"not mean reafon in general, but a parti"cular fpecific 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 afcertain what it was that the unitarians, his adverfaries, thought on the fubject.

The emperor Julian gives his testimony to the unitarians having fuppofed that by logos was intended the power of God, "Some "of the impious," meaning the christians, he fays, "fay that Jefus Chrift is one person,

and he that is called the logos by John "another +." He likewise says 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 Ιησεν είναι χρισον, αλλον δε τον υπο Ιωαννα κηρυτίομενον λόγον. Cyril. Contra Jul. lib. 10. Opera, vol. 2. p. 333.

"of

" of Christ, when he calls him God and

This use 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 controverfy, fays, "The word of God is God, and the "word of the world is the world," and then fpeaks of the difference between the word of God and the word of the world, and between the children of God, and the children of the world +.

In this fenfe, according to Eufebius, the Jews always understood the term logós. "If any one," fays he, "fuppofe that the "Son is a mere word—that it is quiefcent "in the Father; when he is quiefcent, but was active when he made the world, re

66

xle

&

* Ουδαμε δε αυτόν είε Ιησον, ελε χρισον, άχρις 8 θεον και λόγον aлonana. Cyril. Contra Jul. lib. 10. Opera, vol. 2. p. 327. † Ο τε θες λογο, θεος επι και ο λογο το κόσμο κοσμο επι· πολλη δε διαφορα και μεσόλης τυγχάνει, τε τε λόγ8 τε θες, και το λόγο το κοσμο, και των τεκνων τε θες, και των τεκνων τε κόσμε · εκατον γαρ γέννημα τοις ιδίοις εοικε γονεύσιν. Opera, p. 223.

ἐσ

« fembling the logos of man, which is

quiefcent when we are filent, but active "when we fpeak; it is evident that he

SECTION II.

Arguments of the ancient Unitarians from
Reafon.

HAVING ftated what the principles of
the ancient unitarians were, I hall in
the next place, give a view of the arguments
by which they defended them; and as fome
of thefe were drawn from the principles of
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 al-
ready. 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

4

That the ancient unitarians were much addicted to reasoning, and that they often difputed with great acuteness and fubtility, fo as to puzzle their opponents, may be inferred from what is faid of them by Eufebius, viz. that " they neglected the fcriptures, and reasoned in fyllogifms *." No doubt they did reason, and probably in the fyllogiftic form, as was the custom with logicians, and I doubt not very closely and justly; but it will be seen that they were far from neglecting the fcriptures.