out perceiving that they have felt the difficulty of reconciling the Ante-Nicene doctrines with their own. Gilbert Clarke mentions it, rather as a fact deserving of praise, that the Socinians were the only persons who candidly acknowledged that the early writers did not agree with themselves. Socinus rather insinuates, than openly asserts, that his own party did not profess an agreement in doctrine with the Ante-Nicene Fathers; and he always allows that these early writers speak of Jesus as the Son of God, existing before the world, of the substance of the Father.-(Respons. ad Vujeki 11, p. 617. It is notorious, however, that many of his own party did make this appeal. Socinus himself wished to evade the difficulty by acknowledging no authority but that of Scripture. And it is well known, that the confession of faith which was drawn up at the Council of Nice, A.D. 325, asserts unequivocally that Jesus Christ was from all eternity God of God, of one substance with God the Father. No doubt was ever entertained as to this being the doctrine which was held by a large majority of the Fathers assembled at that Council; neither can there be any doubt, but that this has been the professed doctrine of the Catholic Church ever since that time. There is, in fact, no necessity for my consulting any Post-Nicene authorites, when I wish to ascertain what were the sentiments of the Primitive Church, What I have to enquire is, whether the Fathers who lived nearest to the Apostolic times, and whose works remain, believed that Jesus Christ was God, or that he was merely man. For every candid person will surely allow, that notwithstanding the plain declarations of the Fathers assembled at Nice, yet if the writers who preceded them held a different doctrine, and did not believe in the consubstantiality of the Father and Son, there would be great reason to suspect the soundness of the articles subscribed at Nice.

The

The Council of Antioch was held, A.D. 269 or 270: and after many sittings, this Council condemned Paul of Samosata of heresy. Before, however, they proceeded to this step, they addressed a letter to him, in which their object was to give Paul a summary of their religious creed, which, as they say, "had been preserved in the Catholic Church from the time of the Apostles to that day." This letter is too long for me now to transcribe in this work. Fathers begin with professing their belief in one uncreated invisible God; after which they go on to say, "We acknowledge and preach that this begotten Son, the only begotten Son, is the image of the invisible God, begotten before all creatures, the wisdom and word and power of God, who was before the worlds, God not by foreknowledge, but in essence and substance Son of God, as we have known him in the Old and New Testament," &c. &c. I should advise you to carefully examine the whole of this letter.— Concil. Antioch Epist. ad Dionysium et Maximun.

Another letter is also preserved by Eusebius (7, 30, apud Routh. Reliq. Sacr. 11, 477), which was written by this same Council to Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, and Maximus, Bishop of Alexandria, in which the Fathers give an account of their Faith; and towards the end of it there is a declaration of their sentiments upon the question in dispute:"God who clothed himself with and bore our human nature, was neither without a participation in these passions, which are properly and primarily human; neither were the actions, which are properly and primarily divine, excluded from the human nature, in which he was, and which he made the instrument of performing these actions. Properly and primarily he was formed as man in the womb; and God was in the womb in a secondary sense, being substantially united to the human nature."-(Apud Routh. Reliq. Sacr. 11, 485.)

LETTER XIX.

ON UNITARIANISM.

TO THE REV. CHARLES LE BLANC.

REV SIR,

As Unitarians maintain that Unitarianism was the belief of the Primitive Church before the Council of Nice, I assert that it was not, and this I shall prove from the writings of the Holy Fathers of the first, second, third, and fourth centuries. But as the quotations from their writings, would be too voluminous for a small volume, I will confine myself to giving a few quotations from the Fathers in each of the first four centuries, and refer you for further proofs to their writings in each of these ages preceding the Council of Nice.

St. Ignatius, who testifies that he himself saw Jesus Christ in the flesh after his resurrection, who was afterwards a disciple of the Evangelist St. John, and was by him made Bishop of Antioch in the year 68, which Church he governed from that time till his glorious martyrdom at Rome in the year 107, says, Epist. ad Smyrnæos, p. 1: "I glorify Jesus Christ the God who hath given you so great wisdom-who was truly of the race of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God. I saw him in the flesh after his resurrection, and I believe him to be truly alive."-p. 7: “Ye have done well towards Philo and Reus, and Agathopus,

who followed me in preaching the word of God, by receiving them as the ministers of Christ our God; and they now return thanks to God for you."-Epist. ad Polycarpum, p. 16: "" Salute him whom you shall send into Syria. I pray that grace in Jesus Christ our God may be with him in all things."-Ep. ad Ephesios, p. 21: "There are some who with a wicked deceit bear about, or preach, the name of Christ, but do some things unworthy of God. These it behoves you to avoid as you would wild beasts. For they are mad dogs who bite privily: and it behoves you to guard against them, being difficult of cure. There is one Physician, who is both a corporal and a spiritual Physician; begotten and unbegotten; made according to the flesh, who was the immortal God and the true life; Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of Mary, and was also born of God. First passible, and then impassible."-p. 27: " According to the disposition of God's providence, Jesus Christ our God was conceived by Mary, who was of the race of David; but his conception was by the power of the Holy Ghost. God manifesting himself in a human form, for our renovation to eternal life."-And p. 29, he calls Jesus Christ, "The Son of Man, and the Son of God."—Ep. ad Magnesios, p. 33: "I exhort you to do all things in concord and the love of God, the Bishop presiding as holding the place of God, the Priests as holding the place of the Apostles, and the Deacons who are very dear to me, having committed to them the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before all ages, and at length appeared."p. 34: "Be not led astray by heterodox opinions.-For if we now live according to the Jewish Law, we confess that we have not received the Law of Grace. For the most godly prophets lived according to Jesus Christ. For which reason, being inspired by his grace, they endured persecution, to testify to the incredulous that there is one God, who

hath manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his Eternal Word, who did not proceed from silence, and who in all things was well pleasing to him who sent him.”— In the former of these passages he expresses the preexistence of the Son of God before the creation of the world; and in the latter condemns the doctrine and practice of the Ebionites, who asserted the necessity of living according to the Jewish Law.

See Josephus, the Jewish historian, who lived in the Apostolic age (Lib. 18, c. 4). See Pliny the younger, a Pagan. Pliny's Letter to Trajan.-This Letter of Pliny is mentioned by Tertullian in Apologetico, c. 2, p. 3.

St. Polycarp was, like St. Ignatius, a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, and was by him made Bishop of Smyrna, about the year A.D. 96, which See he governed till the year 166, when he suffered a glorious martyrdom for the faith of Christ. After which the Church of Smyrna wrote a letter to the Churches of Pontus, wherein they relate that when the martyr was dead, Nicetus, at the instigation of the Jews, desired the Proconsul not to let the Christians have the body, "lest they should forsake Christ, and begin to worship Polycarp." This is a plain proof that the Jews who stimulated Nicetas to suggest this motive for refusing the body, believed the Christians worshipped Christ, and believed him to be God. Nor did the Christians deny this opinion of the Jews to be true. On the contrary, in the same letter they say: "The Jews did not know that we can never forsake Christ, nor ADORE any other. For we worship him as being the Son of God; but the Martyrs are deserving of our love as being his disciples and imitators." -(Apud. Euseb. L. 4, hist. fol. 39.)

See St. Justin in his First Apology, p. 11, and p. 122; also his Second Apology, p. 13. See also his Dialogue with Triphon the Jewish philosopher. (Biblioth. Patr.