The very next writer we meet with after Irenæus, viz. Tertullian, afferts, contrary to him, that it was not Chrift, but only the human nature of Chrift that fuffered. This voice, fays he, "My God my God why haft thou forfaken me," "was from the flesh, and foul, that is, the man, " and not the word, or fpirit; that is, it was not "of the God, who is impaffible, and who left the "Son while he gave up his man to death*.' What could any of the Docetæ have said more? Arnobius expreffes himself to the same purpofe. Speaking of the death of Chrift, with which the chriftians were continually reproached, "That death," fays het, "which you speak of, (c was the death of the man that he had put "on, not of himself, of the burthen, not of the "bearer t." Hilary, who wrote after the council of Nice, went even farther than this, and maintained at large, that the body of Chrift was at all times incapable of feeling pain, that it had no need of refreshment by meat and drink; and that he eat and drank only to fhew that he had a body. *Hæc vox carnis et animæ, id eft hominis, non fermonis, non spiritus, id est non dei, propterea emiffa eft, ut impaffibilem deum oftenderet qui fic filium dereliquit dum hominem ejus tradidit in mortem. Ad Praxeam, cap. xxx. p. 518. + Adverfus Gentes, lib. i. p. 22. Mors illa quam dicitis affumpti hóminis fuit, non ipfius, geftaminis, non geftantis. "Could "Could that hand," fays he*, "which gave an "ear to the man that Peter fmote, feel the nail "that was driven through it? and could that "flesh feel a wound, which removed the pain of "a wound from another?" Later writers, indeed, did not follow Hilary in this extravagance, but Epiphanius says†, that Christ, in his death upon the cross, suffered nothing in his divinity. This too is the language of those who are called orthodox at this day. But how this is confiftent with their doctrine of atonement, which fuppofes an infinite fatisfaction to have been made to the justice of God by the death of Chrift, does not eafily appear. * Lib. x. p. 244. + Hær. xx. Opera, vol. i. p. 49. F 2 SECTION SECTION V. An Account of the Unitarians before the Council of Nice. BEFORE I proceed to the Arian controverfy, I must take notice of thofe who distinguished themselves by maintaining the proper humanity of Chrift in this early period. That the chriftian church in general held this doctrine till the time of Victor, was the conftant affertion of those who professed it about this time, and I think I have fhewn that this was true. One of the first who distinguished himself by afferting the fimple humanity of Chrift, was Theodotus of Byzantium, who, though a tanner, is acknowledged to have been a man of ability, and even of learning. He is faid to have been well received at Rome, and at first even by Victor the bishop of that city, who afterwards excommunicated him. About the fame time, appeared Artemon, from whom those who maintained this opinion were by fome called Artemonites; but it appears from from the writings of Tertullian, that they were more generally called Monarchists, from their afferting the proper unity of the divine nature, and the fupremacy of God the Father with respect to Chrift. By their enemies they were called Patripaffians, because they were charged with afferting that the Father was fo united to the perfon of Chrift, as even to have fuffered with him. But Lardner treats this as a calumny*. It should feem, however, that some of them went fo far (fince Tertullian fo particularly quotes it as their own language †) as to say that the Father felt compaffion for his fuffering Son. But this language might be used by them in a figurative fenfe, in which fenfe various paffions are in the scriptures afcribed to God. Beaufobre thinks them to have been intirely free from this imputation, and imagines it to have arisen from their adverfaries, defignedly or undefignedly, mixing their own ideas with theirs, and especially confounding the two terms Logos and Son of God. In confequence of this, when the unitarians afferted that the Father and the Logos were one perfon, they would of course charge them with maintaining that the Father suffered in the Son. Indeed, Tertullian, as Beaufobre observes, contradicts himself when he charges the * Hist. of Heretics, p. 413. † Ad Praxeam, Sec. xxix. p. 518. ↑ Vol. i. p. 539. F 3 unitarians unitarians with this opinion, because in other parts of his writings, he exprefsly fays that they believed the Father to be impaffible*. Praxeas the Montanist, and a man of genius and learning, against whom Tertullian writes, was an unitarian; and fo probably were many others of that fect t. For their peculiar opinions and practices, as Montanifts, had no relation to any particular opinion concerning the nature of Christ. It is very evident that about this time the unitarians were very numerous in all parts of the christian world; and as they were not distinguished by having affemblies feparate from those of other christians, which Mofheim allows, their opinion certainly could not be deemed beretical. It is even acknowledged that many of these unitarians (though none of their writings are now come down to us) were men of science. They are particularly said to have been addicted to geometry, and are also said to have treated questions in theology in a geometrical method; but no particulars of this kind are now known to us. It is very poffible that this circumstance (which is mentioned by their adverfaries by way of reproach) might have arifen from their endeavouring to fhew that if the Father, the Son, and the * Vol. i. p. 534. † Lardner's Hift. of Heretics, P. 398. Holy |