"But I will desist. Paul, undoubtedly, had wrong views, and views very difterent from those which the Scriptures inculcate. But his adversaries also appear to have embraced more than one error, and they had not sufficiently precise and clear ideas on the subject they dis- cussed. These statements, derived from the best and most credible documents on the subject, if carefully ex- amined and compared together, will give us easy access to the real sentiments of Paul of Samosata. The system he embraced, so far as it can be ascertained at the pres-
ent day, is contained in the following propositions: 1. God is a perfectly simple unit, in whom there is no divi- sion into parts whatever ! 2. Therefore, all that common Christians teach respecting different persons in God, an eternal Son of God, and his generation from eternity, is false, and should be corrected by the Holy Scriptures. 3. The Scriptures speak indeed of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But those texts must be so understood as not to militate with the clearest and most certain doc- trine of both reason and Scripture respecting the unity oi the divine nature. 4. The Son of God mentioned iu the Sci iptures is merely the lieason {\6jm) and Wisdom [lin- (TTj'j/uii) of God. Those who have trauslated the Greek writers concerning Paul into Latiu (De Valois, Petavius, and others) commonly render the Greek word \6yoi by the Latin word Verbum. This is wrong. From the epis- tle of the bishops at Antioch to Paul, it is clear that he understood by Xo'^o^ the divine Wisdom. Heuce this Greek word is equivalent to the Latiu word ratio. Marius Mer- cator, whom many follow {De Anathtmatismo A'estoriano, iu his 0pp. ii, 128, ed. Garnerii), erroneously says: 'Ver- bum Dei Patris, nou substautivum, sed prolaticum, vel impteratimim, seusit Samosateuns.' But Paul did not rec- ognise the word Trpoi^ofXKoi' (prolativum) ; and by the word Aii^o? he intended the Wisdom or the Reason ofGod, as is manifest from Epiphauius (p. 713), who, it must be con- fessed, is not always sufficiently accurate (llmres. Ixv,
609): Ao^oy vofjLtlC^ovai co<j)iav, oiov bv ^vxtj ui^puiirov tKaCTOS
exci X0701/. 5. This Reason of God was at rest in him from eternity, and did not project or attempt anything exterior to God. But when God determined to create the visible universe, this Reason in a sense proceeded out from God, and acted exteriorly to God. On this account, in the Scriptures, it is metaphorically called the Son of God. 6. The S2>irit is Ihnlpower which God possesses of producing and animating all things at his pleasure. Itlirst received the name of spirit when it manifested itself iu the cre- ation of the world; and it is so called because it may be compared to the wind or the breath, which produces mo- tions iu the air. When it excites pious emotions in the souls of men, it is called the Holy Spirit. 7. Theiefore, until God entered on the creation of the world, and op- erated externally, there was neither any Son of God nor any Holy Spirit. Yet both may, in a certain seuse, be promuinced eternal, because they eternally existed in God. 8. When God would make known to men a way of sal- vation superior to that of Moses, he, by means of that eternal jMwer of his, which gives life and motion to all things, and which is called the Hoh/ Spirit, begat, of the Jewish Virgin Mary, that very holy and most i)erfect man Jesus: and this man, because he was begotten by the power of God, without any intervening agency, is also called the Son of God ; just as a house receives the name of its builder (see Dionysius, Epistle to Paul, nt sup. p. 274). 9. This extraordinary vian, though he was more holy and more noble than any other mortal, yet lived and acted iu the way and manner of other men, aud was sub- ject to all the wants and frailties which are incident to our nature. All the things which he either did or suffer- ed prove clearly that he was a mere man. 10. But to en- able him to perform the functions of a divine ambassador, without fiiilure (for, as a man, he was liable to eriors and defects), that same divine Reason, which jiroceeded forth, as it were, from God at the time the world was created, joined itself to his soul, and banished from it all igno- rance on religious subjects and all liability to failure. At what time, iu the opinion of Paul, the divine Koasou or Wisdimi became associated with the soul of Christ, I do not find stated. I can suppose that the advent of the Reason or Word of God to he made Christ was delayed till the commencement of his public functions; becaiise, previously, tlie man Christ did not need the aid of this eternal Wisdom. 11. This presence of the divine Wisdom (which is nothing difTerent from God himself) in the man Christ, makes it proper that this man should be, and he is, called God. Athanasius (De Sunodis, in Ojy). ii, 739) : Oi uTTo llai'Aou TOU Sa^tocruTeo)? Xt^ovrai, Xpiarov ixnepov (p. 714) jUtfTft Ti/u f:vav^pcoTrt}criv tK TrpoKoirrti- Te^eoTroiria^at, Tip Ti/i' (jivaiv \)/i\nv liv^poivuv 76->oiti'ai. 12. It will be no uiistake, then, if we say there are two Sons of God, and that thei e were iu Christ two I'Troo-TncreH, or two distinct separately existing things, two forms or Trpoawna. 13. But we must be careful uot to commingle and confound the acts of these two Sons of God. Each acts alone, and without the other. The divine Reason, with no co-opera- tion of the niau, speaks by Christ, instructs, discourses, sways the minds of the auditors, and performs the mira- cles. On the other hand, the man, with uo co-opera- tion of the divine Reason dwelling in him, is begotten, is hungry, sleeps, walks, suffers pain, and dies. 14. At length, when the man Christ had fulfilled his mission, the divine Reason left the man, and returned to God. Epiphauius (Hoercs. Ixv, § 1, p. COS): <t»io-i nai'/Aof- 'EX^wi/ 6 Xd^o? t'vrpjriae /uoi/ov, Kat ai/rjX^e Trpo? rov iraTt-pa. ThlS