that
there mujl have been a body of ancient
Jewiih chriftians who thought as they ilo,
and that the Ebionites or Nazarenes mufl
have been feds who broke off from their
communion -, and as fome of thefe perfons
have even faid that thefe Ebionites^ or Na-
zarenes, were fubfequent to the deftrudlon
of Jerufilem by Titus -, and others have
fixed their origin fo late as the defolation
of Judea by Adrian, it may not be improper
to (hew that perfons diflinguifhed by the
name of Ebionites and Nazarenes were fup-
poled to have exided in the time of the

apoillcs^

Irenseus>

Ch a p . VIIL the fa:'7ie People. i (}2^

Iren^us, who gives no other name to any
Jewifh chriftians befides that of Ebionites,
whom he always fpeaks of as both denyinp-
the pre-exiftence and divinity of Chrift,
and likewife the miraculous conception,
objefts to the Gnoftics, that they were of
late date, but he fays nothing of the Ebio-
nites in that refped: *. Euiebius fays, that
** the iirft heralds of our Saviour' (by
whom he muft have meant the apoftles)
*' called thofe Ebionites, which in the He-
'* brew language fignifies poor ; who, not
'' denying the body of Chrift, Aewed their
** folly in denying his divinityf."

* Reliqui vcro qui vocantur Gnofllcl, a Menandro Si-
monis difclpulo, quemadmodum oftendimus, accipientes
initia, unufquifque eorum, cujus participatus eft fententias,
ejus et pater, et antiftes apparuit. Omnes autem hi multo
pofterius, mediantibus jam exclefiae temporibus, infurrex-
erunt in fuam apoftafiam. Lib. 3. cap. 4. p. 206.

Tsi? Sfc* f^'iv ^iov hiyoi^a^ ciS'ivcu, }t) TB (Tcojiipo? 7-<y crcrJixa, y.rf
6tpi/»//5J'»f, THv cTs T» f/a ^iolifjct ij.Y) uJ'ofijtf, Ec. Thcol,
lib. I. cap. 14. p. 75.

M 2 Epiphanius

164 Na%arencs and Ebionites Book IIL

E'piphanius makes both Ebion (for in his
time it was imagined, that the Ebionites
were fo called from fome particular perfon
of that name) and Cerinthus, cotemporary
with the apofde John ; and he could not tell
which of them was the older*. He like-
wife makes the Ebionites cotemporary v/ith
the Nazarenes, at the fame time that he fays
they held that Chrift was the fon of Jo-
feph f. Alfo, in the pafTage before quoted
from him, as w^ell as in that from Jerom,
we find the names of both the Ebionites
and the Nazarenes among thofe who gavd
fo much alarm to the apoftle John. It muft

8 yctp c.y.p/^srepoj' J\vvaij.cu i^n-Truv rivi^ rn'cti d^tiSi^ctyjo,
Haer. 30. Opera, vol. i. p. 149. H. 29. p. 116.

aVTCOV ePi aw CLVTOli O^ynLTSU. Td.'ZrpCOTa. S'i iH. ^ClpAT^lCili

aKKqi; iv ATT iter t (pfovuVy iv thtco (aovco S'tcj,(t,i^i~o^iv tco ra>

YOfJM Tii I'iS'&.iaiJ.V 'TSr^CO'CtVi'/JiVt KtLTA G-ef.Cctji(7(J.0V, }^ KtiLTdL
TMl/ 'ZyipiTOlJ.Wi, yj KdLTCL Ttf cLKK(^ 'ZffctVTcl OdCL^ip 'UApa Ttg

laj'ctiiii ouotC'Ji 7oii 'S'^-iAotfiirdii S'lcLTrfysi^iTrj.i. Hxr. 30.
p. i25> 126.

be

Chap. VIII. the fame People 165

be owned, however, that, in no perfed
confiftence with this account, Epiphanius
places the origin of the Nazarenes after the
deftru6tion of Jerufalem. After mention-
ing the places where they refided, viz. Pe-
ra^a, Goele- Syria, Pella, and Cocabe, he fays,.
** there was their origin, after the deflruc-.
" tion of Jerufalem, v/hen all the difciples
** lived at Peila ; Chrift having warned
*' them to leave Jerufalem, and retire at the
*' approach of the fiege ; and on this account
** they lived, as I faid, in Perasa. Thence
^ the fed: of the Nazarenes had its origin^.'*
Sophronius, quoted by Theophylad:, fays,
that " John, befides having a view to Ce-
«* renthus, and other heretics, wrote more
'^ efpecially againft the herefy of the Ebio-
** nites, which was then very prevalent,
'' who faid that Chrift had no being before

* E^csi-^-if [J-zv J1 if.^y^ yiyovi //STci t»v etro reov Ufoa'o-'
f'X,'^v. Haer. 29. Opera, vol. I. p. U3.

M 3 "he

i66 Nazarenes and Ekionites Book III.

** he was born of Mary ; fo that he was
*' under a neceffity of declaring his divine
•' origin *.'*

Caffian calls Hebion *' the firft heretic,
** laying too much ftrefs on the humanity
" of Chrift, and ftripping him of his di-
** vinity-f-.'*

There can be no doubt, therefore, but
that both Ebionites and Nazarenes were
exifting in the time of the apoftles ; and
that there was no real difference between
thefe two fedls. And that both of them were
equally believers in the fimple humanity of
Chrift, is no lefs evident.

The tcftimony of Origen is clear and
decifive to this purpofe. He fays, that
'* the word Ebio?ty in the Jewifli language,
** fignifies poor, and thofe of the Jews w^ho
** believe Jefus to be the Chrift are called

«r$*j T)iv ^Kav vEwrjcrtv avla smsiv. In John, vol. i.p. 548.

-f- Quorum primus Hebion, dum incarnationem domi-
nicam nimis aiTerit, divinitatis earn conjuntSlione nudavit.
De Incarnatione, lib. i, cap. 2. p. 962.

Chap.VIIL the fame People. i6y

^^ Ebio'nites^.'' Here is no room left for
any difference between the Ebionites and
the Nazarenes ; for the Ebionites compre^
hended all the Jewifh chriftians; and, ac-
cording to Origen, none of them were be-
lievers in the pre-exiftence or divinity of
Chrift. He fays, there were two forts of
Ebionites, of whom one believed the mi-
raculous conception, and the other diibe-
lieved it, while both of them rejeded the
doftrine of his divinity. *' And when you
*' conlider,'' fays he, *^ the faith concern-
'* ing our Saviour of tbofe of the Jews who
*' believe in Chrift, fome thinking him to
** be the fon of Jofeph and Mary, and
** others of Mary only, and the divine Spi-
*' rit, but not believing his divinity -j-."

He mentions the tvv^o feds of Ebionites
in the following paffage. '' There are fome

01 %ov7|aa7<^S(T<i/ 01 cc^o la^aicov rev I>icrav, cog %f iroy, 'Zuxoah^ccpt.mi.
In Celfum, lib. 2. p. 56.

f Kai sTTav i^ng rm txTro la^atcov '^Sir^uo-vlm £ig rev ha-av rviv -^re^t

qIe /xzv m /xapictg (abv (/.cvn; «J t8 Sfta 'ZcrvEy^a?©-, a /xw ■/■ [xilx mg
^Epi aula ^£o>^oyiot:, c^-t^ &c. Comment, in Matt. Ed. Hue-
tiia vol. I. p. 427.

M 4 ^[ heretics

)68 Nazarenes and Ebionites Book III,

*' heretics who do not receive the epiftles

■ * of Paul, as thofe who are called Ebionites,
^' pf both forts ^."

Eufebius gives the very fame account of
the two forts of Ebionites, and makes no
mention of any Nazarenes, as differing from
them. *' Others/' he fays, '* whom a ma-
** lignant dernon was not able to turn afide
*' entirely from the love of Chrift, finding
*' them weak in fome refpedls, reduced into
*' his power. Thefe by the ancients were
*' called Ebionites, as thofe who think
^[ meanly concerning Chrift — For they

■ * think him to be merely a man, like
*' other men, but approved on account of
** his virtue, being the fon of Mary's huf-
^* band. Others called by the fame name,
*' leaving the abfurd opinion of the former,
^* do not deny that Chrift was born of a vir-
** gin, but fay, that he was of the Holy Spirit.
** However ^t the fame time, they by no
** means allowing that Chrift was God, the
** word, and wifdom, were drawn into the
^' reft of their impiety/' He then fays,

T. Eicr/ yap rm; ai^Baetg rag Ilau>a ETTiTOhag t8 aTToroT^ im
'isi^oaiEfiEvai^ (ocTTTBp ECicovMoi ajjt/pol^Qi, In Celfum, lib. 6. p. 2 74.

^hat

Chap, VIII. the fame People. 169

that " they maintained the obfervance of
*' the Jewifli law, and that they ufed the
" gofpel according to the Hebrews.'' He
fays alfo, '' that beggars are called Ebio-
**nites*."

It may be clearly inferred, from a paiTage
in a letter of Jerom to Auftin, that though
he was acquainted with the nominal dillinc-

a^uvcclcov 2WT£icrai^ ^xlE^xhYiTrla; su^cov Eapile^i^slo . ECioovMug Ta7yj

^o^ac^ovlxi; . Xilov //.sv ya^ aulov »^ Hoiyov vty^vio koiIcx, 'STpofcoTTriv nOng
av%v {JLOvov (Xv'^^uTtQV h^iHMuy.svov £| av^pog T£ Hoivuvi:ng «J TiigMaPia;
y£y£VYi[A,£vov • ^Bn> Jfe 'siavlag avloig T-Ag vo/Mmg ^^Yianeiag, cog (xy] av d'nz
lAovTig T'/ig Si? Tov x^^^^^ '^irscog xj ra hut aulw ^m aojQna-o/xEvoig ,
a>^6i §£ Tirana Tiflag n:ng a,\?.r,g ovlsg 'S7fO<Tnyo^ixg, rnv i^iev twv ii^y\ixEvav
ehIottov ^lE^i^^xaKOv alomav, eh. '^saco^iva ^ ra ayiu '^vsv/xxiog fjLr] aovn-
fxcvoi yEyovEvai rov fcu^iov ' a y^riv e9 oixoLug :d iiloi '^^^Trapxsiv auJov^
Seov ^070v ovI(X )y cofpiav oi^oXoysvlig, rrj rcov '^oolt^cov 't^epi^dsttovIo
^vctcte'oSKX ' fjLxHTa ole ^^ rnv acoi^oiliKnv 'sispi rov vo/xov >^PEi.av Ofytcicog

SHElVOig 'SIE^LETTEIV EJTTii^a^OV , iiloi d'E TS fJLEV aTiOTO'Kii ^CX.(TOLg TcXg

EmroXag^ a^vi^Eccg Yiya^Jlo £:vm ^elv, aTroroclm a'jroKocMvlEg aJlov ra
vofAH^, EuayfeTKio) d's f^ovoo tco ku9 E^^^aiag T^zyoixEvo) %<7a)^£voi, ray
>,omm a-(xiH^Qv ettoi^Io >.cyov . ^ to /Uev HaQ'^alcv «J t» - la^aiHw
a^^>IV cvyaynv oixoiag EKzmig '^<x^a(pu>,a,rlov . rocig d"' av fcvpianaig
YifME^aig, Yjfiiv ra 'Uja^ocTr^ormct Eig ixmiMW rY\g th ku^ih avscracrEcog ette^
7£^Bv . c9ev 'nsa.i^a, rnv roiaihv syx^i^no-iv rng roiao-OE 'AE'Koyxccai z^po-
0y\yo^icx^^ ra 'E^icovaicov ovofxctiog^ mv mg c'lavoiag Ayjiocv au%v uiro-
(pamvlog . raulnv ya^ EmnXyy o ^sHcoxog is<x^ ECocciaig ovc^^eIm,
Hift. lib. 3. cap. 27. p. 121.

tion

ijo Ndzareites and Ehiomtes Book III.

tion between the Ebionites and Nazarenes,
ht did not confider them as really, or at
leaft as materially, differing from each other.
*' If this be true,'' he fays, '' we fall into
** the herefy of Cherintus and Ebion, who,
** believing; in Chrift, were anathematized
** by the Fathers on this account only, that
** they mixed the ceremonies of the law
*' with the gofpel of Chrift, and held to the
*' new" (difpenfation) '* in fuch a manner
" as not t6 lofe the old. What fhall I fay
** concerning the Ebionites, who pretend
** that they are chriftians ? It is to this very
'* day in all the fynagogues of the eaft, a
"** herefy among the Jews, called that of the
*' Mineiy now condemned by the Pharifees,
*^ and commonly called Nazarenes, who be-
** lieve in Chrift the Son of God, born of
*' the virgin Mary, and fay, that it was he
*' who fuffered under Pontius Pilate, and
** rofe again, in whom alfo we believe. But
«* while they wifti to be both Jews and
'* chrifiians, they are neither Jev/s nor
'« chriftians '*•."

* Si hoc veriim eft ; in Cherinti et Hebionis haerefim
dlliibimiir, qui crcdentes in Chrifto, propter hoc folum ^

patribu^

Chap. VIII the fame People. 171

That this account of the Nazarenes is
only explanatory of the Ebionites, is evi-
dent from his faying, ** What fhall I fay
«* concerning the Ebionites !" After fuch
an expreffion as this, we naturally expedt
that he fliould proceed to fay fome-
thing concerning them, which this au-
thor moft evidently does ; obferving, that
the fame people who were called Ebionites
(by the Gentiles) were called Minei and
Nazarenes by the Jews. Had he meant to
defcribe any other clafs of people, he would
naturally have begun his next fentence with
Efi ety or EJi alia herejis, and not fimply
herefis eji. As to his fpeaking of herefy in
the fecond fentence, and not heretics^ as in

patribus anathematizati funt, quod legis cserimonias
Chrlfti evangelic mifcuerunt, et fic nova confefii funt, ut
Vetera non amitterent. Quid dicam de Hebionitis, qui
chriftianos efle fe fimulant ? Ufque hodie per totas orientis
fynagogas inter Judaeos haerefis eft, quae dicitur mineorum,
et a Pharifaeis nunc ufque damnatur, quos vulgo Nazaraeos
iiuncupant, qui credunt in Chriftum, filium dei, natum de
virgine Maria, et eum dicunt effe, qui Tub Pontic Pilato
pallus eft, et refurrexit, in quern et nos credimus : fed dum
volunt et Judaei effe, et chriftiani, nee Judaei funt nee
phriftiani. Opera, vol. 1. p. 634.

the

172 Nazarenes and Ebionkes Book III.

the firft, it is a moft trifling inaccuracy in
language, the eafieft of all others to fall
into, and of no confequence to the meaning
at all. Eefides, Jeromes account of thefe
two denominations of men is exactly the
fame y the Ebionites being believers in
Chrif.y hut mixing; the law. and the go/pel ; and
the Nazarenes^ ivijUng to he both Jews and
chrijiiansy which certainly comes to the
very fame thing.

. Strefs has-been laid on our author's fay-
in p-, that the Ebionites pretended to be
Chriftians ; but Jerom calls them credentes
in Chrifto, believers in Chriji ; and if they be-
lieved in Chrift at all, they could not be-
lieve much lefs than he himfelf reprefents
the Nazarenes to have done. It may be
faid, that they only pretended to be chrif-
tians, but were not, becaufe they had been
excommunicated. But what had they been
excommunicated for ? Not for any proper
imperfedion of their faith in Chrift, in
which they were inferior to the Nazarenes,
but 0J2ly (folum) becaufe they mixed the ce-
remonies of the law with the gofpel of
Chrift i which, in other words, he after ts

of

Chap. VIII. the fame Teopk. 173

of the Nazarenes alfo, when he fays, they
wifhed to be both Jews and chriftians.
And though he does not fay that the Na-
zarenes were excommunicated, he fays they
were not chrijiians, which is an exprefiion of
the fame import.

Had there been any foreign reafon why
we fhould fuppefe that Jerom meant to dif-
tinguiih between the Ebionites and the
Nazarenes, we might have hefitated about
the interpretation of his meaning, eafy as it
is. But certainly there can be no caufe of
hefitation, when it is confidered that in this
he agrees not with Epiphanius only, but
with the whole ftrain of antiquity, as is
allowed by Le Clerc, and all the ableft cri-
tics • and to interpret his meaning otherwife
is to fet him at variance with all other
writers.

It is afked, *^ Why were the Cerinthians
** omitted ? Jerom places them with the
*• Ebionites in the preceding fentence: and*if
*• the Nazarenes and the Ebionites were the
" fame people, it may, with equal clearnefs of
'* evidence, be inferred, that they were the
*' famepeople with the Cerinthians likewife.^'

2 I anfvver,

174 Nazarenes and Ebionites BookIIL

I anfwer, they were the fame people, as
far as Jerom then confidered them, becaufe
they were equally zealous for the law of
Mofes.

It has been faid, that Auflin's anfwer to
Jerom fhews, that he confidered them as
different perfons. But Auftin only enume-
rates all the names that Jerom had mention-
ed, and whether the differences were real
or nominal, great or little, it fignified no-
thing to him. He himfelf, in his Catalogue
of herefiesy makes a difference between the
Ebionites and Nazarenes, but by no means
that which makes the latter to have been be-
lievers in the divinity of Chrift, and the for-
mer not. And as it was a common opinion,
efpecially in the Weft, that there 'W2isfome
differencebetween them (though the writers
who fpeak of it could never be certain in
what it confiited) it was very natural in
Auftin to mention them feparately, whether
Jerom had made them the fame or not.

I find that Suicer, in his Tkefaurus, under

the article Kbioriy makes the fame ufe of this

paffage of Jerom that I have done, and con--

fiders the Nazarenes as a branch -of the

n Ebionites.

Chap. VIII. the fame People. 17^

Ebionites. Sandius alfo draws the fame in-
ference from this paiTage. Hift. Ecclcf.
p. 4.

That the unbelieving Jews fhould call the
chriflian Jews Nazarenes, is natural ; be-
caufe that was the opprobrious appellation
by which they had been diiHnguifhed from
the beginning. According to Tertullian,
they called them fo in his time *. Agobard
fays they did the fame when he wrote f.
But it was not {o natural that this fliould be
adopted by the Gentile chriflians, becaufe
they had been ufed to regard 4:hat appelia^
tion with more refpe(fl. When, therefore,
they came to diftinguiih themfelves from
the Jewifli chriftians, and to diilike their
tenets, it was natural for them to adopt fome
other appellation than that of Nazarencs %
and the term Ebionites^ given them likewife
by their unbelieving brethren, equally an^
fwered their purpofe.

* Unde et ipfo nomine nos Judaei Nazarenos appellant
per eum. Adv. Marcionem, lib. 4. {^ck, 8. p. 418.

t Quod autem dominum noftrum Jefum Chriftum et
chriftianos in omnibus orationibus fuis Tub Nazarenorum
nomine cotidie maledicant. De Infolentia Judieorum,
Gpera, p. 63.

The

176 Nazarenes and Ebionkes Book TIL

The term minei is from the Hebrew
Q^:d fminimj which fignifies Je^arieSy
and is that by which the Jews, in all their
writings, diftinguifh the chriftians.

It is fomething remarkable, that Juftin
Martyr does not ule the term EbionitCj or
any other expreffive of diflike. Irenasus is
the firft v/ho ufes it, or who fpeaks of the
Jewifh unitarians with the leaft difrefpedt.

It is an argument in favour of the identity
of the Nazarenes and Ebionites, that the
former are not mentioned by name by any
writer who likewife fpeaks of the Ebionites
before Epiphanius, who was fond of multi-
plying hereiies, though the people fo qalled
were certainly known before his time. The
term Ebionites only occurs in Iren^us,
Tertullian, Origen, and Eufebius. None of
them make any mention of Nazarenes ; and
yet it cannot be denied, that they muft
have been even more confiderable in the
time of thofe vi^riters, than they were after-
wards.

The condudt of all thefe writers is eafily
accounted for on the fuppoiitions, that, in
the time of Juftin Martyr, the Jewifh chrif-
tians.

Chap. VIIL the fame People. 177

tians, though all unitarians, and even dilbe-
lieving the miraculous conception, were not
known by any opprobrious appellation at
all ; that afterwards they were firft diftin-
guifhed by that of Ebionites ; and that it was
not till the time of Epiphanius (when fuch
writers as he, who wrote exprcfsly on the
fubjedl of herefy^ made a parade of their
learning, by recounting a multiplicity of
herefies) that the term Nazarenes, by which
the unbelieving Jews ftill continued to call
the chriftians among them, was laid hold of,
as fignifying a fed different from that of the
Ebionites.

Molheim makes a doubt whether there
was fuch a perfon as Rhion^ or not. I have
k'^^vi no evidence at all that any perfon of
that name ever exifted. There is no foun-
der of a fed, of whofe hiftory fome par-
ticulars have not been handed down to pof-
terity; but this is vox et praterea nihil.
The term Ebionitey was alfo long prior to
that of Ebion. They who firft ufed this
term, fay nothing about the man from
others, and they were too late to know any
thing of him themfelves.

Vol, hi. N It

ijS Na%arenes and Ebionifes Book III.

It muft be more particularly diflicult to
account for the condud of Eufebius, on the
fuppofition either of there having been fuch
a perfon as Ebion, or of there having been
any diftindtion between the Ebionites and
Nazarenes, fince it was his bufinefs, as an
hiftorian, to have noticed both.

The ooinion that the Ebionites and Na-
zarenes were the fame people, is maintained
bv Le Clerc, and the mod eminent critics
of the laftage. What Mr. Jones (who is re-
markable for his caution in giving an opi-
nion) fiys on this fubjedr, is well worth
quoting.

*' It is plain, there was a very great
<< agreement between thefe tvt^o ancient
** fefts ; and though they went under dif-
** ferent names, yet they feem only to have
*^ differed in this, that the Ebionites had
*' made fome addition to the old Nazarene
*/ fyftem. For Origen exprefsly tell us,

"- ^£^a{ji.mi. They are called ILblonites ivho
^^ from among the Jews own Jefus to be the
** Chriji, And though Epiphanius feems to
" make their gofpels diifferent, calling one

i(

CkAP. VlII. ihefame People. \yg

** '5rMifEra7ov, more entire y yet this need not
'' move us. For if the learned Cafaubon's
conjedure Ihould not be right, that we
'* fhould read the fame s ^'Nfi^zTo[iovy in both
*' places (which yet is very probable for
*' any thing that Father Simon has proved
'' to the contrary) yet will the difficulty be
*' all removed at once, by this fmgle con-
*' fideration j that Epiphanius never faw any
*' gofpel of the Nazarenes, For though
" he calls it r^-K^^^Sov, yet he himfelf fays,

'* SK oi^cx, ^£ £j ra^ yevea^oyiaj ^z^\z\Xov, he did TlOt htOW

'* whether they had taken away the genealogy,
** as the Ebionites had done 3 i. e. having
*' never feen the Nazarene gofpel, for ought
" he knew, it might be the very fame with
*' that of the Ebionites, as indeed it mofl:
** certainly was*."

In my opinion, Jerom has fufficiently de-
cided this laft queftion. Could he have had
any other idea than that thefe two feds (if
they were two) ufed the fame gofpel, when
he faid, '' In the gofpel ufed by the Na-
^' zarenes and Ebionites, which is com-
** monly called the authentic gofpel of
* On the Canon, vol. i. p. 386.

N 2 Matthew,

1 8o Nazarenes and Ebwiiies Book III.

** Matthew, which I lately tranflated from
" Hebrew into Greek, &c.*''

Farther, the peculiar opinions of the
Ebionites and the Nazarenes are reprefented
by the moft refpedable authorities as the
very fame ^ only fome have thought that th«
Nazarenes believed the miraculous con-
ception, and the Ebionites not. But this
has no authority whatever among the an-»
cients.

Epiphanius fays, in the middle of his
firft feftion relating to the EbloniteSy that
Ebion (whom in the twenty -fourth izc^
tion he makes to be cotemporary with the
apoftle John) ** borrowed his abominable
** rites from the Samaritans, his opinion
** ( 7V'aj/^>iv) from the Nazarenes, his name
<* from the Jews, &c.*'* And he fays, in
** the beginning of the fecond fedion, " he
" was cotemporary with the former, and

♦ In evzingelio, quo utuntur Nazareni et Ebionitae
(quod nupcr in Graecum de Hebraeo fermone tranftulimus
et quod vocatur a plerifque Matthasi authenticum). In
Matt. 12, 13. Opera, vol. 6. p. 21.

-J- Xajxa^€i}uv IJL2V ya^ kJ £%«< to /S^eXy^ ov, la^aiav re to Dvc(A^ay
Offcaicini h x) Na^oopaiav )^^ "Nctcrctpaim tuv yvufXYiv — ^ x/)»r<av«v
^a^^lai e^siv tw -ar^o^rwrof i«v. Hger. 30. ft6l« I. p. 125.

*'had

Chap. VIII. the fame People. i8i

** had the fame origin with them ; and firft h^
** afferted that Chrift was born of the com-
*« merce and feed of man, namely, Jofeph,
*^ as we fignified above,'* referring to the
firft words of his firft feftion, '* when we
'* faid that in other refpedls he agreed with
" them all, and differed from them only in
*' this, viz. in his adherence to the laws of
*' the Jews with refpedt to the fabbath,
'' circumcifion, and other things that were
'* enjoined by the Jews and Samaritans.
*^ He moreover adopted many more things
'* than the Jews, in imitation of the Sama-
"ritans*,*' the particulars of which he
then proceeds to mention.

In the fame fedlion he fpeaks of the
Ebionites as inhabiting the fame country
with the Nazarenes, and adds that, *^ agree-
** ing together, they communicated of their
*' perverfenefs to each other *f .'* Then, ia

* See note, page 164, in this volume.

•|- Ev^ev a^y,i\%i m; Hoottj; aula ^i^aaxxTda^, oSev ^Ssv JtJ N«-

Haer. 30. feft. 2. p. 125, 126.

N 3 the

iSa Nazarenes and Ebionites Book HI.

the third fedlion, he obferves that, after-
wards, fome of the Ebionites entertained a
different opinion concerning Chrift, than
that he was the fon of Jofeph ; fuppofing
that, after Elxaeus joined them, they learned
pf him fome fancy concerning Chrifl: and
the Holy Spirit*.

Concerning the Nazarenes, in the feventh
fedion of his account of them, he fays,
that they were Jews in all refpedts, except
that they *' believed in Chrift ; but I do not
*' know whether they hold the miraculous
^* conception or not-f-/' This amounts to
no more than a doubt, which he afterwards
abandoned, by afferting that the Ebionites
held the fame opinion concerning Chrift
with the Nazarenes, which opinion he ex-
■ preffly ftates to be their belief, that Jefus
was a mere man, and the fon of Jofeph,

Haer. 30. fecSt. 3. p. 127.

-f Ilepi XPiTH ^£ UK oi^a EiTreiv ei x) avloi 7V] Tcoy TupoaEi^Yifisvav
»EE^i Kri^iv^v }y Mnfiv^ov //tc%Sn^:a a)(^vjlE^^ ij/i^ov avSf wttov vo/<ci^a-

Mctfwjj, ^<«C£C«isv7«». Haer. 29. fe6l. 7. vol. i. p. 123.

As

Chap. VIII. the fame People. 183

As to any properly orthodox Nazarenes,
i. e. believers in the pre-exiftence or divi-
nity of Chrift, I find no traces of them any
where. Auftin fays, that the Nazarenes v/ere
by fome called Symmachians, from Symma-
chus, who is not only generally called an
Ebionite, but who wrote exprefsly againft
the dodrine of the miraculous conception.
How then could the Nazarenes be thought
to be different from the Ebionites, or to
believe any thing of the divinity of Chrift,
or even the miraculous conception, in the
opinion of thofe who called them Symma-
chians ? Auftin who mentions this, does
pot fay that they were mifcalled.

Theodoret, who^ living in Syria, had a
good opportunity of being acquainted with
the Nazarenes, defcribes them as follows :
** The Nazarenes are Jews who honour
'^ Chrift as a righteous man, and ufe the
^* gofpel according to Peter ^.'' This ac-
count of the faith of the Nazarenes was

difcaiov^ ^9 Tw KcO^^ixEvoj Kotioc. Hel^ov EuayfeT^ia HSx^yifABVOi. Haer,
FqI. lib, 2. cap. 2, Opera, vol. 4. p* 219.

N 4 evidently

€<

f(

184 Nazarenes and Ebionites B o o k 1 1 1.

evidently meant to reprefent them as dif-
fering from the orthodox with refpedt to
the dodlrine concerning Chrift* and is to
be underftood as if he had faid, *' they be-
lieve him to have been nothing more
' than a righteous man, and a divine
teacher'* (for claiming to be fuch, he
could not otherw^ife have been a righteous
man) *' but they do not believe in his
*^ pre-exiftence, or divinity/' Orthodox
perfons, who believe thefe docftrines, are
never defcribed by any of the ancients as
Theodoret has defcribed the Nazarenes.

In the paflage quoted from Epiphanius, in
which he gives an account of the motives
for John's writing his gofpel, it is evident,
both that he confidered the Nazarenes as
exifting at that time, and alfo that they flood
in as much need of being taught the pre-
exiftence and divinity of Chrift as the Ebio-
nites. In another place this writer com-
pares the Nazarenes to perfons who, feeing
a fire at a diftance, and not underftanding
the caufe, or the ufe of it, run towards it,
m^ burn themfelves j '' So thefe Jews,"

he

Chap. VIII. the fame People. 185

he fays, '' on hearing the name of Jefus only,
" and the miracles performed by the apof-
** ties, believe on him; and knowing that his
'' mother was with child of him at Nazareth,
** that he was brought up in the houfe of
** Jofeph, and that, on that account, he was
" called a Nazarene (the apoftles ftiling him
*^ a man of Nazareth, approved by miracles,
** and mighty deeds) impofed that name
** upon themfelves*/' This can never agree
with this writer fuppofing that the Naza-
renes believed in the divinity of Chrift, or
indeed in the miraculous conception ; much
lefs with their having an origin fubfequent
to the times of the apoftles. And he never
mentions, or hints at, any change of opi-
nion in the Nazarenes.

/ That Auftin did not confider the Na-
zarenes in any favourable light, is evident

* Ax8(rav7f$ '^a^ fAOvov ovofxcc ra hc-a, ^ Ssa^^x/zsvoi roc ^soa-y,-
(j(,£ia rex. Jia %si^wv twv aTCQToT^m yw/t/tsva, kJ avioi £1$ aJiov TsrirEf acre ,
'yvovle(; 5s auJov £k 'Nx^a^sJ £v ya<r^i zyKVixovYi^svlct^ xj £v owco 1j}(Ty,(P
avocl^a^svla^ )y d'ta tSo £V rco Evayl'i.'Kia I>](7«v Na<twfajoi/ xaXti-
or&«<j <yj x^ Qi amo^o'hQi (paaiv \y[<T^v tov 'Ntx^apaiov avo^at^ aTTo^s^sty'
fjLBVov £V t£ (xr]fjL£ioig >C) T£^a<n ^ ra £^Y\q ; tsIo ro ovofjux bttiU^scktiv
o^oig^ ro Kcc'Ku^^M Na^w^ajsf, Hasr. J9. fe<3:. 5. Opera,
vol. I. p, 120.

from

i86. Nazarenes and Efbionites Book III.

from his calling them, in his anfwer to
Jerom, heretics, '' As to the opinion of thofe
** heretics, who, while they would be both
** Jews and chriftians, can neither be Jews
*' nor chriftians, &c.*'' It is in thefe very
words that Jerom had charadterized thofe
whom he had called Nazarenes. What
more could Auftin have faid of the Ebio-
nites? Can it be fuppofed that he would
have fpoken of the Nazarenes in this man-
ner, if he had thought them orthodox with
refped: to the doctrine of the trinity ; efpe-
cially conlidering that it was in an age in
which the greateft account was made of
that doctrine ; fo that perfed: foundnefs in
that article might be fuppofed to have
atoned for defeats in other things. That
Jerom did not confider the Nazarenes as
orthodox, even if he did make them to
be different from the Ebionites, is evident
from his calling them not chriftians.

If we confider the general charadter of
the Jewifli chriftians in the time of the

* Qiiid putaverint h^retici, qui qum voiunt et Judsei
cfTc et chriftiani, nee Judaei efle nee chriRiani eflc potue-
runt, &c. Opera, vol. 2. p. 75.

- ^poftlcs^

Chap. VIII. the fame People. 187

apoftles, and particularly how apt they were
to be alarmed at the introdudion of any
thing that was new to them, and had the
leaft appearance of contrariety to the law
of Mofes, it will both fupply a ftrong ar-
gument in favour of the truth of chrifti-
anity, and againil their receiving the doc-
trine of the divinity or pre-exiftence of
Chrift either then or afterwards. Their
rooted prejudices againft the apoftle Paul
(whofe converfion to chriftianity muft have
given them great fatisfad:ion) merely on
account of his activity in preaching the gof-
pel to the uncircumcifed Gentiles (thouo-h.
with the approbation of the reft of the
apoftles) fhows that they would not receive
any novelty without the ftrorigeft evidence.
Their diflike of the apoftle Paul, we know
from ecclefiaftical hiftory, continued to the
lateft period of their exiftence as a church,
and they would never make ufe of his writ-
ings. But to the very laft, their objedtions
to him amounted to nothing more than his
being no friend to the law of Mofes.

The refemblance between the charadrer of
the Ebionites, as given by the early chrh-

1 88 Nazarenes and Ehionites Book III,

tian Fathers, and that of the Jewifii chrif.
tians at the time of Paul's laft journey to
Jerufalem, is very ftriking. After he had
given an account of his condudl to the more
intelligent of them, they were fatisfied with
it 'y but they thought there would be great
difficulty in fatisfying others. " Thou
** feefl: brother," fay they to him, Ads
xxi. 20. *' how many thoufands of Jews
** there are who believe, and they are all
** zealous of the law. And they are in-
** formed of thee, that thou teacheft all the
** Jews who are among the Gentiles, to for-
*' fake Mofes ; faying that they ought not
** to circumcife their children, neither to
** v/alk after the cuftoms. What is it
*^ therefore ? The multitudes muft needs
^* come together, for they will hear that
** thou art come. Do therefore this that
«* wx fay unto thee : We have four men who
^ have a vow on them ; them take, and pu-
** rify thyfelf with them, and be at charges
^' with them, that they may ihave their
?' heads, and all may know that thofe things
^* whereof they were informed concerning
?^ thee are nothing, but that thou thyfelf

Chap. VIII. the fame People. . 189

** alfo walkeft orderly and keepeft the law,"
So great a refemblance in fome things, viz.
their attachment to the law, and their pre-
judices againft Paul, cannot but lead us to
imagine, that they were the fame in other
refpeds alfo, both being equally zealous
obfervers of the law, and equally ftrangers
to the doftrine of the divinity of Chrift.
In that age all the Jews were equally
zealous for the great dodlrine of the ujjity of
God^ and ihtiv peculiar cujloms. Can it be fup-
pofed then that they would fo obftinately
retain the one, and fo readily abandon the
other ?

I have not met withanymention of more
than one orthodox Jewifh chriftian in the
courfe of my reading, and that is one whofe
name was Jofeph, whom Epiphanius fays
he met with at Scythopolis, when all the
other inhabitants of the place were Arians.
Hasr. 30. Opera, vol. i. p. 129.

CH AP^

190 Suppofed Church Book III.

C H A P T E R IX.

Of the fippofed Church of Orthodox fews
at ferufalerriy fubfequent to the Time of
Adrian.

l^yTOSHEIM fpeaksofa church of trini-
lYA tarian Jews, who had abandoned the
law of Mofes, and refided at Jerufalem, fub-
fequent to the time of Adrian. Origen,
who afferts that all the Jewidi chriftians of
his time conformed to the law of Mofes, he
fays, muft have known of this church ; and
therefore he does not hefitate to tax him
with afferting a wilful falfehood. Error
was often afcribed to this great man by the
later Fathers, but never before, I believe,
was his veracity called in queftion. And
leaftof all can it be fuppofed, that he would
have dared to affert a notorious untruth in a
public controverf/. He muft have been a
fool, as well as a knave, to have ventured
upon it.

Bodies

Chap. IX. of Orthodox Jews. 191

Bodies of men do not fuddenly change
their opinions, and much lefs their cuftoms
and habits ; lead, of all would an ad: of
violence produce that efFed ; and of all
mankind the experiment was the leail; likely
to anfwer with the Jews. If it had pro-
duced any effeft for a time, their old cuftoms
and habits would certainly have returned
when the danger was over. Itmightjuftas
well be fuppofed that all the Jews in Jerufa-
lem began at that tim.e to fpeak Greek, as well
as that they abandoned their ancient cuftoms.
And this might have been alledged in favour
of it, that from that time the bifliops of
Jerufalem were all Greeks, the public of-
fices were no doubt performed in the Greek
language, and the church of Jerufalem was
indeed, in all refpeds, as much a Greek
church as that of Antioch.

Moflieim produces no authority in his
Diflertations for his aflertion. He only
fays, that he cannot reconcile the fad: that
Origen mentions, with his feeming unwil-
lingnefs to allow the Ebionites to be chrif-
tians. But this is eafily accounted for from
the iittachment which he himfelf had to the

dodrine

192 Suppofed Church Book III.

doftrlne of the divinity of Chrift, which
they denied; and from their holding no
communion with other chriftians.

All the appearance of authority that I can
find in any ancient writer, of the Jewifh
chriftians deferting the law of their ancef-
tors, is in Sulpicius Severus, to whom I am
referred by Mofheim in his Hiftory. But
v/hat he fays on the fubjedl is only what
follows : *' At this time Adrian, thinking
*' that he ihould deftroy chriftianity by
** deftroying the place, erected the images of
*' daemons in the church, and in the place
*< of our Lord^s fufferings ; and bec*aufe the
** chriftians were thought to confift chiefly
•* of Jews (for then the church at Jerufalem
** had all its clergy of the circumcifion)
** ordered a cohort of foldiers to keep con-
** ftant guard, and drive all Jews from any
*• accefs to Jerufalem ; which was of fervice
" to the chriftian faith. For at that time
*< they almoft all believed Chrift to be God^
<' but with the obfervance of the law ; the
*' Lord fo difpofing it, that the fervitude
'* of the law (hould be removed from the
** liberty of the faith and of the churchy

Then

C H A P . I X, of Orthodox Jews, i g j

*' Then was Marc the firft bifliop of the
'* Gentiles at Jeruialem*." Here the hif-
torian fays, that the objedl of i\driaii was to
overturn chriflianity, and that the Jews
were bani&ed becaufe the chriftians there
were chiefly of that nation. According to
this account, all the jews, chriftians, as well
as others, were driven out of Jerufalem, and
nothing is faid of any of them forfaking the
law of Mofes. Eufebius mentions the ex-
pulflon of the Jews from Jerufalem, but
fays not a word of any of the chriftians
there abandoning circumcilion, and their
other ceremonies, on that occafion. In-
deed, fuch a thing was in the higheft de-

* Qua tempeftate Aurianus, exiflimans fe chriftianam
fidem loci injuria perempturura, ec in templo ac loco do-
minicae paffionis daemonum fimulachra conftituit, Er.
quia chriftiani ex Judsis potiflimum putabantur (namqiic
turn Hierofolymae non nifi ex circumcifione habebat ec
clefia Sacerdotem) militum cohortem cuftodias in perpe-
tuiim agitare jufTit, qus Judsos omnes Hierofolymas adi-
tusarceret. Quod quidem chriftlanx fidei pronciebat ;
quia turn pene omnes Chriftum Deum fub Icgis obferva-
tione credebant, Nimirum id domino ordinante dirpofituiu,
lit legis fervitus a libertate fidei atque ecclefite tollerctur.
Ita turn prim urn Marcus ex Gentibus apud Hierofolymam
cpifcopus fuit. Hift. lib,2. cap. 31. p, 2^5.

Vol. III. O gree

1 94 ' Suppofed Church Book III.

gree improbable. Speaking of the defola-
tion mentioned. If, vi. he fays, that *' it
** was fulfilled in the time of Adrian, Vvhen
*' the Jews, undergoing a fecond fiege, were
*^ reduced to fuch mifery, that, by the im-
** perial orders, they were not fuffered even
** to fee the defolation of their metropolis
*' at a diftance^/'

Independent of all natural probability, had
Sulpitius Severus adually written all that
Mofheim advances ; whether is it from this
writer, or from Origen, that we are more
likely to gain true information on this fubjeft.
Origen, writing in controverfy, and of courfe
fubjed: to corredion, appeals to a fact as
notorious in the country in which he him-
felf refided, and in his own times^ to which
therefore he could not but have have given
particular attention. Whereas Sulpitius
Severus lived in the remoteft part of Gaul,
feveral thoufand miles from Paleftine, and

VTTOiJLm'a-^Eg lAioi ruGT^ic^Kiav^ sic tj/Jcto nanov 's^BpisrY,oav, «o5 vofxoi;
'^ ^lalccyijuxa-iv aulcH^aio^iHOig^ fivioB £| a7T07r% rm spY;^iav tji? £atj%}V
fiDilpoTToMo:-; ^£ap£iv s'iTi^fSTis^l'Ui, Monifaucon's Colledio,

vol. 2. p. 379-

two

Chap. IX. Orthodox Jews. 195

two hundred years after Origen, fo that he
could not have afferted the fad: as from his
own knowledge ; and he quotes no other
perfon for it. But, in reality, Sulpitius Seve-
rus is no more favourable to Molheim's ac-
count of the matter than Origen himfelf ;
fo that to the authority of both of them, of
all ancient teftimony, and natural probabi-
lity, nothing can be oppofed but a willing-
nefs to find orthodox Jewifli chriftians fome-
where.

The paffage of Origen, which is a full
contradidlion to all that Mofheim has ad-
vanced concerning this orthodox Jewifli
church, confifling of perfons who abandon-
ed the law of Mofes, at the furrender of Je-
rufalem to Adrian, is as follows : ^' He who
*** pretends to know every thing, does not
*' know what belongs to the profopopeia.
'^ For what does he fay to the Jev/ilh be-
** lievers, that they have left the cuftomsof
*' their anceftors, having been ridiculoufly
*' deceived by Jefus, and have gone over to
" another name, and cnother mode of life;
^' not confidering that thofe Jews who have
/•^^ believed in Jefus have not deferted the
O 2 ** cuftoms

196 Supppofed Chi^rch Book III,

*' cuftoms of their anceftors ; for they live
*' according to them, having a name agree-
" ing with the poverty of their legal obfer-
** vances. For the word Rbion^ in the
** Jewifh language, figniiies poor ; and thofe
*^ of the Jews who believe Jefus to be the
'' Chrift, are called Ebionites *."

Can It be fuppofed that Origen would
have ventured to write in this manner (even
fuppofing that he had no principle of inte-
grity to reftrain him from telling a wilful lie)
if he had known any fuch church of Jewifh
chriftians as Mofheim defcribes, Befides,
Origen's account of things agrees with what
all the ancients fay on the fubjed. Eufe-
bius fays, that the bifhops of Jerufalem were
Jews till the time of Adrian +• The bifhops

* Axxa /^>j ntccz 0 wuvt £7rayyE>^o{jLBv^ sihvai, to ohoT^h^v
HH om Kara rov tottov .T/jj isjpoa-co'Tro'Jctixg \ ti av ^ ^eyer '^srpo; t«$
CCTTO I)ioaicov 'S^iTEuovTczg, KaravoYirecv . (pra-iv auTu; Kara'MTrovrag rov

yz'hoiag • Kj aTTWfOp.oy^mBvai sig a7^o ovo/j,a, j^ £ig oT^T^v $iov, M-rjSg
n-aro Kcnavowa<;, oji h wtto la^aim f/j rov Iykt^v 'SJirsuovTsg a tca-
rahE>.oma(n rovs^arptcv vcfjt,cv , Biaa-i yap uar avrov, bttcovv/jloi rr^g
far a rvy ek^qxw 'sjruyjiag m voi^h ysy BVYjfxmi, In Celfum,
lib. 2. p. 56.

T fig f^sxpi 'J'l? '^«7a; A^fiavGv h^aiav rzonopmag^ 's^EvJEJiaihKOi
rov apiBfMV auioBi yBycvaaiv ETticrHO'Truv oia^ox^^ ' ^-^ 's;x\lag ECpaixg
^aciv ovlag^ avEHCc^vj rav yvo:ijiv ra xpjra yvyyjicc; Kolaoe^iza^on.
J-Iill. lib. 4. cap. 5. p. 143.

^vere

Chap. IX* of Orthodox Jews. im

were Jews, becaiife the people were fo. It
is natural, therefore, to fuppofe, that when
the bifhops were Greeks, the people were
Greeks alfo. And this is what Nicephorus
expreffly aflerts to have been the cafe. For
he fays, that *' Adrian caufed Jerufalem to
*^^ be inhabited by Greeks only, and per-
** mitted no others to live in it*."

Origen is fo far from faying, that any
Jews abandoned circumcilion, and the rites
of their religion, that he fays fome of the
Gentile chriftians conformed to them-j-.

Having confulted Eufebius, and other
ancient writers to no purpofe, for fome
account of thefe Jews who had deferted
the religion of their anceftors, I looked
into Tillemont, who is wonderfully careful
and exa<S in bringing together every thing
that relates to his fubjeifl; but his account

lib. 3. cap. 24. vol. J. p. 256.

t Quia non folum carnales Judael de gircumcifione car-
nis revincendi funt nobis, fed nonnulli ex eis, qui Chrifti
nomen videntur fufcepifTe, et tamen carnalem circumci-
fionem recipiendam putant: ut Ebionitae, et fi qui his
fimili paupertate fenfus aberrant. In Gen, Horn. 3. Opera.
Vol. I. p. ig,

o 3 of

iy.S ' Bupprji'd Church Book IIT^

of the matter differs widely indeed from
that of Moilidm. He fays (Hill, des
Empereurs, torn. 2. part 2. p. 506) *' The
** Jews converted to the faith of Chrift
*^ were not excepted by Adrian^ from the
** prohibition to continue at Jerufalem.
'' They were obliged to go out with the
^* reft. But the Jews being then obliged
*' to abandon Jerufalem, tb-at church began
'^ to be compofed of Gentiles, and before.
*^ the death of Adrian, in the middle of the
** year 138, Marc, who was of Gentile
V* race, was eftablifhed their bifliop/' He
does not fay with Moflieim, that this Marc
was chofen by the Jews who abandoned the
Mofaic rites. Hift. voi 1. p. 172.

Fleury, I find, had the fame idea of that
event. He fays (Hift. vol. 1. p. 316.)
«« From this time the Jews were forbidden.
•* to enter Jerufalem, or even to fee it at
*' a diftance. The city being afterwards
** inhabited by Gentiles, had no other name
^^ than iEiia. Hitherto the church of Je-
*' rufalem had only been compofed of Jew-
*' ifti converts, v/ho obferved the ritual of
'"* the law under the liberty of the gofpel y.
I '' but

C H A P . I X . of Orthodox Jews * 199

*' but then, as the jews were forbidden to
*^ remain there, and guards were placed to
•*' defend the entrance of it, there were no
" other chriftians there befides thofe v/ho
*' were of Gentile origin ; and thus the re-
*^ mains of the fervitude of the lav/ were
** entirely aboliilied."

I cannot help, in this place, taking fome
farther notice of what Moflieim fays with
refpe^fl to this charge of a wilful falfliood
on Origen. Jerom, in his epiftle to Pam-
machius (Opera, vol. i. PJ496.) fays, that
Origen adopted the Platonic do<£trine of the
fubferviency of truth to utility, as with re-
fpedl to deceiving enemies, &c. the fame that
Mr. Hume, and other fpeculative moralifts
have done; confidering the foundation of all
focial virtue to be the public good. But
it by no means follows from this, that fuch
perfons v/ill ever indulge themfelves in any
greater violations of truth, than thofe who
hold other fpeculative opinions concerning
the foundation of morals.

Jerom was far from faying, that *' Ori-

** gen reduced his theory to practice. " He

mentions no inftance whatever of his having

O 4 recourfe

2 DO Suppcfed Churchy &c\ Book IIL

recourfe to it, and is far, indeed, from vin-
dicating any perfon in aflerting, that to
lilence an adverfary, he had recourfe to the
wilful and deliberate allegation of a noto-
rious falfhood.

Grotius alfc fays, that it is well obferved
by Sulpitlus Severus, that all the Jewifli
chriftians till the time of Adrian held that
Chrift was God, though they obferved
the law of Mofes, in the paifage which I
have quoted from him. But the fenfe in
which Grotius underftood the term God m
this place muft be explained by his own
fentiments concerning Chriil. As to Sul-
pitius himfelf, he muft be confidered as
having faid nothing more than that, *^ ai-
** moft all the Jews at Jerufalem were
** chriftians, though they obferved the law
** of Mofes/' This writer's mere aifertion,
thai the Jewifli chriftians held Chrift to be
God, in the proper fenfe of the word, un-
fupported by any reafons for it, is not ta
be regarded.

e H A P^

[ ^<^i i

CHAPTER X.

Of the fuppofed Herefy of the Ehionites and
NazareneSy and other particulars relating
to them.

I

Have obferved that Tertullian is the
firft chriflian writer who exprefsly calls
the Ebionites heretics, Irenasus, in his
large treatife concerning herefy, exprefles
great diflike of their dodlrine, always re-
prefenting them as believing that Jefus was
the fon of Jofeph ^ but he never confounds
them with the heretics. Juflin Martyr
makes no mention of Ebiofzites, but he
fpcaks of the Jewifi chrijlians, which has
been proved to be a fynonymous expreffion ^
and it is plain, that he did not confider
all of them ns heretics, but only thofe of
them who refufed to communicate with
the Gentile chriftians. With refpedl to
the reft, he fays, that he fhould have

no

202 Suppofed Hercfy of the Book III.

no objeSion to hold in communion with
them*. Ke defcribes them as perfons who
obferved the law of Mofes, but did not
impofe it upon others. Vv^ho could thefe
be but Jewifh unitarians ? For according
to the evidence of all antiquity, and v/hat
is fuppofed by Juftin himfelf, all the
Jewilli chriftians were fuch. It is pro-
bable, therefore, that the Nazarcnes, or
Ebionites, were coniidered as in a ftate
of excommunication, merely becaufe they
would have impofed the law of Mofes upon
the Gentiles, and refufed to hold commu-
nion wath any, beiides thofe who were cir-
cumcifed ; fo that, in fa6t, they excommu-
nicated themfelves.

This circumftance may throw fome light
on the paflage in Jerom, in which he fpeaks
of the Ebionites as anathematized Jolely
on account of their adherence to the Jewifli
law. The Ebionites, at leaft many of them,
would have impofed the yoke of the Jewifh
law upon the Gentile chriftians. They

ial, p. 231.

would

Chap. X. Ehionhes and Nazarenes. 205

would not communicate with thofe who
were not circumcifed, and of courfe thefe^
could not communicate with them ; (o
that they were neceffarily in a ftate of ex-
communication with refpecfl to each other.
This would alfo be the cafe with the Ce-
rinthians, as well as the Ebionites ; and
therefore Jerom mentions them together ;
the feparation of communion with refpedt
to both arifing, in a great meafure, from
the obfervance of the law of Mofes^ though
Jerom might write unguardedly, as he often
did, in confounding the cafe of the Cerin-
thians fo much as he here does with that
of the Ebionites.

Ruffinus makes the herefy of Ebion to
confiil: in their enjoining the obfervance of
the Jewiih law*. The attachment of the
Jews to their own law was certainly very
great. Origen fpeaks of the Ebionites as

* Confilium vanitatis eft quod Ebion docet, ita Chrifi'o-,
credi dcbere, ut circumcifio carnis, et obfervatio fabbathi^
et facrificiorum folemnitas, caeteraeque omnes obfervantiae
fecunduni legis literam teneantur. In Symbol, p. 189.

thinking

204 Suppofed Herefy cj the Book III*

thinking that Chrift came chiefly for the
fake of the Ifraelites*'*

There is fomething very particular in
the condud: of TertuUian with refpedl to
the Ebionites. He fpeaks of the herefy of
Ebion (of which he makes but the flighteft
mention in his Treatife againft herefy in
general) as confiding in the obfervance of
the Jewifli ceremonies -^ ; and yet he fays,
that *' John in his epiftle calls thofe chiefly
•* antichrifl:s, who denied that Chrift came
*' in the flefh, and who did not think that
** Jefus was the Son of God -/* meaning,
probably, a diibelief of the miraculous
conception. *' The former," he faya,
" Marcionheld, the latter Ebion |."

^toiwta? STruvvfxoi (E^w yap o 'sr7w%05 "siap ^<^paiOig ovoixoi^zlxi) wrf

Viroy^QsiV ETTi T8^ (TCtpKlKdi; \(T^a£7^aq 'S^pOYjyUfiSVU^ TOVXfJfOV SK^ih^

fk-m^Kai. Philocalia, p. i6.

f Ad Galatas fcrlbens invehitur in obfervatores et de-
fenfores circumcifionis et Icgls. Hebionis haerefis eft. De
Praefcrip. fe6i:. 33. Opera, p. 214.

X At in epiftola eos maxime antichriftos vocat, qui
Chriftum negarent in carne venifle, et qui non putarent

Jefum

Chap. X. Ebionites andNazarenes. 205

Upon, the whole, the condudl of Ter*
tullian very much refembles that of Ire-
naius, who, without clafling the Ebionites
with heretics, cxpreffes great diflike of
their do(?crine.

It is certain, that the Ebionites were a
very different fet of perfons from the Gnof-
tics, and that they were utter ftrangers to
the principles of that philofophy which
were the caufe of the prejudice that was en-
tertained concerning matter and the body^ and
which led the Gnoftics to recommend cor-
poreal auflerities, and abftinence from mar-
riage^ Epiphanius fays, that ** the Ebio-
*' nites, and all fuch fedts, were enemies to
"virginity and continence*/'

This writer's hatred of the Ebionites, and
of courfe his mifreprefentation of them, are
very confpicuous. But there is one thing
which he lays to their charge, which, though
abfolutely incredible, it is not eafy to ac-

Jefum efle filiuni del. lllud Marcion, hoc Hebion vindi-
c^vit. De Praefcrip. fccS:. 33. Opera, p. 214.

zyK^ccleia^ a; kJ 'ssa^a rag a'hikxig oiaoim; rauln aip£7S3-i. Haer. 30.
p. 526.

7 count

2o6 Siippofed Herefy of the Book III,

count for. For he fays, that '* the Ebio-
'* nites revere water as a God*/' Damaf-
cenus fays the fame after him. De Haere-
fibus. Opera, p. 690.

Another mod extraordinary and highly
improbable allegation of Epiphanius, with
refped: to the Ebionites, is his charg-
ing them with the peculiar dodlrines of
the Gnoftics, which is contrary to the
teflimony, I may fafely fay, of all other
ancient writers ; it being commonly faid
by them, that the herefy of the Ebionites
was the very reverfe of that of the Gnof-
tics. He fays, however, that ** fome of
** the Ebionites held that Adam, who was
** firft formed, and into whom God breathed
'' the breath of life, was Chrift. But others
*' of them fay that he was from above,
*^ that he was a fpirit created before any
/' others, before the angels, that he was
" lord of all, w^as called Chrift, and made
*' the fovereign of that age; that he came
" from thence whenever he pleafed, as into
♦* Adam, and that he appeared in the form

* To y^ojo «y7i ^€8 f.-/:i(j\.. Opera, vol. I. p. 53.

*« of

' Chap. X. Ebionites and Nazarenes. 207

/* of a man to the patriarchs, to Abraham,
** Ifaac, and Jacob, and that it was the
'* fame who in the latter days, being clothed
«* with the body of Adam, appeared as a
** man, was crucified, rofe from the dead,
** and afcended into heaven*."

Again, fpeaking of the Ebionltes in ge-
neral, he fays, '* they affert that there were
*' two beings created, viz. Chrift and the
*' devil ; that Chrift took the inheritance
'* of the future age, and the devil of the
'' prefent, and that the Supreme Being
*' made this appointment at the requeft of
** them both. On this account, they fay
** that Jefus was born of the feed of man,
'* and became the fon of God by adoption,
'*' by Chrift coming into him from above,

'S!\a<7^.evloc, T£ x^ £fi<puaS£vloi a-TTo Trig ts Sea STTiTrvQia.; , a'KKoi ^s ev

xj VTTZp ayfsT^ag ovlcXy ^ai^,u)V t£ Kv^tsvovla, ^t) X^'^^v ^syfcrS'-.., rev
msias OS amva H£K>.r,Gucr^ai • £^%£cr9iX{ ^£ e^j^au^a qIe Q^>.£isc'.^ ag ;^

fUJfiog AQ^oLUfA ErS^uv ;^ Icraan xj laK^tiQ. 0 aJlog ett EO-^oilm . av yi^e-
^m Yih^E, v\ ccvlo 10 (TaiAOi T8 Acetyl. EVE^uaalo^ ^ &)^3->j av^^aTio;, i^
Eraupco^n, y^ avfrw, ^ avrth^Ev. Hser, 30. kd:, 3. p. 127.

'' in

2o8 Suppofed Herejy of the Book III,

** in the form of a dove. But ihey fay that
** he was not generated from God the Fa-
*^ ther, bat created by him, as one of the
** archangels, though greater than they ^
^* for that he is lord of the angels, and of
** all things that were made by the AI-
*' mighty; that he came and taught what
** is contained in their gofpel, faying, /
*' atn come to dejlroy facrificesy and if you will
** not ccdfe to fcicrfce, wrath Jljali Jiot ceafe
** wtth rcfpect to you, Thefe and fuch like
** things are taught by them*/*

In ai^other paffage he afcribes thefe doc-
trines not to Ebion himfelf, but to his

* Aya oe Tiv^f, <o; £^>}v, cmirmiv ek $£8 TfioS^jLtva^, £vx f/.sv tov

tximcg siMipEvai rov uToi^ov, tcv cs ^laSoXcv Tiilov "uTZTrireuScci rov amvoCi^
£K ^corotyr,; ^-^Oev T3 'SjavloH^alo^og KOila. aP.r]criv bkuIe^cov cculcov ' y^
TiiJs EVEna lr.i7iiv yEyEvyifjLEvov eh (r7rE^/j,al^- av^og Xsyaa-i^ }o ettiT^e-
Xkvia^ -iC. iflcc Kuicx. EKXoym vtov Se.^ yJhri^Evia, ano rs a,V(c^2v Eig aulov
r.KOvi^ yj'i'^^ £v £'^>l '3rEf«r£^<%; . a Oaa^tHCTi Js eh. Ses rEsal^oi; avloy
yzyEWiC-^Mi aA?.a EKiic^ai^ o)g evoc rov aox^fy^>^ojv, fXEi^ovx o'e avlcov
cvla^ avlov os ku^ieveiv^ y^ ayfs^.av v^ 'intxvlav airo m 'Zsa.vloHpalo^^^
'STETTOiYiixEVcoVy x^ E}J}ovi(X >t) y^y;7v;cra;^£!'CV, ug ro 'Siao scifloig EvayFsMov
xa^^fiEVcv 'ZJEpisxEi, oil y^T^ov Ko^a7\tU(XM rscg ^vj:otg^ :-c- sav /jlyi -cr^y-
o-^ctSe T5i Sy£;v, a nzotvaElai ap V[X'^v n opv. . Koit raulcx km roiocuicc
Tiia ETiv T;z 'lijcc^' avlcig ETTLlnO'^vyA. Hffr. 30. feci. 16. p. 140.

followers

Ghap. X. Ebionttes and Nazarenes. 209

followers. '' Ebion himfelf/* he fays,
'* held that Chrift v/as a mere man, born
*' as other men are ; but they who from
*' him are called Ebionites, fay that God
*'had a fuperior power called his fon, that
*' he affumed the form of Adam, and put
*^ it off again*/'

That this reprefentation, which is wholly
Epiphanius's own, is founded on fome
miftake, cannot be doubted ; and I think it
mofl probable, that he has confounded the
dodrines of the Ebionites with thofe of the
Cerinthians, who agreed with them in fome
things, efpecially in Jefus being a mere
man, born as other men are. But he mofl:
grofsly mifrcprefented both the Ebionites
and the Cerinthians, in faying that they
rejeded facriiices, and taught that Chrifl:
preached againft them. For according to
the teflimony of all antiquity, both thefe
feds inlifl:ed on the obfervance of the Jewifli
law.

* no7£ ^£1; 0 av\o^ El^m Myuv £h 'S^apal^iQ^; ^-i^ov av%iu;roi*
aurov 7S7£vv>io-S«<. aXAoTE h ci ayr' avis ECmaioi, am Si^va/i^v f«
%i>i HSKTw^ai viov, KM 7-Tov Kara Hai^ov rov AhfA sv^-ys^^ai te km
tH^vza^au Hsr. 30. feft. 34. p. 162.

Voi.. III. P This

2 1 0 Suppqfed Herefy of the Book III.

This is all that I have been able to col-
Icft concerning the herefy of the Ebionites,
excepting that Optatus charges them with
maintaining that ** the Father fufFered, and
*' not the Son*/' But it was no uncom-
mon thing to charge all unitarians with
being patripaffians. No early accounts of
the Ebionites fay any fuch thing of them.
Their doftrine was fimply, that Chrift was
a man, but a man approved of God by figns
and wonders y and mighty deeds^ which God
did by him*

I muft here remark, that no perfon, I
fhould think, can refled: upon this fubjed:
with proper ferioufnefs, without thinking
it a little extraordinary that the Jewifli
chriftians, in fo early an age as they are
fpoken of by the denomination of Ebionites,
fhould be acknowledged to believe nothing
either of the divinity, or even of the pre-
exiftence of Chrift, if either of thofe doc-
trines had been taught them by the apoftles.
Could they fo foon have deferted fo im-
portant an article of their faith, and fo

* Ut Hebion, qui argumentabatur patrem pafTum efle,
non hlium. Lib. 4. p. 91.

lately

C H A P , X. Ebiomfes and Nazarenes. i i i

lately delivered to the faints y and having
once believed Chrift to be either the Su-
preme God, or a fuper-angelic fpirit, have
contrary to the general propenfity of hu-
man nature (which has always been to ag-
grandize, rather than to degrade a lord and
mafter, becaufe it is in fadl to aggrandize
themfelves) come univerfally to believe hinl
to be nothing more than a mere man^ and
even the fon of Jofeph and Mary ?

CHAP.

a 1 2 ~ Sacred Books Book IIL

CHAPTER XL

Of the /acred Books of the Ebionites.

'TpHE Ebionites being Jews, and in ge-
neral acquainted with their own lan-
guage only, made ufe of no other than a
Hebrew gofpel, which is commonly faid to
have been that of Matthew, originally com-
pofed in their language, and for their ufe.
This I think highly probable, from the
almoft unanimous teftimony of antiquity.
But this is a queftion which I ihall not
make it my bulinefs to difcufs.

'* The Ebionites,'' fays Irenaeus, *' make
*' ufe of the gofpel of Matthew only^/'
Jerom had feen this gofpel, and tranjflated it
from Hebrew into Greek, and without giving
his own opinion, fays, that " it was by moft
*^ perfons called the authentic gofpel of

* Eblonitae etenim eo evangelio quod eft fecundum Mat-
tliaeum folo utentes. Lib. 3. cap. 11. p. 220.

'' xMatthew."

Chap. XI. of the Ebionkes. 213

*' Matthew*/* Theodoret fays concern-
ing both the kinds of Ebionites, that they
received no other gofpel than that of Mat-
thewf.

But it is evident from Epiphanius, that
the Ebionites did not confider the two firft
chapters of Matthew's gofpel as belonging
to it ; for their copies were without them,
beginning with the third chapter. '* The
*' gofpel of the Ebionites began thus. It
** came to pafs in the days of Herod king
*' of Judea, in the time of Caiaphas the
*^ high-prieft, a perfon whofe name was
** John came baptizing with the baptifm
*' of repentence in the river Jordan J.'*
Here, however, there muft be fome mif-
take, as it was not in the time of Herod

* In Matt. cap. 12. Opera, vol. 6. p. 21;

E'?jft)i7£f5 yap )q iiloi fm^oaayo^zvovlixi • rot a>>jx fxsv airavla, (xuvofjco-
^07£i roig fsspolzDQii;^ tov Je (Tu%pa x^ jcu^i'ov £^ 'S^a^^sva yeyEvvyjcr^ai
(pY\(ny^ evayysXiu h tco kocIc6 MctrBociov KsxpY[vloi,i f/,ova, Haer..
Fab. lib. 2. cap. I, vol. 4. p. 328. Ed Halae.

% On tyivdo, ^nanv, £v raig vfA^^aig H^oi^a ^aaiTiSco; mg la^Mxg
STTi Af%(fec(jj KaicKpa nXSe rig Icoocvvyj^ ovoixdli ^tXTrl^av ^cc7rlicrfji.ii
f;,elxvoiccg £v tw 'isolofjuo lofSixi/n, ^ to. £|>jj. Hser. 30, Opera,
vgl. I. p. 138;

P 3 king

^14 Sacred Booh Book III^

king of Judea, but of Herod the Tetrarch^
or king of Galilee ^ and the inaccuracy-
is probably to be afcribed to Epiphanius
himfelf. That this writer quoted only from
his memory, and inaccurately, is evident
from his giving the beginning of this gof-?
pel in another place fomewhat differently,
as follows: ** It came to pafs in the days
f^ of Herod king of Judea, John came bap-
" tizing with the baptifm of repentance,
^^ in the river Jordan ; who was faid to be
^' of the race of Aaron the prieft, the fon
f* of Zacharias and Elizabeth ; and all men
^* went out to him*."

This writer, who was fond of multiplying
fedls, and who makes that of the Nazarenes
to be different from that of the Ebionites,
fays concerning the latter, that ** he did
f' not know whether they had cut off the
?^ genealogy from the gofpel of Matthew f/'

^X^ev laaWYii ^a7rri(uv ^aTrricrfjLCC fidavoia^ sv tw lo^^awi '^oraiw^

(oET, HCti f|>?^%0VTO TTDOi; UUTOV 'SJCCVTE^, HxY. 3O. itBi, 1 3.

p. 138.

f E%S(r« ^$ ro Kola Marram EuayyE>iiov isT^-npEfarov E^pairt •

y^a(A,fMX(FiV

Chap. XI. of the Ebionltes. 2 r ^

Meaning, perhaps, the whole of the in-
trodudlion, as far as the third chapter.—
It mull be obferved, however, that in the
copy of this gofpel which Jerom tranf-
lated, there was the fecond chapter, if not
the genealogy. For in this gofpel there
was, out of Egypt I have called my fon, and
he floall be called a Nazarene^ J" This I
am willing to explain in the following man-
ner. Originally the Jewifh chriftians did
not believe the dodtrine of the miraculous
conception. Both Juftin Martyr and Ire-
n«us reprefent them as difbelieving it,
without excepting any that did. Origen
is the firfl who has noticed two kinds of
Ebionites, one believing the miraculous

y^acixixaaiv et; aa^Ercii . m oi^a ^s bi koci ra^ yma^^oy.ccg rag UTn
ta AQpaaaiA. 'mz^iu>.Qv. Haer. 29. vol. I. p. 124.

* Mi hi quofque a Nazaraeis, qui in Bersea, urbe Syrise,
hocvolumine utuntur, defcribendi facultas fuit, in quo
animadvertendum quod ubicunque evangelifta, five ex
perfona fua, five ex perfona domini falvatoris, veteris fcrip-
turae teftimoniis utitur, non fequatur feptuaginta tranf-
latorum auaoritatem, fed Hcbraicam, e quibus iIJa duo funt.
Ex ^gypto vocavi fiJium meum, et quoniam Nazaraeus
VQcabityr. C^Ulogus Scriptorum, Opera, vol. i. p. 267.

P 4 conception^

2i6 Sacred Books Book III.

conception, and the other denying it. Pro-
bably, therefore, their original copies of
the gofpel had not the two firft chapters,
which contained that hittory ; but after
fome time, thofe of the Jewifh chriftians
who gave credit to the ftory, would na-
turally add thefe two chapters from the
Greek copies -, and it might be a copy of
this kind that Jerom met with-

Epiphanius likewife fays, that *^ the
*' Ebionites made ufe of the travels of
*« Clement^.'* This being an unitarian
work, they might be pleafed with it; but
it is not probable that they would read it
in the public offices of their churches, or
confider it in the fame light with one of
the books of fcripturc.

It is agreed on all hands that the Ebio-
nites made no ufe of the epiftles of Paul,
becaufe they did not approve of the flight
which he feemed to put upon the law of
Mofes, which they held in the greateft
poffible veneration.

Opera, vol. i. p. 139.

Epiphanius

Chap. XI. oftheEbionites, 217

Epiphanius fays farther concerning the
Ebionires, that " they deteft the pro-
'^phets*/* This, however, I think al-
together as improbable, as what he fays
of their revering water as a god. He is
the only writer who aflerts any fuch thing,
and as far as appears from all other ac-
counts, the Ebionites acknowledged the
authority of all that we call the canonical
books of the Old Teflament. Symmachus,
whofe tranflation of the fcriptures into
Greek is fo often quoted, and with the
greateft approbation, by the learned Fathers,
was an Ebionite j and Jerom fays the fame
of Theodotion. They both tranflated the
other books of the Old Teflament, as well
as the Pentateuch, and, as far as appears,
without making any diftindtion between
that and the other books ; and can this be
thought probable, if they had not conli-
dered them as entitled to equal credit ?
Befides, our Saviour's acknowledgment of
the authority of the whole of the Old Tef-

J39-

tamcnt

2 1 8 Sacred Boois, &c. Book III.

tament is fo exprefs, that I cannot readily
believe that any chriftians, Jews efpecially,
acknowledging his authority, would rejedl
what he admitted.

Laftly, the authority of Epiphanius is,
in efFe(S, contradi(5ted by Irensus, who
fays, that '* the Ebionites expounded the
** prophecies too curioufly*." Grabe fays,
that Ebion (by which we muft underftand
fome Ebionite) wrote an expofition of the
prophets, as he colledled from fome frag-
ments of Irenaeus's work, of which he gives
fome account in his note upon the placet-

* Quae autem funt prophetica curiofius exponere ni-
tuntur. Lib. i. cap. 26. p- 102.

f Ipfum Ebionem E|>i7>7(7iv rcjv 'STpo(pyil<i)v rcripfifle, colligo
ex fragmentis hujus operis, quae ante paucos dies Parifiis
accepi, en MS. codice collegii Claromontani defcripto, a
viro humaniilimo, R. P. Michaele Loquien, inter addenda
ad fpecilegium haereticorum faeculi i. fuo tempore, deo
volente, publicanda. Ibid,

CHAP.

[ 219 ]

CHAPTER XII.

Of Men of Eminence among the Jewijh
Chrijlians^

qpHOUGH It Is probable, that the
Jewlfh chriftians In general were
poor, and therefore had no great advantage
pf liberal education, which might be one
means of preferving their docSrine in fuch
great fimplicity and purity ; yet It ap-
pears that there were fome men of learning
among them. Jerom mentions his being
acquainted with fuch during his refidence
in Paleftlne ; and there are three perfons
among them who diftinguifhed themfelves
by tranflating the Old Teftament from
Hebrew into Greek, viz. Aquila, Theo-
dotlon, and Symmachus ; though the laft
of them only was a native of Paleftine,
and born a Samaritan. Eufeblus fays, that
^* Theodotlon and Aquila were both Jewlfh
^* profelytes, whom the Ebionites follow-

'* Ing,

^20 Men cf Eminence Book IIL

*' ing, believe Chrift to be the fon of

*'Jofeph*/' According to Epiphanius,
Theodotion was firft a Marcionite, and then
a Jewifli convert -fr. Aquila is faid to have
flpuriflied about the year 130, Theodotioa
about 180, and Symmachus about 2co.
Whatever was thought of the religious
principles of thefe men, the greateft ac-
count was made of their verfions of the
Hebrcvt^ fcriptures by learned chriftians of^
all parties, efpecially that of Symmachus,
which is perpetually quoted with the great-
eft refpeft by Origen, Eufebius, and others.
Jerom, fpeaking of Origen, fays, that ^* be-
*' fides comparing the verfion of the fep-
*« tuagint, he likewlfe collated the verfions
*' of Aquila of Pontus, a profelyte, that
<* of Theodotion an Ebionite, and that of
** Symmachus, who was of the fame fed: •
** who alfo wrote commentaries on the
*< gofpel of Matthew, from which he en-

aviov yiyivy\(J^Cf.i (pa.aK'd(n. Hifl:. lib. 5. cap. 8. p. 221.

•f Qzd^olicov Tig IIovlw©" aTTo t>i$ ^ic^opcuj MocpKtuvog ra ai^tJi'
«fX.sTs XivcottSu* DeAlenfuris;, Opera, vol. 2. p. 172,

** deavoured

Chap. XII. among Jewijh Cbrijlians. 221.

*' deavoured to prove his opinion*/' In
fo great eftimation was Symmachus heldy
that Auftin fays the Nazarenes were fome-
times called Symmachians'f'.

I referve the account of Hegefippus to
the laft, becaufe it has been aflerted that,
though he was a Jewifli chriftian, he was
not properly an Ebionite, but orthodox
with refpedl to his belief of the trinity.
But that he was not only a Jewifli chrif-
tian, but likewife a proper Ebionite, or a
believer in the fimple humanity of Chrift,
may, I think, be inferred from feveral clr-
cumftances, belides his being a Jevvifli
chriftian 3 though, fmce Origen fays that
none of them believed the divinity of
Chrift, we ought to have fome pofitive evi-
dence before we admit that he was an ex-
ception.

* Aquils fcilicet Pontic! profelytl, et Theodotlonls He-
blonei, ^t Symmachi ejufdem dogmatis, qui in evangeJium
cjuoque xala Mal^aicv fcripfit commentarios, de quo et fuum
dogma confirmare conatur. Catalogus Scriptoruai^ Ope-
ra, vol. I. p. 294;

f Et tamen fi mihi Nazareoruni objiceret qulfquarn
quos alii Symmachianos appellant. Contra Fauftuni Man.
Opera, vol. 6. p. 34^.

That

.222, Men of 'Eminence Book IIL

That Hegefippus was an Ebionite, may-
be inferred from his giving a lift of all the
herefies of his time, in which he enume-
rates a confiderable number, and all of them
Gnoftics, without making any mention of
the Eblonites.

He being a Jewifli chriftian himfelf,
could not but be well acquainted with the
prevailing opinions of the Jewifh chriftians,
the moft confpicuous of which, it cannot
be denied, was the dodlrine of Chrift's
being a mere man. Now can it be fup-
pofed, that if he himfelf had been what is
now called an orthodox chriftian, that is,
a trinitarian, or even an Arian, he would
wholly have omitted the mention of the
Ebionites in any lift of heretics of his
time, had it been ever fo fhort a oncj and
this confifts of no lefs than eleven arti-
cles ? Alfo, can it be fuppofed that Eufe-
bius, who fpeaks of the Ebionites with fo
much hatred and contempt, would have
omitted to copy this article, if it had been
in the lift ?

Their not being inferted in the lift by
fuch a perfon as Eufebius, muft, I think,

fatisfy

Chap. XII. among Jewt/h Chrijlians. 223

fatisfy any perfon, who has no fyftem to
fupport, with refped to this article. A
ftronger negative argument can hardly be
imagined. As to Hegefippus himfelf, we
muft judge of his feelings and conducft as we
fliould of thofe of any perfon at this day in a
fituation fimilar to his. Now, did any fub-
fequent ecclefiaftical hiftorian, or did any
modern divine, of the orthodox faith, ever
omit Arians, or Socinians, or names fynony-
moustothem (who always were, and ftill
are, in the higheft degree obnoxious to
them) in a lift of heretics?

Had the faith of the early chriftians beea
either that Chrift was true and very God,
or a fuperior angelic fpirit, the maker of the
world, and of all things vifible and invifible
under God ; and had Hegefippus himfelf
retained that faith, while the generality, or
only any confiderable number of his coun-
trymen, had departed from it, it could not
but have have been upon his mind, and have
excited the fame indignation that the opi-
nions of the Arians and Socinians excite in.
the minds of thofe who arc called orthodox
at this day. Nay, in his circumftances,
Z fuch

224 Men of Eminence Book III.

fuch a defedlion from that important article
of faith in his own countrymen, after hav-
ing been fo recently taught the contrary by
the apoftles themfelves, whofe writings they
ftill had with them, mufl have excited a
much greater degree of furprize and indig-
nation, than a iimilar defection would have
occafioned in any other people, or in any
later times.

It is faid to be as remarkable that Hege-
fippus {hould have omitted the Cerinthians
as the Ebionites. But I fee nothing at all
extraordinary in the omiffion of the Cerin-
thians in this lift of heretics by Hegefippus,
as they were only one branch of the Gnof-
tics, feveral of whom are in his lift ; and it
is not improbable that thefe Cerinthians,
having been one of the earlieft branches,
might have been very inconfiderable, per-
haps extinft in his time. I do not know
that they are mentioned by any ancient
writer as exifting fo late as the time of He-
gefippus ; and as they feem to have been
pretty much confined to fome part of Alia
Minor, and efpecially Galatia, which was
very remote from the feat of the Ebionites,

Chap. XII. amojjg JewiJJj Chrijlians. 225

he might not have heard much about them.
Whereas the Ebionites were at that very-
time in their full vigour, and though their
opinions (being then almoft univerfal in
v^hat was called the catholic church) had
not begun to give offence, they were after-
wards the objed of the mofl violent hatred
to the other chriftians, and continued to be
fo as long as they fubfifted.

That Hegefippus, though an unitarian
himfelf, fhould fpeak as he does of the ftate
of opinions in the feveral churches which
he viiited, as then retaining the true faith ^
is, I think, verj- natural. The only herefy
that diflurbed the apoftle John, and there-
fore other Jewifli chriftians in general, was
that of the Gnoftics ; and all the eleven dif-
ferent kinds of herefaes, enumerated by this
writer, are probably only different branches
of that one great herefy. If, therefore, the
churches which he vifited were free from
Gnofticifm, he would naturally fay that
they retained the true faith. For as to the
dodrine of the perfonification of the logos,
held then by Juftin Martyr, and perhaps a
few others, it was not, in its origin, fo very
Vol. III. Q^ alarming --

226 Men of Eminence Book III,

alarming a thing -, and very probably this
plain man had not at all confidered its na-
ture and tendency, if he had heard of it.
The author of the Clementine Homilies
though cotemporary with Hegefippus, and
unqueftionably an unitarian, makes no men-
tion of it.

Hegefippus, as an unitarian, believed that
all the extraordinary power exerted by Chrift
was that of the Father refiding in him, and
fpeaking and afting by him ; and he might
imagine that thefe philofophizing chriftians,
men of great name, and a credit to the caufe,
held in fad: the fame thing, when they faid
that this ^c.j-of theirs was not the logos of the
Gnoftics, but that of John the evangeliil, or
the wifdom and power of God himfelf.
And though this might appear to him as
a thing that he could not well underftand,
he might not think that there was any he-'
refy, or much harm in it. Had he been
told (but this he could only have had from
infpiration) that this fpecious perfonification
6f the divine logos would, about two cen-
turies afterwards, end in the dodtrine of the
p^rfed equality of the Son with the Father,

this

Ch AI>. Xir, among Jezvijh Chrijiians, 227

this plain good man might have been a little
ftartlcd.

That Eufebius, and others, fhould fpeak of
Hegefippus with refped (from which it has
been argued that he could not poffibly have
been an Ebionite) appears to me nothing ex-
traordinary, though it iliould have been
known to them that he was one, confidering
that they quote him only as an hiftorian ;
and fuppofing, what is very probable, that
he did not treat particularly of doftrinal
matters, but confined himfelf to the acls of
the apoftles, and other hiftorical circum-
ftances attending the propagation of the
gofpel ; efpecially as he was the only hifto-
rian of that age, and had always been held
in efteem. A man who is once in pofleffion
of the general good opinion, will not be
cenfured lightly, efpecially by fuch men as
Eufebius.

Can it be fuppofed alfo that Eufe-
bius, in exprefsly quoting ancient au-
thorities againft thofe who held the opi-
nion of the fimple humanity of Chrift,
would not have cited Hegefippus, as well as
Irenaeus, Juftin Martyr, and others, if he
0^2 could

228 Men of Eminence ' Book III.

could have found any thing in him for his
purpofe ? This may be confidered as a
proof that there was nothing in his work
unfavourable to the dodirine of the Ebio-
nites. A negative argument can hardly be
ftronger than this.

Had there been any pretence for quoting
Hegefippus as a maintainer of the divinity
of Chrift, he would certainly have been
mentioned in preference to Juflin Martyr,
or any others in the lift ; not only becaufe
he was an earlier v/riter, but chiefly becaufe
he was one of the Jewifh chriftians, who are
w^ell known not to have favoured that opinion.

The manner in which Eufebius fpeaks of
Hegeiippus's quoting the gofpel of the He-
brews, is fuch as led hun to think that he was
a Hebrew chriftian. *' He quotes fome things
** from the gofpel according to the Hebrews
** and the Syriac, and efpecially in the He-
** brew tongue, fhewing that he was one of
** the Hebrew chriftians ^'.** We may,
therefore, conclude, that he quoted it
with refpedt ; and this was not done ex-

utvoi. Hift. lib. 4. cap, 24. p. 184.

cept

Chap. XIF. among Jewijh Chrijlians. 229

cept by thofe who were Ebionites, or who
favoured their opinions. As Hegefippus
\yrote in Greek, he muft have been ac-
quainted with the Greek gofpels, and
therefore muft have quoted that of the He-
brews from choice, and not from necef-
fity.

Laftly, the manner in which Hegefippus
fpeaks of James the Juft, is much more that
of an unitarian, than of a trinitarian.—
^^ James the Juft," fays Eufebius, ** is re*
** prefented by Hegefippus as faying. Why
** do you aflc me concerning Jefus the fon
** of man * ?" This looks as if both James
and the hiftorian were unitarians; the
phrafey^/2 of ma?2, being probably fynony-
mbus to 2l prophet^ or a perfon having a di-
vine commiflion, and certainly not imply-
ing any nature properly divine.

Valefius, thp learned commentator on
Eufebius, has intimated a fufpicion, that
the works of Hegefippus, as well as thofe of
Papias and the Hypotypofes of Clemens
Alexandrinus, were negledted and loft, on

pap. 23. p. 79.

Q 3 account

230 Men of Em'.nence Book III.

account of the errors they were fuppofed to
contain ^. This I cannot help thinking
highly probable, and thofe errors could
hardly be any other than the unitarian doc-
trine, and the things conneded with it.
Indeed, there were no errors of any confe-
quence afcribed to that early age befides
thofe of the Gnoftics, and of the unitarians.
The former certainly were not thofe that
Valefius could allude tp with refpedl to He-
gefippus, becaufe this writer mentions the
Gnoftics very particularly as heretics.
Though Clemens Alexandrinus was not an
unitarian, yet he never calls unitarians bere-
tics 'y and fince, in his accounts oi heretics in
general^ which are pretty frequent in his
works, he evidently means the Gnojlics only,
and therefore virtually excludes unitarians
from that defcription of men ; it is by no
means improbable but that^ in thofe writ-

* Porro ii Clementis libri continebant brevem et com«
pendiariam utriqufque teftamenti expofitjonem, ut teftatur
Fhotius in bibliotheca. Ob errores autem quibus fcate-
bant, negligentius habiti, tandem pcrierunt. Nee alia, irieo
quidem judicio, caufa eft, cur Papiae et Hegefippi, alioruni •
que vetefum libri interciderint. In Eufeb. Hift. lib. 5.
cap. ii«

3 Wgs

Chap. XIL among JcivijJj Chriflans, 231

ings of his which are loft, he might have
laid things directly in favour of unitarians.

In this paffage Valefius alfo mentions the
writings of Papias, as having, in his opi-
nion, been loft for the fame reafon. Now
Papias has certainly been fuppofed to be aa
Ebionite, Mr. Whifton has made this very
probable from a variety of circumftances.
See h\^ Account of the ceajing of Miracles^ p. 1 8.
In the fame tra(^ he gives his reafons for
fuppofing Hegefippus to have been an
Ebionite, and he exprefles his wonder,
'* that he fliould have had the good fortune
" to be fo long efteemed by the learned for
"a catholic," p. 21, &c. In this Mr.
Whifton may be fuppofed to have been fuf-
ficiently impartial, as he was an Arian, and
exprefles great diflike of the Ebionites ; as,
indeed, Arians always have done.

It is to be lamented that we know fo
very little of the hiftory of the Jewifh
chriftians. We are informed, that they re-
tired to Pella, a country to the eaft of the
fea of Galilee, on the approach of the Jewifh
war, that many of them returned to Jerufa-
lem when that war was over, and that they
Q 4 con-

232 Men cf Eminence^ Gfc, Book IIL

continued there till the city was taken by
Adrian. But what became of thofe who
were driven out of the city by Adrian,
does not appear. It is moft probable that
they joined their brethren at Pella, or Be-
raea in Syria, from whence they had come
to refide at^ Jerufalem ; and indeed what
became of the whole body of the ancient
chriftian Jews (none of whom can be proved
to have been trinitarians)! cannot tell. Their
numbers, we may fuppofe, were gradually
reduced, till at length they became extindt.
I hope, however, we ihall hear no more of
them as an evidence of the antiquity of the
trinitarian dodrine.

A few of the Nazarenes remained, as
Epiphanius fays, in the Upper Thebais and
Arabia, He alfo fpeaks of the Ebionites
as exifting in his own time, and joined by
the OfTens*. Auftin fays that they v/ere
in fmall numbers even in his timet-

* yiovci Je TJvEj £v (TTraysi eupurnovloii, n 'zzrs £ig^ y\ ^uo Nccac^-mi
VTT^p TY^v avco GjiCat^a, ^ ETTZKUva TYi^ ApaCiog^ Hser. 20.
Opera, vol. i. p. 46.

f Ji funt quos Fauflus Symmachianorum vel Nazareno-
rum, nomine commemoravit, qui ufque ad no{tra tempora
jam quidem in exigua, fed adhuc tamen vel in ipfa, pau-
citate perdurant. Contra Fauftum Man, Opera, vol. 6^

[ 233 ]

CHAPTER Xlir.

Vnitarlanlfm was the DoElrine of the primi^
tive Gentile Churches.

TTAVING proved, as I think I may pre-
fume that I have done, to the fatisfac-
tion of every impartial reader, that the great
body of Jewifli chrilliians always v^ere, and
to the laft continued to be, unitarians ; be-
lieving nothing concerning the pre-exift-
€nce or divinity of Chrift, it may with
certainty be concluded, that the Gentile
converts were alfo univerfally unitarians in
the age of the apoftles, and that, of courfe,
the great majority af the common people
muft have continued to be fo for a very
confiderable time. There is no maxim,
the truth of which is more fully verified by
obfervation and experience, than that great
bodies of men do not foon, or without
great caufes, change their opinions. And
the common people among chriftians, hav-
ing no recolledion of the apoftles having
2 taught

234 "^^-^ Gentile Chrijlians Book III,

taught the pre-exiftence or divinity of
Chrift, would not foon receive fuch ftrange
doctrines from any other quarter.

In v^hat manner the fpeculative and phi-
lofophizing chriflians came to receive thefe
doctrines, and what plaufible arguments they
ufed to recommend them, I have fully ex-
plained. But fuch caufes would afFed: the
learned long before they reached the un-
learned ', though, in time, the opinions of
thofe who are refpedled for their know-*
ledge, never fail to diffufe themfelves among
the common people, as we fee to be the
cafe in matters of philofophy, and fpecula-
tion in general.

Actual phenomena, I iliall undertake to
Aew, correfpond to this hypothelis, viz,
that the Gentile chriftians were at firft uni-
verfally unitarians ^ that for a long time a
majority of the common people continued
to be fo, being till after the council of Nice,
pretty generally in communion with the tri-
nitarians, without abandoning their own
opinion. It will alfo appear, from the moft
indifputable evidence, that the Arian hy-
pothecs, which makes Chrifl to have been

a great

Chap. XIII. originally Unifartan. 235

a great pre-exiflent fpirit, the maker of
the world, and the giver of the law of
Mofes, was equally unknown to the learned
and to the unlearned, till the age of Arius
himfelf. As to the opinion of Chrift hav-r
ing been a pre-exiftent fpirit, but either
not the maker of world, or not the giver of
the law, it is quite modern, being entirely
unknown to any thing that can be called
antiquity.

S E C T I O N I.

Prefumptive Kvidence that the Majority of
the Gentile Chrijlians in the early Ages were
Unitarians.

T>OTH the Hvongt^ prefumptions^ and the
moft diredt pofitive evidence^ fhow that
the common people among the Gentile chrif-
tians, were unitarians, at leafl between two
^nd three hundred years after the promuU
gation of chriflianity.

1 . That unitarians muft have been in
communion with what was in early times

called

236 The Gentile Chrtjiiam Book III.

called the catholic churchy is evident from
there being no creed, or formulary of faith,
that could exclude them. And we have
feen that a creed was formed for the exprefs
purpofe of excluding the Gnoftics, who,
of courfe, could not, and we find did not,
join the public aiTemblies of chriftians, but
formed aflemblies among themfelves, en-
tirely diftindt from thofe of the catholics.

There was no creed ufed in the chrif-
tian church, befidcs that which was com-
monly called the apojilesy before the council
of Nice, and even after that there was no
other generally ufed at baptifm. This
creed, as has been feen, contains no article
that could exclude unitarians ; and there
was nothing in the public fervices that was
calculated to exclude them. The bifhops
and the principal clergy, zealous for the
doftrine of the trinity, might, of their own
accord harangue their audiences on the
fubjed:, or they might pray as trinitarians ;
but if the unitarians could bear with it,
they might ftill continue in communion
with them, there being no law, or rule,
to exclude them.

Accord-

Chap. XIII. originally Unitarian. 237

Accordingly, we find that all the unita-
rians continued in communion with the
catholic church till the time of Theodotus,
about the year 200, when it is poffible that,
upon his excommunication, fome of his
more zealous followers might form them-
felves into feparate focieties. But we have
no certain account of any feparate focieties
of unitarians till the excommunication of
Taulus Samofatenfis, about the year 250,
when, after him, they were called Pau^
lians^ or Faulianijis. Others alfo, about
the fame time, or rather after that time,
formed feparate focieties in Africa, on the
excommunication of Sabellius, being, after
him, called Sabellians.

2. The very circumRance of the unita-
rian Gentiles having ?2o feparate name, is, of
itfelf, a proof that they had no feparate
afiemblies, and were not diftinguifhed from
the common mafs of chriftians. Had the
unitarians been confidered as heretics, and
of courfe formed feparate focieties^ they
would as certainly have been diftlnguifhed
by fome particular name, as the Gnoftics
were, who were in that fituation. But the

Gentile

238 The Gentile Chrijiians Book III.

Gentile unitarians had no name given them
till the time of Epiphanius, who ineffec-
tually endeavoured to impofe upon them that
oi Alogi'* As to the terms Paulians, Sabel-
lians, Noetians, or Artemonites, they were
only names given them in particular places
from local circumftances.

When bodies of men are formed, diftin-
guifhed from others by their opinions,
manners, or cuftoms, they neceffarily be-
come the fubjecSs of converfation and writ-
ing 5 and it being extremely inconvenient
to make frequent ufe of periphrafes, or de-
fcriptions, particular names will be given
to them. This is fo well known, that there
can hardly be a more certain proof of men
not having been formed into feparate bo-
dies, whether they were confidered in a
favourable, or an unfavourable light, than
their never having had any feparate name
given them ; and this was indifputably the
cafe with the Gentile unitarians for the
fpace of more than two hundred years after

fjuav ' aTTo yoc^ t>7j ^ev^o iil(o$ Hhri^n70v%i, Hser. 51. Opera,
vol. I. p. 423.

the

Chap.XIIL originally Unitarian. 2391

the promulgation of chriftianity. The
Jewifli unitarians ufing a different language,
and living in a part of the world remote
from other chrlftians, had little communi-
cation with the Gentiles, and therefore, of
courfe, had aflcmblies feparate from theirs;
but for that reafon they had a particular
name, being called Kbionites.

The name by which the Gentile unita-
rians were fometimes diftinguiflied before
the feparation of any of them from the
catholic church, was that of Monarchijis,
which was probably affumed by themfelves,
from their afferting the monarchy of the
Father, in oppofition to the novel dodrine
of the divinity of the Son. Had it been a
name given them by their enemies, it would
probably have been of a different kind, and
have implied fome reproach.

As to the term Alogiy given to the unita-
rians by Epiphanius, it may be lafely con-
cluded, that it was impofed on a falfe pre-
tence, viz. their denying the authenticity of
the writings of the apofile John, and their
afcribing them to Cerinthus, for which
there is no evidence befides his own ; and

he

240 ^be Gentile Chnjlians Book IIL

he does not pretend to have had it from
the unitarians themfelves. It is fufficiently
evident that there could not have been any
chriftians w^ho rejedled all the writings of
John before the time of Eufebius, who
confiders very particularly the objedions
that had been made to the genuinenefs of
all the books of the New Teftament. And
that the fame people fhould rejed thefe
books after the time of Eufebius, and not
before, is highly improbable. Epiphanius
himfelf afcribes this rejedlion to the Alogi
in general, and not to thofe of his time
only; and he fuppofes the herefy of Alogi
to have been an old one, of which that oi
Theodotus was a branch*."

The proof that Origen, Chryfoftom, and
the Fathers in general, give of their not
being heretics, is that they had no particu-
lar name, befides that of chriftians. All
therefore, that Chryfoftom and others could
alledge, as a proof that themfelves and their
friends were of the orthodox faith, and no
heretics, might have been alledged by the

ei^v](xivns A^^ya aifs^ewj. Haer. 54. Opera, vol. i. p. 462.

whole

Chap. XIII. originally Unitarian. 241

whole body of unitarians before the time of
Theodotus.

3. This argument will have double force,
if we confider how exceedingly obnoxious
the fentiments of the unitarians muft have
appeared, if they had been different from
thofe of the generality of chriftians at that
time. In what light they would have been
regarded then, may be eafily judged of by
the treatment which they receive at pre-
fent, wherever the trinitarian dodrine ds
eftablilhed, and that of the unitarians is
profefled by the fmaller number. In thefe
circumftances, it is a fact which no perfon
can deny, that unitarians have, in all coun-
tries, been regarded v/ith the greateft poffi-
ble abhorrence, and treated as impious blaf-
phemers. It is confidered as a great ftretcli
of moderation to tolerate them at all.
There are many inftances in which even
Arians would not allow that the unitarians
were chriftians. This now would certainly
have been the cafe in the primitive times,
if the unitarians had been in the fame fitua-
tion, that is, if they had been the minority^
and trinitarians, or even Arians, the majo*

Vol. III. R rity.

2;4-2 ^'^^ 6V;2//7^ Chrijltans Book IIL

rity. For, human nature being the fame,
the influence of the fame circumftances will
likewife be the fame, as univerfal experi-
ence ihews. For no fooner were the tri-
nitarians the majority, and had the favour
of government, than they took the feverell
nieafures againft thofe )Vvho openly avowed
themfelves to be unitarians. The fame
alfo was their treatment from the Arians,
when they were in.pov/er, as the hifiory of
PJiQtinus teftifics. 'ic/rj':; . .

It is well known with what fever ity Cal-
vin proceeded againfl: Servetus, when the
dodrine which he defended was far from-
being novel, and Calvin himfelf was expofed
to perfecution. Even in thefe circumftances
he thought that to write againft the doc-
trine of the trinity was a crime for which
burning alive was no more than an adequate
punifhment ^ and almoft all the chriftian
world, not excepting even the meek Me-
Jandon, jilftified his proceedings. Now,
fince the minds of iwcn are in all ages
Similarly afifeded in fimilar circumilances,
we may conclude, that the unitarian doc-
trine, which was treated with \o much

refpe^t

Chap. X[II. originally Unit at I an 243

refpeft when it was firft mentioned, was in
a very different predicament then, from what
it was at the time of the reformation. The
difference of majority and minority^, and no-^
thing elfe, can account for this difference of
treatment.

4. Another, and no. inconfiderable. argu-
ment in favour of the antiquity of the pro-
per unitarian doftrine amor^g chriitians, may
be drawn from the rank d.nd condition of
thofe who helditin.the time of Tei-tuJlian.-
He calls thtm fimplices et idiota\ that is,
common ov unlearned people ; and fuch. per^
fons are certainly mofl likely to retain old
opinions, and are always far lefs apt to
innovate than the* learned, becaufe thdy are
far lefs apt to fpeculate. Whenwer we
endeavour to trace the oldeft opinions in
any country, we always enquire atiiong.the
idiot ae^ the common people yvand j:(*,th^y
believe one thing, and the learnt anotI\qfr,
we may conclude with certainty, that
which ever of them be true ^ ox the more
probable, thofe of the common people were
the more ancient, and thofe of the learned
^nd fpeculative the more novel oi the two^

R z In

244 ^^^^ Gentile Chrijlians Book III.

In mod cafes the more novel opinions
are moil likely to be true, confidering the
gradual fpread of knowledge, and the general
prevalence of prejudice and error; but in
fome cafes the probability is on the fide
of the more ancient opinions ; and it is
evidently fo in this. The true doclrine
concerning the perfon of Chrift muft be
allowed to have been held by the apofiles.
They, no doubt, knew whether their mafter
was only a man like themfelves, or their
maker. Their immediate difciples would
receive and maintain the fame dodrine that
they held, and it muft have been fome time
before any other could have been intro-
duced, and have fpread to any extent, and
cfpecially before it could have become the
prevailing opinion. We naturally, there-
fore, look for the genuine doftrine of chrif-
tianity> concerning the perfon of Chrift,
among thofe who, from their condition and
circumftances-. Were moft likely to main*
tain the old opinion, rather than among
thofe who [Were moft apt to receive a new
one. Surely, then, we have a better chance
of ' finding ' the truth on this fubjed among
^'^ ' thefe

Chap. XIII. originally Unitarian 245

thefe idiofa, the eommon and unlearned
people, than v/ith fuch men as Juftin Mar-
tyr, who had been a heathen philofopher,
Irenseus, or any other of the learned and
fpeculative chriftians of the fame age.

On the contrary, fuppofing the chriflian
religion to have been gradually corrupted,
and that, in a long courfe of time, the cor-
rupt dodlrine fhould become the moft pre-
valent among the common people 5 the re-
formation of it, by the recovery of the
genuine dodrine, is naturally to be looked
for among the learned and the inquiiitive,
who, in all cafes, will be the innovators^
This is remarkably the cafe in the prefent
ftate of things. The common people in
the Roman catholic countries are bigots to
the old eftablifhed faith, while the learned
are moderate, and almoft proteftants. la
proteftant countries the common people
ftill adhere moft ftrongly to the dodlrine of
their anceftors, or thofe which prevailed
about the time of the reformation, while
the learned are every where receding farther
from them; they being more inquiiitive,
and more enlightened than the unenquiring
R 3 vulgar

.246 "ihe (Gentile Chrifiians Book! IlL

Vulgar. But ftill, if any man fliould pro-
pole fimply to enquire what were the opi*
nions moft generally received in this coun*
try a century ago (which was about the
fpace that intervened between Victor and
the time of the apoftles) we {hould think
him very abfurd, if he fhould look for
them among the learned, rather than among
the common people. We have experience
enough of the difficulty with which the
bulk of the common people are brought
to relinquifh the faith of their anceftors.

Dilfenters in England are well fituated
for judging of the truth of the general
maj^im, that large bodies of men do not
foot! change their opinions. Notwith-
{landing the diifenters have no legal bonds,
but are perfectly free to adopt whatever
opinions they pleafe -, yet> as they were
univerfally Calvinifts at the time of the
reformation^ they are very generally fo ftill.
The minifters, as might be expedled, are
the moft enlightened, and have introduced
fome reformation among the common peo-
ple ; but a majority of the minifters are,
I believe, ftill Calvinifts*

N©

Chap. XIII. origin ally Uriitdria'n, i^f

No perfoQ at all acquainted with hlftory
can entertain a doubt with refpect to the
general maxim, that great bodies of men
do not foon change their opinions. It ap-
peared when our Saviour and the apoitles
preached the gofpelwith all the advantage
of iiliracles ; and it appeared in the chrif-
tianizing of the Gentile world. How long
did the ignorant country peoplCj in parti-
cular, continue pagans^ a word borrowed
from their being chiefly the inhabitants of
villap;es ? Does not the hiftory both of
the corruption, and of the reformation of
chriftianity prove the fame thing ? How
many yet believe the dodrine of tranfub-
ftantiation ? and what I think as much a
cafe in point, how many yet believe the
dodlrine of the trinity ?

Is it then at all probable, that when the
doctrine of the fimple humanity of Chrlll
is acknowledged to have been held by the
idiotcey or common people^ and who are ex-
preffly faid to have been the greater part of
the believers (major credentium pars) this
fhould not have been the general opinion
a century before that time ; but, on the
R 4 contrary.

248 The Gentile Chrijllans Book III.

contrary, that of the deity of Chrift, which
was held by Tertullian, and other learned
chriftians, and who fpeak of the common
people as being fhocked (expavefcufttj at
their dodlrine ? Sufficient caufe may be
affigncd why the learned in that age fhould
be inclined to adopt any opinion which
would advance the perfonal dignity of their
mailer ; and the fame caufes would pro-
duce the fame effed: among the common
people, but it would be more flowly, and»
acquire more time, as appears to have
been the fad:.

It may be faid, that the teftimony of Ter-
tullian is exprefsly contradided by Juftin
Martyr, who (in giving an account of the
circumftances in which the Platonic philo-
fophy agreed, as he thought, with the doc-
trine of Mofes, but with refped to which
he fuppofed that Plato had borrowed from
Mofes) mentions the following particulars,
viz. the power which was after the firft
God, or the logos, ** affuming the figure of
** a crofs in the univerfe, borrowed from the
*' fixing up of a ferpent (which reprefented
*• Chrifl) in the form of a crofs in the wil-

** dernefs;

Chap. XIII. originally Unitarian. 249

*' dernefs ; and a third principle, borrowed
*' from the Ipirit, which Mofes faid moved
** on the face of the water at the creation 5
*' and alfo the notion of fome fire, or con-
'' flagration, borrowed from fome figurative
** expreffions in Mofes, relating to the anger
" of God waxing hot. Thefe things, he
** fays, we do not borrow from others, but
*' all others from us. With us you may
*' hear and learn thefe things from thofe
«' who do not know the form of the letters,
** and who are rude and barbarous of fpeech,
*' but wife and underftanding in mind, and
** from fome who are even lame and blind,
** fo that you may be convinced that thefe
** things are not faid by human wifdom,
*\ but, by the power of God *".''

But all that we can infer from this paflage
is, that thefe common people had learned
from Mofes that the world was made by

* Ov ra aula av nfX£ig a'h'hoig ^o|jt^o/^£V, a'KK o Tsavlsg ra mslEpa
fiiixufxevoi Myaai . ziap yi/xiv av sri raula ctKnaai xai [/.a^Eiv 'Sia^x tcov
HOB Tag x^^^^^F'^'i '''^^ roix^icov BTTiTaixsvoov-i i^iulcov /xfv xj 0ap<^a^av
TO (pQsyfjLay <To(puv Se ^9 ^iTm tov vav ov?wv, -'^ 'SiJicajv ■;:) x^if wy tu'ojv rag
or|/£<j * m (Tvvwxi^ a ao(pia av^pansia Tuulji ysfovsyxiy a^a d'vvpcy^si
h* Uyiff^ai. ApoL p. 88,

the

250 ?^^^ Ge?2tile Cbrifiicms Book IIL'
the power and wifdom (or the logos) of
God; that the ferpent ia the wildernefs
reprefented Chritl ; and that there was
a Ipirit of God that moved on the
face of the waters : in fliort, that thefe
plain people had been at the fource from
which Plato had borrowed his philofophy.
It is by no means an explicit declaration
that thefe common people thought that the
logos and the fpirlt were perfons diftind:
from God. Juftin was not writing with a
view to that queftion, as ^^TertuUian was>
but only meant to fay ho^ much more
knowledge was to be found among the
loweft of the chriftians, than among the
wifeft of the heathen philofophers.

Befides, Juftin is here boajiing of ,the
knowledge of thefe Igwer people, and it fa-
voured his purpofe to make it as confiderable
as he could > whereas Tertullian is complain-^
ing of the circumftance which he mentions;
fo that nothing but the convidion of a dif-
agreeable truth could have extorted it from
him. The fame was the cafe with refpeft

to Athanafius,

That

Chap. XIII. originally Unitarian. I^i

That the common people in Juftin's time
fhould underftand his dodrine concerning
the perfonification of the logos, is in itlelf
highly improbable. That this logos, which
was originally in God the fame thing that
reafon is in man, fliould, at the creation of
the world, affume a proper perfonality, and
afterwards animate the body of Jefus Chriil^
either in addition to a human foul, or in-
Itead of it, is not only very abfurd, but alfo
fo very abjlrufe^ that it is in the higheft de-
gree improbable, a priori^ that the common
people fhould have adopted it. The fcrip-
tures, in which they were chiefly conver*
fant, could never teach them any fuch thing,
and they could not have been capable of en-
tering into the philofophical refinements of
Juftln on the fubjedlt Whereas, that the
common people fliould have believed as
Tertulliaii and Athanafius reprefent them to
have done, viz. that there is but one God,
and that Chrifh was a man, the meiTenger or
prophet of God, and no fecond God at all
(the rival as it were of the firft: God) is a
thing highly credible in itfelf, and therefore
requires lefs external evidence.

5. Another

^52 T^he Gentile C/jri/lians Book III.

5. Another ground of prefuPxiption, that
the unitarians were not confidered as here-
tics, or indeed in any obnoxious light, and
confequently of their being in very great
numbers in early times, is, that no treatifes
were written aoainft them. As foon as ever
Gnoftics made their appearance, they were
cenfured with the greateft feverity, and ex-
prefs treatifes wxre written againfl them.
Whereas the unitarians were firft mentioned
without any ccnfure at all, afterwards with
very little ; and no treatife was written ex-
prefsly againft them before Tertullian's
againfl: Praxeas, with whom he was, on
other accounts, much offended. About the
fame time, it is fuppofed, that Caius wrote
the treatife called The Little Labyrinthy
quoted by Eufebius. Before this time there
were fome voluminous writers among chrif-
tians, and feveral treatifes were written ex-
prefsly againfl: herefy, but all the herefies
then noticed were thofe of the Gnoftics.
Irenseus's treatife againft herefy fhews, that
the Gnoftics only were confldered as com-
ing under that defcription. The Ebionites
indeed are cenfured in it, but no mention is
3 made

Chap. XIII. onglnally Unitarian. 253

made of the Gentile unitarians, though
they were the majority of the common
people among chriftians a long time after
this.

His cenfures of Gentile unitarians is, at
leaft indiredl, as they held the fame dodlrine
concerning Chrift that the Ebionites did;
and it muft always be confidered, that Ire-
naeus lived in Gaul, where there were no
Ebionites, and perhaps not many unitarians,
as they abounded moft in thofe countries in
which chriftianity was firft planted.

Theophilus of Antioch, about the year
170, wrote againft herefies, but only his
book againft Marcion is mentioned by Eu-
febius. Hift. lib. 4. cap. 24. p. 187. He
alfo mentions many of the works of Melito,
bifliop of Sardis, but none of them were
againft the unitarians. Lib. 4. cap. 26,
p. 188. Rhodon, he alfo fays, wrote againft
the Marcionites. Lib. 5. cap. 13. p. 225.
We have alfo the firft book of a large work
of Origen's againft herefy; and it is very
evident, as I have obferved, from his intro-
dudlion, that he had no view to any befides
the Gnoftics, Can it be doubted then, but

that

^.54 ^^^^ Gentile Chnjlians Book III,

that there would have been treatifes written
exprefsly againft the unitarians long before
the time of Tertullian, if they had been
confidered in any obnoxious light, or had
not been a very great majority of the chrif-
tian v/orld.

6. That the unitarian doftrine was very
prevalent, even among learned chriftians, in
<he age which followed that of the apoftles,
and was then fuppofed to be that which was
taught by them, may, with confiderable
probability, be inferred from the Clementine
HdMties, and Recognitions, of which fome
account was given, vol. i. p. 113. What
is particularly remarkable relating to this
work (for the two vv^ere originally the fame)
is, that, though it was v/ritten by a philo-
fophcr, and upon fubjeds which related
to the dodriue concerning the perfon of
Chrift, it contains no mention of that doc-
trine which made fo great a figure afterwards,
and which in time bore down all before it,
viz. that of the perfonification of the logos.
No perfon, I fhould think, could perufe
that work with care, without concluding,
that the orthodoxy of the f^bfequent pe^

rio4

Chap. XIII. originally Unitarian, 255

riod had made but little progrefs then.
The fame queftions are difcufied, and the
fame objcdions are aafwered, but on quite
different principles, and without taking the
lead notice of any different principles.

If we cannot infer from this circumflance,
that fuch a fyftem as that of Juftin Martyr,
or the orthodoxy of the third century, did
not exifl, or was not much prevalent, io as
to have attraded. much notice, in the fe-
eond; it mufl at leaft be allowed, as I ob-
ferved before, that the writer of this work,
being indifputably a man of genius and
learning, would afcribe to Peter and Cle-
ment fuch opinions, and fuch a mode of
anfwering the Gnoftics, as he thought
would pafs for theirs. And as the work
was probably a very popular one, from the
different editions and modifications of it
(being publifhed afterwards, with Arian,
and again with trinitarian adulterations)
and ufed, as Epiphanius fays, by the Ebio^
nites as a facred book, we may likewife in-
fer, that the theological doctrines of it were
generally thought to be thofe of the apofto-
lie age, though with fuch additions as the
2 philo-*

256 The Gentile Chrijltans Book IIL

philofophy of the times could lupply. A
man muft. have had lefs knowledge and lefs
judgment than the writer of this work was
evidently poffefled of, to have put into the
mouths of Peter and Clement unitarian
dod:rines, and unitarian modes of anfwer-
ing the Gnoftics, if it had not been fup-
pofed that Peter and .Clement, though no
philofophers, were at leaft unitarians.

To the pafllages quoted from this work
before, I fhall here add another, in which,
contrary to the orthodox dodtrine of the
world not having been made by God him-
felf, but by the logos, and without noticing
any fuch dodrine, he gives ^ fine enumera-
tion of the attributes of the one true God,
and reprefents him as the demiurgusy the im-
mediate maker of the world, and all the feve-
ral parts of it, the heavens and the heavenly
bodies, the earth and water, mountains and
feas, fountains and fruits, &c. &c.*

* Ajo, w iDtvm K>^r:ixr]g, £7r£%E, /^» a^^o n (ppovYKTvjg 'ui£pi ra Sm,
Yi oil avlos f/.ov^ £uv Bsog, -^ Hupi^^ x) 's^alnp, aya^og /^ ^ixai^y
h/js-iHpyog^ fjux)c^o^'jfxog, z7\2v\^av^ Tpo(p£ug Evs^yslrjgy (piT^av^pcoTTiixv vo/ja-
liu'M'y ayysLav aviJi.Q^'SzuaVt aiwvi©-, aiming ttoiuv^ aauyKpiK^, raig

pea

Chap. XIII. originally Unitarian. 257

Dr. Lardner obferves (Credibility, vol. 2.
p. 819.) that the Clementine Homilies and
Recognitions deferve a more particular exa-
mination than has yet been given to them.
And indeed, in the view in which I have
mentioned them, and alfo, in many others,
they arejuftly intitled to it; as they contain
a particular account of the opinions of thofe
times, efpecially of the manner in which
chriftianity was treated and defended by
philofophers. More may be learned con-
cerning the theology and philofophy of
thofe times, from this fingle work, than
from many others. It is true thkt the phi-
lofophical dodrines in it are abfurd enough ;
but the age afforded no better, and they
/ are exhibited in a very pleafing drcfs.

^D Tov y^i*'/av amvoc o»; hsvI^ov 'arrjl-as;, o apavov £(pa7ryiUa'ag, »e} ynv

HafWHg £K(pv(rag^ ofu v^coa-agy ^a?^cwaav 'SJSpio^KTag^ avEixag rs ^
'mEVfKxiix '^lala^ag * o to 'cr£^iE%ov crw^cc £v aTTEi^o) fssE>^ayEi tanvixai}
^'<i?<yi5aa-(pciy,y]g a^Kpanaay.Evog. Horn. 2, fedl. 45, p. 632.

Vol. III. S SEC

258 The Gentile Chrljiians Book III.

SECTION 11.

Dire^l Evidence in Favour of the Gentile
Chrijlians having been generally Unitarians.

T> UT there is no occafion to argue in this
manner from circumflances, and the na-
ture of the thing, fince it appears from the
evidence of all hiflory, fo as never to have
been queftioned by any writer of reputation,
that the unitarians had not any places of
worlliip feparate from thofe of other chrif-
tians in early times. It was allowed by
Molheim, a zealous trinitarian, who fays,
(Hift. vol. 1. p. 191) "However, ready many
*' have been to embrace this erroneous doc-
*^ trine, it does not appear that this fedl
*' formed to themfelves a feparate place of
** worfhip, or removed themfelves from
** the ordinary affemblies of chriflians."
But does it not alfo follow from the fame
fad, that thele unitarians were not expelled
from chriftian focieties by others, as they
certainly would have been, if they had

been confidered as heretics ?

'*In

C i I A P . X 1 1 1 . cri^ mally XJnita rian . 2^9

'' In foraier times/' fays Nicephorus,
*^ all who were called chriflians, though
" they held diiterent opinions, being confi-
** dered in the fame light by the Gentiles,
** and falYcring from them, o.iadc little ac-
**■ count of their difFerences, while they were
** expofed to equal hardships, on which ac-
*' count they eafily joined in the common
*' afTemblies ; and having frequent inter-
** courfe, while they were few in number,
** did not divide into parties*"." In thef^
circumflances, however, theGnoflics held fe-
parate aiTemblies, and as the violence of per-
fecution did not make the orthodox receive
them into their aiTemblies, fo neither would
they have admitted the unitarians, if they
had been at all obnoxious to them.

That unitarians were included among
thofe who, holding different opinions, were

* Ett* yiiv yap Twv ccvco %foi'wv oaoi kXykth ^^^rs EOSfMuvovIo £i, >cj
^iaipopoi TUig ^o^xi^ ncruv^ ktoi 'usuvl^ '^^oi row rcz E^AJii'wv ^avfj.a^cV"
%v £VO(Jt.i^Gv% ' iy H<xKug eI ZKSivuv '^a.crx.OT^sCi (XTio'Kviipcxyyiovnov to

ncTMt, Qixag m ti^ 'SToX^.p: ^iz'/.y^aav. Hift. lib. S. cap. 52. vol.
J. p. 661.

S 2 confidered

266 "The Gentile Chrijlians Bock III.

confidered by the orthodox ^s fellow chnf-
'tians^ is evident from the following paf-
fage of Origen -, but it will be more
evident from other paffages w^hich I (hall
have occafion to quote from him hereafter.
It is only to be obferved, that the unita-
rians are here defcribed as being -patripaf-
fans ^, but thefe were only the more philo-
fophical of the unitarians, as I fhall fliow in
its proper place. *' It is allowed/' he fays,
** that as in the great multitude of believers,
'^ who admit of difference of opinion, there
*' are fome who fay that the Saviour is God
»^ over al! ; but we do not fay fo, who be-
** lieve him when he faid. My Father is
** greater than /?*''

o

Eufebius^ defcribing two forts of here- ^
tics, one of whom denied the humanity of
Chrifl, and the other his pre-exiftence and
divinity, fays, that the former were out of
the church ; but he is fo far from faying the
fame of the latter, that he particularly com-

^icx. TYiV '^i^fioTrdeiav aTToWeaBa^ tov coilm^a svai rev ^tti, nzaai 9foi' •
■^ui /u^, jU£«^wv fji^a £fi. Ad Celfum, lib. 8. p. 387.

plains

Chap. X HI. originally Unit arian, 261

plains that Marcellus, one of them, even
prefided in it, being then bifhop of Ancyra*.
That Chryfoflomi confidered almoft all
the chriftians as being unitarians in the age
of the apoftles has been ihewn already; and
yet he fays, that in their time there was no
herefyf." This, however, could not be
ftridlly true, becaufe there were Gnoflics
in the time of the apoftles ; but they were
few compared with their numbers after-
wards. On this account, it is faid by fe-
Veral of the ancients, that herefy began ia
the time of Adrian, when the moft difiin-
guifhed of the Gnoftics made their appear-
ance. Cyprian fays, that *' the worft of the

* Tojv yotp eIb^o^o^v, 01 //Ev, fXYi 'S7p€Eivai fA,))h 'sspHTTa^x^iv rev
vtov TH Bsa (pavlsi;^ av^^ooTov eva avlov roi^ XoiTToig oixoiov, v7[o^s/x^vDi
fl av^fUTTHf vio^ccrix reli/j-Yia^ai avlov s(pa,aaVi yj inio ^ovlsg, a^avaiov
i^ (xIb7<£u% aulo 1 ifjLYjV >y Jb|av xj ^ao-ihsiov aiaviov cc/xoMyricrav . oi
Jg 70V avB^coTTOv a^vwoifiEvoi^ uiov sivai ^£8, Begv 'ujpoovla v^zmcav^.o •

a>^ 01 fJLBV TrjJ EHHXWliX; CX.'KhQi^lQl^ f^^X^^ TOOTHla 'ss'KavYig B'haTav ' o 6's
mg tKKM(noi^ TH Sea rocrouloig Ka,^y)yy]criXiA,£vog x^^^'^^^i ^^^ vTra^^iv avai-
p£i T« via T8 $£», Ti,} cfjla >.£i%oyn<ra^ ^uaiarn^ix. Contra Mar-
cellum, vol. i. p. 33.

•f- To?£ Totvov, Yivwiz EKYt^urJov ccvJoi Hcclcx, Tviv oizufjLsvnv aiTuaav^
amaii n^BfXio, w. Ser. 61. Opera, vol. 5. p. 8og.

S3 ^' herefies

262 TheGcniile ChrifAans Book III.

** hercfies did not rife till after the time of
*' the apoflles ^'^/'

That the common people among chrif-
tians were adually unitarians in the early
a2:es, and believed nothing of the pre-exift-
ence or divinity of Chriit before the
council of Nice, we have as exprefs a tefli-
mony as can be defired in the cafe. Thefe
fublime dodlrines were thought to be above
their comprehenfion, and to be capable of
being underftood and received by the learned
only. This we fee moft clearly in the ge-
neral firain of Origen's writings, who was
himfelf a firm believer, and a zealous de-
fender, of the pre-exiftence and divinity of
Chrift.

*^ This,'* fays he, *^ we ought to under-
** fland, that, as the law was a fhadow of
*' good things to come, fo is the gofpel
*^ as. it is underftood by the generality.
^* But that v^hich John calls the everlaft-
*' ing gofpel, and which may be more
** properly called xhtfpiritualy inftruds the

* Et hoc, cum nondum hagreticce peftcs acriores pro-
rupifTcnt. Kpill. i, Opera, p. 211. 219.

'* intelligent

Chap. XIII. originally XJn it an an . 263

** intelligent very clearly concerning the
** Son of God. Wherefore the gofpel mud
** be taught both corporeally and fpiritaally,
** and when it is neceflary we muft preach
*' the corporeal gofpel, faying to the carnal,
*' that we know nothing but Jefus Chrift
** and him crucified. But when perfons
** are found confirmed in the fpirit, bring-
*' ing forth fruit in it, and in love with
** heavenly wifdom, we muft impart to
** them the logos returning from his bo-
*' dily ftate, in that he was in the begin-
*^ ning with God-^."

'* Some are adorned with the loo;os itfelf,
** but others with a logos which is a-kin to
** it, and feeming to them to be the true

rm (ji£»>ovlm ayaSwv, vtto th hcc7 cxM^siav }cocliX'y7€>^>^c/xsvii vo^
dnT^fjuvuVj x% }y £UixyyE>.iov CKiav uvr/]^iuv x^^^^ hloxanei, to vo-
f/Li^OfjLEVOv VTTO "sjocvicov Tuv svluyxavovlcov vo£icr^ai .- oh (pyi(Xiv laavvr^c evaff
7f^^ov aiwwov, ousicoi av Ae^^ncro^EVOV "ssveuuoclixov, cr<x(pag 'Ssa^iTVKTi
TOi; voaa-i la 'sravloi evccttiov 's^s^i UiH ts ^sh. — Aiotteo avaynaiov
'Bveu/xalixa; x^ crco(/,oiliHcog %^jr<av;^£iv ' )y 07r-~'. fxsv %f>i to cro>(j(,ciiiHov
XYifiU<7(Tm wctyyiT^ov^ (pocaxovloi /zn^ev ti^Evai ron; aaoKixoii n Imav
X^irov kJ Tulov srau^cofji^Evov^ t^Igv nsoiyflsov • ettuv h Eu^E^cocn xaiyifia-*
fjCEVfii Ta -srvey/xoli, ^ Kcc^7ro(popiivlE<; ev aJ?co, e^uvIe^ T8 apoiviH <jo(pia<;,
fidoc^olEov avloig th T^oya^ £7rav£A^ov©- airo ra (jE-jacKcoa'^ai^ E(p o rv
evct^X^ 'S7^Qg t'ov Bm, Comment, injohan. vol. 2. p. 9.

S 4 '* logos 5

264 The Gentile Chrifiians Book III.

" logos; who know nothing but JefusChrift
** and him crucified, who look at the word
*^made flefh^."

" There are/' fays he, ** who partake of
" logos which was from the beginning, the
*' logos that was with God, and the logos
** that was God, as Hofea, Ifaiah, and Jere^
** miah, and any others that fpeak of hiqi
** as the logos of God, and the logos that
" was with him ; but there are others who
*^know nothing but Jefus Chrift and him
^* crucified, the logos that was made flefh,
** thinking they have every thing of the
*^ logos when they acknowledge Chrift ac-
** cording to the flefli. Such is the multi-
** tude of thofe who are called chriftians -f*/*

* O: ftsv yajp avi(a tw Xoy^j K£}C0(TfjLiwl<xi, O; Je fsja^aueiixsva nvt

Xp^^<^v^ xj Tx7ov irau^o)fji.£VQVi 01 tov T^oyo vaa^fccc opavleg. Com-
ment. vol.2, p. 49.

•f Ouloi TOivuv 01 fjisv Tive; fjL{}£X,^<nv avis ra bv ap%>j Xoys, xj 'sipog rav
^£0V ^oya, ><J Sea Xoyji, cottte^ uctyje x) Yia-aictg y^, le^sixiag^ )y £< Tig sle^
roiiilov eaulov 'usa^ZTY.o'iv wj tov ^oyov zvpia^ y\ tov Koyov yevs<r^ai 'zs^o^
aulov . E?Epo» ^z 01 fin^ev Ei^olsg £j/x»i Iwav x^iTov ^ ts7ov etccu^co/xevov ^
TOV yivQfJLEVOv (TOL^Hx ^oyov, TO 'ujoiv vof/.i^Qvl£g Eivui ra ?^oya j(^f<rovx«7a
ca^)ia (JLQVOV yivu7;iiia-i . Ti,7o h eti to "siM^^ twv 'sjettitevxevm vo^i-
^oij.vim» Comment, in Johan. vol. 2. p. 49.

3 Agair],

Chap. XIII. originally Unitarian. 265

Again, he fays, '^ the multitudes*' (i. e.
the great mafs or body) ** of believers are
** inftruded in the fhadow of the logos,
** and not in the true logos of God, which
*^ is in the open heaven*/*

But nothing can be more decifive than
the evidence of TertuUian to this purpofe,
who, in the following paffage, which is
too plain and circumftantial to be mifun-
derftood by any perfon, pofitively afferts,
though with much peevifhnefs, that the
unitarians, who held the dodtrine of the
divinity of Chrift in abhorrence, were the
greater part of chriftians in his time.

** The iimple, the ignorant, and un-
'* learned, who are always the greater part
^* of the body of chriftians, fince the rule
** of faith," meaning, probably, theapoftles
creed, ** transfers the worfhip of many
** gods to the one true God, not under-
^^ ftanding that the unity of God is to
*^ be maintained but with the oeconomy;
^' dread this ceconomy 5 imagining that

Is'jilah Comment, in Johan. vol. 2. p. 52.

'' this

266 ^Jihe Gentile Chriftians Book III.

*^ this number and difpofition of a trinity is
*''a diviiion of the unity. They, there*
*^ fore, will have it that we are w^orfliippers
*' of two, and even of three Gods, but that
** they are the worfhippers of one God
*« only. We, they fay, hold the monarchy.
*< Even the Latins have learned to bawl
** out for the monarchy, and the Greeks
** themfelves will not underltand the oeco-
^^ nomy *."

It is hardly poilible in any words to de-
fcribe the ftate of things more clearly than

* Simpllccs enim quippe, ne dixerim imprudentes ct
idiotse, quae major femper credent! um pars eft, qiioniam
et ipfa regula fidei a pluribus diis feculi, ad unicum et
deum verum transfert; non inttlligentes unicum quidem,
fed cum fua oeconomia cfTc credcndum expavefcunt ad
ceconomiam. Numerum et difpofitionem trinitatis, divi-
fionem prtefumunt unitatis; quando unltas ex femetipfa
dcrivans trinitatem, non deftruatur ab ilia, fed adminlftre-
tur. Itaquc duos et tres jam jaditant a nobis praedicari,

fe vero uiiius dei cultores pra^fumunt. Quafi non et

unitas inrationaliter collegia, haerefim faciat, trinitas ratio-
naliter expenfa, veritatem conftituat. Monarcbiam, in-
quiunt, tcnemus. Et ita fonum vocaliter exprimunt etiam
Latini, etiam opicl, ut putes illos tam bene inrjlligere mo-
narchiam, quam enunciant. Sed monarcbiam fonare ftu-
dent Latini, ceconomiam intclligere nolunt etiam Graeci,
Ad Praxeam, fedh 3. p. 502.

Tertulliaa

C II A P . X 1 1 1 . originally JJn it art a n, 26 j

Tertullian here does. It is the language of
ftrong feeling and complaint, the cleared of
all proofs that he did not mif-ftate things on
that fide, as it would have been for the pur-
pofe of his argument to have reprefented the
unitarians as being inconfiderable on account
of their numbers, as well as defpicable on
account of their want of learnins:.

Whoever Tertullian meant by the y?;;?-
plices and idiofcs, for any thing that appears,
he meant the whole body of them. His
language is general and unlimited. How-
ever, I am far from being willing to con-
ftrue him rigorouily, and am ready to allow
that fome of the fimple and unlearned per-.
fons he defcribes mi'^ht profefs to believe
the dodrine of the trinity, though he fays,
nothing of it. But, making all reafonable
deduftions on this account, he aflerts a pal-
pable fah^ehood, and againft himfelf, if a
very great majority of them were not uni-
tarians.

On the whole, it is impoflible not to
infer from this pafTage, that, in the time of
Tertullian, the great body of unlearned
irhriftians were unitarians. Common fenfe

cannot

2 68 T^he Gentile Chrljlians Book III,

cannot put any other conftrudtion on this
paffage, and Tertullian is far from being
fingular in this acknowledgment. It is
made, in different modes, by feveral of the
Fathers, even later than the age of Ter-
tullian.

That Tertullian confidered the more
fimple and unlearned people as thofe among
whom the unitarian dodlrine was the mofi:
popular, is evident from his faying, that
*' the tares of Praxeas grew up, while many
** flept in the fimplicity of dod:rine*/'

That the word idiota in Latin, or <3"ia,7yij
in Greek, fignifies a man fimply unlearned^
and not a fool^ would be an affront to the
literature of my readers to attempt to prove.

Athanafms alfo, like Tertullian, acknow-
ledged that the unitarian dodrine was very
prevalent among the lower'clafs of people
in his time. He calls them the oi 'mo-k-Koi^ the
many, and defcribcs them as perfons of low
underftanding. '* It grieves," he fays,
'* thofe who ftand up for the holy faith,

* Fruticavcrant avenae Praxeans hie quoque fuper-
reminat:E, dormientibus multis in fimplicitate dotSlriiiie.
Ad rraxcam, lib. j. p. 5U.

'' that

Chap. XIII. originally Unitarian. 269

*' that the 7nultltude, and efpecially perfons
" of low underRanding, fliould be infe6led
*' with thofe blafphemies. Things that
** are fublime and difficult are not to be ap-
*' prehended, except by faith ; and ignorant
*' people miift fall, if they 'cannot be per-
** fuaded to reft in faith, and avoid curious
** queftions '^."

This being the language of complaint, as
well as that of Tertullian,it may be tjhc more
depended on for exhibiting a ftate of things
very unfavourable to what was called the
orthodoxy of that age. And it was not the
dodrine of x\rius, but that of Paulus Samo-
fatenfis, that Athanafius is here complain--
ing oi.

Thefe humble chriftiaiis of Origen, who got

no farther than the Jloadow of the logos. ^ the

fimplices, and idiot^e of Tertullian, and the ^^d'r-

foris of low underjtanding of Athanafius, were

ffvvss'iv. Tex, ycc^ (xsyay^x x^ '^va-naicx.MTflx ruv 'sjoayaalav zitrEi 7yi

iriTrliia-iv^ ei (/,n 'sisia^EiEv Ey.ixsvm Tn 'Sjirsi, y^ rag ^^^oiE^yng ^-^incr^ii;
vil^ETEa^ai. De Incarnatione verbi contra Fauliim Sa-
mpfatenfem, Opera, vol. i- p- 591.

probably

270 The Gentile Chrijlians Book III.

probably the fimplkes credentium of Jerom,
who, he fays, *' did not underftand the fcrip-
** turcs as became their majefty/* For had
thcfe fiinplc chriftians (within the pale of
the church) inferred from what John fays
cf the logos, an-d from what Chrifl fays of
himfelf, that he was, perfonally confidered,
equal to the Father, Jerom v/ould hardly
have laid, that '* they did not understand
** the fcriptures according to their ma-
" jefty,*' for he himfelf would not pretend
to a perfedt knowledge of the myftery of the
'* trinity. " For thefe fimple chriflians,"
he fays, ** the earth of the people of God
** brought forth hay, as for the heretics it
** brought forth thorns *." For the intel-
ligent, no doubt, it yielded richer fruits.

From all thefe paiTages, and others quoted
before, I cannot help inferring, that the
dodtrine of Chrift being any thing more

* Quod dicitur fupsr tcrram populi mei, fpinjE et
fcenum afcendent, refcrre potefc et ad hxreticos, et ad
fimpliccs quofque credentium, qui non ita fcripturam Intel"
ligunt ut illius convenit majedati. Unde fingula firigulis
coaptavimus, ut terra populi dci haereticis fpinas, imperiiis
quibufque ecclefue fuenum afFciat. Jerom in Ifai. xxxii.
20. Opera, vol. 4. p. iiS.

I than

Chap. XIII. originally Unitarians. 271

thaa a man, the whole dodlrine of the eter-
nallogosy who was in God, and who was God,,
was long confidered as a more abftrufe and
refined principle, with which there was no
occafion. to trouble the common people;
and that the docftrine of the fimple huma-
nity of Chrift continued to be held by the.
common people till after the time of Atha-
nafius, or after the council of Nice. And if
this was the cafe then, we may fafely con--
elude, that the unitarians were much more
numerous in a more early period, as it is
well known that they kept lofing, and not
gaining ground^ for feveral. centuries.

CHAP

272

The Gentile Chnjiiajis Book IIL

CHAPTER XIV.

An Argument for the Novelty of the DoElrine
of the Trinity^ from the Manner in which it
was taught and received in early Times,

^npHE fabjeft of this chapter properly
belongs to the Twelfth, as it relates to
a circumftance from which it may be inferred^
that the unitarian dodrine was held by the
the majority of chriftians in the early ages ;
but I referve it for a diftintft confideration
in this place, becaufe it requires a more
particular difcuflion, and will receive much
light from what was advanced both in the
Twelfth and Thirteenth chapters.

One proof of the antiquity of a doftrine is
its being found among the common people,
in preference to the learned; the former
being the leaft, and the latter the moft apt
to innovate; fo that from the dodlrine of
the fimple humanity of Chrift being held by
the common people in the time of Tertul-

iian.

Chap. XIV. originally Unitarians. zj^

Han, Origen, and Athanafius, it may be con-
cluded with certainty, that it was the doc-
trine which they had received from their
anceftors, and that it originated with the
apoftles themfelves.

There is alfo another mark by v/hich we
may diftinguiih what opinions are neWy and
what are oU^ whenever they are apprehend-
ed to be of much confequence • and that is
by the niannerin which they are advanced by
the patrons of them, and that in which they
are received by thofe who difapprove of
them. The innovator will be timid and
modeft, and the aflerter of an old opinion
will be bold and confident. A new opi-
nion will alarm and terrify ; but an old one
will be treated with refped:. This maxim
we fee exemplified every day, and in no cafe
more remarkably than with refned to thefe
very dodrines of the pre-exiftence and di-
vinity of Chrift.

If we look back into the flate of thines ^
in this country about a century, or half a
century ago, we {hall find the trinitarians
fliocked at the dodrine of the humanity
of Chrift, and endeavouring to bear it down
.Vol, IIL T with

274 The Gentile Chrijiians Book IIL

with the greateft confidence and violence.
On the other hand, all the defences of what
is called the Socinian dodtrine, were written
Vv'ith the greatejfl modefty, and with the air
and manner of an apology. Let us now, by
this maxim, judge how things ftood with
refpedl to this very doctrine in the time of
Juftin Martyr, Origen,and TertuUian.

As the doctrine of the humanity of
Chrift was then chiefly held by the common,
people, who were not writers, and as no
work of any unitarian, written after the
controverfy was ftarted, has been preferved
to us, we labour under great difadvantages
in this refped. But notwithftanding this,
circumftances enow may be collected from
the writings of the trinitarians, to enable
us to judge how both themfelves, and the
unitarians, thought and felt with refpe6l to
it; and circumftances furniflied in this in-
diredl manner by adverfaries, are often the
leaft fufpicious intimations of the real ftate
of things.

On this principle, it will, I think, fuffi-
clently appear, that it was with great diffi-
culty that the generality of chriftians were

recon-

Chap. XIV. originally Unitarians. 275

reconciled to the dodrine of the deity of
Chrift, and that of the trinity in any form,
it is evident, that the lower ciafs of chrif-
tians v/as much ftaggered by It, and exceed-
ingly offended when they did hear of it 1
which could never have been the cafe if it
had then been fuppofed to have been the
dodrine of the apoftles, and to have been
delivered by them as the moft effential ar-
ticle of chriftian faith, in which light it is
now rep re fen ted. Such terms as fcandali^
%arey expavefcere, &c. ufed by Tertullian,
Novatian, &:c. and ^vapaaaEiv, &c. by Origen,
can only apply to the cafe of fome ;^<?i;^/ and
alarming dodtrine, fomething that men had
not been accuftomed to. We may, there--
fore, take it for granted, that it had not
been much heard of among the common
people at leaft ; and if fo, that it had never
been taught by the apoftles.

Admitting that the apoftles had taught
any dodrines of a peculiarly fublime nature
(which the Fathers pretend to have been the
cafe with refped: to the pre-exiftence and
divinity af Chrift) yet, as all their teaching
was in public, and there were no fecrets
T 2 among

276 T^he Gentile Chrifi'wns Book III.

among them (Paul, for inftance, having fo-
lemnly affured the elders at Ephefus, that
he had not fimnned to declare unto them the
whole council of God) the common people
mull at leaft have heard of thefe fublime
dovftrines, and have been accuftomed to the
found of the language in which they were
expreffed. And had they known that thofe
dodtrines had been taught by the apoftles to
anvof their bodv, though not to themfclves,
they would have learned to refpecl what they
did not underftand, and was not meant for
their ufe. They could never have been
of ended 2x\^ fiaggered qX things which they
and their fathcx^s before them had always
been in the hearing of.

I fliall not recite in this place all thepaf-
fages which ftow hov/ much the common
people were offended at the dodrines of the
pre-exiftence and divinity of Chrift. Many
of them have already paiTed before the eye
of the reader, and many others will be pro-
duced in different connexions. It will be
found, that even at and after the council of
Nice, the unitarians continued to fpeak
their fentiments with the greateft freedom,

and

Chap. XIV. originally Unitarians 2 ^y

and always exclaimed againft the prevailing
dodlrines, as no lefs new than abfurd.
Little were thofe writers who have inad-
vertently recorded thefe circumflances aware
of the value of the information which they
were hereby giving to pofterity. Had Ter-
tullian, Origen, and others, thought more
highly than they did of the common people,
we fhould probably never have known from
them what their opinions and feelings were.
But, happily for us, thefe writers thought
meanly of the common people, and fpeak-
ing of them with contempt, or pity, have,
without defign, given us very ufeful and
valuable lights into this very important cir-
cumllance in the hlftory of their times.

I ihall now give an account of the man-
ner which the dodlrines of the pre-exiftence
and divinity of Chrift were firfl: propofed by
the mod learned and diftinguiflied perfons
of their age ^ and we fhall find that it was
with much diffidence, and the air of an
apology^ as if they were fenfible that the doc-
trines were newy and might not eafily re-
commend themfelves. For this purpofe I
(hall, in the firfl place, produce an extradl
T 3 frona

278 ^he Gsntile Chrifilans Book III,

from the writings of Juftin Martyr, who
was probably the firft who publicly main-
tained thefe doctrines.

He reprefents Trypho as faying, con-
cerning the dodlrine of the incarnation,
*' it is (o extraordinary, that it can never
*' be proved. That this Chrill v/as a God,
** exifting before the ages, and then born
** a man, is not only extraordinary, but ri-
" diculous. To this I anfwered, I know
** that this dodrine appears ftrange, and
*^ efpecialiy to thofe of your race,'' that is,
to the Jews*. It is evident from this paf-
fage, that Juftin thought that this dodtrinc
would appear ftrange to others, befides the
Jews ^ and as he proceeds, it will appear
that he took care not to lay too much ftrefs
on this new dodrine, left he fhould not
be able to prove it fatisfadlorily.

'' It will not follow that he is not the
'* Chrift, though I fhould not be able to prove

* Yia^c^cic; rig ya^ 'zsolE km an d^uvafitvO- o'ha; aTro^eix^wai
ooKEi (MOi Eivai . ro yaP 7<tyuv as, nz^HTiotoyjiv Sscv C'^ot rs^Q aimc^
Talcv zov xfifcv, eila hm yiwr^YWtxi cn^uTTcv y{YOf/.Evcv vTrof^Eivouy xcti

xai fjicopcv. Kayy 'sr^og raJIoc, e^/^v, oto' oii 'crapaoci©- 0 ^07©-
fex£» Enw, Hal /^taAir« to»j «7r& Td yrvj;? y/u&;y. Did. p^ 2325 233.

'' that

Chap. XIV. originally Unitarians, 2j\)

** that he pre-exifted, as God, the foil of
^* him that made ai! things, and that he
** became a man by the virgin ; it being
** proved that he is the Chrift, the Son of
*^ God, whoever he was ; though I fhould
** not prove that he pre-exifled, but was a
*' man of the fame paffions with ourfelves,
** having flelh, and being fabjedl to his
*' Father's will. It will be right to fay,
" that in this only I have been miftaken,
^* and not that he is not the Chrift, though
** he fhould appear to be a man born as other
** men are, and to be made Chrift by elec-
*' tion. i'or there are fome of our race,
** who acknowledge him to be Chrift, but
** hold that he was a man born like other
*' men. With them I do not agree, nor
^^ fhould I do fo, though ever fo many,
*' being of the fame opinion, fhould urge
*^ it upon me ; becaufe we are commanded
** by Chrift himfelf, not to obey the teach-
' '* ings of men, but what was taught by the
** holy prophets and himfelf." Trypho
fays, ** They v/ho fay that he was a man,
** born like other men, and that he became
** Chrift by eleftion/' i. e. the appointment
T4 of

sSo The Gentile Chrilitans Book IIL

of God, " feem to hold a docSrine more
** credible than yours. For all of us ex-
*' pe6l that Chrifl will be a man, born like
'* other men, and that Elias will come to
*^ anoint him. If, therefore, this perfon
** be the Chrifl, he muft by all means be
" a man born like other men*/'

This diffidence of Jujftin agrees remark-
ably well with the fuppofition, that the

* Ov.i a,7roX7,ijlM TO rcinlov Eivai x^ltov ra ^ea eccv cctto^bi^m /xyj
CuwiJbai oil XM -STf sTWf^fv, vio; la 'S^omla rav c^xv ^£og wv, )tai ysys-
vn7(zi av^ouTTcg ^la rvg 'Sja^QsvH, AKKa eh 'sscc-Jlo; a7ro^Ei}iyu/J£)'ii oil
m; eriv o xf rcj o ra Sfa, onj hIq; e-ai, sav ^e fAn aTrohiKVvco cJi
Cufa;r>i5%£ hm ysirnBriVM ai/fi^^oTT©- c^oi07rah;r.(MiV, (Txokcx, ^yjcv, xcila
Tuv T^ 'HJal^o; /3s>vKv, vTrBiizmv^ sv thIu '^ffsTrXczvno-^ai /ue i^cvov >.Ey£iv
ciKCiicv, a/.\ci fx-^ a^vEicrhai oil ifio; £riv o x^^^cgt ecxv ^ccivyilai cj; av-
6^co7r(^ c| av^^tSlm yEvvrihi;^ kdli ty.'hoy/] yEvo^jnv^ £ig top %f /rov siusii
aTToOEiKwi^M. Kai yap uai riveg, <a pXci f^f/ov, aTTO th Vfjule^H
ysvsg Of/.oXoyiivlEg aum x^^^ov Eivai^ av^uTTov ^e £| av9^o)7rcov yzvo-
fXEVov a7rc(pa'.vofX£voi, 0<j, a auvli^Efxcci^ a^ av 'uiXeitoi Ta'JIa fxoi ooia-

aCC^tg EITTOIBV, ETTEi^)! UK AvQ^aTTElOi; '^l^uyiJUXO'l fi£!i27.£'jarfA£0ci VIZ avlii

Ty %ftra 'sr? /SccrSa/ , aAAa roig ^ict rm /MXKaoiuv 'sr^o^/ilwv m^'JX'
^fjai Kai Gi avis Qi^xx^£i<Ji, Kcw o T^u^uv. e/mi /xev "^OK^aiv^ EiTtEv,
01 "KiyzVizc, avQ^uTTCv yEycveim avlov Kai kocI EKXoym uEKoicrZcci, kcu
X^^^oSi yEyovvjui, 'sjiOoivuIe^ov vfxuv Asyfiv, tuv raulu aTTE^ (pns Aeyov-
%)> . Hai ya^ 'u^auEc, n/AEig rov y^^iTOV av9^co7rcv f| avO^ccTTuv 'sr^ocr^o-
uct^fMEV ysvnaECf^ai. Kai rov E?.rai/ %f<trai aolcv i.'h^kvia . £av h iBog
(paivr^ai av o x^^^o;^ ai-Q^uTTOv iMv e| av6§0iz:cv ysvcfAEvov eh ^ccfiog
STiiracr^ai oeu Dial. p. 233.

unitarians

Chap. XIV. originally Unitarians. 281

unitarians v/ere originally no lefs than the
whole body of chriftians, and that the tri-
nitarians were the innovators, appearing at
firft modeft and candid, as was natural while
they were a fmall minority, though they
grew bold and imperious when they became
the majority.

Independently of any nice conftrudion
of this palTage, v/e may fafely fay, that if
the dodrine of the fimple humanity of
Chrift had not been at leafl: a very general
opinion in the tim.e of Juftin, he would
never have fpoken of it with fo much ten-
dernefs and refped: as he has done, conG-
dering how very different it was from his
ov/n opinion, his defence of which has
fuffi.ciently the appearance of an apology.
He even intimates fome degree of doubt
Vv'ith refped: to his opinion, when he fays
that, if he Aould not be able to prove it,
the fundamental dodrine of chriftianity^
viz. that of the meffiahihip of Jefus, would
not be affeded by it. Why fhould he pro-
vide this retreat, if he had not had fom.c
fecret fufpicion of the ground on which he
flood. He calls the unitarians yS/;^^, as if

z they

282 T^he Gentile Chrijilam Eoofc III.

they were the minority 5 but the term is
indefinite, and may apply to the majority 1
and from the complexion of the whole
paffage, I have no doubt but that Juftin
was aware that it was fo, and that, with a
view to this, he added, that he (hould not
be influenced by that conlideration.

That Juftin's language is that of a man
who knew that he was advancing a new
opinion, is evident, as I faid, from the
general air and complexion of it ; and the
more we attend to it, the more fenfible w®
fliall be of the juilnefs of this conflruftion.

1. Let it be confidered, that in this place,
as well as in his writings in general, he
labours the proof of the pre-exiflence of
Chrift, (hewing that it is confonant to the
principles of Platonifm, and alfo deducible
from the writings of Mofes,and other parts
of the Jewifli fcriptures, without referring
to any other writer in fupport of what he
advances.

2. He does not ufe a fingle acrimonious
expreffion againft thofe who differed from
him with refped to it, which is juft as any
man would do who fhould write in defence

of

Chap. XIV. originally Unitarians. 283

of a novel, or not very prevalent opinion^ '
and one, of which hitnfelf w.\s the princi-
pal abettor.

3. He talks of not being overborne by the
authority of any number of men, even his
fellow chriftians, but would adhere to the
words of Chrift, and the fenfe of fcripture^
which is a ftile almoft peculiar to thofc
whofe opinions are either quite novel, or at
leaft not very prevalent.

4. The phrafe, " neither do I agree w^ith
*' the majority of chriftians, who may have
*' objeded to my opinion," which is nearly
the moft literal rendering of the paffage ^
(though I would not be underftood to lay
much ftrefs on that circumftance) will na-
turally be conftrued to mean that the ma-
jority actually did make the objedion, or
that Juftin fufpeded they might make it.

When I confider thefe circumftances, and
alfo how apt all perfons are to make their
own party more numerous than it really is,
I am inclined to think that even, if the
paflage might bear fuch a conftrudion as
that Juftin meant to infinuate that the ma-
jority were with him, yet that it would not
I be

284 5"^^ Gentile Chriftians Book III*

be the moft natural conftrudtion, or a fuf-
ficient authority to conchide that fuch was
the fad:. 1 therefore think that, upon the
whole, the paffage has all the appearance
of an apology for an opinion different from
that which in his time was commonly re-
ceivcd on the fubjed:.

I am no doubt, influenced in my con-
ftruSion of this particuliar paffage by the
perfuafion that I have, from other inde-
pendent evidence, that the unitarians were
in fad:, the majority of chriftians in the
time of Juilin|^ that he therefore knew this
to be the cafe, and could not mean to in-
finuate the contrary. Another perfon hav-
ing a difierent perfuafion concerning the
ftate of opinions in that age, will naturally
be inclined to put a different conflrudion
upon this paflage. In this cafe I only
wifh that he would fufpend his judgment
till he has attended to my other arguments,
and afterwards he may perhaps fee this
paffage in the fame light in which 1 do.

The word vev^- I think, refers to natural
defcent; and I therefore conclude that Juf-
tin here meant not chriftians in general,

but

Chap. XIV. originally Unitarians. 285

but Gentile chriftians in particular; be-
caufe, as he is oppofing the opinion con-
cerning Chrift, which made him to be a
man born of men ^ not to the dodrine of the
miraculous conception, but only to his pre-
exiflence (though I think it probable, that
moft, if not all, who believed in the fimple
humanity yVvtvQ alfo in that age believers in the
natural birth of Chrift) the only idea that he
had in his mind, and to which he attended,
was that oi \\is Jimple humanity ^ and we have
pofitive evidence that this was the dodlrine
of all the Jewifli chriftians, fo that he
could not fpeak of fome of them holding
it and others not. Whereas the Gentile
chriftians were divided on that fubjed: ;
and fome of them, even later than this, viz.
in the time of Origen, held that m the
ftrideft fenfe of the expreflion, Jefus was
a man born of man, being the fon of Jofeph
as well as of Mary. I therefore think that
Juftin meant the Gentile chriftians, omit-
ting the Jewifti chriftians, whofe fentiments
he might fuppofe to have been well known
to the learned Jew, with whom he was

con-

286 The Gentile Chrljlians Book III.

converfing. It was as if he had faid, Not
only do thofe chriftians who are of your
race, viz. Jews, believe Chrift to be a mere
man, born as other men are, but there are
alfo fome of our race, viz. Gentile chrif*-
tians, who hold the fame opinion.

I fliall conclude this article with obferv-
ing, that, without attending to minute cri-
ticifrns, it is quite fufficient for my pur-
pofe, that thefe ancient unitarian chrif-
tians, whether they held the miraculous
conception or not, whether they were Jews
or Gentiles, or whether Juftin meant to
reprefent them as ftridly fpeaking the ma-
jority of chriftians, or otherwife, were not
treated by him as heretics. From this cir-
cumftance alone, it may be concluded, that
they were very numerous, becaufe, when-
ever unitarians have not been very nu-
merous, and have not made a refpedtable
figure among chriftians, they have always
be.en confidered with great abhorrence, and
have been cut off from communion with
thofe of the orthodox perfuafion.

With

Chap. XIV. originally Unitarians, 287

With what rancour does Eufebius treat
this clafs of chrirtians, both in his Hiftory,
and in his Treatife againft Marcellus of
Ancyra, when we know from Athanafius,
and other authorities, that they were at that
time very numerous (though among the
lower clafles of people) and probably in all
parts of the chriftian world.

When thefe things are duly confidered,
it can hardly be imagined but that, let this
paflage in Juftin be conftrued in any man-
ner that the words can poiTibly bear, it will
be fufficiently to my purpofe, and authorize
all the ufe that I have ever made of it.
But I can very well fpare the pafTage al-
together, thinking that I have evidence
enough of my general pofition without it.

If we confider the time in which Juftiin
wrote, viz. about A. D. 140, that is, about
eighty years after the time of the apoftles,
and compare it with the account that Tcr-
tullian and others give of the ftate of opi-
nions among the Jews and Gentiles in
their time, we can hardly doubt (whether
Juftin confeffes it or not) that the doc-
trine of the iimple humanity of Chrift

muft

2 88 "The Gentile Chnjlians Book III.

mull have been the prevailing one in his
time. According to the ancient Fathers,
the Jews, meaning the Jewifli chriftians,
were fo fully perfuaded concerning the
limple humanity of their Meffiah, that the
apoftles did not chufe to inform them, ex-
cept in an indirect manner, that Chrift
was any thing more than a man, and the
Gentiles were drav/n by the Jews into the
fame opinion ; and though John was fup-
pofcd to fpeak more plainly, v^e find no
eftc:ft from it.

Since, therefore, it was only an indired:
evidence of the divine or fuper-angelic na-
ture of Chrift, that the Jewifli chriftians
(by whom the gofpel was communicated
to the Gentiles) were ever favoured with ;
can it be thought probable, io highly averfe
as the account itfelf frates the Jews to
have been to the idea of any fuper-human na-
ture in Chrift, that tiiey fhould» by their own
reafoning alone on the fubjed:, have gene-
rally abandoned their favourite dodrinc in fo
fliorta time as fourfcore years ? Or, if from
fome moft unaccountable ca^ufe, and with-
out any perfon of great authority to lead

them.

CiiAP. XIV. originally Unitarians. 289

them to it (for no fuch authority can we
trace) they fhould have abandoned their
original and favourite doiftrine, is it pro-
bable that they would have been fo ex-
tremely ad:ive and fuccefsful in the propa-
gation of their new opinion, and withal
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
refped: for each other ? Is a period of
eighty years naturally fufficient for thefe
two fucceffive changes ?

But if we take another well authenti-
cated circumftance, we fliall be obliged to
reduce this fliort fpace (too fhort as it al-
ready is for the purpofe) to one ftill fhorter.
Hegefippus, as explained by Valefius, in his
notes on Eufebius's ecclefiailical hiftory,
fays, that the church of Jerufalem con-
tinued 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 loo, or perhaps 110, for
his reign began A, D. 98, and ended A. D.
Vol. IIL U 117

290 T^he Gentile Chrijiians Book III.

117. Knowing, therefore, from other cir-
Gumftances, what this purity of chriftian
faith was, and what Hegefippus muft have
known it to be, we have only the fpace of
forty, or perhaps, thirty years for fo great
a change. So rapid at that particular pe-
riod muft have been that movement, which
we find by experience to be naturally one
of the very floweft in the whole fyftem
of nature, viz. the revolution of opinions
in great bodies of men. Can it then be
thought probable that, confidering the
Jewifli and Gentile chriftians as one body,
the generality of them fhould have aban-
doned the dodlrine 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 cnicified man for their
faviour, and firmly believing the dodtrinc
of the pre-exiftence of all foulsy and of
their defcent into human bodies, fhould .
have begun to fancy that Chrift muft have
had fome origin fuperlor to that of other
men, that this fliould firft of all produce

the

Chap. XIV. originally Unitarians, 291

the opinions of the Gnoftics, who thought
that the Chrijly who came down from hea-
ven, was quite diftindl from the man Jefus^
and felt nothing of his pains or forrows ; or
that thefe opinions being rejefted through
the authority of the apoftles, the generality
of chriftian teachers or bifliops (many of
whom were educated in the Platonic fchool
at Alexandria) (hould afterwards apply the
Platonic dodrine of the logos to the fame
fubjed, and that by their influence, opi-
nions leading to the deification of Chrijl
fhould gradually gain ground among the
common people. But this muft have been
a work of timd fo that the majority of
chriftians could hardly have been infedted
with thefe principles fo early as the time
of Juftin Martyr.

Irenaeus, who wrote forty years after Juf-
tin, makes no mention of any Gentile uni-
tarians, in his works againft herefy, but only
of the Ebionites ; and what he fays of them
is a very fmall proportion of the whole of
his work. And almoft all the orthodox
Fathers, both before and after the council
U2 of.

292 ^he Gentile Chrifiians Book IIL

of Nice, make laboured apologies for their
feeming to teach the dodtrine of more Gods
than one. This circumftance is a fufRcient
indication that the trinitarians were then
the minority, as their violence and info-
lence afterwards fhows, that if they were
not the majority, at lead: they had the ad-
vantage oi power in their favour.

As the advocates for the dod:rines of the
pre-exiilence and divinity of Chrift, ad-
.vanced it with caution and with apology,
as being fenlible that they were not likely
to be well received ; fo, on the other hand,
it appears that the unitarians did exprefs
the greateft dread of them, as the introduc-
tion of polytheifm. Several inftances of this
have been produced already, and others will
appear in different connexions, efpecially '
when I fliall fliow the zeal with which the
ancient unitarians defended their tenets. But
I fhall in this place introduce a few others.

Origen fays, ** Becaufe it is probable that
'* fome will be offended with our faying, that
*' the Father being called the only true God,
*• there are other gods beiides him partaking

** of

Ghap. XIV. originally Unitarians, 293

** of his divinity*."' Novatian fpeaks of
the unitarians as Jcandalized at the do(flrine
of the divinity of Chriftf ." And the
ftate of things was not different about the
time of the council of Nice. Eufebius. in
his controverfy with Pvlarcellus, fays, ^' If
** they are afraid of making two Gods j;."
^^ Some for fear of introducing a fecond
** God, make the Father and the Son the
** fame ||.'* ** Marcellus, for fear of laying
" there are two Gods, denies the Son to be a
" feparate perfon §.'' And again, " But you

vav 7vi (xdox^ Ts ^ea yivoyLsvm. Comment, vol. 2. p. 47*

+ Sed quia obi u6tantesa(Jverrus veritatem Temper hasi^-
tici fincerae traditionis, et catholicas fidei controverfiam
folent trahere, fcandalizati In chriftum quod etiam cleus.
et per fcripturas adferatur, et a nobis hoc e fie credatur,
mcrito a nobis, ut omnis a fide noftra auferri poflit hsere •
tica calumnia, de eo quod et deus {\i Chriftus, fic eft dif-
putandum, ut nonimpediat fcriptura veritatem Cap. 30.
p. J 15.

X Ei 0£ (poQov auloig Z[X7rom^ im 'Soy, aca, di;o Ssaj avccyopevm ^o^:Tii.
Ec. Theol. lib. i. cap. ir. p. 69.

'SJols^a kJ uicv opicrafxEvoi, Ibid. cap. 3. p. 62.

§ O yW£v yap, ^E£i Ts fxr] ^uo Sf^',- sittsiv, tt.v apv,i7iv ra vn 'nj,,:.y-
Ca^Uloj TW VTToraaiV a^dm aula. Ibid, cap. 10. p. 69. '

U 3 ^'' arc

294 The Gentile Chrijiians Book III.

** are dreadfully afraid left you fhould be
" obliged to acknowledge two hypoftafes
*^ of the Father and Son */'

In fhort, it appears that the ancient uni-
tarians entertained the fame ^r^^^ of the doc-
trine of the divinity of Chrift, that the trini-
tarians of this day do of that of his fimple
humanity 5 a proof that each of them had
been brought up in the perfuafion of the opi-
nions they held, being the do(3:rine of their
anceftors, and of the apoftles. In this the
ancient unitarians could not be miftaken,
but the trinitarians of the prefent age may
very well be fo. Whether, therefore, we
confider the feelings of the unitarians, or
thofe of the trinitarians of the early ages,
we perceive evident traces of the former
maintaining an old opinion, and the latter
a new one.

%<Tei; isal^o; ^ vm Eiva^ o(M>^^vlaf Ec, Th^ol. lib. 2. cap. 7,

p. 109-

CHAP-

Chap. XV. ^ originally Unitarians. 295

CHAPTER XV.

ObjeBions to the preceding State of Things
conjidered.

^TpHAT I may conceal nothing from my
readers that can tend to throw any
light on this fubjed, I fliall fairly ftate
every objedlion that I have yet met with, to
any part of the evidence that I have pro-
duced.

SECTION I.

Of the Tejlimony ofEufebius to the Novelty of
the Unitarian DoBrine.

TT is alledged by Eufebius, the hiftoriaq,

or rather Caius (who is fuppofed to be

the author that he quotes, and who, Pho*

tius fays*, wrote The Little Labyrinth^

Tov T^ac^upiv^ov. — Tov >aQvpiv^oy Tm^tmy^a-^oiy O^tym^^ BTrei Tout
£u '^QiYifAa, Bib« fe£t» 48. p. 35.

y 4 which

296 The Gentile Chrijltans Book III.

which is thought to be the work that Eu-
febius copied from) is fo far from confirm-
ing this account of the great antiquity of the
unitarians, that he exprefsly afferts that
they were a rnodern fedt. That this charge,
with the evidence, may be fairly before the
reader, I fhall quote the paffage in which it
is contained at full length.

** Artemon made Chrift a ' mere man.
*' They who hold this dodrine pretend that
'* it is very ancient; for they fay that all
" the primitive chriftians, and the apoftles
" themfelves, received and taught it, and
" that the truth waspreferved till the time
** of Vidtor, the thirteenth bifliop of Rome
'* from Peter, but that it was corrupted in
<* the time of his fucceffor Viftorinus,
*« This might appear probable, if, in the
** firft place, the facred fcriptures were not
*' againfl it 5 and if there were not writings
** of chriftians now extant, older than the
*' time of Vidlor, which they wrote again ft
*' the heathens and againft herefies. I mean
" thofeof Juftin, Miltiades,Tatian, Clemens,
" and many others, in all of which Chrift is
** fpoken of as a God, Whois unacquainte4

** with

' Chap. XV. originally Unitarians, 29^7

*' with the writings of Irenaeus, Melito, and
*^ others, fpeaking of Chrift as God and
" man ? How many pfalms and hymns alfo
*' are there, written by chriftians from the
*' beginning, in which Chrift is celebrated

** as a God How were they not afhamed

*^ to fpeak thus falfely of Vidor, knowing
*' very well that Viftor excommunicated
*' Theodotus, the leader and father of that
*' God- denying herefy, who firft faid, that
*' Chrift was a mere man */'

* Try yoip Toi h'^m'Kaiizvw ai^Ediv -^iXoif av^pci>'n'ov yma^ai rev
ffcSlri^a (paaKHdOLV a 'Sjpo ^ssoyo^^ VBcolE^ia^Eiaav d'lEv^uvuv. ETTEi^rj
CEiivvvEiV ai^YW wj av apxoiiav oi raving vQe^-ov EUYiynlcxi. ^aa-i yao
Taj fXEv TnpoiEpng ocTtcxvlag t^ auis; ra; aTroToT^g 'mapEi'KyitpEvai te x^
li^i^axEvM Tuula, a vuv aloi "hEyaai • xj TElvipYia^ai tjjv aM^Eiav tjj
HYi^uyixcciog jU£%fi tw ^ikIo^o; %^ovi)i', wj »v rpiaHaiOEJiociog utto Hslps
EV l^cofjLYi ETTKTKOTrog . uTTo 3e Ts ^taSo^s aula Z£(pupiv8y 'mccpaHcxcc.
pax^ai TYiv oCKn^Eiav . nv ^'av luxcv nsiOavov to ^^yofASvov^ £i (jlv) 's^dcSiqv
fAEV avls'^iTflov avloig oci ^eiai ypoi(pai * iy o^eT^^uv h rivav sri ypccfi-
fxocla 'ispEcrQvlE^a rm BiJilopog %f oi^wv, a exeivoi 'srpog ret sOvn vTTep ryjg
a7\y]^ELag, }u 'mpog rag rols aipEUEig sypa^av . Afyoj ^e Isrivs xj M;^-
ria^H >t) TaliavH xj KMiJi.Evlcg >d ilEpm 'JzrAsioviJV ev oig aTraai '^EoXoyEi-
lai 0 >!;pJ5-oj. rayap E«^r]V5t<8 te «J MemIojvoj ;^ rm "KOiirm rig ay-
voEi $i^Ma, Seov k^ av^pcoTTOV HarafyE7\Xovla rov xp^'>'OV i '^a>>iJt.ci 3£
oaoi ^9 oi^ai aOiX<pcov a7rapxyi5 ^'^o 'snrcov ypa<p£i<iai^ rov "hoyov m Beh
rov Xf^^°^ vfxvaat ^EoXoyavlEg. Tlag ^e s« ai^avlai raula Binlopog na-
la-i^'EU^EJ-^i. anpi^ag sid'olsg^ oli Binlcop rov iHEvlEa ^eo^oIov rov apx'^yov
^ Tsa^tpa raulng mg apvmiSsH aTCorao'iag^ a'srsHvipv^E rng xoivoovta^^

'S^pcJIcv

298 The Gentile Chrijlians Book III.

In thefe paffages we have an account of
the claims of the ancient unitarians to the
high antiquity of their doftrine. And it
has been feen that, by the general acknow-
ledgment of the Fathers, and of Eufebius
himfelf, among the reft, that the firft doc-
trine that was taught by the apoftles, was
that of the finiple humanity of Chrift 5 and
that his divinity was very little known till it
was publifhed by John, after the death of
the other apoftles. Eufebius, therefore,
denying it in this cafe, is not at all to be re-
garded, fince it is contrary to all other evi-
dence, and alfo to the reafonof the thing, as
I have abundantly proved, unlefs he had
brought fome fufhcient proof to counteract
that evidence. What he has offered of this
kind I fhall diftindly confider, after I have
produced a paflage from Theodoret, in
which he alfo mentions the claim of the
unitarians to the antiquity of their dodtrine,
" Artemon,** he fays, '* taught that Chrift
^* was a mere man, born of a virgin, and ex-

^fcSlov Ei'TTOvla ^i>^ov av^pciiTTCV rov xpirov ; ti yap Baclap uoS avlag
i^ui e(ppov£i ug n Tticcv ^i^oca-Kei ^haa^myt-iay 'sjcog av a7ii^a>^i hzo^cio}f
jQv iY[$ aif£(T€ug raulm ^i^f^lrty- Hill. Jib, 5. cap. 28. p. 252.
g y celling

Chap. XV. originally Unitarians, 299

" celling the prophets in virtue. This, he
<* fays, the apoftles taught, perverting the
" fenfe of the facred fcriptures, but that
** thofe vi^ho came after them made a God of
" Chrift, w^ho was not God*." . It appears
alfo from Eufebius's anfwer to Marcellus,
that he alfo charged his opponents with
holding a new dodrine, and fcrupled not to
call that doftrine herefy f .

The firfl: argument of Eufebius is, that
the facred fcriptures are againft the unita-
rians. This, however, is a matter of opi'^
nton^ in which he might be, and I doubt not
was, miftaken. He then mentions the
writings of fome perfons who held the doc-
trines of the prc-exiftence and divinity of
Chrift, viz. Juftin, Miltiades, Tatian, and

7Ev>i(M£vov, Twv h 'is^oiprilcov apely] KpetTlova , rauja h ^ rag a7roro^»;

C£ fjLsi EKsivHf ^EiT^oyYio'oa rov xp^^^h ^^ ^"^^ ^^^v, Haer. Fab. lib. 2.
cap, 4. Opera, vol. 4. p. 220.

•f ^i^ov yap }C) TO) av^pamva >,oya> ofjLoiov, «%{ 3e viav a>.n^0;
Ko^vla xj v(pET(^<Xy Tov x^jfov Eivai o^JLOXoyEiv e^eXei . ;t| ETTEi^v} raulnf
tiTTE E'TrmEuj^g,^ yvy atpeq-ivt &c, Cojitra Marcellum, lib. r.
p. 19.

ClemenSo

300 The Gentile Chnliians Book III.

Clemens. But of thefe Juftin was the
oldeft, and it is not denied that he did hold
thofe dodlrines, being probably the firll
who advanced them. Who the Clemens
is that he mentions, be does not fay ^ but
had it been Clemens Romanus, it is pro-
bable that he would have placed him firft,
the reft being named in the order of time in
which they flourifhed ^ and befides, there
is nothing in the epiftle of Clemens that
is in the leaft favourable to thofe dodtrines.
Confequently, it muft have been Clemens
Alexandrinus that he intended, and there-
fore the higheft antiquity of the do(ftrine
of the divinity of Chrift that Eufebius
could prove, is that of Juftin.

Pearfon makes no difficulty of contra-
dicting Eufebius in this cafe. His oppo-
nent, Mr. Daille, having faid, if that ac-
count be true, he replies, ** He knew very
•« well that, ftriftly fpeaking, it was not
*« true ; for he knew many others, long
** before Theodotus, and not a few even
** before Ignatius, who taught the fame
^* hcrefy, a catalogue of whom may be k(tii

"' in

Chap. XV. originally Unitarians. 301

*^ in Epiphanius*," and whom he proceeds
to mention.

Eufebius's reply to Marcellus's charge
of novelty is equally unfatisflidtory, as he
only, in a general way, refers to writings
older than thofe of Origen, in all which he
fays he found the fame faith -f.

As to the hymns ufed by chriflians, and
faid by Eufebius to have been fro7?i the be^
ginning^ no inference can be fafely drawn
from them, becaufe divinity may be afcribed
to perfons in very different fenfes, and fome
of them very innocent ones, efpecially in

* Theodotum novifle rurfus pernego. Dallasus ipfe
dubitanter haec proponit, fi vera funt, inquit, quae Caius,
five alius apud Euiebium fcriptor vetuftiffimus dicit, Theo*
dotum fcilicet primum afTeruilTe Chriftum fuifle nudurn
liominem ; ipfe enim optiine novit base, fi flri6te fuman-
tur, vera non eiTe : novit alios quamplurimos diu ante
Theodotum, non paucos etiam ante Ignatium, eandeni
ha^refm promulgafle, quorum catalogus apud Epiphanium
legitur. Vindiciae, lib. 2. cap. 2. p. 24.

fiXTiKOig (jvyy^ai-iaa-iy e-^klux'Wu, smcrKOTrccv tb uai (Tuvo^uv f^^roAccif,
'srpo'TraAai yopcipEta-ocig, di uv Eig um aulog o rn; 'siiTEcog X'^i^^*i^
aTTo^eiHViPiM . UK o^^cog cc^a, ^ioi'^e^M^sv eiTTCov £7rivo£ia^ai Tnv vuv
ai^s(Tiv vTTo Tuv 3ia»«A7.o^-virf;r. CoHtra Msrcellum, lib. i.
p. 20.

the

302 ^be Gentile Chrijlians Book III,

the language of poetry ; and as to the an-
tiquity of thefe hymns, as the hiftorian has
not mentioned the age of them, it is very
poflible, for any thing that appears to the
contrary, that they might have been thofe
very hymns which were rejedted by Paulus
Samofatenfis on account of their novelty.

It is likewife alledged, that Pliny fays,
that '' the chriftians on a certain day, before
*< it was light, met to fing a hymn to Chrift
** as to God (or a God) ^.'' Bat as to thil
writer, if he had been told that hymns were
fung by chriftians in honour of Chrift,
being himfelf a heathen, he would natu-
rally imagine that they were fuch hymns
as had been compofed in honour of the
heathen gods, who had been men. He
would be far from concluding from that
circumftance, that Chrift was confidered
by his followers either as the fupreme God,
or as a pre-exiftent fpirit, the maker of the
world under God.

* AfRrmabant autem banc fuIfTe fummam vel culpre fuse,
vel erroris, quod efllnt foliti ftato die, ante lucem con-
venire ; carmcnqueChiiftOjquafi dco, diccre. Epift. 97.

SEC-

Chap. XV. criginally XJnitarlans. 303

SECTION IL

Of the Excommunication ofTheodotus by Vldlor.

^npHE argument that is urged with the
moft plaufibility againft the antiquity
of the unitarian doftrine, is that which is
drawn from the excommunication of Theo-
dotus, by Vicftor, bifhop of Rome, about
the year 200 ; as it may be faid, that this
bifhop, violent as he was, would not have
proceeded to the public excommunication
of a man whofe opinions were not gene-
rally obnoxious.

I wifli that we had a few more particu-
lars concerning this excommunication of
Theodotus, as it is the firfl of the kind
that is inentioned in hiftory. It is to be
obferved, that it is not Caius, the writer
quoted by Eufebius, who fays that he was
excommunicated on account of his being
an unitarian, but Eufebius himfelf *; fo that,

Tccvlr] jy] <PpovYia'Ei, (xaxy^v Se a^^ocrvvY]-, a^o^arBevlog mg Koivuviag U7n>
^ixlo^o^ ug etpnv, ra nPa iTrunoTra. Hift. lib, 5, cap. li* p. 253.

confidering

304 Tl^^ Gentile Chrljlians Book til.

confidering the writer's prejudices, there
may be fome room to doubt, whether he
was excommunicated on that account.

The unitarians, it has been ktr\^ faid that
Vidlor favoured their dodlrine, and this we
find afferted in the Appendix to Tertul-
lian's Treatife, De Frafcriptione^ which,
whether written by Tertullian himfelf, or
not, is probably as good an authority as
that of Eufebius. He fays that, after the
two Theodotus's, ^* Praxeas introduced his
<* herefy into Rome, which Viclorinus cn-
<* deavoured to ftrengthen* He faid that
** Jefus Chrift was God the Father omni-
^* potent, that he was crucified, fuifered,
*« and died, &c.*" Vidorinus, in this
paflage. Beau fob re fays t, it is agreed, fhould
be Viftor, and it cannot be fuppofed, that
he would have patronized in Praxeas the
fame dodlrine for which he had before ex-
communicated Theodotus. The probabi-

* Sed poft hos omnes etiam Praxeas quidam haerefim
introduxit, quam Vidorinus corroborare curavit. Hie
deum patrcm omnipotentem Jefum Chriftum efle dicit;
hunc crucifixum pafTumquc contendit et mortuum. Ad
Finem, p. 223.

f Hiftoire de Manicheifme, vol. i. p. 533.

3 I'ty.

Chap, XV. origi?iaUy XJnifarian. 305

lity, therefore, is, that Theodotus was ex-
communicated on fome other account than
that of his being an unitarian.

Theodotus having been excommunicated
as an unitarian, is not confident with that
general prevalence of the unitarian doftrine
in the time of Tertullian (which was alfo
that of Vicftor) which we have ictn that
Tertullian exprefsly aflerts. However, the
account of Eufebius, though improbable,
may be admitted without denying that of
Tertullian, when the circumftances attend-
ing them are duly confidered.

Tertullian lived in Africa, where there
feems to have been a greater inclination for
the unitarian doftrine than there was at
Rome ; as we may collect from the re-
markable popularity of Sabellius in that
country, and other circumftances. Atha-
nafius alfo, who complains of many per-
fons of low underftanding favouring the
fame principle, was of the fame country,
refiding chiefly in Egypt ; though he had
feen a great part of the chriftian world,
and was, no doubt, well acquainted with
the ftate of it.

Vol. III. X We

3o6 7he Gentile Chrijl'ians Book IIL

We fhould llkewife confider the pecu-
liarly violent charadler of Vid:or, who was
capable of doing what few ether perfons
would have attempted ; being the fame
perfon who excommunicated all the eaftern
churches, becaufe they did not obferve
Eafter at the fame time that the weftern
churches did, for v/hich he was much cen-
furcd by many bifhops, even in the wxft.

Such an excommunication as this of
Theodotus was by no micans the fame thing
wdth cutting a perfon off from communion
with any particular church, with which
he had been ufcd to communicate. Theo-
dotus was a ftranger at Rome, and it is
very poffible that the body of the chriftian
church in that city did not intereft them-
felves in the affair ; the bifhop and his
clergy only approving of it. For I readily
grant that, though there were fome learned
imitarians in all the early ages of chriftia-
nity, the majority of the clergy were not fo.
Theodotus, befides being a ftranger at
Rome, was a man of fcience, and is faid
by the unitarians to have been well re-
ceived by Vidor at firft 5 fo that it is very

poffible

Chap. XV. originally Unitarians. 307

poflible that the latter might have been
inftigated to what he did by fome quarrel
betweea them, of which we have no ac-
count.

Upon the whole, therefore, though Vic-
tor excommunicated this Theodotus, who
was a ftranger, and had, perhaps, made
himfelf confpicuous, fo as to have given
fome caufe of umbrage or jealoufy to him,
it is very poffible that a great proportion
of the lower kind of people, who made no
noife or difturbance, might continue in
communion with that church, through they
were known to be unitarians.

There is no inllance, I believe, of any
perfon having been excommunicated for
being an unitarian before Theodotus. —
Whereas, had the univerfil church been
trinitarian from the beginning, would not
the firft unitarians, the firft broachers of a
dodlrine fo exceedingly ofFenffve to thepi,
as in all ages it has ever been, have expe-
rienced their utmoft indignation, and have
been expelled from all chriftian focieties
with horror,

X 2 SEC-

3o8 T^he Gentile Chrijliatis Book III.

SECTION III.

Of the Part taken by the Laity in the Ex--
communication of the early Unitarians, and
ether Conf derations relating to the Suhjedi,

T T Is particularly remarkable, that we
read of none of the laity having been
excommunicated on account of their uni-
tarian principles, which they were well
known to hold. And whenever any of the
bifliops were depofed on this account, it is
alfo remarkable, that the common people
appear to have been their friends. None of
the laity were excommunicated along with
Noetus, about A. D. 220, with Sabellius,
about A. D. 2i;5. (See Lardner's Credibi-
lity, vol. 4. p. 593.) Paulus Samofatenfis,
A. D. 269, or Photlnus, A. D. 344, &c.
After the bilhops had depofed Paulus Sa-
mofatenfis, it is obfervable, that only fix-
teen figned the condemnation (Eufebii,
Hift. lib. 7. cap. 30. p. 359) and he could
not be expelled from the epifcopal houfe

till

Chap. XV. originally Unitarians . ^oa

till the aid of the emperor Aurelian was
called in ; and he may be fuppofed to have
been offended at him for his havino- been in
the intereft of his rival Zenobia. This
could not have been neceflary, if the majo-
rity of his people had not been with him,
and therefore, if his depofition had not, in
facfl, been unjuft.

Befides, the profecution of Paulus Samo-
fatenfis, as Dr. Lardner has obfcrved, was
vehemently urged by his prefbyter Mal-
chion, who had a quarrel with him. Hav-
ing been difobliged, he could not be fatif-
fied till he was depofed. Credibility, vol,
4. p. 6^4- ** He wrote, fays Jerom, the
** large epiftle in the name of the coun-
** cil. Paul had many friends and admi-
** rers among the bifhops and prefbyters
^* of the neighbouring churches and vil-
** lages, and was much beloved and ad-
'* mired by others." Ibid. p. 640. He
could not be expelled in the firfl: council,
in 264, when Firmilian of Cappadocia and
Gregory of Neocsefarea were prefent ; and
Firmilian was dead at the time of the fe-
gpnd council, in 269 or 270, Ibid, p. 534.

X3 Dr,

3 1 o ^he Gentile Chrljlians Book III.

Dr. Lardner's account of Paulus Samofaten-
fis, is as follows :

*^ As we have not now before us any of
** PauVs writings, and have his hiilory
'^ from adverfaries only, we cannot propofe
*' to judge diftincSly of his talents, nor draw
** his charadier at length. However, from
** the feveral particulars before put down,
*^ and collected from divers authors, fome
^* things may be concluded. And I appre-
*' hend that, laying afide for the prefent the
" confideration of his heterodoxy, we (hall
** not miftake much if we conceive of him
** after this manner. He had a great mind,
** with a mixture of haughtinefs, and too
** much affedtion for human applaufe. He
^* was generally well refpefted in his dio-
*^ cefe, and by the neighbouring bifiiops,
** in efteem with the great, and beloved by
" the common people. He preached fre-
*' quently, and was a good fpeaker. And
** from what is fajd by the I athers of the
** council, of his rejediing, or laying afide,
*• fome hymns, as modern, and compofed by
** moderns, it may be argued, that he was a
*' critic, which is a valuable accompli(h^

** ment

Chap. XV. originally Unitarians. 311

** ment at all times, efpecially when un-
*' common." Ibid. p. 644.

He adds, in a note, *' A learned writer
** among the moderns (viz. Garnier) whom
" I did not think of when I drew the above
** character, confirms almoft every part of it.
" For he allows Paul to have poffeffed the
** third fee in the church, and to have had
*' the patronage of a great princefs, an ap-
** pearance of piety, reputation for learning,
*' flowing eloquence, and the favour of the
*' multitude."

As to Photinus, he was io popular in his
diocefe, that his folemn depofition by two
councils, could not remove him from his
fee. '' He defended himfelf,'' fays Tele-
mont (Hift. of the Arians, vol. i. p. 116.)
*' againft the authority of the church, by
*« the aifedion w^hich his people had for
'* him, even to the year 351, though his
** herefy began to appear as early as 342, or
** 343, according to Socrates ; and the Eu-
** febians condemned it in one of their con-
** feffions of faith, in 345." At length the
Emperor Conflantius, a zealous Arian,
thought it neceifary to interfere, and to get
X 4 him

312 The Gentile Chrifliam Book III.

him banifhed, in a council held at Sirmium
itfelf. Had the body of chriftians in thofe
times been generally trinitarians, the com-
mon people would, no c?oubt, have been
ready enough to take an adtive part againft
their heretical bifliops.

As to Eufebius charging heretics with
teaching /zfii; cjo^rinesy he is remarkably in-
accurate and inconfifient with himkif in
that refped, and fo, indeed, are all the other
ecclefiaftlcal hiilorians. No unitarian is
mentioned, but he is faid to have been the
firjl to have taught the unitarian doctrine.
THs language is held even with refpedt to
Photinus, the very laft of the celebrated uni-
tarians. But it is poffible, as I have obferv-
ed before, that by novelty thefe writers
might fometimes mean nothing more than
herefy.

The charge of teaching the unitarian doc-
trine as a novelty, is firft advanced againft
Beryllus, bifliop of Boftra in Arabia, who,
perhaps, was the firft who gvrote in de-
fence of the doftrine, that of the divini-
ty of Chrift beginning at that time to

be prevalent. Eufebius fays of him, that

2i V he

Chap. XV. originally Unitarians. 313

** he introduced things new and Jirange to
** the catholic faith ; having dared to affert,
** that our Lord and Saviour did not pre-
*' exift in his own diftincSt perfon before his
** incarnation, that he had no proper divi-
*' nity of his ovs^n, but that of the Father
** only abiding in him */'

Sozomen alfo fays, that Marcellus intro-
duced a new doftrine, that *' the Son of
** God had his beginning with his birth of
*' Mary ;'' and yet, in the fame fedtion, he
fays of him, that he adopted the opinion of
Paulus Samofatenfis -f-*

The fame writer calls Photinus the in-
troducer of a new herefy, when, in the fame
chapter, he fays, that he held the fame opi-

* ^noiiKK^ 0 (jLiH^o) 'mpoa^£v ^£^n>.afjLEv^ Borpojv ty,; A^ixQixt;.
tTTia-KOTrQ- , 70V £H}cMo-iarnicv ^a^SKT^mav kuvovch^ ^sva riva mg
^if£cog 'SJ(x^£ia<pe^Biv STreipoiJo ' rev <TCipY]pcc xj hu^iov yi/acov 7\zym Tc>^(jiav

E5T(oV]//ja5, (M',^£ pmv ^£olY\i(X i^iav £X^iv^ cx.'KT^ £[X7:o7\ii£voi/.£VW aJlo: f/.ovriv,
mv 's^o[l^i>i'Av . Hift. lib. 6. cap. 33. p. 297.

•f- Ev ^£ Tw ro7e j^ M«pxE^?\ov AyKvpa; EmaxoTTcv rvjg r«>ux7ft>Vjj
(j$ Hocivm ^oyiA/xIcov Eio-ny)]lnv, xj rev viov rn Seoj T^iyovlcc ek Mapuxf
T>jv apxm £iM<p£V(xi. — Eij mv HoiuT^H m ^aiAoadisag i^EKv?<i(r^
^o|ay. Hifl.lib. 2. cap. 33. p. 91? 92.

nion

314 ^^^ Gentile Chrijlians Book III.

nion with Sabelllus and Paulus Samofa-
tenfis*.

Photinus is alfo charged with being the
author of his own opinion by Socrates -f- ;
and yet he had before mentioned him as a
difciple of Marcellus J.

As to the general teftimony of Eufebius,
and other writers, who were themfelves be-
lievers in the pre-exiftence and divinity
of Chrift, that the primitive church was
orthodox in their fenfe of the word, it
15 not, as I faid, to be regarded, unlefs
they bring feme fufficient proofs of their
affertion. They were, no doubt, willing to
have it thought fo, and, without confidering
it very particularly, might prefume that it
was fo. But the fads which they them-

* H^rj TS^oIs^ov KaivYii; aipeasoig i\.(jray\W\(; yEvofjLEVog- — Hj roc 2a-
CeX;m« ^ ITay^s T8 ^aiioad^w; (p^ovavia,* Hift. lib.4. cap. 6.

'I' ToIe SVi ^ ^o)TEivog 0 TYi; msi mK\y)(noc(; 'uipQETzmg^ to -nrct^sa^^
pz9£V avla ^ojixx (pavipals^ov E^E9pu}^'^Ei. Hift. vol. 2. p. 1 23.

J <^col£ivo; yap ruv ejcei exkT^vkjiuv 'srf oercu^, yEvog fng (jLMpa; TaT^-
riag^ MapKEy^.H te m KccSnpYifxEva /U5«0>j7nj, anohaOav rco h^aaKa>^)f
il'O^ov av^pu)7iovy Tov viQv eooyfjLaTKjE, Hift, lib. 2. cap. 29.
p. 98.

felveg
1

Chap. XV. originally Unitarians. 315

felves record, and the account which they
give of the apoftles in divulging the ortho-
dox dodrine v^ith fo much caution, make
it impoffible to have been as, in general
terms, they affert. I am even furprized that
any perfon fhould lay the leaft ftrefs on the
mere aflertion of a writer in this cafe,
when it is fo common for men to repre-
fent the opinions of thofe whofe authority
they know to be grear, as being the fame
with their own. Every man fhould be
heard with caution in fuch a cafe, and what
he fays on one occafion, fhould be com-
pared with what he fays on another, and
efpecially with what he drops, as it were,
accidently, and when he was off his guard.
This may certainly be fiid in favour of
the unitarians, that they did not contradid:
themfelves on this fubjedl, but uniformly
maintained, that theirs was the ancient
dodlrine, tranfmitted to them from the apof*
ties 'y whereas Eufebius manifeftly contra-
dids himfelf. He certainly knew that
Juilin Martyr had not only mentioned uni-
tarians, as exifling in his time, but had
^Ifo treated them with much refped; and

to

3 1 6 The Gentile Chrlfnans Book III.

to fay nothing of his own teftimony, to
the apoftls John having been the firft who
taught with clearnefs, and confequently
with effed:, the dodlrine of the div inity of
Chrifl; he himfelf fpeaks of the Ebionites
as cotemporary with Cerinthus, who by his
own account lived in the tiaie of the apof-
tic John *^.

That Eufebius fhould take fo violent a
part, as he always does, againft. the ancient
unitarians, is not difficult to be accounted
for. He was himfelf ftrongly fufpeded of
Arianifm, at a time in which the Athanalian
dodrine was prevalent, and though a learned
man, he was not of the firmeft tone of mind.
In thefe circumftances, he would naturally
make the mod of fuch pretenfions to or^
thodoxy as he had, and w^ould be inclined
to fliew his zeal by invedives againft thofe
who were more heretical than himfelf.
This we fee illuftrated every day. This
was the caufe why many of the. reformers
from popery joined with the papifts, in the
perfecution of thofe who were defirous of
carrying the reformation farther than theru-

'^ Hift. lib. 3. cap. 27, ^8, P. 12I; ?cc.

felvcs,

Chap. XV. originally Unitarians. 317

felves. This might, la fome meafure, con-
tribute to produce the zeal of the Calvinifts
againft the Arminians, that of the Armi-
nians againft the Arians, that of the Arians
againjfl the Socinians, and that of Socinus
himfelf againft Francis David.

It may be faid, that if the great majority
of chriftians in early times were unitarians,
why did they not excommunicate the inno-
vating trinitarians. I anfvver, that the
dodtrine of the trinity, was not, in its ori-
gin, fuch as could give much alarm, as I
have already explained ; and it was not ob-
truded upon the common people as an ar«
tide of faith neceflary to their falvation,
or indeed as a thing which they were at all
concerned to know. And before it became
very formidable, there w^as a great majority
of the learned and philofophizing clergy
on its fide. However, that it did give very
great alarm, as it began to unfold itfelf^
I have produced the moft undeniable evi-
dence.

CHAP.

3 1 8 The Gentile Chriflians Book 1 1 1.

CHAPTER XVL

Of the State of the Unitarian Docirine after
the Council of Isice,

'T^ HAT the unitarians conftituted the
great body of chrlftians till the time
of Juftin Martyr, and that they were the
majority at leaft of the common people till
about the time of the council of Nice, has,
I prefume, been proved to as much fatif-
fad:ion as the circumftances of the cafe
could be expected to admit. There is
every reafon to believe that it was fo a
prioriy 2l great number of circumftances,
applied by the cleareft axioms of hiftori-
cal criticifm, lliew that it muJlh-AWC been fo.
And there is likewife the ftrongeft ^^/V/i?^
tejiimony to the fad:, from fome of the moft
confiderable chriftian writers. The uni-
tarians were the major pars credcutium, in

the

Chap. XVI. originally Unitarians. 3 r 9

the time of Tertullian, they were the t#
'57MS©-, the multitude y and the ra 'zsr^yjSu, the muU
iitudes of Origen, and the oi'moxxoi, the many
of Athanafius.

According to Eutychlus, who is faid !J
have compiled his annals from the archives
of the church of Alexandria, there muft have
been more unitarian bifliops than the Greek
hiftorians give us any account of. He fays,
that *' there were two thoufand and forty
*^ eight bifhops aflembled at the council
** of Nice, fome of whom were Sabellians,
** who believed that Chrift h^^d no being
*' before he was born of the virgin ; others
** faying that God was one fubftance called
** by three names, but not believing in the
*^ word, or the Holy Spirit, which/* he
fays, ** was the opinion of Paulus Samofa-
** tenfis ; and that Conftantine having hear4
** their opinions, but approving of that of
** three hundred and eighteen, who held
*^ the fame dodrine, he appointed them to
** meet in a large room, and gave them
*^ power to make decrees." The fame
account Selden, the publiflaer of Euty-

chius.

320 7he Gentile Chrifllans Book III.

chins, found in an Arabian and chrif-
tian writer, named Jofeph, and alfo in
a celebrated Mahometan hiftorian, Ifmael
Ebn Ali.

This account, though feemingly very-
different from that of the other ecclefiaftical
hiftorians, Beaufobre thinks may be recon-
ciled with it, if it be fuppofed that the
bifliops of villages, prclbyters, and thofe who
were deemed heretical, were not allowed to
have a feat with the reft*. Wormius, he
obferves, fays that no feclary was allowed to
give his opinion in that council -f-,

* Hiftoire de Manicheifme, vol. I. p. 531.

i Mittens ergo Conftantinus rex in omnes pafTim regiones
patriarcbas et epifcopos convocavit, adeo ut pod annum
ct duos menfes, Niceae convenirent bis mille quadra-
ginta o6to epifcopi, fententiis et religibnibus inter fe dif«

crepantes. Erant qui dicerent chriflum a patre efle,

inftar flamms ignis quae ab igne flammante dependeret,
nee priorem diminuere pofterioris ab ipfo derivationem.

Erat que haec Sabellii et aflcdarunn ipfius fententia. ■

Alii chriflum hominem fuiflea divinitate creatum ejufdem
cum noftrum aliquo fubilantiae, filiique principium a
Maria fuifTe, ipfumque ele^lum qui fubftantias humanae
liberator eflet, comitante ipfum gratia divina, et in ipfo

per

Chap. XVI. ori gin ally Unitarians. 321

That the unitarians were exceedingly
numerous in the time of Athanafius, or not
long before it, efpecially in Africa, is evident
from his complaints on the fubjedl. He
fays that '* in Pentapolis of Upper Lybia,

per amorem et voluntatem habitante, ideoque appella-
tuin fuilTe filium dei. Dicentes etiam deum fubflantiam
unam eiTe, et perfonara unam quae tribus nominibus appella-
tur, nee in verbnm, nee in fpiritum fan(3:um credentes : erat
h:Ec fententia Pauli Samofateni patriarchae Antiochaeni,
cjufque fectatorum qui Pauliciani audiunt. — Alii (denique)
afleruerunt divinitatem Chrillij quae Pauli apoftoli fenten-
tia eft, nee non epifcoporum trecentorum et o£lodecim.
auditis ipforum fententiis miratus eft Conftantinus rex
banc difcrepantiam, domoque ipfis fepofita in qua loca
ipfis paravit, difputationes ipfos habere juffit, ut perfpedlo
apud quern vera eflet fideSj ipfum fequeretur. Illi ergo
tercentum et o6todecim in unam fidem, unamque fen-
tentiam confenferunt, cumque reliquis qui litem ipfis
moverunt difputantes, illis argumentis fuis fuperiores eva-
ferunt fidemque veram declararunt : reliqui autem epif-
copi fententiis et religionibus inter fe diverfi fuerunt;
Rex ergo trecentis et ododecim epifcopis iftis loco quo-
dam proprio et amplo parato, ipfe in eorum medio
confedit, acceptaque, annulum, gladium et fceptrum
fuuiii ipfis tradidit, dicens ipfis, vobis hodie in imperium
meum poteftatem conceffi, ut in eo faciatis qulcquid fa-
cere vobis expedit eorum quae ad religionem rite ftabilien-
dam et fidelium commodum fpe(Stant. SeMen's Euty-
ehius, p. 439, 440. 443, 444.

Vol. III. Y •* fom«

^22 Unitarians after Book II L

** fome of the bifhops embraced the doc-
** trine of Sabellius, and prevailed fo muchy
" that the Son of God was hardly preached
*' in the churches*." i^

SECTION I.

Of the State of the Unitarians from the
"Time of the Council of Nice^ to the Sixth
Century^

T N O W proceed to mention the traces I
have found of unitarians after the coun-
cil of Nice. And notwlthftanding their
numbers certainly kept decreafing, owing;
to the prevalence of the trinitarian and Ariaii^ ^
doftrines, each in their turns favoured by
the civil powers (which it is remarkable,
the unitarian dodrine never was in any age
Of country) it appears from circumftances,
that the unitarians were in confiderable num-
bers, fome holding feparate affemblies, but

• **"*Eyn£v7«^oX« T»jf ova AiSung rvtvixavla rm; twv tTrnJKOTruv

CEiv(Mmi}tiv^^ai^eHK7^YicriaigHri^vrls<r^ai 7ovvi(ni nt-^SH- De Sen-
tentia Dionyfu, Opera, vol. i. p. 552..,^j,j^jg^,

many

Chap. XVI. the Council of Nice, 323

many more concealed in the great body of
chriftians, and joining their public worfhip.

It is highly probable that, even long after
the dodlrine of the divinity of Chrift v^^as
eftablifhed by councils, and the decrees of
emperors, many of the common people were
well known to believe nothing of the mat-»
ter ; and yet, if they made no difturbance,
and did not think proper to feparate them-
felves from the communion of the ortho-
dox bifhops, who were not authorized to
propofe any teft to them, they were not
excommtinicated. In fadt, they were con-
fidered by the more learned as limple
ignorant people, who acquiefced in the
dodtrine of the humanity of Chrift, becaufc
they were incapable of comprehending that
of his divinity, and the fublime docSrine of
three p erf on 5 in one God, This circum-
ftance, together with there being no diftin-
guifhed writers among them, and alfo their
being mixed and confounded with other fedts,
accounts for our hearing fo little of them.

Many of the Montanifts, befides Praxeas,
againft whom Tertullian wrote, were pro-
bably unitarians; Jerom reprefents the

Yz Montanifts

324 Unitarians after Book IIL

Montanifls in general, as *' differing from
** the orthodox in the rule of faith, and
** agreeing with the Sabellians*."

Sandius fays, that Noetus was faid by
fome to have been the difciple of the Mon-
tanifls-f*. According to Socrates, Eufebius
faid that they who difliked the term co72^
fiihjlantial at the council of Nice, charged
their adverfaries with favouring the fenti-
ments of Sabellius and Montanus J."

Nicephorus obferves, that ** Some Mon-
*' tanifts were Sabellians." He alfo ex-
prefsly fays, that " they denied the per-
** fonal exiflence of the Son, and that he
•* was confubftantial with the Father [[/'

* Primum in fidei regula difcrepamus. Nos patrem, et
filium, et fpiritum fan<5tum in fua unumquemque perfona
ponimus, licet fubftantia copulemus : illi, Sabellii dogma.
feituntes, trinitatem in unius perfonx anguftias cogunt.
Ad Marcellum, Opera, vol. i. p. 414.

f Kill. p. 97.

McvlavH ^o^av Eia-tr/SKX^ai aviv\y txj 'ST^oahxofA^vsg evofxt^ov ' ^ ^loc
T^o T8J ^AcecTipyj^sj, txefhHV^ (Uj ccvai^^viag tw vTra^^iv ra via to $£« •
€1 Sg 'mcxTuv Tu o/xoaaiui TspocrHet/xsvoi 'sjo>.v^£iav si<ray£iv rac slspsg
VDfju^Qvl£i^ ug £?^vLiT(Aov tiaor/ovltxi^ s^sysTTOvlo. Hill. Ub. I. cap,

23. p. 57.

II Oi fisv yap TO Q[j.ox<Jioy (ja\ 's^^ocisfxem^ ^o^,av ecrxov Ta Mov-

Chap. XVI. ihe Council of Nice. 325

Zonaras alfo fays, that ** Montanus, befides
'' maintaining that himfelf was the para-
*' clete, confounded the whole trinity, con-
*' trailing it into one perfon *." Laftly,
Harmenopulus, in his account of fedls, fays
cxprefsly, that the difciples of Montanus
reduced the holy trinity to one perfon -f.
Upon the whole, therefore, though Ter-
tullian was a Montanift, and no unitarian, it
may be concluded, that the prevailing fenti-
ments of thofe who went by that name
were unitarian. Sabellius himfelf is faid
by Nicephorus, to have learned his doc-
trine from fome of the Montanifts J. Ac-
cording to the author of the Appendix to
to Tertullian's Treatife De Praefcriptione,
they were only thofe Montanills who fol-

«A^A8vjtfjTr}y TH w« ysra^lfl/ avai^im^a^^ Hift. lib. 8. cap. 45.
p. 637.

* Koz £<; £t; 'ispoaxaTTov Trjv ayicx» rpitsi^si aim^v ««j (Twtx^av.
Canones, p. 78.

Ts; Tpiud'tx ;y TO 'ssoff'/jx ^tsr^Epov. HariTienopulus de Se6lis.

X Tfv£f $e Tccv eI cw/Ta, &; VTi^ov TOf Tpiiq TYi; ^Bolnlo; UTToraa-tig

€V BiVM eoo^aarav * rov avlov >,syovleg itvcxi xj 'sroclsfa j^ viov >^ ayiov

M^X<^ ^>t'7ro^iiTa(X^M» Hift. vol. 1. p- 319.

Y 3 lowed

326 Unitarians after Book II L

lowed i^^fchines, who were unitarians, while
thofe who followed Proclus were not fo*.

The Donatifts, alfa, who did not fepa*.
fate from thie church on this fubjed, are
yet faid to have been afterwards heretical
with refped: to the trinity -f-.

Jerom fays, that Donatus himfelf wrote
Z book concerning the Holy Spirit agreeable
to the Arian doftrine J, which in this re-
fpedt was the fame as the unitarian. Auftin
$lfo fays, that he did not hold the catholic
dodrine of the trinity, but that he was not
generally followed by thofe who bore his
name. Theodoret fays, that the Donatiftg
agree with the Arians|]. The probability

* Sunt etiam qui i^aic^ Pro.clum dicuntur. Sunt qui

fecundum iEfchinem pronunciantur Privatam autem

blafphemiam illi qui funt xala ^fchinera banc habent,
qua adjiciupt etiam hoc, ut dicant Chriftum ipfum elTs;
fllium et patrem. Se<£^. 52. p. 223.
^ f Cur autem folis Donatiftis, qui a fchifmate pro-
filuerunt in hserefim, ut poftea etiam de baptifmate ct
divina trinitate male fentirent. Facundus contra Moci-
anum, p. 199.

X Extant ejus multa ad fuam haerefim pertincntia et
de fpiritm fan<Si:o liber, Ariano dogmati congruens. Cata?
logus Scriptorum, Opera, vol. I. p. 311. .

SI Ouioi 5f Ko^'x fxiv Ttiv ai^scriv roif AfuH (TVfi'pm'^ai* Lib. 4.
cap. 6. Opera, Ed^ H^ae, vol, 4; p. 360.

iC

Chap. XVI. the Covncil of Nice. 327

is, that both Montanus and Donatus, liv-
ing at a time when the unitarian doctrine
was generally received, held it themfelves ;
though their followers, influenced by the
fame caufes that aiFeded other chriftians,
gradually adopted the pliilofophical opi-
nions.

That the Pelagians fliould be h&retical,
with refpefl: to the dodtrine of the trinity,
will not be wondered at (though Pelagius
himfelf is faid to have been orthodox in that
refpedl) as the unitarians of all ages have
adopted the fentiments of Pelagius with re-
fped: to human nature. Caflian, who met
with them in Gaul, evidently confidered
them in this light. For he cenfures them
as holding that *' Chrift was a mere man ;
** and faying that men may live fin lefs lives,
*^ becaufe Chrift, who was a man, did fo,-
** They fay, that Jefus became Chrift after
'* his baptifm, and God after his refurrec-;
" tion j the one arifing from his undion,
** the other from the merit of his paffion*.''

* Addlcieruht quoque dominum, falvatoremcjiie' nof-

trum poft baptifma fadum efTe Chriftum, port refurrcdio-

pem deum: alterum adfignantes unv^ioncm myflerio, al-

Y 4. icrum

328 Unitarians after Book III.

** Other wife," he fays, '* we come to the
*' Pe^^ian herefy, and fay that God dwel-
*' led in Chrift from a certain time, and
'* came into him, when, by his life and
** converfation, he defcrved that the power
*' of the divinity (liould dwell in him */*

Admitting this to be true to any confi-
derable extent, it will not be doubted, but
that the unitarians muft have been very nu-
merous, becaufe. the Pelagians v/ere fo.
Perhaps the Pelagians, defcribed by Caffian,
might be inclined to the opinion of Nefto-
rius. But this, as I (hall fhew, did not dif-
fer from unitarianifin with refpedt to the
perfon of Chrifl.

terum merito paffionis : uncle advertit novus rune jam,

non nov^e haerefeos autor, qui dominum falvatoremque

noftrum folitarium homincm natum eile contendit, idem

feomnino dicere quod Pelagianiftse ante dixerunt ; et confe-

quens error! fuo t^t^ ut qui utique fine peccato folitarium

homlnem Jefum Chriftum vixifie aflerit, omnes quoqueper

■fe hompines fine peccato pofTe effe blafphemet. De Xncar-

natione,lib. i.cap. 3. p. 966. Seealfo^p. 1017, lOiS, 1066.

* Alioquin ad iliam Pelagianae haerefeos impietatem de-

volvirhur : ut dicamus ex certo tempore habitantem in

Chrifto deum ; turn in eum fuperveniffe, quando ille vita

et converfatione id promerucrit, ut in fe virtus divinitatis

habitaret. Hapr. lib. 5. cap, 4. p. 1022.

Marius

Chap. XVI. the Council of Nice. 329

Marius Mercator fays, that Jalianus, a
Pelagian, adopted the opinion of Theodoras,
the mafter of Neftorius *.

The Jimplicity of the unitarians is a cir-
cumftance by which they are generally not-
ed; and by this they were likewife con-
cealed, as giving no umbrage to any. But
it does not follow, that becaufe they were
{kylti Jimple, they were pcrfons of low un-
derftanding. Tertullian, who gave them
that epithet, in anfwer to the Gnoftics, who
likewife applied it to the orthodox chrif-
tians, fays, '' we are reckoned fimple by
** them, but we are not therefore fenfe-
'* lefs t.'' In a treatife afcribed to Athana-
fius, the more fimple are reprefented as
eafily taken with the affertion, that God the

* Simul admonere volens Julianum excpifcopum oppidi
Eclanenfis, h?ereticum Pelagianum feu cselcftianum, hunc
fecutum q{^q Theodorum. Opera, p. 40.

t Ideoque fimplices notamur apud illos,. ut hoc tantum,
non etiatn fapientes : quafi ftatim deficere cogatur a fim-
plicitate fapientia, domino utramque jungente : Eftote
prudentes ut ferpentes ct fimplices ut coiumbaj. Aut fi nos
propterea infipientej quia fimplices. Adv. Valent. fecH;. 2.
Opera, p. 250,

logos

^ jo Unitarians after Book III.

logos fufFered in the flefh *. Bafil repre-
fents ** fimplicity <bf faith as a bait with
*' which the ignorant are drawn to their de-«
*' ftrudlion +.'* Writing on the fubjedt :of
the Holy Spirit, he begs that what he wrote
" might be concealed from the vulgar, left
*' it ihould be throwing pearls before
«* fwine J.." Gregory Nazianzen alfo muft
have felt himfelf in the fame fituation, when
he faid, ** Have we not fufFered from the
'^ mad populace §."

The dodlrine of the trinity being confi-
dered as a fublime dodtrine, the common
people, who could not comprehend, or re^
ii(h it, but who at the fame time made no*
difturbance in the church, would naturally

. ..^;-.^;. *>

* A^^i^ El ri K^vo'j ETTJvoEty wp^ aTralw twv aTrAars^ojy vEowgyov-
7aj, oiov »; TO 'SJ^oKiiiAsvov vvv el; fileWiv^ EttoSev o ^eoj ^070? Ccf^xi,
Opera, vol, 2. p. 311.

Td) £ctvlii (ppowfjuzli TO UTT-K^ TY\; z7[ila(na<;, Qiov ri ^sXsa^, Tffe^i^a^Ei^.
;v« TO) (paivofji£'Ji) ETrio^apiO'k; 01 ocTTEi^ole^oi, a(pv7^klco; rct) nam tvs
aTiSeta^'srB^i'TrapmLv, Ad Eunom. Jib. i. Opera, vol. i.

1^ Oux w; a|ja KoClccfipvyflEff^oLi^ «>•>' cots fiy) fi7rl£7^c}ii roig xoicjcjf
ra; fAoi^vafx;. De Sp. S. cap. 30. Opera., yp.I. 2. p. 366..

Chap. XVI. the Council of Nice. j-ji '

be pitied and overlooked. Athanafius,
confidering the violence of his charader,
fpeaks of the unitarians with a good deal of
tendernefs, on account of the difficulty of
underftanding the dodtrine of the trinity. I
have quoted a paiTage from him, in which
he reprefents them as {oi 'ssoy^i) the many^ and
perfons of a foie; underjiandingy but by no
means as perfons out of the church. Con^
trafting them with the Gnoftics and the
Arians, he fays, *' fome perfons confiderlng
** what is human in Chrift, feeing him
** thirfting, labouring, and fufFering, and
?* degrading him to a mere man, fin indeed
** greatly ; but they may readily obtain for-
^^ givenefs if they repent, alledging the
** weaknefs of the flefh ; and they have the
!^' apoftle himfelf adminiftering pardon to
^* them, and as it were holding out his hand
<* to them, while he fays. Truly great is the
^* myftery of godlinejs^ God was manifeji in the

riHOTTicovlix^ ri '3Dr«crxov?a, '^ /tcovov ^T^va^wtocriv ojg nal av^peoTTH ra (Tu*
■ ■■ mscv I

t9% Vni^arlans after Book III.

According to him many perfons within
the pale of the church, muft either have been
unitarrians, or have believed the dodtrine of
the trinity without underftanding it, which,
in fadl, is no belief at all. For, being con-
fulted what was to be done with refpeca to
the fpread of the dodrine of Paulus Samofa-
tenfis ; after acknowledging that perfons of
low underftanding were chiefly infecSed
Wth it, and quoting v/hat Paul fays oi the
<rreat myjiery of Godlinefsy God man f eft in the
jkjh, he fays, ** thofe who underftand the
, ** fubjed accurately are few, but all pious
'* perfons may hold the faith delivered to
*< them *." But what kind of holding muft
it be, v^hen they had no perfed: underftand-
ing of what they held.

Gregory Nazianzen alfo reprefents the
common people as excufable for their errors,

stvloi^ £V TS) XE7EIV ExIiivcrHoc, oil iuxi ofitohoyHfASva}^ (jtsytx sn TO Tvig ey-
rcf Etaj /Aymfiov, Se®" £^av£^co% sv capKi. In illud Evangclii
Qulcunque dlxerit, &c. Opera, vol. i. p- 975=

* (Jit, TW /tt£v caipi<^£iav (xuln; BTri^yJlziv o^yci)V2n<t rnv Se 'srirtv x^exw
gtmomm tojv nif^ot, rov Beov zvirzi^v. De Incar;ia^ione contra
f. SatDofftt. Opera, vol. i. p. 59?.

1 an4

Chap. XVI. the Council of Nice, 33 j

and fafe from not being difpofed to fcru-
tinize into things ^.

Unitarians, however, were far from being
all of the common people, and unlearned.
There were fcveral confiderable writers
among them. ** Beryllus of Boftra," Ni-
cephorus fays, " left elegant writings be-
'* hind him ^^ Marcellus and Photinus
diftinguifhed themfelves as writers, and.
Gregory Nazianzen fays, that the heretics
boafted of the number of their books J.
Unhappily there are none of them now
extant.

After the eftabllfhment of orthodoxy by
Conftantine, ** all the fedts/" fays Eufebius,
** were forbidden to hold feparate aiTem-
" blies;" and among the reft the unita-

* Tok; fisv yaf ts y^aa r(ZX(X a.v uexi (Tuyyim^HoiiMv ralo 'sjat<yxf*^
«y . »5 crw^ei, woh^aHi^ ro a/hoffavirov. Oratio 2 1 > Opera,

p. 388.

c,.iih^(TuFy^afJtiJuxlaHal(x^Bi^i,ai, Hiil. )ib, 5. c^)p. 15. vol. i.

P- 363-

% Kai T« >aMBet ray ^iQhiOiV ^t'^olifjt.sfA.^tH . sirsi^ h ra ^STfft

vi^i.rnv 's^iriy, hMct^niri h rug -woWvsf, Or. 50. p. 74.4'

rians.

334 Unitarians after Book III.

rians, called Paulians, are mentioned*. But
this did not make them change their opi-*
nions. For he fays that, after Conftan-
tine's edid againft herefy, fome, terrified
with the emperor's threats, came into the
church, diffembling on account of the
times* *^ For, the law forbidding the
*' publication of their books, fomc who
<* were taken afting contrary to the law,
** on that account, confulted their fafety
^* by every diffimulation •f*/'

This accounts for the great number of
unitarians that Facundus mentions, as being
in the churchy in the time of Theodofius.
Their opinions muft have been well known,
or he could not have been acquainted with

;-tO T *'^

■* E^cyvojle vvv '^la mg vofio^Eaiag Tctvlrj^ a Naualtavct^ OyaXcv-
Imiy 'Ma^HiuviS'cci, Tlav>\iavoiy oi xoclcc rag (p^vyag £7riKEH>^Tiixevoi, km
'Eavltg oi7r>^ojg oi rag ai^screig ^la rm oixeicov 'zcADf svIej cvtyiixoHuv —
t7[ti^v\ rov oT^i^^ov riilov ry\g V[x.iiz^ag t^co>.Eiag £7ri 'bMiov psfEiv hk etiv
Ciov re ^la ra vo/jm rala 's^^oayo^Euofxsv^ fjLi^ig vfAuv ai/vayEiv ra >^07rx
ToX//>i(rr7. De Vita Conft. lib. 3. cap, 64. p. 621.

-f- Ot fXEv vo9co ^^owfAoli, ^a<nhiHy\g aTTEi'Kitig (poQco, rnv EXKM(nav
VTii^uovlo^ rov nai^ov KcSEi^uvEVOftEVoi . ettei SV nai ^iE^EVvaa-Boii rm
av^^QJv rag ^I'^Xag ^ir^yo^EVEV 0 voiMog • »^Jc^wv/o ToJe aTTEi^nfJiEyag Qi
HOHolex^ia^ M-^iovlEg ' n ^n %af iv, 'srav'/ ETT^arlov, si^miia rrjv Coiln-
^lav 'ao^iliofAEVoi, Ibid; p. 622,

them;
3

Chap, XVI. the Council of Nice. ^oS

them ; but they were not molefted, while
they did not moleft others, and wiftied only
to be quiet.

As,. the paffage in his writings, from

which I infer this, is a pretty remarkable

one, I fhall cite it at full length. Speaking

of the condemnation of Theodorus (the

mafter of Neftorius, whofe fyflem differed

very little from that of unitarianifm) ir^

whofe favour he is writing, he fays, that

** in condemning him, they condemned all

** thofe who thought as he did, even though

** they afterwards changed their opinion.

<c —What will they do with Martha, and

•' then with Mary, the fifters of Lazarus,

** who were particularly attached to our

** Lord, while he was upon earth. And yet

'*both of them, firft Martha, and then Mary,

** are faid to have fpoken to him thus, Lord,

** if thou hadji been hercy my brother had not

*' died\ who, though they thought that he

** was the Son of God, who was to come

** into the world, yet cculd they not have

*^ faid, if thou hadji been here^ if they had

** believed him to be God omniprefent.'

** They therefore only thought as Theo-

** dorus

33^ Unitarians after Book III*

*^ dorus Is faid to have done, and were
^* excommunicated along with him. And
** how many of this kind do we know, by
** the writings of the apoftles and evange-
** lifts, there were at that time^ and how
*' many even now are there ftill, in the
" common herd of the faithful, who by
** only partaking in the holy myfteries,
** and by a fimple obfervance of the com-
*' mandments, we fee pleafing God; when
" even the apoftles themfelves, the firft
** teachers, only thought as thofe whom we
** fee to be included in this condemnation
** of Theodorus-^."

* Condemnaverunt omncs ab ipfo in quem ilium in-
cidiiTe putant errore converfos. — Ubi quid agent de Mar-
tha et Maria, fororibus Lazari, quss familiari devotione ipfl
domino dum hie in carne degerit adhaeferunt. Et tamen
utraque, id eft, prius Martha, ac deinde Maria, legitur illr
dixifle, domine fi fuifles hie frater meus non fuiflet mor-
tuus. Quae hcet crederent quod ipfe efiet hlius dei qui in
mundum veniflet, tamen non 6iccrentJifuiJ/es hic^ fi eum
cognofcerent ficut deum, ubique efle prefentem. Eadem
ergo fapuerunt quae dicitur fapuifTe Theodorus, ct cum
Theodorb fimul anathematifatae funt. Et quantos vel eo
tempore in evangeliis et apoftolicis fcriptis tales fuiffe cog-
novimus ? Quantos etiam nunc tales in grege fidelium,
Ibla fandlorum myflerioruiti partic'p uione, et fimplici

praeceptorum

Chap. XVI. the Council of Nice. 337

If this was the cafe in the time of Theo-
dofius, there can be no doubt of its having
been fo in the time of Conftantine, and
that it continued to be fo long afterwards.
The candour of Facundus towards thefe
fimple unitarians is remarkable, and is well
illuftrated by his account of the ftate of the
chriflian faith in the time of the apoflles.
Speaking of thofe who believed Chrift to
be a mere man, he fays, " The apoftles
** themfelves were once imperfed: in the
*^ faith, but never heretics. For while
** they believed too little concerning Chrift,
*' they received power to caft out unclean
^' fpirits, and to cure difeafes, when our
*^ Lord fent them, and gave them a com-
'' miffion. If, therefore, the apoftles, in
** the very time of their ignorance, were
** not heretics, how can any one call thefe
*' fo who died fuch," &c. * ? He fays,

praeceptorum obedientia, placentes deo vidimus ; cum et
ipfi primi paftores ejus apoftoli fic aliquando fapuerunt,
quos omnes cum Theodoro vidimus in hoc anathemate
condemnatos. Pro Defenfione trium Capitulorum, lib.
10. cap. 7. p. 162.

' * Cum ipfi apoftoli aliquando fuerint in fide imper-

fecli, nunquam tamen hserctici. Cumque adhuc parumde

Vol. III. Z Chrifto

238 Unitarians after Book IIL

** the woman who touched Chrift's gar-
** ment did not take him to be God *.*'

This teflimony of Facundus may teach
us, that we are not to take it for granted,
that the unitarians were extind: at any par-
ticular time, merely becaufe they are by
fome writers /aid to be fo. Epiphanius
fays, that ** the herefy of Artemon was
** extindl, when it was revived by Paulus
** Samofatenfis -f-/' But it could only be
that there were few, or none, who went
publicly by that name The 01 wo^ao:, the
many of Athanafius were, no doubt, uni-
tarians, though they might not be call-

Chrifto crederent, magnam poteftatem acceperunt fplri-
tuum immundorum, ut ejicerent eos, et curarent omnem
knguorem et omnem infirmitatem, mittente eos domino,
atque mandante, euntes praedicate, dicentes, quia adpropin-
quavit regnum ccelorum. Infirmos curate, mortuos fuf-
citate, leprofos mundate, dsemones ejicite, gratis acccpiftis,
gratis date. Si vero apoftoli nee in ipfo ignorantiae fuse
tempore fuerunt haeretici, qua ratione quifquam eos qui
tales de hac vita tranfierunt, affirmare poflint hsereticos I
Lib. 12. p. 184.
* Ibid. p. 183:

ai^Eo-iv T» A^7E,ctov©-, m 'ssole. ovlog £v a^x^ rsj^o iluv 'so'hlhm km sj-
Csa-fj^si-a. Hasr. 65. Opera, vol. I. p. 6c8.

3 ^^

Chap. XVL the Council of Nice. 339

ed Artemonites. On the other hand, we
are not to give to particular perfons who
diflinguifhed themfelves in the defence of
-^hc unitarian doctrine, all the converts they
are faid to have made. They, no doubt,
found them unitarians, though they might
be more encouraged by thofe leaders to de-
clare themfelves more openly. But we fhall
find, that when all their great leaders were
gone, they did not want boldnefs in aflert-
ing their principles, v/hich is a proof that
they did not want numbers.

The number of followers that hiftorians
give to Marcellus of Ancyra, the capital of
Galatia, and alfo to his difciple Photinus,
bifhop of Sirmium, in Pannonia, is pro-
digious ; and the effects of their labours
are faid to have remained a long time* The
former, though living in troublefome times,
and probably being induced to make fome
improper compliances, is, notwithftanding,
noted for the courage with which he, for
fome time at leaft, maintained his opi-
nions. That he was not eafily overborne
by authority, Eufebius, his antagonift, tefti-
fies^ when he fays, that *^ he made no ac-
Z 2 " count

240 Unitarians after Book IIL

'« count of the Fathers of the church*."
Alluding to the preaching and writings of
of Marcellus, Hilary fays, *' Galatia has
** brought up many to the profeffioa of
** one God; and," alluding to Photinus,
** Pannonia wickedly maintains that Jefus
*' Chrift was born of Mary," i. e. that he
did not exift before his birth -f. This
writer complains heavily of the diftreffed
fituation of the truth among fo many here-
lies, and more than intimates, that the
followers of Photinus, though often con-
demned, were not fufficiently feparated from
the church. The mifchief, he fays, was
'within %.

* 0/X8 TE 'SJA'jIa; T^5 EfiH>.r.cricCTiK8; 'ssui^oK; a^ffls;. Contra
Marcellum, lib. i. p. 19.

f Impie multos ad unius dei profeffionem Galatia nu-
trivit — Peftifere natum Jefum Chriftum ex Maria Panno-
nia defendit. Lib. 7. p. 131.

X Nihil folicitudini me^, nihil confcientia vacat. Sub
rpecula enim omnium haereticorum ad occafiones fingu-
lorum verborum in os meum pendcntium loquor, et omnis,
fermonis mei iter aut anguftiis pr^eruptum, aut foveis in-
cifum, aut laqueis praetenfum eft. Jam quod arduum aut
difficile fit minus conqueror ; non meis enim, fed apofto-
licis fcando gradibus. Mihi vero aut in anguftias dccidere,
aut in defofla incidcre, aut plagis illaqueari, Temper in pe-
^ riculo.

Chap, XVI. the Council of Nlc.\ 34.1

Photinus, though violently oppofed by
the Arian emperor Conftantius (Hilarius
Contra Conftantium, p. 332) was remark-
ably popular in his fee, and elfewhere ; for
an account of which fee Sozomen, Jib. 4.
cap. 6. p. 135; and " though excommuni-
** cated and condemned, he could not be re-
** moved/' fays Hilary, *' on account of the
*' afFedion that the people had for him^,'*
as his language ought to be interpreted.
And it is particularly remarkable, that
though Photinus was fo obnoxious to the

riculo, Temper in metu eft. Prsedicaturo enim, fecundum

legem, et prophetas, et apoftolos, unum^^eum, adeft mihi

Sabellius, totum me fub verbi hujus profeflio^ie, tanquam

defideratum cibum, morfu fasviHimo tranfvohins. Ne-

gantem me rurfum, contra Sabellium, unum deum, et

confitentem verum deum dei filium, expeclat nova hsere-

fis, et a me duos deos arguat prsedicari. Natum quoque

dei filium ex Maria, di6turo, Hebion, qui et Photinus

affiftit ; audoritatem mendacii fui, ex profeffione veri-

tatis, fumpturus. De c^eteris taceo, qui ab omnibus extra

ecclefiam efle non ignorantur. Hoc vero damnatum, ct

abje6lum licet frequentur, Ted internum hodie adbuc malum

eft. Lib. 7. p. 131.

* Fotinus haereticus comprehenfus, olim reus pronun-

ciatus, et a communione jampridem unitatis abfciifus, nee

turn quidem per fadipnem populi potuit admovcri. Frag-

ipqnta, p. 444. '

Z 3 orthodox

542 Unitarians after Book IIL

orthodox, on account of his principles^
his moral character was never impeached.
A high encomium on him may be feen in
Philafter*. And when he was expelled
from his fee by the arm of power, he en-
joyed an honourable retirement, and em-
ployed himfelf in writing books, in which,
befides prornoting the caufe of chriftianity
in general, he boldly maintained his pecu-
liar opinions. " Photinus," fays Jerom,
<* endeavoured to revive the herefy of the
** Ebionites, and wrote many volumes, the
** chief of which are againft the heathens,
*^ and the books to Valentinian-f-." So-
crates fays, that '^ he wrote againft all here-

* Nam erat et ingenii viribus valens, et do6lrinsE opibus
excellens, et eloquio praepotens : quippe qui utroque fer-
mone copiofe, et graviter difputaret et fcriberet : ut mo-
numentis librorum fuorum manifeftatur, quos idem partim
Graeco, partim Latino fermone compofuit. Cap. i6. Bib.
Pat. vol. 5« p. 7i«

f Photinus de Gallograecia, Marcelli difcipulus, Sirmii
epifcopus ordinatus, Hebionis haerefim inftaurare conatus
eft : poftca, a Valentiniano principe pulfus ecclefia, plura
fcripfit volumina, in quibus vel praecipui funt, contra gen-
tes, et ad Valentinianum libri, Catalogus, Opera, vol. i.

p. 316'

*f fies.

Chap. XVL the Cmincil of Nice. 343

*^ iies, propofing only his own opinion*/'
*^ Though banifhed," fays Sozomen, ** he
** continued to defend his opinion, and
** wrote books in the Greek and Latin
'* tongues, in which he endeavoured to
** fhew that all opinions were falfe except
*' his own-f-/' That he continued ftre-
nuoufly to maintain his opinions, notwith-
ftanding his perfecution and banifliment, is
evident from all the accounts we have had
of him. Nicephorus fays, that " what
** Photinus laboured in all his writings
** was, that all opinions befides his own
^* were nothing +."

Of all the theological works of the an-
cients, 1 own that I regret moft of all the
lofs of thofe of Photinus, and efpecially his-
treattfe againji berejies. An impartial ac-

^ikiMvoq. Lib. 2. cap. 30. p. 129.

t ^cSlsmi; ^e (pBuyuv xoclotd'iKaa-^ii;, «5e slug sTraua-alo ro oiKmv
auyx^olav '^oyfj.a. *' T^oya; te m Faixaicov koci EAA>]va;v (pwy» aufy^x^av
elE^iSa, or wv ettsi^cSo^ 'mMv rr.g aJIs, Ta^ twv a}\?iUV db|aj -^suOcig
a'7ro(pcx.ivm. Lib 4. cap. 6. p. 137.

JOS"* B<x'7ni^a^(lQ Tdig y^a(paig nv, "ssMv rng cixziac^ Txg ruy
cCKhm '^Q^ag (/.yi^^v i^ocg aw^^TTug B^E^^syx^iv. Lib. 9. cap.. 31.

P- 755-

Z 4 count

344 Unitarians after Book III,

account of his conference with Bafil of
Ancyra, would be exceedi'ngly valuable.
A few things that are quoted from him I
ihall produce in my account of the argu-
ments ufed by the ancient unitarians in
defence of their principles, That his writ-
ings were not thought meanly of by his ad-
verfaries, appears by their frequent notice of
them, and the anfwers that were written to
them long after his death. Among others,
Vigilius Martyr, about the year 500, wrote
againll Photlnus, as well as Sabellius and
Arius*.

Both Photinus and Marcellus were ob-
noxious to the Arians, but Marcellus more
particularly, perhaps, for not having ap-
proved of the condudl of the Arians with
refpedt to Athanafius, who always (hewed
a kindnefs for him -f*.

There are feveral traces of there being
great numbers of unitarians in the time of
Auftin.

* Bib. Pat. vol. 5- P- 546.

+ Athanafii, Opera, vol. i. p. 813. Nicephori, Hift.
iib. 8. cap. 53, vol. i. p. 66^^--*'' '^'p -■

Chap. XVI. the Council of Nice. 345

There appears to have been Photinians
who even held open affemblies at Si--
mium, contrary to a law of the emp^- -
Gratian, A. D. 381 ; when the bi{ho^
the council of Aquileia petitioned th : (., a
pcrors to take farther meafures with refpd6t
to them */' The words invifible and //:7-
pajjible^ RufRnus fays, were added to the
creed in the church of Aquileia, on account
of the Sabellian, or patripaffian herefy,
though they were not in the creed at
Rome-f*. Jerom fpeaks of Ancyra, the ca-
pital of Galatia, as forely over-run with
various herefies in his time \ ; and yet,

• Photinianos quoque quos et fuperiori lege cenfuiftis^
nuUos facere debere conventus, profit jam et facerdotum
concilio fententia in eos lata eft. Petimus infuper, ut
quoniam in Syrmienfi oppido adhuc conventus tentare eos
cognovimus, dementia veftra, interdicSla hac ejus coitione,
reverentiam primum ecclefiae catholicje, deinde etiam legi-
bus veftris deferre jubeat. Ambrofii, Opera, vol. 5. p. 167.

t His additur invifibilem et impalTibilem. Sciendum
quod duo ifti fermones in ecclefiae Romanae fymbolo non
habentur, conftat autem apud nos additos, hasrefeos caufa
Sabellii illius profedo, quae noftris patripaffiana appellatur.
In Symbol, p. 173.

X Scit mecum qui vidit Ancyram metropolim Galatia?,
civitatera,, quod nunc ufque fcifmatibus dilacerata fit.

quod

246 Unitarians after Book III.

Ambrofe, his cotemporary, fpeaks of the
herefies of Photinus, Arius, and Sabellius,
as being extinct, but fays that, that of the
Manicheans prevailed'^. But as it is well
known that the herefy of Arius was far
from being extindt at that time, fo it is no
lefs evident that that of Photinus had many
adherents.

Sabellianifm w^as one of the five herefies^
as he calls them, againft which Auftin
thought it more particularly neceflary to
write. The other four were thofe of the
Pagans, the Jews, the Manicheans, and the
Arianst- It is alfo to the unitarians that
he refers in the following paffage, ** Let
** us not,'' fays he, ** hear thofe who fay
*' there is only the Father, and that he has
'* no fon, nor that there is a Holy Spirit,
^' but that the Father himfelf is fometimes
" called the Son, and fometimes the Holy

quod dogmatum varietatibus conftuprata. ,In Gal. cap. 2«
Opera, vol. 6. p-i34«

* Poftea quam Photinus obmutuit, Arlus conticuit, Sa-
belllus vocem perdidit, adhuc tamen hserefes diverfa con-
tra ecclefiam exerentes era confpicio. Apologia, David
cap. 4. p. 508.

t DeQuinqueH^Eiefibus, Opera, vol. 6. p. 35-

'' Spirit/'

Chap. XVI. the Council of Nice. 347

** Spirit*." Lardner fays, that the fre-
quent notice which Auflin takes of the
Sabellians, in his trad:s and fermons to the
people, is an argument that in his time
there was fome conliderable number of
perfons who maintained his opinion f.
Paulinus of the fame age, fpeaks of heretics
in his time, who faid, that '* Chrift was
^' God by adoption,'' from which he in-
fers, that " they muft think him to be a
** mere man J.''

If we look towards the eaft, where Bafil
and the two Gregories were then flourifli-
ing, we fhall find flill louder complaints
pf the prevalence of herefy, and efpecially
that of the unitarians. For it is to be ob-
ferve4 that, as it was fome time before the

* Nee eos audiamus qui dicunt patrem tantummodo
efle, nee habere filium, nee efTe cum eo fpiritum fan6tum:
fed ipfum patrem aliquando appellari filium, aliquando
fpiritum fandum. De Agen. Chrift. cap. 13. Opera, vol.
3. p. 268.

f Credibility, vol. 4. p. 606.

% Aut certe purum eum hominem fine deo natum
(quod cogitare impium eft) necefle eft fateantur, ac per
hoc quafi eguerit adoptione a patre in filium fit adoptatu^.
Adv. Felicem, Bib. Pat. vol. 5. p. 435*

gofpel

34^ Unitarians after Book II L

gofpel was propagated with fuccefs in the
weitern parts of the Roman empire, not till
the dodrine of the divinity of Chrift had
made confiderable progrefs, the chriftianity
ofthofe parts was always what was called
more orthodox than that of the eaft, where
the gofpel v/as firft preached, and confe-
quently, where the prejudices of chriftians
in favour of the old unitarian doctrine were
ftronger than in other places.

Cyril of Jerufalem complains of heretics,
both Arians and unitarians, as in the bofom
of the church. '* Now," fays he, *' there
** is an apoflacy ; for men have departed
** from the right faith, fome confounding
«* the Son with the Father," meaning the
unitarians, " others daring to fay that Chrift
<* was created out of nothing," meaning
the Arians. *' Formerly heretics were
** open, but now the church is full of con-
*^ cealed heretics*."

■■^'Siur,. Htxi ci |Wfv v'.o'TraloDia.v KaJocyy^.yj^.HO-iv^ Qi us tov x^'^^^ ?I ^^
Cviiili, Catech. 15. p. 209, See alfop. 5.

Complaints

Chap. XVI. the Comicil of Nice, 340

Complaints of the fpread of herefy, both
that of the unitarians, and that of the
Arians, by Bafil hinifclf, and his cotein-
pories, are particularly loud and inceflant.
The opinions he moft complains of were
fuch as were held by the common people,
though many of the clergy were alfo in-
fedted; and what is remarkable, the male-
contents complained loudly of Bafil's inno-^
vationsy both with refped: to docflrines, and
pradices. For fome time Bafil, thouoh
furnamed the Great, was obliged to ^ive
way to the dorm, and to retire from his
diocefe ; and yet, this it feems was a dan-
gerous ftep. For according to him, the
moft unremitted afliduity .was necefiary to
guard their flocks from fedudtion. '^ If
*' any perfon/' fays he, *' leave his diocefe
*^ for the fhortefl time, he leaves the com-
** mon people expofed*."

To give my readers a clear idea of Bafil's
litaaticn, I lliall feled: from his writings a
i^w paflages, which will give us a fuffi-

•f Ei yaf Tig Hai ispog to ^sax^c^^ov rr,; sKHTw.aixg avla cczcraiii
EK^oiag oapnost tuc ^.a'ig rotg lO^hvj^cri, Bafilii'Epift, Ixx. Opera,
vol. 3. p. 114.

cient

250 UnifariaJ2s after Book IIL

cient infight into it ; and the cafe appears
to have been the fame through the whole of
Alia Minor, but more efpecially in Galatia,
which had been the diocefe of Marcellus.
*' Groan with us/' fays Baiil, *' the only
** begotten is blafphemed, and there is no
*^ one to contradia it */' Gregory Na-
^ianzen reprefents him as abfolutely ba-
nifhed for holding opinions different from
thofe of his people -f.

The difficulties of Bafil were occafioned
both by the Arians, and the unitarians,
but chiefly the latter ; though they both
agreed in decrying the novel dodlrine of
the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which was
the great topic of controverfy, as has been
already feen, at that particular time. All the
following paffages fhew that his ftrongeil
apprehenfions were from the unitarians,
the difciples of Sabellius, Marcellus, and
Paulus Samofatenfis. ^* We are torn in
'' pieces," he fays, '* on one fide by the

* 2l£va|a7£ z(p YifAiv oil 0 fXovoyEVYi; ^>^!X(T0v]ix£ilM^ HM 0 avlP^tym
9)ceri. Epift. 70. Opera, vol. 3. p. 1 14.

+ O5 ye Hon f|-op<ay VTrsp Trjf aAn^Eiag ndlafc^ikig. Or.- 20.
p. 364.

" Anomeans,

Chap. XVI. the Council of Nice. ^q^ i

** Anomeans, and on the other by Sabel-
** iius *.*' ** Is not the myftery of godli-
** nefe^every where laughed at; the bi(hops
*' cojftlinuing without people, and without
** clergy, having nothing but an empty
*' name, able to do nothing for the ad-
*' vancement of the gofpel of peace and
** falvation. Are there not difcords con-
** cerning God, and blafphemy, from the
** old impiety of vain Sabellius -f-.'' «« You
*' know, fays he, " my dear brethren, that
** the doftrine of Marcellus, overturns all
** our hopes, not acknowledging the Son
** in his proper perfonality J."

Bafirs enemies alledged the authority of
his predeceffor, the famous Gregory Thau-
maturgus, as he is now generally called, as if

* 'Evlsv^zv yaf riixag o av^fjLOiog (jTra^aa-a-^i^ sls^a^ey dk ag zoiit^j
• XaC£?^to5. Epift. 64. Opera, vol. 3. p. ico.

t Ouxi' y^^oilai TO (jtsyoc. TYig suo-eCeuh; fxurri^iov^ a; aviv >wi xai
kT^yi^h 27rujKQ7rav 'S7£pi£^xO|OC£ViJJv, Kai ovoixa 4^i>^ov 'ujm(pE^ovlm^ h^ev
Se KOilo^^^lcov ei; ^us^OKOTrrw ra evcx,yfe7\i8 rrig £if wvjj nai crcJJr^^iag ; i:^i

01 'SSE^t T8 $£8 y^OyOl lutXO Ciuico WM^CJJ £l(TlV (XaBQoiV ^yf/^m, TJi?

'SiaT^ioig a.<j£Quag th fxcxlxio(p^ovog ^cxSiT^T^ia. 3i aula vw txvccvEuBEicrr^g
Bv Toig (Tvvlay/xoKTiv. Epift. 293. ibid. p. 284.

ij; Oi^acle^ a^s.'Kpoi ri/jucSlocloi^ oil "siaa-Yig n/xm tyj; eXotSo^ a^ilmrj
zXti TO Ma^KET'^ ^oyfxa . »?£ wcv iv i3i;5 vTroTaasi ofMhoyav.
Epift. 74, ibid. p. 126,

he

2^2 Unitarians after Booit III,

he had held that *' the Father and Son were
*' two in conception, but one in hypoftafis."
This he does not abfolutely deny, but';:fays,
'« that it was advanced by him pot ferioufly,
*' but only in difputation "^/'

Writing to the clergy of the church of
Neocaefarea, he fays, that SabelJius the
Lybian, and Marcellus of Galatia, were the
real authors of the dodrines taught by his
oppofers. He complains- heavily of the
violence with which they oppofed him,
and that they had the affurance to call his
dodtrines mifchievous ones -f*.

* £!<; aoa V^Y\yo^i'& siTTovlog sv sh^ejei '^itecc;^ 'mocizpix Hat uiov
tTTivoia fxsv £ivai ^yo, u7roTa(T£i 5e ev . ralo os, oli a oby/xotliKug si^iiJai,
a'h'K aywvin.twj tv Tn 'm^o; Ai>\iavov Jw^eIej. Epift. 64. Opera,
vol. 3. p. 10 1.

f XaiSfiX^to? a Ai^yj, nai Map£?^oj 0 Fa^aT^^ /xovoi eh "mavlcov iloy^
imactv^ HM 3j5a|ai rayja nai ypa^ai, aTTEp vvv "usa^ n/xiVy wj t^iccEav-
luv EVDYifJiala £7n%?if scTi 'Sj^Qa(p£^Eiv CI HoBrr/aiJ'Evoi T8 ?^as, ^o/xCaivovlE<;
TY] y'haa-dYii nai s^£ £ij 'sji^avm HcciaaHVJw E^aytxyEiv ra a-o(pi(r/xalcc
rocvlcc^ Hdi THj 'SjapaMyKTiMHi s^apnisvlEg . ^01 p7a hm a^^r^a na'^'
fifxuv ^Y}fjt,y]yof8(Ti^ HOii 'siavla TpoTTOv Tcc^ avvJuxidc^ yi^'Cov shhMvho-i .

TIVO; EVEHEV y «%{ TOV ETTl TQl^ 'moVr,^Oig EOLuiuV hi^OCyixaCTLV EXEyXOV U'
q)OpOOIJt.EVOl i CI 7£ ETTt T0(Tiil0V YlflUV HOilwollcrXW^>10-UV-, UTE HCCl OVSlf^i

iLva; £(p Yi(4.ixi ffUfxTTT^aaaiy '^i(xQak,'KovlEq vifxcov Tag ^i^£ic(7Ha^iagy ug
^■NxQipocg. Epift, 63. Opera, vol. 3- P- 95.

It

Chap, XVI. the Council of Nice. oro
It is acknowledged that, in general, the
unitarians were of the lower fort of people;
yet, in Baiil's diocefe many of them were
thofe of better condition. He complains of
the leading men in his own church being
addid:ed to the opinions of Sabellius and
■ Marcellus, and of their being diflatisfied
with his pfalms, his new mode of finging,
and his inftitution of monks*. He parti-
cularly mentions an excellent perfon,of the
name of Terentius, as having joined the
Paulians> in a paffage in which he* makes
great complaint of the progrefs of that kdi^
of their boldnefs, the publication of their
confeffions of faith, and threatening to join
his church t. This would not have been
-thought of, if their number had not been
very confiderable. Baiil himfelf was charg-^
cd with having been a favourer of the uni-
tarian doftrine, and even with having writ-

* Epift. 63. Ibid. p. 95.

-f- Kat /A,syo:(ppov£iv t8; raa-iocrag r8 fizps; £«£JV2S, jcJ £7raya'K'^E(T-

EX^AV (7vva7rl£(r^(xi Tn Ka.9 YiiJ.ag skhMtio.^ 'zipc; ^s nfioii HaKsivo riixiv
aTTi^yysT^Yi^ oli uTtnyayovlo 's^^og tuv VTrep ccvluv ctctsStiv, tov '^cx.vla api-
rov av^^cc TspEvlov. Jlpift. 272. Ibid. p. 26S.

Vol. III. A a tcti

2,^4 Unitarians after Book III.

ten in defence of it ; but this he abfolutely
denies, appealing to God for the truth of his
declaration *.

In this age it was the cuftom to apply to

the church of Rome, in any difBculties from
the diftant churches of the empire; a cir-
cumftance which greatly contributed to ad-
vance the power and infolence of that
^ church. And it was chiefly by means of
the overbearing influence of this churchy
that thofe do6lrines, which are generally
termed orthodox^ got eftabliflied, Bafil re^
quefted that perfons might be fent from
Rome to condemn the herefy of Marcellus,
faying, that *^ to this day, in all the lettera^
** they fend, the herefy of Arius is anathe-
*^ matized, where no fault was found with
<* Marcellus, who brought in a contrary he-
" refy, affeding the very being of the deity
** of the only begotten Son, and giving a
<* wrong fenfe to the word logos -f-/*

* OClz sy^cc^afjcsv eftsiva^ tile <Tvvli^sfXi%cx ai^oig, aX^a, ^ avex^E/jLcx-

%^0(JLSV T'd; SXOvJoig EKclVO TO tUOVE^OV ^pOV>]pca, TO TY]<; C-yyXfCTEftj; TiCV

VTTOTCiiTEaVy EV u V) a<r£S£Tcxlr] ai^ECTii; ra Sa^£A;^;s avEvsio^ . tbIo p,sv
«v yvapifjLOV Tw $£w, rca Taj xap^icc^ yivmKovJi^ Epift. 345-^ibid.
P- 339- : - -V

^yC(fivv^ov A^eiov avoi >cj hoSu av(X^E(A,gili^ovlEi >y tuv zkkT^wwv ^^opi -

Chap. XVI. the Council of Kike. 355

Gregory Nazianzen, who was cotempo-
rary with Balil, complains of the fmall
number of the orthodox, faying, *' they
** were the fmalleft of the tribes of Ifrael*."
And yet Optatus, who was cotemporary
with him in Africa, fpeaks of all heretics
as extind:, and the Sabellians among the reft,
their very names being unknown in Af-
rica-f-w But if this had been the cafe, we
(hould never have heard of the complaints

aa£QYi<T(xv\iy ^ Kahio; tuv in T^oya 'us^oa-nyopiav Ey2s^a(A,sva^ ahfjuav
(/.ifx-^iv £7r€V£yHQvlE; ^aivovlcci. Epift. 52. Ibid. p. 80.

* Kai i« TodK^vjiTw raig api^ixaixEvaig rav '^so'^bccv^ ah rav t;:oi/xviav
TVig 'O^^JIdloig £%ejv ri •m'Xtov nfAav^ tojv oAr/iiJV ty]; shccxif^g (pwKng
zv viDi; la-^n\ im o?4yoTCs>v €v %i^{«o"iv la^uy Tr.g (xinfocg B>i^Ae£/a sv
tzsQ7\icnv £v n x^^^°( yswalai^ vuv re ^ «9r apx^S xa?>(og kJ yivua^c/xevog
x^ aECo/xzvog, "SJap oig TairiO v-^^ai^ )^ viog la-a^ficci, ^ 'SJVF.'jfxa ayiof
an'^o^a^elai. Or. 2. p. 48.

f Hasreticos cam erroribns fuis mortuos, et oblivione
jam fepultos, quodammodo refufcitare voluifti, quorum per
provincias Africanas non folum vitia, fed etiam nomina
videbantwr ignota. Marcion, Praxeas, Sabellius, Valenti-
nus, et cseteri temporibus fuis a Vi6lorino Pidtavienfi, et
Zepherino Urbico, et Tertulliano Cartbaginienfi, ufque ad
Cataphrygas; et ab aliis adfertoribus ecdefise Catholics
fuperati funt. Lib. i , p. 9.

A a 2 of

356 Unifaria?2s after Book III.

of Auftin, who refided in Africa at the fame
time.

We have likewife boafts of the extinction
of herefy in Chryfoftom. But, by his own
evidence, they may be proved to be prema-
ture. He fpeaks of all heretics by name
as extind: ; and among the reft the Arians
are mentioned, which is known to have
been by no means the cafe *. It may
even, with fome probability, be inferred
from this writer himfelf, that notwith-
ftanding the prohibitions of government, the
unitarians of that age had the zeal and
courage to hold public aflemblies. For,
fpeakingof the unitarians, he fays, ** Let us
" avoid their affemblies, and learning the
*^ eternal exiftence of the Son, his power as
** the maker of the world, &c. let us hold
'* the trutht,'' &c.

It appears from the writings of Chry-
foftom, that, in his time, many perfons were
much attached to the religion and cuftoms
of the Jews ; and it is very probable, that

' * De Pfeudoprophetis, Opera, vol. 6. p. 479.

-j- ^wyaiMzv TOiv«v avim rag aVXhoya^y }y (xa^ovlsg ra (JLOVoyevag

T«i/ mv oHpi^nav, In Pf. 8. Opera, vol. 3. p. 122.
' ' the

Chap. XVI, the Council of Nice. 357

the doftrine of the unity of God, of which
the Jews were flrenuous alTertors, might be
a principal inducement to it, efpecially as
fome who were fond of the Jews are repre-
fented as continuing in the church. *' Let
" the Jews/' fays he, ** learn this, and
" thofe who rank with us, and yet think as
'' thevdo*."

No perfon fpeaks with more triumph of
the extindlion of herefy, efpecially that of
the unitarians, than Theodoret ; and yet his
account is flatly contradicSed by Facundus,
in the paflage above quoted from him. And
as Facundus wrote after Theodoret, it may
be taken for granted, that the unitarians
were more numerous in the time of Theo-
doret than they were in his.

Theodoret reprefents the cities in his
neighbourhood as full of heretics when he
came into the diocefe^ mentioning the
Arians, Eunomians, Manichffeans, Marcio-
nites, Valentinians, and Montanifts, and
even heathens and Jews 5 when himfelf, who

j(Xi ^% mmv 9?c7sv7ff. Horn. 38. Opera, vol. J, p. 525.

A a 3 fnaia-^

358 Unitarians after Book III,

maintained the evangelical truth was ex-
cluded frona all cities *. Though he does
not mention unitarians, it wiU appear pro-
bable, from what has been feen above, that
they were intended by the term Montanifts.
He boafts, however, of his having purged
his diocefe of all thofe herefies, efpecially
that of the Marcionites +* In another
place, he particularly fpeaks of the uni-
tarians as extincfl, and as an event pro-
duced by that power which rebuked the
deep. If. iv, 27. and " dried it up, who fays
*' to the deep. Thou flialt be defolate, and
" I will dry up the rivers J/' He likewife
fpeaks of the dodtrineof the trinity as held not
only by the teachers in the church, but alfo
by the low^eft artificers, feveral of whom he

icai roig ra Ba^evliva, xai Mov7«v8 yoo-ao'ii hou /aevIoi kcci E>^>>wi Hat
lii^ixicig ' eyw h twv BuayfsT^iHOiv uTra^aymi^of/svog ^oyf^oilcovisaavis si^-
yopixi 'ssouoig. Epift. 81. Opera, vol. 3. p. 953.
f Ibid. p. 954.

X Tcfulot; wnoKTo^ rag aiptang ettj avaipsa-eag m (AovoyEva; ^eoV
*log ETrmvom^v 0 rm av^puTTuv a>>(xro}p • a^^ eo-^sctev aitaaag o stti-
*li(ici)v aJ^vdo-K^ xai ^y^paiwv av%v^ o >.£y(>)v tvj aQuaaoi Epy\fM%ayi'> ^\
rag 'molatfjuig era ^npam» Haer. Fab. lib. 2. cap. II. Opera,
yol. 4. p. 224.

€nume«

Chap. XVI. the Council of Nice,
enumerates, by women, even of the loweft
ranks, and by the inhabitants of villages, as
well as thofe of cities *.

How far this is to be confidered as a
faithful ftate of fadls, or the flourish of an
orator, I leave the reader to determine, by
comparing it with the accounts of Fa-
cundus and others. Cyril of Alexandria
who was cotemporary with Theodoret
holds a different language, «^ Some," fays
he, *' are fo far feduced, that they cannot
'' bear any longer to confefs that Chrift is
*' God ; but that he is rather the organ and
** inftrument of the deity, and infpired by
*'Godf." In this it is pofTible, that hp
alluded to the Sabellian, or Patripaflian doc-
trine, which I fhallfhew was the language

* Kat snv i5r<vTat/7a £i5b7«f to. ^oy/^pila, a fscovug ye mg £XK>^r,c:ia^
rag SiSacr^a^yj , aMa nai dHvlolQiMug^ Kai %aA;fo7v'zrs^, xai Ta7\ao-iHcyiif
uai T8f aMaj aTTO^^si^oQicJliig ' xai yvvMKag ccaaulcp;^ a /xovov rag ?^yut

^e^aTTexivag .' nai a (jlovov aroi^ oi>Q\a. nai x^p^^f^^^ '^iv ^^ '^^^ yvvvm
iaX^KOio-i; Serm. 5. Opera, vol. 4. p. 556.

J Prope namque ufque adeo quidamfeduiSli funt, ut
non fuflineant amplius confiteri, quod Deus fit Chriflus,
{t^ quod fit magis organum et inftrumentum dlvinitatis,
^t homo numine afflatus. Epift, Opera, vol. 2« p. 14.

A a 4 pf

360 llnitarians after Book III,

of the philofophical unitarians. But it may
be inferred, from feveral paflages in the writ-
ings of Cyril, that there were unitarians in
his time. I fliall give one of them in the
notes *.

Cyril even fpeaks of writers in defence of
the unitarian dodrine in his time, and fuch
as he thought it worth his while to animad-
vert upon. '' But becaufe a heretic,'' he
fays, ** famous for his Ikill in the Jewifh
** fcriptures, in his expoiition of this paf-
*' fage" (tbe Father is greater than IJ ** has
** written intolerable blafphemies againft
** the only begotten, I thought it my duty
^* to {hew the falfehood of his difcourfe -f-/'

* Obiiterant enim quidam, veritatis pukhritudinem, ct
ficut numifma, adulterant, extollentes in excelfum cornu et
injuftitiam contra deum loquentes, ficut fcriptum eft.
Imaginantur unigenitum non habere exiftentiam, et pro-
prie non fubfiftere, et per fe quidem non efle in fubliftentia,
Verbum autem fimpliciter, et fermonem juxta folam pro-
nunciationern a deo faclum quemadmodum et in homine
inhabitalle dicunt miferi : et coinponentes fic Jefum, fane-
tis quidem fanctiorem efle dicunt, attamen non deum. De
Rcfta Fide, vol. 2. p. 686. .

t Verum quoniam quidam haereticorum etiam apud
Judapos facrarum peritia literarum illuflris hunc locuni
txponcns intolerabiles in unigenitum fcripfit blafphemias,

mel

Chap. XV I. the Council of Nice ^ og]

^* He has the arrogance," he fays, ** to af-
'' fert, that the Father is in no fenfe greater
** than the deity of the Son, but only fup-
*' pofes that the nature of the Father ex-
** ceeds his humanity *." In this manner
he muft have meant to defcribe the SabeK
Hans.

From thefe circumftances, let the reader
judge, wh^er the unitarian herefy was
eictind: in the time of Theodoret, whatever
it might be in his neighbourhood. His
great zeal, and his power in his diocefe,
would probably prevent the unitarians from
declaring themfelves, and their acquiefcence
might be called their converfion.

The Pelagians, as I have fhewn, very
generally adopted the unitarian dodlrine.
But, befides thefe, CaiTian fpeaks of other
unitarians in Gaul, whom he does not clafs
v/ith Pelagians. ** There have lately ri-
*' fen," he fays, ** I mean in our days, a

mei officii putavi falfitatem orationis ejus arguere. In
John, lib. 10. cap. 9. Opera, vol. i. p. 93 8.

* Ad hoc arrogantiae quidam proceflerunt, inqult, ut
nuUo modo audire patiantur patrem, filii deitate majorem
elTe, fed folahumanitate naturam patris excedcre arbitren-
^ur, Cyril. Alex. vol. i, p. 939.

^' poifonoys

362 Unitarians after Book III,

** poifonous herefy, chiefly in the city of
** Beliga?, of a certain name, but an un-
** certain author, which, with a frefh head,
*< rifes from the old error of the Ebionites.
** It is doubtful whether it can be called
** old, or new. It is new in the affertors,
*^ but old in the error, viz, that our Lord
** Jefus Chrift is a mere man*/'

According to Maxentius, wjfo flourifhsd
in the year 520, thd unitarians were by
no means extind: in his neighbourhood.
Speaking of the church as rejecting the
doftrine of thofe who fay that *^ Chrift is
** God by favour, and not by nature," he
fays, *' againft this all heretics, as well thofe
** who are manifeftly cut ofi and divided,
«* as thofe who are within the church, and
^' fpiritually divided from it, whom the

* Nuper quoque, id eft, in diebus noftris emeHlfTe
hserefim venenofam, et maxime Beligarum urbe confpexi.
mus, certi crroris, incerti nominis : quia cum recenti ca-
pite ex antiqua Ebionitarum ftirpe furrexerit, dubium ad-
modum eft antiqua magis dici, an recens debeat. Nova
enim aflertoribus, fed vetufta erroribus fuit. Solitarium
(juippe hominem doniinum noftrum Jefum Chriftum na-
turn efle bhfphemans, De Incamationc, lib. i. cap. 2.
p. 962.

f^ hqly

Chap. XVI. the Council of Nice. 363

^* holy charity of the church bravely tole-
*^ rates, always take up arms, and ceafe not
*^ to urge it with falfe charges, and en-
^* deavour to excite all they can influence
*' a^^ainft it. As yet,'' he adds, *' we arc
^' in the threihing floor, corn mixed with
^' chaff, good men grieve at the fociety of
^* the wicked*." This pafTage is very fimi-
lar to that of Facundus, and makes it ex-
tremely probable, that, in all chriftian coun*
tries, there were great numbers of unita-
rians, fufficiently known to be fo, in com-
munion with the catholic church, without
being molelted.

* Vera dei ecclefia, cui non funt haeretlcorum ignota;
procell^, non eft ilia quae chriflum gratia non natura deum
confitetur. — Adverfus illam omnes hseretici, tarn qui ab
ea manifefte abfciffi atque divifi funt, quam hi qui intr^
earn pofiti, fpiritaliter ab ea diflentiunt (quos fortiter fan^la
fidelium tolerat charitas) Temper arma corripiunt, eamque
falfis criminationibus infeftari non definunt, atque eos quos
fuis potuerunt erroribus in ejus nituntur invidiam concitare,

Adhuc, inquit in area fumus, mixta funt frumenta

cum paleis, gemunt boni confortia malorum : fed fupereft
£amma, non neceftariis, et parata funt horrea jam probati,
in his remorari diutius fupcrfluum aeftimo. Bib. Tat. vol.

5? P- 499-

2 ^ E C.

364 Unitarians after Book III,

SECTION XL

Of the State of the Unitarians after the fxib
Century,

TXT' E muft not expeft to find any diftinft
account of the unitarians, or the con-
dition they were in, in what are called the
dark ages. There can be no doubt, how-
ever, but that they continued to be in the
fame ftate in which they had been in the
preceding period, i. e. not very confpicuous,
or forming many feparate focieties, at leaft,
fuch as the hiftorians of the time had any
knowledge of; but mixed with other chrif-
tians, though without making any fecret of
their opinions. Of this, though there are
no diftincl accounts, there are fufficient
traces. I have noted only a few, as they
happened to fall under my obfervation,
when I was reading for other purpofes.

Pope Gregory the Great, who flouriihed
about the clofe of the fixth century, fpeaks
©f heretics v/ho faid '' they did not envyv

^' Chrift

Chap. XVI. the Council of Nice. 365

** Chrift being God, becaufe they could
** be fo if they would, confidering Chrift as
'^ a mere man, and made a God by fa-
<<vour*/' Thefe muft have been unita-
rians, for it is a language that was never
held by Arians.

In Bulgaria Sandius fays, that the Pho-
tinians remained till the time of Pope
Nicholas, about the year 860. Hift. p.
117. Agobard fpeaks of Avitus having
written againft them, but at what time does
not appear -f-.

For fome time the unitarians were called
Bonofians, from Bonofus, bifhop of Ser-
dica, in the latter end of the fourth, and
the beginning of the fifth century. Men-
tion is made of him as an unitarian, along

* Non invldeo Chrifto deo faclo, quoniam fl volo, et
ipfe poffum fieri. Qui Jefum Chriftum dominum nof-
trum, non per myfteriutn conceptionis, fed per profe£lum
gratiae deum putavit, perverfa aliegatione aftruens eum
purum hominum natum : fed ut deus efTet, per meritum
profecifTe, atque ab hoc aeflimans et fe quoflibet alios pofle
ei coequari, qui filii dei per gratiam fiunt. In Job. cap.
35. p. 1 10. C

t Beatus quoque Avitus, Photinianorum haereticorum
validiffimus expugnator. Adv. Fselicem^ fedl- 41. p. 55,

with

366 Unitarians after Book III.

with Photinus, by Marlus Mercator*, and
alfo by Juftinian, who ranks him with
Paulus Samofateniis, Photius ( probably
Photinus) and Neftorius -f-. Mention is
alfo made of the Bonofians in a council
held at Orleans, A. D. 540 |.

Sandius fays, that the Bonofians were the
fame with the Felicians, fo called from Fe-
lix, of Urgella in Spain, who, in conjunc-
tion with Elipandus, of Toledo, taught
heretical doctrines with refpedt to the tri-
nity, A. D. 780 (Hift. p. 360) and that
this Elipandus held the fame opinions with
Sabellius, he fays, appears from a copy of
his confcffion to Beatus and Hetcrius. He
adds, that the four preceding bilhops of
Toledo, who compiled the Toledan Gothic

* Hunc iraque Heblonum philofophum fecutus Mar-
ceilus Galata eft, Photinus quoque, et ultimis temporibus
Serdlcefifis Bonofus, qui a Damafo urbis Romae cpafcopo
praedamnatus eft. Opera, p. 165.

"Ntro^iov avx^fAoli^ek. Epift. p. 122.

X Judex civitatis vel loci, ii baereticum aut Bonofta-
cum, vel cujuflibet alterius hasrefis faccrdotem, quam
cunque pcrfonam de catholicis rebaptita£*e cognoverit-
Blnii Concilia, vol. a- pt. 2. p. 29.

liturgy,

Chap, XVI. the Council of Nice. 367

liturgy, were of the fame opinion with him.
Ibid. p. 120.

Eiipandus, however, may have been a
Neftorian, by his aflerting that Jefus Chrift
w^as the adopted Son of God, as we learti
from the tranfadions of the council of
Frankfort in 794 *.

The Goths and Vandals, and all the
other northern nations, which invaded th6
Roman empire, are generally faid to have
been Arians. But it is very poffible that
this may have been faid without making
proper diitincflions, and that many of them
were unitarians. Chilperic, king of the
. Franks, was probably one, at leaft fo was
Leovigild of Spain, who fent ambaffadors
to Chilperic in 585, as may be inferred

* Adferunt igitur, fed falfis adfertlonibus irretiti, do-
minum noftrura Jefum Chriftum, adoptivum dei filium
de virgine natum ; quod divinis nequeunt adprobare do-
cumentis. Hsec igitur dicentes, aut in utero virginiseum
fufpicantur adoptatum : quod dici nefas eft, quia dc beata.
virgine inerarrabiliter fumpfit, non adoptavit, carnem; auC
certe purum eum hominem fine dco natum, quod cogitare
impium eft, necefle eft fateantur, Binni Concilia, vol. 3.
pt» 2. p. 140.

from

368 Unitarians after Book IIL

from what Sandius fays of him, and his
ambafiadors *.

Some Sabellians, as well as Arians, were
condemned at a council held at Toledo,
A.D. 400"f'. Alfo unitarians, or Nefto-
rians, feem to be alluded to in a council
held in the fame city, A. D. 684+.

The Albigenfes, at leaft many of them,
appear pretty clearly not to have been or-
thodox with refped: to the trinity ; but
whether they were more generally Arians,
or unitarians, I have not been able to deter-
mine.

*Hift. p. 337' 338-

f Si quis dixerit atque crediderit, deum patreiii eun»
dem effe filium vel paracletum, anathema fit. Si quis
dixerit vel crediderit filium eundum cfTe patrem vel para-
cletum, anathema fit. Si quis dixerit vel crediderit para-
cletum effe vel patrem vel filium, anathema fit. Si quis
crediderit vel dixerit, carnem tantum fine anima a filio dei
fuifi^j fufceptam anathema fit. Binnii Concilia, vol. i.
p. 60.

X Si quis igitur Jefu Chrlfto dei filio, ex utero Mariae
virginis nato, aliquid aut divinitatis imminuit, aut de fuf-
cepta humanitate fubducit, excepta fola lege peccati ; ct
non eum verum deum, hominemque perfedum in una
perfona fubfiftentem finceriffime credit, anathema fit.
Binnii Concilia, vol. '?. p. 207.

Of

Chap. XVI. the Council of Nice, 369

Of thefe Albigenfes, Lifoias and Here-
bert arc particularly mentioned, as men of
excellent moral charadters, who were ac-
ciifed of Manicheifme. However, when
they were interrogated at Orleans, in 10 17,
it appeared that they did not hold the doc-
trine of the trinity*.

In the fame uncertainty are the opinions
of Peter Abelard, and thofe of his difciple,
as he is called, Arnold of Brefcia. But it
is no uncommon thing for the fame perfon

* Fa6la igitur perfcrutatione inter clericos, quoiTkodo
unufquifque fentiret, et crederet ea, quse fides catholica
per dodrinam apoftolicam incommutabilitcr fervat et prae-
dicat: illi duo, videlicet Lifoius, et Heribertus ftatim
fe aliter fentire non negantes,quales diu latuerant, manifer-
taverunt, Deinde vero plures poft illos fe parti iftorum
profitebantur haerere, nee ulla ratione fe pofle affirmabant
ab illorum fegregare confortio. Quibus compertis, tarn
rex, quam Pontifices triftiores eftedi interrogaverunt
illos fecretius, utpote viros hadenus in omni morum pro-
bitate perutillfHmos, quorum unus Lifoius in monafterio
fandtas crucis clerlcorurn clariffimus habebatur : alter item
Heribertus fandi Petri ecclefix, cognomento Puellarius

capitalae fcholae tenebat dominium. Dicebant enim

deliramenta effe, quidquid in veteri ac novo canone certis
fignis ac prodigiis, veterlbufque teflatoribus de trinitate
unaque deitate beata confirmat aud^oritas, Binnii Con-
cilia, vol. c?. pt. 2. p» 176.

^'- ' TTf. Bb to

yjo Unitarians after Book III.

to be called an Arian by one writer, and an
unitarian by another. Thus Lewis Hetzer
is called an Arian by Sandius, who was
himfelf an Arian (Ilift. p. 424) whereas
Mofheim (Kilt. vol. 4. p. 183) reprefents
him as having been of the fame opinion
w4th Socinus.

Abelard, liowever, v/as mod probably a
Sabellian, as may be inferred from his com-
parifon of the unity of the three perfons
in the trinity to the unity of i\\QpropoJition\
ajiimptioriy and conchifion^ of an oration. At
leaft it was fo underftood at a council held
in 1 136*. V/hat is faid of him on the oc-
cafion of another council, in 11 40, may per-
haps Ihew that, with refped to the trinity,

* Quare de S. trinitate docens et fcribens, tres perfonas,
quas faiKSlaecclena non vacua nomina tantum, fed res diftincn
tas, fuifque proprietatibus difcretis, hacSlenus et pie credidit,
et fideliter docuit, nimis attenuans, non bonis ufus exem-
plis, inter caetera dixit : ficut eadem oratio ell propofitio af-
fumptio, et Gonclufio, ita eadem eiTentia eft pater, et filius,
et fpiritus fanelus* Ob hoc SueiTionis provinciali contra
eum fynodo fab praefentia Romanae fedis legati congrega-
ta, ab egregiis viris. et nominatis magiftris, Elberico Rhe-
menfe, et Leutaldo Novarienfe, Sabellianus haereticus ja-
dicatus, Binnii Concilia, vol. 3. pt. 2. p.. 492.

he

Chap. XVL the Council of Nice. ^yi

he v/as an i\rian, with rei])ecl to the doiSlrlne
of grace a Pelagian, and with refpedt to the
perfon of Chrift, a Neftorian *.

T^:aj3pears then, that, in all the periods
of Antiquity, there were confiderable num-
bers of unitarians, either avowed or con-
cealed ; and efpecially among the Albi-
genfes, who bore fo noble a teftimony againrt:
the errors of the church of Rome. Unita-
rians alfo appeared in great numbers about
the time of the reformation by Luther.
But he and Calvin, not going fo far, but
retaining more fundamental corruptions of
chriftianity than any that they abolifhed,
employed all their influence to bear down
thofe who did not exadlly agree with them,
a«nd flop where they did.

The truth has never, however, been
without its witnefles, perhaps, even in no
age or country ; and providence feems now
to be opening a way for the much wider
fpread, and the firmer ellabli flume nt of the
truth, efpecially in this country.

* Cum de trinitate Loquitur, fapit Arrium : cum de gra-
tia, fapit Peligiam : cum de perfona Ghrifli, fapit Ncfto-
riura. Binnii Concilia, vol. 3. pt. 2. p. 494.

B b 2 That

^»-2 TJnifarians after Book III.

That it is not improbable, but that, even
in times of pretty great rigour, quiet peo-
ple, who wrote nothing, and colledted no
difciples, would be permitted to continue
in communion with the catholic church,
iiotwithftanding their opinions were fuf-
pefted, or known, to be heretical, may-
appear from the ftate of things at home,
in the laft, and the prefent age.

Is it not well known that there are
both Arians and Socinians members of the
church of England, and even among the
clergy themfelves, and yet, if they can re-
concile it to their own minds to keep
in communion with a trinitarian church,
there are no attempts made to moleft them.
Zealous as the heads of the church may
be for the purity of its tenets, they think
proper to connive at thefe things, and fo
they did in an age m.ore zealous than this.
The excellent Mr. Firmin was not only
an avowed Socinian, and in communion
with the church of England, but in habits
of intimacy with Tillotfon, and fome of the
moft diftinguilhed churchmen of his time.

At

Chap. XVI. the Council of Nice. 373

At prefent there are Arian and Soclnian
writers within the pale of the church, and
y€t they are not excommunicated. Such a
thing as this might not have palTed fo eafily
in the time of Theodofius. But even then I
make no doubt, but that perfons who
could content themfelves without diflurb-
ing others, would not have been molefted.

Perfons who do not bona fide hold the
acknowledged tenets of any church (I mean
fuch great and diftinguifhed ones as thofe
relating to the objed: of wor(hip) ought to
withdraw themfelves from it, and not,
by continuing in communion with it, to
countenance its errors. But how many
are there who do not fee the thing in this
light, or whofe habits and prejudices are
fuch, that they cannot bring themfelves to
ad: as I think every principle of honour,
as well as of religion, didates ; and yet I
cannot call all fuch perfons hypocrites,
doing what they themfelves know and feel
to be wrong. They have excufes, which I
doubt not, fatisfy their own minds, though
they do not fatisfy me. Great allowance
is alfo to be made for the force of habit,

B b 3 and

374 Unitarians after Book III.

and even for a natural timidity. There
are many Erafmus's for one Luther, many
Dr. Clarke's for one Whifton, a name,
which notwithftanding the vveaknefs of
his judgment in fome things, ought never
to be mentioned without refpe6l, on ac-
count of his almoft lingular and unpa«
ralelled uprightnefs.

As to the common people, the idiot a of
Tertuilian, we generally fee that, as they
are not innovators in dodlrine, they go to
public worfnip where they have been ufed
to do, without any nice difcriminatlon of
what is tranfadted there ^ and the obferva-
tion vvdll generally apply to the bulk of the
inferior clergy. When Henry ViII. re-
formed the church of England, how many
joined him in it, who would never have
declared themfelves diffenters from the qfta-
bliflied church ?

Thefe confiderations, which are founded
on fuch a knowledge of human nature as
we may learn from all hiftory, and our own
daily obfervation, may render it credible, that
the majority of the common people, might
be unitarians, and yet continue in commu-
nion

Chap. XVI. the Council of Nice, 375

nionv/ith the church, after its forms became
trinitarian, efpecially as they would not
become fo all at once. In the moil ancient
liturgies, there were no prayers addreffcd to
Chrift; and as the members of chriflian
focieties w^ere not required to fubfcrihe to
any thing, there was nothing that they
were expeded to bear a part in, concerning
which they might not be able to fatisfy
themfelves.

The cafe is the fame, in a greater or lefs
degree, at all times, and in all churches.
Quiet people will generally be indulged
in their own way of thinking, and they
are only thofe who diflurb others that are
themfelves difturbed.

dxb... Bb4 CHAP.

376 Pbilofopkical Book III.

B

CHAPTER XVIL

Of Philofophical Unitariawfm.

E S I D E S the Jimple uuitarianifm above
defcribed, or the dodrine of Chrift be-^
ing a mere man, infpired by God, which
was the belief of the generality of chdftians
of lower rank, there was likewife, in early
times, what may be called a philofophical
tinitarianifm, or an explanation of the doc-
trine concerning Chrift on the principles
of the philofophy of thofe times. And this
deferves the more notice, as it probably
gave occafion to what is commonly called
the patripajjian dodlrine, if fuch a doftrine
was ever really maintained.

As the fun was fuppofed to emit rays^
and draw them into himfelf again, fo the
Divine Being, of whom they imagined the
fun to be an image, they likewife fuppofed,

emitted

Chap. XVII. Unitarianif/n. xil

emitted a . kind of effiux^ or divine ray, to
which they fometimes gave the name ofloo^osy
which might be attached to arjy particular
fubftance, or perfon, and then be drawn
into the Divine Being again. Such a di-
vine efflux was imagined to have been the
caufe of the appearances of God in the Old
Teflament, and likewife to have been im-
parted to Jefus Chrift ; who, neverthclefs,
was a mere man. For before his baptifm
they fuppofed that he had not this divine
ray, and that it would leave him when it
had enabled him to a<fl: the part affigned to
him.

This dodtrine preceded that of the /»ur-
manent perfonificat'wn oj the logos. It is par-
ticularly defcribed by Juftin Martyr, and
it is remarkable, that, though he does not
adopt it, he paffes no cenfure upon it,
which is a proof that, in his opinion, it
was not heretical.

*' There are,'* he fays, *' fome I know,

f* who fay that the divine power which

f* appeared to Mofes, and Abraham, and

?* Jacob, was called an angel, from his de-

'"' *' livering

378 Philofophlcal Book III,

*' livering the will of God to men, and a
** glory^ when he appeared in an ineffable
*' manner, and a ma?i^ when, at the will of
«' the Father, he appeared in that form ;
*' and logos, when he brought the will of
*< God to man ; but that this power is in-
*' feparable from the Father, as a beam of
*' light is from the fun, fince, when he
*' fets, he takes his beams with him. Thus
** they fay the Father, when he pleafes,
*^ makes this power to go out of him, and
<^ when he pleafes, takes it into him again.
<^ In the fame manner, they fay, angels
** exift. But that angels are permanent be-
*' ings, and do not return into that from
*' which they had their origin, I have
/* fhewn. And that this power, which the
** prophets call God, and angel, is not like
*' a beam of the fun, but numerically dif-
^' ferent from it, I have briefly fhewn
*' above ^ when I proved that this power
*' is produced by the Father's power, and
*' at his will, but yet not a thing cut
'* off from him, fo as to diminifli his
*' elTence, but like the lighting of one

" fire

Chap. XVII. TJnitariamfnu ^^^

*' fire from another, which is not thereby
'' lelTened.*"

Whitby fliys that Clemens Alcxandrinus
fpeaks of .this dodrine with approbation.

asiv TYiv ^vviXf/AV TYiV 'SJoc^ci Tn ^oloog im o>^v (pavEiaav tw Miocret »

-sr^ooocy, ettej^h h auirig roc ^sja^oi rs "Uidipp; roi; ocv^^cottok; ayF£}j\slM,

av^pcoTTOv HaX£L(T^ai, iiruon £v f/.o^pMg toiccvlaig ax'nt^ctli^Qi^Ev^
<paiv£lai cxia-TTE^ ^■d^.slai o 'TUccIyi^, rnxi "hoyov KoCK&aiv £'K£^a kcu rjcg

^irov T8 incilpog tuvItw tyiv ouva/xiv uttu^x-^^-'^ ovTrsfpoTTCV to th r,?^n
(paai (pag etti yr.i; Eivai cCi^i^Qv km ayjxioifov ov7©- rs K^ia ev tw
spavoj, Kot.1 olav ^i^'jvi, a-uv^-jo(pE^ilM 10 cpcog^ alcog 0 's:a%o oiav iSsA/j-
loiii 7\zyiicri, Cvvaixiv aviH 'mpOTTY^xv 'SJoiEi^ xai clccv ^H7<Y^ai 'mccT^iv

CiVCX,TE7\7^£l Eig ECiViOV. Ka7a Ts7ov rOV r^GTTCV KM TSJ ayyET^dg 'ZSOlEiV

auloy ^i^aa-Ksaiv. Aaa' oJi ijlev «v eitiv ccyfi?.oi, y,ai asi fXEVcfirg, Kai
fjLrj avcc>>vo(X£voi £ig SKEivo fl utts^ yEyovcta-iv, aTTohhiHitxi y Kai cIl
cvvayLig avlri v\v uai ^egv ua'hEi 0 ^^o(p}TliHcg "hoycg^ Oi.a. ^c>.7.u:); oxr-
aJlag aTTOOEOSi^ilai, km ayJsAov, 8%, cog to ra n^iii ^a;j ovoixocli. fAcv:v
a^i9j.£iJcxi, a70\a H.a.\, a^i9f.M eIe^cv ri Efi^ hm ev roig 's:^0£i^r\fXEVQi;
d'icz (3pax£^'V Tov ?\oyov E^-nlaca-a^-^ Emm tyiv ovva/xiv ravinv y£y£vvw<rcit
aTTo TH ^(xl^og d'vvafA.si km ^hXyi aul^^ aXh a h£oc w^olofxriv, ag a7ro~
fjtE^i^cfAEvng rrg ra "Sicilpog aa-iag, OTToia toc oCh-T^a. 'ujavla. (jLE^iiiofjiZvac

KM TEjLiVO/ilEVX H To, OLVlO. £7<.V O, KM TT^iV rfXYi^VM. Kat "izara.'

^£('y//a7@- X'^^'V 'z:aPEiM<p£iv ra cog utto ziv^^cg avaTTlo/xsva r^jo^cc
eIei^cc OfUfAEv, aoEv EKaTlaixEVH EKEivH^ sl 8 ava<pOriVM "ssoT^oi ^uvxvIm,
a,}<hQ(. ravla (xevqvI^, Dial. p. 4 1 2.

He

£8o Philofophical Book III.

He alfo fays, " it Is particularly remark-
** able, that Juflin Martyr, though he did
*^ not approve of this dodlrine, paffes it
" without any cenfure, or mark of herefy *."
They who adopted this notion would na-
turally fay, that the divinity of Chrift was
only that of the Father refiding in him ;
and it is not impoffible but that, as they are
charged by their adverfaries, they might, on
this principle, fay, that Chrift was God;
and the divinity being the fame in both,
that he was the very fame with the Father.
The Holy Spirit being another divine efflux,
they might alfo fay, that all the three per-
fons were one. Farther, though the thing
is hardly probable, efpecially as it is, in a
manner, given up by fome of their antago-
nifts, they might fay, that fince Chrifl fuf-

* Ubi praecipue notaridum eft, Jufiinum quidem fen-
tentiam hance improbare, earn vero fine cenfura aut haere-
feos nota dimittere. Sententiam hancce, qaam poftNoetum
et Praxeam, Sabellius propugnavit, Clementi Alexandrino
ex Psedagogia fua placuifTe non fine ratione exiftimo ;
eanique poftea renovabat, et pro ea acriter contendcbat,
Marcellus Ancyr3e epifcopus. Difquifitiones Modeftae,

p. 173-

fered

Chap.XVII. Vnltarlanlfm. 381

fered while this divine ray, or logos, was ia
him, it alio fuflfcred along with him. For,
according to the phllofophy of thoie times,
though the fapreme being himfelf was in-
capable either of evil orof paffion, yet other
beings, derived even from his fubftance,
were capable of thofe aiTedions. They
might therefore imagine, that the logos,
while out of the deity, might fiifFer together
with the perfon to w^hom it was attached ;
and hence they might get the name oipatri^
pajfians. This, hov/ever, would never apply
to any but philofophers. The common
people are defcribed as fimple unitarians,
without having any fuch whimfical hypo-
theiis as this.

This opinion of the logos being fomething
like a divine ray, emitted from the Father,
and properly belonging to him, though for a
time attached to the perfon of Chriil, may
be traced in Origen and others ; and it is
afcribed to almoft all the eminent men
among the unitarians, as late as Marcellus.
For it does not appear that his difciple Pho-
tinus was ever charged with it.

Origen,

382 Phllofopblcal Book III,

Origen, after faying that Chrift is the
God of the dead as well as of the living,
fays, that ** perhaps God the logos is God
*' to thofe who place every thipg in hiriii^^^
** thinking him to be the fame with the
** Father *." Celfus objeding to chriftians
that, ** while they exclaimed againft poly-
** theifm, think they do not oifend by wor-
" fliipping his fervant." Origen replies,
** that he would not have mide this objec-
** tion, if he had underftood what our Sa-
*^ viour fays, that he and his Father were
*' one," which union he explains by the
union of chriftians, who had one heart and
one mind. ** This," he fays, *' is a fufficient
*' argument, without having recourfe to the
** fentiments of thofe w^ho maintain, that
*' the Father and the Son are not tvi^o hy-
'* poftafes "f-;" by which he muft have

''' O ^£ Ssoj Aoyoj T«%a Twv £v avlc>) ira'pMV to 'ssa,v , r^ rav "UJa-
le^a aJlov'vofJiiZovlav ETi ^eog. Comment, vol. 2. p. 4S.

f 0% SITTER v£voYiK£i 0 KfAfJoj TO, Eyco ij 0 "UJolnp sv £7(j,£v ' Kai ro

EV ey%>1 £tpYi(A.£VOV VTTO T8 UlU T8 Sfa £V Tii;. H; £yO) HCX.1 CU EV ECTfASV^ UK !XV

(t){io Vfjuxg i^ a70\ov ^E^aTTsvEiv "ujapoi, rov ettl 'uracri ^egv. O yap ij^cx."
%^^ <py[<nv, EV E(ji.oi^ Kay a ev za 7i:al^i. Et, oe , ti; ek thIuv TrEpiaTra^^^m--
cila'-i /u>j W/i av}o(Ao?Mi,u:v 'mpo; tsj avai^n'P.ag ^vo nvat viroTacrEig

ttoIec a

Chap. XVII. Unitananifm. 38^

meant the Sabellians, whofe dodriac, as far
as it may be laid to have diifered from that of
the fimple unitarians, was the philofophical
unitarianifmdefcribed above. *' The Sabei-
'^ Hans,'* fays, Novatian, *' v^'hile they fay
*' that Chrift is a mere man, yet, in a man-
** ner, make him to be not the Son, but the
** Father, and the Father omnipotent *."

Origenv^ell defcribes thediiferent clalTcs of
unitarians of his time in the following paffage:
*^ Hence may be folved the doubts which
'* difturb many, who alledge a principle of
*^ piety, and a fear of making two Gods,
" and by this means fall into falfe and im-
*' pious opinions^ either denying that the
'* identity of the Son differs from that of
•' the Father; faying, that the Son is God
*' only in name, or denying the divinity of
" the Son, while they allow his identity,

muaJtoa kJ uiov ' tTiirmdioi tw. nv ^e Tuavlav rav 'sriTSvcrcsvluv rj Ka^mos
^ r\ 4'''^X,'^ f^^^-> "'^ ^£'j^py]<rn to, sya y^ o "ssainp iv eifMiv. Ad Ccl-
fum, lib. 8. p. 385.

* Slquldcm ChriRus non filius, fed pater crcditur, et
novo more dum ab iftis deftridle homo nudus adferitur,
per eos, rurfum Chriftus pater deus omnipotens compro-
batur. Cap. 12. p. 40.

I ** and

384 Thilofophlcal Book ILL

" and that he is a different perfon from the
'' Father, &c-^'' The firft that he defcribes
were the philofophical unitarians, who al-
lowed the divinity of the Son, but faid it
was the fame with that of the Father ;
whereas the latter (probably thb common
people) denied the divinity of the Son alto-
gether. It is evident from this pafTage, that
the unitarians, in the time of Origen, were
numerous ; for he calls them many^ which
he would not have done unneceffarily. The
argument by which he folves their doubts
has been mentioned before, viz. that the
Father is God, with the article prefixed, and
the Son without it.

* Kai TO 'UiQ'Khiiq ^i>,o^Siii Eivai fy%o,asvy; Taoa^aov^ EuXa^a'/xsvH';
^yo avxyo^Euaai ^£8g, km ^a^a r^^o 'TSEoiTfiTilovlczg -^^Si/oEa-i koci aaE-
Q^E'Ti '^oyfjLo.aiv^ Y^Qi apv^fA-EVug i^ioir^cc via {Izpav "sra^a mv ra 's^aipo;
o/JicXoyavlotg ^ecv eivcci tcv f^sxpi ovofxdl^ nnczp auloi; uiov ^poauyo-
^EUofjLEvoi. H apvHfASViig Tuv ^EolnTa Tn uiouy Ti&Evlix; ^£ aula rm
iJlo7ri]a, Kai Tuv 8<Tiav Koia 'usEpiypapYiv Tvyxa-v^f^^v (izpav m rsaJpo;^
Ev^zu^Ev \jEa-Bai ^yvatlai . 7\ehJ£ov yu^ auloig oil toIe (xev aJlo^E^ 0
Seoj Eft, ^lOVi'E^ Kon 0 XcoJYip ^YiTiv £v TJ1 'ijr^o^ Tov 'moCiEpa Euxyi ' ivayi'
vc^fTKoxn (TE TOV (xovov aM^iVov ^Eov ; 'srav ^£ 10 'Uj<xga to aulo9E(B~
ixiioxn Trig ekeivh ^eo%1(^- ^eottoi^ixevov, hh 0 $£cj, aAAa ^eo; hv^icSIe-
pov av T^eyoilo u mocvlug 0 "UJ^cSloloKog 'ssaang uhdEOig^ (xIe "Sjp'Jlcg rco
^^ogTQv ^Eov EivM. Injchan. Cominciit. vol. 2. p._46.

It

Chap. XVII. Unilanamfm, ^Sc

It does not appear that the perfons to
whom Origen refers v/ere charged with
faying that the Father fuiTered ; but this is
exprefsly alledged againft Noetus, who, as
Epiphanius fays, '^ fcrupled not to fay as
*^ much." Being interrogated concerning his
dodrine, he faid, ** What evil have I done ?
** I honour one God. I know but one, and
*^ no other, befides him who was born,
*^ fuffered and died*.

This writer acquits the Sabellians of this
charge. For he fays that '* the Sabellians
*' agree in every thing with the Noetians,
** except that they deny that the Father
** fuffered -f-.'' But Auflin blames him for
making that difference J. And Epiphanius

Ti yap xaKOv isizTroim'^i ; £va Seov Jbl^sifw, sva. sTriray.M, y^ ax
aX'^cv -zcrT^w ayfa, ysvvri^Evlci^ 'cSEWOvMa^ awoQae/ovla. Hser. ^J*
Opera, vol. i. p. 480.

Myaa-i ya^ (A-n 'sjE^rovvaai tov ^alsoa. Anacephalolis, Opera,
vol. 2. p. 146.

J Unde vero fit £i6lam, et Noetianos ut Sabellianos non
unius hasrefis duo nomina, fed tanquam duas brcrefes fu-
pradi6lus epifcopus poneret, liquido invenire non potui ;
quia fi quid inter fe difFerunt, tam obfcurc dixit, ftudio

Vol. III. C c forfiun

386 Philofophical B o o K 1 1 1 .

afcribes to them the proper principle of
philofophical unitarianlfm in the following
paflage. *' The Sabellians fay that the
** Son was fent from the Father, as a beam
'' of light from the fun, to adminifter
*' every thing relating to the gofpel difpen-
*^ fation, and the falvation of men, and was
** then drawn up into heaven, like a beam
** of light, which returns to the fun*."
In another defcription of their principles,
he is, perhaps, not quite fo accurate.
*^ Sabellius faid, there was but one hypof-
*^ tafis, and the Father, Son, and Spirit,
** three names of it; or, as in man, there
** are the body, foul, and fpirit • the body

foiTitan brevltatis, ut non Intelligam. Loco quippe iflo,
quo et non tarn longe a Noetianis, Sabellianos commemo-
rans, Sabdliani inquit fimilia Noeto dogmatizantes, praeter
hoc, quod dicunt patrem non elTe paflum, quomodo de
Sabellianis intelligi poteft, cum fic innotuerint dicere pa-
trem paflum, ut Patripafliani quam Sabelliani crebrius nun-
cupentur. De Hasrefibus, lib. i. Opera, vol. 6. p. 91.

* Yi£(x(p^Evla h Tov vm Hoti^co ^ojs, o)a-7r£^ cckIivcc, hoci s^yaa-a-
ixtvov Tcc 'ZErav7« sv ra Koa/xa toc tyi; omovofjux; rn; way\zUKY,(;^ koci
croilE^iag TO)v av^^uTTuv^ ava^>i^$£v7a h auOi; el; spavov, Ci); vttq vi^^m
m(Jc<p9ii<Tav coilivay hoci 'ssa'hiv ti; tov y{>.iqv ava^^afxtJav, Haer. 62.
Opra, vol. I. p; 513.

*' being

Chap. XVII. Vnitaxianifm. 387

«* being the Father, the foul the Son, and
** the fpirit the Holy Spirit*.'*

This philofophical unitarianifm is the
doctrine afcribed by Tertullian to Praxeas,
though he fpeaks of the common people as
fimple unitarians. '* He fays, that the Fa-
*' ther, Son, and Holy Spirit are the famef."
He likewife calls him a Patripaffian, and
fays, that *' he jBrft carried the Patripaffian
** dodrine into Rome J." They are Pa-
tripaffians alfo whom Cyprian enumerates
among heretics. Epift. Opera, p. 200.

Beaufobre thinks that the charge of Pa-
tripaffianifm was entirely founded on a mif-
take, and as Lardner obferves, Auftin only
inferred that the Sabellians held that doc-

• * Tov auloy uvai ^als^a^ rov aviov uiov^ rov aulov sivcci ayiov
'iZ-.wijLX ' cog eivM sv fxia uirorocasi r^Eig ovo/xccaiag, n cog sv ctv^^aTra
fcoy.ciy Hoti v^xn, HUi 'ujveuixot . 'uai sivai fxsv ro crw^a, cjg BiTreiv rev
n>:al^a,^ %l'VX'''iV Qs cog ncrfiv rov viov^ to 'sjvsu/xx oe cog av^^coTTn^ alco;
HM TO ay^Gv 'sjvsu/xa sv tyi ^eolnli. Hasr. 62. Opera, vol. i,

J Dum unlcum deum non alias putat credendum,
quam fi ipfum eundemque et patrem, filium, et fpirltum
fandum dicat. Itaque poft tempus pater natus, et pa-
ter paflus : ipfe deus, dominus omnipotens, Jefus Chrilius
praedicatur. Adv. Praxeam, fe(St. 2. Opera, p. 501.

{ Ibid. fe£l. I, p. 500.'

C c 2 trine

388 Philofophical Book III.

trine (Credibility, vol. 4. p. 450). Beau-
fobre accounts for the mifreprefentation of
the ancients, by fuppofing that they con-
founded the terms word of God and Son of
God, becaufe in the theology of the church
they were the fame, though in the mind of
a Sabellian they were very different. Hif-
toire de Manicheifme, vol. i. p. 539.

It is very poffible that Tertullian and
others might give the epithet of heretical
to the unitarian dodlrine in this obnoxious
form only. For it is evident that he did
not confider the fimple unitarians as here-
tics, for he fays they were the major pars
credenthiniy the majority of the believers.

Marcellus is generally defcribed as being
what I call a philofophical unitarian, but
he is not faid to have been a Patripaffian.
According to Theodoret, he held that
** Chrift came as an extenfion of the Fa-
** ther's divinity. This he called God the
** logos ; but after all the ceccnomy" (that
is, when the gofpel difpenfation fhall be
accomplifhed) " it will be again drawn into
** him, and centered in God, from whom
*' it had been extended. He called the Holy

'' Spirit

Chap. XVII. Unitarianifm. 389

** Spirit an extenfioii of an extenfion, and
'' faidthat this was given to the apoftles*."

Beryllus, one of the firft who is noticed
as an unitarian, though celebrated for the
elegance of his writings, is not faid to have
been a Patripaflian. He only held that
'* Chrijft had no proper fubfiftence till he
** came into this world, and had no divinity
** of his own, but only that of the Father
*' refiding in him -f'.*'

It is allowed by Tertullian, that the Pa-
tripaffians, as well as the orthodox, faid
that the Father himfelf was impaflible.
That was an univerfal maxim concerning
the divijie nature ; but they faid that the
Father had compajion for the Son. Whe-
ther this compaffion was afcribed by them

* EttlouTiv ^£ riva rrig ts 'SJoI^o^ ^eolvlog spmsv £i; rov xftroy
£^»^y^£ya^, jccci Tavlrw ^2ov 7\oyov 2xa>£(T2 . (xfia h Tr]v crufX'joKTav

t^zla^Yi . TO ^£ ^avayiov TSJVEUfjLa 'usa^^Klacriv rr,; shiccjEug T^syti^ uaf,
javlw roig aTTOfo'koi; ^a^acrx^'^rwoii. Hser. Fab. lib. 2. cap. 10.
Opera, vol. 4. p. 224.

i" E?^£7£ Kou ya^ rov ku^iov vpi.av Iijjav xf^rov, /xy]liv<x vTrcrcunv

fSiav f%£<v, (JUiVYiV h 's^algiKTW uTToraa-iv km ^solnla. ev ts/w eTTiOiyxn^
•■«{r«v w7^il£U<Ta<TBai. Hill. lib. 5. cap. 22. vol. I. p. 371 •

Cc3 to

390 Phlbfophkal Book III.

to the Father himfelf, or only to the di-
vine ray, or logos, that was in Chrift, does
not appear. Perhaps it was the latter. On
this fubje<fi: Tertullian replies to them as
follows. *' Wherefore neither had the Fa-
" ther compaffion for the Son. For fo,
*' thinking to avoid a direft blafphemy,
** they think it will be leffened in this man-
"ner; granting that the Father and Son
^* are twoperfons, the Son fufFering,and the
" Father fympathizing with him. But in
" this they are foolifh ; for what is fympa-
*' thizing^ but fufFering with another */'

Notwithftanding this mode in which the
unitarian dodtrine was held by fome philo-
fophizing perfons, it appears that they were
confidered as being m.ere unitarians, as much
as the common people, to whom this mode

* Ergo nee compaiTus ell pater filio ; fic enim direc-
tam blafphemiam in patrem veriii, diminui earn hoc modo
fperarit, concedentes jam patrem et filiam duos effe; fi
iilius quidem patitur," pater vero compatitur. Stuiti in
hoc. Quid eft enim compati, quam cum alio pati ? Porro,
\\ impaiTibilis pater, utique et incompaffibili.i. Au't fi com-
paffibilis utique pafiibilis. Nihil ei vel hoc timore tuo
praeftas. Times dicere pafTibilem, quern dicis compaffi-
bilcn. Ad Praxeam, Icd't. 29. p. sjB,

of

Chap. XVII. Unhananifm. 391

of explaining the dodlrine muft have been
unintelligible ^ and all the more diftin-
guifhed unitarians of that ag£, whether they
be faid to explain their fentiments in this
manner, or not, are reprefented as holding
the fame opinion, and the very fame that
was maintained by the Jews. Thus Sa-
bellius, Marcellus, and Photinus, are all
claffed together by Chryfoftom^; and in-
ftances frequently occur, in which all thefe
are faid to hold the fame dodlrine with Ar-
temcn, Theodotus, and Paulus Samofatenfis.
That Sabelllus in particular, though he is
generally reprefented as a FatripafTian, was
neverthelefs a proper unitarian, who be-
lieved Chrift to have no proper divinity of
his own, is evident from the arguments
with which his antagonifts prefs him. —
Thus Epiphanius, in anfwer to the SabeU
lians, fays that " Jefus came the Son of God
*^ to the river Jordan -f .''

l£fvo?. In Heb. Opera, vol. lo. p. 1763.

t A^«£crs(7<v ay7oJj 2aC£?v^«avQI$ /x£v jUs/a rwv a^Xwv fiocfv^iiiV

^yinlai. Ancoratus, fea. 119. Opera, vol. 2. p- 121.
C c 4 Whatever

392 Philofopbical Book III.

Whatever Sabellianifm was, whether the
more fimple, or the more philofophical
kind of unitarianifm, it appears to have been
very popular in Africa, and to have had
many adherents among the bifhops of that
country. Athanafius makes heavy com-
plaints on this fubjed, faying, as was
quoted before, that Sabellianifm prevailed
fo much there, that the Son of God was
hardly preached in the churches.

The controverfy with the philofophical
unitarians took a turn confiderably different
from that with the fimple unitarians, andl
unfortunately led the orthodox into an em-
barralTment and inconfiflency, which be-
cam.e very apparent when the Arian con-
troverfy arofe. And, indeed, the language
that had been adopted as proper for the
controverfy with the philofophical unita-
rians, appears to have contributed very much
to the rife of Arianifm. For as thefe learned
unitarians afferted that the Father, Son, and
Spirit (meaning the drcinity belonging to
them) were the famCy their adverfaries had
incautioufly advanced, that they were ejen-
tially different, and that the Father and Son

had

Chap. XVII, Unitarianifnu ^93

had even different natures. And fo far were
the orthodox, in this ftate of things, from
aflerting, as they did at the council of
jMice, that the Son was confubjlantial with
the father, that they were the firft to
aflert the dircdt contrary, as they did in
the condemnation of Paulus Samofatenfis.
Thus Bafit fays, " that they who condemned
^' him rejefted the word confubflantial *."
But this language was retradled when
Arius was to be condemned. So different
a thing was the orthodoxy of the different
periods. Optatus, and others, acknowledge
that the famous term confubjiantial, was
firft introduced in the Sabellian contro-
verfy, when it feems to have been ufed by
the Sabellians, and difclaimed by the or-
thodox, w^hofe object was to diflinguifh the
members of the trinity, which the Sabel-
lians were charged with confounding (Lib. i.
p. 8.) Origen, in anfwer to the Sabel-

^ov mv >^E^iv cog UK £U(rr)(XOV . E^acrav ya^ eheivci rw 78 OfxosaiH (pa^
vriy wa^iTdV evvoiccv aaia; rs >^ tm am aihg, ug ri xala/JLEpia-^Eiaai^
ry)V acriav "saaoixnv ra 'oiAoaui^ twv 'Sipo(jYiyc^iav roi; E(g ct ^ir^eSjf,

Epift. 3C0c Opera, vol. 3. p. 29^.

liansj^

394 Thilofophkal Book III.

lians, fliows, that in feveral places the Fa-
ther and Chrift are fpoken of as different
perfons, efpecially when the Father is faid
to raife Chrift from the dead *. I have oh-
ferved that Origen exprefsly maintained
that the Son had an ejfence different from
that of the Father ; and he makes it an ob*
jeftion to the unitarians, that they made
the effence of both to be the fame. '* Be-
*' caufe," fays he, ** Chrift is called the true
** light, and in the epiftie of John God
*' is called light, feme think that the ef-
** fence of the Son does not differ from
" that of the Fathert." On this account,
among others, the orthodoxy of Origen was
called in queftion by fome after the Arian
controverfy ; whereas it is very evident that

sav i^y] Ti ^A£7n? tov 'snxls^a TsoiHvla ^C) >£yovlcx. oil o oe av 'SKxIri^
fSJOiEi Tccvia OfMiu; xj o uic^ ^oi£iy rov vsh^ov OTrep to acofxiz w vynye^-
xBvai^ T8 'SJotl^og aula thIo x<^^^^oiJi.£vii^ ov TspGYiyaf^fVag Mnleov syTiye^-,
KtvM xpiTov EHnK^av. Comment, vol. 2. p. p. 187.

f Ewe* 5i <l>o)q aTra^aT^y^; evlau^a (xzv 0 crcSlr,^^ sv Se t» Ha^oMxn
T8 aula Icoawa ettitoM "ksr/dai 0 Seoj Eivai (pug^ 0 fxEv Tig oidai nat
svleu^Ev Kolaa-KEua^scr^cii n aa-ia jun ^lEmvcEvcci th via tov 'ZJcSs^a.
Ibid. p. 70.

both

Chap. XVII. Uniiarianifm. 39^

both his opinions, and his language, were
the very fame that were held by all the
orthodox of his own age,- and Athanafius
and others made allowance for this, and
apologized for him, as they alfo did for
Dionylius of Alexandria, who is often called
the Father of Arianifm.

Though the orthodox found it conve-
nient to change the ufe of this word con^
fubftantial when the circumftances of things
were changed, the unitarians did not; and
therefore Marcellus and Euftathius of An-
tioch, his difclple, declared loudly for it,
at the council of Nice, as Beaufobre ob-
ferves*.

There is another circumftance relating to
this controverfy that deferves to be particu-
larly noticed ; as it alfo fhews what different
ideas, and what different language, men will
adopt in different fituations. As the philo-
fophical unitarians held that the Father, Son,
and Spirit (meaning the divinity belonging
to them) were the fame, and alledged in

* Hift. de Manicheifme, vol. i. p. 542.

proof

396 Philofophkal Book III.

proof of this our Saviour faying I aiid my
Father are one ; the orthodox, in anfwer to
them, faid that the one was in the neuter
gender, and therefore, that the unity be-
tween them was not an unity oi ejfence^ but
only of harmonyy and aff'ediion. Novatian
fays, that ** becaufe Chrift fays they were
*' one^ in the neuter gender, let the heretics
*V underftand that it fignifies the concord
** of fociety, not unity of perfon*." This is
the very explanation of this text, that the
unitarians after the council of Nice always
gave, when the orthodox availed them-
felves of it, as a proof that the Father
and the Son were one in ejfejice^ or were
confubjlantial to each other. Then nothing
could be faid too high of the divinity of
the Son. But Novatian, who lived before
the Arian controverfy, fays, " Moft of the
*' heretics, moved with the greatnefs ancj

* Qui potuilTet dicere, ego pater, fi patrem fe efTe me-
rniniffet. Et quia dixit unum, intelJigant haeretici quia
non dixit unus. Unum enim neutraliter pofitum focieta-
tis concordiamj non unitatem perfon^e, fon^t. Cap. 27,

?• ??•

• ' «f truth

Chap. XVII. Vnitariajilfm. 397

** truth of Chrlfl's divinity, extend his
** honours beyond bounds, daring to call
** him not God the Son, but God the
*' Father himfelf ^^/' Thus the great ob,
J€(5t of the orthodox in the fecond century,
was to make a God of Chrift, but a far in-^
ferior God, and alfo a God ofy or out of God
the Father, left he fliould be thought to
be another Gody and independent of the Fa-
ther. On the other hand, the great objeft
of the orthodoxy of a later period, was to
exalt the Son to a perfed: equality with the
Father, fo as to allow the Father no ad-
vantage but what was nominal, or refpeclled
mere order. Hence the difference of the
language, and in the arguments of the two
different periods. While the unitarians
always confidered the Father as the only
true God, and Chrift a mere man^ the fer-
vant of God. And if the more philofo-

* Ut plerique hsereticorum, divinitatis ipfius magnitu-
dine et veritate commoti, ultra modum extendentes ho-
nores ejus, aufi fint non filium, fed ipfum deum patrem
prcmere vd putar^. Cap, 23. p- 87.

phical

398 Fhilofophical Vnitarianifm. Book III.

phical among them afcribed any divinity to
him, it was only the divinity of the Father,
refiding in him, and acting by him, and that
only for a time ; it being withdrav^n from
him again, when the purpofe of its emif-
fion had been anfwered-

CHAP.

[ ^99 ]

CHAPTER XVIIL

Of the Principles and Arguments of the ancient

Unitarians.

T SHALL now proceed to give a diftinft
view of the principles of the ancient uni-
tarians, and of the arguments by which they
defended them ; and I beg that my readers
would compare them with the arguments
of the trinitarians, of which an account has
been given already.

SECTION I.

Their Zeal for the Divine Unity, and their
Senfe of the Word Logos.

ALL the denominations of unitarians*

comprizing both the vulgar and the

philofophical part of them, confidered them-

felves as advocates for the unity of God,

which they thought was infringed by their

opponents.

4oo Principles and Arguments Book III.

opponents. Of this we have fufficient
evidence in every period of their hiflory ;
and thus much is acknowledged by all their
adverfaries. Whatever their miftakes were^
it was owned that they were led into them
by their dread of violating the firft, and the
greateft of all the principles of religion,
viz. that of the proper unity of the divine
nature. Sufficient evidence of this hath
been given already ; but to this view of
their arguments, I fhall prefix a few other
paffages of the Fathers, which likewife
clearly prove it.

Origen evidently confidered the unita-
rians as perfons who really dreaded left, by
admitting Chrift to be God, they jfhould
infringe upon the honour that was due to
the Father only. *^ By thefe means," he
fays, *' may be explained that which greatly
*^ difturbs many perfons, who plead a prin-
«^ ciple of piety, and who fear to make
«* two God3*." He afterwards recurs to
the fa^nie fubje<fl, and introduces it as an

l^%.^im TO lao'xx^; (pi-ho%£ts iivM zvxo^^n<; Taca<j(Tcv^ tuT^^Cfizv^
iSiuQ avayo^^vaai. Comment, in Johannem, Edit: Huetii,
vol. 2. p. 46.

2"*' objedlion

Ghap. XVIII. of ancient Unitarians. 401

objeaion of perfons with whom he would
not trifle, and whom he was far from
charging with hypocrify, " But fince,"
fays he, ** it is probable that many may be
** offended, becaufe we fay that one is the
" true God, namely, the Father, and be-
** fides this true God, there are many who
*' are made gods by participation 5 fearing
*^ that the glory of him, who exceeds all
** creatures, Ihould be brought down to
** that of others, who obtained the appella-
*^ tion of Gods, &c.*" Origen, therefore,
mufl have thought refpedfully of thofc
early unitarians, and have confidered them
as objecting to the doctrine of the divinity
of Chrifl from the very befl principles.

Novatian fays, that ** when they," the
unitarians, '* obferve, that it is written there
*^ is but one God, they think that they
** can no otherwife maintain the truth of
** this, than by afferting, either that Chrifl is a

* AXK ETiH f j7i(^ 'STpoa-xo4'eiv nvac, roi; si^if^svcig £vog jw-fv a^n •
Sjv8 Sea Ta 'maJpog a7rayfe7^7\ciJ.2VHy "ujcc^a h tov aArj^iVcv Secv vi:.!
'^?^£»ol'cov Tv\ (/.Hoxt) TS Sea 7'V0|Ufva;v, guraQofxevH^ ttiv ts 'wotjov
uimv uTTZpexovlog ^o^av sliicrcojai roi; >.oi7roig tjij Ssc^ 'u^po^r^yopicti
Tvyxavac^iyScQ. Comment, in Johannem, Edi:. Huetii,
vol. 2. p. 46.

Vol. III. D d " mere

402 Principles and Arguments Book III.

** mere man, or that he is God the Fa-

*' ther *. Eufebius fays, that '^ Marcellus

*' wrote his book in order to affert the

'* the unity of God f ." He alfo fays, that

** Marcellus gloried in acknowledging but

** one God J." Athanafius fays, that *' the

*' followers of Marcellus and Photinus de-

*' nied the pre-exiftence of Chriit, and his

** divinity, and his everlafting kingdom,

** along with the Jews, on pretence of efta-

** biifhing a monarchy §/' *' They fo cor-

** rupt the facred faith of the gofpel/' fays

Hilary, ** that from a profeffion of re-

** verence towards God, they denied the

" nativity of his only begotten Son, faying,

* Quia cum animadverterent fcriptum effe quod unus
fit deus, non aliter putayerant iftam tenere fe polTe fenten-
tiam, nifi aut hominem tantum Chriftum, aut certe deum
patrem putarent efle credendum. Cap. 30. p. 116.

f Tslo ^v\(n 'SfSTToi YiHEvat^ ^loir TO Eva yvcopi^siv ^£ov: Ec. Theol.
lib. I. pref. p. 57.

X Aa^oj Kai (T£fAvuvi}ai avxc^v eva ^£ov sihvai. Ibid. cap. 17;
p. 80.

§ O/ aTTO Ma^«£^^a kJ ^oleiva rcov Afnu^oyay^aVy 01 t»v 'm^oaia-
viov UTrap^iv th xp^^^i ^oci tyiv S£o7«7a, >^ tw oilsXevWov avla ^acnT^uav
oiJLOiag laSaiojj a^ilaa-iv^ em 'm^o(pacr£i th auvifacrBai ^oheiv m fiovap^
Xioc* De Synodis Armen. Opera, vol. i. p. 898.

** that

Chap. XVIII. of ancient Unitarians. 403

" that there is a protenfion, rather than
" a defcent into man *.'' In this he al-
ludes to the principles of the philofo-
phical unitarians. Gregory Nazianzen, ad-
dreffing the unitarians, calls them, by way
of ridicule, (piy^ayewyiloi, (pi7^va^x^i, as pretendino^
to a great zeal for the honour of the
Father, as the unbegotten, and without
origin -f ; and in another place he com-
plains, that " the greateft obflacle to the
** reception of the truth, was the piety
«* of his hearers J." He fays they had
zeal, but not according to knowledge, and
therefore would be punifhed with few
ftripes §.

* Quidam ita evangelicas fidel cbrrumpunt facramcn-
tiim, ut Tub unius dei pia tantum profeffione nativitatem
"unigeniti dei abncgent : ut protenfio fit poiius in hominem
quam defcenfio. Lib. i. p. lO.

f ripoa-EpmofyiOii ere o>uyov (piT^ocyEvviils a-u xj (piT^xya^x^, Or,
13. p. 209.

X A^X oil Kcci 0 Toig a7^o Ti Oi^xjam vTricxvafMSvoig ^arov ttoiu
Toy Xoyov )o zuTTotqa^vtlov ^ rj tav ohhovIuv £vhaQzia^ thIq evlauda
n^npux HaQiToJati JCj o niv^uvog. Or. I. p. 17.

^ Km Tiilo di Myu , Tcov f.islpibjlsf>m y}, « '2^«v7>i ^^^^^ '^o 7ra^:f,

D d 2 cfc^pa

404 Principles and Arguments Book III.

There is fomething particularly ftriking
in the account that Epiphanius gives of the
manner in which Sabellians would accoft
men of plain underftanding on the fubjedt
of the unity of God, and the ufual effeft of
fuch zeal and good fenfe. *' Wei!, my
*' friends/' fay they, '* have we one God, or
** three Gods ? and when a pious perfon,
*^ and one who is not fujfficiently upon
" his guard, hears this, he is immediately
'* alarmed, and affents to his error, fo as
*^ to deny the Son, and the Holy Spirit*/'

Cyril of Alexandria fays, that *' they
f*^ who acknowledged only one God, and
** who denied that he had generated a Son
*'" out of himfelf, pretended that it was from
** a principle of piety -f-/' Beaufobre there-

'movy^ciav^ r's haTrolina ^£7\n[xcclo; ccTrcTnTrlovlsg, Or. I. p. 18.
TO. aot<py] mm ^t\m yf(x(puv yivocDtmlcuv, rriv 's^vsvcnv avlci<; vpiyavlai

iv^v^Tov v'dv tapiX'X^Ei^^ (Tvvxoilaii^slat TY] BKetvcov 'sshavyij ^ evpUKslai
apvsixEv^ rov Seov, xJ EupicrK^au apviiixiv(^ to eivou yiov ^ ro ayiQV
^vEvfjLa. Haer. 62. Opera, vol. 1. p. 514,

Chap. XVIII. of ancient Unitarians 405
therefore had reafon to acknowledge that
Sabellianifm was innocent in its origin, and
arofe from the fear of making more gods
than one *.

That the caufe of the unitarians was
confidered as the fame with that of the
Jews, the great advocates of the divine
unity appears from Chryfoftom, who,
fpeaking of the divinity of Chrift, as prov-
ed from the Old Teflament, fays, that *< if
^^ any Jew, under the form of a chriflian,
** lift up his head (I mean Paul us Samofa-
*' tenfis) the fame arguments may be ufed
** againft him ;" and afterwards, ^' what
** was faid againft the Jews, may be faid to
*' thofe who have the fame origin +•" M.
Caleca alfo makes Sabellianifm to be the
fame thing with Judaifm \,

ei; T£ )y (xovog ' «/xnv oJi >y yfysyvwsv b^ bxuIh rov viov. Contra
Julianum, lib. i. Juliani, Opera, vol, 2. p. 22.

* Hiftoirede Manicheifme, vol. I. p. 535.

f El 3V {le^o^ vfjciv h^MO; avMcuTrlsi craXiv 'sipocruTrov ;)tff<nava
^spKpspm, Uccur^og 0 lofj^oa-alsv^j ^eyo), ^m'oSov f/,EV nai 'sspog ralov Kai
a/KQ 1% xamg 7\tym Aet ^£ ret a^a aitzp "apog U^amg sip^aij fcai
'sj'pog rag utto rain eitteiv. In Pf. 109. Opera, vol. 3. p. 323.

( Oy T«7o hsyca^ olt 0 'STccln^ tri km viog, km ayiov 's^vivixcc ' rn-
1o'yapliih.MOveri hm^o^ ra Sa^e^co^ Combefis Au6tuarium,
vol 2. p. 203. _ ^

Pd3 My

4o6 Frinciples and Arguments Book III.

My readers will probably wifh to know
in what fenfe the ancient unitarians under-
ftood the term logos, of which fo many dif-
ferent opinions have been entertained by
chriftians ; and on this head it is in my
power to give them the moft complete fa-
tisfadlion. The logos has been fo long con-
fidered by the generality of chriftians as fy^
nonymous to Chriji^ that they think any
other interpretation to be harfh and unna-
tural. Socinus himfelf, and many who are
now called Socinians, confidered it as mean-
ing the go/pel, or the word of God, in its
moft literal fenfe. But all the ancient uni-
tarians, without exception, confidered it as
fignifying that word of God by which the
world was made, viz. t\it power of God, his
efl'ential operative attribute; and it will ap-
pear, that they were exceedingly furprifed
at hearing of any other interpretation of
it. Now, confidering that the common
people, as well as the learned, among the
unitarians, had this idea of it, it cannot
but be concluded to have httw the proper
original fenfe of the term, becaufe it was fo
underftocd by thofe very perfons for whofe

2 pft

Chap. XVIII. of ancient Unitarians. 407

ufe the gofpel of John was written. This
is an article of fo much confequence, that
I fhall produce a confiderable number of
authorities for it; difpofing of them pretty
nearly according to the age of the writers
from whom they are colledled.

Hippolytus, writing againft Noetus,
fays, " I (hall be told, you tell me fome-
" thing ftrange, when you call the logos
** the Son */' In the larger expofition of
faith afcribed to Gregory Thaumaturgus,
it is faid, ** Some make the wifdom of
** God to refemble the wifdom of man,
^« becaufe he is wife, and his word to be
** like that word which is uttered, or con-
*^ ceived, in the mind, without any hypo-
f^ftafist-'' '' Some difciples of Paulus

* A^a' i^n fxoi T/j, bvov [AOi (psf^i; T^oyov >.eywv wov. Opera,
p. 16.

t Non minus alleni funt, qui trinitatem non fecundum
yerltatem ex tribus perfonis confitentur, fed in unitate tripU-
catam fecundum compofitionem impie fingunt, et fapien-
tiam in deo exiftimant efle ficut in homine fapientiam hu-
manam, qua fapiens eft : et verbum fimile efle ipterpretan-.
tur verbo quod ore profertur, vel mente concipitur, nulla
■ Jiypoflafi. Opera, p. 16.

P d 4 ■' Samofa-

4o8 Principles and Arguments Book III.

** Samofatenfis," fays Athanafius, '' diftin-
•* guifh the logos from the Son, faying,
** that the Son is Chrift, but the logos is
** another thing*/' ** Paulus Samofaten-
<* fis," fays Epiphanius, held that the logos
*^ of God, and his fpirit, was always in,
** God, as the logos of man is in man ^ and
'* that the Son had no perfonal fubfiftence,
'* which was alfo the dodrine of Sabellius,
** Novatus, Noetus. and others -f-." Hi-
lary alfo fays that '' the word of God, ac-
*« cording to the heretics, was the power
*^of GodJ,''

That this was the doftrine of Marcellus
and Photinus, we have the clearcft evidence,

* T<vf$ Twv 01.7:0 T8 XafjLOdcSsiii^i ^laipHvlsg rov ^oyov aTTO ts ws,
^ctffKmi rov/jLEv viov zivai tov xpirov^ rov ^z >^oyov a'K'Kov mcci. Con-
tra Arianos, Or. 5. Opera, vol. i. p. 543.

-[ Ev Sf w ^£ aei ovla rov aul^ >>oyov, xcci ro 'zsvsvfjjx avia^ o^aTtEp sv
etv^cwTT^ xap^icc 0 idiQ- T^oy®- . fxv] eivai h rev viov m $£« svvTroToloy^
ayo^ sv avici) Sew ., oiaTTSp «/>t£?v£t xa» 0 2aC£Vv{(^, hm 0 Naval®-,
xai oNo)i]©-, Kai oKhoi. Haer. 65. Opera, vol. i. p. 608.

X Per quod etiam illud vitii adjungitur, ut deus verbum
tanquam pars aliqua virtutum dei, quodam fe tra£lu conti-
ruationis extendens hominem ilium, qui a Maria efTe
cxpit habitaverit, et virtutibus divinse operationis inftru^ce-
rit ; animae tamen fuse motu naturaque viventem. Lib,

JO. p. 258- ■^"'"'!! .,,

- elpecialiy

Chap. XVIII. of ancient Unitarians. 409

efpecially from Eufebius, who wrote agalnft
the former of them. *« Marcellus," he
fays, ** believed Chrift to be the word of
** God, but a mere word, like that of man,
** and not a living and fubftantial fon */'
Again, he fays, *' Marcellus afferts, that
'* the logos is not ufed by way of figure,
*' though thofe who teach the contrary
** fhould burft with their lies, but fimply
** and truly logos,'* or reafon ^''. ** Mar-
** cellus held that the logos was always
" united to, and connected with the Fa-
*' ther J.'' He held that the " logos was in
** God, as his reafon ; that it was for a time
*' out of God, and returned into him at the
*' day of judgment, and was then united to
'* him as it had been before §/' Chryfoltom

* "^'iKov yotp, KCCi TO) av^^oiTTZioi Aoyw oixoiov, «%{ Js viov a,>,r)^cog
{mlix Hai upsroPia, rov xp^'>'°v -'^^^ ofjioT^oysiv £^£>>ei. Contra
Marcellum, lib. i. p. 19.

f Ou xoilxxp'iiriHco; ^^oyo; ovo/Jt-ixj^Ei; holv ^txp^ocyoisv 01 Cepo^i* .

Ibid. lib. 2. p. 40.

X TaJov aJiov >,oyov tx^w £v EctuJco evci)fj.£vov km cuvm'-iJ'^.'Qv ctvia^ \
fncriv. Ec. Theol. lib. i. cap. 5. p. 63.

§ 'Vo<TavlaMMpx£>,y<o<; mepirn y^oya eiTTcov, rsfVTCj S£4>, MfS' O'
VP>''^£vavl9 tT^ViXflv uvsiif hivn htrx^pioi 'sj£pi7r£7rlujcsy TO>^yvrcii^fKl%i

41 o Principles and Arguments Book III.

alfo fays, that ** Marcellus, Photinus, and
*VSophronius, fay that the logos is an
** energy, and that this energy inhabits
** him who was the.fon of David, but is
•^ not a fubfifting perfon */* Theophilafl:
repeats this in ahnoft the fame words, fay-
ing, " Marcellus of Galatia, Photinus, and
<' Sophronius, faid that the logos was the
" energy of God, and not a perfonal fub-
** fiftence, and that it inhabited a defcen-
<' dant of David f." Epiphanius fays, that
<* Photinus ajQTerted that the logos of God
<* was from the beginning, but that it was
** not the Son of God+/'

I fliall add a few other teflimonies from
later writers. Cyril of Alexandria, writing

T8 ^£8 yzyavtvai 'Siole ipavai rov ev auJco ^oyov . fcctt TsaT^v svlog ctuli^
adot. TQV ncciciov tyi^ x^kteco^ ' IV Hlcoi Yiv EV TW ^£co £vo)^£ig aula, ua-'TTEp
xai 'mpolEfov rfl'. Ec. Theol. lib. i. cap. 8, p. 113.

* yiapHETO^og JCdi ^co%vog, Koci Xco^povio;, tov T^oyov svEpfsiav mou
^affi, TYiv ^e EVEoyEiav ramv EvoiKmai loi E;i cr7rf^|Wa?0f AaC- 5", az
jsc-jay EvvnoTam, In Phil. 2. Opera, vol. .10. p. l^29*

\ Mccpus}.7<o^ 0 Tcchccmg^ Kai ^coIeivoc, km ^oifp^ovio;^ eaejov tov
Myov T« ^£8 EVEfysiiXV f!vat, m a^iccv ewttotcCiov ' lavlnv Se Evoimo-cn
TQVEji am^(ju£log iXccQi^^ In Phil. 2. Opera, vol. 2. p. 591.

:J: Kai aulcg (pnfA.i eivm tov Xcyov an a^x^g^ «^* ^X, ^'^v Sss yBytv-
vAiivm, Haer. 7 1 • p- 83 1 .

againil

Chap. XV III. of ancient Unitarians . 411

againft Theodorus, who is fald to have been
the proper father of Neftorianifm (which
differed very little from the unitarian doc-
trine) evidently fuppofes that this was the
received dodrine of the unitarians, when
he fays, *' It is falfe to fay that the word
*^ of God has no fubftance. It is the
'* eructation of a foolifh heart ; For he
** himfelf faid to Mofes, I am that I am,
** and therefore they who think fo we deem
** moft ftupld*/' Again, replying to thofe
who fiid that the logos is verbum in/it urn ^
or the proper internal reafon of the Father,
*< Why did not our Saviour fay, I and the
** word of my Father are one, and he that
'* fees me, fees the word of the Father."
He adds, that '* the logos, in the introduc-
*'^ tion to the gofpel of John has the article
f* prefixed to it, which fliews that it did

* Minime enim mentietur falfiffimum efle fcrmoncm,
quod verbum quod ex deo apparuit, dicatur non habuilTe
fubftantiam : eft enim ftultiffimi cordis eruclatio. Nam
ipfe dicebat Mofi ego fum qui fum : quomodo autem un-
qujm hoc quod verc eft, in fubflantia per fe non fervari
jntelligitur ? et propterea eos qui fic fentiunt, merito m- .
diflimos efTe definimus. Opera, vol. 2. p. 687.

412 Principles and Arguments Book III.

*^ not mean reafon in general, but a parti-
'^ cular fpecific logos*/' I do not think
it at all neceffary to reply to the reafaning
of Cyril in this place, I only quote him in
order to afcertain what it was that the uni-
tarians, his adverfaries, thought on the
fubjed:.

The emperor Julian gives his teftimony to
the unitarians having fuppofed that by lo-
gos was intended the power of God, ** Some
*' of the impious,'* meaning the chriftians,
he fays, *' fay that Jefus Chrift is one perfon,
•* and he that is called the logos by John
** another t-'* He likewife fays that '^ John
^Vdoes not mention the name of Jefus, of'

* Praeterea fi unigenitus dei hiius idcirco v^rbmii cfl
ct vocatur, quoniam (ut ipfi dicunt) infitupi patris ver-
bum fvifcipiens, ad illud formatur : cur non dixit ad
difcipulos, ego et verbum patris unum fumus : et, qui

nie videt, is etiam verbum patris vidct? Ideo videmus

fiiium hominis, articulo ad utrumque nomen praepofito,
falyatore noftro proferri, quando fe folum ab infinita ho-
rrjinum multitudine vclit fignificare. In John, cap. 4.
Opera, vol. i. p. 610.

a>.^ov ^i Tov VTTO Iwayv« HTupvrlo/^evov ?^Q7pv. . Cyf iL. Gojltrar-

Jul. lib. xo. Opera, vol, 2. p. ^33*

Chap. XVIII. of ancient Unitarians. 413

** of Chrift, when he calls him God and
*V]ogos*."

This ufe of the term logos or word, is
commoa in the Old Teftament, as when
the Pfalmift fays. By the word of the Lord
V)ere the heavens rnade^ &c. and Maca-
rius, having no view to this controverfy,
fays, *' The word of God is God, and the
** word of the world is the world,*' and
then fpeaks of the difference between the
word of God and the word of the world,
and between the children of God, and the
children of the world f.

In this fenfe, according to Eufebius, the
Jews always underftcod the term logos, *' If
** any one," fays he, " fuppofe that the
** Son is a mere word — that it is quiefcent
** in the Father, when he is quiefcent, but
** was aitive when he made the world, re-

a^0Ha>.£t. Cyril. Contra Jul. lib. lo- Opera, vol. 2. p. 327.

f O T« $£» Xjyv^, ^eo; en . uai q Acjy©- m Koa-f/x Koafx^

7ii >,(ypi T8 KQcryL^^ xai tuv tehvuv m ^£a, n^a rav tskvujv ra koctm '
SHaroy ycc^ ysvvr]^ tqi^ ihiisom yonwiv^ Opera, p. 223.

*' fembling

414 Principles and Argumefits Book III.

** fembling the logos of man, which is
'* quiefcent when we are filent, but aiflive
** when we fpeak ; it is evident that he
** interprets as the Jews do, and according
** to human reafon, and that he denies the
** true Son of God */' He then adds what
was quoted in this volume, p. 13* concern-
ing the Jews acknowledging that God has
a logos, but no Son.

* O ^£ -^iT^ov 7^oyov sivat rov viov aTtohocixQatvcov^ km /xovov T^oyov

AoyQ-j £v3bv (AEvuv sv rco mvxoi-iovlk rco "s^cpi^i^ zvE^yuv re bv tot
rifXEls^co TYiv kIijiv ^r,fxi8^yBiv ' o/jcoicai rco n{^E}efC0f s\f cno'naa-i fiev riau-
Xo^^ovli, S.V ^e ^S£7yo/>tevot$ £V£^y8v\ ^yiTav ai £tvj IsShwo) Tm y^ av-

^^UTTIVCO <JV^^l%m (p^OVnfJLOcl'.y TOV ^£ UM^Ui VIOV T8 SfS «/5V8^4£V©"«

Contra Marcellum, WS^'i. p. 4.

SEC

Chap. XVIIL of ancient Unitarians. 41^

SECTION 11.

Arguments of the ancient Unitarians from
Reafon.

TTAVING ftated what the principles of
the ancient unitarians were, I fhall in
the next place, give a view of the arguments
by which they defended them ^ and as fome
of thefe were drawn from the principles of
reafon, and others from the fcriptures, I
fhall mention the former in the firft place.
But in this I need not infift upon their
capital argument, viz. that the dodtrine of
the divinity of Chrift and of the trinity, is
an infringement of the great doctrine of
natural and revealed religion, the unity of
God. This has appeared fufficiently al-
ready. Alfo many of their other arguments
have been mentioned in the replies of their
trinitarian adverfaries. I ihall, therefore,
only recite fuch others as have happened
to occur feparately.

That

4i6 Principles and Arguments Book III.

That the ancient unitarians were much
addided to reafoningy and that they often
difputed with great acutenefs and fubtility,
fo as to puzzle their opponents, may be
inferred from what is faid of them by
Eufebius, viz. that ** they neglefted the
*^ fcriptures, and reafoned in fyllogifms */'
No doubt they did reafon, and probably
in the fyllogiftic form, as was the cuftom
with logicians, and I doubt not very clofely
and juftlyj but it will be feen that they
were far from negledling the fcriptures.

According to the moft ancient doftrine
of the generation of the Son, there was a
time when the Father was fimply one^ and
had not generated this Son. Upon this
idea, Marcellus faid that, '* if it be a per-
" fedion in the Father to have a Son, he
*' was imperfed: while he was without
** one -f*."

* Oy TJ «r %i\a\. ^eyicri y^a^cti ^>]7av7£j, a?^»' CTrctov cr%)«(Cta ciA-
^oyicT/Lts Eii; Ty]V iy\q a^£olnJog su^sOn auracnv^ <pi7\07reYu^ acrHHvJEg,
Hift. lib. 8. cap. 28. p. 253.

•f Et ya^ aei te^ezoj 0 Beoc, wxi ^usa^ZTiv avlco cuvafXK; th 's^otlc^cc
avlov £ivai, iy xahcv avlov sivai 'uale^a Tjf to/s78 w», ava^a^s^slai,
xj savJov T8 xaA8 s-rjpicrx£i^ y.ai co^ eriv siTTZiV, £| a owalat 'Sjak^
sivaium. Contra Marcelliim, lib. i- p. 22.

To

Chap. XVIII. of ancie^it Unitarians. 417

To the do(flrine of divine generation in
general, the objection was, that the divine
efience muft then be corporeal. '* Mar-
celius Taid, that, if the Son be Tiprobolc,'' or
'^produdion, *' from the Father, and he be
'* his offspring, like the offspring of other
*' living creatures, both the being pro-
** ducing, and the being produced, muft be
** corporeal*."

That the Son, who was generated from
the Father, was allowed by thofe who firft
advanced that dodrine to be inferior to the
Father, the moft abundant proof has beea
given. Afterwards all this was retraced.
But the unitarians retorted it upon them.
*' The enemies of truth," fays Chryfoftom,
"urge that, if the Son be equal to the
"Father, why did not the Father become
" incarnate ? As it was the Son who took
" the form of a fervant, is it not glain that
" he is inferior. But if on this account
" he took human nature, the Spirit, who.

Toy '^^^/JoC^l3^71;i£ycv, Contra Marcellum, lib. i. p. 22.

Vol. III. Ee ^* they

41 S Principles and Arguments Book IIL

^' they fay (though we do not acknowledge
** this) is inferior to the Son, fhould have
*' been incarnate*."

The trinitarians, giving a reafon for the
myftery of the incarnation, held that the
divinity gave a value to the fufferings of the
human nature to which it was united. But
the unitarians urged the abfurdity of this;
faying, according to Theodoret, '* If a man
'' only fuffered, it was a man that faved
** usf.'' This is an argument to which
the orthodox have always made very lame
replies. They have never chofe to fay that
the deity of Chrift fuffered, or that it par-
took of the fufferings of the human na-
ture. Confequently, if it v^as only man
that fuffered, the fatisfadlion made by that
fuffering could only be finite • and in fadt,

cU £1 iJ'c; w rco jEyEvniHoli, nvog ^vixzv o "usalr]^ an anT^Qs a-a^Hoc,

^BEfB^O; y\v J ncii (X-nV £1 ^iSC Tiilo TiJV nf^£%^a,V V7[£^U (pUdiVf TO "SSVBU'

fxcii 0 (poifjiv avloi T8 vi^ s^janfiov Eivai (a ycto av «/ice/j smoiijcsv) bkeivo
actoxu^vM £^£i, Ser. 51. Opera, vol. 5. p. 6qj.

f Av^pcoTTo; av r,fxiv 'SjafKTx^ rry 7u%^iav, Dial. 3, Opera,
vol 4, p. ii6.

could

Chap. XVIII. of ancient Unitarians. 419
could extend no farther than the fufFerlnirs

o

of any other man.

Novatian fays, in proof of the divinity
of Chrift, *^ if he be only a man, why is he
every where invoked, fmce it is the na-
'' ture not of man, but of God, to be pre-
*^ fent in every place "''^?" But whatever
might be the cafe in the time of Novatian
(when what he fays could not be true of any
bcfides the trinitarians) this certainly was
not the pradlice even with them in the
time of Origen, who flouriflied not more
than twenty years before him. This has
been fliewn already, and therefore this uni-
verfal pradlice might have been urged, and
probably was urged, by the ancient unita-
rians, as an argument in their favour. Ac-
cording to Origen, the cuftom of chrlftians
was to pray to God through Chrift +• And

* Si homo tantummodo Chrlftus ; quomodo abcft
ubique invocatus, cum hafc hominis natura non fit, fed
del, ut adeffe omni loco poiTit ? Cap. 14. p. 45.

f S^ncDCEUoixsv av rev nzctls^a. tyi; ocT^v^six^^ )y rov uiov rt]v xXn-

(pma, xj Tn 7aulo%li 7a ^iiMiAaio<i, Ad Cdfum, lib. 8.

. ^ E e 2 Chrift

420 Principles and Arguments Book III.

Chrift was fuppofed to join in their prayers.
** We are not to pray/' fays he, *' without
**^ our high-priefl *." In like manner, other
faints were fuppofed, in the time of Origen,
to bear their part in the prayers of the
churches to which they had belonged, long
before it was thought right to pray to
them, and this was the natural progrefs of
things with refpecft to Chrift.

It has been feen how ftrenuoufly the
ancient unitarians infifted upon the anti^
quity of their dodrine, and how far all the
learned trinitarians conceded to them, by
admitting that, in the time of the apoftles,
the dodtrine of the divinity of Chrift was
not taught openly ; becaufe the world was
not then ready to receive it. It has alfo
been k^xi that Bafil was charged with in-
troducing novelty into his diocefe, efpe-
cially in his form of doxology to the Holy
Spirit ; from which it is evident, that the
unitarians of that age and country confi-
dered his dodrine as having had fome other
origin than either the fcriptures, or chrif-

* Amoj if.y\ x«f'J T« «fX'ff ^«^'>« I^e Oratione, p. 49.

tian

Chap, XVIII. of ancient Unitarians, 42 i

tian antiquity ; and one of them certainlv
thought very juftly of it, when he faid to
Bafil, ** I know nothing of your forei'^^n
*' philofophy*.'* In that country, the au-
thority of Gregory Thaumaturgus was very
great, and it was appealed to both by Bafil
and his adverfaries, who Were perhaps bet-
ter judges than himfelf, of what had been
the cuftom before he came into the diocefe.
In a letter to his clergy, he fays, " do not
*^ defpife the hypollafes, do not deny the
** name of Chrift, or pervert the fayings of
'' Gregory t*"

Gregory Nyffen fays, that he and his
friends were charged with innovation when
they taught the dodrine of three hypoftafes,
of one goodnefs, one power, and one divi-
nity J,"

* Ou yao cuviy][jLi vimv Trjj ay^OKola <To(pia;. De Sp. S. cap.
17. Opera, vol. 2. p. 330.

f T«f viroToccriK; }jiY\ a^didSf to ovoiia, ra %f ir« iiv\ aTtotO'mc^?^
rocg TK T^Y\yo^iii (pova^ ^y) 'zsratpElnyejcrSE. Epift. 63. Opera, vol.
3. p. 98.

X hKK KMVoloiiiav -oixiv ispoipE^iicnv ifio)(n to eyxXii/xa KaV r./'^'f
ffvvli^^vlii ' T^Eig UTToraaeig CfMoXoyavluv^ (xiav aya^clniA, fiiav cu-
va(MV y {j,itxv ^Eoinloi ^syetv >i,watj ailiuvlai, Dc Trinitate, vol,

E e 3 The

42 2 Frinclples and Argumeitts Book III.

The apoflles creed has been fhewn to
afford a ftrong argument for the antiquity
and purity of the ancient unitarian doc-
trine. This argument was urged by Pho-
tinus, who, according to Ruffinus, pleaded
that ** the apoflles creed, literally under-
** flood, was in his flivour*.'' Marcellus,
in his epiftle, quotes the whole of the
apoflles creed, and affents to itf.

The orthodox ufed to alledge the re-
ceived mode of baptifm as a proof of the
divinity of Chrifl ; but we learn from Bafil,
that the unitarians replied, that ** baptiz-
** ing in the name of the Spirit was no
** proof of his godhead, becaufe mention is
*^ made of baptizing unto Mofes J."

* Fotlnum vero haereticum fcio eatenus fcrlpflfle, non
lit rationem di^lorum audientibus explanaret, fed ut fim-
plicitur fideliterque didta, ad argumentum fui dogmatis
traheret. In Symbol, pref. p. 169.

f Epiphanii, Opera, vol. i. p. 836.

yE(p£?iYi iy iv Tvi ^«;^«crcrii. De Sp. S. cap. 14, Opera, vol. 2.
p. 318;

SEC

Ckap.XVIIL of ancient Vmiaruuis. ^23

SECTION III.

Arguments of the ancient Unitarians from the
Scriptures,

'npHE great ftrong hold of the unitarians
^ was the fcriptures, and the plain lite-
ral fenfe of them. '' They hawl out'^ lays
Bafil, ** with their proofs from fcripture,
** and make no account of the unwritten
*^ traditions of the Fathers*." And Pho-
tinus, in his difpute with Bafil, faid that
*^ he could prove his dodrine by a hundred
" paffages of fcripture f." The orthodox
in general, complained of the advantage
which the unitarians had in appeaUng to
the literal fenfe of the fcripture. '^ If,'*
fays Gregory Nyflen, " a man refts in the

* Ta5 m rrov ^Ti^^^'^y aTToM^i^. .'Jtito'^i, Tr,v ayp^ov ro^-v
'ssaJi^m fji^flu^iav 0)5 Ao^ aliuv a7f07reix7ro(xtvoi. Dc Sp. •
cap. 10. Opera, vol. 2. p. 313-

pv 0 yma^a^ Bm7fs^>.c^''0. Epiphanius, Hi(L 70- vol. i.

P-S^9. g^^ .bare

42 4 Prin ciples and Arguments B o o K 1 1 1 .

*' bare letter, fo far he judaizes In opinion,
** and has not learned that a chriftian is not
*' the difciple of the letter, but of the Spirit,
** for the letter killeth, but ti^.e Spirit,
'^glvethlife^."

It is to be obferved, that hy jadaizing^
was meant adopting the dodrine of the
fimple humanity of Chrift. For the an-
cient unitarians were commonly compared
by the orthodox to Jews, and the Arians to
Gentiles, as worfliippers of two gods ; the
Arian logos not being of the fame fabl1:ai)ce
with the Father -, and therefore a maker of
the world, or a God, quite diftind from
him.

Gregory Nazianzen alfo reprefents the
heretics as drawing many to them by their
interpretation of the fcriptures t.

l^^ai^Bi TT] 'yvcc[/,Y]y xj uTTu 7!r£7raihvlcici oil a%( y^oc/j(,[A.Ci}o^ sri %f<<r-
liav^ //-aSyj7j15, aT^a 'SSV£VfxoS(^ , to ya^ y^txfXfjLa., (pnaiv-, aTTSfC"
leivEf, TO §£ 'Sji'sufjux ^/jioTToiEi, Coiitra Euiiomium Oratio i6.
Opera, vol. 2. p. 3*1.

•|" Tag ?£ -zzrafa rcov ^iicov y^a(pm^ ^vraang te '*0i avli^ecreig aig oi
T« y^afiy.alog it^ccryA-t, ^ tcv v8v tm yiy^otixiiivwv xMTilovlsg rag
'TToT^g a(p£l£^i^o^^u:y kJ mv o^v 7Yig «?.>iS«pjj Tct^atTanTu Or. 36.
Opera, p. 577.

. ^ With

Chap. XVIII. of ancient Unitarians. 42^

With relped to the Old Teftamcnt, it
was the general complaint of the orthodox
that the unitarians interpreted it as the Jews
did, and proved the dodrine of the unity
of God from it. I therefore do not need to
mention many of their arguments. Juftia
Martyr pretended to prove from the appear-
ance to Mofes in the bufh, that it was not
Jehovah himfelf who fpake to him, but
Chrift. But Marcellus argues from the
fame thing, in favour of his dodrine, pro-
bably conlidering the God that fpake from
the bufh as the Supreme Being, who was
felf-exiftent, and had no rival; for Eufe-
bius fajTs, that '^ Marcellus argued from
^* / am that I am *."

. Of the unitarians alledging, Deut. vi. 6.
Hear O Ifrael the Lord thy God is one Lord^
and alfo, Ifa. xli. 4. I am the firji and I am
the lajly and bejides me there is no other (a text
almoft as celebrated as that of Mofes) I
could produce numberlefs inftances, and
they are both generally alledgcd at the fame
time. Marcellus, after quoting the latter,

* Ec. Theol. lib. l. cap. 19. p. 130.

fays.

426 Principles and Arguments Book III.

fays, '* There is therefore no younger God,
** nor any other befides the God who is the
" laft, able to co-operate with God*/'

It has been feen, that the trinitarians en-
deavoured to prove the divinity of Chrift
from the Old Teftament, On the other
hand, the unitarians were not wanting, on
their part, to prove his fimple humanity
from it.

Theodotus urged, Deut. xviii. 13. A
prophet JJjall the Lord thy God raife up unto
thee^ of thy brethren like unto me -j-. And
certainly, if he was to be like Mofes, he
could not be God.

The unitarians argued from Pf. ex. (Thou
art a priejl for ever after the order of Mel^

* Eyii) y^f £i//W, (pm{^ Seo; 'nrpcolo^, jy £yu (jtiloc raJJa, y^ 'siMv
%(/M $£0$ £(£^05 UK env . 8ls 8V vsofls^og iig $£oj eriv, a7e aTO^oq rig (xila
ravlix ^£c; cov, Seo) avvE^ysiv owcclog w» Eufebius Contra Marcel-
lum, lib. 2. p. 41.

-f- Kai 'sraXiv 0£ o avlo; Qso^o'ig; (pnai^ kJ o vofxog -zrept aul^ £^>f,
JlpoipT^iW SK Twv aJfA^wv u/xcov sye^Ei kv^io; ax; £/ji.£ ': aula aKaazle,
"yitjivayiq ^e w av^^aTTog . o^ssk Ses zyu^ofjLEwg^ <pn(Tt, XpiTog ^og}iki
-0 ^60$ aXAa av^pcoTTog ' zTTSic'-ii £| aJi- v vjv, ^ l^'luudrig avBpuTTog m*
Epiphanius, Haer. 54. Opera, vol. 1. p. 46 j.

chizedekj

Chap. XVIII. of ancient Unitarians. 427

chizedekj that Chriji was inferior to MeK

chizedek *.

Theodotus argued from \L liii. in which

the Meffiah is foretold as to be a man ofjbr^

rowsy &c. -f-.

It is remarkable that the wifdorny of
which Solomon gives a figurative defcrip^
tion in the book of Proverbs, had been fo
long interpreted to mean C/jriJl, that even
Marcellus allowed it, and made ufe of it
to prove, that Chrift was a creature, as the
Arians did, and thought that it referred to
his human nature only :|;. A much better,
and a more natural, interpretation is, that it
has no reference to Chrifl at all.

fK£<v8 'Toc^m;^ 5)i$£v sK ^nln m «f/i|0t£vs, a-u ei ispsug zig tov cuccvx
Hoiix T)]v Ta|iv Me^^ifTE^'f;^ . a; elvoh, <Py]jiv^ aulov sli UTTo^serePov m
Me^^X^cte^ek. Epiphan. Haer. 55. p. 468.

t Eiloi 0 atflog cara^viv (pmi 0£o3b7(^, o7< /^ Ecraict; 'sr^^i aJl'd £^>7,
cli av^^coTTog h'iv, alco; eiTrav^ av^pcoTT^ ei^ug (pspsiv /juz^xkiciv ' x^
iid'ofXEV txJlov sv 'SJMyn^ ^ £V KamaBi ^ )j7i^a(7Sn, nai hk ET^oyiahy^,
Ibid. H«r. 54. p. 466.

J To TOivuv HS(paX(Xiov rail rn; 'ssa^oi/xiag, a mv a^x^v rr,; ^eo-
^l®", cocTTEp auloi wixaaa-iy ts acJInpog nixuv 'Eia^oirr^a-at ^nXo/AEvoVf

KUplCg B}iii(TS jOti:, £^>J, aXXoi rnv d'sJlE^aV Hixla JCtpHlX OlKCVCfJliCCV,

Eufeb. con. Marcdlura, lib. 2. p. 45.

Dr,

428 Principles and Arguments Book III.

Dr- Lardnerdifcovers traces of Nazaraean,
or Sabcllian interpretations of fcripture in
Eufebius, which he accounts for by fup-
pofing, that they were borrowed from fome
other writer, and inferted into his own
work, which, he fays, was a frequent me-
thod with chriflian commentators. He
gives the following inftances :

** All the Father's grace was poured out
*^ upon the beloved, for it was the Father
** that fpake in him.'" Again, upon Pf.
Ixxii. *' This righteotifnefs of the Father is
** given to the king's fon, of the feed of Da-
** vid, according to the flefh, in whom, as
*' in a temple, dwelled the word, and wif-
** dom, and righteoufnefs of God/'

Once more, referring to Ifaiah Ixi. i. and
Luke iv. 18. " fhcwing," fays he, ** that
** his was not a bodily anointing, like that
*^ of others, but that he was anointed with
*' the fpirit of the Father's deity, and there-
*' fore called Cy6ri/Z*."

ViV 'yap 0 'Zfralrjo ^a^.wv £V ma. Aviy] romv y\ th 'sroilpog ^ixaioavvn ra
K^mrvrey a«r7r£^ vau 0 Ta Sea ^070 j, nai v ao^pia, km ^iriMOJuvn. Ai-

Chap, XVIII. of ancient Unit ax'i a ns, 429

Well might Gregory Nyffen, and others,
complain of the advantage which the uni-
tarians derived from the literal interpre-
tation of the New 'Tejlamenty which it is
hardly poffible to open without findino- a
decifive argument againft the trinitarian
fyftem. I iliall give fome examples of the
arguments which the ancient unitarians
drew from it.

In proof of the proper unity of God,
Marcellus argued from Mark xii. 28. n?Te
is one God^ and there is no other but he *.

The inferiority of the Son to the Father,
the unitarians proved, from a variety of cir-
cumflances, one of which was, Chrift being
called a fervant y and they chofe to adhere
to that language in fpeaking of Chrift, that
tbey might honour the Father, *' On v/hat

^izcrxw", T^a ^£ ^vEUfxau ty,; izal^iH-ng ^£olnl^ H£xpi<7(ji,evoVy km cix
Ta7o %^iroy «v»7c/j£y//tevov. Credibility, vol. 8. p. 82.

* Aa?;' 0 (XBv ypocjj.fjialwg, ma, rs voixh i^coa^Qsiav /us/.ix^y.HE-.xi
cb^wv, sTfaivm TO ts Sw^yj^oj p^lov ^aivzlixt., anas ia-panX, Asycv, XU'
pio. 0 $£0f an £1^ £Ti ' ^oii cPfico Ha,7\ag Eipricr^oci 'nir£uo/iEvov • ty? ahar
^ciagyctp (pYja-iv. £i7rccg, oli sig etiv c ^eo; nai hh £tiv aT^cg ':sXnv av% . w
h rcc in; vT.ag ^icx^nmg avxiiv!£9 £l^£vm /jLvrnptsi, sloi kcu ^£vlspov ava-

.Eufebi>£c. Theol. lib. 2. cap. 19. p. 131.

** account,'

430 Principles and Arguments Book III.

** account," fays Chryfoftom, *• do you call
" Chrift a fervant ? That we may honour
" the Father. But the Son fays, that all
*' men may honour the Son, even as they
" honour the Father *."

The unitarians urged, that, as a fervant,
Chrift wasy^«/ by the Father, being fubjefl:
to his orders. This, they alfo faid, v^as a
proof that Chrift was not omniprefent. It
may be curious to fee what Chryfoftom
faid in anfwer to this argument. ** To be
*' fent of God," fays he, " does not imply
** removal from place to place, but the ma-
*' nifeftation of thececonomy. Concerning
'V John the Baptift, who was of the earth,
*^ and who appeared upon the earth, the
'* gofpel fays. There was a man fent from
*< God f."

* Tivo^ 5s 2V£KSV aviov vTTHpyov (pais ' ivct Tiix',](jcc[xe.v rov "srals^x ♦
3^ IJLW 0 ^^og <py\cnv ; ivx "isavisg rifiacri rov viov xx^cog Ti/jucai tov
fS!cciepcc In Pf. Opera, vol 3. p. 12 1.

•^ CJj TO aTTsrciT^M nsscz^oe. rou Sex^ a ty.v aTTo toirav sig TOTTsg
lAslarotaiv cmixxmi a\'h<x rn9 oiKOVO/xiag rnv {pavspoxriv. Tlspi Iwav-
VH m ^aifliTov X£y£i to £uctyy£7\iov m utto yy^g ov'toc^ Jtai ctTTo yvig (pavB"
fwS£v?o$. Eyevilo ctv^puTTOi c«?rc^«^ue^'OJ 'vja^'X Ses. Ser. 5.
Opera, vol. 6. p. 59,

When
3

Chap. XVIII. of ancient Vnitarians. 431

When the unitarians were urged with
the Father and the Son being faid to be o;;r,
they faid that they were one by confent and
harmony, and proved it from ChrifVs fay-
ing, that his difciples might be one with
them, as they two were one*.

The reward that was given to Chrift, on
account of his fervices and fufferings, was
alledged by the ancient unitarians as a proof
of his having been employed by God as his
fervant, and that he had no dignity before.
'* The heretics/* fays Chryfoftom, ** urge
*^ that Chrift was advanced on account of
*' his fufferings. But he replies, that men-
*' tion is made by John of his dignity before
*' his fufFering -f*.'* The unitarians likewife

* Qiiando igltur ad evertendam naturalcm trinitatis
identitatem, hunc locum in medium ha.Teticus afFt-rt,
quemadmodum dicens, nos non identitate abfoluta corpo-
rum, nee animarum alterius in alteram confufione unum
fumus \ fed affedu charitatis, aniniarumque ad fcrvanda
mandata dei confenfu ; fic et unum filius cum patre eft.
Cyril Alex, in Joan, lib, 11. p. 987.

t Ajo KOLi 0 Seo$ cculov v7r£po4^u(j£ ' ^i« TO -sraSc^, u; iMtr^cv tk
'S^a^oug OE^coHcog aula tvjv y^/wcny. Uuvlio; Mysig, ai^sliHS hou scxK(t
av% ovo/xx uTTEp ^av ovoux. hx vj tw ovo/^al*, U<Tii 's:xv yc\v
naix^^n^ sTTupscviaVi hm sTriysm, hm nulax^ovicov, O ^s; ^r.71. ftfk
Tov fctv^ov u^u%^ opxcy (pmh ,ws7« TO 'scK^oi (Aia^t^i e^^e rnv ^^^»-

432 Principles and Arguments B o o k 1 1 1 .

urged the Father raifing the Son from the
dead *.

The gofpels were thought to furnidi the
ftrongeft arguments for the fimple humanity
of Chrift^ and this was urged Vv^ith the
more force, as it was acknowledged by the
orthodox, that the three firft gofpels did
not teach his divinity. But the ancient
unitarians brought as many arguments from
the gofpel of John, as from any of the
others.

We learn from Epiphanius, that Theo-
dotus urged, Luke i- 35. Jhe Jphit of the
Lord /hail come upon thee-, arguing that he
did not enter into her, as the orthodox
fuppofed *f ; and, John viii. 40, Te
feek to kill me, a man who told you the
truth %, Auft.n fays, that the Sabellians

CiV. Ei roivvv (xda rev Totv^ov v-^o)'^^ ug vusig (ptxiz, ^nx ri o ^cc7r%
i-y\g lcoawr,g 'ZJ^o m TJaS-sj, TSpo th Tavpov sMysv. Ser. 4. Opera,
vol. 6. p. 33.

* Axx £7ri7JYi^a<nv 01 ai^sliKoi ^S7ov7£?, jSa 0 's^oclnp eytipst rov viov.
Chryfoftom in Gal. 1. Opera, vol. 10. p. 965.

-f- Ella, (pwi-, Kou TO vjayfky^iQV £(pr\ m Mapia^ 'r^vEVfjuz Jtupix

fTTST^SWElM ETTL CTE, KM HH £17T£ 'SJVcU{A,X HU^lH yiVW^lai £V (TOU HxV.

54. Opera, vol. i. p. 465.

X K.ai OL ccTT aula (TuraBivlBg ^Eo^oliavou •vf'iXov av^pcoTTov (pcta-
KDvlsguvai Tov xpiTCv^ hxi ;« aTiEpixa}^ av^pog y£y£v/\(j^ai , ziict 21^

Chap. XVIII. of ancient Unitarians, 433
"^ged, John vii. 6. My doElrinc is not
mine^. Bafil's enemies quoted againft him
John vi, 57. I live by the Father -j-.

It is remarkable enough, that both Chry-
foftom and Theophylad: blame Paulas Samo-
fatenfis for making apaufe before the words.
Marvel not at //6/>,John v.27. as if they would
conned them with the account of God's
giving all judgment to the Son \. For all

aA>.a rz^o<p(X(JU rrjg sauiH ^a^£;{lpc7m; icxvlx sauJa iTTi^mwav avvn*
yaysv . oli (prja-iv, c Hupiog i^rt ' vvv ^£ ^'nlEilz /xe cf/roKluvoci av^poiTTCVy og
T)iv aT^S^tocv v[xiv "KeT^oMkoc . opa^ (pmiv^ oli av^puTro; euv. Hcer.
54. Opera, vol. i. p. 463.

* Utique fi tua doclrina non eft tua, O domine, cujus eft
nifi alius fit cujus fit ? Quod dixifti, Sabelliani non intcl-
ligunt : non enim trinitatem vidcrunt, fed fui cordis cr-
rorem fecuti funt. Nos cultores trinitatiset unitatis patris
et filii et fpiritus fan^li, et unius dei, intelligimas de doc-
trina ChriPii, quomodo non eft ejus. Jn Joim, Tr. 29.
cap. 7. Opera, vol. 9 p. 246.

t Ta ^£ ^)i(xalci tyi^ 2f i ag 7f «^>i?, a^ff >.aixQavovleg oi avliKsifJiS'
vgi xai ^LaTp£(povisg Trpog tyiv ciKuav cruvsi^miv f«J xaSaif fcr.v tt? oo^y\;
T8 fJLOVoyivag y\iMiv z!OQa(pF.p^(fiv, alco; e^ilaao/xsv, nxia to '^uvdiov n.oiv
av^7r7y(ra-oviei aula . Kai '^^ulov Y,fxiv 'SS^oli^saBco to, iya ^w Sla tov
'Salcpa . Tiilo yap stiv ev ruv ^£>mv tuv 05 apavov 'Krf/z'^o/^vwv utt^
lav acr cQojv aula fiEXpW^vav. Epifl. 141. Cypcra, vol. 3.
p. 166.

X Xpt] 5e yivcoa-KSiv oil Ilau7.c; 0 lufxocralEu; 4.;>.ov «r^wTOV Sby-
piali^av rov Hvpiov slwj av£ym7?c£ thIq to xwsiov, nai ihmav eJwxfv

Vol. III. F f «*''?«

434 Principles and Argu?nents Book IIL

our printed bibles are now divided, as
Paulus Samofatenfis and his followers had
pointed the palTage ; and the punduatioa
received by Chryfoftom and Theophylad: is
followed by no perfon.

Epiphanius fays that Theodotus argued
from Ads ii. 22. where Peter calls Chrift
a man approved of God*, And indeed it was
acknowledged by the orthodox, that, in all
the period to which the hiftory of Luke
extends, the apoftles did not openly preach
fuch offenfive dodrines as thofe of the pre-
exiftence and divinity of Chriil:.

The unitarians found a variety of folid
arguments in the apoftolical epijiles. There
is hardly any text of which the trinitarians
avail themfelves more than Phil. ii. 6. Who
being in the form ofGod^ thought it no rob^
bery to be equal to God. But even this text
the ancient unitarians thought favourable
to themfelves., Epiphanius fays, the here-

Aviui Hoct Kpi<7iv 'UJomv oil uiog av^poiTni sriv . Bvlav^a 5V r<^wv, acr
£0<hrii cxfx^'i avEyiVdJo-Ks to, jt>wj ^aupux^vle Tijia. In John, cap, 3,
vol. I. p. 632. SeeChryfoftom, vol.8, p. 201.

- * A>}>ix^ ^rj(Tiv, £i7rov 01 aTToroT^oi^ av^pa aTTo^e^eiyiASvov £i; Vfjuxg
orrifMsioig xj re^aai )^ hk waov Sfov aitohhiy^ivov, Haer. 54.,
Opera, vol i- p. 467.

tics

Chap. XVIII. of ancient Unitarians. 435

tics avail themfelves of this text, '' as if it
** meant that Chrift would not by robbery
*' make himfelf equal to God*.'* i.e. it
would have been robbery if he had done fo.
Chryfoitom alfo fays, that the Arians prove
that Chrift is not God from this text, fay-
ing, that Chrift being in the form of God»
did not feize upon an equality with God ;
an. vpTTacrs 4- p

Lardner obferves that Origen underftood
this text as cxpreffive of the humanity of
Chrift:}:, and that it fcems to have been fo
underftood in an epidle from the churches
of Vienna and Lyons, they fuppofing the
apoftle to have meant that to be equal, or like
to God, Chrift did not think a thing to be
catched at §.

Theophyladl, commenting on Eph. iv. 6.
One God^ and Father of all , who is above all^

* Oy yap £<7r£V, sx y[%i><mi 'iivia^M icoq ^ew Si a^Trayixit . a}^
i% apTTayfMV y)yv](r aIo uvai laa Sew, to Seov wxi (pujeiy oli nv. An'
coratus, fe<Sl- 45. Oper^, vol. 2. p. 50.

f A^a Ti$ 0 o-o^og avlm y^oyog^ xj }xw ravavlm luKvuji^ (p^i .

xj finv £1 w ^eos^ isug six^v apTfaa-M. In Phil. 2. Opera, vol. lO.
p. 1240.
t Credibility, vol. 3. p. 399- § J^ici. vol. I. p. 339*
F f 2 tf «d

43 6 Principles and Arguments Book III,

and through ally and in you ally obferves that
the heretics thought that the prepofition ^^°^
{through) was peculiar to the Son, and £v (in)
to the Spirit ; both implying inferiority ;
whereas he lays they are now both applied
to the Father^/'

la Coll. i. 15. Chrift is called the firjl
horn of every creature. On this Marcellus
faid, '* How could he who exifted always
'* be the firil-born of any thing; but the
^^ jirji new man, in whom God would that
•* all things (hoald be colleded ^ the holy
** fcriptures calling him the firft-born of
*^ the creation t." Cyril of Alexandria,
alfo fays, '* They continually urge the more
*' limple with the \v ox d fir /inborn

'SJalpi EV^UKDvlai 'UjpodKniJ.EVM . 2K txpa i.'KaTlaazai;. Vol. 2. P* 533*
f ITcaj ya^ ^uvalovy tov aei ovla^ ^puioloKov sivcci rivog, a}^oi top
*S!p(Slov Jiamv av^f wttov, sig ov ra '^avla avaxscpa'^exiua-aa-^ai s^a^rn^
0 ^£o; . TiPiOV ai ^ciai ypoKpai rsipcololoftov "SJcca^g ovo^Aa^nai Hliasag^
Eufeb. contra Marcellum, lib. 2. p. 44.

J Semper infipienter dicunt nomen primogenltus fim-
plicioribus objicientes. De Trinitate, libV^^iDpera, vol,
2. p. 415*

But

Chap. XVIII. of ancient Vmtarians. 437

But the two decifive texts in proof of
the unity of God, and the proper humanity
of Chrift, in this epiflle, are the following :
Eph. iv. 5. One Lord^ one faith, one baptijbi,
one God and Father of ali, who is above all^
and through all, and in you all -, which was
urged, as Eufebius informs us, hy Murcel-
lus*"; and 1 Tim. ii. 5. T'Z'^rf /V one God,
and one 7?iediator hetiveen God and 7n any the
man Chrift J ejus ; which was pleaded
by the fame -f*. This was alfo alledged
by Photinus;]:.

iijoo yca(p£i ' auloq ya^ Q[A.o7\oyH T^sycov^ £v sfxoL o 'ss^n^, xayu) ev tci)
'syal^i ' oil ^£ ralo 'd% ccn>Mc, a^£ (xax.o'Truit; £<f>jxE, '^nT^v [av] km ap
fis^xi; a7roro?iiKni ^-/ij-cco; . sig yap o, eittwv, xw^ioj, /xicc 'zrtnj, £v ^xtt-

Ec. Theol. lib. 2. cap. 19. p. 131.

* Nt/v cvlov cruKO^Av%, i)$ -^ihov av^^'UTTov heyovia sivaci tov xf^^ov^
'S!po<pavu; Hxla-JiyEvhfXEvog^ sv rs oig sipME^ kJ ev 01; £|)ij ETraysi auBtg
fSSEpi aula hsyav ' aXh 0 'SJpcsi^y^iAEvog^ l3faxe« twv aytwv 'sjpc/py^luv
(poQvlKTocg^ a; ano^pr^ov nva iy ^avSavHcrav th aTToroT^ SeoXoyiiaw
E^YiyH/xEvog, Eig Shoj e^v), Eig /^ ^£(7t7>ij Ses ^ avSpaJTTWV, av^WTTOJ
hiaag x^iTog. Eufeb. Con. Marcellum, lib. l- p. 28.

t Hoc fi timemus, deleamus in apoftolo quod di£lum
eft : mediator dei et hominum homo Chriftus Jefus, quia
ad autboritatem haerefis fuas Photinus hoc utitur : et non
legatur a nobis, quia ab illo male intelligatur. Hil. Ad

Ariancs, Opera, p. 302, _

F f 3 ^^^^

43^ FrinctpleSy &c. Book III.

. If my readers only compare thefe unita-
rian interpretations of fcripture with thofe
made by the trinitarians, in a former part
of the work, he mull be fenfible, without
any affiftance from me, how infinitely more
natural thefe are than thofe. The wonder
is, that any other fenfe fhould ever have
been put upon them. The hillory, how-
ever, that 1 have given of the rife of the
dodrine of the trinity, folves this diffi-
culty, and Ihovv^s the neceffity the trini-
tarians were under of WTefting the fcrip-
tures fo miferably as they did.

fisdilv^ ^En >t} avSpTTwv x^^^'S h<Ts^' Epiphanius, Hzer. 54.
Opera, vol. I. p. 467-

CHAP.

[ 439 ]

CHAPTER XIX.

Of the Pradlice of the Unitarians with refpe^l
to Baptifm.

^"p H E form of baptifm, fuppofed to be
prefcribed in the gofpel of Mattliew,
viz. in the name of the Father^ the Son, and
the Holy Spirit^ and the trine i?nwerlion,
which was ufed along with it, contri-
buted very much to eftablifh the dodlrine
of the trinity. It was natural enough, there-
fore, for the unitarians to oppofe this fuper-
ftition by difcontinuing the pradice; though
it is probable that the cuftom itfelf was an
innovation. That it was not in ufe from
the beginning', is pretty evident from there
being no trace of it in the New Teftament,
though we are not able to fiy at what time
it began. However, that many perfons did
not baptize in this manner, before, as well
as after, the council of Nice, is evident from
the decrees of that council, and other pro-
ceedings

440 Form of Bap t if ft Book III,

ceedings of a fimilar nature ; and this was
the foundation of the different treatment of
thofe who were called heretics, when they
returned into the bofom of the church.
For if they had been baptized in the ufual
form, their baptifm was deemed to be validy
how heretical fpever the church had been
in which they had received it ; but if they
had not been baptized in that particular
form, it was decreed that they (hould be re-
baotized.

In what manner the unitarians, who dif-
approved of the common form, did baptize
their catechumens, does not clearly appear^
But it {hould feem that fome of them bap-
tized in the name of Chriji onlyy and others
into the death of Chriji, which they pro-
bably adopted from that expreffion of the
apoille Paul. It appears from Bafil, that
*' fome held that it was fufficient to
** baptize in the name of Chrift*/' And
the canons which are afcribed to the
apoftles ordered that ** if any bifhop did
** not ufe trine immerfion, but baptized

De Sp. S. cap. 12. Opera, vol. 2. p- 3i5«

<* only

Chap. XIX. hy the Valtarlans. 441

'' only into the death of Chrift, he fliould
'' be depofed*;'

The Eunomians, Theodoret fays, bap.
tized in this form, and alfo did not immerfc
the whole body, but only applied the water
to certain parts of it ^-.

According to Athanafius, all the unita-
rians did not objedl to the common form of
baptifm ^ for, he fays, both the xManicheans
and Paulas Samofatenfis baptized in the
common form:};. But they mull in General
have, dilliked that form ; becaufe it was de-
creed at the council of Nice, that the Paulia-
nifts, returning to the church, fljould be
rebaptized §. Auftin alfo fays, that *' the

(TECog E9ri7£AE(r£j, a7\?^cx £V (SocTrlta-fxcx. si; rov ^av:x^m ts ku^ih ^ihfXEyw^
Ha&at^EicrBu. Zonaras, p. 26. Canon 50.

t M» %f*)va{ ^£7wv m; Ko^a^vEiv tov ^a7r}i^O(XEvov, fxr ^s ttciekt^cu
Trjy TYig T^ia^o; ETTix^^miv . aX\ aira^ ^a^fli^HV Eig rov BjcvjiIov th
XP<r8 . )y B^Trli'^cvleg ^£ f^Ex^t tuv te^Vjiv tw uoali ^evnaiy rag ^g
a'K^oig (JLO^ioig ra a-UfjLxiog ug Evaysa-i 'si^co-ipE^Eiv to u^as aTrayo^euit-
9iv. '' Haer. Fab. lib. 4. Opera, vol..}. p. 356. KJ Halae.

X Quia yiocvixotioi >cj ^puysg jt] ot xa l.aixo<iaiec>ig fjux^lai^ t»
cvofAoticc Myovlsg, h^ev y)T%v ektiv aifsliHoi. Contra Arianos, Or.
^. Opera, vol. i. p. 413.

§ Hepi Twv liccu^uavia-avlicv eiIjc. 'srpor^uyovluv rrt xuBo^iKJi t**>»:-
cict opog ekIe^eIui ava.Ca7rli<^£a^xi atfiag f|«5rav7!^. Canon 19.
Zonaras, p- 64.

" Paulians

442 Form of Baptifm Book III.

** Faalians were ordered to be rebaptized
** by the council of Nice • from which/' he
fays, *' it is evident, that they did not ob-
'* ferve the rule of baptifm, which many
** heretics, though they left the catholic
*' church, did*." Pope Innocent alfo
would not receive the Paulianiils without
baptizing, *' becaufe they did not baptize
** in the name of the Father, the Son, and
** tlie Spirit, as the Novatians didf."

* Iftos fane Paulianos baptlzandos efle in ecclefia catho-
licaNicseno concilio conftitutum eft. Unde credendum eft
eos regulam baptifmatis non tenere, qtiam fecum multi
haeretici cum de catholica difcederent abftulerunt, eamque
cuftodiunt. Catalogus Haer. Opera, vol. 6. p. 30.

i Unde praedidus papa Innocentlus, cum de duabus
haerefibus Paulianiftis videlicet, et Novatianiflis commu-
niter difputaret, cur a Paulianiftis venientes baptizandos
efie decerneret, a Novatianis autem funditus prohiberet,
caufam his reddidit verbis, dicens : quia Paulianiftse, in-
quit, in nomine patris, et filii, et fpiritus fandi minime
baptizantur, nee apud iftos, videlicet Novatianos, de uni-
tate patris et filii, et fpiritus fandli quaeftio aliquando mo-
ta eft. Damiani Epift. cap. 23. Bib. pat. App. p. 634.

Paulianiftx in nomine patris et filii et fpiritus fandi
minime baptizabant. At Novatiani iifdem nominibus
tremendis vinerandifque baptizant, nee apud ipfos de uni-
tate poteftatis divinae, hoc eft et patris, et filii, et fpiritus
fandli, aliquando quaeftio commota eft. Epift. P. Inno-
centie ad Macedonia Epifcopos, Apud Binnii Concilia,
vol. I. p. 620.

At

Chap. XIX. hy the Unttarians. 443

At a council held at Carthage, in 419, the
Paulianiils were ordered to be rebaptized*.
And at the council of Conflantinople, the
Montanifts, Eunomians, and Sabellians, were
all ordered, after much preparation, in which
exorcifm was not omitted, to be rebaptized
when they returned to the catholic church+.
This feems to fhow, that the unitarians in
general, and alfo the moft zealous Arians,
refufed to make ufe of the common form of
baptifm; and it is probable that they con-
tinued to do fo till a very late period, if,
indeed, they ever dropped it at all. For
Damafcenus, who wrote in the eighth cen-

* De Paulianiftis refugientibus ad ecclefiam catholicam
definltio prolata eft rcbaptizare omnino. Binnii Concilia,
vol. I. p. 726.

locyirag tug svlocu^u T^eyofXEvag ^^uyag^ koli l^aQiKhiavag ra; /xio-

rnacct'; ai^scrsig [ettsi^yi 'moT^oi £ia-tv £vlau^jx, (jt.a.'hircx, oi airo t>i;
TaXixlav xa^ocg e^x'^/xsvoi) tuoc^jiag zag vtt auluv '^shovla.g 'STforiSc^-

^ofxsv aulag (xsla T8 S{jti^ucav r^fJov £ig to <s!^o(T(^7IQ)) xcci £Lg ra w7a,
Koci alug Kalrix^/Jt'EV avlag-, kxi tsoihiivj xpovi^Eiv eig rr]v £HK^r,jiav, nai
cMooxahou Twv y^xp(x uai tdI£ avlng ^x'7rli^o{xsy, , , Canon 7.

Zonaras, p. 77.

444 Form of Bapfifm^ &c. Book III.

tury, fays, that " they who had not been
** baptized into the holy trinity, ought to
" be re- baptized*." It is to be hoped,
that the unitarians of the prefent age will
imitate their predeceiTors, by baptizing, as
the apoftles did, in ^he name of Chriji only,
without the invocation of the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghoft, or expreffing what they
apprehend to be the real meaning of that
phrafeology.

* At qui in fanftam trinitatem minime baptizati funt,
hi denuo baptizentur necefTe eft. Orthod. Fid. lib. 3.
cap. 10, p. 446*

END OF THE THIRD VOLUME.

■Vf;-

mmmmmmmmmK^