and Do I. The faith of the Ebionites 22, perhaps of the CHAP. Nazarenes 23 was grofs and imperfect. They XXI. revered Jefus as the greatest of the prophets, The endowed with fupernatural virtue and power. Ebionites They afcribed to his perfon and to his future reign cetes. all the predictions of the Hebrew oracles which relate to the fpiritual and everlasting kingdom of the promised Meffiah 24. Some of them might confefs that he was born of a virgin; but they obftinately rejected the preceding existence and divine perfections of the Logos, or Son of God, which are fo clearly defined in the Gofpel of St. John. About fifty years afterwards, the Ebionites, whofe errors are mentioned by Justin Martyr with lefs feverity than they feem to deferve 25, formed a very inconfiderable portion of the Chriftian name. II. The Gnoftics, who were diftinguished by the epithet of Docetes, deviated into the contrary extreme; and betrayed the human, while they 22 The fentiments of the Ebionites are fairly stated by Mofheim (p. 331.) and Le Clerc (Hift. Ecclef. p. 535.). The Clementines, 'published among the apoftolical Fathers, are attributed by the critics to one of thefe fectaries. 23 Staunch polemics, like Bull (Judicium Ecclef. Cathol. c. 2.), infift on the orthodoxy of the Nazarenes; which appears lefs pure and certain in the eyes of Mofheim (p. 330.), 24 The humble condition and fufferings of Jefus have always been a ftumbling block to the Jews. "Deus... contrariis colori"bus Meffiam depinxerat; futurus erat Rex, Judex, Paftor," &c. See Limborch et Orobio Amica Collat. p. 8. 19. 53–76. 192-234. But this objection has obliged the believing Christians to lift up their eyes to a spiritual and everlasting kingdom. 25 Juftin. Martyr. Dialog. cum Tryphonte, p. 143, 144. See Le Clerc, Hitt. Ecclef. p. 615. Bull, and his editor Grabe (Judicium Ecclef. Cathol. c. 7. and Appendix), attempt to distort either the fentiments or the words of Juftin; but their violent correction of the text is rejected even by the Benedictine editors. afferted CHA P. afferted the divine, nature of Chrift. XXI. Myfte TIOUS 02 ture of the Trinity. Educated in the fchool of Plato, accuftomed to the fublime idea of the Logos, they readily conceived that the brightest on, or Emanation of the Deity, might affume the outward fhape and vifible appearances of a mortal 26; but they vainly pretended that the imperfections of matter are incompatible with the purity of a celeftial fubftance. While the blood of Christ yet smoked on Mount Calvary, the Docetes invented the impious and extravagant hypothefis, that inftead of ifluing from the womb of the Virgin 27, he had defcended on the banks of the Jordan in the form of perfect manhood; that he had impofed on the fenfes of his enemies, and of his difciples; and that the minifters of Pilate had wafted their impotent rage on an airy phantom, who seemed to expire on the crofs, and, after three days, to rife from the dead 2. The divine fanction, which the Apostle had bestowed on the fundamental principle of the 26 The Arians reproached the orthodox party with borrowing their Trinity from the Valentinians and Marcionites. See Beaufobre, Hift, du Manicheifme, 1. iii. c. 5. 7. 17 Non dignum eft ex utero credere Deum, et Deum Chriftum . non dignum eft ut tanta majeftas per fordes et fqualores mulie. ris tranfire credatur. The Gnoftics afferted the impurity of matter, and of marriage; and they were fcandalized by the g ofs interpretations of the fathers, and even of Auguitin himself. See Beaufobre, tom. i. p. 523. 28 Apoftolis adhuc in sæculo fuperftitibus apud Judæum Chrifti fanguine recente, et bantama corpus Domini afferebatur. CoteJerus thinks (Patres Apoftol. tom. ii. p. 24.) that thofe who will not allow the Docetes to have arifen in the time of the Apofties, may with equal reafon deny that the fun fhines at noon day. Thefe Docetes, who formed the moft confiderable party among the Gnoftics, were fo called, becaufe they granted only a feeming body to Chrift. 5 theology XXI. theology of Plato, encouraged the learned profe- CHA P. lytes of the fecond and third centuries to admire and study the writings of the Athenian fage, who had thus marvellously anticipated one of the most furprising discoveries of the Christian revelation. The refpectable name of Plato was ufed by the orthodox 29, and abufed by the heretics 30, as the common fupport of truth and error: the authority of his skilful commentators, and the fcience of dialects, were employed to justify the remote confequences of his opinions; and to supply the discreet filence of the infpired writers. The fame fubtle and profound questions concerning the nature, the generation, the distinction, and the equality of the three divine perfons of the myste rious Triad, or Trinity ", philofophical, and in the Alexandria. were agitated in the An eager spirit of curiofity urged 19 Some proofs of the respect which the Christians entertained for the person and doctrine of Plato, may be found in De la Mothe le Vayer, tom. v. p. 135, &c. edit. 1757 ; and Bafnage, Hilt. des Juifs, tom. iv. p. 29. 79, &c. 30 Doleo bona fide, Platonem omnium hæreticorum condimen~ tarium factum. Tertullian. de Anima, c. 23. Petavius (Dogm. Theolog. tom. iii. proleg. 2.) fhews that this was a general complaint. Beaufobre (tom. i. I. iii. c. 9, 10.) has deduced the Gnostic errors from Platonic principles; and as, in the school of Alexandria, those principles were blended with the Oriental philasophy (Brucker, tom.i. p. 1356.), the sentiment of Beaufobre may be reconciled with the opinion of Mofheim (General History of the Church, vol. i. p. 37.).· 3 If Theophilus, bishop of Antioch (see Dupin, Bibliotheque Ecclefiaftique, tom. i. p. 66.), was the first who employed the word Triad, Trinity, that abftra&t term, which was already familiar to the schools of philosophy, must have been introduced into the theology of the Chriftians after the middle of the second century. VOL. IIL Y them CHA P. them to explore the fecrets of the abyfs; and the Zeal of the fatisfied with the fcience of words. But the most fagacious of the Chriftian theologians, the great Athanafius himself, has candidly confeffed 32, that whenever he forced his understanding to meditate on the divinity of the Logos, his toilfome and unavailing efforts recoiled on themselves; that the more he thought, the lefs he comprehended; and the more he wrote, the lefs capable was he of expreffing his thoughts. In every ftep of the enquiry, we are compelled to feel and acknowledge the immeafurable difproportion between the fize of the object and the capacity of the human mind. We may strive to abftract the notions of time, of fpace, and of matter, which fo closely adhere to all the perceptions of our experimental knowledge." But as foon as we prefume to reafon of infinite fubftance, of fpiritual generation; as often as we deduce any positive conclufions from a negative idea, we are involved in darknefs, perplexity, and inevitable contradiction. As thefe difficulties arife from the nature of the fubject, they opprefs, with the fame infuperable weight, the philofophic and the theological difputant; but we may obferve two effential and peculiar circumftances, which difcriminated the doctrines of the Catholic church from the opinions of the Platonic school. I. A chofen fociety of philofophers, men of a Chriftians. liberal education and curious difpofition, might 32 Athanafius, tom. i. p. 808. His expreffions have an uncom mon euergy; and as he was writing to Monks, there could not be occafion for him to affes a rational language. any 7 L XXI. filently meditate, and temperately difcufs, in the c HAP. 33 In a treatise, which profeffed to explain the opinions of the an- 34 Tertullian. in Apolog. c. 46. See Bayle, Dictionnaire, au mot Simonide. His remarks on the prefumption of Tertullian are profound and interefting. Y 2 tions 1 |