ranked among unitarians. For, according to them the logos was nothing more than a divine power, voluntarily emitted by the Supreme Being; and though in fome fenfe detached from himfelf, was entirely dependent upon him, and taken into himself again at pleasure, when the purpose of its emiffion had been answered. On this scheme, the logos, it might have been faid, would have been a perfon at the creation of the world, and again when it was employed in the divine intercourfe with the patriarchs, in the intervals of which it was deprived of its perfonality, and that it recovered it again at the baptifm of Chrift; then, after assisting him to perform those things to which human power was unequal, was reforbed into the Divine Being again; juft as a ray of light was, in those days, fuppofed to be drawn back into the fun, as the fountain of light, from which it had been emitted. This doctrine, therefore, may be called Philofophical Unitarianifmn, of which a farther account will be given hereafter. At present I only confider it as a step towards the doctrine of permanent perfonality,

which probably commenced with Juftin Martyr, and what might contribute to render it more plaufible.

This doctrine would certainly appear lefs alarming to men of plain understanding; for it could not be faid that, upon this principle, any new being, was introduced. For a mere power, occafionally emitted, and then taken back again into its fource, could not come under that defcription. Accordingly, it appears that Marcellus, who held that opinion, was confidered as an unitarian, and was popular among the lower people, who continued to be unitarians; whereas they took the greatest alarm at the doctrine of the permanent perfonality of the logos, confidering it as the introduction of another God, and therefore, as an infringement of the first and greatest command

ment.

It was to avoid this great difficulty that the chriftian Fathers held fo obftinately as they did to the doctrine of Christ being nothing more than the logos, or the proper reafon, wisdom, or power of the Father, though it contributed exceedingly to em

barrafs

barrass their scheme. The Platonifts had no difficulty at all on this account, as they had no measures to keep with unitarians, but rather wished to ftand well with those

who held a multiplicity of gods. They, therefore, never pretended that their three principles were one, or refolvable into one. This is obferved by Austin and others. But the chriftian Fathers were not fo much at liberty. They were under a neceffity of maintaining the unity of God in fome sense or other, at all events, that being the fundamental principle of their religion, and a principle that was moft ftrictly adhered to by the common people.

On this account we find them particularly careful, on all occafions, to affert that, though they confidered Chrift as God, it was not as another God, diftinct from the Father, but only the logos, or reason, of the Father himfelf; and, therefore, ftrictly fpeaking, one with him, as much as the reason of any man was the fame thing with the man himself. On this account, alfo, thofe who called themfelves orthodox, were fo ready to charge the Arians with holding VOL. II.

E

the

the doctrine of two Gods; because the logos of the Arians was a being created out of nothing, and had a different origin from the God that made him; whereas their logos had always exifted as the reafon of the eternal Father, and therefore they thought themselves well fecured against any retort of the fame accufation from others.

Being thus obliged to keep clear of the doctrine of two Gods, they were under a neceffity of maintaining that the logos was nothing more than the reason, or operative faculty of the Father; at the fame time that they maintained that it was a diftinct perfon from him, which is a doctrine fo manifeftly abfurd, that at this day it requires the plaineft evidence of its having been entertained at all. However, the dread of introducing two Gods, and the accufations of their adverfaries, efpecially of the common people, for whom they could not but have great refpect, gave them fuch abundant occafion to explain their real principles, and so much of their writings on this subject are still extant, that we cannot mifunderstand their meaning.

It is not poffible either by the ufe of plain words, or of figurative language, to exprefs this most abfurd notion, viz. that the logos, or the fon, which was afterwards a real perJon, was originally nothing more than a mere attribute of the father, more clearly than they do. For, according to the most definite language that men can use, the logos, as existing in the Father, and prior to the creation, was in the opinion of those chriftian Fathers (who, in their own age, and even till long after the council of Nice, were confidered as orthodox) the fame thing in him as reason is in man, which is certainly no proper perfon, diftinguishable from the man himself. Will common fenfe permit us to fay, that the man is one perfon, or thing, and his reafon another, not comprehended in the man? In like manner, it is impoffible not to infer from the uniform language of the early chriftian writers that, according to their ideas, there was originally nothing in, or belonging to the Son, but what was neceffarily contained in the Father.

Paffages without end may also be selected from the most approved of the Fathers to E 2 fhew