ondemned, and the separate congregations of his disciples were
proscribed by the Imperial laws. But his principles were secretly
entertained in the monasteries of Egypt, and his enemies felt the
hatred of Theophilus and Cyril, the successive patriarchs of Alexandria.
[Footnote 17: This strong expression might be justified by the language
of St. Paul, (1 Tim. iii. 16;) but we are deceived by our modern Bibles.
The word which was altered to God at Constantinople in the beginning of
the vith century: the true reading, which is visible in the Latin and
Syriac versions, still exists in the reasoning of the Greek, as well as
of the Latin fathers; and this fraud, with that of the three witnesses
of St. John, is admirably detected by Sir Isaac Newton. (See his two
letters translated by M. de Missy, in the Journal Britannique, tom. xv.
p. 148--190, 351--390.) I have weighed the arguments, and may yield to
the authority of the first of philosophers, who was deeply skilled in
critical and theological studies. Note: It should be Griesbach in loc.
The weight of authority is so much against the common reading in
both these points, that they are no longer urged by prudent
controversialists. Would Gibbon's deference for the first of
philosophers have extended to all his theological conclusions?--M.]

[Footnote 18: For Apollinaris and his sect, see Socrates, l. ii. c. 46,
l. iii. c. 16 Sazomen, l. v. c. 18, 1. vi. c. 25, 27. Theodoret, l. v.
3, 10, 11. Tillemont, Memoires Ecclesiastiques, tom. vii. p. 602--638.
Not. p. 789--794, in 4to. Venise, 1732. The contemporary saint always
mentions the bishop of Laodicea as a friend and brother. The style
of the more recent historians is harsh and hostile: yet Philostorgius
compares him (l. viii. c. 11-15) to Basil and Gregory.]

V. The grovelling Ebionite, and the fantastic Docetes, were rejected and
forgotten: the recent zeal against the errors of Apollinaris reduced the
Catholics to a seeming agreement with the double nature of Cerinthus.
But instead of a temporary and occasional alliance, they established,
and we still embrace, the substantial, indissoluble, and everlasting
union of a perfect God with a perfect man, of the second person of the
trinity with a reasonable soul and human flesh. In the beginning of the
fifth century, the unity of the two natures was the prevailing doctrine
of the church. On all sides, it was confessed, that the mode of their
coexistence could neither be represente