398 DOCTRINE OF THE DOCETES. [CH. XXI. accustomed to the sublime idea of the Logos, they readily conceived that the brightest aon, or emanation of the Deity, might assume the outward shape and visible appearances of a mortal;* but they vainly pretended that the imperfections of matter are incompatible with the purity of a celestial substance. While the blood of Christ yet smoked on mount Calvary, the Docetes invented the impious and extravagant hypothesis, that instead of issuing from the womb of the Virgin,t he had descended on the banks of the Jordan in the form of perfect manhood; that emanating from the Deity, had, by uniting itself to a material nature, contracted an alliance with the principle of evil. This was their reason for rejecting the real human nature of Jesus Christ. (Walch. Hist. of Heresies. Germ. edit. vol. i, p. 217. Brucker. Hist. Philos. tom. ii, p. 639.)-GUIZOT. [Some modifications of Platonism had undoubtedly been made in the course of four centuries, especially by the New Academy; but its fundamental principles remained the same, and to a certain extent, even the school of Aristotle was but one of its branches. In the Augustan æra, this philosophy became more widely known, and had more various constructions put on its mysterious doctrines. This, as observed in a former note, gave rise to Gnosticism, in the fifty subdivisions of which there must have been such a medley of opinions, that some might be picked out of them to suit any theory. We must look only at the broad facts of the case. If Mosheim's idea had been correct, Gnosticism ought to have prevailed most in Palestine. Instead of this, its adherents "were almost without exception of the race of the Gentiles;" they were the most anti-Jewish, too, in their notions, denying the "divine legation" of Moses, disputing and even ridiculing many portions of the Hebrew scriptures, and severely criticising the history of the people. On the other hand, he has greatly overrated the influence of oriental philosophy, which few but himself have been able to perceive. (See the note of his English translator, Inst. of Ecc. Hist. vol. i, p. 68.) Some infusion of it there may have been. But when Manes tried this more copiously, it was a secondary object with him to form a Christian sect; his first was, to construct a Christianity which the Persians might receive. (Beausobre, 1. 2, c. 2, p. 179.) It can then have been only from various constructions of their own philosophy, that "the most polite, the most learned, and the most wealthy" of the Christian Greeks derived those tenets, to which the appellation of Gnosticism was given. If, at an after period, Ammonius Saccas conformed to any of these his New Platonism, which is apparently the later change alluded to by M. Guizot, this indicates more clearly the original source.-ED.] *The Arians reproached the orthodox party with borrowing their trinity from the Valentinians and Marcionites. See Beausobre, Hist. du Manichéisme, l. 3, c. 5—7. Non dignum est ex utero credere Deum et Deum Christum... non dignum est ut tanta majestas per sordes et squalores mulieris transire credatur The Gnostics asserted the impurity of matter and of A.D. 97.] DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 399 he had imposed on the senses of his enemies, and of his disciples; and that the ministers of Pilate had wasted their impotent rage on an airy phantom, who seemed to expire on the cross, and after three days to rise from the dead." The divine sanction which the apostle had bestowed on the fundamental principle of the theology of Plato, encou raged the learned proselytes of the second and third centu ries to admire and study the writings of the Athenian sage, who had thus marvellously anticipated one of the most surprising discoveries of the Christian revelation. The respectable name of Plato was used by the orthodox,t marriage; and they were scandalized by the gross interpretations of the fathers, and even of Augustin himself. See Beausobre, tom. ii, p. 523. Apostolis adhuc in sæculo superstitibus apud Judæam Christi sanguine recente, et phantasma corpus Domini asserebatur. Cotelerius thinks (Patres Apostol. tom. ii, p. 24,) that those who will not allow the Docetes to have arisen in the time of the apostles, may with equal reason deny that the sun shines at noon-day. These Docetes, who formed the most considerable party among the Gnostics, were so called, because they granted only a seeming body to Christ. [The name of Docetes was not given to these sectaries, till some time in the second century. It did not properly designate a sect so called, but was applied to all the sects that held the natural body of Jesus Christ to be unreal: such were the Valentinians, the Basilidians, the Ophites, the Marionites, against whom Tertullian wrote his Treatise, De Carne Christi,and some other Gnostics. A sect of Docetes is indeed expressly mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus (Stromat. 1. 3, c. 13, p. 552,) and one Cassianus is named among its leaders; but all circumstances concur to make us think that this was not a separate sect. Philastrius (de Hæres. c. 31) reproaches Saturninus for being a Docete. Irenæus (adv. Hæres. c. 23) condemns Basilides for the same. Epiphanius and Philastrius, who have fully particularized each heresy, make no special mention of any Docetes. The bishop of Antioch, Serapion, (Euseb. Hist. Ecc. 1. 4, c. 12) and Clemens Alexandrinus, (Stromat. 1. 7, p. 900) seem to be the first who used it as a generic name; it is found in no earlier record, although the error which it designated existed in the time of the apostles. (Walch. Hist. of Heresies, vol. i, p. 233. Tillemont. Mém. pour servir à l'Hist. Ecc. tom. ii, f. 50. Buddæus. de Ecc. Apost. c. 5, § 7.)-GUIZOT.] [Gibbon's words do not imply, that the Docetes were a separate sect, but that the term denoted the holders of an opinion, common to the largest portion of the fifty sects into which Gnosticism was divided. The early origin and philosophical character of these variations of Christianity are here placed beyond all doubt.— ED.] + 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, v. 135, &c. edit. 1757; and Basnage, Hist. des Juifs, iv, 29, 79, &c. [They studied the Greek philosophers before they became Chris tians, and used them in training others to believe. Examples of this 400 THE CHRISTIAN LOGOS. [CH. XXI and abused by the heretics, as the common support of truth and error: the authority of his skilful commentators, and the science of dialectics, were employed to justify the remote consequences of his opinions, and to supply the discreet silence of the inspired writers. The same subtle and profound questions, concerning the nature, the generation, the distinction, and the equality, of the three divine persons of the mysterious Triad, or Trinity,† were agitated in the philosophical and in the Christian schools of Alexandria. An eager spirit of curiosity urged them to explore the secrets of the abyss; and the pride of the professors, and of their disciples, was satisfied with the science of words. But the most sagacious of the Christian theologians, the great Athanasius himself, has candidly confessed, that whenever he forced his understanding to meditate on the divinity of the Logos, his toilsome and unavailing efforts recoiled on themselves; that the more he thought, the less he comprehended: and the more he wrote the less capable was he of expressing his thoughts. In every step of the inquiry, we are compelled to feel and acknowledge the immeasurable disproportion between the size of the object and the capacity of the human mind. We may strive to abstract the notions of time, of space, and of matter, which so closely adhere to all the perceptions of our experimental knowledge; but as soon as we presume to reason of infinite substance, of spiritual generation; as often as we deduce any positive conclusions from a negative idea, we are involved in darkness, perplexity, and inevitable contradiction. As these difficulties arise from the nature have been given in former notes, to which many more might be added. --ED.] * Doleo bona fide, Platonem omnium hereticorum condimentarium factum. Tertullian. de Anima, c. 23. Petavius (Dogm. Theolog. tom. iii, proleg. 2) shews that this was a general complaint. Beausobre (tom. i, 1. 3, 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 philosophy (Brucker, tom. i, p. 1356), the sentiment of Beausobre may be reconciled with the opinion of Mosheim, General History of the Church, vol. i, p. 37. + If Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, (see Dupin, Bibliothèque Ecclésiastique, tom. i, p. 66,) was the first who employed the word Triad, Trinity, that abstract term, which was already familiar to the schools of philosophy, must have been introduced into the theology of the Christians after the middle of the second century. Athanasius, tom. i, 808. His expressions have an uncommon energy; and as he was A.D. 97.] THE CHURCH AND THE PLATONIC SCHOOL 401 of the subject, they oppress, with the same insuperable weight, the philosophic and the theological disputant; but we may observe two essential and peculiar circumstances, which discriminated the doctrines of the Catholic church from the opinions of the Platonic school. I. A chosen society of philosophers, men of a liberal education and curious disposition, might silently meditate, and temperately discuss, in the gardens of Athens, or the library of Alexandria, the abstruse questions of metaphysical science. The lofty speculations, which neither convinced the understanding, nor agitated the passions, of the Platonists themselves, were carelessly overlooked by the idle, the busy, and even the studious part of mankind. But after the Logos had been revealed as the sacred object of the laith, the hope, and the religious worship of the Christians, the mysterious system was embraced by a numerous and increasing multitude in every province of the Roman world. Those persons who, from their age, or sex, or occupations, were the least qualified to judge, who were the least exercised in the habits of abstract reasoning, aspired to contemplate the economy of the divine nature; and it is the boast of Tertullian,† that a Christian mechanic could readily answer such questions as had perplexed the wisest of the Grecian sages. Where the subject lies so far beyond our reach, the difference between the highest and the lowest of human understandings may indeed be calculated as infi nitely small; yet the degree of weakness may perhaps be measured by the degree of obstinacy and dogmatic confidence. These speculations, instead of being treated as the amusement of a vacant hour, became the most serious business of the present, and the most useful preparation for a future life. A theology, which it was incumbent to believe, which it was impious to doubt, and which it might be dangerous, and even fatal, to mistake, became the familiar writing to monks, there could not be any occasion for him to affect a rational language. * In a treatise which professed to explain the opinions of the ancient philosophers concerning the nature of the gods, we might expect to discover the theological trinity of Plato. But Cicero very honestly confessed, that although he had translated the Timæus, be could never understand that mysterious dialogue. See Hieronym. præf. ad 1. 12, in Isaiam, tom. v, p. 154. + Tertullian in Apolog. c. 46. See Bayle, Dictionnaire, au mot Simonide. His remarks on the presumption of Tertullian are profound and interesting. VOL. II. 2 D 402 DIVERSITY OF OPINIONS, [CH. III. topic of private meditation and popular discourse. The cold indifference of philosophy was inflamed by the fervent spirit of devotion; and even the metaphors of common language suggested the fallacious prejudices of sense and experience. The Christians, who abhorred the gross and impure generation of the Greek mythology, were tempted to argue from the familiar analogy of the filial and paternal relations. The character of Son seemed to imply a perpetual subordination to the voluntary author of his existence; but as the act of generation, in the most spiritual and abstracted sense, must be supposed to transmit the properties of a common nature, they durst not presume to circumscribe the powers or the duration of the Son of an eternal and omnipotent Father. Fourscore years after the death of Christ, the Christians of Bithynia declared, before the tribunal of Pliny, that they invoked him as a God; and his divine honours have been perpetuated in every age and country, by the various sects who assume the name of his disciples.§ Their tender reverence for the memory of Christ, and their horror for the profane worship of any created being, would have engaged them to assert the equal and absolute divinity of the Logos, if their rapid ascent towards the throne of heaven had not been imperceptibly checked by the apprehension of violating the unity and sole supremacy of the great Father of Christ and of the universe. The suspense and fluctuation produced in the minds of the Christians, by these opposite tendencies, may be observed in the writings of the theologians who flourished after the end of the apostolic age, and before the origin of * Lactantius, 4.8. Yet the Probole or Prolatio, which the most orthodox divines borrowed without scruple from the Valentinians, and illustrated by the comparisons of a fountain and stream, the sun and its rays, &c. either meant nothing, or favoured a material idea of the divine generation. See Beausobre, tom. i, L. 3, c. 7, p. 548. Many of the primitive writers have frankly confessed, that the Son owed his being to the will of the Father. See Clarke's Scripture Trinity, p. 280-287. On the other hand, Athanasius and his followers seem unwilling to grant what they are afraid to deny. The schoolmen extricate themselves from this difficulty by the distinction of a preceding and a concomitant will. Petav. Dogm. Theolog. tom. ii, 1. 6, c. 8, p. 587-603. See Petav. Dogm. Theolog. tom. ii, 1. 2, c. 10, p. 159. S Carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem. Plin. Epist. 10.97. The sense of Deus, Oròs, Elohim, in the ancient languages, is critically examined by Le Clerc (Ars Critica, p. 150-156), and the |