It is body of a man; fo that what appears "new to you is old with God *." also very prudently and pertinently obferved by Maximus Taurinenfis, "Whofoever is difpofed to examine the works of God, " rather than believe them, is influenced by “the flesh, and not by the spirit. Where 66 fore, my brethren, let us not difcufs in "what manner God is born of God, but "let us believe it. Nor let us retract the "miraculous conception, but admire; that acknowledging the only begotten Son of "God to be both God and man, we may "hold the true heavenly faith unblame"ablet." To the fame purpose Ifidore * Quid mirum modo, fi virginis habitavit utero, qui mulierem hominis fumpfit ex latere? Ipfe hominem mulieris refumfit ex utero, qui virginem viri formavit ex corpore; ac perinde, homo, quæ tibi videntur nova, deo habentur antiqua. Ser. 145. p. 372. + Omnis ergo qui opera dei magis vult examinare quam credere, non fequitur animæ fenfum, fed carnis errorem. Et ideo, fratres! non difcutiamus, qualiter deus de deo natus eft, fed credamus: nec retractemus partum virginis, fed miremur ; ut unigenitum dei deum et hominem confi. tentes, inoffenfam teneamus cœleftis fidei veritatem. Opera, p. 195. VOL. IV. M alfo alfo fays, "Behold therefore a man from "the earth, and a woman from a man, and "both without the conjunction of sexes*." The conception of Chrift by a virgin, is, no doubt, within the power of God, who made man originally; but as miracles are never wrought without a reason, and where a great and good end is to be anfwered by them, we ought not lightly to give credit to accounts of miracles for which we cannot imagine any good reason, and the very report of which is calculated to expofe chriftianity to ridicule, without any neceffity, or conceivable advantage. Whether the hiftory of the miraculous conception of Christ be so circumftanced, as that the evidence in favour of it is able to overbear the force of this objection, and the many others that have been ftated in this chapter, let the reader now judge. All these, it is to be obferved, are the objections of Jews or heathens, and the Ιδε εν ο ανήρ εκ της γης και η γυνη εκ τ8 ανδρος, καὶ αμφότεροι της συνουσίας χωρις. Epift. 141. p. 43. anfwers answers apply only to the light in which it was confidered by them. What any chriftians, who equally difbelieved the miraculous conception, faid to it, we are no where told, though we find that they published their objections. That the learned Symmachus in particular wrote against this doctrine, we are informed, but we find not a fingle quotation from the book, or that it was ever answered; and yet it is not said that it was undeferving of an answer. The filence of the chriftian Fathers on this fubject will be differently interpreted, as perfons are differently difpofed with refpect to the doctrine itself. All the circumstances confidered, it appears to me that fo truly refpectable a perfon as Symmachus writing against the miraculous conception, in fo early a period (as early, probably, as the belief of it came to be general) and that no perfon answered his book, are both of them remarkable facts, and both unfavourable to the truth of that part of the history. Two of our gofpels, indeed, contain the account, but it was not in the gospel that M 2 was BOOK III. was received by Symmachus, and the rest of the Ebionites ; and this they, who were certainly the best judges in the case, maintained to be the authentic gofpel of Matthew. Had the work of Symmachus been extant, or had the reasons of Paulus Samofatenfis and his followers (whofe opinion was probably that of the ancient Gentile unitarians in general) for believing that Jesus was born at Nazareth, and not at Bethlehem, been tranfmitted to us, together with the remarks of their adverfaries, we fhould, no doubt, have been in poffeffion of materials on which we might have founded a more decifive opinion than we can pretend to do at prefent. Wanting thefe important ma-terials for forming a decifive judgment, let us not be wanting in candour in a case in which all we can fay is, that one probable opinion is opposed to another lefs probable. THE THE HISTORY OF CONCERNING CHRIS T. BOOK IV. OF SOME CONTROVERSIES WHICH HAD A NEAR RELATION TO THE TRINITA RIAN OR UNITARIAN DOCTRINE. CHAPTER I. Of the Arian Controverfy. W E have no account of any thing, in the whole compafs of ecclefiaf tical history, that ever occafioned a greater revolution in the theological state of the world, than the doctrine of Arius; and the revolution was equally fudden, and lafting. Within much less than the life of |