against Theodorus, who is faid to have been the proper father of Neftorianifm (which differed very little from the unitarian doctrine) evidently fuppofes that this was the received doctrine of the unitarians, when he fays, "It is false to say that the word

"of God has no fubftance. It is the "eructation of a foolish heart; For he "himself faid to Mofes, I am that I am, " and therefore they who think so we deem "most stupid *.” Again, replying to those who faid that the logos is verbum infitum, or the proper internal reason of the Father, Why did not our Saviour fay, I and the "word of my Father are one, and he that "fees me, fees the word of the Father." He adds, that "the logos, in the introduc"tion to the gospel of John has the article

prefixed to it, which fhews that it did

* Minime enim mentietur falfiffimum effe fermonem, quod verbum quod ex deo apparuit, dicatur non habuisse fubftantiam eft enim ftultiffimi cordis eructatio. Nam ipfe dicebat Mofi ego fum qui fum: quomodo autem unquam hoc quod vere eft, in fubftantia per fe non fervari intelligitur et propterea eos qui fic fentiunt, merito ru diffimos effe definimus. Opera, vol. 2, p. 687.

66 not

"not mean reason in general, but a parti"cular specific logos *." I do not think it at all neceffary to reply to the reasoning of Cyril in this place, I only quote him in order to ascertain what it was that the unitarians, his adverfaries, thought on the fubject.

The emperor Julian gives his teftimony to the unitarians having fuppofed that by logos was intended the power of God, "Some "of the impious," meaning the christians, he fays," say that Jesus Christ is one person, "and he that is called the logos by John "another +." He likewife fays that " John "does not mention the name of Jefus, or

* Præterea fi unigenitus dei filius idcirco verbum eft et vocatur, quoniam (ut ipfi dicunt) infitum patris verbum fufcipiens, ad illud formatur: cur non dixit ad difcipulos, ego et verbum patris unum fumus: et, qui me videt, is etiam verbum patris videt?--Ideo videmus filium hominis, articulo ad utrumque nomen præpofito, falvatore noftro proferri, quando fe folum ab infinita hominum multitudine velit fignificare. In John, cap. 4. Opera, vol. 1. p. 610.

+ Και τοι δοκει τισι των δυσσεβών αλλον μεν Ιησον είναι χρισον, αλλον δε τον υπο Ιωαννα κηρυτίομενον λογον. Cyril. Contra Jul. lib. 10. Opera, vol. 2. p. 333;

"of

"of Chrift, when he calls him God and logos *"

This ufe of the term logos or word, is common in the Old Teftament, as when the Pfalmift says, By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, &c. and Macarius, having no view to this controversy, fays, "The word of God is God, and the "word of the world is the world," and then fpeaks of the difference between the word of God and the word of the world, and between the children of God, and the children of the world +.

In this fenfe, according to Eufebius, the Jews always understood the term logos. "If

64

any one," fays he, "fuppofe that the "Son is a mere word-that it is quiefcent "in the Father, when he is quiefcent, but "was active when he made the world, re

* Ουδαμα δε αυτον είε Ιησεν, ετε χρισον, άχρις & θεον και λόγον amoxane. Cyril. Contra Jul. lib. 10. Opera, vol. 2. p. 327.

† Ο τε θες λογο, θεός επι . και ο λογο τις κοσμο κοσμο επι· πολλη δε διαφορα και μεσόλης τυγχάνει, το τε λόγε τε θες, και το λογο το κόσμο, και των τεκνων τι θες, και των τεκνων τε κόσμε εκατόν γαρ γέννημα τοις ιδίοις εοικε γονευσιν. Opera, p. 223.

fembling

66

fembling the logos of man, which is quiefcent when we are filent, but active « when we fpeak; it is evident that he interprets as the Jews do, and according "to human reason, and that he denies the "true Son of God *." He then adds what was quoted in this volume, p. 13. concerning the Jews acknowledging that God has a logos, but no Son.

* Ο δε ψιλον λογον είναι τον υιον απολαμβάνων, και μόνον λόγον είναι μαρτυρόμενος, και πολλάκις τότ' αυτό λέγων ως «δεν ετερον την ο λογα, ενδον μένων εν τώ ησυχαζούλι τω παίρι, ενεργων τε εν τω ημέτερω την κλισιν δημιεργειν ομοίως τω ημέτερω, εν σιοπωσι μεν ησυ χαζοί, εν δε φθεγγομενοις ενεργενίι, δήλον αι ειη Ικδαίκω τινι και ανθρωπινω συντρεχών φρονηματι, τον δε αληθώς υιον τα θες αρνάμενΘ. Contra Marcellum, lib. I. p. 4.

SEC.

SECTION II.

Arguments of the ancient Unitarians from Reafon.

HAVING ftated what the principles of

the ancient unitarians were, I shall in

the next place, give a view of the arguments by which they defended them; and as fome of these were drawn from the principles of reason, and others from the fcriptures, I fhall mention the former in the first place. But in this I need not infift upon their capital argument, viz. that the doctrine of the divinity of Chrift and of the trinity, is an infringement of the great doctrine of natural and revealed religion, the unity of God. This has appeared fufficiently already. Alfo many of their other arguments have been mentioned in the replies of their trinitarian adverfaries. I fhall, therefore, only recite fuch others as have happened to occur feparately.

That