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

'sJA'&fMMM

N THE CUSTODY OF THE

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY.

r*:;*

SHELF N°

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2009

http://www.archive.org/cletails/historyofearlyop864prie

A N

HISTORY

O F

EARLY OPINIONS

CONCERNING

(

JESUS CHRIST,

COMPILEDFROM ^-^Ci. A^-^VMS^ 0 C / •>

ORIGINAL WRITERSi ii^ 4/

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. MED.
PARIS. CANT^4B. AMERIC. £T PHILAD^ SOCIU$.

VOL. IV,

Athanasius.

<^f '

BIRMINGHAM, §^

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

MDCCLXXXVI.

^ VdA«!S1«*''=^

^.^

CONTENT S

O F T H E

FOURTH VOLUME.

BOOK III.

TH E Hiftory of the Unitarian Doc-
trine, continued. Page i

C H A P T E R XX.

Of the Dodtrine of the Miraculous Conception.

ibid,

SECTION I.

Of the Nature and Importance of the Do^rine
of the Miraculous Cojiception. 8

SECTION II.

The Opinions of the Chrijlian Fathers con-
cerning the life of the Miraculous Concep-
tion. - - - - 26
A 2 " SEC-

^v CONTENTS.

SECTION III.

A View of the Arguments in Favour of the
Miraculous Conception, and of the hijlori-'
cal Evidence by which its Credibility fjould
be ofcertained. - - 56

SECTION IV.

Beafons fr thinking that the Miraculous Con^
ception was not known, or believed, in very
early Times* - - 64

SECTION V.

The internal Evidence for the Credibility of
the Miraculous Conception confdered. 1 00

SECTION VI.

Confiderations relating to the Roman Cenfus,
mentioned by Luke. - - 124

SECTION VIL

Suppofed Allufions to the Miraculous Concep-
tion in the Scriptures, ^ - 138

S E C-

CONTENTS. V
SECTION VIII.

Ohjedtions to the Miraculous Conception by the
ancient Unbelievers, and the Anfwers of the
Chrijtian Fathers to them. i ^ i

BOOK IV.

Of fome Controveriies which had a near
Relation to the Trinitarian or Unitarian
Dodlrine. - - » x.6^

CHAPTER I.

Of the Arian Controverfy. - Ibid,

SECT ION L

Of the antecedent Caufes of the Arian Doc^

- 173

trme.

SECTION II,
Of the Tenets of the Ancient Arians. x j^^

SECTION III^

ne Arguments of the Ancient Arians. 1 99

S E C-

VI

CONTENTS,

SECTION IV.

Of the Argu?nents of the Orthodox againft the
Ar'ians. - - - 2ii

SECTION V.
General Ohfervations on the Arian Contro-
verfy. - - - 231

CHAPTER IL

Of theNeforian Controverfy - 239

CHAPTER III.

An Account of the Prifcillianfts and Pauli-
clans. - - - 263

CONCLUSION.

SECTION I.

A conneEled View of all the principal Articles
in the preceding Hijiory. 273

SECTION II.

An Account of the Remains of the Oriental,
or Platonic Fhllofophy, in ?nodern jyflems of
Chrijilanily* - - 288

SEC-

CONTENTS. vii

SECTION III.

Maxims of Hijlorical Criiicrfm, 294

SECTION IV.

A fummary View of, the E^vi dene e for the pri-
mitive Chrifians having held the DoSlrine
of the fimple humanity ofChrijl. 30J

SECTION V.

Some of the TJfes that may he derived from
the Confideration of the Subje5i of this
JVork. - , - • 320

S E C T I O N VI.

Of the prefent State of Things with refpedi to
the Trinitarian and Arian Controverfes.

Articles omitted to he inferted in their proper
Places. - - - n'^^

The Names of the principal Perfons mentioned
in this Worky with the Times in which they
lived, in the order of the Alphabet. 350

3 -^n

viii CONTENTS.

An Account of the Editions of the Ancient
Writers quoted in this Work. 3^5

titles of all the Books and Chapters contained
in this Work. - - 366

Texts of Scripture illujiratedy or particu^
larly referred to, in this Work. 375

An Alphabetical Index to all the Four Fosl
lumes. - - - 27JIJ

VOL. IV.

ERRATA.

N . B . C^; figni fies from the bottom of the page ,

Pa'^e 5. line l2.for was, read did

"^ q^. line 9. /I)r Jofeph, read Jonas

- , 61. line 13. /or they were, read it was

75. line 6. for believed, read difbdievcd

. 80. line g. dele equally

■ — ,-. 203. line 14. ^^/<? not
— — 26S. line I'J,. dele thofe of

THE

■)• H E

HISTORY OF OPINIONS

CONCERNING

C H R I S T.

BOOK III.

THE HISTORY OF THE UNITARIAN DOC-
TRINE, CONTINUED,

CHAPTER XX.

Of the Dodlrine of the Miraculous Conception.

HAVING confidered the great prin-
ciples on which all the unitarian$
of antiquity were agreed, viz. the
doctrines oi the unity of God ^ and the fimple
humanity of Chrijiy with the arguments by
which they fupported them, I ihall now
confider an article with refpe(S to which
Vol, IV. B they

2 Of the Dodlrine of the Book III.

they held different opinions, viz. the mira^
culous conception of Chrijiy fairly laying be-
fore my readers all that I could colledl
concerning it, that they may be able to
form their own judgment. I had thought
to have made fome remarks on this fub-
jed, in my Hijlory of the Corruptions of
Chriftianityy but I did not do it there, be-
caufe at that tim.e I had not fufficiently
confidered it. But having now given to
it all the attention of which I think I am
capable, I fhall with great franknefs lay
open the whole flate of my mind with
refpedl to it. From the fame premifes
different perfons will draw different con-
cluiions.

Many, I doubt not, will be alarmed at
fo free a difcuffion of a dodtrine which is
is held facred by almoft all the chriilian
w^orld ; the miraculous conception of Jefus
appearing to them to reft upon the fame
authority v/ith every other fadt in the gof-
pel hiftory, and therefore involving in its
confequences the truth of chriftianity it-
felf. I am fully apprized of the fituation

in

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception, d

in which I write, and of the load of eenfure
that I'arn fure to bring upon myfelf by it.
Many of my beft friends, thofe who think I
have hitherto been a zealous and fuccefsful
advocate for truth, will think that I am
now going too far, and even riiking what
has been already gained. To thefe I would
luggeft the following confiderations.

1 . Calling in queftion the truth of the
miraculous conception cannot appear more
alarming to them, than the dodlrine of the
fimple humanity of Chrifl now does to
others^ who are ^s fincere friends to the
gofpel as themfeives ; and, in this buli-
ilefs, I cannot give greater offence than I
did when I wrote againll the dodrine of
a foul, and fcrupled not to declare myfelf
a materialiji,

2. An alarm may be of ufe to excite
attention to a fubjed: ; and when the firft
confternation is over, thofe who were the
moft ftartled will recover themfeives, and
conlider the arguments difpaffionately, and
with a temper more proper for the difco-

B a very

4 Ofth: Doarine of the Book III.

very of truth. No man at this day. can
give more offence, or render himfelf more
obnoxious, even to chriilians, than the
apoftle Paul did, by preaching the gof-
pel to the uncircumciied Gentiles. Nei-
ther himfelf, nor even his memory, ever
furvived the odium that he brought upon
himfelf by this means, with the generality
of the Jewifli chriftians. His principal
objedl, \\\ many of his epiflles, is to juilify
himfelf in this refpedl. Rut though he
was fupported by reafon, and an efpecial
commiilion from God, he wrote in vain.
Now, with refped: to fortitude in bearing
fufferings of this kind, in the caufe of truth,
or which is the fame thing to me, what I
ferioufly think to be fo, I would not be be-
hind St. Paul, or any man. I have been
trained to it, and I hope the difcipline has
not been loft upon me.

3. I would farther obferve, that all thofe
to whom it can be worth my while to make
an apology, think as I do with refpedl to
the fcriptures^ viz. that they were written

without

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception, 5

without any particular inipiration, by men
who wrote according to the beft of their
knowledge, and who from their circum-
ftances could not be miftaken with refped:
to the greater facis, of which they were
proper wit7iejfesy but (like other men, fub-
jed: to prejudice) might be liable to adopt
a hafty and ill-grounded opinion concern-
ing thing-s which did not fall within the
compafs of their own knowledge, and
which had no connexion with any thing
that was fo -, and fuch I hold the miracu-
lous conception to be. We ought all of
us, therefore, to confidcr ourfelves as fully
at liberty to examine with the greateft ri-
gour, both the reafonings of the writers,
and th^ fa5}s of which we find any account
in their writings, that, judging by the
rules of jufl criticifm, we may dillinguifh
what may be depended upon, from what
may not. It may, perhaps, however, appear
probable, that neither Matthew nor Luke
wrote any thing about the miraculous con-
ception, efpecially the former.

B 3 4. Laftly,

6 Of the BoEliine of the Book III.

4. Laftly, I would obferve, that though
at prefent there are but few who dilbelieve
the miraculous conception, there have al^
ways, I believe, been fome, and thofe men
of learning and charader arnong chrifcians,
who have thou^^ht as 1 am now inclined
to do vv^ith refped to it, I have feen a
fmall trad: of Mr. Elwall's, written about
fixty years ago, the defign of which was
to difprove it. It made no impreffion upon
me at the time, and I have not been able
to procure it lince. Dr. Eaton^ a learned
and refpedable diffenting minifter, late of
Nottingham, though he never wrote upon
the fubjed, is well known by his acquaints
ance to have been decidedly of the fame opi-
nion with Mr. Elwall 5 and fo have been, and
are, feveral others, inferior to none that bear
the chriftian name for underftanding, learn?-
ing, or probity. To my certain knowledge,
the number of fuch perfons Is encreafing,
^nd feveral of them think it to be a matter
pf great confequence, that a dodrine which
jhey regard a,§ a difcredit to the chriftian

fcheme^j

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 7

fcheme, fhoiild be exploded. They alfo
think it far better that this fhould be done
by chriftians themfelves, than by unbe-
lievers, who may fay that we never give
up any idle notion, till we can maintain
it no longer.

Having premifed thus much, I proceed
to the confideration of the fubjeft before
me, and I fliall do it with the greateft free-
dom, and as far as I can judge concerning
myfelf, with perfed impartiality. Ob-
ferving that, though I frankly acknowledge
,the arguments agalnjl the miraculous con-
ception coniiderably preponderate in my
mind at prefent, I ihall not form an abfolutely
decided opinion, till I fhall have had an
opportunity of feeing what weight may be
thrown into the oppofite fcale, by any per-
fons who fhall candidly examine what they
will find advanced in this chapter.

B 4 SEC.

8 Of the DoBrine of the Book III.

SECTION I.

Of the Kl attire and Importance of the Dodrine
of the Miraculous Conception.

TN the firft place I would obferve, that the
importance of this doctrine has been un-
reafonably magnified in modern times. It
is one on which the ancient unitarians held
cppofite opinions, without, as far as ap-
pears, having ever thought the worfe of one
another on that account ; and, therefore,
there can be no reafon why we (liould not
exercife the fame mutual candour at this
day. The value of the gofpel depends not at
all upon any idea that we may have con-
cerning the perfon of Chriji. All that we
ought to regard is the objedl of his mifion^
and the aiithoriiy v/ith which his dodrine
was promulgated. The dodrine of immor-
tality, which is the great objed of the whole
revealed will of God, is juft as acceptable
to me, from the mouth of the fon of Jofeph
1 and

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. g

and Mary, as from the mouth of any man
created for the purpofe, from that of an
angel, or from the voice of God himfelf
fpeaking from heaven.

When the dodrine of the miraculous
conception is not particularly attended to,
v^e all readily fay, that it is the belief of
the dodlrineSy the miracles , the death, and
the refurre^lion of Chrift, that makes the
cbrijiian ; and alfo that the fewer things of
an extraneous nature, that we conned with
thefe, and maintain to be infeparable from
them, the better ; efpecially if we thereby
make the defence of chriftianity the eafier.
And certainly no circumilance relating to
the birth of Chrift has any more connec-
tion with the articles above mentioned,
than the opinion of his having been a tall or
fhort man, of a fair or a dark complexion.
It does not at all concern us to know how
Chrift came into the world, but what he
taught when he was in it, and what he did
and fuffered, as a proof of the authority by
which he taught it.. Every man, therefore,
who believes that Chrift had a divine com-

miffion

JO Of the Dodirine of the Book HI.

miffion to teach the great dodlrines of a re-
furredlion, and of a life to come, is as much
a chriftian, and has as ftrpng motives to go-
vern his life by the precepts of chriftianity,
as he w^ho likev^ife believes that he w^as
without father, or without mother, that h^
was the maker of the world, or the eternal
God himfelf. Such articles of faith as
thefe can only ferve to puzzle, to amaze,
and confound men 5 but they have no ten-
dency to mend the heart or the life.

I would farther cbferve, that the doc-
trine of the rniraculous conception itfelf is
not, in fadl, of any more confequence to the
Socinian, than it is to the Arian, or even
the Athanafian hypothefis. For it is no im-
pediment to the union of the Arian or
Athanafian logos to the human nature of
Chrift, that his body was derived from Jo-
feph. For any thing that we can judge, a
body produced in the natural way, was juil
as proper for the refidence of this heavenly
inhabitant, as one made on purpofe. And
if, on any fcheme, it was fit that Chrift
ihould have human nature at all, it may
z be

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 1 1

be fuppofed to have been equally fit that
he fhould have "a proper human nature^
diiFering as little as poffible from that of
his brethren. There is, therefore, no more
reafon why the Arian, or the Athanafian,
(hould be more attached to the belief of
the miraculous conception than the Soci-
nian. The dodtrine itfelf connects equally
well, or equally ill, with any particular
hypothefis concerning the nature of Chrift.
It may be imagined to be more honour-
able to Chrift to have come into the world
without the help of a man than with it ;
but this IS an affair of imagination only. And,
for the very fame reafon, it might have
been imagined to be ftill more honourable
to him, to have come into the world with-
out the inftrumentality of either woman or
man, and that the fecond Adam fhould have
come from the hands of God as immediately
as the firft. Ideas no better than thefe
gave rife to the dodrine of the Gnoftics,
For they meant to do honour to Chrift ;
and therefore we fliould be on our guard
ggaii>fl thein. But even admitting ideas of

this

12 Of the Dodirine of the Book III,

this kind to have fome weight, is it not, in
fad:, juft as humiliating to have a mother^
as it is to have ^father ; for it is nothing
more than the body that is concerned in
the queftion.

We fliould likev^^ife attend a little to the
ideas of the Jev^s, as v/ell as tp our own, on
this flibjed:. Now, the dodrine of the
Meffiah being the proper fon of Jofeph, a
lineal defcendant from David, will certain-
ly be more acceptable to them, than that of
his having had a miraculous conception.
For, though we may fancy that this cir-
cumftance refledls more honour upon him ;
yet, in the eye of a Jew, he muft, on that
very account, appear to be lefs accurately
defcribed by their ancient prophets -, though
any dodlrine which makes Chrift to have
been properly and fimply a man^ in what-
ever manner he v/as made fo, mufl be infi-
nitely more accf table to them than the
opinion of his having had a nature entirely
different from that of man. I own, how-
ever, that the expedations of the Jews
(any farther than they have a real founda-
tion in the prophecies) ought^ not by any

means

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conce-btion. \ o

means to determine our judgment in the
cafe, fo as to weigh again fl any proper ar-
gument that may be alledged on the other
fide.

Should I have any controverfy with a
Jew, I fliould not feel myfelf at all embar-
l-afTed with this circumftance of the mira-
culous conception ; as I Ihould not heiitate
to follow the example of the candid Jullin
Martyr with refped: to it; telling him,
that he was at full liberty to think as he
fhould fee reafon to do on that fubjed: ; and
that he might be as good a chriftian as the
Ebionites were before him, though he fliould
believe no more of the miraculous concep-
tion than they had done.

Indeed, with refped to the importance of
the queftion in itfelf, there are few, I ima-
gine, but would be ready enough to agree
with me, if they did not imagine that a dif-
belief of this article would afFed the credi-
bility of the reft of the gofpel hiftory. But
there is an argument oi fodi (which is the
ftrongeft of all arguments) direftly againft
. them. For the Ebionites, who did difbe-

lieve

1 4 Of the Docirine of the Book IIL

lieve the miraculous conception, were as
firm believers in the rell of the gofpel hif-
tory as other chriftians. And, belides, if
we coniider the nature of this apprehenfion,
it will appear to be founded on a miilake ;
becaufe the evidence for the miraculous
conception, and that for the public life,
miracles, death, and refurreclion of Chrift,
are exceedingly different ; fo that a total
failure in the evidence for the one, will not
affed the credibility of the other.

With the miraculous conception a few
perfons only could be acquainted ; and we
have not the teftimony of any of thofe few,
much lefs is it in our power to compare the
evidence of one with that of others of
them. Who were the perfons that in-
formed Matthew and Luke concerning it,
we cannot tell, nor through how many
hands the ftory was tranfmitted before it
came to them ; admitting, for the prefent,
that the introducftions to their gofpels were
written by themfelves. Whereas the great
events, fubfequent to the preaching of John
the Baptift, have not only the teftimony of

the

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception, 1^

the writers themfelves, but that of all the
inhabitants of Judea, and of the ftrangers re-
fiding in it. For, as Paul fays, ** Thefe
** things were not done in a corAer." And
to give the gofpel hiitory its juft degree of
credibility, we mud fimply confider the
writers as credible witnejfes of v/hat came to
their knowledge, without any regard to
their fuppofed injpiration^ which will never
make any impreffion on unbelievers. On
no other ground fhall we ever produce a
juft and rational defence of this moft im-
portant hiftory.

Setting afide all notions of ijifpiratiotiy we
fhould judge of the gofpel hiftory as we do
of any other. Now, no perfon, I appre-
hend, lays the lefs ftrefs on the hiftory of
Livy, with refped: to events near to his own
time, becaufe his account of Romulus and
Remus is thought to be fabulous. Mak-
ing myfelf, therefore, perfecftly eafy as to all
the poflible confequences of this difcuffion,
I fliall, with perfect freedom, confider the
evidence for the miraculous conception as
an article of hifiory^ and fliall, with as much

care

1 6 Of the DoBrine of the. Book III.

care as I can, ftate the arguments for and
again ft it.

It has been more particularly faid, that,
fappofing Luke to have been the author of
the introdudion to his gofpel, we may,
with the fame reafon, withhold ouraiTent to
any circumftance in our Saviour's hiftory,
that has been recorded by him only ; for
inftance, the account of the railing the
widow's fon at Nain, and the miffion of the
feventy difciples, as to this of the miracu-
lous conception. But this goes both upon
the fuppofition of his being a competent
witnefs to them all alike ; and, alfo, of
there being nothing more extraordinary in
the latter cafe than in the two former^
whereas, in both thefe refpefts, there is a
remarkable difference between them.

The raifing of the widow's fon, and the
miffion of the Seventy, fell within the term
oi the public Ufe of Chrift, of the tranfac-
tions of which there were thoufands of
witneiTes ^ and Luke himfelf, being gene-
rally faid to have been one of the feventy y and
confequently to have attended upon Chrift

during

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception, 17

during his miniftry, might have been an
eye-witnefs of what he relates ; whereas he
cannot be faid to have been in circum*
fiances to bear tejiimony to the miraculous
conception at all, and, as 1 have faid, through
what hands the ftory came to him v/e are
not told. They might, therefore, be very
well, or very ill informed concerning it.

Both the railing of the widow's fon, and
the miffion of the feventy, befides falling
within the public life of Chrift, are events
fimilar to thofe for which we have the
teftimony of the other evangelifts ; the
widow's fon not being the only perfon that
Jefus raifed to life, nor the feventy difciples
the only miffion that he fent out. Whereas
the miraculous conception was a miracle
abfolutely lingular in its nature, there being
nothing like it in the hiftory of the Old or
New Teftament. And what makes Hill more
againft the credibility of it is, that it does
not appear to be adapted to anfwer any good
purpofe whatever ; but, on the contrary, a
manifeftly bad one, in rnaking our Saviour's

Vol. IV. C raeffiah-

1 8 ^Gf the Do5frine of the Book III.

mefiiahfliip too foon, and too generally
known, or expoling his mother to unde-
ferved reproach.

On the whole, therefore, we may very •
readily admit the credibility of Luke's ac-
count of the raifing of the widow's fon, and
of the miffion of the feventy difciples, and
rejed: that of the miraculous conception,
though related by the fame hiftorian.

The prefumptive evidence of any doftrine
depends upon the nature of it; and this
fhould be confidered before the d ire ^ evi-
dence. For it is univerfaliy acknowledged,
that the lefs reafon there is to exped: any
particular event, the ftronger evidence it
requires. A flight evidence is fufficient
to certify us of fuch fafts as happen every
day, or very frequently. Miracles i-equire
much ftronger evidence 5 and, accordingly,
fuch evidence has always been provided.

Again, in miracles there is a gradation,
and fome of them being more extraordi-
nary, and lefs probable, a priori, than others,
require evidence proportionably more cir-

cumftantial.

CiiAP. XX. Miraculous Concept 1077. jg

cumftantial, and lefs liable to exception.
Thus the refarreclion of our Saviour, the
mo*ft extraordinary, and, a priori, being the
mod improbable of all events, approaching
the nearefl: to an impoffibility. the evidence
of it is remarkably circumftantial ; in confe-
quence of vi^hich there is not, perhaps, any
fa(3: in all ancient hiftory, fo perfectly cre-
dible, according to the moft eftabliflied
rules of evidence, as it is. And the argu-
mentSj a priori, in this cafe, are as ftnking
as thofe v^hich may be called the arguments
a pojieriori, or the proper hiftorical proof.
Becaufe wq are able to fee the importance of
the fadl, the evidence of which required to
be fo exceedingly clear. Chrift, coming
to give mankind the fulleft alTurance of an
univerfal refurred;ion, it vv^as obvioufly ne-
ceiTary, at leaft highly defirable, that, be-
fides folemnly announcing the dodrine, and
confirming it by miracles, he fliould him-
felf adually die and rife again, as a proof of
it. Accordingly, v/e find, that Chrift did
reft the evidence of his divine miflion in a
-particular manner, on the event of his re-
C 2 furreftion.

20 Of the Do5lrine of the Book III.

furreftion. We, therefore, fee clearly, why
it behoved Chrif both to die, and to rife again
from the dead.

Now are we able to difcover any reafon
why Chrift fliould be born of a virgin, ra-
ther than in the ufual way ? Can we con-
ceive it-to have been at all neceffary, or ad-
vantageous to the great objea; of his mif-
fion, or to qualify him for fulfilling it ? I
think I may anfwer for all unitarians, that^
a priori, we fhould rather have thought
otherwife, viz. that there would have been
a greater propriety in his being, in this, as
well as in all other refpeds, what other
men are. For then, having had no natural
advantage over us, his refurreftion would
have been calculated to give us the greater
affurance of our own. Whereas, his com-
ing into the world in a manner fo very dif-
ferent from that of other men, might create
a fufpicion that there was fome other ef-
fential difference between him and other
men -, and, therefore, that his nature might
be fubjedt to other laws than thofe of ours.

On

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 21

On this account, I am confident, that,
had mankind been defired to name a proper
reprefentative of themfelves, in whom they
fhould fee exhibited what was to befal
themfelves, they v/ould have chofen a man
born as themfelves had been. A priori^
therefore, it muil have appeared lefs pro-
bable, that Ghrift, being fent on fuch a
miffion as his was, fhould be born of a vir-
gin, than that he fhould be born like other
men ; as it might have been fufpeded, that
he would not have been produced in this
manner, if it had not been for the fake of
giving him fuch advantages in point of con-
ftitution, as men born in the ufual way
cannot naturally have. His example, there-
fore, is, in all refped:s, lefs properly pro-
pofed to us, and his refurredlion affords lefs
ground for our expedation that we aifo
fhall be raifed to immortal life ^ fince any
peculiar conflitution of nature may have un-
known peculiar privileges.
In the fcriptures, mankind are generally
apprized of the reafoiis of all the great mea-
C 3 fures

22 Of the Dj^rine cf the Book III,

fures that God has been pleafed to take
with refped to them. Our Saviour informs
his difciples very particularly why it was
expedient that he fhould die, and leave
them for a time; affuring them that it was
for their own advantage, &c. and with re-
fped to thofe reafons which they were not
at that time qualified to enter into, he
plainly told them, that they were not ; and
that, for that reafon, the communication of
more knowiedg-e to them v/as deferred.

Now, are any reafons given us in the
fcriptures, to fhow us that it was more
proper that Chrift was to be born of a
virgin, than in the ufual way ? Or, is it
there faid, that there was a reafon for it,
but that men were not qualified to under-
ftand it. Neither of thefe is the cafe;
and what is particularly remarkable, a thing
of this extraordinary kind is not fo much
as mentioned, or in the moft diftant man-
ner alluded to, by Chrift himfelf, or by any
writer in the New Teftament ; fo that, if
the dodrine be true, it does not appear to

have

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception, 27
have anfwered any end whatever. And it
is by no means analogous to the ufual con-
dud: of Divine Providence, to take extraor-
dinary meaiiires without a proportionable
objedl and ufe. It is no v/here faid, that
God honoured mankind fo far, as either to
fend a perfon of a higher rank than man,
to be his meirenger to them, or to make a
man, in an extraordinary way, for that pur-
pofe j that more dignity might be given to
his charadter, and greater attention fecured
to him.

There is only one expreffion in the whole
New Teftament, that is capable of being-
laid hold of, as, in the moil difrant man-
ner, alluding to the miraculous conception,
which is, Paul fpeaking of Chrift, Gal. iy.
4. as made of woman ^ as well as made under
the law. But the flighteft knowledge of
the fcripture phrafeology may fatisfy us,
that this is only fynoymous to the term man.
Job fays, ch. xiv. 1. Man that is l?orn of a
woman is of few days, &c. and again, chap.
^xv. 4, How can he be clean that is born of
C 4 a woman.

24 Of the DoBrine of the Book III.

a woman. Our Saviour alfo fays. Matt. xi.
1 1 . Amono- them that are born of women,
there is none greater than John the Baptift.
To be born of women ^ therefore, or made of a
woman ^ and to be a man, or a human being,
is the fame thing.

According to all appearance, therefore,
if the dodrine of the miraculous concep-
tion be true, God wrought a moft extraor-
dinary miracle v/ithout any proper objeft
or ufe. Nay, as far as we can judge, fuch a
pretenfion as that of a miraculous birth, un-
lefs it had been much more particularly
authenticated than the gofpel hiftory repre-
fents this to have been, mufl have operated
greatly to the prejudice of our Saviour's
charader, and confequently mufl: have ob-
ftruded the end of his miffion. For without
the moft circumftantial evidence, for which
no provifion was made, the ftory of the
miraculous conception would never have
been believed by the Jews. And does not
this circumftance render the wifdom of the
fcheme very queftionable? For, though it

muft

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 25

muft always be acknowledged, that the
ways of God, even with refpefl: to men,
may be infcrutable to men, yet, when no-
thing is faid of fuch wifdom, and no fuch
fubmiffion of our judgments is required of
us, the fads from which fuch myflerious
conduft is inferred, ought not to be ad-
mitted without proportionably clear evi-
dence.

SEC-

Of the Bo^rine of the Book III,

SECTION II.

T^he Q pinions of the Chriftian Fathers concern-
ing the Ufe of the Miraculous Conception.

A

^ S the fcriptures fay nothing at all on
this fubjed:, and reafon is equally filent,
let us hear what the Fathers have faid; and
we ihali find, that they were far from being
at any lofs for good reafons, as they thought
them, for Chrift's coming into the world
in that extraordinary manner ; and certainly
a natural birth would by no means have fo
well fuited their hypothefes. But, unhap-
pily, all their fchemes are fuch as unitarians
would rejed:, and therefore they will not
tend to make the thing; more credible to
them,

Juftin Martyr fays, that " Chrift was
** born of a virgin, that by the fame means
/'that difobedience came by the ferpent, by
** the fame means it fhould be terminated.
*' For Eve, being a virgin, and uncorrupt,
*<^ conceiving the logos [word] of the fer-
** pent, brought forth difobedience and

'' death j

-Chap. XX. Miraculous Concept mt, 27

*' death; but the virgin Mary, receiving
-'' faith and favour, when the angel Ga-
*' briel faid that the fpirit of the Lord
'^ Ihould come upon her, and the power
*' of the higheft overfhadow her, wherefore
*^ that holy thing that iliall be born of
'* thee is the Son of God, anfwered, Be it
** unto me according to thy word. And
*' of her was born he, concerning whom
^^ VvX have fhov/n that fo many fcriptures
** have fpoken ; by whom God deft.oys the
*' ferpent, and angels, and men who re-
** femble him, and produces a deliverance
'* from death for thofe who repent of their
*^ evil deeds, and believe in him^'^'* Thus,
as Cyril of Jerufalem fays, *' As death came

* Kai ^i« Tvi^ 'srapS-Eva av^^coTTog ysyovsvM, ivcx, kcx,i "^i vi; oh vj
awo Ts o^scoi; 'Tsaoa.Koy] rw apx'nv £Aabf, dio, TccJlyig ty,c, oda zm zxlci"
y^vaiVkx^'/i. IlapSev©" yap aaaYsVoi. zai a(p9opQ-, tov T^oyov tcv

^cii xoioiv "KaQii^oL yiapax -a 'mot.^^iv'^ •, EuayfsT^i^ofASVH aulrj Ta^otn\

£7ria-Kia(7Ei oculm-, olq km ysvyco/Asvov £| av%g aym Sfi v,og Ses, utte-
Kpivdio^ yi'-vofio fxoi fcalcc to ^yii^icx, (te. ILai "^ix txiPiyj; ysyevvrjcii
a-Jlog 'Zce^J a rocraulag ypoc^ag ccrro^s^aixsv £':^w^m, ^> a o Bsog rovrs
ocpiV', Kdi Ts$ ofjioiSsylixg ayy^^7^sg^ koci av'^^o^TTii;, Ky]o<.7^v2i^ airaTO^^-
yw C£ TS ^cLvaiH TOig (Ailayivaa-KHO-iv aTTo rm ^«yA«y, km 'SJifsuEO'iv
iig aulov, Bcya^Elaio Dial, pars 2, P« 35-t.

1 "by

28 Of the DoEirlne of the Book III.

** by the virgin Eve, fo it v^as neceffary
*' that life fliould be brought by a virgin ; or
" rather, out of a virgin * •'* It was, however,
another analogy in this hiftory that ftruck
Ambrofe. He fays, " Adam was made of
" the virgin earth, and Chrift was from a
<< virgin*!'/'

Maximus Taurinenfis improves upon this
idea 3 faying, that '* as Adam was produced
** from the pure earth, fo is Chrift produced
" from a pure virgin/' He alfo, alluding
to Ff.xxii. 6. obferves, that worms vi^ere bred
in the pure manna, to which he com.pares the
virgin Mary. What ufe he makes of thefe
comparifons may be feen in the extrad which
1 make from this writer in the notes J. The

yxv h £H, 'Sja^^Eva, (pxvm^i tw tcor]v. Cat. I2. p. 155.

f Ex terra virgine Adam, Chriftus ex virgine. In
Luc. cap. 4. Opera, vol. 2. p. 59.

X Sed magis iUum accipiendum puto quoniam vermis
nulla extrinfecus admixiione alieni corporis, fed de fola
et pura terra procreatur, ideo ilium comparat cum domi-
no, quoniam et ipfe lalvator de Tola et pura Maria gene-
iztiir. Legimus etiam in libris Moyfi de manna vermi-
culos procreates: digna plane et jufta comparatio. Si-
quidem de manna vermiculus gignitur, et dominus Chrif-
tu$ de virgine procreatur, quin potius ipfam Mariam

manna

C H A P . XX . Miraculous Conception . 2 9

fame writer lays, that God could not be
born othervvife than of a woman only.
*' He was born," he fays, *^ of a pure vir-
«* gin, that the human birth might prove
** him to be a man, and the virgin fhew
" that he was God. For as flefh can only
** be generated from flelh, fo the flefh of
** God could not come, except from a fe-
** male, without the help of a man *." All
that we need fay to thefe ingenious ana-
logies, is that the fcriptures fay nothing
about them -, and I fuppofe that thofe who
are now advocates for the miraculous con-
ception will have little to fay in their
defence.

manna dixerim, quia eft fubtilis, fplendida, fuavis et vIrgo,
quae velut caslltus veniens cundlis ecclefiarum populis
cibum dulciorem melle defluxit, quern qui edere ac man-
ducare neglexerit, vitam in femet ipfo habere non poterit,
ficut ipfe dominus ait. Nifi quis manducaver.it meam
carnem, et biberit meum fanquinem, non habebit vitam
in femetlpfo. Opera, p. 209.

* Et natus fane ab intacSla eft foemina, ut eum pariter
et hominem teftaretur partus humanus, et deum probaret
seterna virginitas. Nam ficut non poterat nifi caro de
carne nafci: ita non poterat dei caro de fcemineo utero
nifi fme generante prodire. Ibid, p. 196.

A reafon

3 o Of the Docirme of tne Book IIL

A rcafon quite different from the former,
and no lefs ingenious, is given by La(5tan-
tius. *^ God the Father him felf/'. fays he,
** being both the origin and principle of
*' things, becaufe he has no parents, is truly
«' called by Trifmegiftus, «7Ta7y^ [without
** father] and «,M>i7«f [without mother]. —
<* Wherefore his fon ought alfo to be born
*' twice, that he might be without father
*' and without mother. In his firft fpiri-
<* tual birth he was without mother, be-
** caufe he was generated by God the Fa-
" ther only, without the affiftance of a
*' mother. In his fecond carnal birth he
*' w^as without father, becaufe he was ge-
** nerated in the virgin's womb, without
*' the affiftance of a father -, that, having a
** middle fubilance between God and man,
" he might lead our frail and weak nature,
*^ as it were by the hand, to immortality *."

* Ipfe enlm pater cleus, et origo, et principium rerum,
quoniam parentibus caret, aTnxJco^, atque ap^lco^ a Trifme-
gifto veriilime nominatur ; quod ex iiullo fit procreatus.
Idcirco etiam lilium bis nafci oportuit, ut ipfe fieret aTroclnop
atque a/A-ih^. In prima enim nativitate fpiritali «|U)i7w^ fuit ;
qui fine officio matris, a folo deo patre generatus eft. In

fecund a

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. ji

With refpecS to the latter part of this rea-
foning, it might be retorted, that if it was
neceffary that Chrift fliould be both God
and man, he fhould have been both proper
God and proper man, i. e. a man born and
conftituted like other men.

Auflin, whofe genius feldom fails him,
is not fo happy in his folution of this diffi-
culty as he is in that of fome others. He
fays, " The falvation of the female fex v/as
** intended, becaufe Chrift was a man, born
*^ of a woman only*/* I fappofe, how-
ever, he muft have meant, that Chrift weald
take care of the men for his own fake, and
of the women for the fake of his mother.
Had he had a father as well as a mother, he

fecunda vero carnali uttoiIo}^ fult ; quoniam fine patris oiii-
cio, virginali utero procreatus efl; ut mediam inter deum
et hominem fLibftantlam gerens, noftram banc fragilem,
imbecillemque naturam quafi manu ad immortalitatem
poflet educere. FacStus eft et dei £lius per fpiritum, et
hominis per carnem, id eft, et deus, et homo. Iniiit.
lib. 4. fea. 13. p. 388.

* Ergo qua virum oportebat fufcipere, qui fexus hono-
rabilior eft, confequens erat ut feminei fexus liberatio hinc
appareret, quod ille vir de femina natus eft. Queftiones,
Opera, vol, 4. p. 536.

mi^ht

32 Of the Dcdirine of the Boole III.

might have taken more than an equal care
of the male fex. He fays, that " Chrift
** was born of a woman only, that neither
" fex might defpair. For had he been a
*^ man, which was necefTary, but not born
** of woman, the women might have de-
** fpaired of themfelves, recollecting their
^* firft offence, becaufe the iirft man was
** deceived by a woman/* His illuftra-
tion of this argument, part of which may
be feen in the notes, is curious*.

* Sed hoc nobis oilendit, ut fcilicet in nullo fexu de fe
defperaret humana creatura. Sexus enim humanus, ma-
rium eft et foeminarum. Si ergo vir exiftens, quod utique
efle deberet, non nafceretur ex foemina, defperarent de fe
foeminae, memores primi peccati fui, quia per fceminam
deceptus eft primus homo, et omnino nullam fe fpem ha-
bere in Chrifto arbitrarentur. Venit ergo vir fexumprae-
eligere virilem, et natus ex foemina fexum confolari fcemi-
neum, tanquam alloquens et dicens : ut noveritis quod non
dei creatura mala eft, fed voluptas prava pervertit earn, in
principio cum feci hominem, mafculum et foeminam feci.
Non creaturam damno, quam feci. Ecce natus fum vir,
ecce natus ex foemina. Non ergo creaturam damno,
quam feci : fed peccata, quae non feci. Uterque fexus
videat honorem fuum : et uterque confiteatur iniquitatem
fuam : et uterque fperet falutem. Ser. 63. Opera, Sup.
p. 238.

'x A much

Chap. XX. Miraeiilous Conception. 3 ^

K much more plaufible reafon than any
of the preceding is that which fuppofes
that the greatnefs and fandity of Chrift's
charadler, fo much fuperior to that of other
men, required that he fhould not be born
as other men are. Of this nature is that
of Irenseus, who fays, *' If Chrift had been
** born of Jofeph, what could he have done
** more than Solomon, or Jofeph, or David,
** when he was produced in the fame man-
''^ ner, and their proper offspring.*' He
adds, that " he could not have been the
*' proper fon of God, and therefore not a
*^ king, if he had been the fon of Jofeph,
^^ nor the heir, according to Jeremiah*.'"

Lactantlus, not contenting himfelf with
his former reafon, fays, ** that it might be
** certain that he was fent of God, it be-

* Si enim Jofeph filius eflet, quemadmodum plus pote-
rat quam Salomon, aut plus quam Jonas habere, aut plus
efle David, cum eflet ex eadem feminatione generatus, et
proles exiftens ipforum ? Ut quid et beatum dicebat Pe-
trum, quod eum cognofceret efle filium del vivi ? Super
haec autem nee rex efle pofl^et, fi quidem Jofeph filius fu-
iflet; nee haeres, fecnndum Hieremiam, Lib. 3. cap.
29. p. 258.

Vol. IV. D '' hoved

34 Of the Dodlrine of the Book IIL

** hoved him not to be born as men are
" born, from two human parents ^ but that
*' it might appear that he was a heavenly
** perfon in man, he was created without
*' the affiftance of a father*/' '' He ought,"
fays Cyril of Alexandria, '* to have fuch a^
*^ birth, I mean his earthly birth, of a wo-
'^ man, that his prefence and manifeftation
** to the world might have fomething in it
*' worthy of a Godf."

** Fgr the very reafon that you doubt,'*'
fays Chryfoftom, ^^ for that reafon believe.
*^ It is not becaufe marriage is a bad thing,
*' but becaufe virginity is a better 5 and it
*^ behoved the Lord of all to have a more
** fplendid entrance into the world than
*^ ours ; for it was the entrance of a king.

* Sed tamen, ut certum eflet, a deo miflum ; non ita
ilium nafci oportuit, ficut homo nafcltur, ex mortal! utro-
que concretus 3 fed ut appareret, etiam in homlne ilium
efie coeleftem, creatus eft fine opera genitoris. Inftit. lib.
4. feft. 20. p. 430.

f Edfi ya^ zou roiavlnv avla ytna'^ai t>]V aTTols^iv, rw K(xla tra^Ha
q>Y\lx\. xai m yvvaiHog, iv £x,yi to QsoTr^sTre^ t] sig rov nocr/xov aula ^a-
^0^^ Kai avaMig, Cgntra Julianum, lib, 8. Juliani Ope-
ra, vol, 2, p. 279,

'* He

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. or

^' He ought both to agree, and to differ,
** with us in our birth 3 and both thefe
** things have taken place. He ought to
** be born of a woman, in common with
** us ; but to be born without marriage is
" greater than us*."

All this might do tolerably well, if
Chriil; was to have been any thing more
than a man, or to have done fomething
more than man could do, or than it was
proper that man fhould be the inftrument
of doing. But what is this to thofe who
think that there was a greater propriety in
Chrifl being precifely a inan^ and his office
fuch as that there would have been the
greateft propriety in its being filled by a
man.

No more will an unitarian acquiefce in
the following reafon of M. Caleca.—

£7r£j5V) K^Birluv n ^s^a^^svia . mv ^£ ta kqivh Tsaylav ^e(77rQl8 ekto^v (rSfA-
vole^av ex^m slvm tvjj y\(Aii£^a(;. Baa-iKiKyj yct^ w y) £i(Tod'og f5f;

^olz^oc rctvlx ysyovs. km oTTCcg oiK^s . to jusv yap ano f^yilpa; y£V£'
c^ai mvov 'm^og td(jlo6; ' to ^e x'^°i<; yaixm yEVZcr^M fX£i^ov, m xoi$
>i/^^?. In Gen. 25. Opera, vol. ii. p. 685.

D 2 '' Chrift

36 Of the BoEirme of the Book III.

** Chrift was born of a virgin, that he might
** both be born without original fin, and
*Mive without lin*;" becaufe they think
it is rather defirable that Chrift (hould be
of a nature as liahle to fin as other men ; that
in all things he might be like his brethren,
and be tempted as they werey though he did
not yield to any temptation.

Auftin thought it was proper that Chrift
fliould be exempt from original fm, and ac-
cordingly he believed that he was fo, and that
his being born of a virgin was the caufe of
that fingular exemption. If any perfon wifli
to know the principle on which he argued, he
will find it in the following fcntence. Nulla
igitur voluptate carnalis concupifcentise fe-
min^tus, five conceptus eft, et ideo nullum
peccatum originaliter trahens, &c. Enchy-
ridion, cap. 41. Opera, vol. 3, p. 167, 214,

Fulgentius enlarges upon this idea of
Auftin, fliewing why, in the ordinary way,
men cannot be born without fin ; and
therefore that Chrift was born in an extra-

tvcz^w;ii. Combefis, vol, 2. p. 264.

ordinary

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception, 37

ordinary way, that he might take away that
fin*.

Leo the Great fays, *^ Chrift was born
*' of a virgin, that the contagion of human
'^ feed ceafing, the new man might have a
** true human nature, and yet be abfolutely
^' pure -f." I ihall fubjoin, in the notes,

* Et quia dum fibi invicem vir mulierque mifcentur ut
filios generent, fine libidine non eft parentum concubitus ;
ob hoc filiorum ex eorum carne nafcentium non poteft
fine peccato efle conceptus, ubi peccatum in parvulos non
tranfmittit propagatio, fed libido. — Qai ut illud peccatum
quod in concubitu mortalis carnis generatio humana con-
traxit, auferet, conceptus eft novo more, deus jncarnatus
Jn matre virgine, fine coitu viri, fme libidine, concipientis
virginis : ut per deum bomincm, quern abfque libidine
conceptum inviolatus edidit virginis uterus, ablueretur pec-
catum, quod nafcentes trahunt omnes homines : quibus
in corpore mortis hujus talis eft nafcendi conditio, ut ma-
tres eorum foecunditatis opus implere non poflint, nifi prius
virginitatem carnis amiferint. Solus igitur abftulit pecca-
tum conceptionis, atque nativitatis humanae deus unigc-
nitus, qui dum concipiretur, veritatem carnis accepit ex
virgine, et cum nafcereretur, integritatem virginitatis fer-
vavitin matre. De fide, cap. 2. p. 487.

t Creator ac dominus omnium rerum dignatus eft unus
efle mortalium, ele6ta fibi matre quam fecerat, quae falva
integritate, virginea, corporcae eflet tantum miniftra fub-
ftantiae, uthumani feminis ceflante contagio, novo homini
etpuritas in eflet, et Veritas. DeNativitate Domini Ser. 4,
Opera, p, 17.

P 3 another

3? Of the DoBrine of the. Book IIL

another paffage from this writer, in whicl>
he argues more at large on the fubjedt *.

Hilary imagined that the body of Chrift was
exempt from the fenfation of pain, and this
he afcribed to his miraculous conception -f-.
How this circumftance gave him that pri-
vilege, he does not fay. But what is all this
curious reafoning to thofe who think that
all men are born free from original lin^ and

* Superbia hoftis antiqui non immerito fibi in omnes
homines jus tyranicum vindicabat, nee indebito dominatu
premebat: quos a mandate dei fpontaneos in obfequium
fuse voluntatis illexerat. Non itaque jufte omitteret origi-
nalcm dedititii generis fervitutem, nifi de eo quod fubege-
rat vinceretur. Quod ut iieret fme virili femine edi-
tus eft Chriftus ex virgine, quam non humanus coitus fed
fpiritus fandus fcecundavit. Et cum omnibus matribus
non fiat fine peccati forde conceptio, haec inde purgatio-
nem traxit unde concepit. Quo enim paierni feminis tranf-
fufio non pervenit peccati fe illic rubigo non mifcuit.
Inviolata virginitas concupifcentiam, nefcivit fubftantiam
miniftravit. Affumpta eft de matre hominis natura, non
culpa. Creata eft forma fervi fine conditione virili, quia
novus homo fic contemperatus eft veteri, ut et veritatem
iufciperet generis, et vitium excluderet vetuftatis. Opera,
p. 14.

t Sed non habens naturam dclendi, dum et hominis
habitus eft, et origo non hominis eft, nato eo de concep-
tione fpiritus fandli. De Trinitate, lib. 16. p. 256;

that

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 39

that the body of Chrifl was no more ex-
empt from the feeling of pain than ours are !
Such are the reafonings that I have found
advanced by the Fathers concerning the
miraculous conception, and the final caufe
of it 5 and it was a circumftance of which
they made no fmall boaft. " What righte-
" ous perfon/' fays the great Athanafius,
" what holy prophet, or patriarch, in all
*' the facred writings, was born of a virgin
" only j or what woman was fufficlent for the
" conception of a man, without a man* ?"
'* When Chrift,'' fays Conftantine, in his
oration before the Fathers of the council of
Nice, ** was to live among men, he in-
*' vented a new way of being born; for
^^ there was a conception without marriage,
*' a delivery of a pure virgin, and a young
<^ woman was the motherof God +."

* Ttj yap 'sjccttoIe rm zv raig ^siccig ypoKpaig iTcpn^zvlm '^moaccv^
^ ayim '3jpo(pTt]lo)v, xj 'sjoclpiapx^v zh. 'map^evs fAovrj; £cr%j- ri^v th ace-
fAoSo; ysvEcriv ; yi rig yvvn %w^/f avSpo^, aulapiCYi; yeyovs 'ss^og a-vraaiv
av^pcoTTOiv. Dc Incarnatione, Opera, vol. r. p. 88.

-f Ettej ^£ Hoa/jLifcco acofxcxli 'rsM(7i<x^uv^ ev te yj? %^ov«^e<v f/^E^^f,
Tni X'i^^^'i '^^'^ c-'TraiiHcrY]^^ vo9nv rivos. ysvso-iv eaula Efjc/iX'Xwia'alo. x^^^^
yoiflQi yafACDV^ av?^>jti^l^ig • id cxyws 'usctp^mci^ ei>\Bi9uioi ' >d Ses fjtA]i)ip
»o^vj. Cap. II. p. 689.

D4 "Who,"

40 Of the Doctrine of the Book III.

'* Who/' fays Proclus, *' has ever.feen
** or heard, that an infinite God inhabited
'^ a matrix, and that he whom the heavens
*' cannot receive, fhould not be ftraitenedina
" virgin's v^omb. Well may we call this
** womb larger than the whole creation *.•'
** The trinity," fays Maximus Taurinenfis,
'^ has efFe<5ted three wonderful kinds of birth,
*' Adam from the duft of the ground. Eve
*^ from the iide of Adam, and Chrift from a
*' virgin -f-." It is remarkable, that the au-
thor of the epiftle to the Hebrews makes
no fuch boafts as thefe, though he feems to
have been intent on bringing together every
circumftance that he could think would re-
fledl honour on Chrift. Great ufe, how-
ever was made of this circumftance by the

* Tig £i^£, T/; m8ff£v^ oil (jLT^pav 0 ^£o; awEpiypaTrla^ anm^ ; nai
cv sjpavoj m £%a)po-£, yarr]^ ing 'siaphva an Er£vo%a3^>i(rr/. Asule
i^u(XEv ya^E^av 'B^^dlulspav jvg Hlia-Ecog. Hom. in Nativitatem
Domini, p. 149.

f Tres valde mirabiles nafeendi fpecies operatum repe-
ries trinitatem, Et prima eft quidem, quod Adam figu-
ratus ex limoeft: fecunda quod mulier formata de maf-
culo: tertia, quae et cceleftis eft, quod Chriftus proceffit ex
Virgine. Opera, p. 196.

phriftiai^

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 41

chriftian Fathers, in anfwering the objec-
tions that were made to the meannefs of
Chrift's birth. ^* If it appears to v/eak
** fenfes," fays Maximus Taurinenfis, ** un^
*' worthy of the Son of God to be born of
*^ a woman, conlider that it was a virgin
*' that brought him forth *." This, how-
ever, would not fatisfy the Gnoftics. Manes
thought it unworthy of the majefty of the
Son of God to go into the womb of a woman;
et fortir enfuite avec toutes les ordures, qui
accompagnent Tenfantement, Beaufobre,
Hift. deManecheifme, vol. i«p. 555. Even
the orthodox chriftians could not help being
afFedled with this confideration. Pafcha*
fius, the author of the dodtrine of tran-
fubftantiation, thought that it was unworthy
of Chrift to be born of a woman, &c. Ibid,
vol. 2. p. 526.

My readers Jiaving heard a variety of in-
genious conjeftures concerning the reafons
for this extraordinary meafure of divine

* Quod fi tibi fenfuum tuorum fragilitate minus dig-
num videtur filium dei natum de foemina credere, virginem
pgita peperifTe. Opera, p. 197.

provi-

42 Of the DoElrine of the Book III.

providence, may, perhaps, be able to fug-
geft one for themfelves ; but I own that, un-
fatisfadtory as they appear to me, I am not
able to affign any better.

That the eircumftance of Chrift pretend-
ing to a miraculous birth would have had
an unfavourable effeft on his charadler and
credit in his life-time, all the Fathers, who
fpeak of it, readily acknowledge 5 and the
charadler of his mother, they fay, would
have fullained an irreparable injury. They
alfo acknowledge that, even had the fadl
been known and proved, the great objeft of
his million would have been in great danger
of being defeated ; as it was of the greateft:
importance to the fuccefs of the fcheme,
that Chrift (hould not be known to be the
Meffiah at fo early a period. For they ima-
gined, that it was quite neceffary that the
devil ftiould be kept in ignorance of his
rank and true charadter.

This is the reafon which they give, why
Mary, though defigned to bring forth Jefus
while ilie was a virgin, (hould have a nomi-
nal huiband. For they fay that, as the de-
vil

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 4.3

vil knew that the Meffiah was to be bom
of a virgin, he would, if flie had not been
married, have fufpedted that her child had
been the perfon, and would have exerted
himfelf to defeat the objed: of his miffion.
This hypothefis implies a high idea of the
power of the devil ; but, withal, a very low
one of his penetration and fagacity, or that
he was ill ferved by bis fpies. Such is not
at prefent the idea of the devil with thofe
who believe his real exiftence.

As the notions of the Fathers are a matter
of fome curiolity, at leaft, I jfliall lay before
my readers fome of their thoughts and rea-
fonings on this fubjedl. Origen, who fays,
that *' the Jews thought Chrift to be the fon
** of Jofeph and Mary *,'' fays, that '' they
*^ would not have believed Jcfus, if he had
^^ faid that he was the fon of Mary only -f-."
*' Our Lord," fays Ambrofe, *' rather chofe
^^ that his origin fhould be unknown, than

* Xlov7o Hv avlov sivai Icocrn^ nai Mapixg ulov. Comment,
vol. I. p. 223.

•f Dicebant autem qui mirabantur, ignari ilium efTe
filium virginis, ne credituri quidem fi didus fuifTet filius
virginis; Opera, vol. 2. p. 13.

" that

44 Of the DcBrine of the Book IIL

'* that his mother's chaility fliould be
" queflioned *."

But the perfon who has written the moft

largely on this fubjed: is Chryfoftom, and

the following extraft from him will fhew,

in a very clear light, of what importance it

was imagined to be, that the miraculous

conception fhould be concealed from the

Jews. But it does not feem to have occurred

to any of thefe Fathers, that every reafon for

this concealment is an argument againft the

propriety and wifJotn of the meafure itfelf ^

and therefore an argument againft the truth

ofthefadl: for, certainly a circumftance

which they acknowledge to have been fo

highly improbable, and of apparent dilTer-

vice to the fcheme of chriftianity, requires

very clear and ftrong evidence of its truth.

** Why is there an account of the genealogy

** of Jofeph,whohad nothing to do with the

*' generation of Chrift? I have mentioned one

'* reafon, but I muft mention another more

* Maluit autem dominus allquos de fui ortu, quam de
matris pudore cubitare. In Luc. lib. 2. Opera, vol. 2^
p. 17.

^* myfteriousj

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conceptmi, 4^

** myfterious. What then is it? He would
** not have it known to the Jews, after the
** birth, that Chrift was born of a virgin.
'* Be not alarmed at this extraordinary cir-
** cumftance. The reafon is not mine, but
«* that of our fathers, eminent and diftin-
*' guifhed men. For if Chrift from the
*^ beginning concealed many things, calling
•* himfelf the/on of ma?7, and did not al-
*' ways difcover his equality with the Fa-
** ther, why fhould you wonder that he
** concealed this, managing it as a great and
*^ wonderful thing, to preferve the virgin,
** and cover her from wicked fufpicion.
** For if this had been known to the Jews,
'* from the beginning, they would have
*' ftoned the virgin, abufing her for what
** would be faid, and have condemned her
*' for adultery. If they impudently abufed
** him for works, of which they had many
•* examples in the Old Teftament (for
** when he caft out demons, they called him
'* a demoniac, and when he healed on the
** Sabbath day they thought him an enemy
*' of God, though the Sabbath had often

f* been

46 Of the iDoBrine of the Book til.

** been broken before) what would they
** have faid, if this had been reported ! For
'* they had feen nothing of the kind in all
" preceding time. For if, after fo many
** miracles, they called him the fon of Jo-
'* feph, how could they have believed, be-
** fore his miracles, that he w^as the fon of a
«' virgin ?"

** On this account, Jofeph has his ge-
** nealogy inferted, and he married the vir-
*^ gin. For when Jofeph, who was a good
** man, flood in need of many things, as of
*' an angel, a vifion, and the teftimony of
'* prophecy, in order to believe the fact,
*^ how would the Jevi^s who were fo cor-
*' rupt, and fo hoftilely difpofed towards
** him, have received the fufpicion ? They
'' would have been very much difturbed at
<* a thing fo ftrange and new, the like of
*^ which they never heard of in the time of
** their anceftors. He who is once per-
** fuaded that Chrift is the Son of God, has
" no doubt on this fubjed ; but he who
*' confiders him as a deceiver, and an ene-
*^ my of God, how would he not be more

[^ fcandalized

3

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception, ^j

'^ fcandalized on this account, and have
*' been led to this fufpicion (viz. of adul-
*' tery). On this account, neither did the
*^ apoftles at firft fpeak of this, but rather
** difcourfed largely concerning his refur-
«* reftion. For of this there v^ere examples
^* in former times, though not in all re-
*^ fpefts the famcj but they had never
'* heard of a perfon being born of a vir-
** gin. Nor did his mother dare to men-
** tion this : for obferve how fhe fays, Be^
** hold, thy father and I have fought thee.
" For if this had been fufpeded, he would
" not have been thought to be the fon
** of David ; and this not being admitted,
*' many mifchiefs would have arifen. On
** this account, neither did the angels men-
" tion this, except to Mary and Jofeph only,
" but not to the fhepherds, though they
*^ acquainted them with his being born*,"

li'Km'y KM (Mav fjLtv ailtav sifYiHccfAsv ri^n. AvayHam ^euaiTm

EfiV avln'i »« tS'v^flo Toig la^aioig Eivai ^yjXov ^a^a rev rav cc^xvm
Hcu^QV^ oil £>c 'SJa^BEva ysymlai o X^i^og, AA^a (ayi Bopv^Sio-^
'sspoi TO 'ssccpahiov la HyofAiv^, Ou d'e ya^ EfAo^ q hoyog, oC^:kx

48 Of the tkoBrine of the Book IIL

Jeroni argues very much in the fame
manner on the fubjecfl, giving three reafons
why Mary was married to Jofeph. Firft^
*^ that by means of the genealogy of Jofeph,

'mccls^cov yjfAsls^av^ ^a,vix<x?av Hcti sTricrYi/xm av^^av. E< ya^ 'S7o>,Xa
ffuvEO-maaev eI «f%>7?, viov avS^ coTra «a?^wv eaulov^ hou ah tm 'mpog rov

thIo auvzamtxui. te, wj ^auixarov ri koci (xeyoc oiJiovofjLuv ; xai ^oiov
^auiJUXTOV (pmi ; to ha^a^^-^vai jy\v 'sraf Sevov, *ij vTro^iai; away^ayyi-
vai 'STOvyi^a;. Et ya^ ralo eI a^x^; roi; la^txioi^ yeyove xaladyi}^cv,
av KaleXvaav t*)v 'S^a^^Bvov ncxxspyavlz;. Tta AEyo/xEViu, x^ fioix^iccg
WjIw EHpivav av. Et ya^ vTTsp rav a^^wv, wt/ 'srcX^aKi; j^ VTTohiy-
fAccIa six^v £v rn 'uscx.'haioc,^ ^avs^cog m2(Tx^vl^v (Kai ya^ ETTEid'^n ^ai-
fjiova^ E^E^aT^E^ ^ai/jt-ovuvla, ExaAsv, x^ ETTEi^n ev aaQ^cxlcti E^E^aTTEua-EV^
avti^Eov Eivai Evcfxi^ov^ xj toj ys 'uio'KhaKK^ xj tjpolE^ov EAySji to aa^Qoc-
%v) 11 «x av EiTTOV rifl:i 7\Ex^£vl^ ; ^ y<5ip ez^ov -za-^vJa rov nsjpo
Tiilii ffuvayavi^OfjLEVOv avlQi; Kai^ov-, ad'sTrolE ri roiklov EVEyKovla, Ef
yap fifta loaavla ern/Jt'Eia eIi avlov th luuYjtp Exa>.8v [yiov] 'siug ail
mpo TOJV a-Hfjt,Eiav £7nr£va-av oil xj ek 'ssa^^Eva r\v ', ^la ^yj ralo )y yEVEU"
>,oyEilai^ y^ (jmrEvdai ir\v 'Zsa^^Evov, Otth ya^ o Iwctji^ k^ ^ixaio;
av )y ^auiAaro; avr)^ '5ro?\Awv Ehrs^ ute h^acr^ai to 7£y£v>i|UEVov,
jd ayf£7<>ii^ )y tyi; ^i ovEipalcov o^^sag^ )y rf:; aTTo rcov nz^o(pT^m fjux^^
^y^ia$, '5i«$ av oi la^aioi y) cry,aiOi ovls^ ;^ 3i£^S«^/C6£V0i, ^ 'S^oXEfxia^
zloi TTpog avlov exovIe; ravlrw av-fs^a^s^E^avlo tw uTTOvoiav ; cr^o^^x
ya^ av%g eixe}^>.e So^yCsif to ^evqv ;o naivov^ jy to (jLE^ETToiE ti toihIov
^n^E aKon 'ssa^a^E^aa^ai etti rm 'si^oyovm avfx^EQmoi;. O (jlev ya^
aTTa^ wejo-Seij oli t8 Ses vio; Efiv, «5£ -ste^j ts7s ^fli'Tov ayifpiaQr^Eiv
tiXtV, O ^E ;i{J 'ETAavov :ig av7j^Eov avlov Eivai vofju^uV', ^a^ «« av
airo T8?8 xcw Eo-xav5a^(cr0)i |U£{^ovwj, xai 'zr^of exeiv>iv «3jiy>;^ tw
yTTOvoiav j 3<a xslo sSe oi a7roro7\Qi '5r«f « tijv ixf%>iy ev^e^jj t«/o Aeya-

Chap. XX. Miraculous Co?2ception. ^g

** to whom Mary was related, it might ap-
'^ pear that he was defcended from David.
** Secondly, left, according to the law of
*' Mofes, {he illou^d:llave been ftoned as aa
*' adultrefs. Thirdly, that, in their jour-^
*' ney to Egypt, (he might have the com-
** fort of a guardian, rather than that of a
'' hulband/' " Who," fays he, " at that
** time would have believed the virgin, if
*' {he had told them that the angel Gabriel
** came to her, and that.fiie had conceived
** by the Holy Spirit, and would not ra-
** ther have condemned her after the ex-
** ample of Sufannah ; when, at this very
*'* day, when all the world believes it, the
*Vjews ftill cavil?" He afterwards fays,

o-iv. Am' utte^ jxiv TYi; avixrcxcrsa; 'zsoXha. ^ict'Xzyo-'Jlai k:xi rsjo»aHi<;^

Toiocvla. Oil 3V sji "sra^Ssva ysyovsv^ x auvsx^i T^tyaaiv. Axx «3s
avln » ,uvj7>?^ £^EVsyH£iv ralo s%>,fMf]aBV. O^x ynv nai "S^poi avlcv ri
(pmiv [y] 'zcapSevC^] <^a £7w koli o nzcCiYi^ an s^rh/A'SV as. E{ yae
Tiilo V7r(c7fl£v^y\-, a^ av ra AaCi^ hoiTrov £vo/ji,ia^n woa viog . T5s7s ^£
(XT] voixia'^svlog-, 'usQ'K>a. av slex^'n >iM He fa aaxa, Aia npio aos oi i
ayyty\oi ravla TveyaciV. A?^a t>i Ma^ia /aovyi xai tw Icoijr,(p [^'iscra-
(pyjcrav'] roig Se ^oi(xe(7iv Evayy^n^ofxim to y£yEvy]fi£vov~) azfu thIq
'sj^ocTE^mav. In Matt. Hofn. i. Opera, vol. 7. p. 20, &c.

Vol. IV, E that

50 Of the DcBrine of the Book III.

that '' except Jofeph the hulband, Mary
*' herfelf, and a very few others, who
'* might hear it from them, all perfons
*' confidered Jefus as the fon of Jofeph ; fo
*- that the evangelifls, expreffing the com-
*' mon opinion, called Jofeph the father of
^' our Saviour"^."

I think it is hardly pofiible to read thefe
paffages, in which the inconvenience that
would have attended the dfcovery of the
miraculous conception are very ftrongly
and naturally defcribed, without feeling that

. ^ Ut per genealogiam Jofeph, cui Maria cognata erat,
crigo quoque Maris monftraretur : fecundo, ne juxta le-
gem Moyfis, ut adultera lapidaretiir a populo : tertio, ut ad
Egyptum fugiens, haberet iblatium cuftodis, potius quam
mariti. Qins enim in tempore illo virgini credidilTet, de
fanfto earn fpiritu concepilTe, venifTe ad earn angelum Ga-
brielem del, detulifTe mandatum, ac non magis,_quafi adul-
teram, juxta exemplum Sufannae fententi^ omnium con-
demnaffent : cum hodie, toto jam~ credente mundo, argu-
mententur Judcei. -Denique, excepto Jofeph, et Eliza-
bet, et ipfa Maria, paucifque admcdum, fi qnos ab his au-
ilifTe pofiumus exiftimare, omnes Jefum filium exiRimabant
Jofeph, in tantum, ut etiam evangeliftae, opinionem vulgi,
exprimentes, qus vera hiftoriae lex eft, patrem cum dixe-
rint falviitoris. Ad lielvidium, Opera, vol. 2. p, 310.

the

^ Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception, 5 1

the ftory itfelf is an incumbrance on the
chriftian fcheme, and that it v/ould at lead
have appeared to more advantage without it.
That it was neceffary that the miracu-
lous conception of Jefus (hould be con-
cealed from the devil, is a thought that is
alv^ays afcribed to Ignatius, and it appears
in the epiftles that go by his name, as was
quoted, vol. 3, p. 80. but it continued to be
the ferious belief of all the Fathers who
have mentioned the fubjed:. Bafil fays,
** Mary was married to Jofeph, that the
*' devil might not fufped: that fhe was a
^' virgin For he knew that Chrift was to
*' be born of one, and that he was to put
'* an end to his power ^;." Ambrofe fays,
that " Mary conceived by a miracle, left

* Eiorjcxi ^£ Tcov "siahaim tlvi hxi {Izpo^ Xoyog oli utts^ t« >.cx^£lv
Tov aoyj)'}loc ra aicoyog rala rr,v 'Sjoc^^pjiav rnj Mcc^iag y] ra laay]<p
STTEVoriJ}! /jLVYifEtoc . O10V21 yu^ fxslsco^icTfXog rco zscvr,;:o ro a-xYiua t>jj
IxvnTEiaq "uJEpi t'yiv 'znx^^evov s'n'Evon^-/) '^a.^.ai ETTiJri^Hvli ra; ■Trci^^evHg^
a'p 8 r\Wi(7z Ts "'SipoipnlH T^iyo^o; . los n 7i:a^^£vog sv yccT^i ^'^r.i^slaL
KM ts^sIm viov . a7T£'^iiiioXn% av oia. rrig [xvnTZia; o £7r;C'aAoj rr}g
'Zis'.fBsvioig . A yoL^ KuicO^udiv TYiC, i^iciq cx^x''^g TYiV hoc aa^K^g
sTTKpavEisiv Ts' Huc'.a yEvy\<joy.Evw . Horn. 25. Opera, vol. i.

E 2 '^ the

52 Of the Do5irine of the Book III.

** the princes of this world fliould not have
<* cruciiied Chrift for our falvation *."
His idea, probably was, that the devil
would not then have inftigated Judas to
betray him, or his enemies to crucify him.
Chryfoftom fays, that *' Chrift was both
** born of a virgin, and fufFered on the
" crofs, that the devil might be taken with
** his own arts ; for that Eve was a virgin,
*' when file was feduced, and eat of the
*' tree of good and evil-f-/'

Leo the Great fays, that " Chrift's
*^ chuiing to be born of a virgin, was an
" inftance of profound wifdom ; that the
*' devil might be ignorant that the falva-
** tion of men was born into the world;
** and that the fpiritual conception being

* Sciebat cnim jam tunc gratia plena, fpiritu divinitatis
aiflata, quia fi hunc hujus fafculi principcs agnoviflent,
numquam pro falute noftra crucifixiiTent. De Purifica-
tione S. A'lariae, Opera, vol. 5, p. 638.

ra (jUf/.Qo7\a. 5 opoc toivvv 'wag xj tv; vimg aula 'usa'hiy yByovs 'sra^ailia .
avli TYii; ^vag n Ma^:a, avli ts ^'j?^h ts si^svai yvxTOv HaT^a }y fusowip-d
TO ^Vhov Ts ray^a, avh m Bavalu rn A^afA 0 oscr7roliH(Sr ^avoilog.
In Pafch. Opera, vol. 5. p. 643,

** concealed

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception, 53

*' concealed, he might believe that he who
** did not appear different from other men,
** was born like other men"^."

'* The virginity of Mary," fays Damaf-
cenus, '* her delivery, and the death of
** Chrift, were all concealed from the de-
** vil,'' quoted from Ignatius •f-. ** Mary,"
fays Theophylad:, " was married, that by
** this means fhe might deceive the devil.
*' For the devil having heard that a virgia
** would be with child, obferved the vir-
** gins. She, therefore, married Jofeph
" to deceive the deceiver;}:."

* Hoc ipfuin et autem quod Chrift us nafci elegit ex
virgine, nonne apparet altiffimsa^fuifTe rationis ; ut fcilicet
natam humani generis falutem diabolus ignoraret j ut,
fpiritali latente conceptu, quern nonalium videret quam
alios, non aliter crederet natum effe quam ceteros. De
Nativitate, Ser. 4. Opera, p. 14.

Kai 0 TOK^ ociPm;, o/Miug KOLi 0 Bavdlog %f Jra, r^ia (xurn^ia Kpavyng^
a Tiva Ev wvxia Ssa m^ax^'^- De Marias Nativitate, Or. 3.
Opera, p. 576.

ciaQo^^og axHjag oil n 'n^oi^^svo^ ev yocTpi £|£<, £'^slr,f£i rag 'srcc^^Evsg'
iva roiviiv WTrocir^y] 0 aTrotlzav^ ' ixversuijai tyiv asiTTCX^^svov 0 Iaari(p,
In Matt. cap. i. Opera, vol. i. p. 8.

E 3 Maximus

54 Of the DoBrme of the Book III.

Maximus Taurinenfis makes a curious
foliloquy for the devil, on the birth of
Chrifl:, which implies that he had heard of
the pretenfion to a miraculous conception,
but did not give entire credit to it. *' Who
*• is this/' fays he, '• that is come into the
'^ world unknown to me. I know that he
*' is born of a woman, but I do not know
*^ how he was conceived. I fee the mo-

*^ ther, but I cannot trace the father. ■

*' And what adds to my aftoniihment, the
** mother pretends that (h^ brought him
** forth in fome unufual manner, and that
** {he is a virgin." Then defcribing the
perfed: purity of Chrift's nature, he ex-
claims, *' What fhall I do ? Whither fhall
** I turn myfelf ? I find that I have to do
** with one w^ho is fironger than 1 am.
*' I believe he intends to reignyn my king-
" dom. I fear left he fhould be a god,
*' who is abfolutely without ftain. But if
*^ he was a god, hovv^ could he bear the in-
*^ dignity of being born of a woman ? How
** could he be content w^ith the ci-adle and
'^ fwaddling clothes } Who could believe

'* the

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception, ^^

*' the wailing of an infant in a God; and
*' to whom does it not appear ridiculous
** that God fhould be fed with a woman's
*' milk. Befides he is hungry, and it is

rep

uenant to reafon that God fhould be

o

*' hungry*."

* Quis ifte eft qui nefciente me hunc ingrefTus eft
mundum ? Novi quidem de femina natus eft, led nefclo
undc conceptus. ARat ecce mater, Ted patrem inveftigare
non pofTum. Partum video, fed non agnofco nafcentem,
et quod ftupori meo accrefcit, inconfueta lege pariendi
etiam edito fillo mater exultat, ut virgo. — Quid agam ?
Quo m.e convertam ? Fortiorem fentio : puto ilium in
regno meo velleregnare, ne forte deus fit ide quern nullum,
pateft maculare delidlum. Sed fi deus eftlt, quomodo
indignitates partus feminei fuftineret ? Quomodo eflet
cunis pannifque contentus ? Qlus credere poffit infantize
vagltus in deo, cui non audienti ridiculum eft deum femi-
neo la6ie nutriri ? Poft omnia ecce efurit, cum utique
efurire deum ratio nulla perfuadeat. Opera, p, 206.

E 4 SEC-

56 > Of the Do^rjne of the Book HI,

SECTION III.

A View of the Arguments In Favour of the
Miraculous Conceptioriy and of the hifiori^
cal Evidence by which its Credibility ffjould
be afcertained.

TlAVING thus ftated the nature of the
fadl, the credibility of which I propofe
to difcufs, and fhewn the appearance that it
has a priori, which is of coniiderable mo-
ment with refpecl to the evidence that is
neceffary to eftabllfh its authenticity; I
fhall proceed to ftate the evidence for and
againfc it, with as much impartiality as I
can. This is all that is of any confequence
to the reader. He muft then, and he cer-
tainly will, iudge for himfelf.

The v/hole ftrength of the evidence in
favour of the miraculous conception is ex-
prelled in a few words. The thing itfelf
appears a priori to be highly improbable,

and

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 57

and the report of it muft have operated un-
favourably vv'ith refped to the credit of
chriftianity, and it is never argued from, or
fo much as alluded to, as of any ufe in the
fcheme, or as a part of it, in all the New
Teftament. But the teftimony of the evan-
gelifts Matthew and Luke, is exprefsly in
its favour. Their hiftories are likewife
fuppofed to be the earlieft accounts of our
Saviour's lifcj and Luke fays that he took
particuliar pains to trace the hiftory to its
fource, from thofe who were beft qualified
to gTve*him information.

This poiitive teftimony, very circumftan-
tially related, by perfons of fuch refpedtable
characters, to fay nothing of their fup-
pofed infpiration^h certainly entitled to the
greateft credit. It may be faid, What evi-
dence can be ftronger in favour of any
event, than its being recorded by cotem-
porary hiftorians, whofe writings were pub-
lifhed in their own life-time ? If this part
of the gofpel hiftory be fabulous, why may
not the whole be fo, fince it is all related
by the fame evangelifts ? Is it not, there-
fore,

c^S Of the Dc5ln?te of the Book III.

fore, to undermine the credit of the whole
gofpel hiftory, to endeavour to weaken that
of fo confiderable a part of it ?

This, I think, is all that can be advanced
in favour of the miraculous conception,
fetting afide all idea of the infpiraticn of
the writers, to which, I own, I fhould pay-
no attention. I confider Matthew and
Luke as fimply bijiorians, whofe credit muft
be determ-ined by the circumftances in
which they wrote, and the nature of the
fads which they relate. And before I con-
lider the evidence that may be alledged
againft the fad: which they have recorded,
or are fuppofed to have recorded, I fliall
make one obfervation, which is of the'
greateft importance with refped to hifto-
rical evidence, and which is always allowed
its full W'eieht with reg^ard to all other hif-
tories. And it appears to me, that it is our
backwardnefs to confider the gofpel hifto-
rians in the fame light in which we do other
hiflorians (notwithilanding the dodrine of
their infpiration is nominally given up)
that prevents our forming a right eftimate

in

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception, ^g

in this particular cafe. In any other fimi-
lar cafe, I apprehend, we fhould decide
much more readily than the boldeft of us
feel ourfelves difpofed to do here.

The obfervation which I would now
make,* and which I wifh to imprefs upon
my reader, is this ^ that fully to eftablifh
the credibilitj of any fad, it muft not only
be recorded by cotemporary hiftorians, but
it muft alfo appear not to have been con-
tradided by thofe who were cotemporary
with the hiftorians, and who may .be fup-
pofed to have been as good judges as the
hiftorians themfelves. Still lefs will the
iingle circumftance of an tvi^nt beinp- re-
corded by cotemporary hiftorians, avail to
eftablifn the credit of it, if it apoear not
to have been believed by thofe who may
be fuppofed to have been favourably in-
clined to the belief of it, . and to have
wiftiedit to be true.

Let us fuppofe that we fhould now re-
cover a copy of the hiftory of Livy, con-
taining an account of the tranfadions of
his own timcj or fo near to it, that it^could

not

6o OftheDodirine of the BopK III.

not be doubted, but that it was in his power
to have procured good information con-
cerning what he wrote ; and that we Ihould
find in this copy of his hiftory, that Cleo-
patra, inftead of dying by the bite of an afp
in Egypt, was brought by Auguftus to
Rome, and publicly married to him. The
ftory would not, at this day, gain any cre-
dit. We might not be able to deny that
Livy wrote the account, but we fliould im-
mediately fay; if it was true, why does it not
appear to have been believed at the time?

Suppofing, farther, that we ihould dif-
cover another Roman hiftory, viz. that
of Salluft, which fhould contain the fame
account; flill, if we faw no reafon to think
that it was believed at Rome, w^here the
fcene of the tranfadtion was laid, v/e cer-
tainly fhould not believe it now ^ nor
would even ten or twelve hiftorians, agree-
ing ever fo well in their accounts, make us
believe it, unlefs it fhould appear to us,
that it was generally believed at the time.
We might not be able to account for the
mifapprehenfions and miflakes of the hiflo-

rians 5

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 6 1

rians ;. but, in faifl, their evidence would
only be confidered as that of ten or twelve
men, oppofed to the evidence of more than
tenor twelve millions.

However, if the credit of Livy and Sal-
luft was fo well eftablilhed, that we could
not believe that they would affert as a fadt,
what they might eafily have known not to
be fo ; we fhould fay that, though we had
no method of accounting for fuch a narra-
tion being found in the copies of their
works, Vv^hich have come down to us, we
were fatisiied that they were not of their
compoiition. Paffages, we might fay, like
that in Jofephus concerning Chrill:, may
have got into the works of more refped:-
able writers (as a comparifon of circum-
ftances fufficiently proves ) without our
being able to fay %vhen^ or by whom, the
books were corrupted. And if we had any
evidence that there were, in early times,
copies of the entire hiftories of Livy and
Salluft, in which nothing was faid of the
marriage of Auguftus to Cleopatra, nothing
farther, I imagine, would be wanting to our
intire fatisfadlion on the fubjedl.

1 Now

62 Of the Bodfrine of the Book III.

Now tbefe very material obfervations,
and feveral others, apply to the cafe before
us. It is true that we do find the ftory of
the miraculous conception in the received
gofpels of Matthew and Luke ; and it is
almoft certain that they were there in the
time of Juftin Martyr. But it is no lefs
certain, that there were in early times gof-
pels of Matthew, and of Luke too, which
did not contain that fcory ; and there is
fufficient reafon to think, that the great
body of Jewifli chriilians, who were co-
temporary with the apofties, did not be-
lieve it. It was probably a long time be-
fore it gained any credit at all with any of
their pofterity, and it is probable that it
never did fo with the generality of them.
It is certain that fome very learned perfons,
and therefore, probably, the mofl: inquifi-
tive among them, and who wrote exprefsly
on the fubied:, never believed it; and yet
no good reafon can be given why a hiftory
which has the appearance of being greatly
to the credit of the founder of their reli-
gion, lliould not have been believed by
them, as well as by other chriftians.

A cir-

Chap. XX, Miraculous Conception. 63

A circumftance of greater weight than
even this is, that the Gnoftlcs of that age,
to whofe peculiar fyftems the dodlrine of
the miraculous conception could not but
have appeared exceedingly favourable, did
likewlfe rejedl it as fabulous. If thefe par-
ticulars can be well fupported, it muft ap-
pear that fomething is wanting to the full
credibility of this part of the gofpel hif-
tory ; and it will be farther weakened, if
any circumflances can be pointed out that
affedt the authenticity of the introductions
to the gofpels of Matthew and Luke. Such
fadls of this kind, and fuch obfervations as
have occurred to me on the fubjecb, I now
proceed to lay before my readers.

SEC.

64 Of the Do^rlne of ihe^ Book III.

SECTION IV.

Reafons for thinking that the Miraculous
' Conception was not known, or believed^ in
very early times.

'Tp HAT the miraculous conception
of our Saviour was ?2ot known, and
of courfe not believed, during the time of
his public miniftry, will, I imagine, be
allowed by all perfons ; and this of it-
felf is a circumflance not very favourable
to its truth. For though there might be
reafons why it (liould be concealed from
the enemies of Jefus (as it might be fup-
pofed to amount to a declaration of his
being the Meffiah) there does not feem to
have been any reafon why it fliould have
been concealed from his friends, as it would
have tended to ftrengthen their faith hi his
divine miffion. Eefides, as Jofeph and Mary
were not enjoined fecrecy on this head,
they Would naturally fpeak of fo wonderful

a thing

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 65

a thing as that of a virgin being with child,
at^leafi: to their pious friends, who would
give them credit for it ; and if it had been
believed by them, is it not probable that
more refped would have been paid to Jefus
during his infancy and childhood }\

If there had been any perfons of property
among them, they would hardly have fuf-
fered fo extraordinary a child as this to
have foUov/ed the occupation of a common
carpenter, which Jefus is thought to have
done till he was thirty years of age. If the
account of Luke be true, the ftory of this
miraculous conception could not well have
been a fecret. According to him it muft
have been known not only to Jofeph and
Mary, but alfo to Zacharias and Elizabeth,
if not to Simeon and Anna; the latter of
whom is faid to have fpoken of him to all
them that looked for redemptio?i in Jerufalem.
Luke ii. 38. Now, as none of thefe per-
fons are faid to have, made any fecret of
what they knew, v/e may fafely conclude;
that, by fome means or other, it would
certainly get abroad ; and a fadt of this ex-
' Vol. IV, F traordinary

66 Of the DoBrine of the Book III.

traordinary kind, or even a pretenlion to it,
would never have been forgotten. All the
country would have had their eyes upon
any child that had been faid to have been
produced in this manner, and would never
have loft fight of him.

Suppofing, however, that this fadl had
been a fecrct between Jofeph and Mary
only, and that they had agreed to keep it
to themfelves, fo that upon the death of
Jofeph, it would have remained in the
breaft of Mary alone, it cannot have been
fuppofed to have been unknown to Jefus
himfelf, after he was fully illuminated with
refpedt to every thing that related to his
character and office ; and it muft at fome
time or other have been communicated by
her, or by him, to his difciples. But if
we attend to the hiftory, we fhall find it
extremely difficult to fix upon any parti-
cular time when the great fecret was made
known to them. For we perceive no trace
of their ever having known it at all ; there
not being, as I have obferved before, the
leaft mention of it, or the pioft obfcure re-
ference

Chap. XX. Miraculous Coftception, 67

ference to it, in all the fubfequent gofpel
hiftory, or in any of the writings of the
apoilles j fo that, if it was a fad, it was,
to all appearance, a moft extraordinary mi-
racle, without the fmallell ufe or effedi;
fince the difcovery of it excited no farprize,
nor left any impreffion by which it can be
traced.

As foon as we certainly know that chrif-
tians did believe the miraculous conception
of Jefus, it was particularly objedled to by
Jews and heathens, almofl as much as the
dodirine of his divinity 5 and this obliged
the chriftians who believed it, to have re-
courfe to various arguments to defend it,
and make it appear credible, as I fhall fhew
hereafter ; but v/e neither hear of the pre ten -
Jion^ the ohjedlionSy or the defences in the life-
time of the apoftles. Now why do we hear
fo much about the miraculous conception
in the time of the Fathers, and find fo much
faid of it in their writings, and nothing at
all about it in any earlier period, if the
thing itfelf had been known and pretended
to ? Would not the fame caufes have pro-

F 2 duced

68 Of the Dodlrine of the Book III.

duced the fame ejf]red:s, if they had really
exifted? And if the pretenfion had not
been advanced in the age of the apoftles,
it would come too late afterwards, as it
would be impoilible then to authenticate
the fadl.

It is plain that Jefus was thought to be
the legitimate fon of Jofeph and Mary by
the Jews in general, and efpecially by the
people of Nazareth, where he and his pa-
rents lived. For the worfl that his coun-
trymen, envious of his reputation, could
fay of him was, that he was the fon of a
carpenter, and that his father, mother,
brothers, and fifters, were all known to
them. This was about thirty years after
his birth. Now, had Mary been with
child when fhe came to live with her huf-
band, and Jefus had confequently been born
too foon after their cohabitation, it could
hardly have failed to be noticed, and would
probably have been recoliefted when he
began to diftinguifh himfelf ; fo that we
may be faid to have the evidence of the
inhabitants of the place in which he lived,
I that

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception, 69

that he was the proper and legitimate fon
of Jofeph and Mary. Origen, indeed,
fuppofes that the Jews meant to reproach
Chrift with his pretenfion to being born of
a virgin, when they told him (John viii.41.)
that they were ?2ot born of fornication^ , . But
I believe he is fmgular in this fuppofition.
But the principal objection to the ftory
is that, at whatever time it was communi-
cated, by Jefus or Mary, to the apoftles,
or by them to the reft of the difciples (con-
cerning which nothing can be colledted
from the hiftory) it does not appear to have
gained any credit in that age. For it is
certain that it was not believed by the great
body, and probably the whole number of
the Jewifli chriftians in the age fubfequent
to that of the apoftles ; fo that they either
had not been taught any fuch doftrine by
them, or if they had heard of it, they did

aux^iv TO ZK 'CTafSsvs yzyivvm^ai, T^yuv ivcx, hsSe^cx. £%e/v /^ovov tov
rffcilspa. Comment, vol. 2. p. 303.

F 3 not

JO Of the Dc^rine cf the Book III.

not think the account fufficiently authen-^
ticated.

The miraculous conception was a thing
which none of the apoftles could have afferted
of their own knowledge ; and if they had
no particular evidence^ or revelation concern- .
ing it (of which nothing is faid) many of
the early Jewifh chrifiians were as good
judges in the cafe as themfelves. Had the
fubjeft been then much talked of, or had it
been mentioned at all in the life time of
Mary, care w^ould^ no doubt, have been
taken to interrogate her with refpedt to it;
and her teftimony, folemnly given, woul^.
hardly have been difputed. That this,
therefore, was not done, and the credibility
of the faca efiabiiflied in that age, affords
the ftrongeft prefumption that the ftory of
the miraculous conception had not been
heard of in the life-time of Mary, or indeed
in that of the apoftles. If it had, we can
hardly fuppofe but that all doubt with re^
fped: to it would have been precluded.

Had this remarkable hiftory been im-
parted to the early Jewifli chriftians with

fuch

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. j\

fuch circumftances as would have rendered
it credible, we can imagine no reafon why-
it fhould not have been univerfally received
in that age, and have been tranfmitted as an
unqueftionable truth to all pofterity. For,
being the difciples of Chrift, it may be fup-
pofed that they would have been pleafed
with a circumftance fo much to his ho-
nour ; the very principle on which, I doubt
not, the belief of it did gain ground at
length. Had it been thought credible at
that time, the fame caufes whidh eftablifh-
ed the belief of it afterwards, would have
effected it in a more early period.

That very many of the Jewifh chriftians,
who were generally called Ebionites, did
not believe the miraculous conception, has
the unanimous teftimony of all who fpeak
of them, even in the lateft periods. It
may, therefore, be prefumed, that this dif-
belief was more general, and probably uni-
verfal, in an earlier age. Juftin Martyr,
who is the firft chriftian writer that men-
tions them at all, gives no hint of there
Joeing any among them who did believe it ^
F 4 nor

72 Of the Docirine of the Book III.

nor indeed does Irena^us, who mentions
them feveral times, and who WTote near the
clofe of the fecond century. He fpeaks of
the Ebionites in general, as *' vain, not ad-
'* mitting the union oi God and man by
** faith, as perfevering in the old leaven of
** generation, and not underftanding that
'* the fpirit came upon Mary, and that the
** power of the highefl overfhaddowed
*^her*."

So far, therefore, we have no evidence of
any of the Jewifli chriftians believing the
miraculous conception. Alfo, till this
time, and long after, they do not appear to
have been known to the Greeks by any
other name than that of Ebionites. Ori-
gen exprefsly informs us, that in his
time ^// the the Jewifli chriftians w^nt by
that name. He is the firft writer from
whom w^e learn that any of them believed
the miraculous conception ; and lie wrote

* Vani autem et Ebionsei, unitlonem dei et hominis per
fidem non reciplentes in fuam'animam, fed in veteri ge-
nerationis peri'everantes ierrtiento \ neqiie intelligere vo-
lentes cjuoniam fpiritus fandus advenit in Mariam, et vir-
tus altiffimi obumbravit earn. Lib. 5, cap. i. p. 394.

about

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception, 70

about the midcjle of the third century.
'' When you fee," fays he, '* the faith of the
** Jevviih believers in our Saviour, fome of
<^ whom think hioi to have been the fon
*' of Jofeph and Mary, and others of Mary
:*' and the Holy Spirit, but without ac-
V* knovvledging his divinity, &ct."

Eufebius, who fpeaks of no Jewifh chrif-
tians, but fuch as were called Ebionites, in
one place, makes the fame diftindtion among
them that Oris:en does -, but in another
place he fpeaks of the Ebionites in general
as difoeliving the miraculous conception.
So that in his time, that is about a hundred
years after Origen, a great proportion of
them, probably a majority of them, conti-
nued unbelievers in the miraculous con-
ception, notwithfianding they mufl have
had before them all the evidence in favour
of it that we can pretend to have. And as,
in after ages, when it was imagined that

*, K«i srav ^TA Twv a7:o I^d'aim 'S^iTtuovlm 21; rov Imav tw 'hjepi

TS CcSin^^O^ 'SJlTiV, 61s ,U£V SH. Mpipldq KOil TS loil'^cp OlOlX£VUV OCvlov HVUl^

cli KM £K MapKXc iMv fXO'/i^g Kczi TH Ses "syvEVfjcailoc^ 8 (xnv Kcu (J^ila TY\g
'sis^i aula ^£o?.oyicir„ o-^ei •stwj bl(^ 0 tu^Kq^ ^sy^Oo, In Matth.
Comment, vol. i. p. 427.

there

74 Of the Bodifine of the Book III.

there was fome diftinclion between the
Ebionites and Nazarenes, the Ebionites
were always defcribed as believing Chrift
to be the fon of Jofeph, and the Nazarenes
are no where faid to believe the contrary,
we feem to be authorifed to conclude, that
the great majority of Jewifli chriftians
always continued unbelievers in this doc-
trine. Tertullian confidered it as an
anfwer to the Ebionites, that Chrift is
faid to be born not of blood, nor of
the will of man, but of God "*. He m.uft,
thecefore, have confidered them as denying
the miraculous conception. Auftin, de-
fcribing the Ebionites, fays exprefily, that
they denied it ; and though he makes an-
other fecfl of the Nazarenes, he does not fay
that they believed itf.

That there was any real difference between
the Ebionites and Nazarenes has been fhewn
to be an opinion void of all foundation. But

* Et non ex fangulne, neque ex carnip et yiri voluntate,
fed ex deo natus eH, Hebioni refpondit. De Carne Chrifti,
{iidi, 24. opera, p. 325.

-f- Natus eft ergo dei filius ex homine, et non per ho-
minem, id ed, non ex viri coitu ficiit Ebion dicit. De
Dcfinitionibus, cap. 2. Operaj vol. 3. p. 195.

if

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conceptmi. 75

if there was any difference between them,
Epiphaniu? fays, that he did not know that it
confifled in this. And if, as he fays, '* the
*' Nazarenes held dodrines fimilar to thofe
" of the Cerinthians *,'* he probably fup-
pofed that they believed the miraculous con-
ception j becaufe the Cerinthians, being
Gnoftics, had no other opinion that Epi-
phanius would call heretical (except that
concerning the obligation of the law of
Mofes) in which they could agree with the
Nazarenes. For the Cerinthians, like all
the other early Gnoftics, were unbelievers
in the miraculous conception.

The Ebionites were not without men of
learning and enquiry among them -, and of
thefe Symmachus (whofe tranflation of the
Old Teftament into Greek, is quoted with
the higheft refped by Origen, Eufebius,
and all the ancients) defended this particu-
lar opinion of the Ebionites. We have no
account of any of his arguments; but that
a man of his learning, and refped:able cha-
rader, about the end of the fecond century,
with all the evidence before him that wc

* K-adoc yap s^nv^ (Tuyxpovoi Y,(Tav aT.'KYMig. uai oiMOia, k Avian
' Ta 9poi)i^a7a. Hger. 29. Opera, vol. i. p. 117.

caq

76 Of the Do^lnne of the Book III.

can have in favour of it, and probably much
more than we now have a^rainfi: it, fhould
write in defence of his opinion, is, of itfelf,
afadi of confiderable confequence. That
his opinion was overborne, notwithftanding
his defence of it, will not make an unitarian
think the worfe of it, as the unitarian doc-
trine itfelf was overborne^ and it was pro-
bably the operation of the fame general
caufes that was fatal to both the fimple and
the proper humanity \ meaning by proper
humanity, that Jefus had a human father, as
well as a mother.

This work of Symmachus does not appear
to have been kzw by Eufebius; but he
mentions it as having been in the poflef-
lion of Origen. ** Symmachus,'' he fays, one
^' of the intei-preters of the fcriptures, was an
'* Ebionite; and the Ebionite herefy is that
*' of thofe who fay, that Chrift was bora
'^ of Jofeph and Mary, fuppofing him to be
*' a mere man. There are now commenta-
** ries of this Symmachus, in which it is
*' faid that, eagerly difputing about the
'' gofpel of Matthew he defends that herefy.
** And thefe commentaries of Symmachus,

*' Origin,

Chap. XX. Miraculous CGUcepion. yj

« Orio-en, together with other interpreta-
«' tions of fcripture by the fame author, faid
<< he received of one Juliana, to whom they
«' came by fucceffion from Symmachus him-
*< felf"^." Jerom and Nicephorus call this
work of Symmachus, a Commentary on the
gofpel of Matthew. That the Nazarenes
did not differ from the Ebionites in their
believing the miraculous conception, may
be inferred from_ the former being fome-
times called Symmachians. See vol. 3.
p. 221. of this work.

It is well known that the Ebionites
maintained that their copies of this gof-
pel, which wanted the introdudlion, was
the genuine work of the apoftle. And why
fhould not the Jewiih chriflians be as good
judges of this, as the Jews in general are

fisc^ov ysyovEvai . aip^iis ^£ 2nv vj rm 'KQicova.iOiv slco «aAs^fy>), tcov tgv
Xfi^ov f| laenfp ^ M/%^i«j ysyovsvM', (paa-KO'jIcoy 4''^'^^ '^~ <xv^poj7rov
imsiKn^(^(i>v avlov^ >^ tov voi^tov %py]\>ca l8o«wJ?£|?ov (poT^TlsLv aTncrx^pi-
^OfiEVorv, cog ^h y^ 2z T>i; 'srcocrSsv iropicxg syvaff-EV » ^ V7rQixv'/\;Mxicx, h
T8 lrU/i4fA,<xx^ ^o--7i wy (pEpilai ' sv cig hnzi 'Sfpo^ to nala MoIOmov
ec^olEtvof^Evog £uafy£?>iQVi tyiv osoyiT^aixE^jYiv aipscnv Kootluvsiv . rxula ^s o
S^ptyEVJK /aeIo. ^ aT^a^v £tg rag yfa(pag s^firvsiav th 2y/*,acK%:?, crrr
fAouvEi 'STocp laT^tavY}^ Tivog siM^pr^^on,' rnv }u (^ncri 'ssa^ aiP.a 'Eu/xpuxx,^
Toj^tC?^^ ^»«a5|«^^»r Hiflr lib, 6. cap. 17, p, 278.

allowed

78 Of the BoBrine of the Book III,

allowed to have been with refped: to the
writings of Mofes ? The general opinion
is, that Matthew wTote his gofpel in He-
brew for their ufe, as Mofes did his books.

Jerom fays, that the gofpel ufed by the
Nazarenes and Ebionites, was " by 7?ioJi
** [plerifque] called the authentic gofpel of
*' Matthew *." Now, as there can be no
doubt of the Nazarenes and Ebionites them*
felves confidering this gofpel as the au-
thentic gofpel of Matthew, it may be fup-
pofed, that rnany of the Gentiles alfo had
the fame opinion* And though the copy
that Jerom tranflated had part of the two
firft chapters, and therefore probably the
whole; yet, as we learn from Epiphanius,
that that gofpel began at the third chapter,
and we know from Origen, that all the Gen-
tile chriiliansdid not believe the miraculous
conception ; it is probable that the Hebrew
gofpel, ufed by the Ebionites, even with-
out the introdudion, v/as thought by many
of the Gentiles to be the whole of the ge-

* In evangello, quo utuntur Nazareni et Ebionitae, quod
nuper in GriEcum de Kebrseo fermone tranftulimus et;
quod vocatur a plerifque Matth:£i authenticum, &c, la
Matt. cap. 12. Opera, vol. 6. p. 21.

- nuine

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. jg

nuine work of Matthew. Indeed, they
could hardly be unbelievers in the miracu-
lous conception, and admit it to be authen-
tic.

If, however, it be thought that the
Ebionites were unbelievers in the miracu-
lous conception, at the fame that they
thought it to have been recorded by Mat-
thew, the evidence againft the credibility of
it, will be much ftrengthened. It will be
taken for granted that the Jewifh chriilians,
who were fo fond of Matthew, as to admit
no other gofpel befides his, would not
entertain an opinion fo different from
his, without having taken the greatefl pains
to examine into the matter, and confe-
quently not without having had very good
reafons to think that he had been too cre-
dulous in what he had written. And
though we cannot, at this diftance of
time, difcover w^hat their reafons were j
yet, as they were in the moll favourable
fituation for examining into the truth of
the fad, we cannot but think that their
reafons muft have been very ftrong ones.

2 AH

So Of the Do3iri?2e of the Book III.

All -Jews, no doubt, in confequence of
having expecfled a mere man, born as other
men are, for their Meffiah, would at firji
be averfe to fuppofing any other concerning
Chrift. But having got over a much
greater prejudice, viz. that of the Meffiah
being a temporal prince^ it "can hardly be
conceived that then the circumftance of his
miraculous birth, though originally equally
unexpected, would be received with much
difficulty, if it had been tolerably well au-
thenticated. For, being adually chrif-
tians, they would be within the influence
of another prejudice, which would tend to
counterad: the former ; a miraculous con-
ception being a circumflance highly ho^
nourable to their mailer. In this way, as
1 have obierved, I doubt not, tiie belief of
the miraculous conception did at length
make its way among the Jewifli chriftians;
fo that, by the time of Origen, part of
them gave credit to the ftory.

\¥hat proportion the believers in the
miraculous conception bore to the reft, we
cannot tell. Had the account of Origen

been

Chap. XX. Miraculous Cone eptiojt, -gj

been the finl, and the only one that we
had of the matter, and he hiaifelf been in-
different to either opinion, it might have
been fuppofed, that the two kinds of Ebio-
nites he mentions were nearly equal in
point of numbers. Bat Origen himfelf
being a believer in the miraculous concep-
tion, and his being the firft account of any
Ebionites believing it, the cafe is very dif-
ferent. I cannot help thinkins: that thefe
were always few, and that by far the greateft
part of the Jewifh chriftians never gave
any credit to the ftory.

It may be faid, that the general unbelief
of the Jews, in and after our Saviour's
time, v/ith refped: to the miraculous concep-
tion, may be accounted for on the fuppoii-
tion of its not having been generally known,
and its tranfpiring gradually from the few
who were in the fecret. This, I would
obferve, goes upon the idea of its being a
thing, the knowledge of which v/as thought
to be of no confequence to the f:heme of
chriftianity, and therefore, leaves us to afk,
why fo great a miracle was provided to an-
fwer no great end ? But that this was
Vol. IV. G always

82 Of the DoBrine of the Book III.

always confidered as a miracle of a very
extraordinary kind, is evident from its be-
ing perpetually objected to by the Jews,
more than any other circumitance in the
gofpel hiflory. And as it was always parti-
cularly objeded to by unbelievers, thofe v/ho
were believers would, no doubt, think them-
felves particularly interefted in maintaining
its authenticity. If, therefore, it had been
in their power fully to afcertain fo very re-
markable a fad:, they certainly would not
have failed to do it.

How reludantly foever unbelievers might
admit the evidence for a fad of this kind,
all chriftians muft have been fufficiently
pre-difpofed to believe a thing, which, they
would naturally enough think, did fo much
honour to the founder of their religion. No
reafon, therefore, can be imagined for chrif-
tians not univerfally believing the miracu-
lous conception, but fome coniiderable de-
ficiency in the evidence for it. Many
perfons would eagerly catch at fuch a ftory
as this, and believe it upon infufiicient evi-
dence. And yet we find that this flory,
long after its firft promulgation, and when
3 there

Chap. XX. Miraculous Concepihn. 83

there had been time enough to examine
into it, was not only laughed at by unbe-
lievers, but rejedled by thofe chriftians who
had the heft opportunity of fatisfying them-
felves concerning it.

Had the miraculous conception been con-
ceived to be a matter of no importance^
the Jewifh chriftians not believing it might
be accounted for on the fuppoiition of
their never having given much atten-
tion to it. But a thing that adually ex-
pofed them to much reproach and ridi-
cule, could not but engage their atten-
tion. In their circumftances they would
not fail to examine and re-examine the evi-
dence, and with a difpofition of mind fa-
vourable enough to the belief of it, efpe-
cially if they had thought it to be recorded
by fuch a perfon as the apcftle Matthew,
for whom they always entertained the highefl
refpecS. As to Luke, his having been a
companion of Paul might perhaps have
given them a diflike to him.

But the very idea of the apoftles conceal-

ing any thing that they knew concerning the

hiftory of their mafter, is altogether un-

G 2 fuitabip

S4 Cftle Do^rine of ike Book IlL

faitable to their charader and general con-
du6l. They were men of too great iim-
plicity for a fcheme of this kind ; and in-
deed it feems to have been contrary to their
exprefs inftrudicns ; as they were ordered
to publiih in the moil open manner all
that they knew concerning Chrift, without
any referve whatever. Matt. x. 26. There
is nothing covered that jhall not be revealed^
and nothing hid^ that Jl:all not be knonjon.
What I tell you in darknefs^ that /peak ye in
light ; and in-hat ye hear in the ear^ that
preach ye upon the hoife tops.

The dilbelief of the m.iraculous concep-
tion was by no means confined to the Jewifh
chriftians. It extended likewife to the
Gentile converts, probably the majority of
them, even in the time of Juftin Martyr.
For all the Gentile chriftians that he fpeaks
of, as being unitarians at all, he coniidered
as holding the fame opinion on this fubjed:,
that is afcribed to the Jewifli chriftians,
viz. that Jefus was a man born of man ^ or
the fon of Jofeph as well as of Mary ; and
independently of any rigorous conftrudioii
of his language, the refped with which. he
I fpeaks

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 85

fpeaks of them fufficiently proves that their
numbers muft have been confiderable.

However, as in this part of his work,
Juftin is defending his peculiar opinion of
the pre-exijlence of Chrifl^ wx cannot con-
clude that he confidered all thofe who de-
nied his doctrine on this fuhjed:, as agreeing
among themfelves with refpedl to the cir-
cumftances of the birth of Chrift. That
was a thing which he had no occafion to
attend to at that time ^ but as, in defcrib-
ing the unitarians in general, Jews and
Gentiles, he mentions it as their opinion,
that Jefus was the fon of Jofeph, it is natu-
ral to conclude that, in his time, it was the
opinion of the majority of them. Had it
been the opinion of the minority only^ he
would hardly have mentioned that circum-
ftance in a general characicr.

Nor will this be thought improbable,
when it is confidered, that though the be-
lief of the miraculous conception certainly-
kept gaining ground, as well as that of the
pre exiftence and divinity of Chrift, fome,
and probably a confiderable number (or
they would hardly have been mentioned at

G 3 dl)

86 Of the Doeirine of the Book III.

all) remained to the time of Origen, who
wrote near a hundred years after Juftin
Martyr. Origen comparing the blind beg-
gar near Jericho to the poor beggarly Jewilli
chriftians, who believed Chrift to be the
fon of Jofeph and Mary, fays, that *^ thofe
^* who rebuked him, reprefented the Gen-
** tiles, who, excepting a few, believed that
** he was born of a virgin */' Had he
himfelf been of this opinion, he might,
perhaps, have fpoken of them with more
refped: in point of numbers, as well as on
other accounts.

In another paffage, he alfo fpeaks of fome
chriftians who denied the miraculous con-
ception, but he does not fay whether they
were Jews or Gentiles, though I think it is
moft probable that he meant the latter.
" Perfons," he fays, '' may believe, and not
" believe at the fame time ;'^' and he in-

* Zulo) u ^vi'daai 'cro?0\85 /txev s'.ttbiv tmii/jLUvloi; wot. CLU^Y!<rn-> ra

ciIive; 'map oXiys; aTravl^ ^iTri^iVKaaiv avlov tn nsapBeva yeym-
aSaJ, xai 27rih[A.'j)cnv iva accTrriTn. tu oio/xevcc avlov sk a7repfJt>alog av^^og^
Kai yuvaixog sivai^ xalayovlog to yevog aTTO ja Au'^iO. In Matt.

Comment, vol. i. p. 426.

Ilances

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 87

fiances in *' thofe who believe in Jefus
" crucified by Pilate in Judea, but do not
'* believe that he was born of a virgin ; and
*^ alfo in thofe who believed in his mira-
*' cles, but did not believe that he was the
'* fon of him that made the heavens and the
'' earth*."

Irenaeus, in his Glofs (for fuch it is) upon
the creed, inferts the article concerning the
miraculous conception, as what was univer-
fally received in his time. But this could not
be the cafe, fince, according to the evidence
of Origen, there were even Gentile chriftians
who diibelieved it after his time. Indeed I
believe it is the general opinion of learned
chriftians, that the apoftles took no great
care to inculcate this dodtrine, but chiefly

* YLai ETri-Yjcrov ei "^uvotlai rig toj avlco Koua tivcx. fXEv STTivoiav Zii-
reveiv, kccIcc ^s fis^av (xy\ '^itbueiv . oiys 'zsa.^a^uyiMai®^ evehev, oi isi-
rsuovlsg (mev Eig rov Evri Ylovli^ YiiT^a Iricm'i ETXvoa;jLEvov £v rvi la^anx*
fzy] 'siirEVoylEg os Eig rov yfjEvvriixEVQV ek Mapiacg Tr,g 'Sia^Bsv^, b%i Eig
TQV ocJIqv 'SJirsuaai, y^ h '^itev^o'i . x^ i^iahiv oi isiTEUovlEg (xev Eig rov
'moma-ixvla ev rn la^aia rex. avacr/Ey^xfxixEX'oc rEpotlac^ ^ amEia Imnv^
jM'/] isiTEuovlEg Se Eig rov Iyktu uiov m "siomTccvlog rov apavov xj rnv 7W»
Eig rov OTreystTz/xJ s 'srifEuaai . 'ma'hiv re av oi 'siiTEUovlEg /jlev si-g rov
moilEpcc InuH x^^'^^-> f^^ '^iTtvovlEg Eig rov ^Y](jt.iHpyov . nai 'SJOinly^v r^os
Tcavlog, iiloi Eig tcv avlovuiiTEUHui^ km ^mTEUii<Ti, Comment,

vol. 2. p. 322.

G 4 urged

83 Of the DoBrine of the Book IIL

urged articles of greater aioment. Among
others, I fliall give in the margin the opi-
nion of Bifliop Bull to this purpofe *.

The author of the Appendix to Tertul-
lian's treatife, De Prcefcriptioney fays, *' that
^' Theodotus believed the miraculous con-
*' ception -j-/' But, according to Epipha-

* Quid vero de ea, quae paflionem, mortem, refarrec-
tionem, &c. prsecedit, conceptione Jefu Chrilu ex fpiritu
fando, et nativitate ex Maria virgine ftatuendum ? An
illam quoque jam iiide ab initio Judsi ac Gentiles ante
baptifrnum fuiit profefii ? Equidern de ipfis chriftianas ec-
clefis primordiis aliquantujum dubito, quod in nullo cate-
cheticorum, qui in a^tis apoilolorum extant, fermoniJim,
tilla vel conceptionis ex virtute fpiritus fancti fine virili
feniine, vel natlvitatis ex Maria virgine fa6la fit mentio
quodque nee univerfe apoftolos earn Judseis vel Ethnicis
prsedicafie, neque ho3 illofve contra ipfam difputalTe, ibi-
dem legaiTsus: uti quidem de refurre<Stione Chrifti fa6luni
conftat. Haud vane igitur augurari licet, hujus myfterii
propalationem pleniori evangelii expofitioni poll baptif-
rnum refervatam fuifle : vel quod omnibus in univerfum,
tarn Ifraelitis quam reliquis mortalibus, plane impoffibili?
videretur virginis citra maris concubitum partus (vide
Juftini M. Dial, cum Tryphone loco infra, cap. 7. feci:. 4,
citato) vel quod non sque neceflaria putarctur fupernatu-
ralis Chrifti conceptionis ac nativitatis notitia, ac pailioni?
atque refurredlionis ejus fides. Opera, p. 339.

* Accedit his Theodotus hasreticus Byzantius qui — doc-
trlnam earn introduxit qua Chiiilum hcminem tantum-

mod©

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 89

nius, his followers believed that *' Chrift
*' was a mere man, born of the feed of
*' man*/* And this is not improbable, as
Theodotus was prior to Origen ; though
I own Epiphanius is not the beft au-
thority, and it is contradicted by other
accounts. But fome of the followers of
/ Theodotus might believe the miraculous
conception, and others might not.

I think it very probable, that the difci-
pies of »Paulus Samofateniis, and if fo, the
generality of the Gentile unitarians of
his time dilbelieved the miraculous concep-
tion, and paid no regard to the introdudlion
to the gofpel of Luke, any more than that
of Matthew; becaufe, according to Atha-
naiius, he fuppofed Chrift to have been bora
at Nazareth •^-. -^^ad he received the intro- '

modo diceret, deum autem ilium negaret, ex fpirltu qui-
dem fandto natum ex virgine, fed hominem folitarium at-
que nudum, nulla alia prae ceteris, nifi Tola juftitiae autho-
ritate. Opera, p. 223.

7£f zivai Tov XfiTOv, Hcci £fi CTTTe^ualos avdpoc; yeysvua^at. Haer. .54.
Opera, vol. i. p. 463.

I Be Adventu. J.G, Opera, vol. i, p. 635. 637.

dudion

^■'

90 Of the DcEirine of the Book III..

dudion to the gofpel of Luke, he would
naturally have faid, that Chrift had no ex-
iftence before his birth at Bethlehem, ra-
ther than Nazareth.

It is not improbable, but that there were
fome who difbelieved the miraculous con-
ception in the time of Athanafius ; as he
fays, *' I wonder how they have dared to
*' fay that Chrift was a man in the courfe
** of nature ^." The tenfe of the verb that
he makes ufe of, rather leads us to fuppofe,
that he is fpeaking of a fed: that then conti-
nued to fabfift.

It fhould feem that there were fome in
the time of Cyril of Jerufalem, who believ-
ed that Chrift was the fon of Jofeph ; and
as they are oppofed to the heretics^ it is moft
probable that they were not Gnoftics, but
proper Gentile unitarians. *' Let us not,"
fays he, *' bear with the heretics, who teach
*' the appearance by phantafm only. Let

on ^vrecc; dKoXi^^ia ysyvATlai av^^co'Tic; . st nai slcog w Tsspirln ^r,;
Mxpiag r]fAvy)iAr,' aosya^ 0i5"tv r. (puaig "zac^c-^cv x^p^9 fcv^fog Tiffl^crav

De Divinitate Chrifti, Opera, vol. i. p. 164.

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 91

*« us Hkevvife defpife thofe who fay that the
** birth was from man and woman, and dare
<* to fay that he was the fon of Jofeph and
** Mary *." It is evident from thefe fads,
that we cannot infer from Irenaeus infert-
ing the article of the miraculous conception
in his glofs on the Creed, that it was the
belief of all chriftians. Like Tertullian
after him, he mull have put into it the ar-
ticles of his own faith.

That any of the Gnoftics fhould difbelieve
the miraculous conception, is a faft more
extraordinary, and more unfavourable to the
credibility of it, than the difbelief of it by
any of the catholic chriftians, Jews, or Gen-
tiles ; becaufe this dodtrine would have
fuited remarkably well with their other
principles. In reality, the belief of the
miraculous conception might have been
more naturally expeded of them, than of
any perfons of that age. They did not,
indeed, with Juftin Martyr, and the ortho-

poccTKovlcov . KoilaTilvaoifA^v xixL rav hiyovlm el cxv^po; KOii yvvaifiog sivai
Tvv y^.vvmiv, rav TOT^ixncravlcov sitteiv^ oli w e« th lM<ir](p Kai t«; Ma-
fiaj. Cat. 12. Opera, p. i6],

dox.

pi Of the Docirine of the Book III.

dox, believe that Chrifl was the maker of
the world ; but they thought him to have
been a pre-exiftent intelligent being, equal
in power, and fuperior in goodnefs, to him
that made the world -, and one who was
fent to redify the evils that had been intro-
duced by the being that made itj and
therefore they v;ould as naturally incline to
believe that he had a birth fuited to his
high rank as the orthodox themfelves.
They who thought that Chrifl derived no-
thing even from his mother, muft have
thought a father quite fuperfluous. That
they did not embrace this opinion, there-
fore, could be owing to nothing but theirnot
finding fufficient hiflorical evidence for it.
That all the more early Gnoftics did be-
lieve Jefus to have been the fon of Jofeph,
is alTerted by all who make any mention of
their opinions. The earlieft of them were
the Cerinthians, and the earlieft writer who
mentions them by nzmt is Irenaeus : I
-^hall, therefore, begin with his teftimony
concerning them. '' Cerinthus," fays he,
*« who was of Afia, held that the world was
'* not made by the principal God, but by a

*' power

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conceptiojz, 02

*' power very.diftant from him, and who
*^ was ignorant of the true God ; that Jefus
*' was not born of a virgin, for that he held
** to be impoffible, but was the fon cf Jo-
*« feph and Mary 5 that he was like ether
** men, but excelled them in virtue ; that
*« after his baptifm, the Chrift defcended
** into him, in the form of a dove ; that he
*^ then announced the unl^nown Father,
'* and wrought miracles ; that at length the
*^ Chrift left Jefus, who fufiered and rofe
** again, but that the Chrift was impaffible*.'*
What Irenseus fays concerning Cerinthus,
the firft of the Gnoftics, Theodoret and

* Ft Cerinthus autem quidam in Afia, non a primo deo
fa6lum effe mundum docuit, fed a virtute quadam valde
feparata, et diftante ab ea principalitate quse eft fuperuni-
verfa, et ignorante eiim qui eft fuper omnia deum. Je-
fum autem fubjecit, non ex virgine natum (impofiibiii
enim hoc ei vifum eft) fuilTe autem eum Jofeph et Maris
filium, limiliter ut reliqui omnes homines, etplus potuifle
juftitia, et prudentia, et fapientia ab omnibus. Et pcfl bap-
tifmum defcendiiTe in eum, ab ea principalitate qus eft
fuper omnia, Chriftum figura colurabas ; et tunc annun-
ciaiTe incognitum patrem, et virtutes perfecifTe, in fine
autem revolafle iterum Chriftum de Jefu, et Jefum paftiiin
effe, et refurrexiffe : Chriftum autem impaiTibilem perfe-
veralTej exiftentem fpirltalem, Lib. i. cap. 25. p. 102. -

Others

94 Of the Doclrine of the Book III.

others fay concerning Simon, Menander,
Cerdon, and Marcion, the next in order of
time, except that Simon, who was impro-
perly ranked among chriftians, preceded
him. *' Simon," fays Theodoret, '' Menan-
** der, Cerdon, and Marcion, deny the in-
** carnation, and call the miraculous con-
" ception a fable : but Valentinus, Bafi-
" lides, Bardefanes, Armonius, and thofe of
** that clafs, admit the miraculous concep-
** tion and the birth ; but they fay that
*' the God logos received nothing from the
** virgin, but pafTed through her as through
*' a pipe 5 and that he appeared to men as
*' a phantafm, feeming only to be a man,
** as he had appeared to Abraham and to
'* others of the ancients*."

Theodoret here fays, that Valentinus and
Bafilides, who preceded^ him, admitted the

"TtacTiv a^vHvlai rm £V3(.v^^:>izwiv-> zai rw sn ^a^^sva yevvncriv /xu^Q'
7\oyiav aTTOHaT^ji. BxT^'cvlivog oe, hui BajiAEi^ng^ ucct Ba^hicroivng^
xai A^fMoviog, KCX.I 01 ralcov (TUfAfio^iagy d^Exovl^i fxsv rvt; 'SJcc^^svd rtiy
Hvno'iVi xai rov tohov ' nhv 5s rev ^£ov T^oyov rx ty,; 'zs-a^Sevs ^uj^ocrei'
y^Yipivai (paaiv, a'Kha nza^o^ov riva. ^£ uvIy]'; o-j^e^ ^la au'hYl^cg '^oy)-
OiOfff^ai^ E'TT^PavYivai "^z roig av^^aTTOi; (pavlaaia -/j^r.^ayLEvov-, km ^o^ag
tivou av^^oTTog cv t^ottcv w^Svi tw AQ^aaiJ.-, xai ^iJiv (x7\^oig tcov 'ssa-
^ai«v. Ep, 145. Opera, vol. 3, p. 1023.

miraculous

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conceptiofi. q^

miraculous conception ^ but an earlier, and,
therefore, a better authority, lays the con-
trary. For the Valentinians, as well as the
Ebionites, are ranked among thofe who
diibelieved the miraculous conception by
Pamphilus the Martyr*. And if Valentinus
did not believe the miraculous conception,
it is probable that Bafilides did not, as he is
fometimes called the mafter of Valentinus.
Beaufobre fays, it does not appear whether
Bafilides believed the miraculous concep-
tion, or not. Hiftoire de Manicheifme,
vol. 2. p. 28.

That Carpocrates diibelieved the mira«
culous conception is univerfally admitted,
'* Carpocrates,'' fays Irena^us, '* held that
*' the world was made by inferior angels ;
** that Jefus was the fon of Jofeph, but
** that his foul was firm and holyf." " Ce-

* Sive fecundum ecs, que dicunt eum ex Jofeph et Ma-
ria natum, ficut funt Ebionitse et Valentlniani. Hiero-
nymi Opera, vol. 9. p. 117. Originis Opera, vol. i. p.
760.

t Carpocrates autem et qui ab eo, mundum quidem
et ea quae in eo funt, ab angelis multo inferioribiis ir.genito
patre faflum efle dicunt. Jefum auCem e jofeph natum,

e:

96 Of the DoBrine of the Book III.

*^ rinthus and Carpocrates/' fays Epipha-
nius, " ufed the fame gofpel with the Ebio-
*' nites, and endeavoured to prove from the
** genealogy that Chrift is the fon of Jo-
** feph and Mary*/' Theodoret alfo fays,
that *' Carpocrates believed that Jefus was
** born of Jofeph and Mary, like other
** men -f-."

Thus it appears, that the earlieft and
moil diilinguiihed of the Gnoftics agreed
with the ancient unitarians, in difbelieving
the miraculous conception. Now, what
could bring perfons fo oppofite to each
other, as the unitarians and Gnoftics are
always reprefented to have been, to agree in
this one thing, but fuch hiftorical evidence
as was independent of any particular fyftem

et qui fimilis rellquis hominibus fuerit, diftafle a reliquis
fecundum id, quod anima ejus firma, et munda cum efTet,
commemorata fuerit. Lib. i. cap. 24. p. 99.

* O /xsv yap K>^oivS©- nai Ka^TTOH.Dixg, t« a-ulo) %pW|U£VOt dr]^£V

Sia T)i$ 7£vfaAo7(aj ,S8AcvV.f 'isa^iTav m o-7r£'p,ua7o$ lojaY,<p zai Manias
tiv^i rev ;^^ifov. Hsr. 30. Opera, vol. I. p. 138.

j Tcv ^£ Kv^iGv Iwav m xg Icoarip nai Tv,g Ma^ia^ ysvvYi%vai roig
a'KhPKi av^^oiTtoig "sra^ctTTM^wg , Hser. Fab. lib. i. cap. 5.
Opera, vol. 4. p. ig6.

of

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 97

of chriftian faith ; and which, in the cafe
of the Gnoftics, muft have been fo flrong,
as to overbear the natural influence of their
fyflem.

With refpeft to the unitarians, it may be
faid, that many of them, having been Jews,
who had expeded that their ?vlefliah would
be a mere man, born as other men are, and
efpecially a proper defcendant from David,
would not, without particular evidence,
admit that he had any other kind of birth ;
and that the gentile unitarians, having
learned chriflianity of them, would natu-
rally adopt their opinion ; though, I doubt
not, but that the idea of aggrandizing the
founder of their religion, which was fo ea-
gerly catched at in thofe times, would foon
overbear the influence of that Jewifh pre-
judice. But the Gnoftics, who did not
believe that Chrift had any proper Jbirth at
all, but merely pafl!ed through his mother
(to ufe their own favourite comparifon) as
water through a pipe, would naturally wifli
that it might be done in fuch a manner, as
might be imagined (and the whole was an.

Vol. IV. H affair

98 Of the Dodirine of the Book III.

affair of imagination) to be in the leaft de-
grading manner. And that, in that age,
it was fuppofed to be lefs degrading to be
born of a virgin, than in the common way,
is evident from what I have already quoted
concerning their fentiments and ideas.

On what grounds or principles, or from
what authority, the ancient Jewifli chrif-
tians, and many of the Gentiles, as well
as the Gnoftics, difbelieved the miraculous
conceptiort, we can only conjeSure, as their
writings on this, as well as on all other
fubjedis, are long fince buried in oblivion.
But the fa^ of fo general a dilbelief, both of
the unitarian chriftians and the Gnoftics,
at firft univerfal, and giving way to the
prefent popular opinion (which may eaiily
be accounted for from the very general dif-
pofition to magnify the perfonal dignity of
Chrift, whofe meannefs was continually ob-
jeded to them) very flowly, cannot, I think,
be accounted for without fuppofing fome
confiderable defeft in the original evidence.
Otherwife, it could not but, in the circum-
ftances of the primitive chriftians, have very

foon

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception: 99

foon and univerfally eftablifhed itfelf. And
the queftion now before us is fimply this,
viz. whether it be eafier to account for the
exiftence of this fad, viz. the general, and,
to appearance, univerfal difbelief of the mi-
raculous conception, at the only period in
which it was poffible fully to authenticate
it, or the exiftence of the prefent records
of it, viz. the introdudions to the gofpels
of Matthew and Luke, at fo early a period
^8 that to which they may certainly be
traced, without fuppofmg the hiftory they
contain to be authentic.

In order to throw fome farther light upon
the fubjeft, I fhall now freely confider the
circumftances of this ftory, which has been
fo differently received; appearing to have
gained no credit at firft, but, by a flowpro-
cefs, to have come-at length to be held ab^
folutely facred.

H 2 SEC-

1 00 Of the DoBnne of the Book III.

SECTION V.

T!he internal Evidence for the Credibility of
the Miraculous Conception confdered,

IN comparing the four gofpels, we can-
not but be ftruck with the remarkable
difference between thofe of Matthew and
Luke, and thofe of Mark and John, in this
refped: ; neither of the latter giving the
leaft hint of a miraculous conception. And
yet it might well be thought that, if any
part of the hiftory required to be particu-
larly authenticated, by the teitimony of
different hiflorians, it was this ; and many
things of far lefs confequence are recorded
by them all, and very circumfnaatially.
With refped: to John, it may, indeed, be
laid, that as he knew that Matthew and
Luke had recorded the circumflances of the
miraculous conception, he had no occaiion
to do it.

But what fhall we fay with refped to
Mark ? If he was an epltomizer of Mat-
thew,

C H A p . X X . Miraculous Coitception , i o i

thew, as fome have fuppofed, but of which
I own I have k^n no fufficient evidence,
how came he to leave out the whole of the
two firfl chapters? And if he was, as I
think moil probable, an original writer,
how came he to give no account at all of
the miraculous conception, on the fappo-
fition that he really knew of it ? He could
not tell that any other perfon of equal cre-
dit would write the hiftory ; and, there-
fore, as he did undertake it, he would cer-
tainly infert in it whatever he thought to
be of principal importance. Confequently,
he muft either have never heard of the
ftory, or have thought it of no importance.
But it is of fuch a nature, that no perfon,
believing it to be true, ever did, or ever
could, conlider it as of no importance. It
was a fingular and moft extraordinary mea-
fure in divine providence, and could not
but be confidered as having fome great ob-
jed: and end, whether we fhould be able to
difcover it or not. It was, therefore, fuch
a fadl as no hiftorian could overlook ; and
it may, therefore, be prefumed, that Mark

H 3 had

1Q2 Of the Dodirine of the Book III.

had either never heard of it, or that he did
not believe it.

If we only take away the two firft chap-
ters of the gofpels of Matthew and Luke,
apd change a very few words in the verfes
that follow them, we {hall find very proper
beginnings for them both, and exactly cor-
refponding to that natural and fimplc one
of Mark. For they will then begin with an
account of the preaching of John the Bap^
tift; as, in facl, the gofpel of John like-
wife does, after a fliort introdudlion con-
cerning the meaning of the word logos ^
which was, probably, much talked of at
that time.

Does not this circumftance give us fpme
fufpicion that both thefe gofpels of Mat-^
thew and Luke might originally have been
publifhed without thofe introdudions; that
the Hebrew copy of the gofpel of the Ebio^
nites, which was that of Matthew without
the two firft chapters (and which they main-
tained to be the genuine gofpel of Matthew)
might be all that Matthew himfelf ever
wrote ^ that the copy of Luke's gofpel,

whiph

Chap, XX. Miraculous Conception. 103

which Marcion had, and which began, as
Epiphanius fays*, at the third chapter,
was all that Luke wrote ; that the in^
troduilions were written afterwards by other
perfons ; and that they were firft an-
nexed to the gofpels by thofe who ad-
mired them, and were afterwards copied, as
proper parts of them. Suppofing this to
have been done, though it fhduld not have
been before the ancient verfions were made,
they would naturally be tranflated after-
wards, and be annexed to the verfions, a^
they had been to the originals.

The Gnoftics in general feem to have
feledied what they thought proper of the
different books of the New Teftament,
without regard to their authenticity. But
it appears, from TertuUian, to have been the
real opinion of Marcion (who was unquef-
tionably a man of learning and ability) that
Luke's original gofpel contained no account
of the miraculous conception. For this

42. Opera, vol. i. p. 312.

H 4 writer,

I04 Of the Dodirlne of the Book IIL

writer, in his book againft the Marcionites,
fays, concerning the two copies of Luke's
gofpel, his own and Marcion's ^ '* I fay
** that mine is the true copy; Marcion,
** that his is fo. I affirm that Marcion's
^* copy is adulterated ; he, that mine is
^* fo." He adds, that his own copy was
the more ancient, becaufe Marcion him-
felf did, for fome time, receive it *. But
this he might do, till, on examination,
he thought he faw fufficient reafon to re-
ject it*

How improbable foever this hypothefis
may appear at firft fight, no perfon can
well doubt of fomething of the fame na-
ture having taken place with refped: to fe-
veral paflages in the books of fcripture,
even where we have no evidence whatever
from hiftory, from manufcripts, or from
ancient verfions, of the pafTages having

* Funus ergo ducendus eft contentionis, pari hinc inde
nifu fiuctuante. Ego meum dico verum, Marcion fuum.
Ego Marcionis adfirmo adulteratum, Marcion meum. —
Adeo antiquius Marcion eft, quod eft fecundum nos, ^t
et ipfe illi Marcion aliquando crediderit. Lib. 4. cap. 4.

eve^

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception, 105

ever been what we now take it for granted
they originally -were. This, I think, to
have been the cafe with refped: to the word
'57ao-%a, John vi. 4. Billiop Pearce fuppofes
the whole verfe, and many others, to have
been interpolations 5 and the famous verfe,
I John, V. 7. concerning the three that bear
record in heaven^ has been fufficiently proved
to have come into the epiftle in this unau-
thorized manner ; and had it been done in
an early period, there would have appeared
no more reafon to have fufpe6ted the ge-
nuinenefs of it, than there now does that
of the introductions to the gofpels of Mat-
thew and Luke.

This was indifputably the cafe with the
gofpel of the Ebionites itfelf ; for, accord-
ing to the moft unfufpedted evidence, it
was the gofpel of Matthew beginning at the
third chapter^ but that copy of the Ebio-
nites gofpel, which Jerom favv, had, at
Ifcift, the fecond chapter ; for he quotes a
pafTage from it. It is very poffible, there-
fore, that there might have been copies of
the Greek gofpel of Matthew, without the

two

\

io6 Of the Dodlrine of the Book III.

two firft chapters, as well as fome of the
Hebrew copies with them.

As the Ebionites were not wanting in
their refpeft for Matthew, or his gofpel, it
is not to be fuppofed that they would have
rejected the introduftion, if they had really
thought it to be his, even if they had not
thought the hiftory contained in it intitled
to full credit. I, therefore, fee no reafon
why they fhould leave it out entirely, but
that they did not admit its authenticity :
and, certainly, as I have faid before, they
for whofe ufe that gofpel was particularly
written, and in whofe language it was pro-
bably firft publifhed, muft be allowed to
have been the beft judges of it.

It favours the idea of the two firft chap-
ters of Matthew's gofpel not properly be-
longing to the reft, that they have a kind
oifeparate titky viz. the book of the genera--
tion of Jefus Chrijl, to which the hiftory
of the miraculous conception, and the cir-
cumftances connefted with it, are an ap-
pendage, and together with It make a kind
of preamble to the proper hiftory of the

gofpel.

Ghap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 107

gofpel, which begins with the account of
the baptifm of John.

As to the gofpel of Luke, though it
fhould not be fuppofed that the copy which
Marcion made ufe of (which wanted the
two firft chapters) affords any prefumption
that the original was without them, yet the
authority of this writer is certainly lefs
than that of an apoftle -, and careful as he
was to colled: the particulars of the hiftory
from the very beginning, he might poffibly
have been mifinformed with refpedl to the
early part of it, and have taken up that
fplendid part of his narrative too haftily.
Had the work of Symmachus been extant,
we fliould, no doubt, have known much
more concerning the fubject. Between the
time of the publication of the gofpels, and
that of Juftin Martyr, who is the firft wri-
ter that mentions the miraculous concep-
tion, there was an interval of about eighty
years ; and in this fpace of time it is pof-^
fible that additions to the gofpel hiftory
of this kind (which did not afFedt the great
aad public tranfadions) might have beea

made

io8 Of the T>oBrine of the Book Ili.

made and have been annexed to fome of the
copies, though not to them all.

Some doubt with refpe(ft to the authen-
ticity of the introdudtion to Matthew's
gofpel arifes from the genealogy being
omitted in the Harmony of Tatian. He
was a difciple of Juftin Martyr, in whofe
writings, as I have obferved, we haVe the
firft certain mention of the miraculous con-
ception ; but after the death of his mafter,
he became the founder of a fed much re-
fembling thofe of the Gnoftics. His Har-
mony is not now extant ; but we have the
following account of it in Theodoret: '* He
*' compofed a gofpel called ^i<x Tzai^acm, or of
** the four^ having cut off the genealo-
*' gies, and every thing that fliews that
'^ our Lord was of the feed of David ac-
" cording to the flefli. This gofpel was
*^ ufed not only by thofe of his fedt, but
** alfo by thofe who followed the dodrine
** of the apoftles ; not perceiving the arti-
** fice of the compofitLon, but ufing it,
** through fimplicity, as a compendious
^* work. I found more than two hundred

'^ of

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. log

•^ of thefe books, much refpeded in the
'* churches ; but, having colledled them
** all, I removed them, and introduced the
** gofpels of the four evangelifts ^."

All that we can certainly infer from this
account of Theodoret is, that Tatian did
not infert any genealogy of Chriil in his
Harmony, and I believe no other harmonift
ever omitted fo important an article in the
gofpel hiflory. This is a circumftance that
alFeds the authenticity of the genealogy only,
diredlly, and the reft of the introdudllon^
containing the hiftory of the miraculous
conception, indiredlly, as fuppofed to be
connected with the genealogy. As Epi-
phanius fays, that Tatian's gofpel was fome-
times called the gofpel according to the He^

* Oxlioc, >tj TO 5ia Tsjo-a^oov KaT^nfjisvov auvlshiHEv Ez/ayyE^ioy, rd
Tf ytv£a?\oyicig isspiKo-^oct;^ >^ ra «M« o(Tcc zk. (XTre^fialcg AaCid' acBx
ca^Kcx. yEyswYifXSvov rev kv^iov hiHvuaiv^ Ex^na-avlo Se ts7w, « fwvov oi
mi EKSiva (ru/xixo^nxg^ a7<hoc xj oi TOi^ aTTOTO^dKoig ztiojmmqi ^oyfxacri,
rriv T>j$ cruv^fcng KaKH^yiav hk syvuKolsg^ a7\X cxTiT^HfE^ov co; avvlofj^a
Tcj- ^i^Ajw %f)icra/xEvoi , ev^qv 5e xaya 'm>^i8g n ^lOKQcriag ^iQ^sg tdi-
aulcxg sv Taif 'ssrap »/xiv E}tH?<y](notig riliiM](x£vcx,g-, xxi '^ao'ag (j-uvayoi-
yojv uTTS^Bfji^Vt JtJ Ta T«jv TBrlcc^av evayysT^rm avlEiariyaryov euacyys-
%i(x. Hsr. Fab. lib. i. cap. 20. Opeja, vol. 4. p. 208.

irews.

i lo Of the Do5irine of the Book III.

hreivsy and he was a Syrian, it is not impro-
bable, as Mr. Jones obferves, that he might
have been one of the fecft of the Hebrew
chriftians ; and, therefore, it will be more
probable that he omitted both the genea-
logy and the account of the miraculous
conception, becaufe he thought them not
to be depended upon.

As Tatian had no genealogy of Chrift in
his gofpel, he muft have omitted that of
Luke, as well as that of Matthew ; and
though that of Luke is not in the two firft
chapters, it is inferted in a place where it
is not at all wanted, but has much the
appearance of an interpolation, and there-*
fore might have been written by the au»
thor of the introduBion, fuppofing neither
of them to have been written by Luke.

If we read the gofpels of Matthew and
Luke without the two firft chapters, we
fhall not find the want of them ; as in the
fubfequent hiftory, there is no reference to
them, and fome things that are rather incon-
fiftent with them. Thus, whenever either
of thefe two writers fpeak of Jefu^s being
3 called

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception, m

called the Jon ofjofeph, as well as of Mary,
after he came into public life, they never
make any remark upon it, or objection to
it. Mary herfelf is reprefented by Luke,
chap. ii. S^> as faying to Jefus, Thy father
and I have fought thee farrowing ; and from
this paflage, Cyril of Jerufalem fays, that
*' fome heretics endeavoured to prove that
** Chrifl: had a Father as well as a mo-
'' ther*.''

But it may be replied, that having re-
lated the hiftory of the miraculous con-
ception fo much at large before, he had no
occafion to introduce any explanation after-
wards ; and as to Mary, ihe, perhaps, fpoke
what Luke mentions in a mixed company,
and might not chufe to inform them that
Jefus had no father. Still, however, I
think it would not have been unnatural for
both Matthew and Luke to have referred to
the hiftory of the miraculous conception
on fome particular occafions, as when they

* Ka» r\v 0 isc3vf> aula km v fjtnli^ aula ^avua^ovlsg . otts^ op-
TTa^Hcriv ai^£(riuluv 'saih;^ £| avd'pog aulov wu ywguKO^ yeytmff^a
T^sywiB^:. Cat, 7. Opera, p. 106.

gave

1 1 2 Of the DoEirine of the Book III*

gave an account of his being defpifed for
being the Ton of a carpenter. This, at leaft,
might have been expelled of Mark anfi '
John, v^ho had given no hiftory of the mi-
raculous conception at all.

The very genealogies in the gofpels of
Matthew and Luke amount alfo to a con-
futation of the hypothefis adopted by thofe
writers ; and, therefore, fliould feem to be
the work of other hands than thofe who
wrote the gofpels. And that of Matthew
may well be fuppofed to have been written
by one perfon, and the reft of the two chap-
ters by another. For, of what canfequence
was it to give the genealogy of Jofeph for
that of Jefus, when, according to them,
Jefus was no more defcended from Jofeph,
than he was from Herod.

The genealogy of Luke has by fome
moderns been fuppofed to be that of Mary,
becaufe fome Jewifh rabbi has called her
tJie daughter of Heli. But that rabbi was
probably too late to know any thing of the
matter; and he might call her fo as the
wife of Jofeph, who was faid to be the

fon

C H A p . XX. Miraculous Conception. 1 1 n

fon of Heli -, and the genealogy in Matthew
has always been fuppofed to be that of Jo-
feph himfelf. However, the hypothefis of
the ancients was quite different from that of
the moderns ; for, according to them, both
the genealogies are thofe of Jofeph, that in
Matthew by natural defcenty he being the
proper fon of Jacob, and that in Luke l?y
law-, Heli, the fuppofed brother of Jacob,
dying without ilTue, and Jacob taking his
wife, and having by her Jofeph. Thus
Eufebius, on the authority of Africanus,
(whofe authority is quite uncertain) fays,
that ** Jofeph was the fon of Heli by law,
** and of Jacob by nature * -/' ** Jacob and
*' Heli being brothers •f-."

Jerom fays, that " Jofeph's genealogy is
*' mentioned, becaufe it was not the cuflom
** of the fcriptures to reckon genealogies

«a 'srapcxT^Ccov^ £y£vvn<T£y si avlYig r^dov tov Ic>i(Tr]<p '• koIoc Oucnv /xsv
saulco^ ftai Kaia hoyov . 5io hcci ysy paTfla.:' lanco^ Se Eyevvnas rovlco-

ave^nas crTTEfifjux. Hifl. lib. I. cap. 7. p. 23.
f Ibid. p. 25.

Vol. IV. I ** according

1 14 Of the Do5lrme of the Book IIL

** according to women *." But on this
principle the genealogy was a mere decep-
tion ', and had the Jews known how the
cafe ftood, it would have given them no fort
of fatisfadtion. It could not, therefore,
have anfwered the end for which it was in-
ferted. For, no doubt, the Jews under-
fcood the prophecies concerning the defcent
of the Meffiah from David, to mean that he
iliould be the fon of fome man who Ihould
be lineally defcendcd from David. The
infertion of any daughter of David would,
in their opinion, have vitiated the whole
genealogy. They muu, therefore, have
confidered one of thefe genealogies as di-
redly contradidling the other.

Auftin has a peculiar method of folving
this difficulty. He fays, that '* Jefus was
*' the'proper child of Jofeph as well as of
** Mary, becaufe the holy fpirit gave him
**' to them both; both of them being order-
*' ed by the angel to give a name to the

* Cui primum refpondebimus non cITe confuetudinisfcrlp-
turnrum, ut mullerum in gcnerationibus ordo texatur. In
.Matt cap. I, Opera, vol. 6. p" i

^^ child i

Chap. XX. Miraculous Qoficeptidn, 115

*' child ; and by this," he fays, '' the au-
*' thority of the parent is declared *.*'

The Jews make it a ferious objedion to
the meffiahfliip of Jefus, that, according to
the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, he
does not appear to have been defcended from
David, or even from Judah ; fince it is only
the genealogy of Jofeph, his reputed father,
that is given, and not his own, or his mo-
ther's. '' Obferve," fays the author ofNizza-
chofi vetus^ '' how they confute themfelves ;
** for if, as they fay, Jefus had no father, how
'* can he be defcended from the flock of Da-
** vid. But if the genealogy of Jofeph be
'^ given to prove that he was of the houfe of
*' David, Jofeph muft be his father. How
** then do you affert that he had no human
^' father t"

* Spiritus San(9.us in amborum jiiflitla requiefcens am-
bobus filium dedit. Sed in eo fexu, quern parere decebat,
operatus eft hoc, quod etiam marito nafceretur. Ttaque
arnbobus dicit angelus, ut puero nomen imponant 5 ubi
parentum declaratur au6loritas. Ser. 63. Opera, Sup.
p. 246.

•i Unde iis conftat Jefum domo Davidica profatum fuiffe ?

Utiquc in libro errorum ipforum nihil tale fcriptum repe-

I 2 ritur.

1 16 Of the Dodlrine of the Book III.

Rabbi Nachmanides fays, if ** your Mef-
** fiah was defcended from David, meaning
" by the mother's fide, he could not be the
** heir of his kingdom, becaufe females do
" not inherit while any male iffue re-
" mains *."

** Both thefe genealogies,** fays Rabbi
Ifaac, in his Munimenfideu " belong to Jo-
*^ feph only, and not to Jefus ; for they fay
*' that Jofeph had no commerce with Mary

ritur. Nam, Matthseus et Lucas qui genealogias texunt,
Jofephi tantum, mariti Mariae, genealogiam texunt, quam
jpfi ab Abrahamo deducunt, hoc modo, Abraham genuit
Ifaacum, Ifaacus genuit Jacobum, et reh'qua, donee fini-
unt: Eleafar genuit Mattanem, Mattan genuit Jacobum,
Jacobus genuit Jofephum, fponfum Marias. At Marias
genealogia non reperitur, in ullo ipforum libro. Nunc
autem difce, et audi, quomodo propria eorundem di<3:a ip-
Ibs mendacii reos faciant. Quod fi enim Jefus fme patre
genitus eft, ceu di6litant, ex eo liquido inferimus non ixxi^o.
ilium oriundum ex profapia David is. Quod fi vero ideo
per Jofephum Jefu genealogia conditur, ut appareat hunc
ex domo Davidica defcendere, relinquitur, Jofephum illius
pattern fuifle : quomodo igitur afleritis, ipfum citra viri
concubitum genitum effe ? Nizzachon Vetus, p. 72, 'j'^.
* Quod fi maxime vefter Meffias ex progenie Davidis
prodiiffet, non tamen hseres regni illius efle poffet, non
enim filiae haereditatem adeunt, cum proles mafcula eft fu-
perftes. P. 53.

«* his

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 117

*• his'mother ; and as to that of Mary, it is
*' altogether unknown. Thofe, therefore,
" who framed thefe genealogies may be com-
*' pared to perfons who plunge into a deep
** fea, and bring up nothing but fhells "*.'*
The tv/o hiftories of the miraculous con-
ception are themfelves remarkably diiFerent
from each other; and though it may be
poffible to contrive a fcheme, by which
they may be reconciled, yet there are fuch
capital circumflances in each of the ac-
counts omitted by the other, as it can
hardly be fuppofed would have been omit-
ted, if the writers had been acquainted with
them. Would Luke, for inftance, whofe
account is fo very circumftantial in other
refpeds, have omitted all the three remark-

* Caeterum, ambas hse ineptiflimae genealogiae tantum
ad Jofephum, neutiquam vero adjefum attinent. Cum.
autem ipfi dicant, nunquam tota vita fua neque ante par-
turn Jefu, neque deinde a Jofepho Mariam fuifle cogni-
tam. Secundum hoc affertum, Jofephi genealogia, Jefu ni-
hil quicquam prodeft, imprimis cum genealogia Maria:
prorfus ipfos lateat. Quae, quoniam ita fe habent, fruftra fe
occuparunt conditores harum genealogiarum, atque in pro-
funda pelagi fe demittentes, nil nifi teftam retulere mani-
bus. P. 390.

I 3 able

1 iS Of the Bo^rine of the Book III.

able ftories of the vifit of the wife men of
the eaft, the maffacre of the children, and
the journey into Egypt ? Or would Mat.
thew, who has mentioned thefe things^ have
omitted-all the particulars of the fpeeches
of the angels, the (lory of the fhepherds,
and the prophecies of Simeon and Anna ;
to fay nothing of the whole hiflory oi the
birth of John the Baptift.

The' narrative of Luke is fo far from co-
inciding with that of Matthew, that it is
hardly poffible to find in it any room for the
journey into Egypt. According to Luke,
Jefus was prefented at Jerufalem as foon as
the days of Mary's purification were ex-
pired, and then returned diredly to Naza-
reth, without going any more to Beth-
lehem ^ where, indeed, it does not appear
that Jofeph had any habitation, or friends ;
fo that the wife men of Matthew, who are
fuppofed to have found the child at Beth-
lehem, muft have arrived in the country
long after Mary had left that place. On
the contrary, Matthew maill have fuppofed
that Jefus was kept at Bethlehem near two

years

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception, i \ g

years after his birth, and was carried from
thence into Egypt.

Indeed, one cannot help inferring from
the account of Matthew, that Jofeph and
Mary were properly of Bethlehem, that
they did not fettle in Nazareth till after
their return from Egypt, and that they then
made choice of this place, as being out of
the territory of Archelaus, the fon of He-
rod. Had Matthew fuppofed Jefus to have
been at Nazareth, in Galilee, at the time of
his perfecution by Herod, he would hardly
have thought of fending him to Egypt as a
place of fafety, when, in order to come
thither, he muft have paffed through the
whole extent of Herod's dominions 5 but
would rather have ""fent him to Tyre, or
fome part of Syria, bordering upon Galilee.
On the whole, I cannot help concluding
that, had the compilers of thefe two very
different accounts, been both of them well
informed concerning the fubjed, it would
have been much more eafy to harmonize
them than it is at prefent. They are now
fo wholly different from each other, that
I 4 their

1 20 Of the Docirine of the Book: III.

their hiftories might have been thofe of dif-
ferent perfons.

If we examine each of the accounts fe-
parately, pafling over the ftriking incoher-
ence between them, a rational chriftian muft
fee many things in them that he v/iil find
fome difficulty in reconciling to himfelf.
They have both, as I cannot help thinking,
too much the air oifable^ and the application
of fcripture in the account afcribed to Mat-
thew is very far from being fuch as can re-
commend it. Jefus going into Egypt, and re-
turning from it, is made to be the fulfilment
of a prophecy of Hofea, which is no prophecy
at all, but fimply the mention of God having
called his fon, the Ifraelites, as a nation, out
of that country. And^Jefus is to fettle at
Nazareth, becaufe the Meffiah was to be a
Nazarene ; whereas all that can be imagined
to give any countenance to this, in the Old
Teftament is, that he was to be defpifed and
rejedled of men ; and Nazareth was a defpi-
cable place. If the writer had any other
idea, it muft have been more far-fetched,
and improbable, than this. I fay nothing
3 ]^^^^

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. ii^

here of the prophecy of Ifaiah, concerning a
virgin bearing a Jon^ as an account will be
given of it hereafter.

As to the ftory of Luke, to fay nothing
of the long and improbable fpeeches it con-
tains, and which could never have been
tranfmitted with exadnefs, and the vifion of
angels to the fhepherds (which does not ap-
pear to have been of any ufe) it implies fuch
an early declaration of Jefus being the Mef-
fiah, as is incompatible with the whole
plan of the gofpel hiftory. Jefus carefully
concealed his being the Meffiah from the
Jews in general ; and it was only at a late
period in his hiftory that he revealed it to
theapoftles; and yet, in this introdudion
to the gofpel of Luke, it is fuppofed to
have been known with certainty to the pa-
rents of John, to thofe of Jefus himfelf, to
the fhepherds, and to the prophets Simeon
and Anna, none of whom are faid to have
made any fecret of it, and the laft is faid
(chap. ii. 28.) to have fpoken of him to all
who looked for redemption in IfraeL Had
this been the cafe, the eyes of all the coun-
try

122 Of the DoBrine of the Book III.

try muft have been fixed on Jefus as the
promifed Meffiah, and all attempts to con-
ceal it, after his public appearance, would
have come too late.

Yet, notwithftanding all this prepara-
tion, it does not appear that Jefus w^as at all
known, or in the leafl: fufpeoled to be the
Meffiah, till after his appearance in the
charader of a public teacher, and his work-
ing of miracles • and even then his own
brethren did not immediately believe on
him.

There are, indeed, feveral inconfiflencies
in the account of Luke, from which it may
be gathered, that .what could not but be
known to every body, was, after all, a fecret
to Jofeph and Mary themfelves. After the
hiflory of the (hepherds, we are told, cap. ii.
19. that Mary kept all thefe things^ and pon-
dered them in her heart ^ which implies,
that fhe was at a lofs what to think of them.
After the declaration of Simeon, we read,
ver. 33. that Jofeph and his mother marvel-
led at thofe things which werefpoken of him ;
and when Jefus was twelve years old, and

told

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 123

told them that he rnufl: be about his father's
bufinefs, or at his father's houfe (chap. ii.
50.) they under Jiood not the faying that he
[pake unto their^, and Mary kept all theje fay^
ings in her heart. Moreover, after all this
preparation to announce Jefus, and no other
perfon, as the Meffiah, yet, when John
made his appearance the people (Luke iii.
15.) were in expedlation j and all men miifed
in their hearts of John, whether he were
Chriji or not. Thefe are marks of the ftory
being inconfiftent and illrdigefted.

SEC

3 24 Of the Dodlrine of the Book III.

SECTION VI.

Corifiderations relating to the Roman Cenftis^
mentioned by Luke.

T^ H E account of the cenfus taken by
"^ order of Auguftus at the fuppofed
time of the birth of Chrift, its being taken
by Cyrenius, governor of Syria, and the
journey of Jofeph and Mary to Bethlehem
on that occalion, are particularly liable to
exception, and therefore I fhall treat of
them in a feparate fedion.

Dr. Lardner, with great labour and
ingenuity (Credibility, vol. 2. p. 718.)
has (hewn that by tranfpofing the w^ords,

the phrafe Ay]>i n a'7:oypa(p-n 'zs^alv) syEvelo YiyEfxovEucvl©'

rng luDiag K^^ews, may be rendered. This was
the firft djfejfment of Cyrenius^ governor of
Syria 3 and had yrnyi^vot; been ufed, in Head of
iiy£/^oy£yoyl©-, this might cafily have been ad-
mitted. But certainly the natural inter-
pretation of the phrafe, as the words now

lland.

C H A p . X X . Miraculous Conception . 125

ftand, implies that this aflefTment was taken
at the time that Cyrenius was actually go-
vernor of Syria, which did not take place
till five years after the death of Herod.
But, independent of this difficulty, which
has given commentators and critics a great
deal of trouble, there are other particulars
in this account that are extremely impro-
bable.

As Judea was not at that time a province
of the Roman empire, but had a king of
its own, though in alliance with Rome,
and in a ftate of dependence upon it, the
Roman cenfus could not regularly extend
to that country. What the Romans had
the power of commanding is not the quef-
tion. They had power, no doubt, to de-
prive Herod of his kingdom, and to fend a
governor of their own in his place; in con-
fequence of which the country might have
become fubjed: to the Roman law, and the
people liable to the cenfus. But while
Herod was king, Judea was governed by
Jewifh laws, and fubjedt to no taxes but
fuch as were impofed and levied by Jews.

Dr.

126 Of the Bodirine of the Book III.

Dr. Lardner has, indeed, fiievvn that
Herod may be faid to have been a /r/-
hutary prince, and that the emperor might
poffibly have an officer of his own refiding
in the country, to take care of his revenues
from it. But he has himfelf made it fuffi-
ciently evident, that a cenfus was the moft
odious method of impofing a tax, and there-
fore that the Romans never had recourfe to
it, even in the proper provinces of the em-
pire, except in very particular circumflances.
He thinks, indeed (p. 618.") that he has found-
one inflance of it, in the cafe of Cilicia Af-
pera ; but this was a very inconliderable
country, and in a later period. 1 would
alfo obferve that, though Herod might be
ix\ difgrace with Auguflus, and the emperor
might wifh to humble him, it is not pro-
bable that the people (while the whole
country w^as united under one government,
and in a very flourifhing ftate) would have
borne fuch an unprecedented infult, with-
out fuch murmurings as we fhould have
heard of, efpecially from Jofephus. This
writer, in his account of the cenfus that

was

Chap. XX. Miraculous Co72ception, 127'

was taken in Judea on its being made a
proper Roman province, jfliews that the
minds of the Jews were at that tjme ex-
ceedingly difpofed to revolt at the meafure;
and it was taken in no more than one part
of the country over which Herod had been
king. It did not extend to the dominions
of Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee, thofe of
Philip, or thofe of Lyfanias.

Dr. Lardner is of opinion (p. 618.) that
jofephus has mentioned this cenfus in the
time of Herod the Great, in faying " that the
people of Judea took an oath to be faithful
to Caefar, and the interefts of the king." Bat
he has not proved that this expreffion is
equivalent to the taking of a cenfus -, and the
moft natural interpretation of it is, that it
was an oath of friendfhip and alliance. Be-
fides, the meafure of taking a Roman cenfus
in a foreign country, of fuch magnitude as
Judea then was, was certainly entitled to a
more particular narrative, in fuch a hiftory
as that of Jofephu?. We might at leall
have expedled fome account of this firft,
and greater cenfus, in his hiftory of the

fecond

128 Of the DoBrine of the Book III.

fecond and lefler -, and efpecially fome rea-
fons why the latter gave fo great an alarm,
and excited fuch dangerous tumults, when
the former had excited none at all.

It is true that Juftin Martyr, and others
of the Fathers, do mention this cenfus un-
der Herod the Great, as what the Romans
would find an account of in their public
regiiters. But fome of them likewife ap-
peal to an account of Chrift tranfmitted by
Pilate to the emperor Tiberius. The pro-
bability is, that thefe writers, taking it for
granted that this account of the cenfus in
the gofpel of Luke was a true one, did not
fcruple to appeal to it, as what they did
not doubt would be found to be fo. But
we have no account of the fadl being ve-
rified by an examination of records.

Admitting this unprecedented Roman
cenfus, in a country that was no province
of the Roman empire, it is certainly highly
improbable that Jofeph, who lived at Na-
zareth, fituated three days journey from
Bethlehem, fhould be obliged to go thither
on the account of it. A cenfus was an

account

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception . i 29

account of a man's family and poffeflions,
given in upon oath, with a fcrutiny, if ne-
cefTary^ and certainly it was mofi: convenient
for every man to do this in the place where
he refided, and where his account might
be verified, or checked, by that of his
neighbours and acquaintance.

Neither the Romans nor the Jews had
any intereft in fuch a manoeuvre as this
hiilorian fuppofes to have taken place. For
the trouble of every man going to the
place where his remote anceflors had lived
muft have been infinite; to fay nothing of
the uncertainty of determining what place
to go to, which muft have been very great.
For, in this cafe of Jofeph, though Da-
vid had lived at Bethlehem, his fon "So-
lomon had not. That the people of Na-
zareth fhould go to Bethlehem, and the
inhabitants of Bethlehem perhaps to Na-
zareth, to do nothing but what might have
been done by both with much more eafe
and advantage at their own homes, is there-
fore not to be fuppofed.

Vol. IV, K Dr.

130 Of the Dodirine of the Book III.

Dr. Lardner imagines (p. 605.) that Jofeph
might have had fome eftate at Bethlehem ;
but his poverty, his not refiding at the
place, and efpecially his not being able to
provide better accommodations for his wife,
at the time of her delivery, than the ftable
of an inn there, make this highly impro-
bable. Befides this, is it to be fuppofed
that a man v^ho had eftates in different parts
of a country, fhould be obliged to attend
at them all, in order to give in an account
of them, which this conjefture implies ?
Can this be fhewn to have been done by
the Romans themfelves ?

But, admitting that Jofeph, as the pro-
prietor of an eftate at Bethlehem, fhould
have been obliged to take a journey of three
days to attend the cenfus there, what obli-
gation could there have been upon Mary,
a woman big with child, and fo near the
time of her delivery, to take fuch a jour-
ney? Women, in all circumftances, were
excufed from attending the three great reli-
gious feftivals at Jerufalem, though many

3 ^f

^3^

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception.

of them went thither from choice. But
no tyranny can be fijppofed to have been fo
extreme as to compel poor women, in fuch
critical circumftances, to expofe themfelves
to fuch hazard, merely to gratify the ca-
price of a governor. Befides, as this was
the Jirfi cenfus that was taken i-a the coun-
try, and was fure to be of itfelf highly un-
popular, meafures would, no doubt, be ta-
ken to make it as little burthenfome as
poffible. Dr Lardner fays (p. 608.) that both
Jofeph and Mary might go to Bethlehem
for reafons that are unknown to us. But it
muft have been a very urgent reafon indeed,
that could carry a woman fo near her time
of delivery to a place at the diftance of three
days journey, when the bufinefs to be done
there could not require the refidence of a
iingle day.

It will be faid that this was fo ordered
by divine providence, that Jefus might be
a native of Bethlehem. But God, who
orders all things, generally makes ufe of
natural means, and therefore, we are not to
fuppofe that Mary was brought to Bethle-

K z hem

132 Of the DoElrine of the Book IIL

hem by means of a cenfiis, fo improbably
impoled, and carried into execution, as this
muft have been, when the fame end might
have been accompliflied in a much more
natural way.

It may be faid that Mary's being de-
livered in f3 crouded a place as Bethle-
hem muft have been on that occafion,
would be the means of making the birth
of Jefus more noticed, efpecially by the
help of the vilion of angels to the (hepherds
in that neighbourhood, and the vifit of the
wife men from the Eaft. But befides the
many improbabilities attending each of
thefe ftories (or indeed that of one place
being more crouded than another, in con-
fequence of all the people in the country
going to be enrolled in their own cities) a
much greater end, which we certainly know
to have been a meafure of divine providence,
and a great objecfl of the policy, as we may
fay, of Jefus when he came Into public life,
was fure to be defeated by it ; and this was
his Meffiahihip not being known till his
miraculous works fhould declare it.

I A child

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception, \xx
A child whofe miraculous birth was fo
circumftanced as that of Jefus is faid to have
been, would never have been kept out of
public view afterwards. The nation would
have undertaken the guardianfhip of their
young Meffiah ; and from that time the reign
of Herod, who was univerfally hated, would,
in all probability, have been at an end. A
regency might have been appointed, but
he would not have been included in it.

It may be faid, that the power or policy
of Herod might have prevented this. But
power is always founded upon opinion ;
and if it be confidered what expectations
the Jews had from their Meffiah^ and with
what eagernefs they never failed to crowd to
the ftandard of every man who pretended to
that character, we cannot doubt but that
the people (Herod's own guards, if they
were Jews, included) would, to a man, have
worfhipped fo great a rifing fun. Indeed,
no government could have been fo well
eftablifhed in that country, as not to have
been in great danger of being overturned in
fuch circumftances.

K3 As

134 Of the Do^rine of the Book III,

As there is no evidence of Jefus having
been born at Bethlehem, befides vi^hat is
derived from the introductions to the gof-
pels of Matthew and Luke, thofe who do
not admit their authority muft conclude
that he was born at Nazareth. Indeed his
being fo generally called Jefus of Nazareth^
is a proof that, in the opinion of thofe who
gave him that appellation, he was a native
of that place. Had his difciples, in parti-
cular, really believed that he was born at
Bethlehem, the native place of David, its
being fo much more reputable a place than
Nazareth, and its bearing fuch a relation to
David, whofe defcendant the Meffiah was
fuppofed to be, would, no doubt, have de-
termined them to denominate him from
thence. It would have been taking a na-
tural and fair method of removing one great
odium under which their mafter lay.

I would farther obferve that, it may per-
haps be inferred from John ii. 12. that
Jefus's mother and the whole family re-
moved from Nazareth to Capernaum, after
his firfh miracle of changing water into

wine.

Chap. XX . Miraculous Conception. i ^ j

wine. If, therefore Nazareth was not the
place of his nativity, there was no reafon
why the difciples of Jefiis ihould not have
denominated him from Capernaum, rather
than from Nazareth. According to the com-
mon hypothefis, he had only rejided at ei-
ther of the two places ; and though he had
not lived fo long at Capernaum, yet it was
the lajl refidence that he had, and that
from which he came forth into public life ;
and it was by much the more reputable
place of the two. I, therefore, fee no reafon
for Chrift being ftiled ^ejus of Nazareth,
by himfelf and his difciples, but that it
was confidered as the place of his nativity^
It appears from Athanalius to have been
the opinion of Paulus Samofaten{is,and there-
fore probably, that of the generality of the
unitarians of the early ages, that Chrift was
born at Nazareth ; which, as I have obferv-
ed, is inconfiftent with their paying any
regard to the introdudtions of either Mat-
thew or Luke's gofpel, or indeed with
their belief of the miraculous conception,

K4 for

136 OftheDodlrineofihe Book III.

for which no authority can be pleaded be*r
lides that of thofe introdudtions, though it
is aiTerted, that they believed that dodrine.
** Say then," fays Athanafius, '' how do
** you fay that God was born at Nazareth,
" teaching that his deity began with his
*' birth, according to Paulas Samofatenfis *■.''
And again, " Say then, how do you fup-
" pofe that God was born at Nazareth ;
*' {ince all the heretics are ufed to fay this,
*' as Paul of Samofata, who confefies that
*^ God v/as born of a virgin, that he firil
*^ appeared at Nazareth, and that his being
*^ commenced theref."

Matthew, indeed, fuppofes that, accord-
ing to a prophecy of Micah (chap. v. 2.)
the Meffiah was to be born at Bethlehem.
But this is no neceflary inference from the

De Adventu Chriili, Opera, vol. i. p. 637.

t EiTTcilt Toivuv, 's^cog Seov £v 'Nu^a^sl ysyEvr^a^ai vTrsiXyj^als '
STrsi&i] KM 'ssavlzg ou^sImoi riilo >^By£iv £icd^aca-iv, oig Hay^oj 0 I.afdO(ra-
Isug ^£ov £K 'srafSevs o^to^oyci ^zqv £h Na^oc^sl o^gyl^. Hat svIeu^ev
TYii vTTa^iscog rnv a^yjnv la-^moia. Ibid,

the

Chap. XX. Miraculous Concepticn, 137

the paflage. The meaning of it feems to
be, that Bethlehem, though a town of no
great confideration on other accounts, was

o

honoured by giving birth to David, whofe
pofterity would make fo great a figure in
the Jewifh hiuory, efpecially by giving to
the nation their future great deliverer.

SEC

I

^ 3^ Q/ ihe BoElrine of the Book III

SECTION VII.

Suppofed Alhijtons to the Miraculous Con^
ception i?t the Scriptures^

T T T H E N once It is taken for granted
W that any religious tenet is true, it
is remarkable how readily the proof of it
is found in the fcriptures. Examples of
this muft have occurred to every perfon of
reflection j and as they are not without
their ufe, in teaching us caution, I fhall
Ihew in what manner the Fathers proved
the dodrine of the miraculous conception
from the old Teftament ; where it is, how-
ever, certain that no Jew ever learned to
expedl fuch a thing. When arguments fail,
imagination has often been able to dif-
cover a type, and this has often given as
much fatisfadion as any reafon whatever.
I fhall take the paflfages in which this doc-
trine has been alluded to, nearly in their

order, .

Irenaeus

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. i^g

Irenaeus fays, that ^* Mofes's rod, being

*' incarnate in a ferpent, was a type of

*' Chrift being produced by the aid of the

^* Spirit only, and that he was not the fon

^^of Jofeph^."

The paiTage in the prophecy of Jacob,
concerning Judah, Gen. Ixix. 9. which we
render from the prey ^ my fon , thou art gone
upy is in the Seventy, ^k |3Aars from the bud^
This Epiphanius applies to Chriil, and fays
that it is a reference to the miraculous
conception, becaufe it is not m a'n^yt.cM'-^from
the feed '^^

*' Chrift," fays Jerom, '' is called both a
^* worm and a man ; a worm, as the pro-
^^ phet fays. Fear not thou worm Jacob ;

* Propter hoc autem et Moyfes oftendens typum, pro-
jecit virgam in terram, ut ea incarnata omnem -i^^gyptio-
rum praevaricationem, quae infurgebat adverfus dei difpo-
fitionem, argueret et abfgrberet : et ut ipfi iEgyptii teftifi-
carentur, quoniam digitus eft dei, qui falutern operatur
.populo, et non Jofeph filius. Lib. 3. c. 29. p. 258.

* H 5s Ts %f»rs yevi'JKrij KoioL (pvaiv fjLsv ek yuvoiiHog 'ara^^Ew

Halo, T/]v avB^uTTQWot OMo7<iihcci ' ag km IcxmQ 'Bspi ccvIh Aey«, ex

^■SaTH UlE /J,H OiVE^vg, KOil UK EITTEV EX (TTTEOf^Oil^ aVE^n?. HxT. 3O.

Opera, vol. I. p. 156.

" and

1 40 Of the Dobtrine of the Book III.

" and a man, becaufe he is born of Mary.
*^ His nativity refembles a worm that is
^' bred in wood, which has no father, but
" only a mother*/' Jerom is not the only
writer in whom I have found this obferva-
tion. Eufebius gives three reafons why
the Meffiah is called a wormy and not a man,
in his Commentary on Pf. xxi. 6. the fe-
cond of which is, that he was not produced
like men, from the conjunction of male
and female-^-. A ray of good fenfe, how-
ever, appears in Theodoret, on this fubjedl,
as v/ell as on many others. He fays, that
** by a worm and no man^ nothing was

■j- Chriflus et vermis dicitur, et homo. Vermis, ut ait
propheta : Noli timere vermis Jacob. Et homo, quia ex
Maria natus aOimilatur Tua nativitas vermi, quia vermis
qui in ligno nafcitur, non habet patrem nifi matrem. Et
Chriflus ex Maria eft natus abfque coitu viri. In Pf. xxi.
Opera, vol. 7. p. 24.

t Kai ahr.^ 5^' av £i7roi^ JKcoMm cculov moyiaa^ai ai hk avS^«-
'^ov^ oicx, TO (jLV) oficiag av^ocoTToig^ m (TuvHcrtag cc^^^vog Kai ^«A£iaj ty\vi
TTli (Td^HDi; yivzaiv Z(Tyj'Mvau.^^Tia^irn<Ti,v oil atcaJu (pvaiv^ a^£ ciioia^
TOi$ 7<of^oig uTTtxa-iv av^^ccnoi;^ aoe toi<; >,Oi7roiq K^ok; 'Zja^aTrXricricog^
Toi^ £| ao^ivc; icai %X£Lag cru'nraf.iEvcig ' aai t« rn; aula ytvetTEco^
ffvvfisXsilo . Eiyjv h Ti 'ZffAEioj "sra^a inv Komv (pU'jiv, Mont fa u-
con's Collectio, vol. i. p, 81.

'^ meant

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 1 4 1

<* meant but the meannefs of David/' In
Pf. xxi. Opera, vol. i. p. 477.

Thou bide ft me in my mother s 'womb, Pf.
cxxxix. 13. is, by Eufebius, applied to
Chrift, ** v^hofe miraculous conception w^as
'* hid from the v^orld**/'

** The bridegroom proceeding from his
*^ chamhery fays Jerom, *' means from the
•' virgin's womb -f-."

David fays, Pf. cxxxix. 16. In thy hook all
my members were written. This book, fays
Epiphanius, is the virgin's womb J.

In the fong of Solomon, mention is made
of a garden that was clofed, chap. iv. 12.
This many of the Fathers fay muft mean
the virgin's womb, particularly Ambrofejl.

But the capital argument in proof of
the miraculous conception from the Old

CHiaa-ag, cog av 7\cSo}r8<; a^x'^vla.g ts aiavog rs7s tj f| ayi'd 'Siiw/Aciioi
Trig ayiag 'zsa^Bsvd crv^M'^ig. Demonllratio, lib. 20. p. 4QQ,
f Et quomodo tanquam fponfus procedens de thalamo
fuo, id eft, virginali utero. In Marc. cap. i . Opera, vci.6,
p. 69.
X Haer. 30. Opera, vol. i. p. 156.
II Hortus claufus eft virgo. De Inftitut. Virginis, cap.
9, Opera, vol. 4. p. 4.24.

Teftament^

142 Of the Do^rine of the Book IIL

Teftament, is drawn from If. vii. 14. in
which it is faid, a virgin fall conceive and
bear a fon^ &c. but if the prophecy be
more narrowly infpefted, it will be found to
teach no fuch dodlrine. The country of
Judah having been threatened with an inva-
fion from the kings of Ifrael and Syria,
Ifaiah afTures Ahaz, that in a fliort time he
ftiould be delivered from all apprehenfion of
danger from that quarter, even before a
child then conceived, or foon to be con-
ceived, fhould be of age, to diftinguifli
good from evil. Behold a virgin conceiveth
and beareth a fon^ and Jhe fall call his name
ImrnanueL Butter and honey fall he eat, when
he fall know to reftfe the evil, and chufe the
good. For before this child fall know to
refufe the evil, a?td to chufe the good, the land
Jhall become deflate by whofe two kings thou
art di/irejfed. Bp. Lowth's Tranflation.

It is evident, from the circumftances of
the hiftory, that the prophecy related to an
event near at hand, and that it had its com-
plete accompliihment when the country
was delivered from the two kings who then

threatened

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 14^

threatened it with an invafion ; and it is not
pretended that any woman at that time had
a child without a man. It is the quotation
of this prophecy, and the application of it
to the miraculous conception of Chrift, in
the introdudlion to the gofpel of Matthew,
ch. i. 22. that has made chriftian divines
imagine that they were under a neceiiity of
defending the common interpretation. But
the difficulty of defending it makes a very
ftrong objecflion to the authenticity of that
introduction.

All the orthodox Fathers maintained,
that the word in the Hebrew r\^bv fignifies
a proper virgin, and among the reft Origen
contends for this. In Celfum. lib. 1. p. 27.
But the Jews, and Symmachus the Ebio-
nite, who were certainly better judges than
either the Greek or Latin Fathers, fay, that
it often ligniiies 2iyGung woman only* Irena2us
fays, that ** Theodotion of Ephefus, and
** Aquila of Pontus, both Jewiih profelites,
** tranflate it a young woman JJoall bear a
'' child : and that the Ebionites followed

*' them.

144 Of the Doctrine of the Book III,

" them, believing Jefas to be the Ton of
« Jofeph *."

Eufebius has fomething curious in his
explanation of this prophecy. He thought
that the child by the prophetefs was the
fame v/ith the child Immanuel ; but think-
ing the Holy Spirit to be the fpeaker in
the delivery of the prophecy, he explains
his going in to the prophetes, by the en-
trance of the Holy Spirit into the vir-
gin t-

Chryfoftom fays, that when Ifaiah fpeaks
of Chrill: as a root out of a dry ground.

Lib. 3. cap. 24. p. 253.

-^ Ettsittsp sipr{iM avuUE^u) ion n n:ap'^svo; fv yjcr^i ^>1^|^E73«, xca
i^Hm vicv. ayscTKMiii itti ts 'srofcviog, 'wag on yevoiio rslo oix(Taipsi
aJlog 0 xvpic;, Xf y^r;, km 'm^'-jorif^ov ispo; tytj is^o<pr^ai ' av% r^i. eyo
avio; 's:f>oire?^^7DixM tti 's:pyr^i;y. . 's:po<py]tiy yao cyofx^zi ivi tcv E/oc-
fXrxmr/i^ T£|:^£vrv. cia ro rz'/zUfAalog ayia /XzlcKTyjiv xala rev ^>(Ta.vla
fspvg auhv' 'mzvwx ayiov £'^>£:a-€su etti <7Z. km owixfMg v^th b^i-
n^ajii coi. Inli". 8.3. Montfaucon's coiledlio, vol. 2. p-384'

dry

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 145

tht dry ground means the virgin's womb *.
But this is not the only paffage in Ifaiah
that has been thought to refer to the mira-
culous conception. Epiphanius imagined,
that when an order was given to the pro-
phet, ch. viii. 1. to take a great roll, as we
render it, and which he fappofed to be a
fheet oi blank paper ^ on which nothing was
written, it was a type of the virgin's wombf.
In If. xxix. II. mention is made of a
Jealed booky given to a man who was ac-
quainted with letters, who (zys^I cannot read
it y for it is Jealed. '' This fealed book,"
fays Gregentius, " is the virgin Mary, and
** the man who was acquainted with letters
*' is Jofeph, who had been married, and had
** children by a former wife;}:."

* Kflu Eiep'^ rzctKv Bih/XEv aJl^ a; 'SSM^ui? x^ ^i^ccv ey 7^ 3i-
■iJ^WTj . yrrv OE Ci'^'j)7XJ iry ^r?,cxv Xryei tjiv zia^r.'jcc.i 5la to (Joh
^e^aa^ax (TTTE^ua avSjji'Tra, fiKOs nvrdCia^ ai:rr3Aj7ai^ a>:>jz x^i^
yofjutjv ajy^ TEKEiv, In Matt. xxvi. 39. vol, 5. p. 132,

t Haer. 30. Opera, vol. i. p. 156.

X Km 0 ccf.o^. M/1 CoXoiiti^E ' g ycu at avrs^uah^ Ja^r^p, ag ay
i^Et^j a>y sx 'srviyiAjch; ayia ysyrr.r^iai • >£?a>J7i£ yx^ -ste^i sola 0

WixoE ^<r{ • hh'.jffM TO S7psctyiT/jLr,i;'; ^i^Xiw ay^< £i5c7{ yfau-uxit.
I — Ti TO ^cXiov Effippayia-f/.T.'Cv oM* r r Tiao^r.o^ «J hfioxo<; ; n: c
Vol. IV, L cm^'.

146 Of the Docirine of the Book III.

Ifaiah, in a remarkable prophecy con-
cerning Chrift, ch. liii. 8. fays, JVho Jhall
declare his generation. The true meaning
of this paffage it is not eafy to underftand,
and the belt critics are by no means agreed
about it. But Juftin Martyr thought that
it iignified that " Chrift ihould not be of

*^ the feed of man ^."

There is one more paffage in Ifaiah,
which Epiphanius imagined to refer to the
miraculous birth of Chrift, and that is
chap. Ixvi. 7. Before Jhe travelled fie brought
forth ; before her pains cafne^ fie was delivered
of a man child -^^ For all the ancients be-
lieved that Mary was delivered without
pain, the delivery itfelf having been proper-
ly miraculous. They always compared it
to Chrift's coming into a room, after his re-
furreftion, when the door was fliut+.

o^^>l yuvaiKi 'ujpoa-ofMy^Yiaavli £(p yi yuvMxi-y^ tekvcx, zniKiriio. Dialogus.
f • 45-

^E70v7®- iw yvjiav aiPm ri; ^Ln'i'yiTslai^ m r)^n r-cii vquv o^pziKsls ok
ipi en 7£vh; avQ^coTr-d aTTspixa ; Dial. p. 284.

f Haer. 30. Opera, vol. i. p. 144.

J See Joannis Geometrae Hymnum in yirginem Deipa-
ram Bib. Pat. vol. 8. p. 437.

This

Chap. XX . Miraculous Goiiception. 1 47

This whimfical notion of Chrift coming
out of the virgin without any change in
her, was derived from the Gnoflics, and,
like feveral other opinions of theirs, was
afterwards adopted by the catholics. Beau-
fobre fays, it was borrowed from the Prote-
vangelion, quoted by Clemens Alexandri-
nus *• Auftin, in anfwer to a Manichean,
who thought it degrading to Chrift to pafs
through a woman at all, compares this paf-
fage to a ray of light through glafs -f-.
He calls Mary " a virgin before the birth,
^' in the birth, and after the birth J.*'
Theodoret fays, tw ^sscx^^mmv ^wav^ tm (ivkky^-^u ?>ua-(xg,

HTYiyima-Ei^iocfpr^iag. Opera, Vol. 5. p. 20. " A

'* virgin," fays Petrus Chryfologus, *' con-
** ceives, a virgin brings forth, and re-
** mains a virgin § ;" and Proclus fays, the

* Hiftoire de Manicheifme, vol. i. p. 362.
t Ibid. vol. 2. p. 525.

:|: Nifi quia Maria virgo ante partum, virgo in partu,
virgopoft partum. Serm. 14. Opera, vol. 10. p. 598.

§ Virgo concipit, virgo parturit, virgo permanet. Pe-
tri Chryfologi, Ser. 117. p. 352.

L 2 *' babe

148 Of the Bo^lrine of the Book TIL
** babe left the womb, leaving the gates un-
** hurt */* Laftly, John the Geometrician,
in his poem on the Virgin Mary, fays, that
fhe was delivered without pain +.

It was fo much taken for granted, that
Mary remained a proper virgin after the
birth of Jefus, that it was ufed as an argu-
ment againft Photinus, by Theodotus, bif-
hop of Ancyra, at the council of Ephefus.
A iiiere man, he faid, was never born in
that way J.

Of this Ambrofe interpretes what Eze-
kel fays, ch. xliv. 2. of a gate in the
temple, which he faw in vifion, concern-
ing which it is faid. It JJjall be Jhuty becaufe

* E|)i>J5£ yap to ^^e^©*, ««< aHspMu; th; Hoilojva^ rn; yarpoq
a7r£>\i7r£v. Horn, in Nativitatem Domini, p. 150.

•f- Tlap^evn rsiMv naixixluv fxi^ip avw ohvYig. Bib. Pat. vol. "8.
Ed. Paris, p. 437. .

X 'E.TTEi^Yi h }y (pcolEivoi; nj/txov M^poiTTov T^sysi Tov ysyEVf^ixtvov, fi-n
^Eym Ses 2ivoa roKOV, )y tov eh (xy]}foi^ 'sspQE'hZ-avloc.^ av^^uTrov VTToli^ilai
^irpr\f/'Evov ^EH' )\Ey£la) fxoi vw, 'srw^ (pvat^ av^^pTTivv) oiafxnl^ag 'syap^E"
Vtw$ Ti£o|Ot£v>ii T/1V 'zsap^Eviav rrg fx-^pcti E<pv>M^£v a(p^a.^O)f 5 aotvoi
yap a;SfW7rs fx-ri'^^ 'ssap^sv^ (AffAsvYiKsv, Binnli Concilia,
vol. I, pt. 2. p. 390.

the

Chap. XX- Miraculous Conception. i^^

the Lord God of Ijrael has entered in by it *.
He alfo proves it from the prophecy con-
cerning Immanuel, in Ifaiah, ch. vii. faying
that, according to that prophecy, Mary was
to bring forthy as well as to conceive, while
fhe was a virgin -f*.

Irenaeus fays, that ^^ it was with a view
*' to the virgin's conception, that Daniel
" fpake of Chrift as a ftone cut out of
** the mountain without hands, or the
** hands of man ; not Jofeph, but Mary
*' only, being concerned in it J." The

* Et infra dicit propheta vidifle fe in monte alto nimis
acdificationem civitatis, cujus portae plurimae figniflcantur,
una tamen claufa defcribitur, de qua fie ait. Porta igitur
Maria, per quam Chriftus intravit in hunc mundum,
quando virginali fufus eft partu, et genitalia virginitatis
clauflra non folvit. De Inftitutione Virginia, c. 7. Opera,
vol. 4. p. 423.

t Ecce virgo in utero accipiet, et pariet filium. Non
enim concepturam tantummodo virginem, fed et paritu-
ram, virginem dixit. Epift. lib. i. 7. Opera, vol. 4.
p. 186.

X Propter hoc autem et Daniel praevidens ejus advcn-
tum, lapidem fine manibus abfciffum advenifle in hunc
mundum. Non operante in eum Jofeph, fed fola Maria
co-operante difpofitioni. Lib. 3. cap. 28. p. 258.

^ L 3 fame

1 jo Of the Doctrine of the Book III.

fame obfervation is made by Cofmas IndU
copleulles ^.

With refped: to the New Teftament, the
only argument for the miraculous concep-
tion brought from it is, the hiftory of it
by Matthew and Luke ? except that PauFs
faying, that Chrift came made cf a wo?zan,
was interpreted by Cyril of Jerufalem, of
Chrift " not coming by man., but by womaa
'* only '\'J" This I have explained before/

av^po;. Lib. 2. de Mundo, Montfaucon's CoUedio, vol. 2.

P- 145-

-f- E^oiweTei^z yap 0 Seoj tov uiov avla^ ^vktlv 0 HayAof, s y£v6^

tK -BTfiKf^Evs. Cat. 12. Opera, p. 165.

S C E-

Chap. XX, Miraculous Conception. 151

SECTION VIII.

ObjeEiions to the Miraculous Conception by the
ancient Unbelievers, and the Anjwers of the
Chriftian Fathers to the???.

IT may v/ell be imagined, that fuch a hif-
tory as that of the miraculous concep-
tion would not efcape the ridicule of unbe-
lievers. It is a miracle of fuch a nature, as
was not likely to gain credit without very
circumftantial evidence, which is not pre-
tended to in the cafe ; and, therefore, it
was lefs in the power of chriftians to
make out a defence of it. The dodrine of
the refurre5lion was alfo expofed to ridi-
cule 'y but then the chriftian had to reply,
that the evidence of a thing of fo extraordi-
nary a nature was proportionably full and
clear. Our Saviour's own death and relur-
rcftion were fo circumftanced with refpedt
to the notoriety of the fadl in the one
L 4 cafe.

1 52 Of the Dodirine of the Book III,

cafe, and the number and choice of wit-
nefles in the other, that the hiftory may
defy all ridicule, and the importance of the
objedi made all the precautions proper.

On the other hand, the pretended cir-
cumftances of the birth of Chrift, though
no lefs extraordinary, and naturally as in-
credible as thofe of his refurredion, are to-
tally deftitute of all fimilar evidence ; not
one perfon who is faid to have been a wit-
nefs of the fadt, having borne his teftimony
to it. A miraculous birth is, indeed, a faft
of fuch a kind, as muft be peculiarly diffi-
cult to prove ; and on this account it was a
kind of miracle that was not likely to be
chofen by infinite wifdom.

We hear of no objedtion being made to
the miraculous conception in the book of
Acts, which, as I have obferved, is almoft a
proof that the pretenfion to it had not been
made in the age of the apoftles ; for we
find that, as foon as it was believed by any
chriftians, it was objefted to by unbelievers,
and that chriftlanity fuffered not a little on
this account, both from Jews and heathens,

Trypho^

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception, 153

Trypho, in Juftin Martyr's dialogue, was
much oiFended at this dodlrine, and thought
it would be extremely unacceptable to his
countrymen. Had the dialogue been writ-
ten by a Jew, and not by a chriftian, the
cenfure would probably have been exprefled
in ftill ftronger term3.

According to Origen, Celfus introduced
a Jew *^ difcourfing with Jefus, and re^
** proaching him on many accounts, but
** efpecially as pretending to be born of a
** virgin*," He makes the Jew fay that
*' the mother of Jefus was difmiffed by her
** hufband, the carpenter, on account of
*' adultery, and being with child by a fol-
" dier, called Panthera-f-;" an idle ftory,
which is told at full length in a Jewifli
traft, entitled Toldos Jefchu,

Accounts of the objeftions of the Jews
to the miraculous conception are without
end. ^« Tell the Jew,'' fays Ifidore Pelu-
fiota, ** who difputes about the divine in-

x) eXslxovIa aviov m^i 'mo>>,m (/.ev, cog oidou ' 'ss^alov 5e, oig 'sT^acra-
i^iva aula rm £« 's^a^^sya ysv£(nv. Con. Celfum. lib. i. p. 22,
t Ibid. lib. I. p. 25.

3 ^* carnation.

154 OftheDo5irineofthe Book III,

*' carnation, and fays it is impoffible in
^* human nature to bring forth without
*^ marriage, &c •^"." *' The Greeks and
'* Jews," fays Cyril of Jerufalem, *^ infift
** upon it, that it is impoffible that Chrift
'* fhould be born of a virgin f.'* *' Many/'
fays he, *' contradid, and fay, what fo great
** caufe was there that God fliould defcend
** and become man ; and if it be poffible for
** the nature of God to become man, how
^^ could a virgin have a child without a
^* man J.'' On account of the infidel Jews,"
fays Proclus, ** I will interrogate the vir-
*' gin. Tell me, O virgin, what made thee
*' a mother before marriage § ?"

ffTTi^ljicxJci rBkSLv. Epifr. lib. i. Opera, p... 43.

valov w rev xf.Tov £« 'TSa^^^va ysvw^wai. Gat. 12. p. 162.

evvavaf^£(pBiy ' hui £i hvdiov &ri ^siao^Evov temiv avsu av^^cg. Ibid,
p. 150.

§ 0tAa ^E ^la T85 uTTirsi hooci'dg, uai tov -j^iXfSsv'W i^alr\iToa . eitts
fMi 'js-afSevs, T{ a£ f/.sl£^a 'us^o Tiov y<x(Mm s7roinT2. Horn, in Na-
tivitatem Domini, p. 152.

1 This

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 155

This was a circumflance relating to
chriftianity that did not efcape the vigi*
lance of Julian. Speaking of the prophecy
of Jacob concerning Shiloh, he fays, " This
*' has nothing to do with Jefus, for he is
** not of Judah ; for, according to you, he
^* was not defcended from Jofeph, but was
*^ of the Holy Spirit ; and it is the genea-
" logy of Jofeph that you carry up to Ju-
** dah. And even this you do not make out
^* well ; for Matthew and Luke contradid:
*•* one another*.''

Let us now fee what the chriftian Fathers
have faid in order to leiTen the difficulty
attending the dodlrine of the miraculous
conception. Origen fays, " the Greeks
** v/ho will not believe that Jefus was born
** of a virgin, mufl: be told that the maker
** of all things, in the formation of feveral

* 07i ^e Tslwy n^tv rw Imii in^ocrm^', 'uj^q^y^^ov . «5g ya^ iriv £|
Ja^cc {'sscog yap o Ha^ VfjLag m e| lcoaY]p-) oi>.?\ £| ocyiH 'mnufjuxl'^ ye-
yovw^) rev lojcyj^ yei/EaXoyavJej e;^ jov la^xv ava^t^fis^ uai a^e riiio
shvYj^yfts ^y^a-ai na^^g. Exsyxovlai ya^ Motl^cciog koi Aintaq 'msot
7Yi(;y£VEa>.Gyiag aula ^cc^mavlsg i^^o; a^An;\«^. Cyril, contra Jul,
lib. 8. Juliani Opera, vol. 2. p. 253^

*^' animals.

^5^ Of the Dodlrine of the Book III.

^* animals, has fhewn that what he has done
•* with refpedt to fome, he might have done
** in others, and even in man. , For among
** the animals fome females have no com-
*' merce with males, which naturalifts fay
** is the cafe with vultures, which are pro-
*' pagated without it. How then is it ex-
** traordinary, if God, intending to fend a
** divine mefTenger to mankind, inftead of
" the ufual mode of generation, by the
" commerce of man wdth woman, fliould
** employ another method *.'* He pro-^
ceeds to mention Grecian fables, in which
fomething of a fimilar nature was fuppofed
to have taken place.

Ruffinus, to make it appear lefs incre-
dible, fays, " the Phoenix is reproduced

lYicm, oil 0 5Vj/>tispyO-, tv tvj twv nzoiKi'ko:v ^accv yevfcTEi, ehi^ev. oh rv
ec'jlcD $H>.y]^£v}i ^uvsclov rsoiYiaai^ ott^ £(p ivo; ^coh, hcci btt ay^Kav^ nai
VK avlm TCDV cxv^^o^TTm. "Ev^Kncdai h riva rcov ^quv ^Xecx^ fjiyi
£)(,ov\a a^PYivog xoivuviav^ a; oi -weft ^oicov avary^a-^a.vlzg T^^y^ai 'sse^i
yuTToov ' uai thIo to ^o3oy x^JPt^ /^iIeoj; (ra^ei tw ^(a5b%iiv tcov yEvo^v.
T» 8V 'STiXfaJblov, £1 ^ii>.r^£ig o ^£og ^siov nva ^i^aa-Ha>.ov 'STE/ui^^si ro)
ytVEi rcov orj^^coTTcov. 'usettoiw-ev^ a'P>i (T'^f^/juiIikh "hoya^ m Eft fii^Eu;
rov apf£vwv raig ywai^i ['O^oimai] «W^ t^ott'^ yEVEa^cu rov >,oyov

^^ wdthoijit

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 157

** without a male, and without the con-
** jundion of the fexes *.'' " If fome ani-
** mals/' fays Ladtantius, '* as is well
'* known to all, conceive by the wind, why
** fhould any perfon think it wonderful
** that the virgin fhould be with child by
** the breath of God, to whom it is eafy to
" do whatever he pleafes f ?" ** That the
'* miraculous conception fhould not appear
" altogether incredible," fays Bafil (almofl
copying Origen) " even to thofe who do
** not readily apprehend what relates to the
** divine oeconomy, God has made fome
** animals produce their young by the help

* Et tamen quid mirum videtur, fi virgo conceperit, cum
orientis avem queni Phsenicem vocant, in tantum fine con-
juge nafci vel renafci conftet, ut feniper una fit, et femper
fibi ipfi nafcendo vel renafcendo fuccedat ? Apes certe nef-
cire conjugia, nee foetus nixibus edere, omnibus palum
eft, fed et alia nonnulla deprehenduntur fub hujufcemodi
forte nafcendi. In Symb. Opera, p. 176.

t Quod fi animalia quaedam vento, aut aura concipera
folere, onrinibus notum eft ; cur quifquam mirum putet,
cum fpiritu dei, cui facile eft quicquid velit ; gravata/n efle
virginem dicimus I In (lit. lib. 4. k^. 12. Opera, p. 383.

*^of

158 Of the BoEirlne of the Book III.

" of the female only, without the ufe of the
•^ male, which naturalifts fay is the cafe
" with the vulture */'

'• What is the reafon/' fays Chryfoftom,
*' why, when you fee a virgin bring forth
** our common Lord, you do not believe it.
*• Exercife your underftanding with refpeS
*' to women who were barren; that when
*' you fee the womb that was faft clofed,
** opened by the grace of God, you may
** not wonder when you hear that a virgin
*^ has brought forth. Wonder, indeed,
•* and be aftoniihed, but do not difbelieve
** the miracle. When a Jew then fays to
** you, How can a virgin bring forth^ aik
*' him how can a woman that is barren and
** old have a child. Here are two impedi-
*^ ments, age and infirmity, but with refpeA
** to the virgin there is only one impedi-
** ment, viz. that fhe is not married. Let

Toig oi/<T7ra^a^£}i!oos ^s^i tvjv ^siav oikqvcjjliccv ^laKSifxsvoig . ehIio-e riva
7C6V ^uav 0 ^YifJi^ia^yog d'uva/xsvoi utto fxova ts S-jiAecj, %wf ij rrig rav a^-
ftvuv i'TTi'TrTsomq^ aTTolifcJnv . loiavla. ya.^ iTop^ai 'sje^i yvTrav^ 01 roc
t^ifi ^aciv 7r§a,7i/^lsu<roc{AVM. In If. j. Opera, vol. 2. p. 186.

^' the

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 1 5 9
" the barren then prepare the way for the
** virgin-'^.'*

Auftin fays, '' If the miraculous con-
^' ception be thought incredible becaufe it
*« happened but once, other things like-
*^ wife have happened but once," and thus
he thought the objeftion anfwered-f.

But thebeft anfwer of all, is that which
is given by Cyril of Jerufalem. " The
** Jews contradict, and will not be per-

* T/$ HV sriv Y\ a\lia ; iva olav i^n; rnv 'Sja^^EVOv TLKinaav tqv Koiyov

k'V TY] (inl^Ci TOJV r£if WV, IV olaCV l^Y}^ 'TSSTTn^CO/JLEVilV nai ^S^EIMEVW fJff^faV,

^^o<; 'mai^oTiouav avoiyofAzvrw etc mg th v£S %i3J^i7o?, f^Ti Bar^acryig
etKum oil TS-afSsvoj eIeke . (xaXhov h ^au/Aao-ov km EH7rXayy,Bi, oCKhoi.
(iy\ tzTTiTYicTYig rco ^avixali . olav 8v T^syv) 'UJ^og as o Isaaicg^ 'siag eIekev n
f^sa^^EVog , EiTTB 'm^og avlov-, 'mcog sIekev't] TEi^dKOii yEywcufcvia ; ouo
ya^ Kco^^v/Aolcc rols w-, to, te aw^ov t»j r^Awraj, ncti to ax^nrov rrtg
^ua-Eug ' STTi ^E rrig 'ma^^Eva ev Ha'Kv^cx, nv, to ,a>i [xdccaxEiv auirit
yai^H . 'ss^oo^QTToisi loiwv TYi ^(xo^Evo) 7] TEi^dc. In Gen. Horn.
49. Opera, vol. 2. p. 684.

f Quod fi propterea non creditur quia femel fa<5lum efl-,
quxre ab amico quem hoc adhuc movet, utrum nihil invi-
niatur in literis fecularibus quod et femel h&^m eft et
tamen creditum, non fabulofa vanitate, fed ficut exiftimans
hiftorica fide. Quaere obfecro te. Si enim tale aliquid
in illis literis inveniri negaverit, admonendus eft, fi auteni
faffus fuerit, foluta quseftio ^ft. Epift. 7. Opera, vol. %,

'* fuaded

i6o Of the DoBrhie of the Book III,

" fuaded by what we fay concerning the
** rod'* [If. vii. 3.] '' unlefs examples be
** brought to them of births equally ftrange,
** and contrary to nature, I, therefore,
** queftion them in this manner. Of whom
<« was Eve generated from the beginning ?
<* What mother conceived her, who had no
** mother -, for the fcripture fays, that fhe
** was produced from the fide of Adam ?
«^ Was Eve, therefore, produced from the
** fide of a male without a mother, and
<* cannot a child be generated from a vir-
<« gin's womb without a man * ?" To
the fame purpofe Petrus Chryfologus fays,
** How can it be wonderful that he fhould
** inhabit a virgin's womb, who himfelf
** made woman from the fide of a man.
** He took a man from the womb of a
^* woman who formed a virgin from the

''/Qi^y £av (XY) oixoioii; ^cc^a^o^oi; t^ 'zsa^oc ^vaiv 'snia'hcoviv roxsloig^
s^sla^u Toivvv aulag ^uq * rj 'Eva el af%>i5 £» Tiv©" fyswiSjj ; wows

yiyovs th A^ocix ; aja sv n w£v Eva eh 'sr?.eu^oi(; a^(Ttv(^, %cofif

ymdiM i Cat, 12* Opera, p. 163.

'' body

Chap. XX. Miraculous Conception. 161

*^ body of a man ; fo that what appears
** new to you is old with God*.*' It is
alfo very prudently and pertinently obferved
by Maximus Taurinenfis, *' Whofoever is
** difpofed to examine the works of God,
*' rather than believe them, is influenced by
** the flefh, and not by the fpirit. Where-
** fore, my brethren, let us not difcufs in
*' what manner God is born of God, but
*' let us believe it. Nor let us retraft the
** miraculous conception, but admire; that
" acknowledging the only begotten Son of
** God to be both God and man, we may
*^ hold the true heavenly faith unblame-
** ablef/' To the fame purpofe liidore

* Quid mirum modo, 11 virginis habitavlt utero, qui
mulierem hominis fumpfit ex latere ? Ipfe hominem mu-
lieris refumfit ex utero, qui virginem viri formavit ex cor-
pore ; ac perinde, homo, quse tibi videntur nova, deo
habentur antiqua. Ser. 145. p. 372.

f Omnis ergo qui opera dei magis vult examinare quam
credere, non fequitur animae fenfum, fed carnis errorem.
Et ideo, fratres ! non difcutiamus, qualiter deus de deo
natus eft, fed credamus : nee retractemus partum virginis,
fed miremur ; ut unigenitum dei deum et hominem confi-
tentes, inoffenfam teneamus cceleftis iidei veritatem. Ope-
ra, p. 195.

Vol. IV. M alfo

362 OftheDocirineofthe Book III.

alfo fays, *' Behold therefore a man from
** the earth, and a woman from a man, and
*' both without the conjunction of fexes*."

The conception of Chrift by a virgin,
is, no doubt, within the power of God,
who made man originally ; but as miracles
are never wrought without a reafon, and
where a great and good end is to be an-
fwered by them, we ought not lightly to
give credit to accounts of miracles for
which we cannot imagine any good rea-
fon, and the very report of which is cal-
culated to expofe chrifiianity to ridicule,
without any neceffity, or conceivable ad-
vantage. Whether the hiftory of the mi-
raculous conception of Chrifl be fo circum-
flanced, as that the evidence in favour of it
is able to overbear the force of this objec-
tion, and the many others that have beeu
ftated in this chapter, let the reader now
judge.

All thefe, it is to be obferved, are the
objections of Jews or heathens, and the

ffuvQU7icc5 x^§^i' Epift. 141. p. 43.

anfwers

CaAP. XX. Miraculous Conception. 163

anfwers apply only to the light in which
it was coniidered by them. \¥hat any
chriftians, who equally diibelieved the mi-
raculous conception, faid to it, we are no
where told, though we find that they pub-
liflied their objections. That the learned
Symmachus in particular wrote againft this
dodtrine, we are informed, but we find not
a fingle quotation from the book, or that
it was ever anfwered ; and yet it is not faid
that it was undeferving of an anfwer.

The filence of the chriftian Fathers on
this fubjed: will be differently interpreted,
as perfons are diflJerently difpofed with re-
fped: to the do6lrine itfelf. All the cir-
cumllances confidered, it appears to me that
io truly refpedlable a perfon as Symmachus
writing againft the miraculous conception,
in fo early a period (as early, probably, as
the belief of it came to be general) and that
no perfon anfwered his book, are both of
them remarkable fadls, and both unfavour-
able to the truth of that part of the hiftory.
Two of our gofpels, indeed, contain the
account, bat it was not in the gofpel that
M 2 was

1 64 Of the DoBrine, &c. Book III.

was received by Symmachus,and the reft of
the Ebionites ^ and this they, who were
certainly the beft judges in the cafe, main-
tained to be the authentic gofpel of Mat-
thew.

Had the work of Symmachus been extant,
or had the reafons of Paulus Samofatenlis
and his followers (whofe opinion was proba-
bly that of the ancient Gentile unitarians in
general) for believing that Jefus was born
at Nazareth, and not at Bethlehem, been
tranfmitted to us, together with the re-
marks of their adverfaries, we fhould, no
doubt, have been in poffeffion of materials
on which we might have founded a more
decifive opinion than we can pretend to do
at prefent. Wanting thefe important ma-
terials for forming a decifive judgment, let us
not be wanting in candour in a cafe in which
all we can fay is, that one probable opinion
is oppofed to another lefs probable.

THE

THE

HISTORY OF OPINIONS

CON CERNINO

CHRIS T.

BOOK IV.

Of some controversies which had a

NEAR RELATION TO THE TRINITA-
RIAN OR UNITARIAN DOCTRINE.

CHAPTER I.

Of the Arlan Controverjy.

WE have no account of any thing,
in the whole compafs of ecclefiaf-
tical hiftory, that ever occaiioned
a greater revolution in the theological ftate
of the world, than the doctrine of Arius ;
and the revolution was equally fudden, and
lafting. Within much lefs than the life of
M 3 man

1 66 Of the Arlan Cqnfroverfy. Book IV,

man, this dodrine, from being v/holly
unknown, overfpread perhaps, one half of
the chriftian world, and more than once bid
fair for having the feal of orthodoxy ftamped
upon it. In two pretty long reigns, it was
the religion of the Roman court, and it had
the fand:ion of feveral numerous councils ^
and this not long after its condemnation
by the famous council of Nice, in the
reign of the emperor Conflantine. Socrates
fays that, upon the publication of the doc-
trine of Arius, it immec^iately fpread from
Alexandria through all Egypt, Lybia, The-
bais, and the other provinces and cities ;
and that many perfons of charadler took the
part of Arius, efpeciaily Eufebius of Nico-
media*. An event of fuch magnitude re-
quires to be carefully inveftigated.

Before the time of Arius only three fyf-
tems of chriftianitv, or rather three opi-

Tauld, ro) JiaivcTTpsTTEi Xoy^o cru}J:Gyia-afA£vog^ avdppiTTi^ji T8g
'Ero^?vSj 'Bpo^ TO ^Y^inixa, . HJii avcxmidai airo crixiK^a o-mvQyioc; [xsya

?^£%£ Tr]V crviATraa-av Aiyuvflov rs Kai ^iQunv, acu n:v\v ava Qr,<^ccL^a '
nor] 0£ KM ra^ XoiTrag ETTsvef^slo ETra^x^xg rs uai 'ajOASig • (rvve^afXaoc-
VQvlo Ty\ A^sia "^o^n rsioT^oi [jizvjtoa aX^c-i, [.t.a.^TCx. h Evcrs^iog au%;
et-^ifX/lo. Hift. lib. i. cap. 6. p. lo.

I nions

Chap. I. OftheArianControverfy. 167

nions concerning the perfon of Chrift, had
been the fubjed; of difcuffion. The firft
was that of the unitarians^ who believed
Chrift to be a mere man, and to have had
no exiftence prior to his birth, in the reign
of Auguftus. The fecond was that of the
Gnofiics, who thought that to this man, or
fomething that had the appearance of a
man, was fuper-added a pre-exiftent fuper-
angelic-fpirit, called the Chrifi, The third
was the dodrine of the perfonjjication of the
logos y according to which Jefus Chrift, who
had a body and ?. foul like other men, had
alfo a fuperior principle intimately united
to him. But this principle was nothing
that had ever been created ; for it was no-
thing lefs than the logos, or the wifdom and
power of God the Father, and which, in a
ftate of perfonification, had been the imme-
diate caufe of the formation of the uni-
vcrfe, and of all the appearances of God in
the Old Teftament.

Now we find all at once a doftrlne to-
tally different from any of the preceding
fchemes, viz. that the intelligent prin-
M 4 ciple

1 68 Of the Arian Controverfy. Book IV.

ciple which animated the body of Chrift
(for it was not thought that he had any-
other foul) was a great pre-exiftent fpirit,
and created, like other beings, cut of 710-
thing ; that this pre-exiftent fpirit, to which
was ftill given the name of logos, had been
employed by God in making the univerfe,
and in all the appearances under the Old
Teftament, and then became the proper
foul of Jefus Chrift. Such is the outline
of that doctrine which, from Arius, a pref-
byter of the church of Alexandria, obtained
the name of Ariani/m, and which, with
fome variation, has continued to be held
by great numbers of very intelligent chrif-
tians to this day.

Of the three fchemes which were prior
Arianifm, it has the greateft refemblaacc
to that of the Gnoftics, but differs from it
chiefly in two refpeds. Firft, the Gnoftics
fuppofed the pre-exiftent fpirit which was
in Jefus, to have been an emanation from
the Supreme Being, according to the prin-
ciples of the philofophy of that age, which
made creation out of nothing to be an im-

poffibility ;

Chap. I. Of the Arian Controverjy. \ 6g

poffibility; whereas the Arians fuppofed
this pre-exiilent fpirit to have been pro-
perly created. But this difference is ra-
ther philofophical than theological j be-
caufe they both agreed in fuppofing that
this pre-exiftent fpirit had the fame ori-
gin with that of angels, and other beings
of a fpiritual nature, fuperior to man.

Secondly, the Gnoftics fuppofed that this
pre-cxiftent fpirit was not the maker of the
world, but was fent to reftify the evils
which had been introduced by the being
who made it ^ whereas the Arians fup-
pofed that their logos was the being that
had been employed by God in the making
of the univerfe, as well as in all his com-
munications with mankind.

But even this difference, refpecling the
nature and office of Chrift, was not of fuch
a nature as to make any material difference
in the rejpeci that they entertained for
Chrift; both the Gnoflics and the Arians
agreeing in this, that Chrifl was a great
pre-exiflent fpirit, and that we owe him
the greatefl obligations for his condefcen-

fion

170 Cfihe Arian Controverfy. Book IV.

fion in coming into this world, and under-
taking to redlify the abufes that he found
in it. In facl, therefore, the influence of
the two fyftems on the mind muft have
been nearly the fame. The Gnoftics and
the Arians muft alfo have agreed in fome
ineafure with refpecl to the idea of the na-
ture of matter^ and its tendency to con-
taminate the mind, and to impede its
operations. But in this all the fyftems
which fuppofe that there is an immaterial
principle in man, the caufe of all fenfa-
tion and thought, muft be nearly alike.
Athanafius cenfures the Arians as borrow-
ing from the Gnoftics** He even fhews
at large, that they are worfe than the

Gnoftics t-

I do not fay that Arius himfelf was the
very firft who advanced the dodrine which
bears his name , but I find no trace of its
exiftence prior to what may be called the
age of Arius. Jerom allows that fome of
the Antenicene Fathers had given counte-

* Contra ArianoSj Or. 2. vol. I. p. 363, Or. 3. p. 392.
-}• Ibid. p. 414.

ngncc

Ch a p . I . Of the An an Controverfy, \ j i

nance to the i\rian dodrlne*; but this was
not by advancing his proper doctrine, as I
have {hewn, but by incautious expreffions,
of which the Arians afterwards took ad-
vantage. The firft perfon who is men-
tioned as holding the proper Arian doc-
trine is Lucian of Antioch, who fuffered
martyrdom in A. D. ji2. For Epipha-
nius fays, that '* Lucian, and all the Lu-
*' cianifts, denied that the Son of God took a
^* foul, but had flefh only-f-/* According to
Philoftorgius, Eufebius of Nicomedia, and
other chiefs of the i^rians, were the di,f-
ciples of Lucian, as Maris of Chalcedon,
Theognis of Nice, Leontius of Antioch,
Ailerius the fophift, and others J.

* Vel certe antequam in Alexandria quafi dsmonium
meridianum Arius nafceretur, innocenrer quasdam et mi-
nus caute loquuti funt, et quae non poffunt perverforuin
hominum caluniniam declinare. Adv. Rufli.lib. 2. cap. 4,
Opera, p. 513.

7E70VWJ, cv on^£V 01 A^Eiiy.vGi £v (xaf.vaiv £7ri-^Yi<pi^Qvlai . w yocp km
aiPiO(; 0 Amiancg 'mpc(T(pcx).Gs ^>iiWJ 7rpocrav?.xfijV tyi TuvAmctvo^v aipsasi,
Hasr. 43. fec^. i. vol. i. p. 370.

X Oil 7v7a ra fiafv^^ nso'Ki.^q fxsv y^ ai a>,'X8i; f^a^rhg ava-

Tov NiHocioii Secyviv cvvIoIIbi. ike. Hid. lib, 2. cap. 1 4. p. 484.

But

1 72 Of the Arian Controverfy. Book IV.

But on the other hand, Alexander, bifhop
of Alexandria, affirms that Lucian adhered
to Paulus Samofatenfis, and feparated from
the church. Lardner fays, one might be
apt to fufped from Alexander's words, that
Lucian had fucceeded Paul in the epifcopal
xrare and overfight of thofe who were of his
fentiments at Antioch*. It is therefore
doubtful, whether any perfon before Arius
himfelf held his doftrine, though it is moft
probable, that many others about this time,
did fo ; their minds, as well as his, having
been prepared for it in the manner that I
fhall prefently defcribe.

Though the appearance of the Arian
dodlrine w^as fudden, and the alarm which
it gave to the chriftian world was propor-
tionably great (which is a proof that it was
hnagined to be quite a new thing, and of a
very extraordinary and dangerous nature)
there were feveral pre-exiflent caufes, which
had gradually prepared the way for it ; and
thefe I ihali endeavour to explain,

* Credibility, vol. 4. p. 641,

1 SEC-

Chap, I. Of the Arian Controverjy. 173

SECTION L

Of the antecedent Caufes of the Arian Doc-

trme.

T

'HE controverfy with the unitarians had
led thofe who were called orthodox (by
which I mean thofe who held the dodrine
of the perfonification of the logos) to fpeak
of Chrift as greatly inferior to the Father,
of which examples ent)W have been pro-
duced. So willing had they been to make
conceffions to the great body of zealous uni-
tarians (or fuch were the remains of their
own unitarian principles) that had they
confidered Chrift as, in all refpeds, a mere
creature^ theycould not have fpoken of him
otherwife than they did. They were evi-
dently afraid of incurring fo much odium
as they were fenfible they muft have done,
by fetting up their fecond God as a rival to
the firft and fupreme God. Their prin-
ciple of Chrift having been the logos of the

Father

3 74 Of the Arian Controverfy. Book IV.

Father certainly led them to confider him
as being oi the fame nature with the Father,
and in all refpeds equal to him ; and it did
produce this efFedl afterwards, when the
obllacle to its operation, in the general
opinion of the chrillian world, was re-
moved* But during the great prevalence
of the dodrines of the unity of God, and
the inferiority of Chrift to the Father, it
had been the cuftom of the orthodox to
fpeak oi th^iv feco?zd God as the vnQVQfervant
of the firfl.

Farther, in oppofrtion to the Patripaf-
fians, or the philofophical unitarians, who
faid that the Father and the Son (meaning
the divinity of the Father and Son) were
the fame, the orthodox had been led to
fpeak of them as being entirely differenty fo
as fometimes to fay that they were of dif-
ferent natures ; though the language muft
have been improperly ufed by thofe who
confidered Chrift as being derived from the
very ftibjlance of the Father, and having
been his proper ^-mfdom and power.

In

Chap. I. Of the Arian Controverfy^ 17^

In coniiflency, however, Vv^ith this lan-
guage, fuggefted by controverfy, it had been
the cufloni of the orthodox to fpeak of the
generation of the Son from the Father, as if it
had been a proper creation^ and as if the Son
had flood in the very fame relation to the
Father, with that in which other creatures
flood to him ^ which correfponded very well
with the ideas of the Platonifcs, in whofe
fcale oi principles^ or caufesy the nous or logos ^
held the fecond place ; the iirft principle
being ftiled a caufe with refpedl to the
fecond, as the fecond Vv^as with refped: to
the vilible world.

Another circumftance which contributed
to the rife of Arianifm was the gradual
influence of the dofcrine of revelation, con-
cerning creation out of nothings which had
been unknown to all the philofopbers, who
had thought that the material world had
been created out of pre-exiftent matter, and
that fouls were either emanations from the
fupreme mind, or parts detached from the
foul of the univerfe. But the apoftle hav~
ing faid, Heb. xi. 3. that the world was

made

176 Of the Arian Controverjy. Book IV.

made ex rm ^>j (pamfx^vm, Jrom things that do not
appear (fuppofed to be equivalent iomrm^K
oj?wv, things that are not^ or out of nothing)
the term creation^ on whatever account it
had been ufed, v/ould at length fuggeft the
idea of a creation out of nothing. This
Athanafius fuppofed to be the meaning of
Paul in this epiftle ^ for he makes the
phrafes from nothings ^LnAfrom that which did
not appear^ to be fynonymous *• In this
manner would the minds of many be pre-
pared to pafs from the idea of the perfoni-
fication of the logos, or the generation of
the Son from the Father, to that of a pro^
per creation.

Things being in this ftate, the warmth
of controverfy was fufficient to lead perfons
whofe real opinions were the very fame, to
differ, iirfl in words only, and afterwards
in reality. And a real difference being
once formed, it would eafily extend itfelf,

* K«( rsjoimot^ tK T8 (A-A oviog £ig TO sivai * OTTSp t^ 0 ITayX©"

tofAYi £H<puivoix£vcovrcc^X£7roiJLSvc6yEyov^ciif De Incarnatione,
Opera, vol, i. p, 55.

by

/

Chap. I. OftbeArianControverJy, 177

by analogies and confequences, on both
fides. I fhall now enter upon the proof
of thefe particulars, and then fliew their
ad:ual operation in the rife and progrefs of
the Arian controverfy.

That it had been the cuftom of all the
Fathers before the council of Nice to fpeak
of Chrift, though they confidered- him as
the logosy or the wifdom of the fupreme
God, as neverthelefs greatly inferior to him,
has been abundantly proved. I jfhall, there-
fore, proceed to give inflances in v^hich
thofe of the Fathers, who undoubtedly
confidered Chrifl: as having been the logos
or wifdom of the Father, and therefore
properly uncreated^ yet defcribed his gejie^
ration in language equivalent to that of' a
proper creation.

The very term yEiW®-, by which the Fa-
thers generally expreflTed the logos becom-
ing a Son, was the fame that the Platonifts
had always ufed to difl:inguifh a creature
from the creator, or the thing caufed^ and
the caufe ; fo that the terms ^6(^ and yevvn?©-
had always been oppofed to each other.

Vol, IV. N Thus

178 Of the Arian Confroverfy. Book IV..

Thus Philo fays, " There Is no created
" God ; for he would want the neceffary
"attribute of eternity*.'* And a writer
who perfonates Origen makes v^^mla and hItx
generated and created^ to be fynonymous -f*.

In later times, there was a diftindion
made between yzni©- and 7£m{/(^, as if the
former fignified created^ and the latter gene-
rated-, but the diftindtion was not very an-
cient. Tatian makes no difference between
•yev»]l©- as applied to the produftion of the
San from the Father, and the creation of
other things by the Son ; but fays that,
*' the logos being generated in the begin-
*' ning, again generated our world, faihion-
** ing the matter of it for himfelf. Mat-
" ter,'* he fays, " is not ava/?x©-, without
** origin y like God, but 7£vr/i'J>i, generated ,
** being produced by the Maker of all
" things J.'* Alfo the fame word tAv, to

* V^v!\Iq(; yac^ s^£{^ aM^Bia Seoj, a?^Aa ^o|>i (Ocovcv, to avayKaiolaloi^
a(pYi^\Kivo^ ai5io7>i?a. De Charitate, Opera, p. 699.

-f- Eyw 8^ £1/ £?£^ov ayevij/ov ^^syw, ri aoroy tov $£ov . to. ^2 "Komcx,
mavla-i ocra erhysvy^lcz hcxi }i}ifot. Contra Marcioiiitas, p. 72.

X Ouls yoc^ avaoxog y] uXv}^ kcc^xttbo 0 Ssoj, hqs ^icx to cxvol^xov x^
«vl>i \(j(^mct^^ T« §£w • 7£vv>i7)i ok ««< a;< iv^ro ra a,>:Ni yeyovma, /^cya

CiiAP. r. Of the Arian Contrcverfy, 17^

bring forth, is ufed by Synefius of the gene-
ration of the Son, and the creation of other
things by the Son*.

The term correfponding to caufe was
likewife ufed promifcuoufly with refped:
to the generation of the Son, and the pro-
dudion of the creatures. Thus Gregory
Nyflen makes the terms unbegotten and with^
out caife to be fynonymous *f*. Indeed, it
was always allowed that the Son, though
genernted, had a proper caife ; and, ac-
cordingly, the word «^%>ii origin^ by which
the logos was diftinguifhed from the crea-
tures, was, without fcruple, applied to the
Father with refped: to Chrift ; and the
term av<2fp%©-, uncaujedy was always confidered
as the incommunicable attribute of the Fa-
ther, he being the iq\q fountain of deity -, and
whenever the fame term is applied to the

Se wttq t8 tnoLvlm dyjfjLi^^ya '5rfo€'£C?k>j//i£v>i. Ad Grascos, fedt. 8.

P- 23-

* 2o:T£%$£v7i 'SToiiv^ mva-B ritilsiv. Hymn. 6. Opera, p. 343.

•j- Am' ek fX£v TYi; T8 ayEimdii nz^ocrryyo^iotgi to oveu ouliaq eivm rov
^co; ovofj(Ma(xmv £(jt.cc^ofj(.Ev, Contra Eunomium, Or. 12. Ope-
ra, vol. 2. p. 302.

N z Son,

i8o Of the Arian Controverfy. Book IV.

Son, or the Spirit, it was only meant to
fignify that they had no beginning, not that
they had no caufe.

Thus, a writer, whofe work has been
afcribed to Athanalius, fays, '^ the Son is
** not a caufe ^ but caifed -, fo that the Fa*
** ther is the only caufe, and there are two
** that are caufedy the Son and the Spirit.
** But they are all avaf%o<, becaufc they are all
*' without beginning*/' Nicephorus, in
*^ his epiflle to Leo, fays, '' Chrifl is not
*' without origin with refpe6t to the Fa-
'* ther, who is his origin, as being his
■^ caufe; but with refped: to his genera-
'' tion, he is without origin, being before
** all ages f/* Conftantine alfo, in his
oration, fays, ** the Father is the caufe,
'^ the Son caufedX'' This language, being

moiiy)^ ' la h ailiala 5i;o, o viog, uai to meui^x. Opera, vol. 2.

P 443-

t Tcov £v rpici^i. ^eccDiifAtvuv, to /msv, zj^r,^ avacx^, ««' avaiii^
vna^Xm . a ya^ m Tiv@", £v iixvloi yap to uvai fxcoy, to ot vtog km
UK avapx©- en Ta 'Z3-a:7p(^ ycc^-, a^x^ "^^P ^'^ 'sro/np, cog afliov . ei de
TYiv uTTo x^ovs >^ociji€ccvoig a^x^v^ Koci ava^x^- Z;;naras, p. 769*

% KaS«Wff ailia fj,Ev vis 0 's^uk^' cxiixum ^0 viog. Cap. il,
p. 688.

once

C H A P . I . Of the Arian Controverfy i g x

once eftabliflied continued to the latejfl
period. Thus M. Caleca called the Son

aOiccKB-, 7£m'l(^^ and 7EVVA/xa ^.

Another circumftance which made way
for the introdudionof Arianifm, and which
greatly contributed to embarrafs the ortho-
dox in the controverfy was, that in order
to oppofe the Sabellians, they had repre-
fented the Father and the Son as differing
ejfentially from each other. Becaufe they
thought that the Sabellians had confounded
the three perfons, they, as was natural, made
a point of feparating them ; and they did
it to a greater degree than their principles
really admitted. For they maintained that
their very ^<Jiay ejfenc-e^ or nature^ was dif-
ferent j whereas they fhould have contented
themfelves with faying that they differed in
rank^ or dignity. But, whereas the Sabelli-
ans maintained that the three perfons were of
the fame Ko-za, ejjence^ and were therefore 0^10)^(1^01^
confubjtantial to each other, this was pofi-
tively denied by the orthodox ; and what

* O ^£ viogT^eyEloii atliulo^^ 7£W)j?of, yewYifix, Combefis Auc-
tuarium, vol. 2. p. 222.

N 3 was

iSz Of the Axian Controverfy. Book IV.

was particularly unfortunate for them,
they had pafled a cenfure on this very
term in the condemnation of Paulus
Samofatenfis. Thus Athanalius fays, that
** they who condemned Paulus Samofaten-
*' fis, faid that the Son was not confub-
*' ftantial with the Father *." Bafil fays
the fame, adding^ that the reafon why they
rejecSted it was, its implying that God was
a fubftance that was diviiible -f*.

The effecft of this circumftance remained
a long time with the orthodox ; many of
whom were with great difficulty reconciled
to this term, efpecially as it was not a
fcriptural one, which is acknowledged by
Athanafius J. Ambrofe^ fpeaks of fome

* A(a ra, EiHolai; suT^aQn^svlBg to tqi iilov crc(picr(/,a ts ^af/LCdoIeag^
si^mixai /*>] emi tov x§^^°^ ofioajiov. De Syn. Arm. Opera,
vol. I. p. 919.

^ov Tviv ^£|iv co; UK Euo-yjfJLOv . £(pacrav ya^ ekeivoi rm ts Ofxcacmi ipuvYiv
'sra^iTcnv Ewoicxv acriag T£ Har 7CCV ocTT aulri^, ag te K<xla/x£picrBEi(Tccv
nYiV aaiav 'uch^exeiv ts ofAoajia tyjv 'sspoay^yopicxv TOig ei^ a ^m^E^ri,
Vol. 3. p. 292.

X Oy XsyovJfj rov yj^^^^ CfAoauiov Eivai rco Se^. Ei ya^ ^ to
ovofAcx thIq (pn{A,i fA,v\ £up7]K£vM^ /xr^^E avEyvmiEVui TTB Tuv ixyiav yfa<pav^
'TiXNxyE^ &c. De Sententia, Opera, vol, i. p. 561.

Chap. I. OftheArianConfroverfy, 183

who, without being Arians, yet fcrupled to
fay that the Son was of the fame fubftance
with the Father, becaufe it was not a fcrip-
tural expreffion. But, he fays, *^ they
** ought to be deemed heretics if they did
'* not expfefsly acknowledge it, and that for
*' the fame reafon they might objedl to the
** phrafes God of God y and Light of Light^S'
Sozomen fays, that " the Fathers of the
*' council of Antioch acknowledged that
*' the word confubjiantial (o^o«^t®-) which ap-
•* peared new and ft range to many, was
*' cautioully interpreted by the Fathers,
'* and not according to its ufe among the
" Gentiles, but only in oppofition to the
'* fentiment of the Arians, that the Son was
** made out of nothing -f^

* Vel fi Arlanus non es, et verum filium de vero patre
natum non factum agnofcis, cur non eum cum patre unam
fubftantiam dicis ? Fruftra times homo profited quod cre-
dis, et fruftra credis fi ita non credis, et merlto hasreticus
denotaris. De Filii Divinitate, lib. I. cap. 3. Opera,
vol. 4. p. 278, 279.

\ OttcIe Js to ^ohhv £V au% Tiai |evov ovO(j,a ro m OfjLOHa-ia (pa/xsv^
ao-(pa>.iig riluxyM 'unx^a roig 'Sioi^ajiv E^fJimsiag^ (7Yi/ji,aivscrYig oli i)c rrj^
^jiocg TH -570?^©" 0 vio§ Bymn^Y}^ ^ oli' oiMicii Hot aaicav ra isoil^i. . s7£

N4

184 OftheJrian Controverfy. Booic IV.

Dionyfius, bifliop of Alexandria, in whofe
neighbourhood there were many Sabellians,
and who oppofed them with great vigour,
as he alfo did Paulus Samofatenfis, made no
fcruple, as Bafil fays, to affert, in this con-
troverfy, that ** the Son was of a difFe-
*^ rent effence, as well as hypoftafis, from
** the Father, that he was inferior in
** poy^er, and lefs in glory *." Ruffinus
fays, that ** Dionyfius of Alexandria, in his
*' books againfl: Sabellius, advanced things
^' of which the Arians took advantage -f-/'

Se wj waSs; TLVOi; 'nja^a rw d^pnlov yemjcriv s9rivo«/A£va, alg HctiiX rivot
Xpwiv 2h>.mmv T^oe.iJLQavdai to Gvofxa ty\; aaia^-, ti<; oaia}fo%r]y ^e th eI
UK Gvlav 'SEpt Ts Via aazQu^ T0^/^>J^£v7©- Afsw. Hift.^ lib. 4.
fe£t. 4. p. 224.

* Ka< «% (lE^ol-^a fjLOvov rm v^ronxcrEm ri^Eiaii a>:ha iy serial
^ia(po^av^ xj ^vvcxfiEu; v(pE(riVt ^ ^o|?ij 'mccfoiT^ocynv. Epift. 41 ,
Opera, vol. 3. p, 60.

t Dionyfius Alexandrinus epifcopus, eruditiilimus afler-
tor ecclefiafticae fidei, cum inquamplurimis int^ntum uni-
tatem atque equalitatem trinitatis defendat, ut imperitiori-.
bus quibufque etiam fecundum Sabellium fenfifle videatur,
in his tamen libris fuis quos adverfus Sabellii haerefim fcri-
bit, talia inveniuntur inferta, ut frequenter Ariani au6lori-
tate ipfius fe defendere conentur. Apologia pro Origine,
Hieronymi, Opera, vol. 8. p. 1^0.

Though

Chap. I. Of the Arian Controverfy. 1S5

Though this was nothing more than
had been faid by others, and efpecially in
the fame controverfy -, yet, when, after-
wards, things had taken a different turn,
and advantage was taken of this language,
this Dionyfius came to be confidered as the
fountain of Arianifm^ as he is called by Auf-
tin *. Athanafius, however, apologized for
him, and for the inaccuracy of his expref-
fions, from the nature of the controverfy in
which he was engaged.

For the fame reafons for which the me-
mory of Dionyfius was reflefted upon, limi-
lar reproaches fell upon that of Clemens
Alexandrinus, and that of Origen. But,
indeed, none of the ancient writers ought
to have efcaped, fince, for the reafons that
I have given, they all ufe fimilar language.
But as thefe two writers have been the mod
cenfured, I fhall give a more particular ac-
count of th,e ground of thofe cenfures.

Pamphilus the Martyr, in his apology for
Origen, fays, that ** Clemens Alexandrinus

* Ut vult Dionifius fons Arrii. De Dcfinitionibiis,
Opera, vol 3. p. 196.

" called

1 86 Of the Arian Coniroverfy. Book IV.

^' called Chrift a creature*/' Photius fays,
'' that Clemens Alexandrinus, in his Hypo-
" typofes," a work now loft, ** has many
** right things, but fome things impious
*^ and fabulous. He makes the Son a crea-
*^ ture, fays that the logos was not made
*^ flefh, but only feemed to be fo. He fays
^« that the logos, the Son, has the fame name,
'* but that it was not made flefli ^ for it is
•' not the paternal logos, but a divine
** power, or efflux from the logos itfelf ;
*' being the 72ous which pervades the hearts
'^ofmen-f-." '* His Stromata/' he fays,
*' have many things not found, but not fo

* Clemens quoque alius Alexandrinus, prefbyter et ma-
gifter ecclefise illius, in omnibus pene libris fuis trinitatis
gloriam atque asternitatem unam candemque defignat ; et
interdum invenimus aliquain libris ejus capitula, in quibus
filium dei creatiiram dicit. Hieronymi, Opera, vol. 9.
p. 130.

t K«t £v Ticn jXEv aulm op^a; ^oh£i >>£y£iv • £v ricrt h Ti^avlsT^u;
£1^ ciQ-z^Eig Kui (xuBuhig^ y^oya^ £K(p£p£}ixi. Kai rev vicv eig ?clicr/^oi
Ka^la.y£i. Kai fxr] (Tapkco9y]vai Tov "hoyov^ ahT^u ^Q^(Xi. A£y slai fisv
Kou 0 moq Koyog^ ojxuvufAog to fsroil^iKCo "hoya^ a?.A so£ ^og £tiv 0 aa^k
'yEVOfA£vog . a Oe junv 0 'u^oiicao; hoyog, aXTva ^vva/xig rig ra Ses, cm
■aTTOppoix Ts ?.078 aJ/a, vug yi\ o/xzvog rag txv av^^oiTTCov xa^hag ^la^
wEfpotl^y-^. Bib. S. 109. p. 286.

'' many

Chap. I. Of the Arian Confroverjy, 187

*' many as the Hypotypofes, and in them
*' he refutes what he had advanced in thefe.
** His Pedagogue is quite free from
*^ them *.*'

As Clemens Alexandrinus had been much
addid:ed to philofophy, it is very poffible,
that when he wrote the Hypotypofes, he
might retain foms opinions fimilar to thofe
of the Gnoftics, as the quotation feems to
indicate. As to the fenfe in v^hich 'Cle-
mens might call Chrift a creature, it has
been explained already, and fhewn to be
fufficiently confiftent with all the ortho-
doxy of his age ; and as to his error about
the logos, it is very poffible that he might
fpeak favourably, as Juftin Martyr did, of
the dodtrine of philofophical unitarianifm ;
or he might have faid what Origen did,
about the logos being in all men. How-
ever, he certainly confidcred the logos that

* O ^£ Ilai^aywy©" sv T^icri TOfjioig — a^sv o/xoiov ?%H(ri 'sr^og Tag
')C7rolu7raa-£ig sloi oi. T^oyoi . rav re yap /mximcov hm ^'Ka^^n^m cxttyi'
Tsay/JLEvoi h^m Ha^Kocn — AJIvi h r\ twv X^a/xalscov ^i<^Xo; £v;a%K az
vyiug ^i(x7^(Xfji.<^avei . a fA,£v}oi ye coo-tte^ at, TTColuTraazig-, a»^a zai ^oog
'sso>,>,0irav£x,si^iai/,axf<ai. Bib. S. 109. p. 287. •

was

1 8 8 Of the Arian Controverfy . Boo k IV.

was in Chrift, as the proper wifdom of
the Father, which was all the orthodoxy
that was known before the council of
Nice.

Origen, being a perfon of more reputa-
tion, and whofe writings were more nu^r
nierous than thofe of Clemens Alexandri-
nus, fuffered more from this kindofcenfurc
than he has done. Origen certainly called
Chrift a creature. '' The facred oracles/'
he fays, ** fpeak of Chrift as the oldeft of
" all the creatures, and by him it was that
** God fpake, when he faid. Let us make
** man */' But whatever expreflions he
might ufe, he certainly could not differ in
idea from the moft orthodox of his age, fo
long as he maintained, as he unqueftionably
did, that Chrift was the proper wifdom of
the Father. For then he muft have fup-
pofed him to have been eternaly and uncreat-
edy though perfonifiedin time.

'Acyoi . nai avia rov Seov "isB^i tv\; ra av^paTra ^yifMHpyioc; eipmsvM^
llciy](TafJi£V av^pcoTTov xal Eixovoi Kai cy.oui}{nv nixslspoiv. Ad Celfum,
lib. 5. p. 257.

On

Chap. I. Of the Arian Controverfy. igo

On this account, however, he was feverely
cenfured after the rife of the Arian contro-
verfy. £piphanius fays, " Origen was
" blamed for calling Chrift a creature,
" though he allowed him to be produced
" from the fubftance of the Father ^^Z' To
this he adds, that '* he had faid that the Son
** could not fee the Father," a phrafe much
tifed in that age, to exprefs great inferiority
either in rank or nature. But no language
can exprefs that inferiority more ftrongly
than Juftin Martyr, and others, whofe or-
thodoxy was never called in queftion, have
repeatedly done. What was meant by the
phrafe, " not being able to fee ^'' may be
clearly underftood from another paffage of
Epiphanius, in which he ftates the accufa-
tion of Origen more diftindly. *^ Origen,"
he fays, " is charged with faying, that, as
*^ the Son could not fee the Father, fo the
*' Holy Spirit could not fee the Son y alfo
*' the angels cannot fee the Holy Spirit,

Hser. 64. Opera, vol. i. p. 527.

'* nor

190 Of the Arian Controverfy, Book IV.

*' nor can men fee angels ^/' That in this
manner Origen only meant to exprefs infe-
riority, or a difference in rank, and not in
nature, is evident. For, as both men and
angels are creatures, though of different
ranks, fo the Father, Son, and Spirit might
each be God, though they differed in rank
and dignity; which was the univerfal opi-
nion in the time of Origen. Jerom alfo
fays, that *^ the herefy of Origen was, that
** the Son was not generated, but made,
** and that he could not fee the Father f."

Origen was likewife faid to be heretical
with refped: to the Holy Spirit. Jerom
fays, that *' Origen's herefy confifted in
^'' part in placing the Spirit the third in
" dignity and honour after the Father and
*' Son ; and in his faying that he did

* X2$ 8 ^uvd\a\. opav tov 'S^ctls^oc 0 y«oj, xai ro ayiov 'uvsu/xa a ou-
vxloci i^siv TOV viov . Hcci 'SJdT^Vi 01 afYE>^oi a ^uv(xvl<xi lOsiv TO ayiov
nsvzvixoi,', Hxi 01 av^paTToi a ouvavloci ic^£iy rag «/y£^a$. Ancoratus»
fe6t. 63. Opera, vol. 2. p. 66, 314.

•^ Chriftum filium dei non natum efle fed fa£^um deum,
patrem per naturam invifibilem etiam a filio non videri.
Opera, vol. i. p. 439-

3 *Vnot

Chap. I. Of the Arian Controverfy, i g j

** not know whether he was made or not
** made*/' But in this he was very far
indeed from being Angular. Jiiftin Martyr,
TertuUian, and other writers before the
council of Nice, having expreifed them-
felves in the very fame manner with refpe<fl
to the Holy Spirit.

Origen, however, though condemned by
many, did not want able defenders. Atha-
nafius, who wrote in defence of Dionyfms,
likewife declared himfelf the advocate of
Origen -f-. Socrates obferves this with re-
fpe6t to Athanafius ; and fays that they who
condemn Origen, condemn Athanafius alfoj.
That Eufebius lliould defend Origen, is
not to be wondered at, as he himleif lay

* Tertium dignitate et honore poft patrera et iilium
alTerit fpiritLim fandum, de quo cum ignorare fe dicat
utrum faclus fit an infecSlus, &c. Opera, vol. i. p. 440.

t Syn. Nic. Decretum, Opera, vol. i. p. 277.

xaXsii THg EKSLv-i 7.oyHg rag id'iOic auvaTnccv^ t^ "Ksym . 0 I'avixxrrig^
<p;m^ fij (po^OTTovcifialog npnyEvn;, rrj^s nsspi in via tu ^sa ty) rifjiEiE^a
^o^n /xafiv^Ei, auvai^icv avlov Key coy rco 's^alpi . £?^a%v av faJJsj 01

Hift. lib. 6. cap. 13. p. 329.

under

192 Of the Arian Controverfy. Book IV,

under the fame fufpicion. As Jerom fays,
*' Eufebius defends Origen, that is, he
** proves him to have been an Arian*."
That the writers before Arius had expreffed
themfelves In fuch a manner as to give
advantage to him and his followers, was
generally allowed.

Photius, in giving an account of the
writings of Pierius, fays, that " they con-
<« tain many things contrary to the then
" eftabliflied faith of the church, but per-
*< haps after the manner of the ancients -f-;"
meaning, probably, that he expreffed him-
felf without fufficient caution and accuracy.

* Sex libros, ut ante jam dixi, Eufebius, Caefarlenfis
epifcopus, Arianae quondam fignifer fa6tionis, pro Ori-
gine fcripfit, latiflimum et elaboratum opus : et multis
teftimoniis approbavit Originem juxta fe catholicum, id
eft, juxta nos Arianum efle. Opera, voL i. p. 492.

4cr«5, aTTo^amlai. CJod. 19. p. 300.

SEC-

Chap. I. Of the Arian Confroverjy. 193

SECTION IL

Of the Tenets of the ancient Arians.

T Shall now conlider what were tjae tenets
which the ancient Arians avowed, or
with which they were charged. The prin-
cipal article, for which no particular au-
thority can be neceflary, was that Arius faid
that the Son, logos, or Chrilt, was created
tyt rav az oviav, or, oi^t of nothing y like other
creatures ^ and this was certainly very dif-
ferent from the received dodrine. For
all thofe who had the character of ortho-
dox before him, even including Clemens
Alexandrinus, and Origen, held that the
logos had always been in the Father^ as his
proper attribute.

The fecond article in the Arian creed

was, that there had been a time when the

Son was not. This had frequently been

afferted by the orthodox, and at firft was, I

Vol. IV. O doubt

194 Of the Avian Controverfy. Book IV.

doubt not, the univerfal opinion, if by the
exiftence of the Son be meant his perfonal
exijience, which was fuppofed to have com-
menced in time 5 but, as an attribute of
the Father, they maintained that he had
always cxifted.

In the third place, the Arians denied
that Chrift had any human foul. This is
aflerted concerning the Arians in general by
Athanafius*, and by Epiphanius-f. Theo-
doret alTerts the fame of the Arians and
EunomiansJ; and fo does Glycas§. It
does not appear, from Arius himfelf that
he aflerted this ; but it is the neceflary

«vh 5e m £(Tco^£v £v nfXLv av^(>a)7ni, rslsri, Tr\g -^uxn^i tov >^oyov sv tvi
capHi >^£y£i y£yov£vczi^ rnv ts 'sraSaj voriffiv^ nai txjv e| cx^a avaracnvy
m ^sM '/ffpoo-ay£iv To>^av, De Adventu Chrifti, Opera,

Yol. I. p. 636.

' •}• AfvAj 4'^x'^v avlov o(v^§ciy7r£iav tihri^r^ai, Haer. 69. Opera,
vol. I. p. 743. 771.

X Oi Se ra A^£i3 )y Euvofjua (p^ovavlsg acofjia fxovov a^'siXviptvoit
TOV ^£ov Xoycv ^aaiv^ avlov ^e rvig -^vxrii £v ra auiiixii '5r?^fwcrai tjji
XfE<ai/. Ep. 104. Tom. 4, pt. 2. p. 1174.

§ Twv A^Hotmv T^Eyovlm a-^u^ov b^vcci ttjv ra WfW (ra^Hct,

Annales, pt. 3. p, 244;

confequence

Ch A p . I. Of the Arian Co?2troverJy. ig^

confequence of his principles, and it was
univerfally adopted by his followers. Indeed,
it would have been exceedingly abfurd to
fuppofe that there were two intelligent
principles, both created beings, inhabiting
the fame body. This, however, is a de-
cilive proof of the novelty of the Arian
doftrine. For, as I have obferved, all the
ancients, Origen himfelf included, luppofed
that there was a proper human foul in
Chrift, befides the logos.

In after times, fome Arlans made con*
ceffions to the orthodox, and on that ac-
count were trailed Semiarians. Thus Auf-
tin fays, that *' fome of the later Arians
*^ acknowledged that Chrift had no begin-*
** ning*. The Semiarians in general alfo
laid, " that though Chrift was not of the fame
^'fxibfance with the Father, he was of a like
^^ fubfiance ^ .'' *' This term, ofjLomai^, of like

* Uncle quidam pofteriores Arriani objecerunt iftam
fententiam, faffique funt non ex tempore coepifTe filium dei.
De Trinitate, lib. 6. cap. i. Opera, vol. 3. p. 326.

Epiphariius, H^r. 73. Opera, vol, i. p. 845.

O 2 fubftance^'\

1(^6 OftheArianControverJy» Book IV.

** fubjlancey' fays Sozomen, ** was intro-
*^ duced by Eufebius, and others of the
** moft celebrated bifhops of the Eaft, as
'* preferable to confiibfiafitial^ which they
** faid was rather applicable to corporeal
*' things, as animals and plants -, whereas
*^ the term of like fubjlance was more appli-
^* cable to incorporeal things, as God and
" angels*.'*

But thefe conceffions were difliked by
others ; and Aetius, the mafter of Euno-
mius, maintained that *' the fon was difli-
*' milar to the Father •f.'' Bafil fays, that
*^ he was the fir ft who dared to teach this
'' doa:rine+.*'

* Oi 3= a/A^< TOV Ef^'E^'iOV, ;i^ CO<K0\ TIVEJ T6Jy To7e CX9a TW ECO ETTl

}iOyci) xj <3iw ^oiU/xa^OfMSvuv STTiaKCTrm oiaipocav, cog £yvsof/.BV, enryi-
yavlo T8 oiMUcnov ?^y£JV, }y Kar saiav c/JiOioii-, OTTsp ofAOiaa-icv moiMa^ov ,
TO (AEV ya^ OfjLoa^riov, stti <xu(ji^uv kv^w; voetcrSat, oiop ccvB^cottoov }^
lav oO<Kav tcom-, uai SfvSfwv xai (pulcov^ oig eI ofAoiH y] fxdacncx, km rj
7£V£<Ji$ en . TO Se of/.oiii<noVi etti ix(ratj.alm, ciov etti Ses xai ay/sAwv,

EHOilE^H TT^Og ECivloV VO»//t£Va HSiT I^IOIV lHJiO.V, Hlft. lib. 3. Cap. I 8.

p. 123.

t Ibid. Lib. 4. cap. 13. p. 147.

X En Se 0 ij.iv rzpulo; eittelv (pavs^a; km ^i^u^di roT^ma;-, avo-
p.oiov Eivai^ Kccla tuv miav^ tqv ^Aovoy^m uiov TOi 9fw nai isat^i^ ocra
yBYifiei; ia-f/,Ev, Asliog 0 Xu^og. Ad Eunomium, lib. i. Opera,
vol. 1. p. 695,

Such

C H A P . L Of the Avian Confroverfy. \ 97

Such were the tenets of the Arians, and
they by no means differed fo much from
the eftablifhed dodlrine at the time that
they were firft advanced, as they did from
the orthodoxy which grew out of this con-
troverfy. And, accordingly, before there
had been much difputing about it, it ap-
pears to have been viewed in a very dif-
ferent light from that in which it appeared
afterwards.

Alexander, bifliop of Alexandria, under
whom the Arian controvcrfy arofe, after
hearing niany debates on the fubjeft be-
tween Arius and his opponents^ and after
having called a fynod on the fubjeft (the
queftion appearing to him to be of a doubt-
ful nature) was at firft diftrefled what part
to take ; favouring fometimes o»e fide, and
fometimes the other, but at length acceded
to thofe who affirmed that the Son was
confubftantial with the Father, and co-eter-
nal with him*.

A>>£^a-j^^og rex 'm^colct, ^y\ /jlbv nilug, ^rj h skeiv^; zTTaivm . texAv
0£y Toig ofxoaaiov Hat avvcti^iov eivai rov viov a'^o^ccLvoi^svoig bQeIq,
Sozomen, Hift, lib. i. cap. 15. p, 3^;.

O 3 Conftantine,

198 Of the Arian Controverfy. Book IV.

Conftantine, in his letter to Alexander
and Arius, reprefents the difference be-
tween them as a thing of no confequence*.

So little was Alexander himfelf ufed to
the diftindions, and the precife phrafeology
which took place afterwards, that, in his
letter to Alexander of Conftantinople upon
this fubjedt, he calls the Father and Son
two thingSy infeparable from each other ;
the very language which had been ufed in
anfwer to the Sabellians +•

cle yap cv a Aulav^^z £^>]?£t$ '(isapa rm 'STpsa^iPie^cov, ri ^y]7role shuto;
avioiv vTTsp r^voi totts rm ev Tto vo/xa yeypafxixEvuv^ fja'h'Koy 5e vtts^
^ivoi. fAolcnH K^Ynialoi /uE^a? 'mw9avoio, Socratis, Hift. lib. i,
cap. 7. p. 16.

ftff^ay/uiclce, 3i;o, tov '5ra1ef« >Lj tov uiov<, ovla avlov niioig xo>^7roig m

'sal^o; mofASim, Theodoreti, Hift, lib. i. cap. 4. p. 12.

S C E'

Chap. I. Of the Arian Controverjy, 195

SECTION III.

ne Arguments of the ancient Arian s.

WE fhall be affifted in forming a juft
idea of the nature of the Arian con-
troverfy, by confidering the arguments which
the ancient Arians ufed in defending their
doftrine.

It was probably fome impropriety in the
language of Alexander, in his difpute with
Arius, that gave the latter an advantage.
Alexander was thought by Arius to ad-
vance fomething too favourable to the Sa-
bellians, as he laid great ftrefs on the ne-
ceffity of maintaining the unity of the
three perfons in the trinity ; and it was
always faid by the ancients, that this cir-
cumllance drove Arius into the oppofitc
extreme ; and it was probably the means of
procuring Arius fo many friends.

Nicephorus fays, that almoft all the
churches in the eaft, except that of Jeru-

O 4 falem.

20Q Of the Arian Controverfy, Book IV.

falem, were Arian ^. Jerom, fpeaking of
the council of Ariminum, fays, that the
term scria was abolifhed, all the world groan-
ed, and wondered to find itfelf Arian +.

The orthodox confidered themfeives as
holding a middle opinion between the Sa-
bellians and the Arians, the former con-
founding the three perfons, and the latter
feparating them too far ; the former rnak-
ing too much of the divinity of Chrift, and
the latter too little. Thus, at leaft, things
flood at the beginning of the controverfy.

It is poffible that Alexander had repre-
fented the Son as ayewwl®", unbegoiteny as well
as the Father ; fince Eufebius of Nicome-
dia, in his letter to Paulinus of Antioch,
fays, ** We never heard of two that were
*' unbegotten J/* And confidering Chrift

* SxeSbv ^c 'stPvtiv l£^Offo7^v//.av tccv avot, rvjv £<a £KH'Kri<Tmv Oi f|
Af£{8 EKfaW. Hift. lib. 12. cap. 2. vol. 2. p. 225.

t Tunc ufiae nomen abolitum efl, tunc Nicenae fidei
damnatio conclarhata eft. Ingemuit totus orbis, et Aria-
num fe efie, miratus eft. Ad Luciferianos, Opera, vol. I.
p. 427.

% Olt yaf His Ivo or/£vv){la aKmopi{AEV, Theodoriti, Hift,
lib. I. cap. 6, p. 24.

3 ^5

Chap. I. OftheArian Controverfy. 201

as being the original logos of the Father,
or his necefTary attribute, which was cer-
tainly the orthodox dodlrine of the times,
he was jufliiiable; but confidering him as
an aBual perfo?2, the language was evidently
improper. For the commencement of per-
fonality in the Son had always been called
a generation ; and therefore the Father and
Son had been diftinguifhed from each other,
by the former being faid to be aysW©-, unbe^
gotten^ and the latter ycml^^, begotten, and
fometimes ym-^iJi^z^ &c.

But according to more ancient ufage, the
terms ay^v^^ and r^vd^ had been ufed to
diftinguifli the Creator and the creature ; and
the diftindlion between ymiO- and vEvvnl^ (as
if the former fignified creattv/, and the latter
generated) was peculiar to chriftian theology,
and, as I have fhewn, was not unlverfally
obferved by chriftians. This gave Arius
an advantage. For if Chrift was properly
yml^^ he muft have been a creature ; and if
a creature, he muft have been made as
other creatures were. Arius fays, ** I am
^* perfecuted, becaufe I faid that the Son

**is

202 Of the Arian Controverjy, Book IV.

** is made out of nothing, fince he is not
*' a part of God, nor made out of other
*' matter*."

Here we fee the proper ground of Arius's
opinion, and that it was evidently a depar-
ture from the fundamental principle of efta-
bliflled orthodoxy. It was a virtual denial
of the Son being an attribute of the Father.
Arius, no doubt, faw the abfurdity of the
received dodrine concerning the generation
of the Son from the Father, and thought it
muft imply the taking from him part of
his fubftance. He, therefore, argued, that
iince Chrift was not taken out of the fub-
ftance of the Father, and it was acknow-
ledged that he was not made of other mat-
ter^ he muft neceffarily have been made out
of nothing'^ which was the chriftian doc-
trine that had taken place of the great
maxim of heathen philofophy, which fup-
pofed that fuch creation was impoffible.

* Aja r^io ^lUHoiMsQa^ xj oli EiTrafMEVt oli el ax ovlm inv ' alcog 5g
hmofjksdoi. Theodoreti Hift, lib. i. cap. 5. p. 23.

It

Chap. I. Of the Arian Coniroverfy. 203

It appears that the Arians ridiculed, and
very juftly, the diftindion which the or-
thodox made between creation 2inA generation',
and therefore Chryfoftom, in reply to them,
fays, ^* how do you know that to generate
** and to create, is the fame thing with
** God*?" In that age, however, it was
thought necefTary to lay the greateft ftrefs
on the difference between thefe two things,
as every thing in orthodoxy depended upon
it. But though the orthodox always faid
that the Father could generate, and that the
Son was generated, yswwli^, they would not
allow that he could not be called yzmiAot, Ba-
111 fays, ** that the Father has generated,
** we learn in many places, but that the Soa
** is 7£vwj/>ca, we learn no where t-.'' This,
they thought, was putting Chrift upon a
level with creatures, properly fo called.

The dodlrine of the derivation of the Son
from the Father, without diminifhing his

* TLo^tv oitag oil TO kIktm koli to yivvy\(Tai tosjIov, De di6lo
Abraham, Ser. 4. Opera, vol. 6. p. 43.

+ TeyswYiKBvou (jlzv ya^ rov 'srotls^ay 'zso>^^x^ '^i^i^otyfjLz^oi . ytvn(xct
^s sivai Tov viov ah'^co Hai ty\ij.£^ov anmocifAsy. Ad Eunomium,
lib. 2. Opera, vol. i. p, 731.

fubilance.

20 4 OftheArianControverfy, Book IV.

fubftance, had certainly been very ill de-*
fended by the orthodox of the age before
Arius^ but neverthelefs it was the ortho-
doxy of the age, and of this Arius took a
very proper advantage. *^ The Arians,"
fays Hilary, *' derived the Son from no-
" thing, left the Father fhould be dimi-
*^ niflied by the generation of the Son, fo
** that he would remain lefs perfect*."

Arius, in his letter to Alexander, fays,
** If the phrafe coming forth^ and coming
*^ from the Father y be underftood by any
^^ as of a part of the fame fubftance, and
** as a proboky then is the Father a conf^-
** pound being, divifible, changeable, and
*' a body ; and, as far as in them lies, they
** make an incorporeal God to have the
'' fame affeftions as a body-f-/'

* Ne fi ex patre fit filius, deus fit imminutus in filium,
foliciti nimium, ne patrem filius ab eo natus evacuet :
£tque idcirco deo in filii creatlone fubveniunt, eum non
de extantibus comparando, ut intra naturas fuae perfedio-
nem pater, quia nihil ex eo fit genitum, perfeveret. Lib,
S.' p. 23.

•f- Kai li TO, m yar^o;, km to, sh. 'mcKiOQ(; s^ri^hv^ Ji:fA m^^ m (J^^^

HOil

Chap. I. Of the Arxan Controverfy. 205

Arius had a ftill more plaufible handle
againft the orthodox, with refpedl to their
dodtrine concerning the Son being of the
fame fubflance with the Father, becaufe, in
the controverfy with the Sabellians, this
language had been conftantly reprobated.
The Arians, therefore, had a very good pre-
tence for calling the orthodox Sabellians,
becaufe they adopted their peculiar lan-
guage. *• The Arians,'' fays Auftin, '*call
*' us Sabellians, though we do not fay that
*' the Father, Son, and Spirit are one,
*' which the Sabellians did ; but we fay that
*^ they are of one nature*.'' '* They who
** diflike the word confubftantial,'' fays So-
crates, " charged thofe who introduced it
** as favouring the opinion of Sabellius and.

noi.1 ^ia,i^ilo(;\ km xpz7r%;^ xai <rcoiJi.ce. Kotf aula-, km to oacv ett aJicig ra
axoT^Qoc crcofxoili ma^x^'v o acrw/^to]©- ^sog. Epiphanius, Hasr.
69.V0I. I.p. 733.

* Sed ficuti Arriani Sabellianos nos effe criminantur,
quamvis non dicamus, unum eumdemque efTe patrem et
filium, et fpiritum farK^um, quod SabeJIiani diciint: kd
dicimus unam eandemque efTe naturam patris, et filii, et
fpiritus fandi, quod cathplici dicunt. De Nuptiis, Opera,
vol. 7. p- 849.

*'• Montanus,

2o6 Of the Arian Confroverjy. Book IV.

'^ Montanus, and therefore called them
^' blafphemers, as taking away the fabftance
*' of the Son of God ; while they who were
<* attached to the word confubjlaniial,
" charged the others with polytheifm, and
" as introducing heathenifm*." But, as I
have obferved, it was contrary to their pro-
per principles, that the orthodox ever dif-
claimed the term confubJiantiaL For if the
Son was the proper reajon of the Father, it
muft have been right to fay, that he was of
the fame fubflance with him.

The Arians had no lefs advantage with
refpedt to their other pofition, viz. that there
was a time when the Son was not *, becaufe,with
regard to his perfonality, this had been the
declared opinion of the orthodox before that
aee, and he had never been confidered as
having exifted from eternity, except as the
proper logos ^ or reafon of the Father, without

MovlavH 5b|av EUYiyBia-Bai av%v rsg 'sspod^iX'^i^tva^ £VOiAt(o¥ ' ^ Sia-
7a7o ^Xao-<p»i/>c8f, £;«aX8v, u; avaipavlai tyiv VTra^^tv ta viB rs Bs» •
Oi Se TraT^iv tw oijlo^<tico rs^o(TKU(jLZVQi^ 'mo'Kvhicf.v eitraysiv raj sle^ag vi-
ft{^ov7e$, wj £^A>]VJcr//tov sij-ayovlai t^d^ZT^ovlo* Hift. lib. i» cap. 23.

P- 57'

which

Chap. I. Of the ^nan Coniroverfy. 207

which he would hot have been ^oyjxO, a ra-^
t tonal being.

Arius, in his letter to Eufebius of Ni-
comedia, fays concerning Alexander, '* the
*' bifhop violently perfecutes us, moving
'* every thing againft us, fo as to expel us
'' from the city as atheifls, becaufe we can-
** not agree with him, when he fays in
** public, there was always a Father, and
** always a Son, Father and Son at the fame
*' time 5 that the Son exifts together with
^rGod in an ungenerated ftate ^ he was al-
^* ways generated from him that was unge-
'* nerated. God did not precede the Son
*' even a thought, or an atom */' And yet
in this Alexander advanced nothing con-
trary to the anciently received dodtrine, ex-
cept in faying, that the generation of the
fon was from eternity,

aisiymn; btiv^ afmriloysvyj^ triv * W]e sTnvoia^ sis alofiu rm iSL^oaysi e
^sog TjfW¥. Theodoriti, Hift. lib. i. cap. 5. p. 22.

The

2o8 Of the Arlan Controverjy. Book IV.

The Arians, however, rejeding the dif-
ference between generation and creation, faid,
according to Athanafius, '* God was not al«
" ways a Father, and afterwards became fo.

" The Son was not always . The

** Son of God was made out of nothing,
*' and there was a time when he was not ;
** that he was not before he was generat-
«^ ed *." Hilary alfo fays, " the Arians
** take advantage of the expreffion, he was
*' not before he was generated, as if the na-
*^ ture of his fubfifting origin was de-
** nied t /' i« e, the principle from which
he fprung, which exifted in the Father.

The Arians derived the fame advantage
from the dodtrine of the primitive Fathers,
that the Father generated the Son voluntas

-)• OvK »Ei 0 ^£og ttoIt^^ Wi a>0\ nv ole ^Eog fjiovcg 75V, xai httw iuccJyi^
1^, vrs^ov ^£ £7r£i y£yov£ OTa??]^ , 8k (X£i w 0 viog ' ^avlccv yap y£Vo^£'
vav e| 8X ov^av^ Kai 'uiavlm ovlcov }clia-(ji,otlav nai 'zjcin/xaluv ysvc^Evwr,
KM avlog 0 T8 ^ES T^oyog el an ovluv y£yov£v ' Kai nv 'sjols oIe hk >iv, km
sx>»'srp7£vv>i9)7. Contra Arianos, Or. i. Opera, vol. i, p. 310.
* Excufationem, dicens : non erat antequam nafcere-
tur : ut in eo quod non fuit antequam nafceretur, natu-
ram ci fubfiftentis originis denegaret. Lib. 6. p. 106.

rUy.

Cr-IAP. I. Of the Arian Confroverfy. 209

rily, *' The Arians/' fliys Epiphanius,
*• fay, did God generate the Son volunta-
*' rily, or involuntarily ? If we fay inva-i
** luntarily, then we fubjecl God to neceA
** fity. If voluntarily, we allow that a vo-
'' lition preceded the Son.-- — Bat thefe
** things, he fays, bear no relation to God.
'* He neither generates the Son voluntarily,
** nor involuntarily; for the divine nature is
'* above all will, and is not fubjed: to time,
** or neceility *."

Such were the metaphyfxcal arguments of
the ancient Arians. They likewife proved
from the fcriptures, that Chrift was a crea-
ture ; and as they fuppofed that the wijdom
in the book of Proverbs referred to Chrift,
they laid great ftrefs on its being there faid
that God created this wifdom. The Arian,
in Athanafius's difputation, fays, " but do

%^E^i^a7\y\0IJt,sv TO beiov . Jtai sav eiTTUfjLEV oh SfAcov,. clcccj/zsv oli w to
^tArj^a 'zsro m Aoya. . Oux eti h tJIcov i^^sv sig ^eov-, cog oTToT^ccf/.^a-
vsig^ CO ksvocQ^.z . fsrcc^a ^£co yap rccula hk sr/v . isle Se^wv Toivuv syev-
F/iCEv, 8% /j.n '}£?iaiv, cc?.a' u7i:£^Qo7sy] (f^vascog, vTTZ^Qami yap n Bsix
^vcrig^^Mv, km «x i^TroTTiTrlsi, %fov«, s7£ avayHYi ayslai, Ancora-
lus, fea. 51. Opera, vol. 2. p. 55.

Vol. IV. P ^^ thou

no Of the Arlan Controverfy. Book IV.

*' thou anfwer me with refpedt to the Lord
*' created jne. The Lord acknowledged
*' that he was created by his Father*.'*
** When they are defeated/' he fays, *' they
** have recourfe to the Lord created me in
** the beginning of his way -f.'' They like-
wife alledged Chrift being called the firjl
born of all the creation :};.

I fhall conclude this article with obferv-
ing, that, if what Theodoret fays be true, it
will be probable, that the Arians imagined
that there was fomething anfavourable to
their fentiments in the epiftle to the He-
brews 5 for he fays that they thought it to
be fpurious §.

■* n^>iy cry aTTou^i^nii ixoi 'ssi^i m' xv^io; Ettlias jxs^ ra xt/pj8 o^oM-
yr.cravlcg savlov tulicBM utto th t^is ^ssai^o^. Opera, vol. I, p.
120:

f Ev w ya^ m%vlM -^sTroi^aa-iv iv rat; nj^a^oiii-iMs tw %£yo{k '
Tivpio; SKliffE (JI.E a^xw oo«y ai/la ii^ ipya avis. Sermo Major, da
fide Montfaucon's Colleftio, vol. 2. p. 10.

:|: Nomen primogenitus fimplicioribus objlcientes^
'Coll. I. 15. Cyrilli Alex. Thefaurus, lib. 10. cap. 3.

§ Saufjtaroy aJsv ^puav oi ttjv apiavimv EKroi^afxsyoi voaov^ xala
rm aTToroT^Muv 7<UTWEg yoayLixaiwv^ xai t/jv ^^og E^^aiag ETTtroMv
Tuv y^oiTTuv aTTGKpivovls;^ nai voSov raulm aTroKoOsxTjiti;. Ad . Heb. i.
I, Opera, vol. 3. p. 5 12. Ed. Halae.

P E C^

Chap. I. Of the Arian Corjiwerjy. 2 1 1

SECTION IV.

Of the Arguments of the Orthodox againji
the Arians.

HAVING feen on what principles
the ancient Arians defended their te-
nets, and particularly what advantage they
took of the received language of the ortho-
dox, I (hall likewife give a view of the light
in which the orthodox of that age confider-
ed the principles of Arianifm i by which
means we fhall have a pretty clear idea of the
nature of the controverfy.

The capital argument of the orthodox
was, that the Son, being the logos ofGody was
the proper reafon of the Father^ and there-
fore could not have been made out of no-
thing, but mull have been from eternity in
him^ and confubjlantial vviih him. Eufebius
fays, '* the Father produced the Son from
'* himfelf *." <* God the Father," fays

* Aulo; ff taul^ yvjvrja^. De Laudibus Con. p. 746.

P % Ruffinus,

212 Of ih^Arian Controverfy . B o o k I V .

Ruffinus, *' is, therefore, the true God, and
** the Father of truth, not creating from
** within, hMl imerating the Son from what
** he himfelf is, as a wife man generates
** wifdom, a righteous man righteoufnefs,
'* &c. as light generates fplendor, and as a
** man generates' a word [or thought]"^/*

Cyril of Alexandria fays, «< If the Arians
** attack us, and alk whether there be two
''.that are unbegotten, and on our faying
*^ there is only one, and that one the
*^ Father, they fay that then we make
*^ the Son a creature; we anfwer. If the
V Son be the wifdom, the power, and the
^^ word of the Father ; and the word, wif-
'* dom, and power were always in the Fa-
** ther, the'iSon cannot be faid to be made
f * afterwards ; but he is God of God, and
*^ light of light. So that the begotten is

* Eft ergo deus pater veins, tanquam veritptis pater,
non extrinfecus creans. fed ex eo quod ipfe efc fdium ge-
nerans, id eft, quia faptens, fapientiam, quia juftus jufti-
tiam, quia fempiternns fempiternum, quia immortalis im-
mortalem, quia invifibilis invifibiieiti, quia lux fplendorcm
quia mens verbum. In Symbol. Opera, p, 172.

*^ from

Chap. I. OftbeArlanControverJy. zi-j

** from him that is unbegotten, and from
'* him that was not made, himfelf alfo not
** made"^."

It was acknowledged by the ^orthodox,
that many of the ancient writers had ex-
prefled themfelves as if they had confidered
Chrift as being a proper creature ; but it
was obferved, that what was innocent in
them, was not fo afterwards. Baiil fays,-
that ** many words were innocently ufed in
''former times, of which the heretics now
** take advantage ; as the words creature^
*• and a work^ &c. l"

*■ Si Ariani nos aggrediantur, interrogantes uirum unum
fit quod Ingenitum eft, an duo : ut quurn unum certe
dixcrimus, et in patrem id retuhriiHuS, inter creaturas
filium connumerare cogamur : fic refpondere opcrtet. —
Si fapientia et virtus, et verbum patris nlius eft, eratque
femper in pa:re verbum, et fapientia et virtus, non eft:
fa6^us poftca hlius, qui fic appellatur et fic eft. Sed quem-
admodum ex deo deus, et de luminc lumen eff'ulftt : fic
ex ingenito genitus, hoc eft, ex non faclo non faclus.
Thefaurus, lib. i. cap. i. Opera, vol. 2. p. 215.

i- Aio 0-1) i'^ rzz>:>^a,(, av eupi^ ehu (po^vag-, Tccg vuv rai; ai^sliKo:;

TGi^loy. Epift. 6i. Opera, vol. 3. p. 10 1.

P 3 Gregory

il4 Of the Arian Controverfy. Book IV.

Gregory Nazlanzcn fays, that ** accord-
** ing to the doftrine of Arius, Chrift muft
** not only be a creature, but the meaneft of
** creatures, being created merely for the
*' fake of creating other things ; and adds,
' '* that for the purpofe of creation, the mere
" will of God was fufficient*." ^

Another great advantage which the or-
thodox had over the Arians arofe from the
latter confidering Chrift, though a creature,
as having been the creator of the world, and
entitled to be called God, and to be wor-
ihipped. This arofe from their afcribing
to their created logos, all that had been
afcribed to iliQ uncreated one, which all the
ancient Arians, without exception, did.
This, the orthodox faid, was fetting up
another Go^, and incurring the guilt oi poly-
theifm ; whereas their logos, they faid, was
uncreated, and being the logos of the Fa-

* Ta ^£ oil fMK^a Kai /xn xlia-fxotla fMovov^ aXX^e >cj 'maviav kIkt/jM'
wv isoisi; alifjiQlE^a,^ siyE riiJciiv svekev yTTsr*!, Ki mole^ ujtte^ o^ava
'TEXvtlvii 'ss^o rm rBxvilav 'S^poJE^ov an ovist, s5"' av a>.hu; yfvo/xEvat,

Or. 13. p. 209.

ther*

Ch A P . I. Of the Art an Confroverjy. 2 1 5

ther, was one with him^ fo that they did not
make two different Gods, This charge we
find from the earlieft flage of this contro-
verfy to the laft.

Athanafius reprefents St. Anthony as
faying " they, calling the logos which
** is from the Father a creature^ do not
** differ from the heathens, who worfhip
*' the creature inftead of the creator *." ,
Hilary fays, '* Let the heretics l)lot out
^' from the gofpel, I am in the Father^ a fid
*^ the Father in me^ and I ajid the Father
** are one ; that they may either preach two
** Gods, or one God-f-/' In this he has a
view to both the Arians and the Sabellians,
Bafil fays, ** they who fay that the only be-
" gotten is a creature, and then make a god

#v]f$ tu k1<3-£> -sra^a tov HMavla Sfov. Vit^ Antonii, Opera,
vol, 2. p. 491.

f Deleant haeretici evangelicam filii de fe profeffionem :
ego in patre, et pater in me ; et ego et pater unum fu-
mus ; ut poiTmt vel duos deos praedicare, vel folum. Lib.
7. p. 151.

P4 ' of

2i6 Of the Arian Controverjy. Bock IVl

*' of him, and Vv'orfhip him ; by v;orfhip-
** ping the creature rather than the creator,
*' evidently introduce heathenifm ; but,"
alluding to the unitarians, ^' they Vv^ho deny
*' the logos to be God of God, while they
" confefs the Son in word, they in rea-
*^ lity deny his exiilence, and renew Ju-
" daifm-^-."

^' To make a created god," fays Gregory
Nyffen, ^' is an agreement with the error
" of the heathens f ." '' The Arians," fays
Epiphaniu's, *' are the moft impious of all
/'heretics, who divide the Son from the
*' Father's fubftance, and therefore make
^' him another principle 'i^-'' '' We," fays

* Oi //£V 7^^ £§70V S-ES Eivai ?^£ycvl£g rov (jLOvoy£V/i, }c., "sjoivfxa, iflat
'mpoo'KVVHvIsi «y ^£07\0'y^v%g . eh. t8 ^^cCI^evelv tyi ^cIicel k^ /jtn ra }il',(j-
cvlt, ia T^v E>0\YiV'Xv avIiK^vg ETTEKrccyaiJiv . ci ^s rov eh ^bh ^coy Xoycv
afvs/^£vot, kJ ovo(Jt,all (Wev oiJt,oXoy8vlEg viov, E^yo) h jtai a?^v^£iiz mv
vTTix^iiV a^zJEvlEgy rov Is'^Mo-fiov 'iSoCKiv a-jpcvEnvlai. Horn. 27.
Opera, vul. i. p. 519.

. i Ta (xzv yx^ }cliTov avan'ha.TiE'.v Ssc.v, trr, tcov £7\Xy]mv aTTolns
cvv^yop^ yiVElai. Contra Eunomium, Or. 12. Opera, vol,
2. p. 300.

X A^£LCfXMh:i oe c\ 'mavlcov ccjEQEraloi, c^ rm v.ov cmo r-tig 'srdipcxg

man

Chap. I. Of the ArhinControverfy, 217

Ambrofe, '' fay there is one God, not two,
*^ or three, like the impious herefy of the
^' Arians, which falls into the very guilt
'^ with which it charges others. For he
*' fays there are three Gods, who feparates
" the. divinity of the trinity*.'" Agreeably
to this, Auftin writing againft the Arians,
quotes, 'H^^r, O Ifrael, the Lord thy God is
one Lord, and then fays, '* Why will you
*' make us two Gods, and two Lords ? You
*' fay that the Father is Lord and God, and
*' you fay that Chrift is Lord and God. I
** alk, v/hether thefe two are one ? You
*' anfwer, they are two Gods. It remains,
*' then, that you eredt temples and images
** to them-f-." Fulgentius alfo confidered

tivai TO) 'ujolpi^ 8^s EK ry)g Ho-iot; ra 'Tsocloog oluIqv yzyzvvw^CA. An-
coratus, feci. 118. Opera, vol. 2. p. 120.

* Unum ergo deuin, non duos aut tres deos dicimus, ut
impia Arianorum hserefis dum criEP.inatur incurrit. Tres
enim deos dicit, qui divinitatem feparat Trinitatis. De
Fide, cap. i. Opera, vol. 4. p. 114.

7 Audi Ifrael, dominus deus tuus, deus unus eft. Quid
nobis vultis facere duos deos et duos dominos ? Dicitis
dominum patrem, et deum patrem^, dicitis dominum
Chriflum et deum Chriftum : interrogo, utrum ambo

fimul

2 1 8 Of the Arian Controverjy. Book IV.

the Arians as worfe than the Sabellians.
^' Thefe/' fays he, " did ill to join the
*' divine perfons, but the Arians did worfe
** to feparate them*.*^

It is alfo with great juftice that the or-
thodox expofed the dodrine of the Arians
on the idea of a creature being capable of
creating. Auflin fays, '' If Chrift was made,
** he mufi: have been made by himfelf ; for
** without him was not any thing made
** that was made f/' " If the power of
** God," fays Cyril of Alexandria, "cannot
** be received by the nature of a creature,
'* how can a Son created out of nothing be
" capable of this, according to you J?'*

fimul unus fit ? Refpondetis, duo dii : fupereft ut eis et
templa et idola faciatis. Contra Max. Opera, vol. 6.
p. 683.

* Quia et Sabellius male conjunxit, et Arrius fcelera-
tius feparavit. Adv. Pent. p. 719.

t Noli putare fadum efie inter omnia : nam fi et ipfe
fa£i:us eft, non per ilium fa<^a funt omnia ; fed inter
cetera fadlus eft ipfe. Ser. 3. Opera, fuppl. p. 32.

X Verum fi capi non poterat dei virtus a natura crea-
turarum, quomodo creatus a nihilo filius capax ejufdem
fecundum vos eft ? • Thefaurus, lib. 4, cap. 2. Opera,
vol. I. p. 265.

Gregory

Chap. I. Of the Arian Controverjy. 2x9

Gregory Nazianzea emphatically fays,
*' he is not God who is created ; nor can
** he be our mafter, who is our fellow-
** fervant*,

Athanafius fays, ** there is no created ma-
*' ker of all things. For all things were
** made by the logos ; but he could not make
*^ all things if the logos himfelf had been
*' made. Nor can angels create, being them-
** felves created, though Valentinus, and
** Marcion, and Bafilides think fo, and you
*' are imitators of them '\J'

He charges the Arians with diverting
the Father himfelf of his divinity, by
depriving him of his logos, and denying
that he is. property a Father. After fpeak-
ing of Arianifm as the woril of herefies,
he fays, " fome err in one refpedl, and

* Ov ya^ SfC5 ro nli'^oixevov^ h^b ob^'Zoukov to o(xo^ii>^v. Or. 13,

p. :tio.

i" Tojy ya^ y£vo(xevcc'; aSev prt 'S^oivjtxov atliov ' 'siavla yup Jia tk
Xcya ytyoviv * s« av s^ysca-a/xEVH xj otvla ra ':!:(xvia^ si jcj y,ul8 0
7,oy(^ rcov zlifTfjLoiav y\v * x^£ ya^ nh ayy£>j)i ^nfJi'.H^ym ^uvwovlcu
HiiO-jMOL Ovls^ KM avloi ' KCLV OuaT^SvllvQ'^ KM Mo-oKiav, Kai Bcc!7iMi^ng%

rciauioi (ppcvaxn ' hou OfAiig £K£iv^v ^>j?.w7«i Ti/y%«»;£7f. Contra
Arianos, Or, 3. vol. i. p. 392,

" Others

Tio OftheArianControverfy. Book IV.

''others in another. Some, like the Jews,
** fay that the Lord was never incarnate,
^' This alone, with great mad nefs, attacks
** the divinity itfelf ; faying, that there is
** no logos, and that God is no father*.'*
But this argument feems to afFecl the uni-
; tarians as much as the Arians.

It was on the idea of the Arians fetting
up tiijo principles of dtvimty, and thereby
making more Gods than one, and of the
Sabellians making no difference between the
perfons of the trinity, that the orthodox
always reprefented themfelves (as I have
obferved) as holding the middle between
two extremes. The idea occurs a thoufand
times in their writings. They are con-
ftantiy guarding their hearers againfl con-
founding the perfons with Sab'ellius, or fe-
parating them with Arius. Thus Gregory
Nazianzen fpeaks of the orthodox, as *' in

. ■* At (tt£v 8]iyj, m ^£ mEivcog Hola-^euGOi^^vai-, rj ixwo'Ktxx; 27n^s^Yi(XYi'

•uiKcols^ov E'.g ailJyiv ^Eomlcc T£7o>./^w£, 7.£y:d(7oc^ /xric oy^ag £ivai Tov?ioyov,
/^r^£ Tov BsQv 'sjoilE^oi EivM, Contra Arianos, Or. i. Opera,
vol. I. p. 300.

I ^' a middle

Chap. L Of the Arian Controverfy. 221

** a middle way between Sabellianifm oa
*^ the one hand, and Arianifm on the other,
*' the former confounding the perfons, and
" the latter dividing them*." Again,
fpeaking of the fupreme power, he fays,
** itconfifls of the caufe, the demhirguSy and
** \.\\Q perfecier, I mean the Father, Son, and
** Holy Spirit ; which are neither fo far
^^ removed from each other, as to be fepa-
** rated by nature, nor fo clofely united as
*' to be circumfcribed within one perfon.
*' The former is the Arian atheifm, and
*' the latter the Sabellian -(-."

On this principle, he, as well as many
others, compares the Sabellians to Jews,
and the Arians to Gentiks. Ifidore Pelu-

* H^oaHuimiAZv av 'StoIsdoc, km uicvy zoli ayiov izva'ixa^ rag //ev
i^Loly]lcxg %w^{^ov7e5, svaflsg h tyiV ^solnlcc . itai 'Jls £ig ev tcc r^ia avva-
'>^£i(pciJ.aj', iv<z fjLYi 771V liaCsTO^LH voaov vQcrncrcofisv ' ^^ ^iai^8fA£v sig r^ia
iHCpv'ha fcai a?w\o7p{2g, tva (ayi tcc A^eih fiavcoiA^v, Or. 29. Opera,
p. 489.

t JLccXsilai ^s V] (JL£V Seo?, nai £V r^iri roig fjtEyiroig ltccIm, aiJico,
Hai ^r,fjuii^yco nai nrsT^ioTroia^ t« '^ali^i 'h£yoi mm too ww >uXi roi cyia
f^svsviAoli ' a (jlyHe iilcog a>M7^m uTTsfl-nlai^ cog guau re/M'Scr^M ' f/^2s
ziag sTsvc-olaii cog £ig £v 'urpocrcoTTOv 'ZSE^iy^xcpsa^ai. To fxsv ya.^ .Trig
A§UGiviag, TQ h TTjg Xa<^6?^iavimg a^nacg sriv. Or, 24. p. 42S.

fiota

222 Of the Arian Controverfy. Book IV.

iiota alfo fays, *' Let this be faid, that Sa-
*' bellius and the Jews may be lilenced, and
^' thofe that Arius, Eunomiiis, and the
** Gentiles, may be demolifhed''."

The orthodox Fathers were perpetually
complaining of the difficulty they were in
betv/een the two extremes of Arianifm and
Sabellianifm, and of the addrefs which it
required to keep clear of them both. Hi-
lary is particularly pathetic on this fubjedl.
** I am always," fays he, *' in danger, al-
*' ways in fear of falling into ftraits, or
*^ caverns, or of being entangled in fnares.
" For when I preach, according to the law,
" the prophets, and the apoftles, that there
*' is but one God, Sabellius is upon me,
** ready to feize upon me, and devour me
" whole, as a moft delicious morfel ; but
*' if, preaching againft Sabellius, I deny
** that there is only one God, and acknow-
'' ledge that the Son of God is truly God,

lib. 3, Opera, p. 267^

'' the

Chap. I. Of the Arian Controverfy. 223

«< the new herefy waits for me, and tells
*• me that I preach two Gods*/'

Arianifm was always confidered as a new
herefy^ and unitarianifm as an old one. Am-,
brofe fays, that '' the Arians were the anti-
** chrift intended by John, being the lall: of
*' the herefies, and drawing poifon from
" them allf."

Theodoret having diflributed his work
on heretical fables inio ^vt parts, and hav*
ing mentioned his treating firft of the fed:
of the Gnoftics, then that of the unitarians,
from Ebion to Photinus, as holding oppo-
fite opinions 5 then thofe who held middle

* Mihi verjD, aut in auguftias decidcre, aut in defofTa
incidere, aut plagis illaqueari, Temper in periculo femper
in metu eft. Praedicaturo enim fecundum legem et pro-
pb%is et apoflolos unum deura, adeft mihi Sabellius, to-
turn me fub hujus verbi profeffione, tanquam defideratum
cibum morfu foeviiHmo tranfvorans. Negantem me rurfum,
contra Sabellium, unumdeum, etconntentem verura deum,
dei filium, expedtat nova haerefis, et a me duos deos ac
praedicari. De Trinitate, lib. 7. p. 131.

t Ft Joannes dicit hsereticos efTe antichriftos Arianos
utique defignans. Hsc enim hsrefis poft omnes hserefes
caepir, et ex omni hsergfi venena collegit. Opera, vol. 4,
p, 143.

opinions

2 24 Of the Arian ControverJy\ Book IV.

opinions between them, fays, ** In the
^' fourth place I fhall explain the latere
'' herejies, viz. thofe of Arius and Euno-
** mius .

' I do not, indeed, find any fach pretences
to high antiquity made by the Arians^ as
the unitarians laid claim to. They only
appeal to the language of the fcriptures,
y/hich all perfons interpret fo as to favour
their own opinions, and fuch exprelfions of
the orthodox Fathers, efpecially Clemens
Alexandrinus and Origen, as have been al-
ready mentioned, and which I have fiiewn
to be fufficiently agreeable to the ortho-
doxy of the age in w^hich they, lived ; the
|)rinciples of which were very remote from
thofe of Arianifm,

One of the weak fides of the orthodox
hypothefis, was the ftrefs that was laid upon
the difference between generation and crea^
tion. From this the Arians had derived
conliderable advantage, efpecially with re-

* Ev Q€ TO) rficc^a Tczg vmlspag B7noeii,ofXEV ai^ecrsig ' "fm A^nn
fyi'M. Hdi Ei/vo/4i8, K«( Qcrai fxd mm^ag sOir.rrixv, Opera, vol. 4.
p, 188.

^fped

Chap. I. OftheArianControverfy. 225

fped to what is faid concerning wifdom in
the book of Proverbs. In the tranflation of
the feptuagint we read the hord created
me the begmning of his zvaySy which certaixily
had the appearance of making this wifdo?n
(or Chrijl, fuppofed to be intended by it)
2^ creature . In what manner the orthodox
interpreted this paflage, fo as to evade the
force of the argument, without rejeding
the tranflation of the feptuagint, we have
{zzri already. Here I fhall only obferve,
that, notwithflanding the diflike which the
orthodox had for the tranflations of Aquila,
Theodotion, and Symmachus, as being uni-
tarians, they were glad to avail themfelves
of their interpretation of this paffage. For
they rendered it, the Lord possessed nie
the beginning of his ways, a rendering which
is much approved by Eufebius *.'*

sv^oi av TYiv E^^oiiKw avayvu(Tiv a ^i^nx^irav to, 2)BiC£ (xt . hoin^
•dh T5)v "hoiTTCfiv t^(xy\v2v\m^ Tavln Tig «?%^)i]«i Tn ?,s|y) • aulixa ^' ay q
(MSv AxVhaq^ fcv^iog 5k1y](TccIo fxs xE(paXioy im o^m otuls^ £icnKS7 . oSe
Xu/xfj^xog^ Hu^iog ejilmdlc /xs a^x'^v g^uv ay% . o h ©soooliuv^ ku^io^
tKlnadlofxs a^xnv oh av%, Ec. Theol. lib, 3. cap. 2. p. 152.

Vol. IV. Q^ That

226 Of the Arian Controverfy. Book IV.

That the word made does not always im-
ply a proper creation^ the orthodox attempted
to prove from other paffages of fcripture;
and the extreme weaknefs of their reafon-
ing may ferve to fhew how much they felt
themfclves preffed by this argument. Cy-
ril of Alexandria fays, *' We read that God
** is made a refuge, but this does not imply
'* that God was created^:' That Chrifl
was only generated, and not madey Auftin
proves from its being faid, ** This day is
** hovn unto us a Saviour, not madef-'* Hi-
lary alfo proves that " Chrift was not made
** out of nothing, but v/as derived from the
*^ fubftance of the Father, becaufe he faid,
** I came forth from the Father\y

"* Et fadlus eft mihi dciriinus In refugium ? Nunquid
concedes fadtum efie deum. De Trinitate, lib. 4. Opera,
vol. 2. p. 422.

+ Chriftus non fadius fed natus eft, dicente angelo pafto-
ribus, ecce natus ell vobis hodie falvator qui eft Chriftus
dominus. Queftiones exN. T. 50. Opera, vol, 4. p. 735.

X Qiiod dixit: ex patre exivl, et veni, utruni ambigui-
tatem reliquerit, quin intelligeretur non aliunde quam ex
patre efle quod deus eft. — A patre enim venifle, et ex deo
exifle, non eft fignificationis ejufdem : et quantum intereft

^ • inter

Chap. I. Of the ArlanCGntroverfy, 227

That Chrift had a proper human foidy
having the fame afFedions with the fouls of
other men, the orthodox proved from our
Saviour being faid to grieve, and to be in an
agony, &cc. Thus Athanafius,in anfwer to the
Apollinarians, alledges Chrifl being dijlurbed
inffirit, *' This/' he fays, '' cannot arife
** either from the infenfible body, or the un-
** changeable Godhead^." In another place
he alledges, againft tbis-^art of the Arian
fyftem, that, according to it, the divinity mufl
have fuffered and have rifen from the dead-j-.
*' How can any one fay that the body of Chrift
" was without foul, or without underflanding

inter nafciet adefle, tantum a fe uterque fermo difcernitur :
cum aliud fit a deo in fubflantia nativitatis exifTe, aliud fit
a patre in hunc mundum ad confummanda falutis noflrae
facramenta veniffe. Lib.6. p. 108.

avou73 (XV £m, «?£ ^solyi}^ al^£7r%-, a>}\a -^uxm vcr,(nv s^afrrj , 7.07^"
fASVw, Hal ra^arlo^Ewiv, Kai ah/JLor^'jav, km vo^ia^ iTraia^avoixET/rj ra
fsax^E;. De Incarnatione, Opera, vol. i. p. 628.

-j- Ap£{©- ^£ ca^Ha (jLO-jyff '^Pog aTTOK^v^w lYig ^Eolr'i©- o^o>jQyu .
avli ^B TH f£r«S£v £y -nixiv avb^coTrn^ TsJsn tyji; i|/y%>7; rov Aoyov sv a-aoKi
^£7£< ytyovEvah T'nv ra "uia^ng vcmiv nai t/jv eI a^s ctvara(rtv ty] ^tc-
'iv^i "cs^oacxrisiv TohyLOiv, Ibid. p. 635.

0^2 *' —Terror,

228 Gfthe Arlan Controverfy. Book IV.

** — Terror, and grief, and anxiety, are afFec^
** tions of the foul ; labour, and fleep, and
** wounds are of the body, the weaknefs of
^* the flefh -^/' Epiphanius alfo, in the
fame controverfy, alledges, but with much
lefs propriety, i Cor. ii. 6. l^Ve have the
mind of Ch?'ifi'f. Fuigentius argues, that
if Chrift had had only a body, and not a
foul, he could not have faved more than the
bodies of men ; but having recovered the
whole of the loft flieep, and not a part of it
only, he infers that he was able to fave
both J. He alfo cbferves that, if Chrili

* n&)j Se av T^syoi, Ti^ii a-^vxov xoci avor^ov^ to acafA.cc in %fira —
Ta^ctx*^ y^§ ^^^ ^y7J■J?, Hoii a^v](j(.ovioi^ ^v^vg vcar\ixoiia ' hottc; h xai
vTTvoii KM 7^u<Tig (70)[jL(xlog^ (Ta^KQ^ ao'^Evrifxixlx. Anathemas, af*
cribed to Gregory Thaumaturgus, Opera, p. 6.

+ Ancoratus, fed. 76. Opera, vol. 2. p. 81.

% Quapropter cum error ifte anim^ fimul intelligatur,
ct corporis, fi dei filius abfque anima rational! folam acce-
pit hominis carnem, inferiorem partem iilius ovis dojnum
retulit, meliorem vero (quod abfit) error! perpetuo dereli-
quit : nam manifeflum eft, quoniam hoc rcvocavit, quod
propriis humeris reportavit : fi autem ipfe totam fe profi-
tetur ovem propriis humeris impofitam reportafle, totus
homo cognofcatur in Chrifio : quoniam tunc eft hominis
credenda redemptio: ft in iilio dei fufcept onis humanae, id

Chap. I. Of the Arian Controverfy, 229^

had not had a human foul, there would have
been nothing extraordinary in his being
without fin, as the divinity cannot poffibly
fin *. That all the orthodox Fathers held
that Chrift had a proper human foul, as well
as a human body, I have produced abundant
evidence. Vol. 2. p. 198.

Lafl:ly, Athanafius urges the Arians with
the conformity of their principles to thofe
of the Gnoftics, on the idea that, according
to them, Chrift was a being of the fame
nature with the angels. *' If," fays he,
*' the Son be not of the things that are
*' made, but of the Father's efl^ence, the
*' reafoning of the Arians concerning the
*' word made is foolifh ; and if they im-
** pudently afiTert that it is ufed only by
" way of comparifon, and that things com-

cft, ovis illius reportatae, non defuit plenitudo. Ad Tra-
fimundum, lib. i. cap. lo. p. 451.

* Nam fi dei filius animam humanam in carnis fufcep-
tione non habuit, et hoc beatus Petrus de ejus creditur
divinltate dixifle, quid eft, quod pro magno in laudem di-
citur Chriili ? Quia divinitas ejus immunis efle potuit a
labe peccati, cum dei fit proprium, non folum non peccare,
fed etiam a peccato falvare. Ibid. cap. 11. p. 452.

Q^ 3 ^' pared

230 Of the Arian Coniroverfy. Book IV.

** pared niuil: be fimilar, fo that the Son
*' muit be of the fame nature with the an-
** gels, they ought to be the more afhamed,
** as adopting the opinions of Valentinus,
** Carpocrates, and other heretics^ of v/hom
** the former faid, tliat the angels were of
*' the fame nature with Chrift, and the
** latter/ that angels were the makers of
** the world. For they muft have learned
*' of them to compare the logos of God
** with the angels. But they who ima^
*' gine fuch things are put to fhame by
** the Pfalmift, who fays, Who among the
*' Sons of God is like unto the Lord; who
*• among the gods is like unto thee, O
'' Lord*?"

* Cyvrtav Si Tav fA-sv ysvr^.ouV a^^Oi; sri, tyi; ^s th 'usal^o; aaict; jmovo;
iom ysvYii/yicc 0 uio;^ fx£(j.alaialai toij A^siuvQig vi 'sis^i ra y£vOfji,evcg
'Si^o(pa(Tii; . KOLV ya'^ zv tMoi; aiO-xyvSsv^Es ^la^covlcci 'SiaTiiv Mysiv avy-
Hpf'uKojg E'.^y^a^ai to. ^7}la, ' Kai ^icx nfio nvai to auyK^m^AZva o/jLoy(vn^
(Wrs TGV vxv mg tcov afys>.av sivai (pvaeccg^ aiirx^v^yi^ovJ^t l^^v 'B^oy^ya-
f*£vag agTa OoaUvliva Jicci Ka^Trotc^oiia km tcuv aT^cov ai^ilinm ^>i;\si/-
7f J, Kai (p^Efyci'XEvoi . cov 0 ,a£v tj^j a^y^hag oyLoyivng £ipY,K2 tco %^ira) .
0 tie Y^a^TTOK^akg aP/£Aa$ fa koq-iah ^vf^i^yag sivai (pY]^L . 'siap avlov
ya^ icrag (^o^oxlsg koh Hioi^ cruyy^^ivacri tov m ^bh T^-oyovroig alyz'ho'.g '
a'Kh svl^uiTrna-ovlai roiaola (pavla^o(jt.Evoi ^a.^<x [iiv ts uiJiva^a ^£yov7c^_,
Ti$ Of^oiCL-^jBlai TO) xv^ico £v vioig Sea, Jixi Tig o^ioiog aot sv Bsoig itU^is^

Con. Ar. Or. 2- p. 363,

SEC-

Chap. I. Of the Arian Controverfy, 231

S E C T -I O N V.

General Ohfervatioiis on the Arian Con^

troverjy.

npHUS have I given the beft view that
I have .been able to ccllcdl of the
principles on which the Arian controverfy
was conduded in eai-ly times ; and the
following circurnftances clearly prove, that,
notwithftanding the advantage which the
Arians derived from the conceffions and
abfurdities of their antagonists, their doc-
trine was really a novel one. All the or-
thodox Fathers before the age of Ariiis
confidered the logos v/hich made the world,
and which was the medium of all the di-
vine communications to the patriarchs, as
having been the proper attribute of th€
Father, and therefore uncreated. They alfo
all fuppofed that Chrifl had a human foul,
as well as a human body, and that the logos
was united to the man^ and not to the body
©nly.

CL4 The

232 Of the Arian Coutroverfy, Book IV.

The Arian doftrine, therefore, that Chrift,
or the logos, was a created fuper-angelic
fpirit, the creator of the world, and the
medium of the divine communications to
the patriarchs, &c. (which all the Arians
of that age believed ; for, as I have more
than once obferved, they all transferred to
their created logosy whatever had been fup-
pofed to have been the office of the uncre--
ated one) and that this great fpirit animated
the body of Jefus in the place of a human
foul, was altogether a novel doftrine, and
hot older than the age of Arius himfel£

As to the dodlrine of Chrift being a pre-
exiftent fuper-angelic fpirit, and not the
creator of the world, or not the medium of
the divine communications to the patri*
archs, it is much more novel ; probably
not older than a fingle century. In the
fame predicament alfo is the notion that
the great powers of this fuper-angelic fpirit
were in a ftate of fufpenfion, fo that whik
upon earth he was reduced to the condition
of a mere human foul ; a ftrange notion,
which nothing but the moft infuperable

difficulties

Chap. I. OftheArianControverfy. 233

difficulties attending the original Arian hy-
pothefis, could have led any man to adopt.

That the Arian dodirine, in any form,
was not older than the age of Arius, is an
infuperable objection to its truth, or to its
being the dodlrine of the fcriptures. For
they were always admitted to be the rule of
faith by all chriftians. And certainly thofe
who lived neareft to the age of the apof-
ties, for vvhofe ufe the books of the New
Teftament were written, and who had not
the difficulties that we labour under, of
learning foreign languages, and inveftigating
ancient cuftoms and ancient idioms, to cm-
barrafs and miflead them, m.uft have been
better qualified to underftand the true fenfe
of fcripture than we are. Can that, then,
be the true fenfe of fcripture (how much
foever we, with all the prejudices of edu-
cation about us, may fancy it to favour any
particular hypothefis) which, it is evident,
no perfon in the three firft centuries put
upon it ? This confideration ought cer-
tainly to check the confidence of thofe who
are ever fo well fatisfied that their dodrine

is

2 34 OftheArianControverfy. Book IV.

is taught in the fcriptures. Much more
ought it to ftagger thofe whofe opinions
had no exiftence before the reformation,
which is the cafe with many of the modern
Arians.

On the contrary, it cannot be denied,
that the great body of the common people
in early times were properly unitarians^
that their dodrine exifled and prevailed in
the time of the apoflles, and that they had as
great a veneration for the books of the New
Teftament as we can have at this day ; and
yet they never found in them that dodirine
of the pre- exiftence of Cbrift, which many
now think to be clearly and repeatedly
taught in them. This is certainly an argu-
ment of great weight in favour of the uni-
tarian interpretations of thofe particular
texts, which, according to their literal mean-
ing, feem to favour the dodrine of pre-
cxiftence, and ought to lead us to fufpecl,
that it is owing to nothing but our early
prejudices, that fuch interpretations, on the
lirft propofal of them, appear unnatural.

It

Chap. I. Of the Arlan Controverfy. 235

It is pretty remarkable that the common
people feem to have taken little or no part in
the Arian controverfy. For a long time at
leaft, it was confined to the bifliops and
clergy. Indeed, the Arian dodlrine was of
fuch a nature, that it w^as not likely to
interefl: the common people, who were then
generally unitarians. They who had been
accuftomed to confider the logos as nothing
more than the wifdom and power of God
(which, we have it^n, was the cafe with all
the ancient unitarians) could not be fup-
pofed to take any part in a debate, in Vv hich
the difputants on both fides agreed that the
logos was a perfon^ and the difference be-
tween them was, whether he was created^ or
uncreated.

Neither does it appear that the Arian
doctrine ferved as an intermediate ftage, by
which the common people, who were uni-
tarians, were brought to the trinitarian doc-
trine, which was univerfally prevalent in af«
ter ages -, though this would not feem to be
improbable, as it is very common at this
day for perfons to pafs from Athanafianiim
1 to

236 Of the Arian CGntroverfy. Book IV.

to Arianifm, and then from Arianifm to pro^
per Unitarianifm.

It is evident, from the writings of Bafil,
and efpecially from his letters, that the
odium he lay under was chiefly with the
common people, and that they were unita- ^
rians -, and there are many other marks of
the more ignorant of the common people
being unitarians in a very late period, but
none that I have found of their being gene-
rally Arians. Indeed, there was too much
o{ philojophy in the Arian doftrine for the
common people to enter into it. What a
prophet Vv^as, a prophet mighty in word and ^
deed^ they could underfland ^ but the doc- "^
trine of a created logos, a created creator^ muft
have appeared ftrange to them ; though,
perhaps, not quite fo much fo as that of a
perfonified attribute.

That the Arian dodrine gave no more
fatisfadion to the learned unitarians than
that of the orthodox, may be concluded
from the peculiar animofity with which the
Arians always purfued the unitarians, as we
fee in the writings of Eufebius againfl Mar-

cellus,

Chap. I. Of the Arian Coniroverfy. 237

cellus, and in the perfecution of Photlnus,
which was carried on chiefly by Arians.
The fame may alfo be inferred from the
orthodox of that age fpeaking more favour-
ably of the unitarians than they do of the
Arians.

Nor is this fo m.uch to be wondered at;
for, befides the refped: with which unita-
rianifm would be treated as an ancient doc-
trine^ and Hill held by the generality of the
common people, the Athanafians thought at
leaft that they were agreed with the unita-
rians in an article which was deemed to be
of much more confequence in that age than
it was afterwards, which was the preferv-
\x\g oi xho. unity of God , This the Athana-
fians maintained that they did, by fuppofmg
the logos to be w^hat the unitarians faid it
was, viz. the wifdom and power of God the
Father, differing from them only with re-
fpe(5t to its perfonif cation. On the other
hand, it has been feen, that they conlidered
the Arians 2^s ?ih{o\\MQ\y poly theifs, holding
the dodrine of two Gods y from which
charge, while the Arians confider Chrift

238 Of the Atian Controverjy. Book IV.

as the 7naker of the world ^ and the cbjeB of
prayer^ I do not fee how they can excul-
pate themfelves. No doubt, however, a
great part of the animofity of the orthodox
againft the Arians, arofe from the oppofi-
tion they met with from them ; there
being more men of learning among the
Arians than among the unitarians.

It is much to be lamented that there are
no remains of any controverfy between the
ancient Arians and unitarians, efpecially of
the conference between Photinus and Bafil
of Ancyra. This would, no doubt, have
thrown much more light than we now have
on the fubjed: of thefe differences, and 6n
the ftate of ancient opinions in general.

I

CHAP.

Ghap. II. OftheNeJlorianControverfy. 139

T

CHAPTER II.

Of the Nejiorian Controverfy.

H E opinion of Neftorius being
nearly allied to that of the ancient
unitarians, it may not be improper to give
fome account of it, and of the controverfy
that was occaficned by it.

The mafter of Neftorius was Theodorus,
bifhop of Mopfueftia, who is faid to have
held the fame opinion before him ^". From
what Facundas has faid in his juftlfication,
it fhould feem that he was more properly
an unitarian, fuch as Photinus was. But it
is probable, that their dodrine was fo much
alike, that few perfons in that age thought
there was much difference betv\^een them ;
and Theodorus is faid to have had his in-
fl:ru£tion from Diodorus, bifliop of Tarfus,
while he was a prefbyter at Antioch t-

* Axhoc xj Nsrc^js Sby/xa^ si »ej 'iis^q Nsropis vTDipx^v v^E^s^y^i-
^v©-. Photii. Bib, feiSl. 39. p. 23.
f Lardner, Credibility, vol. 9. p. 351.

Upon

240 Of the 'Nejiorian Controverjy, Book IV.

Upon the condemnation of Neftorlus,
his partifans, not being able to avail them-
felves of his writings, publiilied thofe of
Theodoras, in the Greek, Syrian, Arme-
nian, and Perfian languages ; alfo an epiftle
of Ibas, biihop of EdeiTa, and fome pieces of
Theodoret, which they thought favourable
to them. Thefe were generally denominated
the three chapters ; and it was thought ne-
ceffary to hold a particular council for the
purpofe of condemning them *. The fame
is obferved by Juftinian himfelf, in his epif-
tle *!•. The Neftorians ftill preferve the
writings of Theodorus with great care, and
confider him as a faint of the firft rank J,

There muft have been fomething very
popular in the dodrine of Neftorius, Juf-

* See the preface to the works of Juftinian, Sec. by
Bandini.

f Oil TLVsi; TO 'NefopiH ovofj^a aicoTTctv 'zs^oaTTOia/xzvoi d'lcc rav 'cs^o-
£j|-»i|U£v&)v, aijlov NsTcpiov, xj TAV KuKo^o^iav avla ZKrayccyuy ETr^XEipisv^
TYW aa-£^£iav rcov x£(pa>^ixiuv ra/wv rri xa^ohiHYi iHKT^wia 'uipoa-a<7r^o^£g.

Vol. I. p. 6.

:|: Mofheim's Hid. vol. 1. p. 208, Jortin's Remarks,
vol. 4» P- 288.

tinian

Chap. II. OftheNeJiorianControverJy. 241

tinian fays, that he drew many into error *.
Proclus, in an epiftle to the Armenians,
A. D. 435, in which he condemns the er-
rors of Neflorius and Theodorus of Mop-
fueftia, did not, as Cave fays, mention the
name of Theodorus, left he fhould too
much oiFend the Armenians, to whom his
memory was dear f,

Socrates fays, that *^ Neftorius was ac-
*' cufed by many as making Chrifc a mere
*' man, and as introducing the opinion of
** Paulus Samofatenfis and Photinus into
** the church J/' Marius Mercator alfo
confidered the herefy of Neftorius as '^ in
** part that of Paulus Samofuenlis, in part
*' that of Ebion, that of Marcellus of An-

^ 'sjqTO^; Sia TCiiv a7zQm aula a-vyy^afjiiJLCilcov rjroP.msv, Epift,
p. 124.

+ Anno 435, data ad Armenos epiftola, Neftorii et
Theodori Mopfuefleni errores damnavit, inta^lo tamen
Theodori nomine, ne Armenos, quibus cara erat iftius
memorla, nimis ofFenderet. Hiiloria Literaria, vol. I*
P- 423-

X Nsi-opiog ^€ ^ciav ^<xpa roig 'SJoT^oi; f Jxev, ag '-^["Kov otv^omov
Xevwv tqv Kvpm^ )y wj HaVha ts 'Ea/xua-alscog «J ^ulsm hyf^a eig
TYiv zKH>.miav ctyoiv. Lib. 7. cap. 32. p. 38 1.

Vol. IVo II «* cyri.

242 Of the NeftorianCoritroverfy. Book IV.

<* cyra, and Photinus */' And Theodo-
ras de Rhaita fays, that '* Theodoras of
** Mopfaeftia held Chrift to be a mere man,
** who, by the graceof God, deferved to be
«* called God f." '^ The Neftorians," fays
Cyril of Alexandria, '' called Chrift homo
** deiferus, a man bearing a GodX' — *' a man
*' aftaated and impelled by the deity, and
*' that he worked miracles by a power not
*' his own § /* and that ** the fonfhip
** and divinity of Chrift belonged to the
*' logos only ||." He likewife fays, that
*« !Neftorius afcribed the title oi Jon of God
*^ in one fenfe to the logos, and in another

* Aut cui eft, vel fuit, vel erit aliquando poffibile, per-
fcrutari omnia, et omnia commemorare, quibus probetur
non novella hunc, fed vetere, partim Pauli Samofateni,
partim Ebionis, partim Marcelli Galatae, ct Photini t^Q
eum impietate diftortum. Epift. p. 50.

•)• Qui et per gradus promovens, accepta a dec gratia
promeruit nominari deus. Bib. Pat. vol. 8. p. 66l«

X Si quifquam Chriftum deiferum hominem audit di-
ccre, et non magis deum fecundum veritatem, anathe-^
nia efto, Epift. vol. 2. p. 26;

§ Ibid.

jl Ibid. p. 51,

^' fcnfe

Chap. II. Of the Nejlorian Controverfy. 243

'^ fenfe to him that was born of a woman*,"
meaning the one by nature, and the other by-
adoption. According to Caffian, Neftorius
faid, it was *' the Spirit that made Chrift
*' formidable to daemons +•" According
to Theophylad:, Neflorius faid, that '' Chrift
*' was deified after his refurredlion J ;"
meaning probably, that he received power
and glory as a God, in confequence of his
fufFerings, which was the doctrine of the
proper unitarians.

On the other hand, if we may depend
on Marius Mercator, Neflorius denied that
his dodlrine was the fame with that of Pau-
lus Samofatenfis and Photinus, as they held

* Nenorlus fimulat quldem in exegefibus fuls dicere fe
quod unus filius, et unus dominus, fed filiationem ac do-

miiiationem ad folum dei verbum refert. Non ficut

Neftorius, qui alias deo verbo feparatim, alias ei qui ex
muliere fit, tanquam alteri filio, adfcribit. Epift. p. 52.
E t Dicis quoque quod fpiritus eum fecerit daemonibus
metuendum, De Incarnatione, lib. 7. cap. 19. Opera,
p. nil,

% lis £r{ Neropiog svlau^' o ^£ya}v, oli fxilac rnv avxracnv £^£07roi-n^v
p Xp^^og, In John, cap. 6. vol. I. p. 648.

R ^ that

244 OftheNef.orianConfroverfy, Book IV.

that Chrift had no divinity at all*. He
faid, '* it was a calumny by which he was
*' charged with afferting that Chrift was a
** mere man ; for that he was God and man-f."
According to Caflian, alfo, Neftorius faid
that *' Chrift was not a man as Adam
*^ was J." And if we may prefume that there
Is a faithful reprefentation of the principles
of Neftorius in the dialogue of Maxentius,
who fays, that ** he fuppofed the word of
** God to have been united to Chrift in the
*' womb of the virgin |i/' he did not in fa6t
differ from the orthodox, except in words.
But he is much more generally reprefented
as approaching to an unitarian.

* Sic et quae apoftolorum funt praedlcabis, et haeretlcQ-
rum prudentur effugies, et rnaxime quae funt Samofateni
Pauli atque Photini, quae tu fcire confingens, prorfus ig-
jioras. Nam Paul us et Photinus nefciunt filii deitatem,
Opera, p. yg.

t Sed non nudus homo Chriflus, O calumniator, fed
homo fimul et deus. Ibid. p. 6i,

X De Incarnatione, lib. 7, cap. 6. p. 1093.

II Quia antequam nafceretur, non erat qui fieret dominus,
nee pofteaquam natus eft, fa6lus eft dominus, fed in ipfa
prorfus vulva unitione fiiii id fadus eft- dominus. Bib.
Pat. vol 5. p. 532.

Glycas

Chap. II. Of the hejlcnaji Controverjy. 245

Glycas i^iys that Neftoi-ius coniidered
Chrifl: as a mere man, who received the
Spirit at his baptifm^. Juftinian, quot-
ing the words of Theodoras, reprefents
him as faying, ^' It is abfurd to fay that
** God was born of a virgin ; for what
^' is that but to fay that he was of the
** feed of David, made of the fubftance
** of the virgin, and formed in her •[-."
This is- of a piece w^ith the remarkable fpeech
of Neftorius, and fix others, at the council
of Ephefus, *^ We cannot call him a God
*' who is only two or three months old+."

rnv nysfAoviav hy-xm-^ ducrpYifxav rov xv^iov sva im kc^ vi/a; ko-a xoivcv

TT,; TH 'Mavxy.^ 'srveufioios ^coosag y£VO(j!.Evov (j-iloxoV' Annales, pt.
3. p. 245-

+ Ert (jlev yap ctvonlov to rov ^sov eji rr,g ^ap^sva yEjri,y\<j^ai
y\iyziv ' r^Io ya.^ x^£v (Ie^cv STiV, y\ eh aTTE^fxalo; aulov >>EyEiv AaQid^
iH. TY]g 8<nag TY,g ^a'^^EV8 teIehi-^evov^ aai £V auln ^ia7Te7r7\a7(xsvov.
Epift. p. 38.

t O ?"£ ^vaas^Yig 'Ne^o^ioc (TVV £| 0[XQ(poh(nv au% sT^sysv . oil Sijtwj-
rcx,iov Kui r^ifivivoiiov s 3l/v^/.<«i ?.£y£jv Seov. Glycse Annales,
pt. 4. p. 261.

R3 It

246 OfiheNeftorianCcntroverfy, BookIV.

It (hould feem, however, that Neftorius
would not exprefsly fay, that Chrijl was not
God, but only that what was hox7z of Mary
was not fo. But his enemies drew the
inference for him. ** They,'' fays Jufti-
nian, " who do not acknowledge that the
** word of God was made fleflh, plainly
•* make Chrift to be a mere man, and to
** be the Son of God by favour only, ac-
** cording to the herefy of Neftorius, and
" his mafter Theodorus*."

Cafiian more particularly compares the
opinions of Neftorius and thofe of the unita-
rians, faying, " They maintain that Chrift
** was a man born of Mary, and thou the
** fame. They fay that Chrift was made a
*' Saviour at baptifm, thou that he became
** the temple of God in baptifm* They do
*' not deny that he was made God after his
" fufferings. Thou denieft that he was

^'ai ^r/ov7£J5 cog 75 KOiHo^o^ia Nero^is, Kai 0£o5&;oa ra h^a'jxcxhu
avia >^E7ei, Epift. p, 14.

'' fo

Chap. II. OftheNeJiorianControverfy. 247

** fo even after his afcenfion */* This was
making him more heretical than the unita-
rians. But then Caffian had no authority
for faying that the unitarians held that
Chrift was God, in any proper fenfe of
the word, after his fufferings. Indeed, if
he was not God before, it was impoffible
that he fhould become fo afterwards.

From all thefe circumftances, it is poffible
that Neftorius might confider Cbrif, to have
been as much a mere man as the proper uni-
tarians did, till after his baptifm ; after
which he faid that the logos (whom he
perhaps confidered as the fecond perfon in
the trinity) was united to him, fo that from
this time he was the fame compound being
that the orthodox fuppofcd him to be,
Juftinian fays, that '* Neftorius diftin-
*' guifhed God the word from Chriji a mere

* Illi folitarium homK em ex Maria natum adferunt, et
tu idem. Illi fervatorem aiunt per baptifma Chriftum
efle fadum, tu in baptifmo templum dei faftum. Illi eura
deum non negant fadum poft paiTionem, tu negas eum
etiam n-^ .'.enfionem. De Incarnatione, lib. 6. cap. 14.
p. 1066.

V

248 Of the Nejlorian Controverfy. Book IV.

*' man, and afcribcd to the man only all
** the low things that were faid of him*."
But it will appear by his own arguments
in defence of his principles, that whatever
he might occaiionally give out, he differed
very little from the unitarians.

It is fomething remarkable that, as the
Pelagians were charged with being unita-
rians, or Neflorians ; fo the Neilorians are
likewife charged with being Pelagians, af-
ferting, that '' Adam and Eve v/ere created
*^ mortal, and that none of their pofterity
** receive any injury from their tranfgref-
*' fion-f.'' They who held this dodrine

nai (A.0VC0 TO) avSfw^rw Ta TCiTisivx aTroysfAUcnv, iLpift. p. 70.

■f Quaeftio contra cathollcam {idem apud nonnullos
Syrorum, et prscipue in Cilicia, a Theodoro quondam
epifcopo oppidi Mopfuefteni jamdudum mota, nunc
ufque penes paucos eorum admodum roditur, nee ea pa-
lam profertur fed abipfis qui de ea fornicantur, velut ca-
tholicis, intra ecclefias interim retinentur, progenitores
videlicet humani generis Adam et Evam mortales a deo
creates, nee queniquam potlerorum fui prsevaricatione
tranrgrelli laefifie, fed fibi tantum nocuilTe. feque mandati

reos

Ch AP . II. Of the Ncjlorian Controverfy. 249

are here fuppofed to have been in the
church. And yet there are extant in the
tranflation of Mercator, feme fermons of
Neftorius againfl Pelagius*.

If we confider the arguments that Nefto-
rius is reprefented as making ufe of in the
defence of his principles, we ihall not find
that they differed at all from thofe of the
unitarians. It is not even abfolutely certain
that he made any trinity in the godhead, or
that he held the dodtrine of the perfonifi-
cation of the logos. He certainly did not
think that there was any proper divinity
in Chrift, till after his birth, or indeed be^
fore his baptifm.

According to Cyril of Alexandria, Nefto-
rius faid, *' How can he, who cannot be
•* comprehended, be confined in the womb
** of a virgint?'' Urging the words of
the gofpel, The book of the generation ofjefus

reos apud deum feclffe, alterum penitus nullum. Mar.
Mercatoris Common itorium, p. 1 .
* Opera, p. 119, &c.

f Quomodo qui comprehendi nequit In utero virginis
comprehenfus eft. De Incarnatione, vol. 2. p. 66.

1 Chrif,

250 Of the Nejlorian Controverjy, Book IV,

Chriji^ the fon of David, the f on of Abraham^
he faid, *^ It is plain that God the word was
*' not the fon of David *." According to
Marius Mercator, Neflorius faid, that " they
♦* who faid that Mary brought forth a God
" gave occafion to the Pagans to reproach
*' chrifcianity "f*." Caffian fays, that Ncf-
torius afferted, with refpedl to the virgin
Mary, that ** no perfon could bring forth
** another older than herfelf if ;" and that
" no creature could bring forth any thing

• Liber, inquit, generationis Jefu Chrifti filii David
filii Abrabss. Manifeftum vero eft, quod deus verbum non
fuerit filius Davidis. Ep. vol. 2. p. 21.

t Qui deum fnnplicitur dicit de Maria natum, prima
omnium nobilitatem gentilibus proftituit dogmatis, atque
exponens in medium, vituperandum id ridendumque pro-
ponit. Statim enim paganus, cum reprehenfione acci-
picns, quia de Maria deus natus eft, infert adverfus chrif-
tianum. NecefTario enim qui dicit fimiliter de Maria na-
tum deum, et non ilium conjunftione duarum naturarum,
divinae fcilicet et humanas, effe reputaverit, audiet ; ego.
natum et mortuum deum et fepultum adorare non queo.
Opera, p. 70.

X Nemo enim, inquis, antiquiorera fe parit, De Incar-
natione, lib. 2. cap. 2 p. 973.

X ^ *' unlike

Chap, II. Of the Nejiorian Controverfy. 251

** unlike itfeif *." With this view he al-
ledged, John ii. i. That which is born of the
flejh isflefi^.

Like the proper unitarians, Neftorius ar-
gued from Chrift being called a man ; as
from Paul faying, By man came death, and by
man came alfo the refurreBion of the dead% ;
and from his being called a child. Take the
child and his mother, and flee into Egypt § .
Jigainfl thy holy child fefus, Herod and Pon^

* Quod diillmllem fibi res quaelibet parere non poillt.
De Incarnatione, lib. 2. cap. 2. p. 1089.

t Cum deus dicat, quod de carne natum ed, caro eft,
quod autem natum eft de fpiritu, fpirltus eft ; quomodo
puerum natum ex foemina non unitione, fed natura, deutu
aiTeris ? Maxentius in Bib. Pat. vol. 5. p. 521.

X Q^ioniam enim inquis, per hominem mors, ideo et per
hominem refurre£tio mortuorum. Cailian De Incarna-
tione, lib. 7. cap. 7. p. 1095.

§ ToUe, inquit, puerum et matrem ejus, et fugc in
iEgyptum, futurum eft enim, ut Herodes quaerat perderc
puerum. Et rurfus : defundi funt omnes, qui quaerebant
animam pueri. Nunquid nam didum eft. Defun6ti
funt, qui quaerebant animam dei ? Aut : tolle deum et
fuge in Egyptum ? Maxentius in Bib. Pat. vol. 5, p;

518.

tius

252 Of the Nejlorian Controverjy^ Book IV.

tius Pilate have confpired^. He like wife
urged the ablurdity of fuppoiing the logos
to have been fuckled, and to increafe in
v/ifdom -f*.

According to CaiHan, Neflorius likewife
argued from Chrift being faid to be jujiified
in thefpirit J.

Theodorus, who preceded Neftorius, faid,
that being baptized into the name of Chrifl:
was no more a proof that Chrift was God,
than being baptized into the name of Mofes
is a proof that he was God ; as we learn
from an extradl from a book of his, pro-
duced at the council of Conftantinople,

* Convenerunt enlm vere in civitate ifta adverfum fane-
tum-puerum tuum Jefum quern unxifti, Herodes et Pontius
Pilatus. Maxentius, in Bib. Pat. vol. 5. p» 520.

f Necefic eft enim eos qui appropriationis nomen ita
vexant, et in diverrum trahunt, deum verbum participem
conflituere lacSlationis, et incrementipaulatlm accepti, timi-
ditatifque tempore paffionis declarat^e, &c. Cyril of Alex-
andria, Ep. Opera, vol. 2* p. 21.

X Jam primum enim hoc quod ais, quia juftitia reple-
verit quod creatum eft ; et hoc apoftolico vis teftimonio
comprobare, quod dicat, apparuit in carne, juftificatus eft
in fpiritu. De Incarnatione, lib. 7. cap. 18. p. 11 10.

A. D.

Chap. II. Of the Nejlonan Controver/y. 253

A. D. 553** He Hkewife faid that Tho^
mas's exclamation, My Lord and my God,
was no acknowledgment of the divinity of
Chrift, but an exprellion of praife to God
for raifing up Chrift from the dead t*
Thefe are properly unitarian arguments.

Neftorius evidently confidered Chrift as
being a mere man in his fufferings. ** He
** faid he knev^ no God the word, the maker
'* of all things, who was impaffible, invi-
'^ lible, and unalterable, and not to be cir-
*^ cumfcribed, fufFering; death on the crofs,
** on a vile piece of wood :|:/' In reply to

^ Ejufdem Theodori ex comi-nento quod eft in adis
apoftolorum, llbro priip.o, in quo dicit, quod baptizari in
nomine Jefu Chrifti, fimile eft fcripto illi, quod baptizati
funt in Moyfe, et vocari chrifiianos, fimile eft illi, quod
vocantur Platonici, et Epicurei, et Manichasi, et Marcio-
niftae ab inventoribus dogmatum. Binnii Concilia, vol. 2.
pt. 2. p. 57.

f Thomas quidem cum fie credidilTet, dominus meus et
deus meus, dicit, non ipfum dominum et deum dicens
(non enim refurre^iionis Icientia docebat et deum e.fie eum
qui refurrexit) fed quafi pro miracuiofo fa£lo deum col-
laudat. Ibid.

X Quomodo deus verbum omnium, conditor, impalpa-
bilis, invifibilis, inalterabilifque, et circumfcriptionem non

fuftinens,

254 Of the Nejiorian Controverjy. Book IV.

this language of Neftorius, his antagonifl
fcrupled not to talk in a ftyle that nothing
but the heat of controverfy would have led
him to adopt. '* I anfwer," fays he, '' that
*' the word of God fuffsred death on the
*^ crofs, in his own flefli^ that he might
«' deliver us from death and corruption*,"
But when he explained himfelf, he only
meant that the divine logos, without adlu-
ally feeling any pain, only appropriated to
itfelf the fufFer.ings of the body to which
it was united, as has been explained before.
If this account of Neftoriu^'s principles
and mode of reafoning may be depended
upon, he did not in fad differ from the
unitarians ^ and the popularity of his doc-
trine, and the fpread of it in the eaft, may
be confidered as a proof of the leaning that
the common people ftill had for their ori^
ginal principles. Sandius fays. It is eafy

fuftinens, in vill ligno crucem pafTus eft et mortem ? Re-
Ipondeo. Verbum dei mortem et crucem in propria carne
paiTum efle dicimus, ut nos amorte et corruptione liberaret.
Cyril of Alejtandria, De Incar. Opera, vol. 2. p. 66,
* Ibid.

to

Chap. II. Of the Neftorian Controverfy. 255

to prove that there are five times more Nef-
torians than papifts. Hift. p. 119. They
were probably in all parts of Europe, as
well as in Afia. It appears from the pro-
ceedings of the council of Hifpalis, A. D.
6^j9 that there were both Nellorians and
Eutychians in Spain at that time *.

If we confider the anfv^ers that were made
to Neftorius, we fhall find that his oppo-
nents went upon the fame principle that
they would have done in anfwering Paulus
Samofatenfis or Photinus ; except that his
making a trinity in the divine Being laid
him open to fome attacks, to which the
proper unitarians were not expofed.

Caffian treated him as a proper unitarian,
when, in reply to him, he faid, ** There

* Tertia decima profecutione breviter narranduitrputa-
vimus, ad refutationem eorundem haereticorum qui duas
naturas Chrifti poft unionem delirantes confundunt, et paf-
fibilem in eo divinitatis fubftantiam aflerunt. Contra quo-
rum blafphemias oportet nos in una perfona Chrifti gc-
minae naturae proprietatem oftendere, paffionemque ejus in
fola humanitatis fufceptione manifeftare ; ut fi forte aliqui
ftultorum, hujus fententiae errore decepti funt, dum ifta
legerint, refipifcant, redtaeque fidei veritatcm firmiter tc-
neant. Binnii Concilia, vol, 2. pt. 2. p. 329.

«' will

256 Of the Nejiorian Controverjy, Book IV.

** will be no diiFerence between Chrill: and
** the faints, as they had God in them * •"
and fo did Theodoret, when he faid, that
*' Neftorianifm is a denial of the whok
** CEConomy of the Son of God ; fince it
*« was not God who undertook it ; for the
" logos did not empty itfelf, nor alTume the
** form of a flave/' Opera, vol. 5. p. 57.
On the fame principle Cyril of Alexandria,
in anfwer to Neftorius, fays, '' If Chrifl:
*' was a mere man, how could his death
** profit us -f- . " On the fame princi-
ple alfo an orthodox bifliop in Zonaras,^.
charged Neftorius with worihipping a
man J.

But Neftorius being fuppofed to hold
that there was a proper Son of God in the
trinity expofed him to the objedlion of

* Hoc modo ergo nihil inter eum et omnes qui fuerunt
fandos homines efTe afieris : quia omnes utique fandli ho-
mines deum in fe habuerunt. De Incarnatione, lib. 5. cap.
3. p. 1021.

t Ej ^£ cx.v'^^aTrog w fcOivog o Uf^Lfjiavay]}^: 'mag av u(p27<Y\7£ twf av-
^^uTTii (pvaiv 0 av^^uTTii ^avxlog. Binnii Concilia, vol. i. pt.
2. p. 45-

J Kai mv Nsro^isi m av^^&TroUcl^H 'sj^or^yo^ixv* p. 585.

making

CtiAP. 11. Of the Nejionan Controveijy, i^y

making two Chrifts^ and two Sons of Gcd^
of which great advantage was taken by his
opponents *. Theodoret, who was thought
at one time to favour Neftorius, fays, that
he fell under the fame cenfurc. Becaufe
he faid that there were two natures ia
Chrift, they charged him with holding
that there were two Sons-f-. Cyril fays,
** If there be two Sons of God, how
** is the faith one, and baptifm one, and
** into which of them are we baptifed J ?"
In confequence of making two natu^-es
in Chrift, which was faid to be making
two ChriftSy Neftorius was charged with
holding a qiiaternity, Inftead of a trinity \\^
This quaternityy confifted of the three per-

* Annon atque manifeftiffime duos efie Chriftos dicit,
Cyril of Alexandria, Epift. Opera, vol. 2. p. 48.

f Axxa Tw ra; d'uo (pvasig o/xoXoym m hairoln %f tri?, "^uo UyHtri
m^iivviaq. Epift. 145. Opera, vol. 3. p. 1023.

X IIcoj $£ HUi fMia mri^ ', t) nsug sv to ^cc7rlia-fji.a ; si ycc§ vioi 5t/o

Eig T£ Tivog ovo/Aa ^£<^a7rlia-/j,£^x i Ka; tqi ^aTrliafjcalog ovlog m$*
Binnii Concilia, vol. i. pt. 2. p. 45.

II Qya proptem trinitatem non quaternitatem adoramus,
Cyril of Alexandria, Horn, Opera, vol. 2. p. 7^

Vol. IV. S ions

258 Of the Neftonan Controverjy. Book IV.

Ions in the orthodox trinity, one of which
was the logos, or the Son, and the fourth
was Jefus who was born of the virgin.

Had Neftorius contented himfelf with
faying that there were two natures in Chrift,
there would have been nothing in his doc-
trine that could juftly have offended the
orthodox of his age ; but it was his not
making a fufficiently perfect and infeparable
urAon between the divine and human nature
of Chrift, that gave the offence. The
orthodox fuppofed that the hypoftatical union,
as it was afterv/ards called, commenced at
the moment of the exiftence of the human
nature, or the very inftant of the concep-
tion of Jefus in the womb, and that it was
never afterwards diffolved, not even by the
feparation of the foul and body of Chrift
by death. Whereas Neftorius confidered
Jefus as having been a mere man till the
Spirit of God came upon him at his bap-
tifm i and alfo that he was a mere man in his
fufferings and death. Perhaps they thought
that after Jefus was grown to be a complete
man, it was too late for the hypoftatical union
3 ^o

Chap. II. Of the Nejlorian Controverjj'. 259

to take place. Otherwife, as all depended
upon that unions it could not, one would
imagine, have been thought to be of much
confequence at what time that union took
place. But as Theodorus is quoted by
Juftinian, he did not make a fufficiently
perfedl union between the divine and hu-
man nature of Chrift. For he compared
it to the union between man and wife*."
Juftinian had juft before cbferved, that
Theodorus ufed the term nature^ when he
ought to have ufed ^^r/S;2 -f*.

It is not to my prefent purpofe to
take any notice of the dodlrine Eutyches>
who, in oppofition to the Neftorian doc-
trine, of two natures in Chrift, held that
he had only one nature. Both he and
Apollinarius are faid to have had an opinion
with refped to the body of Chrift, the
fame with that of fome of the Gnoftics,

T£ HfcsJi £1171 ^vOy ciKKcc <Ta^^ UICC-, SiTTOifjtsv av Hal vfA.£ig eiHolcog HcQcs
Tov Tng svuascog Xoyov^ cog te hkeJi sici d'uo 'Sipoo-coTTci') aXA* £v SjjAovoIi
Tcov ^ujEuvd'iaHBK^if/jEVuv. Epift. p. 74.

•f ATTo^si^avleg toivvv rov d'uaasCn ^lo^wpov jag ^vcrsig osvli 'nrpoa'U'
TToov ^syovla. Ibid.

S 2 viz.

26o OftbeNefLorwnControverfy, Book IV.

viz. that it came from heaven, and was not
derived from his mother. This opinion
is afcribed to him, as well as to Valentinus,
and Marcion, by Vigilius Martyr*. It ap-
pears that the orthodox of that age had
great difficulty in keeping equally clear of
the two oppofite opinions of Neftorius and
Eutyches, of which Vigilus Martyr makes
great complaint t-

* QuoDiam Eutychiana haerefis in id impietatis prolapfa
eft errore, iit non folum verbi et carnis unam credat ede
iiaturam, verum etiatn banc eandem carnem, non de facro
Marias virginis corpore adfumptam, fed de ccelo dicat,
juxta infandam Valentin! et Marcionis errcrem fuilTe de-
du(Slam. Contra Eutychen, lib. i. Bib. Pat. vol. 5*
p. 560.

t Si enim paululum in utramque partem nutantia vo-
lueris inferre veftigia, illico capieris. Inter Neftorii ergo
quondam ecclefiae Conftantinoplitanse, non redloris fed
dillipatoris, non paRoris fed prasdatoris facrllegum dogma
et Eutycbetis nefarium et deteftabilem fecSlam, ita ferpen-
tinse graflationis Mq calliditas temperavit, ut utrumque
fme utriufque periculo plerique vitare non pollint, dum fi
quis Neftorii perndiam damnat Eutycbetis putatur errori
fuccumbere, rurfum dum Eutychianae haerefis impietatem
deftruit, Neftorii arguitur dogma erigere. Contra Euty-
chen, lib. I. Bib. Pat. vol. 5. p. 546.

What

Chap. II. Of the Nejlorian Confroverfy. 261

What is fomething more to my purpofe
is, the language of Peter Fullo, who diftin^
guiflied himfelf by an addition to the famous
trifagion, the fentiment of which was, that one
of the trinity was crucified for tis, as this was
thought to favour the unitarian dodtrine, h\
the form in which it was held by thePatripaf-
fians, or the philofophical unitarians. That
the divine nature of Chrift fufFered, we have
k^n to have been the language of Cyril
of Alexandria and others who oppofed Nef-
torius ; and therefore it might be thought
to be the higheft orthodoxy of the times.
But extraordinary as it may feem, the very
fame expreffions were adopted by thofe who
were moft highly orthodox, and by the phi-
lofophical unitarians. Some of his contem-
poraries fay, that Peter Fullo favoured the
dodrine of Neftorius and Sabellius. Pie
is particularly charged with this by Fauf-
tus, bifhop of Appollonia*. By Juflin, a

id£^afji.£^iX, ia (T't](jt.o(,mv\(x, n/j.LV-^ u; oil n a-/] ^Boipi'hix to nnXhai aiuTrn'
Bey Ouc/Mvl.va ^oy/xa ave?va«£, nai a^tlsilai inao v^iij n acoki^io; Evav-
0p;7r-/icri5, aai oIl ei; to Mau%«iwv ^oy/Aoi-t A^eih t£, km A^oMiV^-
^i», Ki^i llai/7>ii Ts ^x{AQ7almg 'sis^mvEx^nli' Zonaras, p. 533,

S 3 biihop

262 Of the Nejlorian Cont?'overfy. Book IV.

bilhop in Sicily, he was charged with hold-
ing the opinion of Paulus Samofatenfis *,
and by Pope Felix III. with going beyond
Paulus Samofatenfis, Photinus, and Arte-
mon-f-. But notwithftanding this, it is
pretty clear that P. Fullo held a dodtrine
oppofite to that of Neftorius, viz. that
Chrift had but one nature, which was the
divine y and confequently that this divine na-
ture fuffered ; from which he and his parti-
sans were called TheopafchheSy a word of
the fame lignification in Greek that Patri-
fajjians is of in Latin, though they were ap-
plied to very different kinds of men. Ni-
cephorus exprefsly afferts, that Peter Fullo
introduced the Theopafchite doftrine J,

* Zonaras, p. 538.

ixoao^sag, -^ ^coleiva^ >sj A^le/xa. Zonaras, p. 543.

X Hpoj ^£ ravlcni; to nar ekbivo kui^h koci yj tuv ©eottckix^^^

» eI ekuv^ 'S7oh.vn£(pa>.og vo^oc^ o-cpo^ools^ov avs^^im^E . ravlvi ^e 'srpoi'
log yEVVT/iJa^ liil^oi; ek^avc; Eyzvilo., co Kra^eyj vjv to ETrcovufjw . og ro)
T^KTaym v^m, wj /-io/ kol\, am'^Ev Ei^riiai^ 'sipoa-^mnv ^eivm ^ua<7EQ(cs
a7rElo?>iA,wBv, Hift. lib, 18. cap. 52. vol. 2. p. 879.

CHAP-

Chap.IIL OftheFrifclllianiJfs^^c. 263

CHAPTER III.

An Account of the Prifcilliantfts and Pauli^
cians.

XToTwiTHSTANDiNG the oppofition be-
tween the principles of the unitarians,
and thofe of the Gnoftics, in the early
ages of chriftianity, they being always con-
fidered as oppojite herejiesy the former con-
fifling chiefly of the comn*ion and un-
learned people, and the latter of the phi-
lofophical and learned ; yet, in the fourth
century, we find a mixture of both thefe
fyfiems in the Prifcillianifts in the weft,
and fome time after in the Paulicians in
the eaft. This mixture, hov/ever, did not
relate to the doftrine concerning the per-
Jon of Chrijl (for in that refpedl the tenets
of the unitarians, and thofe of the Gnof-
tics were neceflarily different and oppofite)
but to other opinions belonging to the fyf-

S 4 tem

264 OfthePrifpiUiamfts Book IV.

tern of Gnoftlcirm. As the Prifcillianifts
and Paulicians, may be faid to have been
unitarians, I fhall give the bed account that
I have beeA able to colled; concerning both
thefe feds, though I am fenfible that it
muft be very defedivej fmce their enemies,
from w^hom alone we hear any thing of them,
appear to have been fo violently prejudiced
againft them, that what they fay of theqi
muft be heard with great allowance.

The Prifcillianifts had their name from
PrifcillianV a pei;fon of rank and fortune in
Spain, and afterwards bifhop of Abila, who
is faid to have received his principles from
one Mark, who came from Memphis, in
Egypt, and who is faid to have been a
Manichaean. The bifhops of Spain taking
umbrage at the fpread of the dodtrine of
Prifcillian, procured an order from the em-
peror Gratian, for his banifhment from that
country. He was permitted to return, but
was banifhed a fecond time ; and by order
of the emperor Maximus, w^as put to death
A,D. 384. This cruelty was much ex-

claimei}

Chap. III. end FauUcians. 265

claimed againft by the bifliops of Gaul,
and of Italy; the opinions of Prifcillian
fpread much more after this time than
they had done before, and they continued,
fays Sandius (Hift. p. 117.) till the twelfth
century.

That the Prifcillianifts held fome Gnof-
tic principles can hardly be doubted, be-
caufe they are univerfally afcribed to them.
Leo the Great, their bitter enemy, is juftly
fufpefted of calumniating them. But if
there be any colour of truth in his account,
they mufl have confidered matter as the
caufe of all evil, and have thought unfa-
vourably of the body. According to him,
they thought that the devil was not made by
God, but arofe from chaos and darknefs
(Opera, p. 167.) they condemned marriage ;
they faid that the bodies of men were made
by the devil, and they denied the refur-
redlion. The fouls of men, they faid,
were of a divine fubftance, and that, having
offended in heaven, they were fent into
t)odies as a puniihment of their fins. They

moreover

2 66 Of the PrifcllliaJiifts Book IV.

moreover faid, that men are fubjed to a
ftate of neceffity, to the power of the ftars,
and to fm.

With refpedt to the perfon of Chrlft,
Auftin, who is rather a more unexceptionble
evidence than Leo, fays, that " they agreed
*' with Sabellius, and maintained, that the
«' Father, Son, and Holy Spirit w^ere one^/'
The fame is advanced by Leo, who alfo
fays, that '* they agree with the Arians, in
*' faying, that the Son is inferior to the Fa-
** ther ; that there was a time when the Son
** v/as not, before which time God could
" not be called a Father, and that Chrift is
<' called the Son of God becaufe he was
*« born of a virgin, which,'* he fays, '* they
<^ would not have dared to do, if they had
*' not drawn in the poifon of Paulus Samo-
<^ fatenfis and Photinus f."

* De Chrlfto Sabellianam feaam tenent eundum ipfum
effe dicentes ; non folum fillum, fed etiam patrem, et fpi-
litum fanaum. Catalogus, Haer. Opera, vol. 6. p. 29.

t Patris, et filii, et fplritus fanai, unam atque eandetn
afferunt elTe perfonam ; tanquam idem deus nunc pater nunc
filius, nunc fpiritus fanaus, nomioatim nee alius fit qui

genuit^

Chap. III. and Pnidtdans. , 267

Prifcillian is charged with faying, that
the Son of God could not be born; and this
expreffion of his is particularly cenfured in
a council held at Toledo, A. D. 438 *.

That the Prifcillianifts were not, in all
refpedls, Gnoftics, or Manichseans, is evi-
dent from their receiving, according to
Auftin, all the books of fcripture, and even
the apochrycal ones ; though he fays they
mifinterpreted, or perverted them -f-.

genuit, alius qui genitus fit, alius qui de utroque proceffit

quod blafphemiae genus de Sabellii opinione fump*

ferunt cujus difcipuli etiam Patripaffiani merito nuncu-
pajitur. Cap. 1. p. 166 Arianorum fufFragantur errori,
dicentium quod pater filio prior fit, quia fuerit aliquando
fine iilioet tunc pater efle cceperit quando filium genuerit.
Cap. 2. ibid. Aflerunt, ideo, unigenitum dici iilium dei
quia folusfit natus ex virgine, quod utique non auderent
dicere nifi Pauli Samofateni et Photini virus haufilTent.
Cap. 3. Ibid.

* Ubi Prifcillianus innafcibilem effe filium dixit, conftat
hoc contra Nicaenam fidem efle di£tum : atque ideo Prif-
cillianum hujus didi authorem, cum ipfius dicli perverfi-
tate, et quos male condidit libros, cum ipfo autore con-
demno. Binnii Concilia, vol. i. p. 6oi.

f Prifcillianiftas vero accipiunt omnia, et canonica, et
apocrypha fimul. Sed qusecunque qu^ contra eos funt,

in

2 68 Cfthe TnfciUianifls B o o k I V.

The PrifcilUanifts were chiefly famous
for their aufterity and mortifications, and
therefore they were probably the fame that
Philafler calls AbJlinenteSy in Gaul, Spain,
and Aquitain.

Similar, in many refpeds, to the Prifcil-
Uanifts in the Weft, were the Paulicians in
the eaft, who had their name, as it is faid,
from one Paul, who adopted and modified
the dodrine of Manes. But we are as unable
to colledt a fatisfaclory account of the Pauli-
cians, as we are of thofe of the Prifcillianifts.
"When this fed arofe is uncertain, but it is
faid to have been revived by one Conftan-
tine in the feventh century. They were
cruelly ufed, and almoft fupprefied by fome
of the Emperors. They were encouraged
by Nicephorus in the ninth century ; but af-
ter a iliort interval of reft, they were perfe-
cuted with more violence than ever by Leo
the Armenian, and the Emprefs Theodora.
During this perfecution fome of the Pauli-

in fuae perverfitatis fenfus, aliquaiido callida et aftuta, ali-
quaiido ridicula et hebetl expofitioriv pcrvertynt. Epift.
?5r. Opera, Sup. p. 480.

cians

Chap. III. and PauUclans. 269

cians fettled in Bulgaria. But being op-
prefled there, they took refuge in Italy, and
other parts of the weft, where they were
called Patarinl^ and Cathari, or Gazari, and
in France AlbigenJeSj from the town of Albi,
where a fynod that condemned them was
held. Of their tenets, under this laft de-
nomination, an account was given, vol. 3,
p. 368. But it is very poffible that a con-
fiderable change might have taken place in
their opinions.

What they held of the Manichs&an fyflem
does not diftindily appear. Peter of Sicily
intimates, that they did not own themfelves
to be Manichasans *. But they pretended
to great purity and fimplicity. They re-
jected, it is faid, all external ordinances, aa
baptlfm and the Lord's fupper, and did not
chufe to call their minifters priejls^ but
fcribesy or fecretaries^ or companions in tra-
vel t«

That the Paulicians were unitarians, is
evident, from their beino; faid by Theo-

* Lardner's Credibility, vol, 6. p. 426.
•f Ibid. p. 427.

phanes

270 Gf^he PrlpUianifls Book IV.

phanes to deny the incarnation*. They,
were numerous, Sandius lays, in j 191 -f-.

Notwithilanding the oblcarity in which
this lubject is involved, it is famciently
evident, that, among the great numbers
who feparated themielves from the com-
munion of the Catholic church (among
whom there would, no doubt, be a great
diveriity of opinions in a variety of refpecls)
and by whatever names they were diftin-
guiihed in different countries, and different
ages, there were always many who rejected
the docflrine of the trinity, and who joined
the reformers of the Cxteenth century.
But unhappily the great leaders in that re-
form^ation, Luther and Calvin, retaining
that doctrine, and laying great llrefs upon
it, the anti-trinitarians were in moft places

* Ci ::r rzz»zi T'^i rcxCia. ^x^'TyXi/^Kinf x^^^t fJtcvoy r/jca

W» x^ TTv •^:z..izcch3rj aojvi m cevcOfO'Tni tti^ m crccfias ovKOKfjua^ m
TK/fUi rf/^v hen y^.r<: x^TTo^cfjisvct, Chronographia, p. 425.
t Hill. p. 393.

treated

Chap. III. and PauUc'mnu 271 '

treated as the worfl: of heretics, and craellv

perfecuted by all other denominations of

chriftians.

For feme time the unitarians found an

afylum in Poland, and they are faid to be at
prefent in confiderable numbers in Tranfyl-
vania, and other provinces in the eaftern
parts of Europe. But in this country we
are very ignorant of the real ftate of chrif-
tianity in thofe parts. However, as the
overbearing influence of the church of
Rome is decreafmg every day, and freedom
of enquiry is encouraged, it may be hoped
that great numbers of intelligent chriftians,
w^ho have been fecretly unitarians, will de-
clare themfelves openly to be fo ; and as
truth and good fenfe have an infinite ad-
vantage over abfurdity and error, half a
century will probably produce a great revo-
lution in the chriftian world. Men will
awake from the miferable delufion they have
been fo long under, as from a dream, and
wonder at the long continuance of their
infatuation. Such a hiftory as I am now

con-

272 Of the PrycillianiftSy &c. Book IV.

concluding, if it be thought worth while
to read it at all, will then be perufed with
aftonifhmenti and if the original writers,
from which it is colledied, were not in
being, the ftrange tale would gain no cre-
dit*

THE

[ 273 3

THE

CONCLUSION.

SECTION I.

A connedied View of all the principal Articles
in the preceding Hijlory.

AFTER fo particular a detail as I have
given in this work of a variety of
doctrines, and of the arguments by which
they were fupported, together with the
caufes of their rife and progrefs, it may not
be unufeful, at the conclufion of the whole,
to recite the order in which they arofe and
fucceeded one another, efpecially as it is a
hiflory that is particularly complex in its
own nature, and perhaps unparalleled for
Vol. IV. T the

274 ^^^ Conclujion, Sect. I.

the greatnefs of the efFeSs which the fubjedt
of it has produced in the world, and the fim-
plicity of the caufes from which every fuc-
ceffive ftep in the progrefs of it has arifen.

The opinions concerning the perfon of
Jefus Chrift have always been thought,
though without any fufficient reafon, to be
of the greateft confequence to chriftianity
itfelf. Whereas his buiinefs, like that of
any other prophet, being nothing more
than to deliver a meffage from God, and to
confirm it by miracles, it was not, in reality,
of any confequence whatever, zvho^ or what
he himfelf was. But, being the founder of
a new religion, his difciples and followers,
who bore his name, foon began to think
themfelves interefted in the perfonal charac--
ter and dignity of their mailer; and as they
w^ere frequently reproached with being the
difciples of a man who was nothing more
than a crucified malefadlor, they were foli-
citous, by every method they could deviie,
to remove this reproach. Not content
with alledging, that though their mafter
died the death of a malefador, he had not

lived

Sect. L The Con'chijion, 27c

lived the life of one, that his death had an-
fwered the greatcft purpofes in the plan of
divine providence, and that God had fhew^
ed his approbation of him, by railing him
from the dead (which was certainly fuffi-
cient for their purpofe) the more learned
among them availed themfelves of the phi-
lofophy of their age, and faid that Chrift
was a perfon of much higher rank than he
appeared to be, even much higher than that
of any other man.

Their philofophy taught them that man
confifts of two principles, or parts, viz. foul
and body^ and that the fouls of all men had
pre-exifted, having been originally unimbo-
dicd fpirits, which, for fome reafon or
other, had been fent down from heaven to
animate mortal bodies ; that fouls were of
very different origins, and that fome of
them which were fent into the world for
great and particular purpofes, might be im-
mediate emanations from the Divine Being
himfelf. However, as before this ohilofo-
phy was introduced among chriftians, it
was the univerfally received opinion, that
T % Chrift

276 The Conckfion* Sect. I.

Chrift was in himfelf a mere man, and it
was even generally thought that he was
born as other men were, viz. of two human
parents, and that he continued to be no-
thing more than a mere man, till he was
of full age, when he was impowered to
work miracles, and came into public life ;
all that thefe philofophers could advance at
firft, with any probability of being attend-
ed to (and indeed all that they would na-
turally think of themfelves) was, that fome
great fuper-angelic fpirit had been fent
down from heaven, and was attached to the
man Jefus, or the foul of Jefus, in fome
fuch manner as it was ufually fuppofed
that demons poiTefled the fouls of men;
and that it was this fuper-angelic being
that was properly the Chrijiy or the perfon
fent down, or commiffioned by God, to
come into the world for fo great a purpofe.
This was the dod:rine of the earlier Gnoftics,
fuch as Cerinthus.

But, as it had been the opinion of many,
that angels were only temporary and un-
fubftantial forms, in the jfhape of men, fo

as

Sect. I. The Conclufion. ' 277

as to appear like men to the fenfes, but that
they did not really confift of flefh and blood 5
others of thefe philofophers thought, that
what was called the man Jefus, was nothing
more than one of thefe unfubftantial forms
of men; fo that the fuper-angelic fpirit,
or the Chrift, had no proper body or foul
at all, that it was incapable of feeling,
and not fubjeft to death. Thefe were
thofe Gnoftics who were called Docetse ;
and this progrefs had been made in the
time of the apoftles.

Prefently after the death of the apoftles,
and perhaps before that of John, fome of
thefe philofophers profeffing chriftianity,
introduced more of their fyflem into it;
and confidering matter to be the fource of
all evil, and the world to have been the
work of a malevolent being, they thought
that this fame evil being, or one of a fimilar
difpoiition, had been the author of the law
of Mofes, and that the Supreme God, who
was a being of perfedt goodnefs, had not been
known to mankind till Chrift came to re-
veal him. Alfo holding matter and the

T3

2yS Tie Conclujion. Sect. I.

hody^ which was compofed of It, in great
contempt, they did not believe the re-
furreclion ; which, indeed, had been de-
nied by all their predeceffors, in the time
of the apoflles. ^

The dod:rines which contain the outline
of what was called Gnofticifm (from the
the holders of them boafting of jhe fupe-
riority of their knowledge) having been di-
reftly opppfed by the apoftles, and treated
by them with great indignation, the gene-
rality of chriftians held the Gnoftics in
abhorrence, confidered them as heretics, and
refufed to admit them into their focieties.
, But the fame caufes continuing to operate,
chriftians being ftill held in contempt for the
meannefs of their mafter, and being ftill de-
firous to remove this reproach, by advancing
his perfonal rank and dignity, they had re-
courfe to another method of doing it.

Having been taught by the Platonic
philofophers, among whom they received
their education, that there were three great
principles in nature, viz. the Supreme
Being, or the good, his mind fnousj and

the.

Sect. I. ^hc Conclujion, 279

the fold of the world-, and the Jewifli philo-

fophers who had embraced thefe dodrines

having already advanced, that the fecond of

thefe principles, which they denominated

logos^ was an emanation from the fupreme

Being, and the caufe of all the appearances

of God recorded in the Old Teftament,

fome of which were in the form of men j

and having alfo taught that it was this logos

that, by the order of the fupreme Being,

. had made the vifible world ; that he was the

image of God, his only begotten Son, and

that he v/as even entitled to the appellation

of God in an inferior fenfe of the word ;

thefe chriftian philofophers imagined that

it was this logos that was united to the man

Jefas Chrift, and that, on this account, he

might be called God.

For fome time, however, the more learn-
ed chriftians contented themfelves with fup-
pofing, that the union between this divine
logos and the man Chrift Jefus was only
temporary. For they held that this divine
effiux^ which, like a beam of light from the
fun;, wxnt out of God, and^ was attached to
T 4 the

280 T^he Conclufion, Sect. I.

the perfon of Chrift, to enable him to work
miracles while he was on earth, was drawn
into God again when he afcended into hea-
ven, and had no more occafion to exert a
miraculous power. This fyftem may be
called philofophical unltarianifm^ being that
which was held by Sabellius, Marcellus,
and other learned unitarian chriftians.

It was afterwards maintained (and Juftin
Martyr, who had been a Platonic philofo-
pher, was perhaps the firft who fuggefted
the idea) that this union of the logos to the
perfon of Chrift was not temporary, but per-
manent. With the Jewifh philofophers the
learned chriftians likewife held that this lo-
gos was emitted from God when he made the
world, and was the medium of all the divine
communications under the Old Teftament,
before he became united to the man Chrift
Jefus, who, they faid, had alfo a proper hu-
man foul, as well as a body, like other men.
For the great body of chriftians having al-
ways confidered him as being a vian^ the
philofophers among them did not at firft
depart fo far from this opinion, as to fay

that

Sect. I . ^he Conclujion, 2 8 1

that he had no proper human foul ; and
the logosy which they fpake of as being
united to him, they always reprcfented as
an e§>ux from, or an attribute of the Father,
being his proper wifdo?ny power ^ and other
operative perfecftions.

Still, however, out of refped: to the opi-
nion which prevailed among the unlearned
chriftians, who knew nothing of this doc-
trine of the divine logos, but thought
Chrift to be a man and a prophet, and v/ho
would have been fhocked at the docSlrine
of more Gods than one^ the philofophical
chriftians, though they faid that Chrift, on
account of the divine logos that was united
to him, might be called a God^ acknow-^
ledged that it was in an inferior fenfe, that
the divi?iity, and even the being of the Son,
was derived from the Father ; and that
when the one God was fpoken of, it was the
Father only (who was the proper fountain
of deity) that was intended. Nay, in oppo-
fition to the philofophical unitarians, who
afferted that the divinity of the Father, and
that of the Son, were the very fame, they

maintained

282 The Conchifion. Sect. I.

maintained that they were different ; fince
the Father and the Son could not be faid to
be of the fame nature. For the Platonic
philofophers confidcred the nous, or logos ^ as
a middle principle between the fupreme
God and the foul of the world ; and they
fometimes fpake of it as an intermediate
principle between God and the world itfelf.
As it had always been maintained by the
earlieft platonizing chriftians, that the lo-
gos came out of God juft before the creation
of the world, and confequently that there
had been a time when God was alone, and
the Son was not ^ and as they had always
held, that when the Son was produced he
was greatly inferior to the Father, there
arofe fome who faid, that he ought to be
confidered as a inere creature^ not derived
from the fubftance of God, but created out
of nothings as other creatures were. For by
this time, the chriftian dodtrine of a proper
creation^ out of nothing had begun to take
place of the philofophical dodtrine of the
emanation of fouls from God. Thefe (who
were the Arians) confidering the logos as

being

Sect. I.' The Conclujon. 283

being the intelligent principle in Chrift,
thought that there was no occafion to fup-
pofe that he had any other foul. They,
therefore, faid that Chrift was a fuper-an-
gelic being, united to a human body ; that
though he was himfelf created, he was the
creator of all other things under God, and
the inftrument of all the divine communi-
cations to the patriarchs, which had before
been fuppofed to be the province of the
uncreated logos.

In oppofition to the Arians, thofe who,
from the final prevalence of their dodtrine,
obtained the name of orthodox and catholics^
confidering that the logos had never before
been reprefented as a creature, but as the
proper reafon or wifdom of the Father,
maintained that he muft have always been
in the Father, and therefore (correcfting
their former language, and carrying their
principle to its proper extent, which a re-
fped: for the unitarians, now greatly dimi-
niflicd in number, had hitherto prevented)
they maintained that he muft be of the
fame fubftance with the Father, and have

been

284 The Conclujion. Sect. I.

been co-eternal with him. In the courfe of
the controverfy they were likewife led to
advance upon their former doftrine, fo as
to fay, that that ad: of the Father, to which
they gave the name of generation^ had taken
place from eternity, and was not fomething
that had pafTed juft before the creation of
the world ; fo that the Son had always
exifted as a fon, and the Father as a father ^
and that there was no difference between
them, but that of Father and Son, and the
different offices that belonged to each of
them refpeftively, as the Father, or the Son.
This was the flate of things foon after
the council of Nice, when there arofe a
controverfy concerning the Holy Spirit^
which was faid in the fcriptures to pro-
ceed from God, or to be fent by God,
or by Chrift. On this fubjedl it is re-
markable, that there had been no contro-
verfy among chriflians before that council,
though there had been a difference of opi-
nion among them. Some of the Anteni-
cene Fathers defcribed the Spirit as if they
had conceived it to be nothing but a power'

communicatee^

Sect. I. T^he Condiifion. 28^

communicated by God, though others of
them fuppofed it to be a perfon^ inferior to
God, and even to Chrift. For if was ge-
nerally alTerted, that the Spirit was one of
the beings that had been made by Chrift,,
without whom, they faid, nothing was made
that was made. Such dodlrine as this did
certainly pafs without cenfure before the
council of Nice, and it is the lefs to be
wondered at, as the third perfon in the
Platonic trinity, viz. the 4^y;>c>i, had never
been defcribed ns having been any part of
the Supreme Being, or necejSarily belong-
ing to him, which the nous^ or logos^ had
been.

There were fome who, while they held
the permanent perjonality of the Son, thought
that the Holy Spirit was only an occajional
efflux from the deity, refembling a beam of
light from the fun. This opinion alfo was
not deemed to be heretical.

From this time, however, thofe who had
diftinguifhed themfelves the moft by their
defence of the doctrine of the confubjlantia-
lity of the Son with the Father, did like-
wife

286 The Conclujion. Segt.I.

wile maintain both the proper perfonality
of the Spirit, and alfo his confubftantiality
with the Father and the Son. This doc-
trine of the conjuhflantiality of the three
divine perfons foon led to that of their per-
fect equality with refpedl to all divine per-
fections ; and this completed the whole
fcheme. According to it, though there
is but one God, there are three dhine perfons ^
each of which feparately taken, is perfetl
God, though all together make no more than
one perfed: God ; a proportion not only
repugnant to the plaineft principles of com-
mon fenfe, but altogether unknown before
the council of Nice, as is acknowledged by
many learned trinitarians. Among others,
the famous Mr. Jurieu faid, that *^ the fun-
** damental articles of chriftianity were not
** underftood by the Fathers of the three
** firft centuries, that the true fyllem began
*' to be modelled into fom.e fhape by the
** Nicene bifhops, and was afterwards im-
*' proved by the following fynods and coun-
** cils,*' Jortin's Remarks, vol. 3. p. 50.

A little

Sect. I. T^he Concltifion. 287

A little refledion, however, one would
think, might fatisfy any perfon, that a
dod:rine which was unknown in the chrif-
tian church till the fourth century could be
no genuine docSrine of chriftianity, Leaft
of all can it be fuppofed, that any novel
and late dodrine can be of fo much confe-
quence as that of the trinity has always been
conceived to be by thofe who have main-
tained it. For effed:ual meafures Would,
no doubt, have been taken by divine pro-
vidence, that every dodlrine of real import-
ance to chriftianity fhould be fo clearly
exprelTed, and fo well explained in the
fcriptures, as that it would not have re-
mained undifcovered, or ill underftood, till
fo late a period as the fourth century.

SEC

288 T^he Conclufwn. Sect. II,

SECTION II.

An Account of the Remains of the Oriental,
or Platonic Philofophy^ in modern Syfiems of
Chriflianity.

TN the next place, it may not be unufeful
•*- to refled: how much remains of the
oriental or Platonic philofophy in the re-
ligion that is eftablifhed in the greater
part of the chriftian world at the prefent
day, though thofe fyftems themfelves are
now no more. It is obvious to remark,
in the firft place, that one fingle doftrine
common to both thofe fchemes of philo-
fophy, has been the foundation on which
almoft every corruption of chriflianity refts,
and this is the belief of an immaterial foul
in man, capable of fubfifting, and alfo of
having both fenfation and adlion, when the
body is in the grave. Had this doftrine,
(countenanced by no appearances in nature,
but utterly difcordant with them, and alfo
with the whole fyftem of revelation) never

3 been

Sect, II. 7ke Copxlujion. 289

been known, it is hardly poffible to fup-
pofe, that the pre-exiltence of Chrift v/ould
ever have been imagined, or that any of the
dodlrines which arofe from it, or are con-
neded v/ith it, ¥/ould have been adopted.
In this cafe, alfo, we fhould never have
heard cf the woriliip of dead faints, or the
dodtrine of purgatory, which arc among
the moft enormous abufes of popery.

Another principle, common to both the
fyftems of philofophy above mentioned,
was, that matter is the fource of all evil, a
dodrine which led either to making light
of the moll; criminal fenjual indulgences,
or to that rigour and aufterity which was
imagined to purify and elevate the foul, by
negleding or macerating the body. This
principle induced numbers of both i^JL^^y
to feclude themfelves from the world, and
to pafs their lives in a manner equally ufe-"^
lefs to themfelves and others. It alfo gave
rife to the favourite dodtrine of the fupe-
riority of the unmarried to the married^^ate,
and to the injundion of celibacy onlhofe
who were called j^r/Vy?x.

Vol. IV. U The

290 The Conclufion, Sect. II.

The monadic life was alfo greatly pra-
moted by the Platonic doclrme of the imion
of the foul to God, attainable by con-
templation and prayer, which was eagerly
adopted by rr.iny chriftians, who thought
it wife to neglect and mortify the body,
and to give their whole attention to the
foul.

Thefe three dodrines, viz. that of the
immateriality of the foul, that of matter
being the fource of evil, and that of the
union of the foul to God, by contempla-
tion and abftradion from matter, have done
unfpeakable mifchief to the fcheme of
chriftianity, affeding the whole charader of
of it, and almofl every thing in doftrine, or
in practice, relating to it. It may not be
amifs, however, jufl to notice a few other
things of a lefs general nature, in which
Gnofticifm, or Platonifm, have left traces
of th^mfelves in the creeds of chriftians.

That the- Supreme God was not himfelf
the maker of the world, was a capital ar-
ticle in the creed of the Gnoftics, and this
was alfo a doctrine of the platonizing

chriftians,

Sect. II. 7he Conchifion. 291

chriftians, with this diiTerence that, accord-
ing to the Gnoftics, the maker of the
world was one of thofe intelligences v/hich
was derived, mediately or immediately,
from the Supreme Being j whereas, ac-
cording to the platonizing chriflians, the
maker of the world was the logos, which
had been an attribute of the Supreme Be-
ing. The former alfo thought that the
world was made with a malew^lent inten-
tion, and the latter with-, a benevolent one.
The Arians approached fomething nearer
to the doctrine of the Gnoflics, than thofe
who were called catholics, maintaining that
the world was made by a creature properly
fo called. For according to that philofo-
phy from which Gnofticifm was derived,
all intelligent beings fubordinate to the
Supreme, were fuppofed to be io far of the
fame nature, as to have been derived me-
diately or immediately from his fubftance,
though they were not created out of nothing.
According to both fyftems, the world was
made by a being who might be called, if
not an angel, at lead a fuper-angelic fpirit.
Us And

292 T^he Conclufon. Sect. IL

And all the three fyftems, viz. that of the
Gnoftics, that of the catholics, and that of
the Arians, go upon this common principle,
that it is unworthy of the Supreme Being
himfelf to condefcend to do any thing; he
being fuppofed to be immoveably employed
in contemplation only, and chiefly that of
his own perfedlions.

The Docets among the Gnoftics held
that Chrifl had no body, but only the ap-
pearance of one, and that he was incapable
of feeling pain. And though the plato-
nizing chriftians believed that Ghrift had a
proper body, confilling of real flefh and
blood, fome of them imagined it was in-
capable of feeling pain, and that in confe-
quence of its union with the logos, the
body as well as the foul of Chrift, had va-
rious privileges fuperior to thofe that were
pofTeffed by other fouls and bodies ; as that
befides feeling no pain, it did not neceffarily
require the recruits of food or fleep, &c.
and that it was not liable to corruption.
It was from the Gnoftics alfo, that the ca-
tholics derived the v^himfical notion of

Mary

Sect. II. T^he Conchfion. 293

Mary continuing a proper virgin after (he
was delivered of Jefus, fo that flie was, in
all refpeds, the very fame that fhe had been
even before the conception ; a doctrine
which is ilill held facred in the church of
Rome.

Laftly, It is not abfolutely impoffible,
but that Auftin might have been fomewhat
influenced by his former Manich^an prin-
ciples, in forming his doftrines of pre-
deftination and reprobation. The Mani-
chsans held that fouls had different origins,
in confequence of which fome were necef-
farily good, and would be faved, and others
neceifarily wicked, and would be damned.
And though Auftin thought that all fouls
were, in themfelves, of the fame nature, it
was, he faid, the mere arbitrary decree of
God that made the difference between them
with refpedl to their future deflination ; fo
that there is fome refemblance between the?
two fyflcms.

U 3 SEC.

294 '^^^ Concliifion. Sect. III.

SECTION III,
Maxims of Hijiorical Criticifm.

/\ L L reafoning may be reduced to cer-
tain Jirft principles^ and all propofi*
tions are more eafily examined by having
recourfe to them. Mathematicians ^ who
reafon in the mod exa6t and rigorous man-
ner, always proceed in this way, beginning
with axioms y the truth of which cannot be
difputed, and reducing the moft complex
propofitions to them ^ fo that the truth of
the one can no more be controverted than
that of the other. In like manner, critics^
have laid down what they call canoJis of
criticifm, pf which they make a fimilar
ufe.

As I v^^ifh to apply a fpecies of reafon-
ing equally ftrict to fuch hiftorical dif-
cullions as that which is the fubjedt of
this work, I have likewife drawn up maxims

of

Sect. III. ^he Conclujion. 295

of hijiorical criticifm^ the truth of which
cannot, I think, be controverted, and to
thofe I v/ifli to reduce every propofition
that I have advanced that is of an hiflorical
nature.

I have, however, n:iade no general fyftem,
but have only noted fuch particulars as I
inyfelf have had occafion for ; and even
this I am far from pretending to have exe-
cuted v/ith perfedt accuracy 5 but I give it
as 2iJIietcrj, to be examined at leifure, and to
be reciified where it ihall appear to be
requifite.

Thefe maxims are chiefly adapted to the
fol lowing yi^w/T^^ry view of thofe arguqaents,
which I apprehend eftablifli my princi-
pal pofition, viz. that the chriilian church
was originally unitarian; and therefore I
have annexed to moft of them the num-
ber of that article in the fummary view to
which they correfpond, that they may be
compared together. I wifh that trinita-
rians and Arians, would in like manner
reduce into axioms the principles on which-
they proceed, that they may be compared
U 4 with

296 The Condujion. Sect. III.

with thefe; and perhaps we may by this
means be affifled in coming to a proper
iflue in this controverfy.

] .
When two perfons give different ac-
counts of things, that evidence is to be
preferred, ^ which is either in itfelf more
probable, or more agreeable to other cre-
dible teftimony.

2.

Neither is entire credit to be given to
any fet of men with refped to what is re-
putable to them, nor to their enemies with
refpedl to what is difreputable ; but the
account given by the one, may be balanced
by that of the other. Summary View,
No 10.

3-

In order to eftablifli the credibility of
any fad:, it muft not only be related by a
fufficient number of cotemporary witnefles,
but it muft appear to have been believed by
their cotemporaries in general. Otherwife,
the teftimony of a few, will be overba-
lanced by that of many,

4. Ac-

Sect. III. The Conclujion. 297

4-
Accounts of any fet of men given by
their enemies only, are always fufpicious.
But the confeffions of enemies, and circum-
fiances favourable to any body of men, col-
lected from the v/ritings of their adver-
faries, are deferving of particular regard.

5-

It is a ftrong argument againft the cre-
dibility of any pretended fad:, that it was
not believed by thofe who were fo fituated
as to have been- competent judges of its
truth, and who were at the fame time in-
terefled to believe it.

6.

It is natural for men who wifli to fpeak
difparagingly of any fed: to undervalue their
numbers, as well as every thing elfe re-
lating to them 3 and it is equally natural,
for thofe who wifli to fpeak refpedfully of
any party, to reprefent the member's of it
as more numerous than they are. Sum-
mary View, No. 1 3,

7. When

298 ^ke Conckfion. Sect. III.

/ •

When perfons form themfelves Into fo-
cieties, fo as to be diftinguifhable from
others, they never fail to get fome particu-
lar narde, either affumed by themfelves, or
impofed by others. This is neceffary in
order to make them the fabjed of con-
verfation ; long periphrafes in difcourfe
being very inconvenient. Summary View,
No. 8.

8.

When particular opinions are afcribed to
a particular clafs of m.en, without any dif-
tinftion of the time v^hen thofe opinions
were adopted by them, it may be pre-
fumed, that they were fuppofed to hold
thofe opinions from the time that they re-
ceived their denomination^ Summary View,
No. 4.

9-

When a particular defcrlption is given

of a clafs of perfons within any period Oa
time, any perfon who can be proved to
have the proper charad:er of one of that

clafs.

Sect. III. The Conclufion. 299

clafs, may be deemed to have belonged to
it, and to have enjoyed all the privilges of
it, v^hatever they were. Summary View,
No. 9.

10.
When an hiftorian, or writer of any kind,
profeffedly enumerates the feveral^m^'J' be-
longing to any genuSy or general body of
men, and omits any particular fpecies, or
denomination, which, if it had belonged to
the genus, he, from his fituation and cir-
cumiiances, v/as not likely to have over-
looked, it may be prefumed that he did not
confider that particular fpecies as belonging
to the genus. Summary View, No. 7.

1 1.
V/hen any particular dodrine is a necef-
fary part of a fyftem, and it can be made
to appear that within a given period that
doctrine was not known, it may be con-'
eluded that the fyftem had no exiftence
within that period. Or v/hen any dodrine
inconfiftent with the fyftem is held in that
period, it equally proves the fame thing.
Summary View, No. 17, 18.

I 12. Great

3C0, ne Conclujton. Sect. III.

12.

Great changes in opinion are not ufually
made of a fudden, and never by great bodies
of men. That hlftory, therefore, which
reprefents fuch changes as having been made
gradually, and by eafy fteps, is always the
more probable on that account. Summary
View, No. 16.

The common or unlearned people, in
any country, who do not fpeculate much,
retain longeft any opinions with which
their minds have been much imprefTed;
and therefore, we always look for the oldeft
opinions in any country, or any clafs of
men, among the common people, and not
among the learned. Summary View, No.
13, 14.

14.

If any new opinions be introduced into
a fociety, they are moft likely to have in-
troduced them, who held opinions fimilar
to them before they joined that fociety.
Summary View, No, 15.

, '5- If

Sect. III. ^he Conclufpon, oqi

If any particular opinion has never failed
to excite great indignation in all ages and
nations, where a contrary opinion has been
generally received, and that particular opi-*
nron can be proved to have exifted in any
age or country when it did not excite indip--
nation, it may be concluded that it had
many partizans in that age or country. For
the opinion being the fame, it could not of
it itfelf be more refpeftable • and human
nature being the fame, it could not but have
been regarded in the fame light, fo long as
the fame ftrefs was laid on the oppofite opi-
nion. Summary View, No. i. it, 12.

16.

When a time is given, in which any very
remarkable and interefting opinion v/as noc
believed by a certain clafs of people, and
another time in Vv^hich the belief of it was
general, the introduftion of fucii an opinion
may always be known by the effeds which
it will produce upon the minds, and in the
condudl of men ; by the alarm which it will
give to feme, and the defence of it by

others.

302 Tbe Conclu/ion, Sect. III.

others. If, therefore, no alarm was given,
and no defence of it was made within any
particular period, it may be concluded that
the introdudion of it did not take place
within that period. Summary View, No. ?,
3. 6.

When any particular opinion or pradice
IS neceffarily or cuftomarily accompanied by
any other opinion or practice ; if the latter
be not found within any particular period,
it may be prefumed that the former did not
exift within that period. Summary View,
No. 5.

17

Sect. IV. T^he Conclufion. ^03

SECTION IV.

Afummary Fiew of the Evidence for the pri-
mitive Chriftians having held the DoElrine
ofthejimple Humanity of Chrift,

I. TT is acknowledged by early writers
i of the orthodox perfuafion, that two
kinds of herefy exifted in the times of the
apollles, viz. that of thofe who held that
Chrift was fimply a man 5 and that of the
Gnoftics. Now the apoftle John animad-
verts with the greateft feverity upon the
latter, but makes no mention of the for-
mer; and can it be thought probable that
he would pafs it without cenfure, if he had
thought it to be an error ; confidering how
great, and how dangerous an error it has
always been thought by thofe Vv^ho have
confidered it as being an error at all ?
Maxim 15.

2. The great objection that Jews have
always made to chriftianity in its prefent

ftate

304. The Conclujion. Sect. IV.

ilate is, that it enjoins the worihip of more
gods than one ^ and it is a great article with
the chriilian writers of the fecond and fol-
lowing centuries to anfwer this objection.
But it does not appear in all the book of Ad:s,
in which we hear much of the cavils of the
Jews (both in Jerufalem and in many parts
of the Roman empire) that they made any
fach objedion to chriflianity then:, nor do
the apoftles, either there, or in their epif-
tles, advance any thing v/ith a view to fuch
an objection. It may be prefumed, there-
fore, that no fuch offence to the Jews had
then been given, by the preaching of a doc-
trine fo fhocking to them as that of the
divinity of Chrifl: muft have been. Maxim
15, 16.

3. As no Jew had originally any idea
of their Meffiah being more than a man,
and as the apoftles and the firft chriftians
- had certainly the fame idea at firft concern-
ing Jefus, it may be fuppofcd that, if ever
they had been informed that Jefus was not
a man, but either God himfelf, or the
maker of the w^orld under God, we fticuld

have

Sect. IV. 'The Concliifion, 305

have been able to trace the time and the c/r-
cumfances in which io great a difcovery was
made to them ; and that we flioald have
perceived the efFedt which it had upon their
minds ; at leaft by feme change in their
manner of fpeaking concerning him. But
nothing of this kind is to be found in the
GofjDels, in the book of Afts, or in any of
the Epiilles. ¥/e perceive m.arks enow of
other new views of things, efpecially of the
call of the Gentiles to partake of the privi-
leges of the gofpel ; and we hear much of
the difputes and the eager contention which
it occaiioned. But how much more muft
all their prejudices have been fhocked by
the information that a perfon whom they
liril took to be a mere man^ w^as not a man^
but either God himfslf, or the maker of the
world under God ? Maxim 16.

4. All the Jewirti chriftians, after the
deftrudtion of Jerufalem, which was im-
mediately after the age of the apojftles,
are called Ebionites ; and thefe were in
the time of Origen, only of two forts, fome
of them holding the miraculous conception

Vol. IV. X of

3o6 T!he Conclufion. Sect. IV,

of our Saviour, and others believing that
he vv^as the fon of Jofeph, as well as of
Mary. None of them are faid to have
believed either that he was God, or the
maker of the world under God. And is it
at all credible that the body of the Jewifli
chriftians, if they had ever been inftruded
by the apoflles in the dodtrlne of the divi-
nity, or pre-exiftence of Chrift, would fo
foon, and fo generally, if not univerfally,
have abandoned that faith ? Maxim 8.

5. Had Chrift been confidered as God,
or the maker of the world under God, in
the early ages of the church, he would na-
turally have been the proper objedt of
prayer to chriftians ; nay, more fo than God
the Father, with whom, on the fcheme of
the doilrine of the trinity, they muft have
known that they had lefs immediate inter-
courfe. But prayers to Jefus Chrift were
not ufed in early times, but gained ground
gradually, with the opinion of Chrift being
God, and the objedl of worftiip. Maxim \j,

6. The chriftian Fathers in general repre-
fent theapoftles as obliged to ufe great cau-
tion

Sect. IV. The Conclujion. ooj

tion not to offend their firft converts with the
dodrine of Chrifl's divinity, and as forbear-
ing to urge that topic till they were firft
v/eil eftabliilied in the belief of his being the
Meffiah. Athanafius, in particular adds,
that the Jews being in an error on this fub-
jedl, drew the Gentiles into it. They all
reprefent the apoilles as leaving their dif-
ciples to learn the dodlrine of Chrift's divi-
nity, by way of inference from certain ex-
preffions ; and they do not pretend to pro-
duce any inftance in which they taught that
do(ftrine clearly and explicitly before the
publication of the gofpel of John. Maxim
16.

7. Hcgefippus, the fir/r chriftian hifto-
rian, enumerating the herefies of his time,
mentions feveral of the Gnoftic kind, but
not that of Chrift being a mere man.
He moreover fays, that in travelling to
Rome, where he arrived in the time of
Anicetus, he found all the churches that
he vifited held the faith which had been
taught by Chrilt and the apoftles, w^hich, in
his opinion, was probably that of Chrift

X 2 being

3o8 TheCo?2ch[/lGn. Stcx. IV.

being not God, but man only. Juftin
Martyr alfo, and Clemens Alexandrinus,
who wrote after Hegefippus, treat largely
of herelies in general, without mentioning,
or alluding to, the unitarians. Maxim lo.

8. All thofe who were deemed heretics
in early times, were cut off from the com-
munion of thofe who called themfelves the
orthodox chriflians, and went by fome par-
ticular name ; generally that of their leader.
But the unitarians among the Gentiles were
not expelled from the affemblies of chrif-
tians, but worfhipped along with thofe who
were called orthodox, and had no particular
name till the time of Vidor, who excom-
municated Theodotus ; and a long time
after that Epiphanius endeavoured to give
them the name of Alogi, And though the
Ebionites, probably about, or before this
time, had been excommunicated by the
Gentile chriflians, it was, as Jerom fays,
only on account of their rigid adherence to
the law of Mofes. Pvlaxim 7.

9. The Apo files creed is that which was
taught to all catechumens before baptifm,

and

Sect. IV. T^he Conclufion. 309

and additions were made to it from time to
time, in order to exclude thofe who were
denominated heretics. Now, though there
are feveral articles in that creed which al-
lude to the Gnoftics, and tacitly condemn
them, there was not, in the time of Tertul-
lian, any article in it that alluded to the
unitarians ; fo that even then any unitarian,
(at leaft one believing the miraculous con-
ception) might have fubfcribed it. It may,
therefore, be concluded, that fimple unita-
rianifm was not deemed heretical at the end
of the fecond century. Maxim 9.

10. It is owned by Eufebius and others,
that the ancient unitarians themfelves, con-
ftantly afferted that their doctrine was the
prevailing opinion of the chriftian church till
the time of Viclor. The trinitarians denied
this, but the truth of it may be proved from
their own conceffions,'efpecially their abun-
dant acknov/ledgment that the doctrines of
the pre-exiflence and divinity of Chrift were
not taught with clearnefs and eifedt, till it
was done by the evangelift John, which

X 3 was

3^0 The Conclujion, Sect. IV.

was fuppofed to be after the death of the
other apoftles. Maxim 2.

II. Juftin Martyr, who maintains the
pre-exiftence of Chriil, is fo far from call-
ing the contrary opinion a herefy, that what
he fays on the fubjed: is. evidently an apo-
logy for his own : and when he fpeaks of
heretics in general Vv/hich he does with great
indignation, as no chrijlians, and having no
communication with chrifcians, he men-
tions the Gnoftics only. Maxim 15.

12. Irenaeus, who was after Juftin, and
v/ho wrote a large treatife on the fubjed: of
herefy, fays very little concerning the Ebio-
nites ; and the Ebionites he fpeaks of, he
defcribes as believing that Chrill was the
fon of Jofeph, without mentioning thofe,
if fuch there then were, who believed the
miraculous conception. Maxim 15.

13. Tertullian reprefents the majority
of the common or unlearned chriftians, the
Idiotay as unitarians. It may therefore be
prefumed ihat, as the unitarian dod:rine was
held by the common people in the time of

Tertullian,

Sect. IV. 7he Conclujlon. ^u

Tertullian, it had been more general flill
before that time, and probably univerfal in
the apoftolical age, Athanafius alfo mentions
it as a fubjeft of complaint to the orthodox
of his age, that the many^ and efpecially,
perfons of low underjtandings, were inclined
to the unitarian dodrine. Maxim 6. 13.

14. The firft who held and difcuffed the
dodrine of the divinity of Chrift, acknow-
ledged that their opinions were exceedingly
unpopular among the unlearned chriftians ;
that thefe dreaded the dodrine of the tri-
nity, thinking that it infringed upon the
dodrine of the fupremacy of God the Fa-
ther 'y and the learned chriftians made fre-
quent apologies to them, and to others, for
their own opinion. Maxim 13.

15. The divinity of Chrift was iirft ad-
vanced and urged by thofe who had been
heathen philofophers, and efpecially thofe
who were admirers of the dodrine of Plato^
who held the opinion of a fecond God.
Maxim 14.

16. There is a pretty eafy gradation in
the progrefs of the dodrine of the divinity

X 4 - of

312 The Concltifion. Sect, IV.

of Chriflij as he was firft thought to be a
God in feme qualified fenfe of the word,
a diftinguifl'ied emanation from the fupreme
mind ; and then the logos^ or the ijoijdom of
God perfonified ; and this logos was firft
thought to be only occafionally detached
from the Deity, and then drawn into his
effence again, before it was imagined that
it had a permanent perfonality^ diftind from
that of the fqurce from which it fprung.
And it was not till the fourth century, that
this hgos^ or Chrift, was thought to be pro-
perly equal to the Father. Whereas, on the
other hand, though it is now pretended that
the apoftles taught the dodrine of the divi-
nity of Chrift, yet it cannot be denied that
in the very time of the apoftles, the Jewifh
church, and many of the Gentiles alfo, held
the opinion of his being a mere man. Here
the tranfition is quite fudden, without any
gradation at all. This muft naturally have
given the greateft alarm, fuch as is now
given to thofe who are called orthodox, by
the prefent Socinians ; and yet nothing of
this kind can be perceived. Befides, it is

certainly

Sect. IV. The Conclujion. 012

certainly mod: probable that the chriftians
of thofe times, urged as they were with
the meannefs of their mafter, fliould incline
to add to^ rather than take from^ his natu-
ral rank and dignity Maxim 12.

17. The dodrine of Chrift having no human
fouly befidss the logos, is neceffary to the
Arian hypothefis. But all the Fathers who
wrote upon the fubjed before the time of
Arius held that Chrift had a proper human
foul, and this dodtrine was never objed:ed to
any of them as wrong. It may, therefore,
be concluded, that Arianifm had no exift-
ence before the age of Arius. Maxim 11.

18. The logos of all chriftian writers be-
fore i!\rius, was an attribute of God the
Father, which the catholics fuppofed to
have become a proper per/on. That the
logos had even not been, and that it was
created out of nothing, is a dodtrine that
cannot be traced any higher than the age
of Arius. It, therefore, could not be the
dodrine that was taught by the apoflles.
Maxim 1 1 . /

To

314 The ConcliifuGn. Sect, IV.

To this fummary view of the arguments
in favour of the chriftian church having
been originally unitarian, I fhall fubjoin
a fimilar abridgment of the arguments for
and agalnft the jniraculous concepion.

The hiftory of the miraculous concep-
tion is contained in our prefent copies of
of the gofpels of Matthew and Luke. It
was certainly believed by Juftin Martyr, and
no doubt by many other chriftians of that
age, and we have no account of any time
in which the introdudlions which contain
that hiftory were added to the gofpels. And
that of Luke in particular is fo much of a
piece with the ftyle of the reft of the hif-
tory, that there can be little doubt of its
having made an original part of it. We
have, therefore, the teftimony of two co-
temporary hiftorians in its favour.

On the other hand, as all the waitings
of the ancient unitarians are loft, and efpe-
cially that of Symmachus, on this very fub-
jedl, there may have been complaints of
interpolations, of which we have now no
3 account.

Sect. IV. The Conclujion. o,-

account. And had it been always under-
flood that thofe introductions were really
written by Matthew and Luke, efpecially
that of Matthew, it is not eafy to account
for the difbelief of the ftory by any chrif-
tians, efpecially thofe of the Jewifh race,
who had the highefl refped: for what they
really thought to be the genuine gofpel of
Matthew, Whereas a difpoiition to add to
the perfonal dignity of Chrift, which dif-
covered itfelf very early, may be fuppofed
to have led others to adopt the opinion of
the miraculous conception on infufficient
grounds.

No fatisfadiory reafon can now be ima-
gined, why Chrift fhould not have been
born of two human parents ; nor can we
find any tradition of fuch a reafon in the
early chriftian writers. There might even
be a fufpicion, that he was not properly a
mariy if he was not produced as other men
are; and confequently the peculiar advan-
tages of the unitarian dodlrine will be in
fome danger of being abandoned.

The

3i6 The ConcIufiG?!. Sect. IV.

The miraculous conception does not ap-
pear to have been aflerted in the time of the
apoftles ; there being no mention of it, or
allufion to it, in the New Teftament (ex-
cept the introductions to the gofpels above
mentioned) and there being no account of
any objection made to it by unbelievers in
that age, as there were afterwards. And
if there was no fufficient evidence of the
fa6l in that early period, it would be too
late to afcertain it to fatisfaction after-
wards. We are not informed that either
Mary, or any other perfon who could pro-
perly atteft the fad, was queftioned on the
fubjeft.

The only gofpel that was received by the
Jewifh chrifiians (who, from their litua-
tion, muft have been the beft judges) as
the authentic gofpel of Matthew, did not
contain the two firft chapters.

The intrcdudions to the gofpels of
!^vlatthev/ and Luke contain^ each of them,
feveral improbable circumftances, and are
hardly compatible with each other. The

genealo-

Sect. IV. The Concliifon. 017

genealogies in particular, which are both
faid to be that of Jofeph, are wholly dif-
fereiit. Matthew's account of Jefus's re-
ceivino' the vifit of the wife men at Bethle-
hem, cannot eafily be reconciled with Luke's
account of his parents living at Nazareth,
and only going to Bethlehem for the pur-
pofe of the cenfus. The account of this
cenfus is full of improbabilities, efpecially
as it fuppofes an obligation on Mary, a
woman big with child, to attend there at
that time.

Had the hiflory contained in thefe two
introdudions been true, Jefus muft have
been publicly announced to be the Meiliah
from the time of his birth ; whereas, both
his education, and the manner in which he
conducted himfelf after the commencement
of his public miniftry, fhew, that no perfon
had fuch an idea of him, and he did not,
for a confiderable time, claim that charac-
ter, except to a few.

Had the hiftory of the miraculous con-
ception been well founded, it is hardly
poffible to account for the cmiffion of it

by

318 The Conchfjion. Sect. IV,

by John, but more efpecialiy by Mark,
v/hether he was an epitomizer of Matthew,
as fome have fuppofed, or not ; becaufe the
fad: being quite fingular, and of an extra-
ordinary nature, he could not have thought
it unworthy of being recorded in a profefTed
hiftory of Chrift.

All the Jewifh chriftians are by Irenseus
called EbioniteSy and he always defcribes
them as believing Jefus to have been the
fon of Jofeph ; and only Origen, and Eu-
febius, who probably copied him, fpeak of
any of them as believing the miraculous
conception, and this is only in one paffage
of Eufebius. In another paflage he fpeaks
of the Ebionites in general (and he has no
other name for any Jewifh chriftians) as
dilbeliving it.

It is probable alfo, that many Gentile
chriftians difoelieved the miraculous con-
ception. Juftin Martyr fpeaks of no uni-
tarians but fuch as were of this opinion.
Some of them certainly were fo in the time
of Origen ; and from the circumftance of
the followers of Paulus Samofatenfis faying

that

Sect. IV. The Conclufion. ^lo

that Jefus was born at Nazareth, it is pro-
bable the ancient Gentile unitarians in ge-
neral gave no credit to the account of his
being born at Bethlehem, and confequently
not to the miraculous conception. In that
early age, therefore, the unitarians had
feen no reafon which induced them to
believe it, and no new authority has been
difcovered fince that time.

The early Gnoftics did not believe the
miraculous conception, though their fyftem
would have inclined them to admit it; and
Marcion exprefsly maintained, that the ori-
ginal copy of Luke's gofpel did not con-
tain that hiftory.

If Jefus be not the fon of Jofeph, there is
no evidence of his being defcended from
David, which the Jews confider as a necef-
fary charafteriftic of the Meffiah, and there
is no prophecy that announces his miracu-
lous birth.

SEC-

320 7he Co?2chifion, Sect. V.

SECTION V.

Some of the Ujes that may he derived from
the Confidei^ation of the Sub j eel of this
Work.

I. "fT^ROM the variety of opinions that
-^ v/e have httxv reviewing, wt may fee
the great ufe of what is generally called
Metaphyfics^ or the importance of gaining
clear ideas concerning fubjedls of the moft
general and comprehenfive nature.. A little
good fenfe and difcernment of this kind
w^ould have intirely prevented the rife of
the docSrine of the trinity. It v/ould have
been feen at once, that it was abfurd to
fuppofe, that a mere attribute of any being
could be converted into a fubfance ; and
therefore that Chrift, or the Son, could
never have been the original and proper
wifdoniy ov power oi the Father; at firil", a
mere property , as reafon is in man, and after-
wards a perfoUy truly diftincl from him, and
capable of having fentiments, and a fphere
I ^ of

Sect.V. ^he Cbnciiijion, ^21

of adion of his own, fo as to become incar-
nate, while the Father reniained in heaven.
Still more evident, if poffible, is it, that
found metaphyfics would have revolted at the
fuppofition of tht^ee divine ferfons making
no more than one god. This mufl: have
been immediately perceived to be an exprefs
contradiction, fuch as no miracles could
prove.

2. The fubjed of this work may likewife
ferve to fhew us the ufe of true Philojhphy^
Had not this fcience been in its very in-
fancy at the time of the promulgation of
chriftianity, the dodtrine oi prolations would
have been entirely exploded. For we fee
nothing in nature that could authorize us to
fuppofe, that a part, protruded from an in-
telligent being (whether feparated from it
or not) could of itfelf become a diftind: in-
telligent being of the fame kind. A branch
or flip from a tree is by no means a cafe of
fimple prolation^ much lefs would it ever
have occured to any perfon, that the beings
thus prolated and derived from another,
could be drawn back into that being from

Vol. IV. Y which

32 2 T^he Conchifion, Sect. V.

VY^hich they fprung, which was a dodlrine
in the oriental philofophy. Befides, if
natural prolations be the foundation of ana-
logical reafoning, with refpedt to the Su-
preme Being, we mufl admit both a power
of infinite multiplication, and alfo that there
may be numberlefs derived intelligences in
all refpe6ls fully equal to the original
flock, which was never admitted, even by
the Gaoftics. The doftrine of prolation
can only be exemplified by the derivation of
a river from a fpring, or a canal from a
river; but this is very remote indeed from
the cafe of any thing that is endued with
life, and ftill more remote from that of
beings which have intelligence.

Had the nature of lighty and its relation
to the fiiny been known to Philo, and the
chriftian Fathers, they could never have
availed themfelves of it, to favour their
doctrine of the occafional perfonification of
the divine logos, which led to that of its
permanent perfonification, as this led to the
dodlrine of the perfed: equality of the Son to
the Father.

Light

Sect. V. The Conclujion. 022

Light v/as, in that age, imagined to be
an e§.iiXy protruded from the fun in the day
time, always CQnned:ed with it, and drawn
back into it again at night; and fuch was
the logos fuppofed to be with refped: to
God, by Philo and the philofophical uni-
tarians. Had they underftood the true
nature of light y they would hardly have en-
tertained fuch an abfurd idea of the logos,
and of its relation to the fupreme mind.
We fhould, therefore, never have heard of
their notion concerning the protrufion of
the logos from God. Confequently Chriil
could never have been thought to be this
logos, but would always have been fuppof-
ed to have been a mere prophet, like Mofes,
and others, who had gone before him. As
to the Arian created logosy I have fhewed that
the idea of it was fubfequent to that of the
trinitarian uncreated logoSy and was what
would never have been thought of, if this
other had not preceded it.

To their new logos y however, the Arian s
attributed all the functions of the old one^
even that of being the creator of the world ;

Y 2 and

324 The Conchfion, Sect. V.

and, extraordinary as this may feem, yet
the idea of a Jubordi?jate creator being once
eftabliihed, and having been received both
by the Gnoftics and the catholics, the
greateft difficulty was already furmounted.
For to fuppofe that to be done by a created
being, which had before been fuppofed to
be done by a being inferior to the deity,
though uncreatedy was no great ftep, efpe- ,
cially confidering how little it is that we
can pretend to know of the nature of crea-
tion. But whatever it be, it is always re-
prefented in the fcriptures as the fole pre-
rogative of the fupreme Being.

How difgraceful is it to the prefent age,
in which philofophical and metaphyfical
knowledge are fo much improved, that we
cannot forbear to fmile at the fyftems of
ancient times, and are apt to treat them
with perhaps too much contempt, that we
yet retain thofe dodlrines in theology which
owe their rife to them. The perufal of
this work, in which are exhibited the ab-
furd notions and reafonings of thofe who
have obtained the name of Fathers^ and
J efpecially

Sect. V. "The Conclujon, ^zk

efpecially their truly ridiculous interpreta-
tions of fcripture, cannot but tend to abate
our reverence for the doctrines for which
they contended, and which, indeed, they
introduced.

3. I flatter myfelf, however, that this
work, together with thofe which I have
already publifhed on thefe fubjects, may be
the means of exciting a more general atten-
tion to thefe early chriftian writers, by
giving a juft idea of the proper yfe of them.
This is that of fupplying authorities for
ancient fads relating to chriftianity, fuch
as the exiftence of particular opinions at
particular times, and the adlual progrefs of
them ; which may enable us to afcertaia
their caufes and confequences. With re-
fpefl; to the writers themfelves, they ought
to be judged of by their fituation and ad-
vantages. Notwithftanding the contempt
into which they are fallen, yet as men^ and as
writers, they were, no doubt, equal to men
and writers of any other age ^ and as phi'^
lofophers and metaphyjicians^ it will be feen
that they Vvxre equal, and indeed, fuperior

Y3 to

326 l^he Conclujon, Sect. V.

to the very ableft of the Platonifts. Their
ideas were Icfs confufed, and their reafon-
ing from their premifes quite as clear and
conclufive. They are generally charged
with mconfijiency ; but this accufation has
been much aggravated. Taking any of
them fingly, I will venture to fay, that they
were not more inconfiftent with themfelves
than writers of any other age, who lived as
long, and who wrote as much as they did ;
and the variety of character and manner in
the different writers is exaftly fimllar to
that of any other fet of writers. Had Mr,
Locke, Sir Ifaac Newton, or Dr. Clarke,
lived in thofe times, and had enjoyed all
the advantages of liberal education which
the age afforded, they would not, I am
perfuaded, have made a greater figure than
Origen, Jerom, or Auftin ; and I would be
far from anfwering for it, that their good
fenfe would have made them fuch men as
Paulus Samofatenfis, Marcellus of Ancyra,
or Photinus.

The chriflian Fathers have been likewife
highly cenfured for their loofe manner of

interpreting

Sect. V, The Conclujion. 027

interpreting the fcriptures, and Origen has
been particularly blamed in this refpedt.
But in this they had a precedent in Philo,
whofe allegorical interpretations of the Old
Teftament are even more wild and abfurd
than theirs. And it is very unjuft to blame
Origen more than others of the Fathers in
this refped. Auftin, Jerom, and even Eu-
febius, interpret the fcriptures in the fame
allegorical and fanciful way.

But whatever be the charadler, or real
value, of the chriftian writers in the three
or four firft centuries, in them only can
we find monuments of the ftate of things
in their age 5 and therefore they who really
wifh to know how chriftians thought, felt,
and acted, in the age immediately fubfe-
quent to that of the apoftles, muft ftudy
them. Befides, with refped to feveral im-
portant articles, they are the only guides
we have to a knowledge of the true ftate of
things in the time of the apoftles ; the book
of Ad:s being a very concife and imperfedl
hiftory, though fufRcient for the purpofe

Y4 .for

328 The Conclufion. Sect. V.

for which it was written i and its real va^
lue is hardly lefs than that of the gofpels.

4. Laftly, after perufing fuch a work;
as this, we may have peculiar fatisfac-
tion in reflecting that, notwithftanding every
corruption of chriftianity, even that which
afFedts the dodrine of the unity of God (an
article of the firfi: magnitude in fpeculation,
which has even ferious pradical confe-
quences, and which muft prevent the cor-
dial reception of it by the greateft part of
the world, and which therefore calls aloud
for all th€ ^eal of its friends to expofe and re-
move it) it has, in every flate, been infinitely
fuperior to the religion which prevailed in
the world before its promulgation. More-
over it has always, in a great meafure, anfwer-
ed its profelTed object, which was to reform
the v^orld, by inculcating with proper autho-
rity, evidence, and effed, the great dodrin^
of rewards and punifliments after death.

This article of chriftian faith was held
even by the Gnoflics, and in every ftage
of popifh darknefs and deluiion. Falfe no-
tions

Sect.V. The Conclujion. ^29

tions of virtue have been taught ^ but the
common fenfe, the daily obfervation and
experience oi mankind, as well as an
attention to the genuine principles of the
gofpel, have always been able to keep thofe
deviations within fome bounds ; and what-
ever it be that any perfons, calling them-
felves chriflians, have deemed wrong con^
du5ly they have firmly believed to draw
after it an adequate punifliment ^ as what-
ever they have thought to be right condudfy
they have had no doubt would be entitled
to an abundant reward in the life fucceed-
ing the prefent.

It is greatly to be wiflied that all chrif-
tians would attend more to this great bond
of union among them (an article of agree-
ment of fuch magnitude as almoft to anni-
hilate all their differences) this common faith
which is equally held by them all, by the
Jews who were before them, and hy Ma-
hometans who have learned it of them.
This confideration would help to extin^
guifh mutual animofities, and give us a
^ool and difpaffionate temper of mind, which

is.

33^ ^he ConduJiQ}}. Sect.V.

is neceflary to that calm difcuffion of our
differences, from which alone we can ex-
ped: a defirable termination of controverfy,
in the difcovery and univerfal reception of
all truth.

This general agreement among chrif-
tians, in the great principles of their faith,
efpecially thofe of the unity of Gody and
the humanity of Chrijl, will make their re-
ligion appear infinitely more refpedlable
(becaufe more rational) to the whole world,
and cannot fail to put an end to all in-
fidelity, and bring on thofe glorious times,
when, according to the fure word of pro^
pBecy^ the whole earth will he full of the
knowledge of the Lord, and the kingdoms of
the world will become the kingdoms of our
Lord, and of his Chrijl.

I fhall not live to fee this event, but I
clearly fee the operation of thofe caifes,
which will certainly bring it to pafs ; and
this faith is able to give the greateft con-
folation through life, and in death. The
fainteft hope that my writings, notwith-
{landing the miftakes I may have fallen

into,

Sect. V. T^he Conclujion^ 3^1

into, and which I fhall always be ready
to correcft, may have been the fmallefl;
means, in the hands of providence, of ac-
complifhing fo great an end, does much
more than enable me to bear, it makes me
rejoice in, all the hatred and oppofition that
I draw upon myfelf by them.

SEC

332 7he Conclujion. Sect. VI.

SECTION VI.

Of the prefent State of Things with refpe5i
to the Trinitarian and Arian Controverfes.

/^F late years the attention of learned
^^ chriftians has been much drawn to the
do6trine of the trinity^ and it is highly de-
firable that this jfhould be continued till
the controverfy come to fome regular
iffue. There was a remarkable aera of
this kind occafioned by the publication of
Dr. Clarke's Scripture Dodlrine of the TVV-
ntty 'y in lefs than twenty years after which
a great majority of learned chriftians in this
country were, I believe, pretty well fatisfied
concerning the fupremacy of one God the
Father, and that Chrift is only a creature.

If learned men wull give equal attention
to the fubjedl of this work (I do not fay to
the work itfelf, for I hope to fee other
treatifes which fhall have the fame objeft)
we may expert that in an equally fhort fpace

of

Sect. VI. ^1^^ Condujion. ^33

of time the controverfy between the Arians
and unitarians will be decided. For every
fa6l of any confequence to forming our
judgment may in that time be produced,
and when that is done, there will be little
more halting between the t^wo opinions, I
fpeak of thofe who are of a proper age for
inquiries of this kind, and fuch as the
rifing generation will follow 5 while thofe
who are paft the age of inquiry will go off
the ftage, and carry their prejudices with
them.

It certainly moft imports thofe who en-
joy fuperior ftations in eftabliilied churches
to defend the fyftem from which they de-
rive their wealth and honours. The com-
munities, which give them their rank in
their refpeftive countries, will look up to
them for it. And the fame unfavourable
conclufion will be drawn, whether they
leave the work to inferior hands, unequal
to the difcuffion, or themfelves come forth,
and be foiled in the conteft.

Such is the attention that is already given
to this fubjeft, and fuch the general expeda-

tion

334 ^^^ Conclufion. Sect. VI.

tion from the Arians in particular, that
their filence will be confidered in the fame
light as a giving up of the caufe. And the
confequence of a continued filence on the
part of both Arians and trinitarians muft
be that, excepting thofe who are called
methodifts (in whofe adherence to the efta-
blifhed fyftem there is generally more zeal,
without learning or knowledge) none will
be left, or hereafter rife up, to enjoy the
firft ftations in the church, but fuch as
will be fufRciently known to be unitarians.
And can it be expedled that the fyftem
can ftand long with fuch heterogeneous

fupports ?

Human eftablifhments may for a period

bear down reafon, and they have, no doubt,
a great advantage in the conteft. But not-
withftanding this, the progrefs of truth y is
as certain as that of time, and whatever fyf-
tem has not the fupport of truth muft fall.
During the gradual progrefs of truth, her
enemies muft be filled with fecret confu-
fion, and her friends, with the fulleft con-
fidence and moft joyful expedation. la

this

4

j|r Sect. VI. The Concliifion. ^-jr

this age, all attempts to ftifle inquiry by
Jilencey will be as unavailing as former at-
tempts to overbear it by force. The time
is come when truth will be heard, and it
will be impoflible either to over-awe, or to
fupprefs it.

The common people are now much in-
terefted in theological difcuilions, the ap-
peal being made to ihtfcriptures, and to rea^
foriy of which they are judges, as well as to
antiquity y with refpedl to which they are lefs
qualified to determine^ though even as to
this, by a careful attention, and a comparifon
of the allegations on both fides, they may be
enabled to come to a fatisfadtory conclufion.
And when the minds of a fufficient num-
ber of the more intelligent of the laity are
enlightened, they will be followed by the
lefs intelligent ; and then the concurrence
of the fl:ate, and of the clergy, to a reforma-
tion of the public forms of worfliip in fa-
vour of unitarian principles, will come of
courfe. They who make and adminifter
laws, are ncceflarily direflred in their pro-

3 ceedings

336 The Conclujion. Sect. VI.

ceedlngs by the fpirit and inclination of
the people, whofe fervants they really are,
and whofe will they muft confult. How
glorious then is the profpedt which the
daily Ipread of unitarianifm is opening to
us !

I had intended to have enlarged on this
topic in this place ^ but having done it in
my late Sermon for the 5th of November,
and the Reflexions fubjoined to it, I take
the liberty to refer my readers to that pub-
lication.

M0NI2 GEn AO^A.

Articles

[ ZZ7 3

Articles omitted to be inferted in their proper
Places.

Vol. I. p. 19. after the lafl paragraph add,

'T^HE manner in which the apoftles, and
thofe of the difciples of Chrift who re-
fpefted him the moft, lived and converfed
with him, fhews clearly enough, that they
confidered him in no higher light than that
of a prophet, or fuch a Meffiah as the Jews in.
general expedled; one who was deftined to be
a temporal prince. But what a fmall matter
muft this have appeared to them, if they
had thought him to be the being who
made the world, to fay nothing of his
proper divinity. Had they feen him with
the eyes of an Arian, they muft have con-
fidered his appearing in the chara(3:er ^^f
the MeJJiahy as a ftate of great humiliation,
inftead of a ftate of exaltation and glory ;
which, however always appears to have
been their idea of him in that charadter.
Vol. IV. Z Befides,

33^ Articles omiiied.

Befides, the freedoms which they took with
him, as thofe of Peter reproving him for
talking of his fufferings, and for fpeaking
ofaperfon touching him in a crowd, and
other little circumilances, ihews that they
had not that awe of him upon their minds,
which they could never have diverted them-
felves of, if they had confidered him as
being their maker. A perfon who can think
otherwife, muil never have attempted to
realize the idea, or have put himfelf in the
place of the apoftles, fo as to have imagined
himfelf introduced into the adual prefence
of his maker, in the form of man, or any
other form whatever. He would be over-
whelmed with the very thought of it. Or
if any particular perfon fhould have had
the courage, and unparalleled felf-poffef-
ficn, to bear fuch a thing, muft there not
have been numbers who would have been
fiUed with confternation at the very idea,
or the mere fufpicio?:, of the perfon they
were fpeaking to being really God ? And
yet we perceive no trace of any fuch con-
fternation and alarm in the gofpel hiflory,
I no

Articles ojnitted^ >iqg

no mark of aflionifliment in the difciples of
our Lord in confeqaence of their belief of it,
and no marks of indignation or exclama-
tion of blafphemy, occ. againft thofe who
diibelievcd it.

Vol. I. p. 66, after the Pirft paragraph add^ ,
I T is acknowledged that thefe two
paflages, viz. from the epiftles to the
Ephefians, and Coloffians, correfpond to
each other, and that they are to be in-
terpreted on the fame principles. Now if
the phrafeology in the epiftle to the Ephe-
fians be attended to, it will be clearly feen,
that the v/riter explains his own meaning
with refpedt to what he calls creation. In
the fecond chapter, he reprefents the Gen-
tiles as being in a ftate of death, and quick-
enedy or brought to life, by the gofpel.
Confcquently they might be faid to be
created again y as he fays, ch. ii. lo. We are
his 'wt)rkmanJJnp created in Chriji ye/us unto
good works. Does not this fufficiently ex-
plain w^hat he meant, ch. iii^p. by creating- ,^
all things by Jefus ChriJI ? With the fame

Z 2 idea

340 Articles omitted.

idea he calls the heathen ftate of the Ephe-
fians the old man^ and their chriflian ftate,
the 72ew man^ ch. iv. 22. l^hat ye put of con-
cerning the former converfation the old man,
which is corrupty according to the deceitful
lap : and be renewed in the fpirit of your
mind; and that ye put on the new many
which y after Gody is created in righteoufnefs
and true holinefs.

In the idea of the apoftle, the preaching
of chriftianity made a new and diftinguifhed
asra in the hiftory of the world, from which
things might be faid to have a new origin,
and this he terms creation, as he fays, 2 Cor.
V. 17. If any man be in Chrijiy he is a 7iew
creature : Old things are pajfed away, be^
hold all things are become new. And this lan-
guage is countenanced by, and was perhaps
adopted from, Ifaiah ; who, looking into
future times, fays, ch. Ixv. 17. Behold I
create new heavens ^ and a new earthy and the
former JJjall not be remembered nor come into
mind. But be ye glady and rejoice for ever
in that which I create. For behold I create
ferufalcfn a rejoicing^ and her people a joy.

By

Articles omitted. -^j^i

By this language the prophet only meant to
defcribe a glorious revolution in favour of
the Jews.

Vol. IIL p. 30. after the lafi: paragraph add,

THE Rabbi Nachmanides, in his pub-
lic difputation before the king of Arragon,
in 1263, lays the greateft flrefs imaginable
on the dodrine of the Meffiah being a mere
man ; and his addrefs to the young king on
the fubjed: is pertinent and afFed:ing.
** The greateft fubjedl of controverfy be-
*' tween us and the chriftians/* fays he,
*^ lies in this, that you make the Meffiah
** to be a God, which is not to be borne,'^
(literally, it is a very hitter thing — "T\^D iq)
*' You, my king, are a young man, born of
*' chriftian parents, and have all your life
** heard monks and preachers difcourfing
** about the nativity of Jefus, and they have
'* filled your bones with this doctrine as
*' with marrow ; and from ufe it is grateful
*^ to you. But what you believe on this
^' fybjeit is contrary to found reafon. It is
Z 3 *' not

342 Articles omitted,

*' not agreeable to common fenfe, to the
^'^ nature of things, or to the writings of
" the prophets. The enormous prodigy is

** utterly inexplicable. For could the

^' creator of heaven and earth, and of all
*' things that are in them, go into the
** womb of a Jewiili woman, be there
*' nourifhed nine months, be afterwards
^' born a boy, then grow to a man, be de-
*' livered into the hands of his enemies,
** who fhould pafs fentence of death upon
** him, and execute it, then come to life
** again, &c. Thefe are things that neither
^* the reafon of a Jew, nor that of any other
** man, can bear. It is in vain, there-
*^ fore, and to no purpofe, to difpute about
** other things -, it is on this that the hinge
*' of our controverfy turns */'

* Caeterum, principalis caufa quae inter Juda&os ac
prasputiatos dubia ac controverfa eft, in eo latet, quod vos
MeiTiam inter divinitatis fepta admittitis, qus res eft durif-
fima. Tu vero, mi rex domineque, juvenis es, patre
chriftiano, et matre chriftiana progenitus, totaque vita tua
audivifti monachos, homunciones et concionatores de nati-
yiiatejefu verba facientes, ii|iac quafi medulla repleverunf

♦

Articles omitted. ^43

Vol. 4. p. 10. after the firft paragraph ia-
fert this Note,

AS I am confident it will will give plea-
fure to many of my readers, I fhall give
them a fpecimen of true candour in a mo-
dern trinitarian, the late excellent Dr.
Watts. It is copied from his Ufeful ajid
important ^.ejiions concerniiig Jefus thefon of
Gody p. II. &c. *' This title. Son of God j, is

OiTa tua, et ex hac confuetudine faavis eit ingenio tuo-
^tA vero res quam creditis, fanas ration! adverfatur, nee
enim vel intelleclus, vel rerum natura tale quid conce-
dunt, neque prophetae hoc enunciarunt, Amplius, nee
explicari poteft prodigii enormitas, prout demonftrabo ra-
tionibus evidentib'js fuo loco et tempore. Nunquid enim
creator cceli et terrae, rerumque quae his continentur om-
nium, reciperit {q(q. in uterum Judaicae mulieris, ibiqueale-
retur, per menfes novem, et puer poftea nafceretur,. educa-
retur deinde, traderetur in manusinimicorumfuorum, qui
capitalem fententiam adverfus ilium pronunciarent, et neci
traderent, dicatur autem poftea revixifle, et reverfus efle in
locum fuum, quaeque alia funt ejus generis? Ifla nee Ju-
daei hominis nee cujufquam mortalium fana ratio fuiFert,
in vanum igitur, et in nihilum, de aliis verba facitis, nam
In hjs vertitur cardo nofrras controverfia?. P. 40.

Z 4 ** given

344 Articles omitted,

*' given to Chrift, fometimes upon the ac-
** count of his incarnation and miraculous
" birth ; but this cannot be the chief mean-
*' ning of the name Son of God^ in the texts
^' before cited. For furely the belief that
*' the man Chrift Jefus was begotten of
** God, and born of a virgin, virithout an
** earthly father, was not made the term of
** falvation any where that we can find in
*' in the New Teftament. It is not this
" fort oifonjhip that Chrift and the apoftles
** lay fo great a ftrefs on, nor make the mat-
" ter of their fermons, and the labour of
" their arguments, to convince the world
" of it, in order to their falvation. This
** circumftance of his extraordinary birth
*? doth not feem to have any fuch fpecial
** connexion with the redemption and fal-
*^ vation of men, as to have it made the pe-
*> culiar matter of their faith, and the very
*' article on which their falvation was to
•^ depend.

^^ Doubtlefs many a poor creature might
^^ become a true believer in GJirift, vvhenhe

f* was

Articles omitted. 24.5

^' was upon earth, by the fight of his mi-
*^ racks, and hearing his dodtrine, without
^* the knowledge of this particular circum-
" fiance of his incarnation or birth ; and
** doubtlefs many a one v/as converted by
" the apoftles, without any notice of this
" part of the hiftory of Chrift. For we
*' fcarce find fo much as the mention of it
** in their preaching or writings. This,
** therefore, cannot be the meaning of this
*^ name in thofe fcripture^.'^

Vol. IV. p. 25. add,

IT has been faid that the ufe of the mi-
raculous conception was to be a motive
with the parents of Jcfus, to give him a
pious and proper education. But to this it
may be replied, in the firft place, that his
parents, being of themfelves pious perfons^
would, of courfe, give their child a religi-
ous education; and, therefore, could not
ftand in need of fo extraordinary a meafure
as this to engage them to attend to it.
Befides, no motive is naturally io ftrong as

the
3

346 Articles omitted.

the love that a parent bears to his own
child, to do for him every thing that he be-
lieves will be for his advantage; which, on
the part of Jofeph, would be wanting on
this hypothefis.

The tafk of the education of the Meffiah
would, in all probability, have quite over-
whelmed the minds of fuch perfons as Jo-
feph and Mary, who were in a low condi-
tion in life, and had enjoyed no particular
advantage v/ith refpedt to education them-
feives. Without exprefs inftrudion from
heaven, it is moft probable that they would
have put him' under the care of fome of
their rabbies, and certainly would never
have brought him up to the trade of a car-
penter. Or they might naturally prefume,
that being born in a fupernatural manner,
he would be inllructed, and prepared for his
office, in a fupernatural manner.

It does not appear that any particular
care of the education of Jefus was at all
neceffary. A learned education he evidently
had not ; for the Jews expreffed their afto-

nifhment

I

Articles omitted, o^y

iiiO:iment at his dodlrine, on the account of
his ?7ot knowing letters, meaning that he had
not had the education of one of their rabbies.
As far as appears, Jefus had not been taught
any thing more than to read and write his
own language ; and all the ufe that he had
made of this learning was in his private ftudj
of the fcriptures; and that, before his bap-
tifm, he had given more attention to thefe
than other pious Jews ufually did, may be
fuppofed, but cannot be proved.

We fee no reafon to think that Jefus's
appearing as the Mefliah at thirty years of
age, required any particular previous know-
ledge. He, like other Jews, would, of
courfe, be brought up in the expediation of
the Meffiah; and, till his baptifm, he
might be under the fame miftake with re-
fpedl to his character and kingdom, that
other pious Jews v/ere. But, at that time
(for we cannot be fure that it was before) he
would be informed that he was the perfon,
and would be inftrudted v/hat he mull teach
gnd do^ and alfo be apprized of v/hat he muft

/lifer

34^ Articles omitted,

fuffer in that charader. And his fupcr-na-
tural illumination, and his private medi-
tations, during the forty days which he paf-
fed in abfolute retirement, will fufficiently
account for the part that he adted, and the
temper of mind that he difcovered after-
wards.

His firft preaching was nothing more
than John had taught before him. Mat. iv.
17. From that time Jefus began to preach and
to Jay y Repent y for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand. Nor do I perceive any thing in his
fubfequent teaching, which any other good
man may not be fuppofed to have been al^
ways ready to deliver, on receiving inftruc-
tions from God on the fubjecS. His mira-
cles evidently required no particular edu-
cation, preparation, or inlirudtion, for they
were not his. The Father within him did
the works.

Why then (hould we fuppofe that the
miraculous conception was provided as a
means to a certain end ; when neither the
exijlence^ nor the propriety of that end, can

be

Articles omitted, o^g

be proved from the fcriptures. We are no
where told, that any particular attention to
the education of Jefus by his parents was
requifite, nor do we find that fuch attention
was given. This then is a cafe in which
both th^fa^fy and the hypothejis to account
for it, are alike imaginary.

7hs

2 so Names of the principat Pe7^fons

"The Names of the principal Perfons mentioned in this

Wcrk^ with the Times in which they lived, in the

order of the Alphabet, correfponding to the Bioo-ra-

phical Chart, which fronts the Title-page of the

jirft Volume.

AMBROSE, died A. D. 397. aged ^^^,
Anailafius Sinaita, died 599.
Apollinarius, jun. flourifned 370.
Aquila, flourilhed 128.
Arius, died 336.
Arnobius, flourifhed 303.
Athanafius, died 371.
Athenagoras, flourifhed 177.
Auftin, died 430. 76.

Bardefanes, flourifhed 172.
Bafil the Great, died 378. 51.
Bafii of Seleucia, flourifhed 448.
Bafilides, flourifhed 112.
Beryllus, flourifhed 230.

Caius, floprifhed 210.

CafTian, died 448. 97.

Celfus, flourifhed 150.

Cerinthus, flourifhed 80.

Chriil, died 29. 2^,

Chiyfoflom, died 407. 53.

Clemens Alexandrinus, died about 220.

Clemens

mentioned in this Work. 351

Clemens Romanus, died 102.
Cofmas Indicopleuites:, flourifhed 535.
Cyprian, died 258.
Cyril of Alexandria, died 444.
Cyril of Jerufalem, 386.

Didymiis of Alexandria, flourifhed 370.

Dionyfius of — --, died 265.

Donatus, died about 355.

Ephrem Syrus, flourifhed 370.
Epiphanius, died 403 . 7 1 .
Evagrius, born 535. lived after 595.
Eunomius, died about 394.
Eufebius, died about 340. about 70.
Eutyches, flourifhed 448.

Facundus, flouriflied 540.
Firmilian, died 270.
Fulgentius, died 529. 66,

Gregentius, died 552.

Gregory the Great, died 604. 60.

Nazianzen, died 389. 6c^,

' — Nyflfen, died 395.
' ThaumaLurgus, died 266.

Hegefippus, flouriflied 170.
Hermas, or Hermes, flourifhed 150.
Hermias, flouriflied 177.
Hermogenes, flouriflied 170.

Hilary,

352 Names of the principal Perfons

Hilary, died 372. 80.
Hippolytus^ flourillied 220*

Ibas, flouriftied 436.
Ignatius, died 108*
Iren^us, died 202. 62.
Ifidorus Pelufiota, died after 43 k

jamblichuSi died about 1^^^,

Jerom, died 420.78.

Job the monk, flourilhed 530.

John, theapoftle, died 99. 92.

Jofephus, died 93. 56.

Julian, died 363. 31.

Julius Africanus, flouriihed 220.

Juftin Martyr, died 163.

Juftinian, died 565. 83.

La6tantius, flourifhed 311.
Leo the Great, died 461.
Lcucius, flourifhed 180.

Manes, flourilhed 277.
< Marcellus of Ancyra, died 372.
Marcion, flourilhed 134.
Marius Mercator, died about 451.

Vidtorinus, died about 370.

Maxentius, flourilhed 520.
Maximus Taurinenfls, flourilhed 433.

Melito, flourilhed 170.

Methodius,

meritioned in this Work. '^i^'^

Methodius, flourifhed 290.
Minutkis Felix, flourifhed 220.
Montanus, flourilhed 173.

Novatian, flourifhed 251.
Neflrorius, died after 439.

Oecumenius, flourifhed 990,
Optatus, flourifhed ^^Z,
Origen, died 254. 69,
Oroflus, flourifhed 416.

Pamphllus, the martyr, flouriflied 294,
Papias, flouriflied 110.
Paul the apofl:le, died 67.
Paulinus, died 43 1 . 7 8 .
Paulus Samofatenfis, flourifhed 270.
Pelagius, died about 420.
Peter the apoftle, died 67.
Philafler, died 387.
Philo, flourifhed 40.
Philofl:orgius, born 367, lived after 425.
Photinus, died 377.
Photius, flouriflied 858.
Plotinus, died 270. 6G,
Polycarp, flourifhed 108.
Porphyry, died about 304. 7 1 .
Prifcillian, died 386.
Proclus, the philofophcr, flourifhed 510.
Vol. IY. A a Proclus

354 Names of the principal Perfonsy Q?c.

Proclus of Conftantinople, died 446.
Procopius Gazsus, flourifhed 520.

Rufinus, died 411.

Simoin Magus, flourifhed 35.
Socrates the hiflrorian, flourifhed 440.
Sozomen, died about 450.
Sulpicius Severus, died 420.
Symmachus, flourifhed 201.
Synefius, flourifhed 410.

Tatian, flourifhed 171.
Tertullian, died about 220.
Theodotion, flourifhed 183.
Theodoret, died after 460.
Theodorus, died 428.
Theodotus, flourifhed 192.
Theophanes, died about 816. 68.
Theophilus, flourifhed 168.
Theophylad, died after 1077.

Valentinus, lived after 160.

Vi£bor, dted 201.

Vigilius Tapfenfis, flourifhed 484.

A N

A ^f

O U N

O F T H E

EDITIONS OF THE ANCIENT WRITERS

CiJJOTED IN THIS WORK.

FOLIO.

A MBROSSII,Opera,5vols.Pariliis,i6o3.
Ariftotelis Opera, 2 vols. Gr & Lat.
Aurelii Allobrogum 1605.
Arnobii Opera, per Elmenhorftium, Ham-

burgi, 1610.
Aihanafii Opera, 2 vols. Gr. & Lat. Pa-

riiiis, 1627.
Auguftini Opera, 10 vols. Bafileae, 1569.

' Supplementum, 2 vols. Parifiis,

1655-

Bafilii Magni Opera, 3 vols. Gr. & Lat.
Parifiis, 1638.

A a 2 Bibliotheca

'^^6 Editions of the

Bibliotheca Patrum, 8 vols, cum Appen-
dice, Parifiis, 1576.'

BibliotheciB Gr^corum Patrum Auilarium
per Combeiis, 2 vols. Gr. & Lat. Pari-
fiis, 1672.

Caffiani Opera, per Gazsum, Atrebati,.

1628.

— Francofurti, 1722.

Chryfoftomi Opera, per Fronto-DucjEum

& Gommelinum, 10 vols. Gr. & Lat.

Parifiis, 1603, & 1621.
Clementis Alexandrini Opera, Gr. & Lat.

per Sylburgium, Lutetian, 1629.
Concilia Generalia & Provincialia, per Bi-

nium, 5 vols. Colonise, 1618.
Cypriani Opera, per Fell, Oxonii, 1682.
Gyrilli Alexandrini Opera, 2 vols. Lat,

Parifiis, 1572.
Cyrilli Hierofalomitani Opera, Gr. &Lat.

per Milles, Oxon, 1703.

Damafceni Opera, per Billium, Parifiis,
1619.

Dionyfii

ancient Writers. ^ -.^

Dionyfii Areopagitas Opera, Gr. & Lat.
per Lampelium, Lutetix, 1615.

Ephraim Syri Opera, Oxon, 1709.
Epiphaiiii Opera, per Petavium, 2 vols.

Gr. & Lat. Colonic, 16S2.
Eufebii Pr^eparatio et Dcmonftratio, Evan-

gelics, &c. Gr. & Lat. 2 vols. Pariiiis,

1628.
Eufebii, Socratis, Sozomeni, Theodoreti,

et Philoftorgii Hifloris, Gr. & Lat. 3

vols, per Reading, Cantab. 1720.

Gregorii Magni Opera, 2 vols Pariiiis, 1551,
Gregorii Nazianzeni Opera, Gr. & Lat.

per Morellum, Parifiis, 1630.
Gregorii Nyffeni Opera, Gr. & Lat, 2 vols,

per Morellum, Pariiiis, 1615.
Gregorii Thaumaturgi, Macarii, et Baiilii

Seleucienfis Opera, Gr. & Lat, Pariiiis,

1622.

Hilarii Pidavorum Opera, Parifiis, 1652*
Hieronymi Opera, per M. Vidorium, 7
vols. Lutetiae, 1624.

A a 3 Hippolyti,

358 Edit tans of the

Hippolyti Opera, Gr. & Lat. per Fabri-

cium, Hamburg!, 171 6.
Irensi Opera, Gr. & Lat. per Grabe,

Oxonias, 1702.
Ifidori Peluficts Opera, Gr. & Lat. per

Billium, Prunaeum, &c. Parifiis, 1638.
Juliani Opera, et Cyrilli contra Julianutn

libri, Gr. & Lat. 2 vols, per Spanhe-

mium, Lipfii£, 1696.
Juftini Martyris Item Athenagors, Theo-

phili, Tatiani, ec Hermiae Opera, Gr,

&Lat. Coloniae, 1686.
Apologise, et Dialogus, Gr.

& Lat. per Thirlby, Londini, 1722.

Leonis Magni, Maximi Taurinenfis, Petri
Chryfologi, Fulgentii, Valeriani, Ame-
dei, et Aflerii Opera, per Th. Rainau-
dum, item Profperi Aquitanici Opera,
Parifiis 3 1671.

Nicephori Hiftoria, 2 vols. Gr. & Lat.
Lutetias, 1630.

CEcumenii

ancient Writers. 359

(Ecumenii Commentarii, per Morellum, 2
vols. Gr. & Lat. Luteti^, 1631.

Optati, et Facundi Opera, per AlbafpU
n^um, Lutetian, 1676.

Originis Opera, 2 vols. Lat, Bafillas, 1571.

Commentaria, per Huetium, Gr. &

Lat. 2 vols. Colonize, 1685.

Patres Apoftolici per Cotilerium et Clerl-
cum, Gr. & Lat. 2 vols, Antverpiae,
1700.

Philonis Jud^i Opera, Gr. & Lat. per
Turnebum, &c. Lutetiae, 1640.

Photii Bibliotheca, Gr. & Lat. per Scot-
turn, 1611.

Epiftol^, Gr. & Lat. per Montacu-

tium, Londini, 1651.

Platonis Opera, Gr. & Lat. Bafili.^, 1539-

. -Geneva, 1590.

Photini Opera, Gr. & Lat. per M. Fici-
num, Bafili^, 1580.

Plutarchi Opera, per Xylandrum^ 2 vols.
Gr. & Lat. Francofurti, 1620.

A a 4 Proclus,

360 Editions of the

Proclus in Platonis Theologiam, Gr. &
Lat. per ^milium Portum, H^mburgi,
1618.

Procopius in Efaiam, Gr. & Lat.

Ruffini Opera, Pariflis, 1580.

Synefii Opera, Gr. & Lat. per Petavium,
Luteti^, 1612.

Tertulliani Opera, per Rigaltium, Lute-

ti^e, 1675.
Theodoriti Opera, per Sirmondum, 4 vols.

Gr. &Lat. Parifiis, 1642.
«— — — — Tomus Qiiintus, per Garnieruin,
1684.

5 vols. Odavo, Gr. & Lat. per

Schulze, Halae, 1769.
Theophyladi Commentarii, 2 vols. Gr. &
Lat.^Lutetiae, 1 63 1.

Zonarai in Canones Commentarii, Lute^
tiae. i6i8.

g^u A R T o,

ancient Writers. q6i

QUARTO.

Eutychii Annales, per Seldenum, Arab. &
Lat. Oxon, 1659.

Gregorii Thaumaturgi Opera, Gr, & Lat*
&c. per Voffium.

Nizzachon Vetus • Difputatio, R. Jechielis

cum Nicolao, Item. R. Mofis Nach-

• manidis cum Fratre Paulo ; Munimen

Fidei per. R. Ifaac ; Toledoth Jefchu.

all Heb. 8c Lat.

Oracula Sybillina, Gr. & Lat. per S. Gal-

lasum, Amflel. 1689.
Origenes contra Celfum, Gr. & Lat. per

Spencerum, Cantab. 1677.
— Contra Marcionitas, Gr. & Lat. per

Wetftenium, Bafile^, 1674.

Photii Nomocanon, Gr. & Lat. Luteti^,
1615.

OCTAVO.

362 Editions of the

OCTAVO.

Agobardi Opera, &c. per Baluzlum, Pa-

rifiis, 1666.
Grabii Specilegium Patrum, 2 vols. Oxon,

1698.

Juftiniani, &c. Opera quaedam, per Ban-
dini, Gr. & Lat.3 vols. Florentiae, 1762.

Ladlantii Opera, per Gallaeum, Lugduni,
Bat. 1660.

Marii Mercatoris, Opera, per Baluzium,

Pariflis, 1684.
Minucius Felix et Commodianus, per Ri-

galtium, Cantab. 17 12.

Novatiani Opera, per Welchman, Oxon,
1724.
. ' , per Jackfon, Londini, 1729.

Paulini Opera, per Frontonem Ducasum,
Antverpiae, 1622.

Salviani et Vincentii Lirinenfis Opera, per

Baluzium, Pariflis, 1669.

Tatian^

a?icie?it JVriters. 363

Tatiani et Hermlx Opera, per Worth,
Oxon, 1700.

X)uodecimo &> hifra.

Athenagora2 Opera, per Rechenbergium,
Lipiias, 1685.

Diogenes Laertius, &c. per If. Cafaubonum,
Gr. &Lat. Pariliis, 1594.

Gregentii Difputatio cum Jiideo, Gr. &
Lat. Lutetias, 1586.

LucianI Opera, per J. Benedidlum, 4 vols.
Gr. & Lat. Salmurii, 1619.

Maxinius Tyrius, Gr. & Lat. per Davifium,
Cantab. 1703.

I Opufcula Mythologica, Gr. & Lat. per
Gale. Amftel^dami, 1688.
Origines de Oratione, Gr. & Lat. Oxon,

1696.
— .— — Philofophumena, per Wolfiiim,
Hamburg!*, 1706.

Prodi

^64 Editions of the

Prodi Conftantinopolitani Opufcula, Gr.

& Lat. per Elmenhorftium, Lugduni,

Bat. 1 6 17.
Sulpicii Severi, Opera, per Clericum, Lip-

li^, 1709

Theophilus Ad Autolycum, Oxon, 1684.

When two editions of any work are men-
tioned, the former is that which I have
generally quoted, and the latter is not in-
tended except it be particularly fpecified ;
the former being that which I firffc pro-
cured, and made my colledlions from. But
the Apologies and Dialogue of Juftin Mar-
tyr, are always quoted from the edition of
Thirlby.

When no particular volume of any work
is mentioned, the firft is always intended.

Whenever any writer is quoted, whofe
work makes part of a fet, as Socrates,
Sozomen, &c. it was thought unneceflary
to mention the volume of the kt, but only
the page of the particular work. In like

ancient Writers . o 6 '•

manner, it was thought fufficient in feve-
ral cafes, to quote the page of any particu-
lar treatife, without diftinguiiliing the vo-
lume, as Eiifebius contra Marcellum^ which
is annexed to his De?72onJlratio Ev angelica.

All the authors are quoted in the ori-
ginal, except thofe in Hebrew or Arabic,
with refpedl to which the Latin tranflations
are given in the notes. This is alfo the
cafe with refped: to the works of Cyril of
Alexandria, which I could not procure in
Greek, except his books againil Julian,
which are annexed to Spenheim's edition
of the works of Julian. Thefe are always
quoted in Greek.

In my edition of Jerom, the pages are
continued till the fourth volume, fo that
it makes no difference whether the firft,
fecond, and third be diflinguifhed or not.

That

3^6 fi'iies of all ile

That the Reader may form a clearer Idea
of the Dijiribution of all the Parts of this
Work^ I ft: all here give the Titles of all the
Books and Chapters, omitting thofe of the
Sections.

V O L. I
tNTRODUCTION, containing a

VIEW OF THE PRINCIPAL ARGUMENTS
AGAINST THE DOCTRINES OF THEDIVI-
NITY AND PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST I

BOOK 1.

The HISTORY of opinions which PRE-
CEDED THE DOCTRIlSfE OF THE DIVINI-
TY OF CHRIST, AND WHICH PREPARED
THE WAY FOR IT - - 9I

C H A P T E R I.

Of thofe who are called Apoftolical Fa-
thers - , - - ibid.

CHAP-

Books and Chapters 267

CHAPTER 11.

Of the Principles of the Oriental Philo-
fophy - - - 110

CHAPTER III.
Of the Principles of the Chriftian Gnoftics

CHAPTER IV,

The Gnoftics were the only Heretics in
early times - - 237

CHAPTER V.

Of the Apoftles Creed, as a guard againft
Gnofticifm - - 30J

CHAPTER VI.

Of the Dodlrine of Plato concerning God,
and the general Syftem of Nature 320

CHAPTER VII.

A View of the Principles of the later Pla-
tonifts - - - 256

VOL.

368 Titles of all the ^ '

VOL. 11.

CHAPTER VIII.
Of the Platonifm of Philo - i

BOOK II.

Containing the history of the doc-
trine OF THE trinity - 23

CHAPTER I.

Of Chriftian Platonifm - ibid.

' CHAPTER II.

Of the Generation of the Son from the
Father - - - 44

CHAPTER III.
The Defence of the preceding Doftrine by
the Fathers - - - 86

C H A P T E R IV.

The Inferiority of the Son to the Father,
fhewn to have been the Dodtrine of all
the Antenicene Fathers - 145

CHAPTER V.

Of the Power and Dignity of Chrifl, as the
pre-exifting Logos of the Father 172

2 CHAP-

Booh and Chapters^ 2 69

CHAPTER VI.

Chrift, befides being the Logos of the Fa-
ther, was thought to have a proper hu-
man Soul - - - 198

CHAPTER VIL
Of the Union between the Logos and the
Soul and Body of Chrift, and their fepa-
rate Properties - - - 224

CHAPTER VIIL
Of the Ufe of the Incarnation, and the Ob-
jeftions that were made to the Doctrine

268

CHAPTER IX.

Of the Controverfy relating to the Holy
Spirit - - - - 268

CHAPTER X.

Of the Dodrine of the Trinity after the
Council of Nice - - - 335

CHAPTER XL

Of the Arguments by which the Doctrine
of the Trinity was defended - 392

Vol. IV, B b V O L.

37<^ Titles of all the

VOLUME III.

BOOK III.

The history of the unitarian doc-
trine - - - 1

Introdud'ion - - - - ibid.

CHAPTER I.

That the Jews in all Ages were Believers
in the Divine Unity - 7

CHAPTER II.

General Confiderations relating to the fup-
pofed Conducft of Chrift and the Apoftles,
with Refpedt to the Dodtrines of his Pre-
exiftence and Divinity - - 50

C H A P.T E R III.

Of the Conduct orour Saviour himfelf with
refped; to his own fuppofed*Pre-exiftence
and Divinity . - - 64

CHAPTER IV.

Of theTeflimony of Athanafius to the Cau-
tion with which the Apoftles divulged
the Dodrines of the Pre-exiftence and
Divinity of Chrift - - 86

CHAP-

Books and Chapters, 371

CHAPTER V.
Of the concurrent Teftimony of other Fa-
thers to the Caution of the Apoftles, in
teaching the Dodrines of the Pre-exift-
ence and Divinity of Chrift - 101

CHAPTER VI.
Of the Caution obferved by the Apoftles in
teaching the Doftrines of the Pre-exift-
ence and Divinity of Chrift to the Gen-
tile Converts - - - 113

CHAPTER VII.

Of John being thought to have been the
iirft who clearly and boldly taught the
Dodlrines of the Pre-exiftence and Divi-
nity of Chrift - - - 123

CHAPTER VIIL

Of the Nazarenes and the Ebionites i fhew-

ing that they were the fame People, and

that none of them believed the Divinity

or Pre-exiftence of Chrift - 158

B b 2 CHAP-

372 Titles of all the

CHAPTER IX.

Of the fuppofed Church of Orthodox Jews
at Jerufalem, fubfequent to the Time of
Adrian - - - - 190

CHAPTER X.
Of the fuppofed Herefy of the Ebionites
and Nazarenes, and other Particulars re-
lating to them - - 20 r

CHAPTER XI.

Of the facred Books of the Ebionites 212

CHAPTER XII.

Of Men of Eminence among the Jewifli
Chriftians - - - 219

CHAPTER XIII.

Unitarianifm was the Dodrine of the pri-
mitive Gentile Churches. - 233

CHAPTER XIV.

An Argument for the Novelty of the Doc-'

trine of the Trinity, from the Manner

ift which it was taught and received in

early Times.. - - 5/2

. I CHAP-

Booh and Chapters. ^72

CHAPTER XV.

Objedllons to the preceding State of Things
conlidered - - - 295

CHAPTER XVI.

Of the State of the Unitarian Doftrijie
after the Council of Nice. 318

CHAPTER XVII.

Of Philofophical Unitarianifm 376

CHAPTER XVIII.

Of the Principles and Arguments of the
ancient Unitarians - 359

CHAPTER XIX.

Of the Pradice of the Unitarians with re-
fped: to Baptifm. - 439

VOL. IV.
CHAPTER XX.

Of the Dodrine of the Miraculous Concep-
tion. « - - I

B b 3 BOOK

374 "Tii^^s of all the Books, &c.

BOOK IV.

Of some controversies which had a
near relation to the trinita-
rian or unitarian doctrine. 165

CHAPTER L

Of the Arian Controverfy ihid,

CHAPTER 11.

Of the Neftorian Controverfy 239

CHAPTER III.

An Account of the Prifcillianifts and Pauli-
cians - - - 263

CONCLUSION. 273

^exts^

[ 375 ]

"Texts of Scripture ilhiflrated, or particularly
rej erred tOy in this Work,

/^ "EN. 1. 1, vol. ii.

P-293

If. xxxix. 1 1 . vol

. iv.- ]

p. 145

^ — i. 26.

n.

400

~xli.4.

iii.

425

xviii. 2.

ii.

404

— liii. 2.

iv.

144

iv.

^39

— liii. I.

iii.

A%7

Deut. vi. 4.

ii.

408

— liii. 8.

iv.

146

ill. 475

iv.

217

— Ixi. I .

iii.

428

xviii. 13.

iii.

426

— Ixvi. 7.

iv.

146

Job xxviii. 20.

ii.

410

Jer.xvii. 5.

ii.

417

Pf. xxi. 6.

iv.

140

Ezek. xliv. 2.

iv.

148

— xxxiii. 6.

ii.

409

Dan. ii. 45.

iv.

149

-— xiv. I.

ii.

4^5

Micah. V. 2. '

iv.

136

— li. 10, II.

ii.

411

Matt. XX. 23.

ii.

438

— Ixvii. I .

ii.

411

Mark, xii.28.

iii.

429

— Ixxii. I.

iii.

428

Luke, 1. 35.

iii.

432

— cvii. 20.

ii.

414

ii. I.

iv.

124

— ex. 4.

iii.

426

iv. 18.

iii.

428

— cxiii. 16.

iv.

141

John, i. 1.

i.

67

— cxxxix. 13.

iv.

141

V. 27.

iii.

437

Pfov. viii.22.

ii.

414

vii. 6.

iii.

A2Z

iii.

427

viii. 26,

ii.

433

viii. 22.

iv.

209

iii.

432

Sol. viii. 4. 12.

iv.

141

viii 41

iv.

69

If. vi. 3.

ii.

416

viii. 54.

i.

171

— vii. 14.

iv.

142

X. 30.

ii.

423

-— ix, 6.

ii.

415

xiv, 28.

ii.

425

Bb4

John

376 Texts of Scripture^ &c.

Johnxvii. 3. vol. ii. p. 432 Coll. ii. 18. vol. i. p. 160

XX* 31. i. 200 I Tim. i. 3. i. 158

A6ts, ii. 22. iii. 434 ii. i. i. 226

xix. 8. i. 238 ii. 5. iii. 437

. — .— xxiv. 14. i. 238 vi. I. i. 226

Rom. ix. 5. ii. 425 ~ vi. 3. i. 153

I Cor. i. 18. i. 152 2 Tim. ii. 17. i. 210

XV. 16. i. 211 Tit. I. g. i* 145. 224

. XV. 24, ii. 436 Heb. i. i. i. 66

XV. 50. i. 212 2 Pet. ii. I. i. 225

Gal. i. 12. ii. 426 I Johti, ii. ig. i. 242

xliv. — iv. 23 ii. 21. i. igg

Epb. iii. g. i. 65 • ^— iii. 10. i. 164

^ iv. 6. iii. 435 iv. i. i. igi

^ iv. 10. ii. 426 ■ V. 6. i. 199

V, 5. iii. 437 ^^_ V. 20. ii. 433

Phil. ii. 6. iii. 432 2john, vii. — i. 191

Coll. i. 15. i. 65 Jude iii. — i. 209

-- — i. 15. iii. 436. Rev. i. II. ii. 427

.^ i. 15. iv. 210 — — ii. 14. i. 206

The reader is defired to take notice, that
fometimes the quotations from the Pfalms are
copied from the ancient writers, who, following
the verfion of the Septuagint, make one Pfalm of
the firfl and fecond; and, therefore, the number
of any Pfalm muft be confidered as one lefs than
according to our tranflation.

A N

A N

APPENDIX.

ILTAVING employed much time and labour
in the compoficion of this work, which, on
^iccount of the necelTary expenfivenefs of it, and
the nature of the fubjed, is not likely to meet
with many purchafers, and confequently may not
foon be reprinted, I was willing to make this edi-
tion as perfe6t as I could ; and for this purpofe re-
quefhed fome of my learned friends, to perufe it
with carCj and favour rne with their remarks. All
of them were by no means perfons whofe fenti-
ments on the fubjed were the fame with mine ^
and indeed, I chofe to apply to them in preference
to thofe who were of the fame opinion with myfelf-

Being favoured with their remarks, and hav-
ing myfelf re-confidered every part of the
work, I have thought it moil advifable to fub»
join iuch additional ohfervationSy as fince the
printing of the work have been fuggefted by
them, or have occurred to myfelf. They con-

Vol. IV. *Bb ' fia-

370 A P P E N 13 I X.

fift of corre6tions of the text, improvements
in the tranflation of pafTages, replies to objec-
tions, or obfervations tending to throw farther
light on the fubjecl j whether in favour of what
I have advanced, or not. Thofe of them to
vv^hich is fiibjoined the letter (X) were written by
a perfon to whom I am more particularly obliged .
for his attention to this work, but whofe name I
do not know that I am at liberty to mention.

In general, the articles of this Appendix, are
fuch things as the lefs critical reader is not much
concerned in. But if the v/ork Ihould be tranf-
lated, I defire that all the corre5fions may be made
in the body of the work, and that the remarks
of a different nature may be fubjoined to the
whole, as is done here. I hope I need not add
that thofe who may think proper to criticize this
work (and I neither expert, nor wifh, that it may
efcape criticifm) will confider all the correftion^
as if they had been a6tually inferted in their
proper places.

The more material of thofe correflions, which
could be exprefTed in a few words, are inferted
in the lifts o( errata, annexed to each volume.

If, after the work is publifhed, I IhoUld, in
confequence of the farther reniarks of friends or
enemies, fee reafon to make any other altera-
tions.

APPENDIX. 37i»

tions, I fhall not fail to take fome opportunity
(either by means of the 'Theological Repofitory^ or
in a feparate publication, as circumilanccs fhall
dired) of giving my readers information con-»
cerning them.

Confidering the great variety of obje6ls that
fall within the compafs of this work, and the
great number of references to original v/riters,
and of tranflations of pafTages in them (of which
the laft are about eighteen hundred) no candid
perfon will expe6t that, with all my care, and
that of my friends, it fhould be without faults.
Such errors of the prefs, or leffer overfights
of any kind, as any perfon who can difcovcr,
will alfo be able to rectify, are in general not
noticed ; and confidering how miuch Greeks and
that in a fmall type, is contained in thefe vo-
lumes, I hope it will be thought to be, upon the
whole, not incorredlly printed.

ADDITIONS and CORRECTIONS in Vol.1.
N.B. {h) lignifies from the bottom of the page.

Page 67. 1. 12. for he does fay, read^ he is
thought to fay.

P. 100. 1. 6. read, that we ought to avoid,

P. 117. 1. 5, the fame things.

*Bb2 P. 173-

372 APPENDIX.

P. 173. 1.3. {b) after patriarchs, add. Thus
they alledged the fame texts to prove that he
who had intercourfe with Abraham, &c. was
not the fiipreme being himfelf, but one different
from him.

P. 174. after note -f, add. See Thrilby's note
on the place.

P. 180. 1. 6. (i') Infiead of the fentence begin-
ning with Indeed, iiifert the following. And as
they agreed with them in holding the pre-exift-
ence of Chrill as a great created fpirit, not in-
deed the maker of the world, but fuperior to
him that made it^ and that this great fpirit con-
defcended to become incarnate for the falvation
of men, they were agreed with refpedl to every
fentiment that could excite reverence and grati-
tude. Both the fchemes had the fame objed,
viz. the exaltation of the perfonal dignity of
Chrift, though a created being, and they had the
fame effed upon the mind.

Remark on p. 188. 1. 4. {h) and 1. 11. p. 189.

I'he apoftle obferves (i Cor. iii. 11.) that
other foundation can no man lay than that which
is laid, which is Jefas Chrift 5 and this he lays
down as a principle, not only true in itfelf, but
admitted to be fo by his oppofers in the church
of Corinth. They all pro fclTed to inculcate his
I , - religion.

APPENDIX, 373«

religion, to own him as the author of their faith,
and to fpeak as his minifters (2 Cor. ii. 13. 23)
and though they wretchedly perverted his doc-,
trine, affumed to themfelves the charadler of his
followers. If they had any defire indeed to pafs
for chriilian preachers, they could not do other-
wife. That the Corinthians might not, how-
ever, implicitly believe what they faid on this
account, St. Paul reminds them (ver, 12.) that
it was very pofTible for perfons pretending to lay
this foundation, to build upon it both doctrines
and pra6lices very unfuitabk to the defign of the
gofpel ; and fuch he intimates to them, though
in an indire6t manner, were feveral of the tenets
advanced among them by their new inftructors.

Perfons teaching do6trines under the name of
chriftianity, fo inconfiilent with what the Corin-
thians had received from St. Paul, could have no
profpe(ft of fucceeding in their attempts by any
other method than by depreciating his apoilolic
charadler and authority 5 and this they endea-
voured by various ways. In oppofition to their
arts, the apoftle makes it his bufinefs to lay open
the vanity of their objedions againfl him, and to
ihow that as he was not in the leaft inferior to
the very chiefeft: of the apoftles, fo none who
thv\s vilified him deferved to be accpunted equal
*Bb3 to

374. APPENDIX.

to him. And this point being clearly eftabliihed.
the Corinthians could have no excufe for call-
ing off their regard to him. But then it is ob-
vious, that all the pertinence of his arguments
to this purpofe, refted upon this fuppofition,
that his ancagonifts profefled to adhere to the
fame Lord of their faith with himfelf. Had they
declared themfelves advocates for any other fyf-
tem of religion than his whom Paul preached,
the ftate of the queftion betv/een the apoftle and
his adverfaries, would have been entirely altered.
The competition woirild then have been between
one religion and another, not between minifiers
of the fame religion ; and the Cormthians, with-
out doubting in the leaft of St. Paul's eminence
as a chrifrian preacher, might have been inclined
to hear what v/as faid by onewho addreiTed them
under a different denomination.

The apoltle, in the words under confidera-
tion, appears to admit, therefore, that if he who
came undertook to dire6l them to any other
Jefus, as the author of their falvation befides him
whom he, the apoftle, had preached ; or if they
had received from his miniflration any other fpirit,
different from, or fuperior to, what they had
already received, there might be fome reafon for
their regarding him -, but as this could not be

fo

APPENDIX. 37^*

fo much as pretended, their conduct in fuffering
themfelves to be fo perverted was capable of no
defence.

If this view of the apoftle's reafoning with the
Corinthians in his own vindication be juft, it
fnould feem that he does not in this place refer to
any as adually preaching another Jefus, but only
fuppofes a cafe, the only one which could apolo-
gize for their behaviour, a cafe which they knew
did not exifti and from the non-exiftence of it,
lets them fee how iadefenfible they were in pre-
ferring others to him, who, as a minifter of Chrift,
was, as he goes on to fhew, in the qualifications
by which they endeavoured to recommend them-
felves, equal, or far fuperior to them.

As to the reft, I have no doubt but that Gndfti-
cifrn had, when St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians,
made its appearance in the church, and amongft
them in particular, nor that the apoftle makes it
his bufinefs, in thefe epiftles, to fliew the falfity
and pernicious nature of its dodrines.

The date affigned to the firft epiftle to Timothy
by Bilhop Pearfon, is about the year of Chriil 65,
But Lightfoot and Lord Harrington place the
writing of it between the times of the writing of
the firft and fecond epiftle to the Corinthians, but
before the epiftle to the Romans ] and Theodoret
mentions it in the fame order^ and fays h(^ takes
*Bb4 it

376 A P P E N D I X.

it to be the fifch epiille of thofe which we have
of St. Paul's writing. The patrons of this opi-
nion differ about the year, but all place it much
fooner than Pearfon.

If this early date of tliis epiftle could be clearly
eftablifhed, it would be a great confirmation of
Dr. Prieflley's opinion of the introduclion of
Gnofticifm into the church of Corinth, at the
time of the writing the firil epiftle to it. But
perhaps it is too doubtful^, or at leafl: it will be
too much difputed to admit of laying ftrefs upon
it ; though it appears from p. 153, that the Do6i:or
has not entirely overlooked it. (X)

P. 200 j 1. 7 (^) reo.d^ \wt may perhaps infer.

P. 2485 1. 9, after people, addy whofe opinions
were fufficiently known to be heretical.

P. 263, 1. I;, dde the interpolated edition of.

P. ^'^'i^^ after the far agrafh^ addy

It may be faid that, fmce Iren^us condemns the
Ebionites for holding an opinion which he alfo
condemns in the Gnoftics, he mufl have confi-
dered them as heretical on that account. And had
this common opinion been a principal feature in
the chara(rterof the Gnoftics, and fuch as had ori-
ginally a great ihare in rendering them odious to
other chriftians, the inference mufthave been ad-
mitted. But there are many reafons to prevent
our thinking fo, efpecially the confideratipn, that^.

both

APPENDIX. 377

both from the nature of the thing, and the fuper-
abundant acknowledgnient of the Fathers^ the
great body of the primitive chriftians mnji have
heen, and a5iualiy w^r^, unitarians, knowing nothing
either of the pre-exiftence or divinity of Chriil,
and not immediately, at leaft, hearing any thing
of his miraculous conception. Such plain chrif-
tians. could never have been confidered d.s heretics
in the age in which they lived, though circumi-
Itances. might arife which ihould make their opi-
nions very obnoxious afterwards ; and Irenasus,
without making the diftinction that he ought
to, have done, might enumerate their opinions
among other offenfive ones of the Gnoilics, and
even as a part of their herefy. And hence might
arife his embarraflmenc in calling the Gnoflics
heretics, and yet never calling the Ebionites fo.
It is a conducl that I cannot account for in any
other way.

P. 321, ]. 6, dele or fomething like it.

P. 2,2,"^* I know not whether the followino-
paffage in Cafaubon's Exercitationes in Baronium
has ever fallen in Dr. Prieftley's way. If not, it
may not be difagreeable to him to fee it. ^^ Ad-
" fert Cyril] us, libro fepcimo contra impiurn Ju-

" lianum, vj a ^ie^^^x^Im rov ciuia "ssoT^cv ^uvaTroli'hw ko7[xov^ ov
^' ^a^£ ^oy(^, 0 '37aj'7wv ^sioIaJo; c^Oilov. Ecce hic habes >-oyQv

'^ per quern, ait Plato, fadum eiTe mundum afpec-

" tabiiem.

378 A P P E N D I X.

*' tabllem. Videtur dicere idem cum Johanne, et
" hoc eft quod Cyrillus ait. Ceterum fi rem pe-
" nites fpedemus, ^oy^ Platonis, id eft ratio ilia
^^ quam ait a deo fummo adhibitam in conditura
" mundi, longe eft aliud quam verbum Cbriftus
" apud Johannem, ec illo ^.07(^ svuTro^alogy folis notus
^^ iis quibus facra fcriptura innotuit. Talia mul-
«^ ta habentur apud patres, in quibus homonymia
" poftit parum cautis imponere.''

And a little before thefe words, having quoted
an obfervation from Bafil relating to the fame
fubjecl, he fays, '^ Haec viri fummi admonitio in
*^ legtndis veterum patrum fcriptis apprime eft
^' necefTaria. Multa enim in illorum monumen-
" tis occurrunt, ad hujus vocis illuftrationem ele-
*' ganter, ingeniofe, addam et utiliter, pro tcm-*
" pore, excogitata, quae tamen doctrinam parum
'^ folidam contineant. Sic accipienda funt quse-
" cunque ab illis proferuntur ex antiquis philo-
^^ fophis, ut probent etiam fapientibus inter gen-
" tes verbum fuilTe notum quod celebrat Johan-
*^ nes." p. 3. Col. 2. Edit. Genevse, 1663. (X)

P. 337> 1. 2 (^) for Here, read In this and the
preceding pafTage.

VOL. II.

P. 37. 1. 2 and I (b) " And being the imme-

^' diate maker and governor of all things." The

3 Dodor^s

APPENDIX. ^79

DocTtor's verfion refers thefe chara6ters to him
whom Plato calls the fecond Gcd, and whofe fub-
ftance, he fays, " is derived from the principal
*^ one/' I am incliaed to think that, according
to the Greek of this quotation, they ought rather
to be referred to the principal one, whom Plato

llijes 0 'sr^wJO", 2^ ^ 0 JeJJt-^C^ Se©" ex^i tyiv VTTpcp^iv rvg aawi.

O h^\Hpy(B- ii ^loimlrs tuv o^wv is here marked out by a
charadler which muft in ftridt propriety belong to
the principal one, hihoyolivTre^ava^ESmoi, i. e, as I un-
derftand it, and fo I find Valefms tranflates it,
hing tranfcendent in dignity ; and it feem,s to be
exprefsly diflinguifhed ivora o ijlH vcuvov^ Tan; imva [th
'S!^(ilH]/is.^GTaks(Tiv v7r>i^yr\cra^,. When the v«$ is fpoken of
as the immediate creator, -ar^oaEj^j is often added to
c^prefs this idea. See quotation from Cyril, p,
40, L 2. and the quotation from the fame page,
1; 2, 3.

P.yo.jihe whole paragraph, to 1. 2, p. 71.

Whether Eufebius wa? properly an Arian, or
not, is a queftion which has long been debated,
and appears to me not very eafy to be abfolutely
decided ; and while it remains undetermined, it
may perhaps be doubtful what conftrudtion * is

♦ ** What conftrudion, &c." To explain my meaning by
an inftance Eufebius (Dem. Evang. lib, 4, cap. 2.) fiiles the

Son tm 'TfffOTOrOKQV (TOOIAV, OMiV J^i oAa VOi^cLV )y ^oylKilV,

)y 'uetv(ro<poy, [j-clt^^ov A ctvTov^iVy )y AvroKoyov^ }y cf.vToa-otpictv,
But then he adds, with the appearance at lead of a qualifi-
cation

38o APPENDIX,

to be put upon feveral of thofe paflages of Eufe-
bius, in which he feems to coincide with the fen*
timents of the antenicene orthodox. However,
that he often fpeaks the fame language ^ith
them^ or approaches very nearly to it^ is certain;

cation of the application he had jull b^en making of thefe
terms to the Son, xj ini J^e av70Ka,\ov y^ cLVTetyd.^ov st/t
voitu iv rctif yevnToti ^iui^, which may leave fome room to
quellion whether he nnderfiood thefe epithets in the fame fetife
with the uncontrovertibly orthodox. In the oration on the
dedication of the churches (Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. lib. lo. cap.
4. a'ddreffed to Paulinus, bifhop of Tyre, and afcribpd by
many to Eufebius himfelf) p. 384 of the Mentz edition, the
fpeaker, mentioning the foul of man, calls it avTovoipccv aaicty^
produced by the Son 0 ^ioTai^ iz th (j.^ ovt@^, certainly not
meaning that the intelligence vvas underived, or the intelli-
gence of the Son who formed it ; but rather that intelligence
is its eflential quality, its proper charaderiftic, infeparable
from its being 5 or, to come nearer, if pofiible, to the force
of the Greek word, that pure intelligence is its i/efimtiqn, that
which conAitutes it what it is. And, in like manner, I have
fometim.es been ready to think Eufebius might intend no
more by feveral of thefe expreflions than to give his very high
fenfe of the perfon to whom he applies them. The Son is
etvrcva^t cLvToXoy^, avroffopia, i. e. intelligence, reafon, and
wifdom itfelf, according to the fame figure of fpeech (though
an a much more exalted meaning) by which fome perfons,
intending to difplay ^he excellence of a wife and good man,
would fay he is wifdom and goodnefs itfelf. But all this is
to be confidcred merely as a query.

Two

APPENDIX. 381

Two of the paflages here quoted are evident in-
ftances of this. But I am not quite certain v/he-
ther the laft paflage which Dr. Prieflley produces
as an example of this, I mean that from Eufe-
bius's Epiille ad Csfarienfes [Theodoriti Hid.
Ecclef.] is the mod full to the Dodor's purpofe.
For immediately after the words here quoted it

follows not only, ovlo^ isal§(B- an 'S^acl^O-, but u^HM ^oitri-
^fWJ 1XEI-, xai cr<y?r)^©- ^uvccfxst TTavJa ovlQ--, asi te xctia ta aula, uai

u<rccumBxovl<^'' In the fame fenfe in which the Fa-
ther, according to Conflantine, was always father,
he was always king and faviour. But as it could
never be Conftantine's intention to fay that the
fubjedts of God's government and falvation were
always, any otherwife than all his works may be
faid to be always with him, as comprehended in
his fore-knowledge and purpofcs ; fo neither does
it follow from this reafon alone, that the Son had
any exiftence in the Father prior to his being be-
gotten, in any other fenfe, i. e. as the Do6lor has
very properly rendered the word ^ijva,au. See Le
Clerc*s Ars Critica, vol 3. p. 49. edit. 1700. See
alfo quotation *, p. 130, where the fame manner
of conceiving andreafoningfeems to occur in tho

following words. O ^=y ^£(r7rolr,g r(cv o?/xv ccilQ- WTra^xtav
nv, Ka^o ^£ izaca ^vva/xig o^cfiuv te t^ ao^aivv avlo; vTroraa-ig rtV (7iy

aviu -sraylfls. In the next words Tatisn may be

thought

382 APPENDIX.

thought to carry the matter farther with refped to
the logos. But what I have here tranfcribed may
be fufficient to throw fome light on Conilantine's
notion. Indeed his whole argument is little bet-
ter than a quibble, and though it might fuit Eu-
febius's purpofe to avail himfelf of it, could never
fatisfy him, nor, I iliould think, any other perfon
in the council. (X)

P. 80, Quotation*, 1. 14 of the text. " Eufe-
*^ bius fays there is one logos in God," more ex-
a6tly the one zvord of God, or one the word of
God sig 0 TK $£« AoyC^. I have fome doubt about
the fufficiency of this paiTage from Eufebius to
prove the Do6tor's point. Eufebius is here
Ihewing, that, as there is but one Father, fo there
ought to be but one logos, and animadverting
upon the unreafonablenefs of thofe who might
complain that there were not more 3 and to Ihew
this, he remarks that they might as well complain
that there were not more funs, more moons, and
more worlds, or fyftems created. To evince the
weaknefs of fuch objedions as thefe, he fays that,
as one fun in vifible things enlighteneth the whole
fenfible world, fo in intelligible things the one
logos of God enlighteneth all things ra a-vf^Travla.
And as an illuftration of this he adds, that one
foul, and one rational power in man, was the per-
former of many different works at the fame time.

From

APPENDIX. 383

From this view of Eufebius's fubjed and reafon-
ing, it docs not feem to have been at all neceflary
to his fubje6t, or indeed at all his bufinefs, di-
redly to draw a para lei between the relation of
the foul to man, and of the logos to God ; but
to ihew the relation of each to the feveral ob-
je6ls under their diredion, and to evince by the
fufBciency of one foul to prefide over various
employments, the ample fufHciency of one logos
to dircdl and controul all things in the univerfe;
and to explain and confirm his argument by this
comparifon, appears to me to be the fole intent
of this paiTage. But the quotation from Origen,
which follows this, contains in it all for which
the Dodtor produces it. (X)

P. 160. paragraph i. 1. 5. " and it is void of
" all foundation." If it be fuppofed that the
meaning of the obfervation referred to is that
Se©- with the article never fignifies the one true
God, it is indeed v/ithout all foundation, and is
contradicted by fuch a multitude of inftances,
both in the Old and New Teflament, that for
this very reafon I (hould be almoil ready to con-
clude, that neither Philo, who mufl have been
well acquainted with the language of one tefla-
ment, or Origen, or Eufebius (for he makes the
fame remark) who mufl have known the ilyle of
both teftaments, could ever intend to afTert it.

But

384 APPENDIX.

But if thfe defign of the obfcrvation was only tfii*>
(though I allow that if no more was meant it is
very inaccurately expreiled) that though 0 Ssoj de-
notes the one true God, ^eog without the article
may, not muj, have a different fignifi cation, I
fliould think it is not wholly without ground. The
cafe appears to me to be this. O ^eog^ efpecially
when made the fubjecb of a propofition, denotes
feme particular perfon, v/ho is pointed out by
that title J and when it is ufed abiblutely, and
without reftridion, denotes him to whom the
appellation fuper-eminently, or in that high (tni'cy
exciufively belongs, ©^o^ without the article,^ on
the other hand, may, I repeat the diftindion, not
mufi, denote not fo directly a perfon, as a general
defcription, and reprefent properly only dignity,
power, and pre-eminence. Deut. xxxii. 21. AJIoi

2 Kings xix. 18. Ol^ g Ssot eiaiv^ a?s?' -/i spya %£ifwv (xv^^cottuv,
^<5ls xix. 2.6. >^^7Ciiv o7i 8K Eicri Sfot oi ^ax yji^uv yivo/xevott in

which, and in other really parallel places, the
addition of the article would, I conceive, be
either difagreeable to the genius of the Greek ^
language, or elfe vary the fenfe confiderably ;
and this I am apt to think, is the real ufe which
fome comparatively modern writers in this con-
troverfy defigned to make of this diilin6l:ion j
not that wh€Ti it is faid icon Seo; r.vo7.oy^, the word,

cannot

APPENDIX. 385*

cannot, merely on account of the omliTion of the
article, means the fame with 0 Se©" juft before men-
tioned; but that there is no neceffity that it fhould
be thus underftood, and confequently that it is
no conclufive proof againft their fyilem. If any
have carried this obfervation farther, they have
done it widiout fufficient reafon, and Philo's ap-
plication of it in the pafTage cited from him,
p. 14, has nothing of real fupport to it in the
words that gave occafion to his remark. (X)

P. 162. 1. 4, read^ if Chrift had been conceived
to be

P. 183. 1.4. (^) ready by the prophets fore*-
telling things to come, and by himfelf when
made like us, &c.

P. 221. 1. 13. With refpeifl to Irenseus, Ori-
gen's words quoted p. 208 t, are alfo decifive as
to this point ; fince he there fays, that the foul
of Chrift, divefted of the body, preached to fouls
divefted of bodies 5 v/hich can never be under-
ftood of the merely fcnfitive foul. (X)

P. 226. 1. 3. read^ fo the divinity is not changed
by the body of Chrift

P. 352. 1. 4, {]?) ready Socrates, however, fays

P. 41 1. 1. 3. (^) ready can only be founded on
the circumftance of the nam.e of God occurring
three times in the verfes that he quotes.

Vol. IV. *Cc VOL.

386 A P P E N D I 5C.

VOL. III.

P. 57. 1. II. read^ begin higher

P. 106. Note 1. 3,4. *^« Perhaps the firfl ^m
" fnould have been %/;iro5.'' Perhaps an eafier
emendation would be wo? . s ya^ tiTtsv 0 [yic{\ shx^wev
uafloiye k , 7s * aTOs BTrmn a » >> . ^wiv 0 Beo; d'L avla [the text is

tV Vlof\ STsaTsYlTEV. (X)

P. 98. 1, 6. BeftdeSy &c, omit from this word
to the end of the paragraph,' as not being fuf-
ficiently to the purpofe

P. loi. I. I. {h) read, the v/hole of his dif-
courfe

P. 193. 1. I. readi Then firfi: was Marc, a Gen-
tile, bifhop at Jerufalem

P. 197. 1. II. ready he feems to fa)r

P. 2(28. 1. 10. {h) read^ The manner in which
Hegefippus quotes the gofpel of the Hebrews,
was fuch as led Eufebius to think, &c.

P. 264. 1. 8. ready and any other that profefTes
himfelf to be the logos of God.

P. 305. 1. 5. ready hardly confiftent

P. 308. 1. 5. ready that, except Theodotus, wc
read

P. 340. 1.4. ready impioufly brought up

P. 371.1.7. read^ very probably, among the
Albigenfes

.^07.

APPENDIX, 387*

P. 407. after 'the paragraph^ addy

Though none of the following authorities go
fo f;ar back as the age of the apoftles, there being
no writers to conned with thofe of the age of
Juftin Martyr, &c. yet as the oldeft unitarians
that we hear of exprefs furprize at the orthodox
fenfe of the logos^ it is evident that they took it
for granted, that their fenfe of it was that v^hich
had been put upon it by the unitarians of the
age before them.

P. 416, 1. 2. ready had much recourfe to rea-
foning.

VOL. IV.

P. 31. 1. 10. ready appears to have been in-
tended

P. 49. 1. I. read^ to whom Mary was related,
that the family of Mary might be known

P. 61^, 1. 6 (b) ready if any circumitances in the
ftory itfelf, can be pointed cut

P. 64. 1.6. ready was not generally known

P. 84. 1. 7. (J?) ready he mentions as holding

P. 85. 1. 3. {b), ready fome who difbelieved it

P. 104. after the paragraph add^

It muft be acknowledged, however, that, ac-
cording to the account we have of Marcion's
gofpel of Luke, it contained many things which
we cannot but think muft have been different
from the original. If, therefore, he would have
*C c 2 main-

388 A P P E N D I X.

maintained the genuinenefs of it in all refpeBs,
it would lefTen the weight of his teftimony in
this cafe. Having nothing of Marcion's own
writing, we cannot form any certain judgment in
the cafe.

P. 118.1. I. {b) read^ kept at Bethlehem at
leaft one complete year

P. 135. after the paragraph y add.

It clearly appears from John vii. 41, 4.2. 52.
that the Jews in general, knew nothing of Jefus
having been born at Bethlehem. Others /aid this
is the Chrift, But fome /aid Jkall Chrijtcvme out of
Galilee P Hath not the fcrifture faid that Chrift
tometh of the feed of Bavidy and out of the town of
Bethlehenty where David was P They anfwered and
faid to him^ Art thou alfo of Galilee. Search and
lock for cut of Galilee arifeth no prophet.

At this Whitby very naturally expreflcs much
furprize. *^ It is wonderful," he fays, '^ that not
*^ the multitude only w^ho had heard the fhepherds
" declaring from an angel that Chrift was born at
*^ Bethlehem (Lukeii. 15, 16) and had wondered
'^ at the words which had been told them by the
" Ihepherds, ver. 18, Ihould make this objec-
" tion, ver. 41 ; but that the chief priefts and
**' pharifees who knew that the wife men went to
" Bethlehem, to worfhip him who w^as born king
^^ of the Jews, Ihould infift upon it. This is an
f^ inftance of the power of prejudice to £hut the
T <^ eyes

APPENDIX. 389

^^ eyes againfl: the clearell truth." Indeed, that
Chrift iliould have been born at Bethlehem ia
fuch remarkable circumflances, as the intro-
du6lions to the gofpels of Matthew and Luke
fuppofe, and yet that all people fhould take it
for granted, that he was a native of Nazareth, is
not eafily accounted for.

P. 136. 1. 4 (I?) ready Matthew, indeed, or ra-
ther the Jews of that age, fuppofed

P. 138. 1. I (b) ready has been fuppofed to be
alluded to

P. 152. 1. 5. ready the fuppofed circumftances
P. 163. 1. 6 (b) ready came to gain ground
P. 167. 1. 6 {h) ready the immediate inftrument
P. 236. 1. I. {h) ready Eufebius, who was at
leaft fufpeded of Arianifm

P. 338. 1. 3 {h) ready being really God, or their
creator.

To Vi\t VA of nzmes add y
Artemon flourifhed 187.
Conflantine died, A. D. 337. 66.
Manuel Caleca flourifhed 1360.
Nicephorus Caliiilus flourifhed 1333*
Noetus flourifhed 250.
Photius flouriihed 886.
Sabellius flourifhed 260.

F» 334. 1, ?, /or more, read, mere

P. 3 00-

390 APPENDIX.

P. 300, to the twelfth article fubjoin this notgy
The fudden fpread of Arianifm may feem to be
ta exception to this obfervation. But, befides,
that I imagine ic fpread chiefly among the karnedy
the way had been well prepared for it in the man-
ner that I have explained.

After noticing the preceding remarks upon
f articular fajfages in this Vv^ork^ I muit obferve,
that fome of my friends think that the evidence
1 have produced, in order to prove that the
bulk of comm.on chriflians in the early ages, were
fimply unitarians, is not fufficient for the pur-
pofe. They think that ^^ the paffage from Ter-
*^ tuHian, quoted vol. III. p, 266, proves only that
** the m.ajor part of chrifcians in his time were
*^ offended with the new and unintelligible no-
*^ tions then introduced (notof Chriil*s pre-exifl-
^'^ ence) but of an ^economy and triniiyy which they
'^^ could not reconcile to the fupremacy and unity
*^ of the deity, *« The like," they fay, ''^ is true
^^ of the pafTages from Origen, in p. 262, &c,**

Butj with refpe6^ to this, 1 would obferve, that
if there was any evidence whatever, prefumptive
or pofitiYe, of any chriflians in thofe ages be-
lieviug the pre-exiitence of Chrift, and not be-
lieving either wiih the Gnoflics that he was a
pr€<xiiknt fpirit fuperior to the creator of the

world.

A 1^ P B N D 1 )r, ^gt

world, or with the Platoilizing Fathers, that he
v/as the uncreated logos of the Father, their ob*
jedion might have fome weight* But there is
no trace of any fuch things either among ths
learned, or the unlearned*

As to the common people of Tertullianj and
Origen, they certainly were notGnofcics^ but of a
charader the very reverfe of them^ the one rud^
in their conceptions, and the other too refined*
On the other hand, they certainly did not reliih tht
notion of Chriit being the uncreated kgos \ for that
was part of the fame fyftem with the csconomy^ and
trinity y at which they were fo much iliocked %
and there is no mention whatever of any inter-
mediate kind of pre-exifcence, fuch as that of a
created logcs^ till a much later period*

As to the writers that have come down tO
us (if we omit the author of the Clementines,
who v/as an unitarian) they were all, v/ithout ex-
ception, from Juflin Martyr to Athanafius, Fla*

tonizing trinitanans.

In the whole of that period, all who held tht
pre-exiftence of Chrifl either believed him to be
the creator of the v/orld,, or a being iuperior to
the creator of it. But the rude and Jiffiple faith^
which the learned complained of, was evidently
that which they were fuppofed to have derived

from

392 APPENDIX.

from the primitive Jewiih converts, which was
merely founded on the confideration of the mi-
racles and refurre6lion of Chrift, by which he
was only declared to be a man approved ofGod^ by
ftg7is and wonderS) and mighty deeds which God
did hy him.

The pre-exiftence, no lefs than the divinity of
Chrift, was an article of faith which all the Fa-
thers fay, the f-ril chriilian converts were not
prepared to receive, which it required much cau-
tion to teach, and the enforcing of which v/as
not ferioufiy attempted by any of the apoftles
before the WTiting of John's gofpclj in the very
lateft period of the apoilolic age. According to
this, the idea that the Jev/iili chriftians- mull
neceiTarily have had of Chriil, was the fame
that they had been taught to entertain concern-
ing the MefTiah, which never went beyond that
of his being a man. The firft Gentile converts
would naturally adopt the fame opinion -, and
confidering how numerous the chriftians were, '
and how they were difperfed over all the Roman
empire, before the publication of John's gofpel,
can it be fuppofed that they fhould have pafTed
from this fimple faith, to the dodtrine of Chrift
having been the creator of the world, in the time
of Tertullian and Origen 3 and fo completely as

that'

APPENDIX. 393*

that this opinion llioiild have been iiniverfal
even aniong the common people, without our
being able to trace the progrefs of this prodigious
change ?

Befides, it cannot be doubted but that tht/mpk
^nd ignorant people of Tertullian and Origen,
were the fame with thofe that were complained
of by Athanafius, as perfons of low underfiand-
mg\ and thefe were the difciples of Paulus Sa-
mofatenfis, or proper unitarians. They mufh
alfo have been the fame with lYit ^rex Jidelium of
Facundus, in a much later period ; who are re-
prefented by him as having no higher opinion of
Chrift than that of Martha, Mary, and others of
his difciples at that time, who, he fays, were im-
ferfe^f in faith ^ but not heretics. Fromi the nature
of the thing, the cafe could not have been other-
wife.

Moreover, Artcmon, Theodotus, and Praxeas, .
againft whom Tertullian wrote the very treatife
in which he fpeaks of the majority of the common
chriftians, were cotemporary v/ith him, as Beryllus
was with Origen ; and Noetus, Sabellius, and
Paulus Samofatenfis followed within tv/enty years.
As the difciples of all thefe perfons were proper
unitarians, it is morally impoffible that Tertullian
or Origen fhould refer to any other. Thefe muft
have been confidered as far movQ/imple and igno-
rant than thofe who held the doctrine of pre-
exiftence.

Vol. IV. * D d The

394 APPENDIX.

The acknowledgments that John was the only
apoille who taught with clearnefs and effect the
difficult and fuhlime dodrines (as they were then
called) of the pre-exiitence and divinity of Chriil,
began with Origen^and continued without inter-
ruption to the lateft period. And if thefe writers
had not made thefe acknowledgments (which they
certainly would not have done without very good
reafon) the fcripture hiftory alone would prove
the fad:, on the fuppofition that a fight of the
miracles and refurre6lion of Chrift could teach
nothing more than that he was a man approved of
God, and the MelTiah. For neither in the gofpels,
nor in the book of A6ts, are there any traces of
higher do&ines being taught.

A highly valued friend, after reading my work,
ftates his general opinion as follows : — " It was to
" be expeded that, whatever was the original
'^ opinion concerning Chrift, the converts to
" chriftianity, and particularly the Platonizing
^^ Fathers, would foon raife their opinions of him
*^ too high, and that this would make one of the
^^ firft corruptions of chriftianity. This we find
*^ to have a6lually happened, and the principal
" occafion for it was given by the introduction to
" St. John's gofpei. By making Chrift the^^r-
^^ fonified logos of the deity, he was raifed fo high,
^' as to be impafTible ; and the confequence of

this was, that thefe Fathers, finding a difficulty

in conceiving how fuch a being could he^bofn

«' and

<c

APPENDIX. 395*

" and fuffer^nd die, were led to fpeak of him as if
*' this was true only of a human foul that he had
" afTumed. At laft they carried their ideas of him
" fo high as to reckon him very God ; and it being
" impofiible that any human mind ihould believe
« that God himfelf fuffered and died, the prefent
" eftablifhed do6trine of the God-many and the hy-
^^ poftatical union was necefTarily introduced. This
" very naturally produced Arianifmy by leading the
*' chriftians who embraced this dodrine to lower
" Chrill, in order to avoid making him a mere
^' man united to God, and to deviate fo far from
*^ the opinions (or at leail fome of the language
'' of the Antenicene Fathers) as to make him not
" only inferior to the Father, but capable of fuf-
^' fering and dying. And this again led the or-
'' thodox party to ftill higher notions of Chrift's
" divinity, and confequently a flill greater ne-
^' ceffity of providing a human foul for him, and
*' dividing him into two beings. This, I am in-
*^ dined to think, was the progrefs of the opinions
*^ concerning Chrift in the firft four centuries."

This, it will be perceived, correfponds very
nearly with my own ideas. Only I think there is
a necelTity of fuppofmg that the original doctrine
(by a departure from vvhich the Platonic corrup-
tions began) was that of Chrifl being a mere man,
who had no pre-exiftence at all. For this is the
very opinion univerfally afcribed to the vulgar in
the life-time of Chrift, in the age of the apoftles,
3 and

3 96 APPENDIX.

and In that of the Antcnicene Fathers. There is
alfo no trace of any chriftians denying that Chriil
had a proper human foul before the time of AriuSs.
That he had one is as exprefsiy afierted by the
eariieft writers, as it is by the lateft. However,
all tht faHs that I have been able to colled are
fairly before the reader, and all I wifh is, by this
means, to aiTift him in forming a true judgment.
At the clofe of this Appendix I had intended to
have replied to two opponents, who have lately
appeared in the controverfy relating to the fub-
jecl of this work. But I think it more advifeablc
not to connect with it any thing of fo temporary a
nature. The work itfelf, I am confident, will be
deemed, by all im.partial and proper judges, more
than a fufficient anfwer to any thing that has yet
been pubiillied on the other fide. If, however,
any thing fliall appear that fhall be thought to de-
ferve particular confideration, my readers may be'
allured that I fnall not pafs it without notice.
This is a difculTion from which I feel no inclina-
tion to fnrink. If I have fallen into any miftake
of confequence, I Ihali frankly acknowledge it.
But as to things that do not affed the main aro-y-
ment, I fhall not be very folicitous about them.
They will only hurt myfelf^ and not the canfe
for which I contend.

BIRMINGHAM,
April 5, 1786.

AN

A N

ALPHABETICAL INDEX

TO ALL

THE FOUR VOLUMES.

JBELARDy whether an unitarian, vol. 3.
page 369
Abftimntesy the fame v/ith the Prifcillianiits, 4.

268
Mons:, of the Gnoftics, i. 155
AetiuSy the mailer of Eunomius, his dodrine, 4.

196
AlhigenfeSy defcended from the Paulicians, 4. 269;

whether unitarians, 3. 368
Alexayider of Alexandria, his doubts about the

principles of Arianifm, 4. 197
^;/^^/5, according to Philo, 1, 16 ; how diilin-

"guiihed from the logos, 2. 96
Jntlchrift^ of John, meant the Gnoftics, i. 256
Apollinatian controverfy^ ^* '^SS

wjllesy taught the pre-exiftence and divinity of

Chrift with caution, 3. 10 1 5-— to the Gentiles,

Avian

378 I N D fi X.

Arian 'controverfy^ an account of it, 4. 165
Avians y not properly unitarians, i. 73
Arian hypothefts, highly incredible, i. 57; re-
fembles that of the Gnoflics, 4. 168, 229;
commenced in the age of Arius, 170; ante-
cedent caufes of it, 173 ; ftated, 193; argu-
ments for it, 199; againft it, 211 3 compared
to heathenifm, 214; oppofed to Sabellianifm,
220; a new herefy, 2233 general obfervations
relating to it, 231.
Ariftotky his animadverfions upon Plato, 1.329
Article^ the word God with, and without it, 2. 158
Athanafius^ his account of herefy, i, 2963 his
tendernefs for the unitarians, 3. 331 5 his tef-
timony to the caution of the apoftles in teach-
ing the do6trine of the divinity of Chrifl, 3.
86
Auftin^ his definition of herefy, 1.243; might-
derive his do6trine of predeftination from the
Manichasan fyflem, 4. 293.

Baptifm, not ufed by fome Gnoftics, i. 232 ; the
pradice of the unitarians with refped to it,

3- 439
Barmbasy the authority of the epiftle afcribed to

him, 1 . 97 ^ /

Ba/tly perfecuted by the unitarians, 3. 349 /

Bethlehmy

I N D E X. 379

Bethlehem^ Jefus not fuppofed by the unitarians

to be born there, 4. 134
Bodyy of Chrift, opinions concerning it, 2. 246 5

thought to feel no pain, 252
Bonofiansy unitarians, 3. 365

CatholicSy their near agreement with the Gnoflics,
I. 173; embarafled by their different oppo-
nents, 2. 439.

Caufe, applied to the Father with refped to the
Son, 4, 179

Cenjus, at the birth of Chrift, improbabilities at-
tending it, 4. 1 24

Chrifty no proper objeft of prayer, i. 36; his di-
vinity and pre-exiftence not known in the time
of the apoilies, 23 ; not agreeable to the ge-
neral tenor of the fcriptures, i. i ; his minillry
continued only one year, 1383 dodrine of the
Gnollics concerning him, 1755 his ignorance
of the day of judgment, 2. 234 ; his divinity
firll: taught with caution, 3. 272; creates with-
out the orders of his Father, 343 -, offence
taken at his mean condition, 172 i how re-
plied to by the philofophizing chriftians, 179;
defcribed in magnificent terms as the logos of
God, 186; the medium of all divine commu-
nications to man, 18B ; made his own body
and foul, 1935 raifed himfelf from the dead,

194 i

3^0 INDEX.

194; fuppofed to have two fouls^ 221; dif-
mifTed his foul when he pleafed, 222 5 how he
conduced himfeif v/ith refpe6t to his own
divinity, 3. ^o, 64; his pre-exiftence and di-
vinity thought to be fublime dodrines, 56

Clemens Alexandrinus^ his idea of herefy, i. 284 i
charged with Arianifm, 4. 185

— Romanus, did not teach the pre-exiftence

. or divinity of Chrift, i. 93

Ckmentifie Homilies^ the ufe of that work, i. 113,

3. 254; efteemed by the Ebionites, 3. 216
Communion^ a tell of catholicifm, i . 247
Confiantins^ his opinion of the Arian controverfy,

4. 198

Co7ifuhfiantiaUtyy a term at fir ft rejeded by the
orthodox, 2. 357, 3. 395 ; ufed by the philofo-
phical unitarians, 3. 393; an account of it, 4.
181 j arguments of the orthodox in favour of
it againft the Arians, 4, 211

Creation^ not confined to the Son, 2. 304 ; out of
nothings the idea of it takes place of tlie doc-
trine of emanations, 4. 175; St. Paul's ufe of
t\it term, 4. 339

Creature^ the term applied to Chrift by the an-
cients, 4. 213 ; cannot be a creator, 219

Creedy apoftles, directed againft the Gnoftics, i.
303 y Athananan, 2. 345

Crediiility,

INDEX. 33i

Credibility^ of a fadt, what is neceflary to efcablilh
it, 4. 59

Cudworthy his wrong account of the Platonic tri-
nity, 1.349

BemiurguSy according to Plato, i. 324
Devil, ignorant of the divinity of Chrift, 3. 80 ;
and of the miraculous conception, 4.42, 51;

• his foliloquy on the occafion. 54

Dionyfius of Alexandria^ called the fountain of

Arianifm, 4. 185
DonatuSy not orthodox with refpeft to the divinity

of the Holy Spirit, 2. 329 ; his followers not

trinitarians, 3. 326

Ehionites, how confidered by Irenseus, i. 2815
the fame people with the Nazarenes, 3. 158;-
of their fuppofed herefy, 201 s faifely charged
with the do&ine of the Gnoilics, 206 ; of
their facred books, 212; men of eminence
'among them, 2195 the lateil accounts of

• them, 231 3 their gofpel altered, 4. 105
Egypt J improbabilities attending the fuppofition

of Jefus having been carried thither, 4. 119.
ElipanduSy an unitarian, 2' 2^^
Epipbaniusy fays that the Ebionites deteiled the

prophets, 3. 217

Ejfencey

382 INDEX.

EfencBy the fame with power, according to the
Platonifts, 1.339, 374; whether different in
God, 2. 85; diftinguiihed from hypoftafis, 2.
352; of the Father and the Son, whether the
fame, 4. 1 8 i

Eucharift, not obferved by fome Gnoftics, i. 229

Evil, the origin of it, according to the Gnoftics,
I. 154

EufehiuSy his account of the late date of the uni-
tarians, 3. 295, 312

Eutycbesy his doftrine, 4. 259

Eutychius, his account of the council of Nice,

3-319

Facundus^ his account of the unitarians of his
time 3. 334

Fate, the dodrine of it afcribed to Simon Ma-
gus, I. 163

Father, the, the fame with God, 2. 239 i the foun-
tain ofdeity, 4. 179 ; whether God could be one
before the generation of the Son, 2. 123; the
proper title of God when he had one^ 121 j
minifters to the Son, 344

Felicians, unitarians, 3. 366

/7yW/i<3», his account of herefy, 1.293

Fullo, Peter, his opinions, 4. 261

3 Genealogies^

INDEX. 383

Genealogies^ endlefs, of St. Paul, i. 157; of Jefus,
how underftood by the ancients, 4. 113

Generation, of the logos, illuHrated by the utter-
ing of words, 2. 88 ; by the prolation of a
branch from a root, 100 ^ whether it implies
paffion, 117 J what bounds there are to it, 120;
defcribed in an indecent manner, 124; repre-
fented as a myflery, 83, 125 ; in time, and a
voluntary ad, 128 ; eternal and necefTary, 140;
how it differs from procejfion, 294; advantage
taken of the expreffion by the Arians, 4. 208,
224

rfvvyj?^. applied to all creatures by the Platonills,
4. 177 j not differing originally from 7fv>i7©-^

Gentile chrijiians^ originally unitarians, 3. 233 ;
prefumptive evidence of it, 235 ; dire6b evi-
dence for it, 258
Glory, given to the Father only, 2. 319
GnoJiicSy their principles, 1^139; two kinds of
them, 142; their pride, 150; their immora-«
lities, 2153 gave ledlures for money, 2235
great affertors of liberty, 225 ; their public
worfhip, 227; the only heretics of antiquity,
237; diftinguifhed by peculiar names, 250 i
the refemblance of their tenets to thofe of the
Arians, 4. 168 ; this urged by Athanafius and
others, 229

Gcd,

334 INDEX.

Cod^ whether he made himfelf according to the

Platoniils, i. 378 ; whether in place, 2. 170;

fynonymous to Father with the Antenicene

writers, 2. 170.

Good J the J according to the Platonifts, i* 375

Goths and Vandals ^ &c. whether all Arians, 3. 367

Hegejlppus, his account of herefy, i. 2653 an ac-
count of him, 3. 221

Herefy^ the nature of it in the primitive times,
1. 238 ; in a later period^ 295 s the fame with
Gnofticifm, 237, 252

Hermasy of the treatife afcribed to him, i. 103

fiypoftafis^ diilinguifhed fi'om ejfence^ 2. 352

IdeaSy according to Plato, i. 327, of Philo, 2. 3
Idolatry^ mankind originally prone to it, 3. 2
IgnatiuSy of his epiilles, i. 1063 his account of

herefy, 258
Incarnationy fuppofed ufe of it, 2. 258 3 objedted

to by unbelievers, 265
Irenaus^ his account of herefy, i. 274

JamhlichuSy his account of the principles of things,

J- 373
Jero7ny makes no difference betv/een the Naza-

renes and Eibonites, 3. 169

Jerufaleniy no orthodox Jewifh church there after

the time of Adrian, 3. 190

Jews,

INDEX. 385

Jews, believers in the divine unity, 3. 7 ; this
acknowledged by tl^e chrifcian Fathers, 9 -,
reafons why they were not taught the dodrine
of the trinity, 1 8 ; how they exprefied their
abhorrence of it, 16 \ their obje6tions to the
genealogies of Jefus, 4. 1 1 5

John^ the reafon of his writing the introdu6tion
to his gofpel, I. 181, 185; to oppofe the
Gnoftics, 253 ', was the firft who taught with
clearnefs the do6lrines of the pre-exiftence and
divinity of Chrifti 3. 123

Jones, his opinion about the Nazarenes and
■Ebionites, 3. 178

Julian, his account of the Platonic principles,
1,^6^; reproaches chriftians with the doc-
trine of the trinity, 2. 445 ; obferves that
Mofes taught the unity of God, 3. 323 objedls
to the miraculous conception, 4. 155.

Jtffiin Martyr^ his account of her(^fy, i, 269 s his
account of the unitarians. 3. 278

Laity ^ the part they took in the excommunica-
tions of the unitarian clergy, 3. 30B

Logos, according to Plato, 1.325; of the Jews in
general, 2. 19; ofPhilo, 5, 17; of chriftians,
originally an attribute of the Father, 53 j not
confined to the perfon of Chrift, 75 ; the power
pf the Father, 77 -, the will of the Fadier, 78 i
Vol. IV, C c the

386 INDEX.

line foul of the Father, 8o; in place, 196, 404;
incapable of fuffering, 2155 not impaired by ,
its union with the body of Jefus, 225 ; united
both to the body and foul of Chriil, 226, 230 ;
omniprefent, 2. 231 ; no created fpirit/'232 ;
what the ancient unitarians underflood by it,

3. 406

LuciaUy ridicules the doctrine of the trinity, 2. 444

MacedoniuSy his opinion, 2. 324
Manion, martyrs among his difciples, i. 205;
afferts the genuinenefs of his gofpel of Luke,

236; 4. 103
Mark, his omilTion of the miraculous conception,

4. 100

Martyrdom, dodrine of the Gnoflics with refpeft

to it, I. 201
Mary, fuppofed to have had no proper child-
birth, I. 176 ; made by Chrift, 2. 192 s mira-

culoudy delivered, 4. 147
Marriage, difapproved by the Gnoftics, i. 222
Materialifm, furnifhing an argument againil the

pre-exiftence of Chrift, i . 84
Matter, uncreated according to Plato, i. 343;

the fource of evil, how that opinion affedled

chriftianity, 4. 289
Matthew, his reafons for not teaching the divi-

niry of Chrift, 3* 137 j refledions on the fub-

jed,

3

INDEX. 387

je6t, 148 i his gofpel according to the Ebio-
nites, 3. 213 i obfervations on the introdudion
to it, 4. 106

Maxims of hiftorical criticifm^ 4. 294

Mejfiahy the Jews always expeded a man in that
character, 3. 34; no expe6tation of any fuch
perfon among the Gentiles, 38

MetatroUy among the Jews, 3. 40

Miraculous conception^ treated of, 4. i -, its nature
and importance, 8 3 the ufe of it according to
the Fathers, 26 3 much boafled of by them, 39;
reafon for its being concealed, 43 ; arguments
for it, 56 ; not known very early, 64; difbe-
lieved by the Ebionites, 72^ by many of the
Gentile chriftians, 84; and by the early Gnof-
tics, 92 3 internal evidence of the hiftory con-
Iidered, 100 ; not related by Mark, ibid. ; the
two hiftories of it very different, 1173 fuppofed
allufions to it in the Old Teftament, 1383 ob-*
jedions of unbelievers to it, 151 j replies of the
Fathers, 155 ; fuppofed ufe of it with refpecl
to the education of Jefus, 345

Montanifts, not trinitarians, 3. 323

NazareneSy the fame people with the Ebionites, 3.

158 •, no believers in the divinity of Chrift, 188
Nazareth^ Jefus thought to have been born there,

by many Gentile unitarians, 4. 135

C c 2 Neftorius^

388 INDEX.

NeftoriuSy his doctrine very popular, 4. 240 ; his
opinion ftated, 241; many of his followers Pe-
lagians, 248 j their arguments, 249 ; in all parts
of Europe, 255 3 arguments againil them, ibid.
Nkolaitans, i. 216, 221, 243
Novelty, fynonymous to herefy^ i. 245
JSfouSy according to Plato, i. 327 s according to
the later Platoniils, 361

One, /Z?f, fynonymous to the Goody i. 377
Oriental I^hilofophy, the principles of it, 1 . 1 10
Or/^^;/, his account of herefy, i. 290 s charged
with the Arian do6trine, 4. 188 ; defended, 191

P atrip qffian dodrine, 3. 376

Fauliciansy an account of them, 4. 268

Faulus Samofatenfts^ of his excommunication. 3.

Pelagians, many of them anti-trinitarians, 3. 327
PerfonSy fynonym.ous to hypoftafes, 2. 360
Perfonification of the logos, occafional, 2, 46 , per-
manent, 48
Philoy his Platonifm, 2. i

Phikfophyy of the GreeivS, afcribed to the logos,
2. 282 ; oriental and Platonic, remains of them
in chrilLianity, 4. 288
fhotinusy his excommunication, 3. 310 i his cha-
xadter, 3. 341

PlatOy

INDEX. 389

Flato^ a view of his philofophy, 1.320J highly
commended by the chriftian Fathers, 2. 26;
cenfured by them in feme refpeds, 28 ; his third
principle did not correfpond to the Holy Spi-
rit, 290

Platonifm, chrijlian^ 2, 23 ; how explained by the
chriftian Fathers, 23 '■> ^ cenfure upon it, 399

Platonifts, offended at the Gnoftics, i. 1725 the
later ones, 2S^ > admirers of the chriftian logos,
2. 41

Plotinus, fpeaks of the immoralities of the Gnof-
tics, I. 217

Polycarp^ his fenfe of Chriji coming in the fleJJoy
I. 196; his idea of herefy, 263

Pr^jy'^r, rejedled by.fome Gnoilics, i. 230 ^ Chrift
not the object of it, 2. 162

Principle (a?%>i) applied to Chrifl, 2. 23S

Principles^ of Plato, i. 331 s of the later Platonifts,
37B

Prifcillianiftsy account of themx, 4. 263 ; held fome
Gnoftic opinions, 265 -, were unitarians, 266

Proceedings how differing from ^^;?fr<^//i?;;, 2. 294

paternity, faid to be held by the Neilorians, 4.

257

Refurre^ion, difbelieved by the Gnoflics, i. 208
C c 3 Schifm^

390 INDEX.

Schifm^ diflinguifhed from herefy^ i. 246

Scriptures^ their infpiration not believed by the
Gnoftics, I. 222', corrupted by them, 235

SemiarianSy 4. 195

Simon Magus, an account of him, i. 1 17

SiXy a facred number, 2. 390

So/!y his generation from the Father, 2. 44 ; why
only one generated, 115; inferior to the Father,
145 3 his perfedb equality to the Father, 341

Souly corruptions in chriftianity arifing from the
belief of it, 4. 288; its union with God ac-
cording to the Platonifts, i. 387 ; the chriftian
Fathers thought that Chrift had one, 4. 227 5
the Arians believed the contrary, 194

of theworldy according to Plato, i. 341, 345

Spirit^ Holy^ the controverfy relating to it, 2, 268;
opinions concerning it before the council of
Nice, 270 ; after that council, 285 ; vivifies the
body of Chrift, 307 j arguments for his divi-
nity, 317 5 for his perfonality, 320 -, his proper
office, 299 5 the center and copula of the Father
and Son, 303 -, his divinity chiefly objeded to
in Afia minor, 326

Subjiancey ufed by the Latins for ejfence and hypof-,
tafiSy 2. 355

Summary view, of the evidence of the primitive

church having been unitarian, 4. 303

Sun^

IN D E X. 391

S«», in the Platonic fyftem, i. 332
SykeSy Dr. his account of the apoftles creed, i . 31 2
SymmachuSy fome account of him, 3. 220; writes
againft the miraculous conception, 4. 75

^atiariy his harmony had no genealogy, 4. 108
TermSy new ones introduced after the council of

Nice, 2. 351
^ertulliaTiy his account of herefy, i. 286, 244; his

three creeds, 312
^heodoruSy of Mopfueftia, the mafter of Neftorius,

IheodotuSy his excommunication by Vi61:or, 3. 303
TheopafchiteSy 4. 262

Threey the myfteries of that number, 2. 388
Timey faid by Origen to have no relation to God,

2- 143
*Tim^us LocruSy his philofophy, i. 352
Trinity y of Plato, i. 331 ; of the later Platonifts,
383 ; according to the Fathers, 2. 292

chriftiariy (hewn to imply a contradidion, i.

48 ; no ufe of it, 87 ; all the perfons in it have
a joint operation, 2, 310 ; after the council of
Nice, 335 ^ arguments for it from the Old Tef-
tament, 392 ; from the New, 418 ; illuilrations
of it, 3625 from the properties of fire, 364;
from the fun, 2,^6 ; from vifion, 368 , from the
tP.ind of man, 369 ; the three perfons of it re-
C c 4 prefented

393 INDEX.

prcfented as diftindt beings, 376 ; illuftrated by
the cafe of Ad am;, Eve, and their fon, j82 -, by
that of a fountain and river, &c. 384 s reprcr
fented as a myflery, 385 ; objedions to it ho v;
anfwered, 428 ; from the Father being called
the one God^ 4295 the one true Gsdy 432 j the
only good, 429 ; from Chrift being fent by the
Father, 43 1 ; from Chrift praying to the Fa-
ther, 434 5 from Chrilt faying that the Father
was greater than he, 435 3 from Chrifl being
fubject to the Father, ibid. 3 from Chriil not
haying the difpofal of the chief places in his
kingdom^ 438 -, much cavilled at, 441

Union^ bypoftaticy not held by the Nellorians, 4.
258

Unitarians y hiflory of their doclrine, 3. i ; greatly
offended at the dodrine of the divinity of
Chrifl, 272, 399 J charged with teaching a no-
vel dodtrine, 312; they uniformly affert the
antiquity of it, 314; flate of them after the
council of Nice, 318; concealed among the
catholics, 334; in Gaul, 361; after the fixth
century, 3643 philofophical, 376 3 — thefe ihewn
to have been properly unitarians, 390 ; their
practice with refped to baptifm, 4393 their
arguments from reafon^ 41^3 from the fcrip-
tures, 423

VaJentinuSy
I

INDEX. 3P3

yakntinus, his dodlrine of ^ons, i. 179

Water y iifed by fome Gnoftics in the eucharift, i,
231

TVattSy Br. his candour with refpecl to his belief
of the miraculous conception, 4. 343

JVifdom, in the book of Proverbs, applied to
Chrifc, 3.427 ; whether created or not, 4. 22c

Worlds intelligible, of Plato, i. 330 s according to
the later Platonifts, 357 -, the maker of it ac-
cording to the Gnoftics, 166

Worm^ Chrift compared to one, 4. 139,

A CATALOGUE

A

CATALOGUE OF BOOKS

WRITTEN BY

Dr. PRIESTLEY,

AND PRINTED FOR

J. JOHNSON, Bookfeller, No. 72, St. Paul's Church Yard,
London.

I. ^T' H E Hiftory and Prefent State of Electricity,
X with original Experiments, illullrated with Copper-
plates, 4th Edition, correfted and enlarged, 410. il. is. Another
Edition, 2 vols. 8vo. 12s.

2. Familiar Introduflion to the Study of Electricity,
4th Edition, 8vo. 2s. 6d.

3. The HiftoFy and Prefent State of Difcoveries relating to
Vision, Light, and Colours, 2 vols. 4to, illuftrated with a
great Number of Copper-plates, il. lis. 6d. in boards.

4. A Familiar Introduction to the Theory and Praftice of
Perspective, with Copper-plates, 2d Edition, 5s. in boards,

5. Experiments and Obfervations on different Kinds of Air,
with Copper-plates, 2d Edition, 3 vols. i8s. boards.

N. B. In this Work are included the Dire^ions for impregnating
Water 'with fixed Air y which were formerly publiihed feparately.

6. Experiments and Obfervations relating to various Branches
of Natural Philosophy, with a Continuation of the Experi-
ments on Air, 2 vols. 12s. in boards. — Another Volume of this
Work is juft publiihed.

7. A New Chart of History, containing a View of the
principal Revolutions of Empire that have taken Place in tha
World ; with a Book defcribing it, containing an Epitome of
Univerfal Hillory, 4th Edition, los, 6d.

8. A

396 BOOKS ntiritten hy Dr. PRIESTLEY.

8. A Chart of Biography, with a Book containing an
Explanation of it, and a Catalogue of all the Names inferted in
it, 6th Edition, veiy much improved, los. 6d.

9. The Rudiments of English Grammar, adapted to the
Ufe of Schools, is. 6d. bound.

10. The above Grammar, with Notes and Obfervations,
for the Ufe of thofe who have made fome Proficiency in the
Language. The 4th Edition, 3s. bound.

11. Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion,
in tivo volurnes, 8vo. 2d. edition, price los. 6d. in boards.

12. Observations relating to Education : more efpecially
as it refpe£}s the Mind. To which is added. An Eifay on a
Courfe of liberal Education for Civil and A6live Life, with Plans
of Left a res on, i. The Study of Hiftory and General Policy,
2. The Hiliory of England. 3. The Conilitution and Laws of
England, 4s. fewed.

13. A Course of Lectures on ORATORYand Criticism,
4to. los. 6d. in boards.

14. An EiTay on the Firfl Principles of Government, and on
the Nature of Political, Civil, and Religious Liberty, 2d Edi-.
tion, much enlarged, 4s. fewed. In this Edition are introduced
the Remarks on Church Authority, in Anfwer to Dr. Balguy,
formerly fublifoed Separately ,

15. Forms of Prayer, and other Offices, for the Ufe of Uni-
tarian Societies. Price 3s. in boards.

16. An Examination of Dr. Reid*s Inquiry into the Human
Mind, on the Principles of Common Senfe, Dr. Beattie's
Effdy on the Nature and Immutability of Truth, and Dr.
Oswald's Appeal to Common Senfe, in Behalf of Religion,
2d Edit. 5s. fewed.

17. Hartley's Theory of the Human Mind, on the
Principle of the AfTociation of Ideas, with Efiays relating to the
Subjeft of it, 8vo."5£. fewed.

18. DlSQUI^

BOOKS vjriaen ^j' Dj;. P R 1 E S T L E Y. 397

18. Disquisitions relating to Matter and Spirit. Tq
which is added, the Hiitory of the Philofopiiical Doctrine con-
cerning the Origin of the Soul, and the Nature of Matter; with
its Influence on Chriftianity, efpecially with refpeft to the Doc-
trine of the Pre-exillence of Chriil. Alfo the Dodrine of Phi-
Jofophical Neceffity illuftrated, the 2d Edition enlarged and im-
proved, with Remarks on thofe who have controverted the Prin-
ciples of thern, 2 vols. los. 6d. in boards.

19. A Free Discussion of the Doctrines of Materi-
alism and Philosophical Necessity, in a Corrcfpondence
between Dr. Price and Dr. Priestley. To which are added
by Dr. Priestley, an Introduction, explaining the Nature
of the Controverfy, and Letters to feveral Writers who have
artimadverted on his Difquifitions relating to Matter and Spirit,
or his Treatife on Neceffity, 8vo. 6s. fewed.

20. A Defence of the Dodrine of Necessity, in tw^o Letters
to the Rev. Mr. John Palmer, 3s.

21. A Letter to Jacob Bryant, Efq; in Defence of Philofo-
phical Neceffity, js.

22. The Doctrine of Divine Influence on the Human
Mind confidered, in a Sermon publiflied at the Requcil; of
many Perfons who have occaflonally heard it, is.

^he three preceding Articles may he properly honfjd up ivith the
Illullrations of the Dodrine of Philofophical Neceffity.

23. An History of the Corruptions of Christiani-
ty, with a general Conclufion, in two Parts. Part i. Con-
taining Confiderations addrefTed to Unbelievers, and efpecially to
Mr. Gibbon. Part 2. Containing Confiderations addrefTed to
the Advocates for theprcfent EftabliiHimen!:, and efpecially to
Bifliop Hurd, 2 vols. Svo. price 123. in boards, or 14s. bound,

24. Letters to Y^r, PIorsley, Archdeacon of St. Alban's,
in two Parts, containing farther Evidence that the Primitive
Chriilian Church was Unitarian, price 63.

25. A Reply to the Animadversions on the History of

the Corruptions of Christianity, in the Monthly Review

for June, 1783 ; with Obfsrvations relating to the Dodrine

of the Primitive Church, concerning the Perfon^cf Christ,

8vo. price IS,

26. Re-

398 BOOKS 'written by Dr. PRIESTLEY.

26. Remarks on the Monthly Revi2w of the Letters
to Dr. HoRSLEY ; in which the Rev. Mr. Samuel Badcock,
the writer of that Review, is called upon to defend what he has
advanced in it, price 6d.

27. Letters to a Philofophical Unbeliever. Part i. Contain-
ing an Examination of the principal Objedions to the Dodlrines
oi Natural Religion t and efpecially thofe contained in the Writ.
ings of Mr. Hume, 3s. fewed.

28. Additional Letters to a Philofophical Unbeliever,
in Anfwer to Mr. William Hammon, is. 6d.

29. A Harmony of the Evangelists in Greek : To which
are prefixed Critical Dissertations in Englifli, 4to. 14s.
in boards*

30. A Harmony of the Evangelists in Englijh -, with
Notes, and an occafional Paraphrafe for the Ufe of the Un-
learned ; to which are prefixed, Critical DilTertations, and a Let-
ter to the Bilhop of Oflbry, 4to. 15s. in boards.

N. B. Thofe 'who are pojjejjed of the Greek Harmony, may ha've this
in Englifh avZ/i'o^/ />^(? Critical Differtations.

31. Three Letters to Dr. Newcome, Bifhop of Waterford,
on the Duration of our Saviour's Minillry, 3s. 6d.

32. A Free Address to ProtestantDissenters, on
the Subj eft of the Lord's Supper, 3d Edition, with Additions,
28.*.^ — N. B. The Additions to be had alone, is.

33. An Address to Protestant Dissenters, on the
Subjeft of giving the Lord's Supper to Children, is.

34. A Free Address to Protestant Dissenters, on
the Subjed of Church Discipline; with a preliminary Dif-
courfe concerning the Spirit of Chriftianity, and the Corruptions
of it by falfe Notions of Religion, 2s. 6d.

35. A Sermon preached before the Congregation of Proteflant
Biffenters at Mill Hill Chapel, Leeds, May 16, 1773, on Occa-
fionof the Author's refigning his Pailoral Office among them, is.

36. A Sermon preached December 31, 1780, at the New
Meeting-Houfe, in Birmingham, on undertaking the Pailoral
Office in that Place, is.

37. The

BOOKS n^ritien hy Dr. PIRESTLEY. 399

37. The proper Conllitution of a Chriltian Church confidered,
in a Sermon preached at Birmingham, November 3, 1782 ; to
which is prefixed a Difcourfe relating to the prefent State of
thofe who are called Rational DilTenters, price is.

12. Two Discourses, i. On Habitual Devotion.
2. On theDuTYof not Living to Ourselves ; both preach-
ed to Aflemblies of Protellant DifTenting Minifters, and publifh-
ed at their Requeft, price is. 6(i.

39. The Importance and Extent of Free Enquiry in mat-
ters of Religion, a Sermon, preached Nov. 5, 1785 ; to which are
added, Refledlions on the prefent State of Free Inquiry in this
Country, and Animadverfions on fome Pafiages in Mr. White's
Sermons at the Bampton Le£lures, Mr. Howes's Difcourfe on.
the Abufe of the Talent of Difputation in Religion, and a
Pamphlet entitled Primitive Candour, price is. 6d.

40. A View of the Principles and Conduct of the Pro*
TESTANT Dissenters, with Refpeft to the Civil and Eccle-
iiailical Conftitution of England, 2d Edition, is. 6d.

41. Letters to the Author of Remarks onfe'verallate Public
cations relatinje to the Dijfenters, in a Letter to Do^or Friejileyy is.

42. A Letter to a Layman, on the Subjedl of Mr. , Lind-
fey's Fropofal for a reformed Englilh Church, on the Plan of
the late Dr. Samuel Clarke, 6d.

N. B. The precedingvAXit Pamphlet, No. 34 to 42, may he had
uniformly boundy by ginjing orders jor Dr. Prieftley's larger Tradts,
2 vols. 8vo. los.

43 . A C A T E c H I s M for Children and Toung TerfonSy 3 d Ed i tion,

44. A Scripture Catechism, confifling of a Series of
Queflions ; with References to the Scriptures, inilead of An-
fwers, 2d Edition, 3d.

45. Watts's Hiftorical Catechifm, with Alterations, price 6d..

46. Considerations for the Ufe of Young Men, and the
Parents of Young Men, 2d Edition, 2d.

47. A Serious Address to Mailers of Families, with Form?

of Prayer, 2d Edition, 6d.

48. A

40© BOOKS ^riiten hy Dr. PRIESTLEY.

48. A Free Addrefs to Protellant DilTenters as fuch. By a
Diffenter. A new Edition, enlarged and correfted, is. 6d. An
Allowance is made to thofe who buy this Pamphlet to give
away.

49. An Appeal to the ferious and candid ProfeiTors of Chrif-
tianity, on the following fubj eels, viz. i. The Ufe of Reafon
in Matters of Religion. 2. The Power of Man to do the V/ill of
God. 3. Original Sin. 4. Eleftion and Reprobation. 5. The
Divinity of Chrift; and 6. Atonement for Sin by the Death of
Chrilt, a new Edition ; to which is added, a Concife Kiilory of
thofe Do(5lrines, 2d.

50. The Triumph of Truth ; being an Account of the
Trial of Mr. Elwall for Her efy and Blafphemy, at Stafford
Alfizes, before Judge Denton, 2d Edition, 2d.

51. A Familiar lliuftration of certain Paffsges of Scripture,
relating to the fame Subjeds, the 2d Edition, 4d. or 3s. 6d. per

dozen.

52. A General View of the Arguments for the Unity of
God, and againil the Divinity and Pre-exiftence of Chriit, fi-om
Reafon, from the Scriptures, and from Hillory, 2d Edition,
price 2d.

53. A Free Address to thofe who have petitioned for the
Repeal of the late A61 of Parliament in favour of the Roman
Catholics. Price 2d. or 12s. per Hundred to give away.

N. B. The lail Ten Trafls //z^_)> be had all bound together^ by
giving Orders for Dr. Priellley's fmaller Tradts, 3s. 6d. or 36s.
pr dozen to thofe nvho buy them to gi've a-vjay.

Alfo PubliJJ:ed under the DireBion ofOr. Priestley.
THE THEOLOGICAL REPOSITORY:
Confifting of Original Effays, Hints, Queries, &c. calculated
to promote Religious Knoivledge, in Four Volumes, 8vo.
Price il. 4s. in Boards. This Work is continued, the 2d
Number of the 5th Volume being lately publiflied.

N

I

I

MAR o1934

m