quemdam hominem, Platonicorum libros ex Greca lingua in Latinam versos. Et ibi legi, non quidem his verbis, sed hoc idem omnino multis et multiplicibus suaderi rationibus, quod in principio erat Verbum,“ &c. It is observed, that CHrysostom speaks as much againf Plato as Augustin for him: Dacier solves the difficulty by saying, that Augus- tin, &c. commend the doctrines of Plato, as leading to Christianity, and preparing the mind for it: and Chrysostom, &c. reprobate the morals of Plato; not as be bad, but as claiming to equal the morals of Christianity, and render Christianity needless. — | (Dac. disc. on Plato, p. 13. English.)—Dacier ob- serves, that, when the Jewish Pr . ceased, Plato arose. To what height some persons have carried their notions of him, one may see in Dacier’s ac- count of Marsilius Ficinus; (Engl. p. 159, also p. 141, about Augustin, &c.) where Dacier disclaims Plato’s foretelling the sufferings of Christ. (p. 5. and 6.)—IT doubt not but there are very noble doc- trines in Plato, and fine and charming sentiments; but these are scattered, dispersed; and mixed with many things strange (if not immoral, p. 51. 52. Dacier), fanciful, unintelligible: so that very dif- ferent sorts of men might be Platonisls, as they took their notions and feelings from the better or worse parts of Plato’s writings. — Cicero, Mr. Gib- bon observes, did not, in his Book de Natura Deo- rum, take notice of any Platonic Trinity. He might consider the idea as too indefinite, and rank it amongst the Platonic unintelligibles. (Plato de-

[…]

Some! Infidels have affected to call all Christians Platonists; as if they had no doctrines, or but few,

relating

Voltaire, Quarto, Vols. 24. 26. 27, See Contents. From whom Mr, Gibbon seems to take his opinion, Vol. il. 4to. p- 2 37 &c.

BOOK Iv. ART. I. SECT. 1. 217

relating to the nature of God, except what they had derived from Plato:—of this we shall take no farther notice at present than to observe, that the mere charge must make the knowledge of Plato’s notions interesting to the learned Christian.

[ will now mention a few Trinities such as Mr. Voltaire takes, as I remember, from Plato’s Timaus chiefly, and from his other works; Parmenides; Epinomis: —If I wished to make any nice deduce tions from them, I should certainly refer you to the original; but that would detain us a longer : time, without making us amends.

Unbegotten®, auro «Yayo first meiderfiandiog+- first Life. _ First cause—Reason—animal life or Spirit.

Plan (Voltaire’s Interpretation) — execution— animation.

Aoyos cud x Nr Word internal— Aexes ee Word external, — World, or Spirit of World.

God Word World.

Power Wisdom — Goodness.

Indivisible - Divisible - both Indivisible and Di- visible.

Demiurge— Idée Archetype Universal Mind. This serves to shew in what manner Plato runs into Triads; his ear, or his fancy, not his reason,

I should think, led him into thele” .— There 18

more

mn Pope has, First good, first perfect, and first fair,—or some-

thing near that. And there is something to the present purpose,

Dacier, p. 140—The Christian Fathers believed, that Plato had an idea of the ‘Trinity, p. 141.

N. B. Our references to Dacier, are to his accounts of Plato, prefixed to his Translation of some sele& Dialogues into French: the pages may be those of an Erngli/h Translation from his French.

n See Theoph. Antioch. p. 81. Oxon. 1684. |

o Epiphanius treats the ancient Heathen Seas of Philosophers as so many here/ies; at the beginning of his Book of Herefies.

In ng of Plato, he ws, that he held a first ar, A second, and a third,

218 BOOK IV. ART. I. SECT. 1.

more foundation in reason, in his Triad relating to the Mind: according to Cicerob,

Ratio, — Ira, — Cupiditas.

But his ear and fancy are very much guided by numbers, as any one may see in his Timzus?; or in Diogenes Laertius.

As I mean to avoid controversy with eas: to Plato, on his very indefinite notions about the Deity, I will only farther mention a few things, which seem to have been in a 125 measure, if not wholly, agreed upon.

It seems agreed, that Plato (of Athens, about 430 years before Christ), when he professed but one God, has spoken of him making ule of the number three”.

It teems allo agreed, that this notion of a Triad in the Divinity was not kis own originally; but from whom he derived it, is disputed. Infidels say, from Timeus, who might derive it from Orpheus: the orthodox say, from the eros; either immediately, or through the medium of Pythago- ras and Parmenides“: some include Pherecydes.

It seems also agreed, that Plato had not disiuct ideas, or a fixed system, on this matter. —* De Platonis inconstantia longum est dicere”.” —His bene seems to have been rich, and his feel-

ings 2 Tusc. Disp. I. 10. Smith’s Theory of moral eee has, I think, something to the purpose. Dacier, p. 121.

Many Authors might be consulted on Plato: as Diogenes

Laertius, Plutarch, Maximus Tyrius, Proclus, John * Crispus, Cudworth, Brucker.

ings warm, which must have greatly affected his disquisitions on mysterious and sublime subyeQs. Any one may say this, and yet admire. his Apology of Socrates;—as any one may neglect the natural ohilofophy of Aristocle, and yet adimire his Poetics and Rhetoric. I can conceive, that it a have been a de- lightful thing to have lived with this Philosopher ; (Plato), the friend and disciple of Socrates; fo. ear- nest in his researches after knowledge, so sweetly

chearful, so warmly benevolent; fo enriched with

ideal beauty, so strong and powerful i in reasoning!

it. We will now pass on to notions ascribed to Jews, The word Elohim, or Aleim, having a plu- ral termination, and being used with a verb fnga-

lar*, has been! thought to denote some kind of

plurality in the Duty of God. And the Cherubin *

overshadowing the Ark, have been thought sym-

bols of the Trinity. Moreover, it has been 8 argued, © that the Jews before Chirists times, ac-

cording to the received expofitions of the Old

Testament, derived from their Fathers, had a no-

tion of a plurality of persons in the unity of the Divine Essence; and that this plurality was a Tri-

nity.” The old Jewish Books or writings adduced, as containing the received sense, or as proving

what it was, are some of our Apocryphal Books,

the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, &c. the

Chaldce e and the writing of Philo.

I would

2 Allix, Chap. 1. p 6. :

d Philo has a sort of Trinity near the beginning of his work about Names, which he compares with the three Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;—this cannot have been the idea, or at least not the comparison, of Plato. O be; TWY Teiwv PUT wy

0108TXANGS, 6 $046THT0s ac un las.

it =, — ry, + ” I’ by # Ko ,

220 BOOK iv. ART. 1. SECT. 111.

• I would here also avoid controversy if possible, as-carrying us too much out of our way; therefore I will suppose, that grammatical criticism leaves it in doubt, whether the words of the Hebrew Lan- guage do clearly imply a Trinity in the Unity; yet I would be permitted to observe, that there is a something in the Old Testament, rather varying from the grand fundamental peculiarity of the Mo- faic religion, the Unity of God ; —and that obscure ’ Notices are suitable to the nature and genius of a preparatory dispensation; and therefore, that there might be an obscure intimation of a Trinity. The coming of the Messiah is not the less certainly foretold, because it was at first foretold obscurely : how common it is to have the name of the Su- preme Deity a plural, the linguist must determine: Vas the general end of the religion of Moses was to separate the chosen race from Polythei/?s, the teachers of it must have had some particular end in view, in not always using those names of God, which were of the singular number.

111. Having then taken some notice of notions of a Trinity ascribed to Heathens and Jews, I come to the Christian doctrine. The question here is, whether the Christian doctrine is an original one, or borrowed from the Platonists in Agypt?—W hat Mr. Gibbon says, may seem to come too near the subject of the second Article to be dwelt on here; but yet his main point is the Trinity: This quet- tion an infidel would answer one way, a believer another. An Infidel would say, the doctrine is

borrowed ; St. John was conversant in Platonic wri- tings, adopted Platonic notions, with the term Logos, and applied them to Christ: nor does it avail to urge, that he was conversant only in Jer writings; for those old Jewish writings, which 1

BOOK IV. ART. I. SECT. 111. 221

call Apocryphal, and the Paraphrases of the Old Testament, were all formed (says the Infidel) in the Platonic © school of Alexandria; and that 1s also the source of the notions and language of Philo, On the contrary, a believer would say, the Christian doctrine is not borrowed from any school whatever; it is revealed, and cannot bse called the

less original for having been obscurely intimated |

under the Mosaic dispensation, whether by the construction of words, or by tradition, partly writ-

ten, partly oral. It is not probable, that St. John*,

a Fisherman, read Plato or his followers; or that he read even Philo: the term he uses, Logos, was

in common ule amongst * his countrymen; and,

though it was to be found in some writings, which

might have been composed since the time of Plato, yet it was used by Jews, before Plato was Horns. Here a Traffic between Judaism and Platonism is

acknowledged on both hands; and the only ques-

tion is, which was the lender, and which was the

borrower 9—perhaps, on such a question, the proofs being at a great distance, each fide will retain its

Own 4 Gibbon, Vol. ii. Quarto, p. 238. © ‘This is an argument in the character of an Orthodox; as to possibility, one does not see why one, who could write such an History as St. John’s Gospel, in Greek, might not possibly read Platonic writers, or even Plato himself, in the original; or Philo; but we should consider, whether leisure would allow it; or circumstances made it probable: — John was a young man, engaged in a constant occupation; of an incurious country; rather likely to despise heathens, than read them; he knew

Greek as a general language, but he was no Hellemist : nor ever lived near Alexandria. |

_* Tillotson on John i. 14. | 1 J /uppose our present Chaldee paraphrases may not be much older than Christ ; but then they are looked upon as expressing traditional ideas of very remote antiquity; ideas at least as old

as the return from Chaldea: under Nehemiah: about 3 5 A.

Chr. see Allix. Chap. ii. p. 27. Plato died 348 before Christ, æt. 8 1. Blair. | | nts ON RY TREAT

222 ook IV. ART, 1. SECT. 111.

own opinion; yet it may be worth a few words to state the ground of ours.—That St. John got his _ notions immediately from Jes, and Jewish writers, and Chaldee paraphrases, will scarcely, I think, be disputed: the question will be, whence did eilt writers get their notions? We fay, that Plato most probably borrowed from the Jews: waving particular passages, it seems best to observe, that this is more likely than that the Jews should borrow any of their more important doctrines from Plato: 1. Because Judaism had been established above a thousand years before Plato lived. 2. Because Judaism was a national religion, Plato’s only what may be called a personal one; it is more likely, that a private man should hear of and adopt the religion of a nation, than that a nation should hear of and adopt the tenets of an individual 3. Plato was curious and inquisitive after different religions; the Jews were incurious. He travelled into Ægypt on purpose to study religion; to such an inquirer, Judaism must have been always within reach in Ægypt.— He travelled into Italy; and where the Pythagorean doctrines were so well | known as they were in Magna Grecia, the Jewish would not probably be wholly unknown. 4. It 1s

allowable to say, that, {supposing any one con- vinced

h Dacier’s Plato, Engl. p. 7. 8. 34. 72. 83. 94. (called - gyptian) 100. 123. (woman made out of man) 141. 142, &c. 146. Pherecydes and his scholar Pythagoras mentioned as bringing wisdom into Greece from the East, and from Ægypt; p. 67. Pherecydes a Syrian; Pythagoras’s country uncertain.

Here might be placed Numenius’s observation, T. ye «5» Haar n Mwong a rr; © What is Plato but Moses in Greek?” Numenius was a Pythagorean Philosopher: time un- certain: he might live before Christ. —See Lard. Test. Chap. xxxv. (Works, Vol. viii. p. 168.) called by Porphyry a Pla- tenic, Philosopher: —he used writings of Moses and the Pro- phets, and allegorized some of them; as seems clear from Ori- gen, Ibid, |

BOOK IV. ART, 1. SECT. 11T. 223

vinced of the divine origin of the Religion of Mo- ses, such an one could not think that religion the

borrower, in any thing fundamental; and, if ever religion could prove zt/elf divine, by its mere sub- sistence, the Jewish did’; a spiritual religion single

in the midst of idolatries; a religion founded on the unity of God, surrounded on all sides by va-

rious species of polytheism; its professors no higher

in philosophy or arts, than their neighbours :— a// Fews and Christians therefore must believe, that revealed Religion did not borrow its doctrine of a Trinity from Heathenism; and every proof of the

truth of the Mosaic or Christian Religion, must

operate as an argument on our fide of the present

question. But this is not the place for proving the

truth of the Mosaic religion: —let us rather then observe, that, to require us to prove how Plato

borrowed of the Hebrews, is unfair; he might,

and yet it might be impossible for us to tell how, at this time. Neither is it at all likely, that we

should be able to ascertain the manner, in which

different religions in remote times mixed together;

we do not say, Plato was a Jew, or adopted the

Mosaic religion systematically: we only say, he borrowed from that as well as other religions: but we do not pretend to point out the particular man- ner, in which the Egyptian and Oriental philo- sophy, the tenets of Pythagoras and Plato, derived perhaps from Timzus, Parmenides, Pherecydes,

and one knows not how many. more, mixed them-

selves in Agypt*:—an ingredient, more or less, might make a great difference; and each ingre-

client

1 Something ofthis we had occaon. ta produce beford.. B. 4. Chap. xv1. Sect. v111. |

• That the Egyptian and Oriental philosophy were much

the same, was observed in the Appendix to the first Book.

Sect. XII, i | 55

224 BOOK IV. ART. 1. SECT, 111.

client might be infused in a great variety of pro- portions: Religious tenets, and fo also political opinions, get mixed and blended together before our eyes, in modern life, till we can analyse none of them exa&tly,—Nevertheless, we may conceive, that, if the Jews, in Egypt, or elsewhere, found that Plato, or his followers, admired, imitated, or in any part adopted their religion, they would be much inclined to favour his: —and his religion is of so noble and captivating a nature, as to tempt both Jews and Christians, of more lively imagina- tions and warm affte&ions, to ix its tenets with their own. Fry 13 The conclusion seems to be, that we may ven- ture to proceed in our old path; and look upon Plato as having borrowed from Judaism, or, at least, on Judaism and Christianity as not having borrowed from Plato, though Jews and Christians have mixed some degree of Platonism with Judaism and Christianity, And this method of regarding the subje&t must make us consider our own doc- trine of the Trinity as coming immediately from Hann.. 1 . We may well claim it as our own, on the foot- ing of its being a single one, and of a determinate fort; Plato was aiming at fsomething®, he knew not what; and made a number of different Trinities, as his ear or fancy led him; and, if we had fol- lowed the ear, or the imagination, we also should have had a multitude of Trinities; but ours is one, and only one.—His were formed out of his 1ma- gination, ours arises out of the nature of the thing, „ according The Dissenters in England, popularly so called, have run through a great many variations in opinion: the expression carried about by every wind of Doctrine,“ implies such un- Readiness. m Dacier’s Discourse on Plato, p 9. expresses this prettily, relative to his aiming at something indistinctly.

BOOK Iv. ART. 1. SECT. 111. IV. 225

according to . of reason and utility. God would instruct and protect mankind, in their re- ligious capacities; who are to appear as principals in such an undertaking? —First, he who is the fountain of all good; next, that personage whom he commissions as actual frufor, who is to be of the same species with those he instructs; and lastly, a perpetual agent, who is to promote with constant assiduity the proper effects, the success of the instruction: the Sovereign, the Inftrufor, and the Resident, are the persons to be chiefly distin- guished, according to all the dictates of common sense, whether their number pleased the ear, as a Triad, or not“. : We have given into an argument relating only to St. John, as if he alone laid down the doctrine of the Trinity; as a Trinity, the other evangelists lay it down equally, and indeed proofs of the Di- vinity of the several persons are taken from St. Paul more than from St. John.—But, while we are only comparing the Christian with Heathen notions, the Divinity of the Persons does not seem to make a part of our considerations. —Yet the Divinity of the several persons 1s a principal matter in the Christian Religion, and that is signified in many parts of Scripture which, taken separately, give no idea of a Trinity. 1 5 iV. We now come to the inquiry, whether in any sense it may be asserted, that the doctrine of the

2 Suppose a Sovereign wanted to civilize a newly discovered Island, would not these characters or persons be natural? and supposing it practicable, not hindered by the perverseness and wickedness of man, for the Son of the Sovereign to go to the Island and make one with the Islanders, would not that be best ? and every resident or vicegerent, though a common man, is 22 as constantly communicating with both Sovereign and subjects.

226 BOOK IV. ART. 1. SECT, IV.

the Holy Trinity did not exist till the fourth cen- tiry ?—There can be no doubt but that, if we wave the dignity of the Persons, who composed the Trinity, and only speak of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as making a Triad, without considering them as 1n the Unity of the Godhead, there was a Trinity from the earlięst times of Christianity, In the New Testament, these three are introduced jointly forty-eight times, according to Dr. Samuel Clarke’s enumeration. And it does seem, that the word Trinity was at first used for mere conve- nience, to avoid a repetition of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; as the word Triumvirate was used to avoid the repetition of Pompey, Cæsar, and Cras- sus; or of Octavius, Anthony, and Lepidus.— The very early use of Doxologies confirms this, as well as the form of Baptism. Our question properly is, whether, before the fourth Century, the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost was acknowledged m that distinct and full manner, in which it is now acknowledged; and whether the Divinity of ’ the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, was publicly, distinctly, and expressly recognized, and combined with the Unity of the Godhead, in the fame man- ner, in which it is at present ?

When I fir? read Lectures upon this Article, it appeared to me, that the Doctrine of the Tri- nity had scarcely reached such maturity, and got such general establishment in the Church, before the fourth Century: but a controversy between Dr. Priestley and some eminent persons of our Church, on the antiquity of Doctrines by which the Socinians are distinguished from us, occasioned some diffidence: I read some parts of it; but not the whole, so as to form a judgment of every ar- gument made use of; however, I attended the more

carefully * In 1781.

BOOK Iv. 227

carefully to the expressions made use of by such ancient Christian writers as fell in my way. If my principal business was now merely that of an His- torian, I should consider the controversy more exactly; at present I can only lay, that I do not seem to have changed my opinion in any great de- gree; if at all. . My general idea was, that the early Christians took words and phrases of Scripture, and, by the

idance of good feelings and plain sense, used | eg in right circumstances, without forming spe- culative propositions out of them, or combining them into systems, or even syllogisms. They might therefore, in some sense, be said to know the doctrines, and profess them; but, in.some sense, they might be said not yet to have moulded them into perfect form. I conceived, that controversy during the first three centuries had been the occa- fion of their being examined with a view to /pecu- lative truth; of errors being rejected one after ano- ther, till e tans had at length been ascertained.

Being not free Gam doubt about a thing so little admitting of precision, I was glad to meet with a passage from Augustin, (born about the middle of the fourth Century) which seemed to express my own opinion. Multa Jatebant in Scripturis, et cum præcisi essent (excommunicated) Heretic, questionibus agitaverunt Ecclesiam Dei. Aperta sunt quæ latebant, et intellecta est voluntas Dei. Numquid enim perfectè de TRINITATE tractatum est antequam oblatrarent Ariani’? Numquid per- fectè de Penitentid tractatum est antequam obsiste-

kent

» Tertullian FC to have dee with the Unitarians (Praxeas, &c.) properly about the 77inity; but this was contro-

ver y; and then Aug, lays, numquid perfectꝰ? Aug. must have known all Tertullian’s writings: both Africans.

F2

rent Novatiani? Sic non perfectè de Baptismate tractatum est, antequam contradicerent foris positi,

rebaptizatores. Nec de Unitate Christi (of the body

or Church of Christ), nisi posteaquàm separatio illa

urgere cæpit Fratres infirmos“.“

This passage will give me courage to proceed.

Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, (placed as flourish-

ing in the year 181), uses the word Trinity or Tri- ad. He is speaking of the fix days of the Creation; the first three, he says, are types of the Triad, God, his Word, and his Wisdom*; the fourth is a type of

man: the reason he assigns is, because, during the first three days, there were no Luminaries; God, his Word, and his Wisdom, wanted none. On the fourth, the luminaries were made, which were {suitable to Man. But we find Aoyor eoyf vregya*: and I think there is not sufficient reason for callin

this Triad, our present Trinity in its full form. It seems rather to answer the description given above*; | and not to be more explicit than Father, Son, aud Holy Ghost. And the more fanciful the occasion of introducing, it, the lets precise are the ideas to

be deemed, which are annexed to it. The word Tes would not convey to Autolicus, or to any

reader of Theophilus, what the word Trinity would to us, 1

It

4 This passage is quoted in Forbes’s Instruct. Histor. Theol. 8. 20. 4. (but be aware of false prints in the numbers) the little omissions are his.

r Ad Autolicum, Lib. 2. p. 106. Ed. Ox. 1684.

P. 81. Edit. Oxon, 1684. See also p. 9. where Theoph. seems to make @ws, Ng, WIe, Oo, only attributes of the dupreme God. |

t At the beginning of this Section. 1

u H. Stephens does not, in his Greek Lexicon, refer, under Teas, to either Plato or Philo. Mr. Gibbon says, p. 242, Note 31, that Teixs was already (before 181) “ familiar in the Schools of Philosophy.” It is not in Du Cange. It zs in Suicer, OT | |

BOOK IV. ART. I. SECT». IV. 229

It would confirm the general notion just now mentioned, to conceive /ow it is likely, that con- troversy should bring the Doctrine of the Trinity into its present form: after what has been said, it is natural to ask, if the Doctrine of the Trinity was not immediately taken from Scripture, when Christians iu studied it, how did it become gene- tal? The Scriptural expressions concerning the Father, when compared with those concerning the Son, and with those concerning the Holy Spirit; and with those texts, which strongly insist on the Unity of God, must occasion difficulties. Men would not be content to use the expressions separately, as the Scriptures do, but would bring them together, and endeavour to make a Sy/em out of them, so as to fokve all difficulties. They could seldom do this without getting into other difficulties, which would be opposed, and in return defended. One man, fearing to infringe upon the fundamental doctrine of all rational religion, the Unity of God, would neglect all distinction of persons; this Sabellius and those called Patripassians, Praxeas, &c. are supposed to have done; and so to have taught ove God with free names. Another, convinced that the Scrip- tures make a distiuction between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and seeing that distinction in a strong light, in order to secure it, makes a subordination : makes the Son * subordinate to the Father, and the Holy Ghost to the Son: this did Arius. A third, shocked at the idea of an inequality, de- termines, that the Son must be equal to the Father, and the Holy Ghost to the Son; and insists upon

1 this

The Apologist for Origen mentioned by Photius, Cod. 11. imputes his having made the Son unequal to the Father, to his _ zeal against the error of Sabellius ; — and says, that Origen’s

other errors were owing to a like cause. See Cave’s Account of the Doctrines of Origen. Hist, lit, 1. p. 115.

“3

• 1 — * 2 […] 5 […] N - a […] 1

— q

« [te […] 222 2 4 ——

230 BOOK IV. ART. 1. SECT. IV.

this in such unqualified terms, as to constitute in eftect three distinct Gods. This some of those Fa- thers are said ? to have done, who are commonly called Orthodox. When the moderate and reason- able Christians saw men running into error in thele different ways, they would naturally endeavour to

check them: and the expressions, which they fixed

upon in order to answer that end, would contain

the doctrine of the Trinity as we now profels it.

Thelse expressions would serve to retain those within the Society of the Orthodox, who were tractable,

and keep them from being carried to and fro with

every wind of doctrine: and would keep the in- tractable at a distance, so that they would breed no confusion. Whatever of this sort was carried on in the three first centuries, seems to have occa- sioned no difurbance till the fourth.

Bishop Burnet says“, that © this doctrine” © was universally received over the whole Christian Church,

long before there was either a Christian Prince to

support it by his authority, or a Council to establish it by consent.” The first Christian Prince was Con- fantine the Great, who from 306 gradually increased his protection of the Christians, but did not give

it fully, till about two or three years before the

Council of Nice, held in 325. He was not bap- tized till a few days before his death, in 337.— The Council alluded to by Bishop Burnet, mult be the Nicene. He does not say, before the Christians had a Council, —but, * before they had a Council to establish it by consent; ” meaning, I ys 0g | general Council: the word * received” fcems to want explaining: if the Doctrine was received as

VIS a Wy an

2 Bp. Burnet, towards the close of the first Article. p 49.— Octavo.

BOOK IV, ART. 1. SECT. IV. 231

an established Doctrine, why was it not put in some Confession of Faith, or stated by such Councils as were held before the fourth Century? The Doc-

trine was far from being received, in this sense: nay, in my opinion, even the Nicene Council did

not e/fabli/h the Doctrine of the Trinity, though it might that of the Divinity of Christ. Indeed Bi- shop Burnet * owns, that the Doctrine of the Tri- nity can only be deduced from the Nicene Creed as a consequence.— But drawing a consequence, in things above our reason, is making a new Doctrine: what indeed is making any doctrine, but drawing a consequence from some expressions of Scripture? —{ometimes, in order to make a doctrine, one need not go so far: one need only arrange expres- fions. If, by a doctrine’s being“ received,” 1s only

meant its being mentioned in writings, or the

parts of it, from which it may be made up; I suppose, the Doctrine was received in that sense.— At the time of the Nicene Council, many expres- fions were probably to be found in © Books, denoting

the relations of the several Persons of the Trinity

to each other: fliation, generation, or possibly even Procession, were expressed in one way or other: — the question is, whether, in any public confession of Faith, they found the Trinity in Unity, exactly as we e profess it? T. ertullian, in his controversy with Praxeas

F. 49. OGavo.

o For instance, arranging Packer: Son, and Holy Ghost, (as

they are not always in the {ame order in Scripture) is making Doctrines about their precedence. The notion of Paul of Samosata, placed in 260, seems too indistinct to found Hi upon: it relates only to Christ : and Paul abjured or recanted his heresy: however, Councils did meet: a good deal seems to turn on Paul’s private character; which was probably misrepresented. He is more particularly mentioned, Art. 11. Set. vr.

P 4

{

; — bp bw, N , , * L * 1. q An 3 ith a 4 q * F ”

232 BOOK IV, ART. I. SECT. Iv.

Praxcas the Unitarian* „comes the nearest itf, if not quite up to it; but, supposing one writer, in controversy, to hit of expressions a sew times con- taining the very doctrine afterwards professed pub- licly ;—that falls far short of that doctrine being

solemnly professed in a Church, though it is a /tep

towards it: there are many sayings in modern con- troversial writers, which are estimated no higher than the illustrations of a private man; and are

not admitted into any Confessions, Creeds, Articles,

Catechisms; and yet they may represent the sense of Scripture very justly: — But, till notions are pub- licly professed, the generality of men are ignorant of them: and it is not known for certain, whether

such notions ever will become doctrines, properly so called. Controversy may more properly be said to

be bringing the Doctrines into form, than to have already established them. Warburton says true things in controversy, which cannot be called re- ceived doctrines; as, that there is no promise of a future late in the dispensation of Moses.

Bing ham® says several things of weight, to prove the early reception of the Doctrine of the Trinity; but perhaps nothing more forcible than that the

Orthodox were reviled by the Sabellians, and other

Unitarians, as Tritheils. But, does this prove, that the Trinity was fully professed? not entirely. Celsus reviled Christians for being Polytheiis; does it therefore follow, that ey had many objects of

worlhup * |

Cap. 2. 3:13, ee Bingham, Vol. 1. bottom of p. 572. col. 2 13. 3. 4:

f Dr. Priestley thinks, that even Tertullian had not the same

idea affixed to the word T rinity, which we have. Because, though in one passage he speaks as if he had, in others he speaks

as if he had not: whereas, a modern would * as if he had, in all passages. |

Wo 13.4. 25 Ke.

BOOK IV. ART. 1. SECT. IV. 233

worship”? —it seems to prove, that addresses were offered up to Christ; and perhaps to the Holy Spi- rit; but these might be offered in an artless and affectionate manner, without speculative system, or dogmatical precision ; which is all that we call into question. —These very Sabellians, &c. who charged the Catholics with Tritheism, though more open to the charge themselves, were called Patripassians; would they allow that to be a proof, that they really said the Father suffered on the Crois? and that they made no distinction whatever between the Father and the Son? lt is very unsafe to argue upon opprobrious terms; reviling is rhe- toric; moreover, it seems possible, that the Ca- tholics, or orthodox, might restrain the forward- ness of the Sabellians on the one hand, and of the | Arians on the other, before the right dodrine was fully settled: we have supposed, that such restrain- ing was the means of settling the right Doctrine. You may see one man carry a notion too far one way, another run into the opposite extreme; you may pronounce both in fault or error, and yet never determine the right medium precisely. If this be so, the Catholics might, in answer to their opprobrious arguments, be called Tritheists, before the Doctrine of the Trinity could be said to have come to maturity. Indeed, their being called Tri- theists as much proves, that they denied the Unity of God, as that they, properly speaking, professed the Trinity. Besides, it should be considered, that {ome have been really Trithei/ts; and that those, who were so, were as far removed from the true doc- trine of the Trinity as Arians or Sabellians. If we

are

h The e spoke of Christians as Polytheists on account of this Doctrine. Theodoret says, the Trinity was not clearl

revealed to the Jews, lest they 1 2 be 8 8 cee Works, „Index. Trinity.

— i OI IIs nm

234 BOOK Iv. ART. I. SECT. IV,

are to conclude any thing from the Catholics being called Tritheists, why not that they were really Tricheists?

This seems the proper place to mention the Priscilliauisis, they being reckoned a sort of Sabel- lians: but as Mossieim lays, that none of the an- cients have given a satisfactory account of them, and as Larduer found it necessary to collect every thing in antiquity concerning them, in order to get an idea of them, there being no writings of their own extant, I must content myself with a con-

jectural solution of an expression in the Athanasian Creed, which seems to be levelled at their error:

I mean the conclusion, “ So there is one Father,

Not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one

Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.” It seems not improbable, that the Priscillianists, as a fort

of Sabellians, might be represented as so completely taking away all distinction between the Persons of

the Trinity, that it was the same thing to them of which Person any thing was affirmed ; whatever might be affirmed of the Father, nught be affirmed equally of the Son, or of the Holy Ghost: Hence it would be deduced, that a Sabellian Trinity con- sisted of © three Fathers,” or © three Sons,” or e three Holy Ghosts.” The next step to which would be, that the Priscillianists made three Fa- thers, and three Sons, and three Holy Ghosts. At

Teaft, I see no better way of accounting for the ex- pression of rie mTepaxaAnres in the second Anathema

of the Council of Bracara, A. D. 564: or for © Tri- nitas Trinitatis“ in the 49th Apostolical Canon, Hitherto, we have referred more to the second

person of the Holy Trinity than to the Third: we

may therefore take notice of the notion of Erasmus”,

| that the Holy Ghof was not called God till the fourth

Century; if we err with such great authorities as Augustin and Erasmus, we shall suffer no great ditgrace. — We are not indeed now {peaking im- mediately of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, but yet it may be proper here to say something of that Doctrine, as one constituent part of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Bingham’s chief argument against Erasmus 1s, that Adorations were paid to the Holy Ghost long before the fourth Century: it is not here

wholly improper to say, that, though the Holy

Ghost were called God at any time, and were proved to be God; it does not follow, that the doctrine

of the Holy Trinity was professed; for Tritheifts

would allow the Holy Ghost to be God, and they are by no means Trinitarians. But what we would chiefly observe, as being most pertinent to the

observation of Erasmus, and most useful for get-

ting an idea of the History, is, that adorations might be paid to the Holy Spirit, and yet his Di- vinity not acknowledged, as a Dodtrine. From the earliest times of Christianity, high strains of De- votion were used, either to God, without distinc-

tion of persons; or to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, or to the only-begotten Son, or to the Pa-

raclete, which is the Holy Ghost; or to two or all of them: and these were used rightly; in right circumstances; and the connexion and precedence of the several Divine Persons was artless but na- tural, and such as the subject, or the course of the expression, happened to require : without reserve,

without speculation: gratitude, admiration, devout love, kept the understanding from running into dry disquisitions.— When Christians were accused

of the errors of Polytheism, they denied them, and

shewed, that their theory was to worship one God

in Unity; this they said, so long as they were obliged to attend to theory ;—but, at other times, they caught

: — 2 — 4 et LEN

[…] . = ws 2 - —

. In — „ IRE Rr. . […] 7 — — 4 - […] _ l : - +>. nw woo — 4 *. op © BY . — A EE

. oy - a WT © I CT ER — CS „ W

—

5 -£F +

— CT > 4 £7

n =

= ä 8 IMs >, 2 S

[…] nn EO IEEE ems

caught the glorious hymns of Scripture, and ut. tered them fervently; without cold hesitation, or

metaphysical distinctionł.

With regard to the Holy Spirit, it may not be improper farther to add, that what we have as the

original Nicene Creed, contains nothing about the

Holy Spirit, except these words; xa tg To «Yi bebte: from which his Divinity could only be collefted, at most. I know 1t 1s urged, that the remaining part of what we now use as the Nicene

Creed, was only omitted, as unnecessary, because

the dispute with the Arians was only about the Son :—but does not this shew, that a doctrine was

not usually declared and established, till controversy made such declaration needful?

Lactantius, placed in the year 306, seems to speak with some degree of indifference®, as if it were enough for Christians to worship two persons of the Trinity instead of three, the Father and the

Son. Indeed, the objection, which had been made,

did not wore him to introduce the duty of wor-

shipping the Holy Ghost; but yet it would now seem very unnatural and unorthodox to lay, that

we ought to worship the Father and the Son; and then add nothing concerning the Holy Spirit. —

Jerom and others reckon Lactantius not quite right

in his opinions concerning the Holy Ghost; and speak of him as taking what is said of the Holy Ghost, as if it were said of the Father or of the Son; and denying (in effect at least) the Personality

of

& Tt does not follow, supposing the Holy Ghost not to have been called God at first, that he might not have been called so with propriety ; if nocafins had so required,

! For what is here said concerning the Nicene Creed, see Usher de Symbolis, p. 13, and 17. Rutherforth’s a, eh A

Creed, p. 319. = Inst, 4. 29.

BOOK Iv. ART. I. SECT. iv. 237

of the Holy Ghost: that he could do this in 306, without being noticed as an Heretic, confirms our notion, that our doctrine. of the Trinity was not then fully settled. (See Lardner’s Works, Vol. 4. . 60.) , What we are told, with regard to the form of Doxology, seems to make for our supposition: that, till the fourth Century, Christians were permitted either to use our present form, or, © Glory be to the Father, 1n, with, by the Son and the Holy Ghost.” And that no Christian was molested for using that form, which he liked best, till the times of the Arian Controverly®. The Manicsieans had a Trinitye, and they a are considered as flourishing before the end of the third century; but no one will say, that their Trinity is ours; we have allowed, that many Triads have been adopted at one time or other; and that, in {ome sense, Christians always held a Trinity. Some learned men have considered Lucian’s P/1- loparris as a proof, that the Trinity was professed amongst Christians so early as the time of Lucian, who is placed as flourishing in the year 176: but I cannot think this Dialogue really written by Lu- clan, It is unlike his manner: it was written by some one, who knew more of Christians than he appears, irom his other works, to have known.

If it be said, what does it signify by whom it was written, if it was written about Lucian’s time? Tanswer, imitations come after originals: spurious

after genuine; often so long after, that the genuine afford no proof of the time of the spurious. Lard- ner conceives, from the matter of this Dialogue, | „ that

n Bingham, 14. 2. 1. Gibbon, Vol. 2. p. 293. Note.

Broughton’s Dict. Trinity.

o Aug. contra Faustum, Lib. 20. See Lardner’s Works, Vol. 3. p. 459. And Appendix to B. 1. Sect. iv.

that it is more suitable to the fourth century, than . to the age of Lucian; which 1s some confirmation of what we are endeavouring to prove“.

On the whole; though it seems clear, that the materials of the Doctrine of the Trinity were in | some readiness before the fourth century; it may be matter of doubt, whether they were put toge- ther so soon; and che Doctrine perfectly construct- ed. — And explaining such doubt, seems to be the best method of giving the History of the Doctrine.

v. This may be a proper place to remark the difference between the ancient Unitarians and the modern.—The account I should be inclined to give, from expressions found in most * writers, is, that the ancient Unitarians, at the same time that they were alarmed at infringing on the Doctrine of the Divine Unity, or on the Unity of God the Father, had no idea of denying the Divinity of Christ, und so made the Father and Son the fame person. The modern Unitarians, equally shocked at the idea of denying the Divine Unity, secure it

by making the Father and the Son infinitely %

ferent. But Lardner will have it*, that Praxeas only supposed the Divine Nature, (that is, the Di- vine Wisdom, which he thought was the meaning of the Word, in the Man Jesus: who, having been born of a Virgin, by the Holy Spirit, was called the Son of God. To avoid controversy, I will only lay down, that ancient Unitarians made the Son of God, after Jesus had become so by his being conceived of the Holy Ghost, and by the union of the Word with the human nature, much nearer to

equality

P Lardner’s Testimonies, under Lucian; end. Works, Vol. viii. p. 81.

r Lard, Her. Praxeas, Sect. 7, and 8.

BOOK IV, ART. I. SECT. vi. 239

equality with God the Father, than the modern Unitarians do, who conceive Jesus Christ to be no- thing more than a mere man. Nay, 1 think we might go so far as to say, that the ancient Unita- rians exerted themselves to secure the Unity of God, by making the Father and the Son as nearly the same as possible; and that the modern Unitarians try to secure the same fundamental doctrine, ” making the Father and the Son as different as pos- S006 ĩ ĩ ĩ ( . = PoE vi. I must now give a sketch of the History of the Doctrine of this first Article down to the pre- sent time; but I will be very brief. 55 Arianism got to be supported by some of the Roman Emperors, and occasioned wars, till the

end of the 7th Century“: it then became wholly

extinct. The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity prevailed from that time till the Reformation :— Upon great religious revolutions, custom, preju- dice, authority, &c. losing their hold, numbers of

men set up for teachers, and leaders of new sects.

At our Reformation, Socinus, Uncle and Nephew, attacked every thing, which seemed difficult to

human reason; and endeavoured to remove every

mystery, It has been {aid®, that they were induced to do fo, by abhorrence of the slavery to the au-

thority

On review, it seems as if some idea of the Roman Laws (Codex, Lib. 1.) should be given here;—and the beginning of our Reformatio Legum read.

Gibbon, Vol. iii. p. 552, quarto—after the conversion of

the Lombards.— Voltaire, Vol. xiv. Quarto, p. 63, bottom,

says, (negleQing seemingly the distinction between Arians and

cinians) * Le parti d’Arius apres trois cens ans de triomphe, et douze fiecles d’oubli, renait enfin de sa cendre.” But Alliæ, in his Preface to Jews and Unitarians, p. ix. says, Within 150 years, or thereabouts, after their first rise, there hardly re- mained any Professors of it.“ (of the Arian Se&.) — Perhaps Allx might reckon the later Arians too barbarous to be spoken of. Allix, Pref. p x1,

. F ES << — IA — . ͤ v ²³ — — —

Ml ‘F ö b 15 j Love | Ys %

— ES

E —.—

„*

[…] - + ME -

—

240 BOOK 1V.

. thority of the Romish Church, under which reason had long groaned. —At first however, the Socinians

called Christ God, and offered adorations to * him; but this was soon altered, even in the life-time of Faustus Socinus; and since that time, Christ has been, with them, a mere man, and the Holy Spirit no Per son. — They have been so pressed with Scrip- ture, that they have been obliged to have ee to that desperate expedient, of lessening its autho- rity, so rashly made use of by ancient Heretic. At the latter end of the 17th Century, St. John’s

SGospel (or rather the opening of it,) had been at- tributed? to Cerinthus, (the very man, against

whom many persons have judged it to have been written); and, at present, we find the inspiration of Christ and St. Paul? estimated much lower than, as far as I know, they ever before have been, by any writer zealous for the honour of Christianity?. Pretty early in the 18th Century (the present,) there was a very extensive Trinitarian Controversy? Mr. Whiston, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics in Cambridge, maintained what was called Arian- z/m, that the Logos was to Christ in the place of a rational Soul; but this seems to have been the opi- mon of Apollinarius*, Dr. Samuel Clarke was thought not quite orthodox, with regard to the generation of the Son of God, and the procession of the Holy Ghost, which he explained so as to make a greater subordination than some strict Tri- nitarians

x See Racovian Catechism. Y Allix’s Preface. Pr. Priestley’s Letters, mentioned again Sect. x v1. Alt might have been mentioned, that, about the time of the

Reformation Servetus and Valentinus Gentilis suffered death for

their notions about the Trinity this is mentioned under the 2d Article. b Maclaine, in his Notes on Mosheim, gives some account of this Controversy, Vol. vi. 8 vo. p. 40. c See afterwards, Art. 11. Sect XIV.

BOOK IV, ART. I. SECT. Vi. 241 hitarians approved; he was threatened by a Con- vocation in 1714, and his preferment was im- peced: but, I suppose, any one might now preach his doctrine without being thought irregular : he calls the Son and Holy Ghost Divine Persons ; and thinks, that addressing prayers to them is warranted by Scripture*, He seems to differ very little from Bishop Pearson, if at all. Voltaire, with his usual inaccuracy, calls him, “le plus ferme patron de la Doctrine Ariennes. ? 5 = In the summary of the Doctrines of Szwedenborg, we find this account of the Trinity, “ There 1s a Divine Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; or, in other words, of the all-begetting Divinity, the Divine-Humanity, and the Divine-proceeding, or Operation; and that this Trinity consisteth not therefore of three distin& Persons, but is united, as Soul, Body, and operation in Man, in the One Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, who therefore is the God of Heaven, and alone to be worshipped, being Creator from Eternitv, Redeemer in Time, and Regenerator to Eternity.“ mention this no- | Os tion

4 An Apology for Dr. Clarke gives the records.

© It is said, that Clarke’s Book about the Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity prevented Queen Anne’s making him Archbishop of Canterbury, and that Bishop Gibson told the Queen, He is the most learned and honestest man in the Nation; he only wants one thing.” — What is […] to be a Christian.” He once declared, in a Paper laid before the Bishops, that the Son of God was eternally hegetten by the eternal incomprehen- fible power and will of the Father.” —See Waterland’s Arian Subscr. p. 33. FS 5

s Voltaire’s Works, qnarto, Vol. xiv. p. 63.— This makes Voltaire’s confounding Arian and Socinian appear ill: Dr. S.

Clarke was very far indeed from being a Socinian. Vet Arian, it is said afterwards, was a generic term. Art, 11. Sect. vi.

P. 49. | | i Compare this expression with Theodoret’s account of Sa-

bellianism, Her. Fab. 2. 9. it is translated under Lardner’s Dio- nysius of Alexandria: Works, Vol. iii. p 78. VOL, II. |

242 BOOK lv. ART. 1. SECT. vil.

tion chiefly on account of its making the Father no object of our worship; and dropping allo all

worship to the Holy Ghost.

I have no authentic account of the Moraviar notion concerning the Trinity, but, from what ] have seen of their worship, and heard, when at- tending their meetings, of their Sermons and Hymns, I should conclude, that they take but little notice of the Father of Jesus Christ. The English Law, made even since the Revolution, (see : Blackstone, Index, 7 rinity) punishes as Heresy any denial of the doctrine of the Trinity; that is,

either denying any Person of the Trinity to be God,

or denying the Divine Unity. But this Law is not now enforced, though Parliament has refused to repeal | It.

vii. Having finithed the i i/ory of this first Ar- tide, we come to the Explanation of the particular expressions contained in it: but this need not be long. In a System of religious truths, it seems necessary to begin from the Nature of God: so that we might have expected such an Article as the first, had there been no particular occasion for it. It 1s however probable, that the compilers would have in their minds the chief of those, who had denied any of the Attributes of God, as learnt either from natural religion, or revealed —One God may be opposed to two original principles; ** living,” to Idols; © true,” to falle Gods; - the Unity is opposed to all kinds of Gods of Polytheists: © ever- lasting,” to made with hands, deified, and perish- able: © without Body” may also be opposed to Pa- gan Deities; or to Anthropomorphites; « parts,” to thole who thought Christ was * a part of God: without * pash ons” is in Latin impassibilis, which

may k Pearson on the Creed, p 270, first Edit, or p. 135, fol.—

For impartibilis, see Forbes, Vol. i. 1. 34. 3, &c.

• Sv I?

ip 7.7. RCP. VIIT,: ---. £44 may mean incapable of suering, or may be oppuru

to the Patripassians; or those so called. Affirming God to be the Creator, is opposing those, who held matter eternal; and those, who held that the World was created by inferior Spirits, or ons, not commissioned by the supreme benevolent Be- ing: affirming God to be the Preserver, is op- poling Epicureans, and all who should deny a Pro- vidence. The profession of a Trinity in Unity, is opposed to all, who held three Gods, or one God with three names; or who held the Son to be a mere Man, or inferior to the Father, as to his Di- vinity. The word © Person” is not to be under- stood in its usual sense, but as a Term borrowed from common language, and used in a sense not very remote from its usual sense, to express a dis- tinction, which must be expressed in some way, and of which we have no clear comprehension. For the hands, wrath of God, &c. see Book 1. Chap, xIx. Sect. v. about Displeasure. VII. After the explanation, comes the Proof ; ; but here we will confine ourselves to that subject, which is expressed in the Te of the Article’: the Doctrine of the Trinity is all that will at present stand in need of og — A regular proof of this doctrine would consist of fve parts; all taken from Scripture. 1. A proof of the Unity of God. 2. Of the Divinity of the Father. 3. Of the Divinity of the Son. 4. Of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, And the proof, that these might be put together, would make a fifth part.—1. The Unity of God 1s so clear from Scripture, that proof of that is surely needless. 2. The Divinity of the Father, says Bishop ® Burnet, is denied by none. Or, if we conceive

l Bishop Burnet is mentioned, at the opening of this Article, as proving truths of natural religion under it. * Burnet on Articles, p. 50. Svo.

Q 2

244 BUO LV. 141 r 1 eb. a cicere any Christian Mystics to ky it. Wr et

ohly adduce the prayers of Christ to his heavenly Father, as a proof of his Divinity. 3. The Divi- nity of the Sen is to be proved under the second Article; 4. that of the Holy Ghost under the fifth: therefore, 5. nothing remains but to fee the Scrip- tural manner of putting these together; and I know not that we can fee that better, than by reading Dr. Samuel Clarke’s collection of Texts, in which the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are mentioned Jointly. It would appear, from such reading, that a Christian may be permitted to give precedence sometimes to the Son, sometimes to the Holy Ghost, as occasion may require.—If this form of proof seems at first fight imperfe&, I think one might venture to engage, that it will not seem fo, if, aster going through the second and fifth Articles, we return to the point where we now are. J will, therefore, in order to a regular proof, only make one more observation.—l believe many have a notion, that the Doctrine of the Trinity is formed in an arbitrary and prefumptuous manner, by going beyond what is revealed, and taking hu man imaginations for divine instructions or com- mands. My notion differs from this: I believe, that the Scripture is the source of the Doctrine in every part. The scriptural expressions are exa- mined, they are considered as fo many facts or phznomena, which must be consistent, in some way or other, though we know not how. What can be done? what does the best and calmest reasor dictate to be done in such a case, but that we should endeavour to clast these facts or phænome- na, and then ask, whether there is not some /#p- ’ psfition, on which they might all be accounted for? which would make them all unite, so far as to make different

2 The number is 48, as I reckoned them up.

• OE IV. ART. 1. SECT, VIII. 245

different parts of one plan? Ts not this the fame process as solving any phenomenon of nature, by observation and experiment? what other method did Sir Isaac Newton pursue, when he solved the phænomena of the Rainbow 2—he observed the co- Hours, their order, their breadth, the magnitude, the centers of the bows, and so forth; he consi- dered the manner, in which rays of light are affected by passing through globes of water; he formed a supposttion, which should tie all these phœnomena together, and reduce them to one plan: he tried whether it would suit, he formed or heard objec- tions, or, in other words, proved his supposition by controversy; the thing, which at last proved that he was right, was, that a/ appearances came into his plan, and none was left without a place, and as it were a provision. The cafe is the fame with the Doctrine of the Trinity; a number of texts are examined, their consistency is not seen; some supposition is to be formed, which shall bring them all into one plan: and that supposition is to be received as truth, which answers the end*. This is the force of saying, what I say with great al- surance, that, if all expreffions of Scripture, relating to the divine attributes, are classed according to the Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity, they are in- terpreted in the best, most easy, most natural man- ner, according to the soundest principles of Grammar and Criticism; so as they would be interpreted se- parately, if no particular end was in viewz taking each text with its context. = 1x. Having A supposition, which makes all texts consistent, may, no doubt, be posibly a false supposition : It is not /itely to be fo; but it may be so. Vet such an one is to be received for truth, for the present; and to be acquiesced in, in some degree, till some

other hypothesis appears to be preferable to it: Sir Isaac News - ton’s 4th Rule of Philosophizing seems not unlike this, |

1x. Having now gone neun the History,

Explanation, and Proof, it remains, that we make the Application,

The Application will consist of the following par-

ticulars: First, the sense in which a rational Chris.

tian may now be supposed to give his asent, in the

present state of knowledge: — 2. The concessions

which might possibly be made, and the expedients which might be used, on our part, if those who

differ from us were defirous to make peace, and agree upon some terms of union. 3. The conces-

frons and accommodations, which might be required

of Disseuters, in such a case: 4. And, lastly, the

Improvemeizts which might possibly arise srom a

right investigation of our subject.

X. First then, we are to consider in what sense a rational Christian may now give his sent to the first Article of our Church. But here it seems necessary previousiy to reflect on the sense, in which thinking and rational men use some words in speak- ing of che Supreme Eeing. Particularly the words infinite, and divine.

Sometimes, the word infinite has an unphiloso- phical idea affixed to it, as if it expressed something po/itive; but its proper sense is“ negative, as the _ etymology itself declares; it means, without limit: when the mind enlarges number, for instance, and sees, that it can still enlarge, and that there is no appearance of any limit, at which it must stop, it inters infinity of number. The same may be said of power, duration, or even of intimacy of connexion. So that if a man ascribes infinity to any thing, he does no more than express a simple fact; an ope- ration of his mind: he says, that his mind has

attempted

b Locke, B. ii. Chap. xvil. ect. 8. FO cc . 8 of an end.“

a «a

BOOK Iv. AR r. 1. SECT, x. 247

attempted to assign a limit to that thing, but has returned disappointed from the attempt.

If we once quit this simple conception. we run into absurdity; and, though we may despise such kind of absurdity in more gross instances, as when a person talks of an infinitely long tic with a can- dle at the end of it; or of the bottomless pit being paved 3 with scholars’ skulls; —yet it is well, if we keep perfectly clear of all degrees of it ourselves in cases less striking. I myself have heard a preacher, who was by no means deficient in eloquence, speak of an Angel (or some other being) “ flying from

one end of infinite space to the other.?“ In order to obviate mistakes, it may not be im- proper to hint, that when, in mathematics, a quan- tity is called infinitely great, or infinitely small, the expression is to be considered as technical, and is to be explained, by shewing, mathematically, some particular properties in the increase or decrease of such quantities; such as make that increase or de- crease unlimited, in some particular way. And, that when it is said, that the fixed fars are at an infinite distance, it is only meant, that they are at an immense or unmeasurable distance: that is, that men happen to have no measure now known, by which that distance can be ascertained; no line so long, that by its being taken any number of times, the distance of the fixed stars can be made definite: or, the distance of the fixed stars is so great, that no known distance bears any assignable proportion to K. When we say, that a Being is Divine, what is it that passes in our mind? Is it not this? We take all the faculties and excellencies, of which we have

1 Expressions which used to be mentioned amongst young Scholars at Cambridge, as used by a preacher in a Conventicle.

Q 4

248 BOOK IV. ART. I. SECT. x.

any idea, unite them together, consider them as belonging to one Being; we conceive them to be improved, refined, purified, enlarged, to the great- est degree possible; beyond any limit, which we can assign or imagine. The Being possessing these, we account divine: —it is possible he may have other faculties and excellencies, of which we have no conception, but these cannot make part of our

idea of a Divinity.—And, as we acquire an idea of a Divine Being by collecting and uniting his At. tributes, so, if we find instances of such attributes exerted, we ascribe Divinity to the Being, in whom they are found. If there is imperfection in doing so, it lies in the human understanding (as far as we yet know it), not in our use of the powers which

God has given us. These things premised, we may ufe fewer words in our declaration equivalent to our first Article; and make that declaration more simple.— Let it be then something of this kind.

• As to the Existence and Unity of God, when my business is only to interpret his word, I have no difficulty. Nor do I hesitate about his being free from the imperfections and impurities of Boch, (or of whatever is divisible) and the impotencies of hu- man palsions.— And how inadequately soever I may be able ro comprehend his infinite duration, power, wisdom, and goodness, yet I cannot doubt, that they are declared and published in the Holy Serip- tures, or that He 1s there represented as the Creator and Preserver of all things. Indeed, for such opt- mons as these, I shall never have need to separate myself from any religious Society, which is at all rational; and therefore, however important they may be as subjects of meditation, it is needless for me to enter minutely into them, when I am only comparing different interpretations of Scripture;

and 2 B. 1. Chap, 111. Sect. 1.

and that merely as they distinguish one Church from another.? |

But, when it is proposed to me to affirm, that

« In the Unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost;“ I have difficulty enough! my understanding is involved in perplexity, my conceptions bewildered in the thickest darkness: I pause, I hesitate; I ask what necessity there is for making such a declaration. And my difficulty is increased, when I find, that

making this declaration separates me from Chris-

tians, whom I must acknowledge to be rational and well-informed; from those, who have studied some parts of Scripture with singular success,” When I have continued in this state for some time, I recollect, that every man in Society, when knowledge is progressive, may have occasion to go

upon propositions”, which only Beings superior to bimself fully comprehend, for the present :—and 1 see, that, if either such a declaration mult be made,

or some parts of Scripture must be neglected, or

wrested from their natural sense, that then obscu-

rity ought not to deter me from making it; and that I must content myself with lamenting a sepa-

ration, to which I must submit, as without it the ends of religious Society cannot be obtained. Things of a great and solemn nature cannot be recorded in

the Scripture for no end or purpose. All therefore

seems now to depend upon what the Scriptures really

teach.” EE es I search then the Scriptures ;—of the Father I

find many things said, which belong to none but

God.—To the Son and Holy Spirit J find such 7itles

given, as seem to me due only to Divinity; and

moreover such intimacy of connexion with the Father

| | : . 18 f As Mariners calculate by rules, which they do not understand -

Ky

A*

$ \ 8 3, þ x * NH {5% Mt 4p i > + “x

4 a ©

; : 0 — 5 - 4 w_ - — — _ ** . […] Den 2 — - - — 2 —˙;⅛2W³W³3³ĩ — 2 A aa ta — - 3 * * _ hd . F s 4 Fe 2 […] a . pA PE

n 2

2.50 BOOK IV.

is ascribed to them, as I can put no limit to: and

the same is true of the power shewn in their various

acts, and of the duration of their existence. I can conceive no titles above their titles; no intimacy of connexion beyond theirs with the Father; no power above their power, no duration before or after their duration.”

© If I had my choice, I would thus expref my- self negatively; I would say, the connexion between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is such, as I can set ao bounds to; I cannot make any separation between them; — neilsier can I limit their power or duration; but, if 1 am called upon by authority to use a positive expression, I use one, but necessarily in the Tame sense: and thus I speak of their being of one

substance, power, and eternity.” Such indeed they

are to me; to me they are divine; how they are ia themsebves, it is impossible for me to comprehend*,

I am moreover very forcibly struck with finding a kind of settled custom in Scripture of mentioning Father, Son, and Holy Ghost together, on the most solemn occasions: of which Baptism is one; not more persons, not fewer: to what can this be ascribed?

Still there is one thing never to be forgotten for a moment; that is, the Unity of God; Scrip- ture and Reason jointly proclaim, there is but ox Gop: however the proofs of the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost may seem to interfere with

this, nothing is to be allowed them but what is

consistent with it: the divine nature, or substance, N can

In Ser. 236 (or 191) de Tempore, Sect. 2. to be found in the Works of Augustin, the eternal generation of Christ is ex- pressed by, non aliquod tempus ascribimus.“ — It is also implied, that we take mysterious doctrines in order to av9id absurdities;

[…]

BOOK IV. ART. 1. SECT. x. 251

can therefore be but one sulstance = the divine power can be but * one power,” , But, does not this confound all. our concep-

tions, and make us use words without meaning? |

think it does; I profess and proclaim my con- fusion in the most unequivocal manner: I make it an essential part of my declaration, Did I pre: tend to understand what I say, I might be a Tri- theist, or an infidel, but I could not both worship the one true God”, and acknowledge Jesus Christ to be Lord of all”. In using words with vg ideas, I might express error and falsiood; but, in using words without ideas, I profess no falhood; I only unite the different sayings of Scripture in the best manner I am able, though in a manner confessedly imperfect: but this imperfection I adopt, lest I should run into a greater evil, by putting a forced and wrong construction on scriptural sayings, in order to reduce them to the level of my human capacity.”

Thus may any man assent to the first Article, supposing him convinced of the truth of the second and fifth. It is not at all to be wished, that assent should be given with less Difidence: such assent would be more open to cavil and objection than ours : but {till it may be allowed to take some no-

tice of certain illustratious of the Doctrine of the Trinity, as not wholly unworthy of attention; these might be considered, though they ought not to be admitted as authentic: they might serve to leflen the uncouthness of the Doctrine, though they could not make it clear. They might prevent men from being so disgusted as rashly, suddenly, to throw all 8 of it aside, Thus, *Athanafis

makes ; n xvii. 3. u Acts x. 3

• 1st Dialogue de Trinita a Is in ePr © Boise copius, Sęct. 1 W hl the * f

a. oo

25 omg a wu od…

• 2 — —

\ * . bes _ „ 2 2 . EE ene Sn xn ” : |

— — woo. <— DS

[…]

} 1 A

af

+4

A ;

2 - 4 F<

makes Peter, Paul, and Timothy to be three Per. fons (uro5aces) in one, because of their unanimity,

or having only one mind. Two Parents are often

to be considered as one by the Child. A Body corporate are many or one, as they are considered in

different lights.—* Ourselves, our Souls and Bo-

dies; —sometimes, in popular language, (and the Scripture language is popular), the Body is spoken of as the /e/f; sometimes the Soul; sometimes the

compound of Body and Soul: — yet there is but one self.— Such notions may have tome good effect, in

preventing the bad effects of prejudice; but a re-

spectful fusperse is all that a reasonable man will

afford them.—The same may be said of the %s, which the Doctrine of the Trinity has seemed to be of;—as that of multiplying our relations, prevent- ing the excesses of devout Fear and Love, &c.— bur, of the presumed »fes of revealing the Doctrine of the Trinity, hereafter”,

x1, We now come to consider what could be done on our part, if those who dissent from us were desirous to agree upon some terms of Union, Not that success has generally attended modera- tion, but it must be a satisfaction to have endea- voured to prevent the excesses of zeal without knowledge.

It often happens in disputes, that a ferm gets odium annexed to it, and then the 2s of that term increases that odium. This has happened in the

_ case of names, used as opprobrious, though harm-

less in themselves; as Whig, Tory, &c. And I sup-

pose it has happened with regard to the Term Tri. _ nity; a Term which does not at all imply our

Doctrine, but is only used (as before-mentioned), like

• The last Section of this Article. We might also refer back to the concluding part of Sect. 111.

[…]

BOOK IV. ART. 1. SECT. XII. 233

[…]

(Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), and at the same time to mark their connexion: to prevent a num- ber of words. It 1s not a scriptural term, and our Doctrine might be expressed without it. Some have thought, © Præstaret sacræ scripturæ verbis adherere in tanto mysterio explicando.“ But it

is conceivable, that any new word, with which no

odium had been associated, though answering the same purpose, might be allowed by all parties,— See Voltaire, Quarto, Vol. 24. p. 462.

XII. It might tend to promote moderation, and, in the end, agreement, if we were industri-

ously on all occasions to represent our own Doc-

4. as wholly unintelligzble. Something of this has

been hinted before*: the plan would be useful, as 1t would put us upon the footing of those, who profess unintelligible Doctrines, and give us all the Liberties described in the tenth Chapter of our third

Book. It would also oblige our adversaries, who were disposed to continue the combat, to oppose us

on ground less advantageous to themselves; on the

ground of expediency: at the same time that it would dispose others not to attack us at all. I fear we in general pretend too much, that our Doc- trine is intelligible; or we ule language, which seems to imply such pretension: Bishop Pearson and Dr. Waterland would have written with greater

effect, if they had taken occasion, from time to time, to say, that, though they expoled the mis-

representations of others, they did not pretend to have any clear ideas of their own Doctrine. Whilst

we

eder Olam. By the way, Buxtorf, in his Bibliotheca Rab- binica, does not speak, as if the Author of either Seder Olam

had been at any time a Christian. Dr. Maclaine condemns ang unscriptural terms, On Mosheim, Cent. v. ii. v. x. > In Section x.

• 4 xz. hee th — vs 2 RE of 8 a 5 “I . E — A […] 0 * - —— . ws ef […] n ” by a _ i, - - © — 2 4 - _ . F 4 —

S. 7 « a. ILY 1 — -

• _ — 4 ; —

.> — z — At _ — 2 wt wn me

— : * Xx 8 1 „ SS *

a;

f

M-

Pa ”© *

X -.

— ov nat ey yy — — 22 * 9x22

we speak as if we understood our Doctrine, the difference between Dissenters and us is a difference ot Opinion; but, when we own, that we have no ideas to the Doctrine, though we think it our duty to retain it, the difference may be merely a difference of words; for which the injunction to * speak the same thing*®,” may be a complete re-

medy. The words of our Article might be made

to express the difficulty of the Doctrine more

strongly, than they do at present, but the meaning

would, in reality, be the fame with the present meaning. There is an inconceivable connexion, it might be said, between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, more intimate than can be Defined ;

and A of these has infinite power and wisdom, as

far as is consistent with the infinite power and wil.

dom of the other two, and with the Unity of God. And each has existed for a time without limit.“ —

This language does not pretend to convey clear ideas; that of our Article rather does.

X111. I apprehend, that our Divines do not dwell sufficiently on that fundamental principle of both natural and revealed religion, the Unity of God: they run’out into proofs of the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, as if these Doc-

trines were not limited by each other, and by those

of the Divinity of the Father, and the divine Unity. To dwell frequently on the divine Unity, to recur perpetually to it, is necessary, in order to keep our trinitarian doctrine in its right form; to omit the mention of it at any time, is really misrepresemation:

the Divinity of the Son is a doctrine of a part of

Scripture, more properly than of the whole; and therefore it must be always so understood, that it

may be consistent with other parts. T hough, for the sake of distinctness, the Divinity of the Son is

considered © x Cor. i. 10.

BOOK IV: ART; I SECT. XIV. 295

considered separately in the second Article, and that of the Holy Ghost in the fifth. Moreover, dwelling much on the Unity of God would be useful; with respect to our adversaries. Those, who were most candid, and most inclined to concord, would find their minds softened, and their prejudices against us weakened: And those of a more contentious | nature would lose some advantages, which they at present possess : they call themselves Unitarians ; a favourable name! since all Polytheism is undoubt- edly error and barbarism: but are they more Uni- tarians than we are? that is what they would insi- nuate; but their pretensions to the title would appear the more feeble, the more frequently we insisted on the Unity of God. Anti-trinitarians would be a fair honest name for them to give themselves. The Father of Gregory of Nazianzum Cave speaks of as © virum optimum, at Hypfsta- riorum erroribus miserè seductum;“ and then he adds an explanation of what he means by Hyßsista- 71, © Secta ea erat ex Judaismo et Gentilismo conflata, que tamen summum illum et obige Ye, unde sectæ nomen, unice colebat.” | I suppose the main objection of moderate, private men, of those, who are. to be reckoned neither friends nor enemies to the Doctrine of our Church, is, tbat it interferes with the Divine Unity; this is an objection continually operating, therefore no occasion should be neglected of con- vincing them, that no set of men are more stre- nuous than ourselves in maintaining that funda- mental doctrine. BE XIV. In bringing our Church and its adver- aries to an agreement, one principal difficulty would arise from our addrefling ourselves to the Son and Holy Ghost in Prayer. As we hold them to be divine, we must think ourselves obliged to bor | them

1 - =_ . 75 […] my wy ou my — o : 2 — . wed * * - - —— — md _— = - A […] 1 Si. * — 2 […] 4 * — 5 a — — Se Br > — by 1 4 - n E on EEE dt we 4 1 2 e - 2.” 3 — kk Sor e * 33

D r CH. IL […] 5 2

“TL

them divine honours: sach Dissenters as account them not divine, would look upon it as a profana- tion to address them in prayer.—I do not see how this difficulty 1s to be obviated, except 1t were to be allowed, that any Being may be addrefled as what he is, and then scriptural expressions were to be used in the form of addresses. In this case, the addresses might be offered in different senses by different persons; but this need occasion no ail. turbance or confusion; as was shewn from the instance of deliver us from evil,” and other in- stances in the third Book®. — And why may not any Being be addressed as what he is ? Protestants are against offering up prayers to Saints, or any being except the Supreme; but then is it not be- cause, in the prayers usually offered, something is implied, which really is not true ?—as that tde persons addressed can hear and assist, when they cannot? We are, at least, in no danger of fuck error, if we adhere to words of Scripture. Our addresses might be called prayers by those, who thought the Son and Holy Ghost Divine Persons; by others they might be called petitions, or by any other name. —Perhaps those, who would not allow the Holy Gholt to be a Per son of any kind, might decline addressing any thing to him; and there might be some, who conceived the Son to be in- capable of hearing them; yet he engaged to be with the Church © alway,” even unto the fend of the world.” The Vine must needs be as much alive as the branches ; the Shepherd as the flock: — the Head of the Body as the members. Poslibly, the | Ds | more

4 See B 111. Chap. iv. Sect. rv. v. IX. © Dr, Priestley, in illustrating Matt. xxviii. 19, uses language as if the Holy Ghost was a person, See Familiar Illustrations, P- 30. Matt. xxvili. 20.

more candid and complying might address them-

{elves to the Holy Spirit in their own sense; that

is, make it a mode of addressing themselves to the Deity: and might conceive that the Son, he who was at the rigat hand © of the Majesty on high, and who was highly“ exalted, fo that at his name every knee should bow, might be addressed without profanation. Socinus himself allowed Christ to be divine (as he is called in the Racovian Catechism) and disputed with Francis David in favour of offering up devotions to him: and, though this was changed, yet the use of terms wholly scrip- tural might have some effect. Why should any Christian object to such an addrels as the following ? O thou, who in the beginning wast with God, and wast God, — Thou, by whom all things were created, that are in Heaven and Earth—Thou, in whose name all men are by Baptism admitted into the new and last dispensation of God ;—and made partakers of the new covenant :—at thy name every knee shall bow :—hear us; intercede for us; me- diate between our Judge and us; be thou our Ad- vocate with the Father; thou, who fittest at the right hand of the Majesty on high:—lend to us the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost: thou, who kneiv no fin, and hadft power on earth to forgive fins, help us, who are concluded under sin; O Lamb of God, that takest away the fin of the world, let us not lose any of the benefits of thy stopendous sacrifice! This form of address might content ug, and need not, one would think, disgust those who dissent from us —It might be much en- larged, without departing from Scripture. xv. It

s Heb. i. 3. b Phil. ii. 9

i Set. yr. See Mosheim’s Hist. Cent, 16, Seck. 3. 2. 4: 32 Ke. […] 1 5

N

E

—

—

= = om — S * N —ͤ—— 2 © — 2 2 CT ied 33 9 F r Lana ENS. […] - — - =— -

[…] , = — 12 Oo Pike” Pa >

—

—

= aa

1 22 * ; = 8 £m, 5 - * - VP * “2s LS - 4

xv. It could not be expected, that we should take so much pains to accommodate and re- commend ourselves to those, who dissent from us, without expecting something from them 7 return. They might say, that, whilst we were bringing our doctrines, &c. nearer theirs, we were improving them; but this is not to be supposed; according

to our notions we should be making them worse:

if in any instance we conceived ourselves to be im. proving, that ought not to be reckoned amongst

our compliances.— It might also be urged, that, if

our fide complied safkiciently, their’s need not com-

ply at all; but one fide must feel reluctant and | mortified, if the other does nothing ; and expe-

rience tells us, that, in all disputes, if we would effect a reconciliation, we mult provide more than what is barely sufficient ; we must take for granted,

that some part of what we provide will be wasted

and lost. I apprehend, that the Church of Eugland ind

the generality of those who dissent from it, might

unite and worship together, if they were properly disposed and directed: it would be a different thing to say, it is probable, in the present state of things,

that they will; but it seems owing to faults and

imperfections on one fide or the other, that they do not: ] collect this from several things, which have been already considered ;—as, that mutual concessions even in speculative doctrines, though we have not power to alter what the Scriptures de- clare, are * allowable for the sake of unity; and practicable; — that for facial worship it is not per- fect unity of. private opinion, but only unity of Doctrine or Teaching which is required: that the same forms of expression may be used by different

persons

& B. 111. Chap. 1y. Sect. 1x, 1 111. Iv. 1.

BOOK IV, ART. 1. SECT. xv. 259

persons in different senses : — that we actually agree with many dissenters in all the fundamentals ® of na- tural and revealed religion; and differ in scarce any thing, which the human mind can compre-

hend; in scarce any thing, except what belongs

to the Essence of God, or what is to be done on the part of God. —How childish were it, for in- stance, not to allow those faculties to be iHinite, to which 10 limit could be assigned! The Dissenters cannot limit the duration of him, who was © in the beginning,” nor the power of him, by whom all

things were created, nor the majesiy of him, to

whom every knee shall bow; why then not allow them unlimited? that is, infinite?

But our proper business is now with the doctrine of the Trinity; and that as distinct from the doc- trine of the Divinity of the Son or Holy Ghost: — the chief business, in mysterious doctrines, seems to be, to get scriptural forms of expression, which

all might agree to, though in different senses ;—

we have already mentioned a form of addrets to the Son of God, and we will endeavour to imagine one to the Holy Ghost under the 5th Article. The term Trinity not being scriptural, we cannot adhere to Scripture and use that; but, as we recommended to our Church to drop it, we may recommend to Dissen- ters not to quarrel with it; the thing is in scripture, what signifies the word? why reject Trinity, and

ule Triumvirate ?—-it does not of itself imply, that

the three Persons are divine; it only implies, that they are, in Scripture, (and ought to be, by Chris-

tians) so frequently mentioned together, as to make It worth while to have a collective name for them.

It it is said, that, when our Church drops the term, the Difsenters need not adopt it, the answer is al-

ready given; both measures need not be practised, | * but

ini. . N 111. v. 111. | R 2

—— — AW err — Tar — © DD > m 1 ——— < - z 04-2 « * *

[_ I TY ’ þ _ ny ’ # _ = |

Þ

• —

x; wmess

— 1 CY - - 10 et wes 1 > - […] e 1 8 o _— 2 B * — 9 ** i _ A, tr ooo fn, Cn oe * —

= 1 2 <> # F _ p q = F = e * 2 a — =

• —

• © CER […] - nd

• 7 q 75 os n

[…] pf

• • • Pay —

— 1 * * - 3 2 5

— a - […] ä YE 9 OI IF IF 2

260 BOOK Iv. ART. 1. SECT. xv.

but both may be recommended, till one is prac- tised. Each would make the other more readi]

submitted to. And recommending both 1s the most likely method to accomplish one.—ILven if no other sense could be annexed to the word Trinity

but our orthodox one, the most that could be said

would be, that we wish Dissenters not to reject a word,

which is wmeaning, and which expresses briefly a _ doctrine, that we “think | it our duty to record and

PR though we do not comprehend 1t.

In the present case, the Diffenters, as it seems from the nature of the thing, might more easily come over to us, than we to them. It we join

them, we must deny to the Son and Holy Ghost

that honour, which appears to us to be due to them; this we cannot do without violating tho{c relative duties, which we conceive mey be 1mpor-

tant. The Son and Holy Ghost seem ta be set

forth in Scripture as 72/irumental in the salvation of

Mankind; we dare not prefer any plan of our own to that, which seems to us divine. But, if they join us, all they need do is, to use, or perhaps be present while we use, a few unmeaning words; every one gives up something as an individual for the good which he receives as a member of locicty; what easier sacrifice than this can be made to

social religion? to long as we clearly maintain the

Unity of God, why need others scruple a few un-

meanin® funds merely because they see to inter- fere with it? If they draw up any other forms of

words b. contradict ours, those forms must have as little meaning as ours“, considered only as a con- tradiction rand can it be conceived possible, that the omniscient Judge would condemn any person tor such a compliance as is here meant, when bis on mative for making it was a desire to promote

che

o See B. 111. Chap. x, Seck. 111.

BOOK IV. ART. 1. SECT. XVI. 261

tue influence of Religion, by strengthening reli- gious society? and, when he does no more from that motive, than he probably does on other ? occa- sions for less important ends? It seems agreed, that giving a verbal assent in 67duc;y matters is inno- cent, as being needful, though we do not under- sand what we assent to (as in law. ic rms); but ic is nzver more needful, never more requii.te, nor therefore ever more agen iz, than in matters of Religion. |

I thould imagine, that a perusal of Conboutine’s Leller * to Alexander and Arius, might afford some pleasure to such as were inclined to adopt these sentiments. It is curious to fee how Voltaire © zorgets all his contempt of Constantine, when he

would give force to this Leiter as bearing hard on theological disputes.

*. The last part of what we have called the Application is, to inquire whether our re- searches have given us any reason to think, that any 1/5rovements may be made relative to the subject oi our Article. At seems possible, that more atten- tion may be paid to the number of Titec, which (ccur in ancient writings, and that some better account may be given of them than has hitherto been giyen; but this is menticned cursorily; some things may deserve a more careful and discincꝭ attention,

It seems as if improvement might be made in the manner of applying p/losop-:y to tl. Scrip- tures; or in hindering it from being w..yngly ap- plied such improvement I mean as might tend

| PSF mary p B. 717, Chap. x. Sect. 1. and 11.

4 See Fuscbins’s s Life of Constantine: Book 2d. partie. Chap.

64. 6g. 70. mentioned in Lardner’s Account cf the Council oz ce,

CEED

: k

” 4 1 % z 8 by | 71 N £ 48 * ” 1 : {

— 3 - l l \ \ l SM […] - TI — 2 it %> p N in C bl _— N Me BL - ft — I = —

Tag -

particularly to settle the doctrine of the Trinity. In the present age, we are proud of our philosophy, and we encourage it so much as to make it some-

times run out into luxuriance; to reduce and prune

luxuriant shoots, is certainly to improve: — indeed

Christians in all ages, especially those who have

prided themselves on any opinions, have made too free with Scriptures; and many parts of the Canon have been rejected, at different times, because they were, or seemed, contrary to certain favourite pre- conceived notions. The Manicheans had an ab- horrence of matter, and therefore all parts of Scrip-

ture, which mentioned the uses of matter, were rejected as furious; the whole Old Testament was cut off at one stroke; our modern Philosophers are prodigious friends of matter, and therefore Scripture must be construed fo that even the Soul may be material, To jet aside whole books of Scripture seems something more gross than to interpret; yet,

if we set aside the genuine sense, we may as well set aside words too; for, deprived of their right

sense, words must eee be useless, or mislead. —

But we have a vero way of lestening the force of Scriptures, which do not favour us; instead of

treating Books as spurioils, we diminish the degree of Inspiration.— A sacred writer, we fay, might be biased by his prejudices; he might be mistaken !

we must not in a//* cases trast too implicitly | &c.

Surely, when our Adversaries go these lengths, they do not perceive, that they are in reality con- frming those doctrines, which they confess them- selves unable to overthrow, without measures which take away the whole matter in dispute. All that we affirm is, that, jipposing the Scriptures, as we have them, to be Es inspired, so that every thing in them! is truul, such and such doctrines are

contained

8. -P riefiley’s Letters, Pe 149. 1 59. P. 122. is strong.

contained in them: the moment that our adver- faries change any part of this supposition, there is no longer any question between us. Dean Alix, in the Preface to his Book already quoted, speak- ing of the Socinians, says, that their divisions oc- casioned their want of success; and those divisions, he says, © will unavoidably follow, till they can agree in unanimously rejecting the authority of […] The Book was published in 1699, and whoever compares the event with the prediction, will be struck with the fagacity of the Author. T be implicit reverence, which we ought to shew to the Scriptures, is well expressed in a piece about Noetus the Parripassian, ascribed to Hippolytus, ac- cording to Lardner’s a Translation. * The Scrip- rures speak truth, but Noetus does not understand them. But though Noetus does not understand, the Scriptures nevertheless are not to be laid aside.” Noetus was an Unitarian of the * ancient sort : sub- stitute a modern one, the passage is still applicable. Dr. Powell, who had as good pretensions to the cha- racter of a Philosopher as any man, has written a Charge * on the use and abuse of Philosophy in the study of Religon,” in which he says?, that „the English Clergy” © have wisely avoided the application of 1t, (Philosophy) where such appli- cation is imper tinent or profane: impertinent, as in interpretation“ of b Scripture; Profane, as in the | Judging of God’s decrees.” +

t P., X11 |

u Lardner’s Works, Vol. 3. p. 16. where there is more aid to the purpose than is here quoted.

. Y P. 349.

In some ways, and some cases, I am n apt to think, Philosophy may be of use in interpreting Scripture; as for instance, about voluntary actions of man: Scripture speaks common sense, but it 15 perverted, by enthusiasm, or superstition, or by being taken too literally; perhaps there is no remedy here like true Philoso-

• 4 | Phy ;

264. BOOK IV.

It I may speak frankly, the truth of the matter teems to be this; the Trinitarians have formed their doctrine in one way, and the Anti-trinuarians in another: the Trinitarians have collected their doc. trine from Scripture only; the Anti-trinitarians, dis. gusted with the difficulties attending that method, or with abuses of it, and hoping to soften and mo- derate what appeared to them harsh and uncouth, have set out from notions of common sense, reason, natural religion; and, taking for granted, that Scripture, if rightly interpreted, must coincide with these, have interpreted 1t by bringing 1t as near to them as possible. I should imagine, from their writings, that they themselves would oz: this, but, if any of them difown it, nothing more can be said, However, I will refer to a few authorities, and then observe, that this is not simple, genuine interpretation; that, though it be true in theory, that Reason and Scripture coincide, yet in practice we are not to take for granted, that our present reason is perfectly right reason; (experience is against that;) and supposing God to inform us of

e = any phy: for that alone can unfold the real meaning of popular ex- pressions, used from mens feelings. I had some such idea, when

T said that Ep. Barnet sometimes seems to want Philosophy. — Introd. Sect. vi. oe See Socinus on John i.— where he expresses a fear, lest Christianity should become contemptible in the whole world: the ame thought appears in modern Sociman writings : see Short Defence of Div. of Christ. p. 25, 27. 1 See also Myheim, Vol. 4. 8vo. p. 515. (or Cent. 16. Sect. 3. Part 2. Chap. 4. Sect. 15.)—Macknight somewhere agrees with Mosheim’s account; viz. that the Socinians take that sense, which is moR agreeable to reason, without nicely observing the ex- pression; but I do not now find the place, not having made my reference exactly. Tillotson says, they attend to words, as opposed to the in- tention, with which those words are introduced: but that J con- ceive to be only the zweans of getting their reasonable opinion received. (Vol. 1, Fol. p. 412, on John i. 14.)

any thing, it probably would be something, which our reason would be unlikely soon to find out.

xvii. It we could accomplish what has just

now been recommended, an honest simplicity of interpretation, we should naturally advance in im- provement, by attending more and more minutely to the particular circumstances, in which any ex- pressions were used, which seemed to interfere with each other. In popular language, seeming contra- qictions and inconsistencies perpetually arise, or contradictions in words, when chere is no incon- sistency whatever in the meaning. A large list of such contradictions might be taken out of Scrip- ture, as all sects will allow; why then might not those seemingly opposite declarations concerning the Diviue Nature, which have given occasion to different sects amongst Christians, be in some mea- sure reconciled, if we attended to circumstances

with sufficient exactness? t seems to me as if

much might be hoped for from this method. — The Scriptures do not, in different circumstances, peak in the lame way of the equality or subordi- nation of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and sometimes one situation succeeds another - almost imperceptibly. The 19th» Chapter of St. John’s Golpel may afford an in{tance. When Christ prays

to the Father in the character of a han sent o teach, &c. he speaks, with propriety, as if the Fa-

ther were ie only God,” and he himself a man. But, when he speaks 1n circumstances, which im- ply his earthly office to be expired, then he makes himself equal with God. In this light, compare

verle 3 with verse + and verse 11, looking back

to John x. 3o, with a reference to Leviticus XXIV. 16.,—In verle 3, he says, “this is life eternal, chat they might know thee the only true God, and Jelus

= Christ b B. 1. Chap. x. In *.

— tes

3 + i% e +

— ; —— + —

— ———4 oo — 2 >

— * —

[…] UAE — _— 2

4 * —

oe.

. ů CAA —¼⸗ . — tA ME;

[…]

A. 4 — 7 . 3 ES my 3 A — — 8 — N ES. — — by -

r : D

—

— r *

S— Fx. == = 2 > I

— <- —

—— ä „ eee Be

2 St . 8 — Jo 1

4,

—

Tn A ‘EB i» KK ”> pb KS. IN TY.

E 1

“OY + if „N. “aa”

SER —

: 2

Christ whom thou hast sent:”—But, when he has once said, I have finisled the work, which thou gavest me to do,” (verse 4.) then another scene opens upon us; we are in Heaven, Christ is ascended to the “ right hand of the Majesty on high;” the earthly things, the earthly offices of the Mesa are vanished; and, if we give into this conception, we shall rightly feel and understand what follows; c And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the Glory which I had with thee before the World was.” In like manner verse 11. „ And now I am no more in the world; but these are in the […] that they may be one, as we are.” —Christ had before said, (John x. 30.) ] and my Father are one, and had been near being stoned, (according to Lev. xxiv. 16.) for using an expreffion so like blasphemy.

Machnighit looks? Won this oneness as not being unity of Person (or perhaps we should say, of sib- fance,} but only © a perfect union of counsels and defions.” —Yet St. Paul says, who, (what man, or finite being) hath known the mind of the Lord? or © who hath been his Counsellor?” I, for my part, can put no limit to the wisdom of him, who has © a perfect union of counsels and designs” with the Deity.—1 think no finite being could use such language as Christ uses, though it may not convey a definite idea to #5, about being one with the Father, without the greatest arrogance and pre- sumption : was Christ then arrogant? consider the lowliness of his character, the humble simplicity of this affecting prayer. Read verse 21 and 22.— He, who had a right to utter such things, and was um- ble while he uttered them, can have nothing too great conceived of him. But we must not incroach too much on the subje& of the second Article. .

© On the place, p. 569, 4 Rom, xi. 34.

BOOK IV. AKT. I. SECT. eit.

Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.“ This verse, taken by itself, might lead us to think, that the Father only was to be conlidered as God, and the Son as havin

some kind of authority, zor divine, which made him to be entitled Lord. But, if we consider the circumstances, in which the verse is introduced, I think it will clearly favour our docttines. St. Paul is giving his directions to the Converts about their partaking of the heathen sacrifices, or feasts upon the sacrifices, or, as our Bible expresses it, eatin

things © offered in sacrifice to Idols.“ He tells them, « an Idol is nothing in the world,” no real object

of worthip; there is but one object of reasonable

worlhip, the on supreme God ;—but then, as if recollecting, that this saying, however true, might mislead the Converts, with regard to the dignity of the character of Christ, now in Heaven, and

prevent their addressing any adorations to him, he

proceeds to mention C/71/t as a right object of wor- hip, (the worship of him being supposed some how consistent with the worship of the ove true God) only making some variety in his expression.

He calls him Lord, instead of God; the word God.

having been uled before, the repetition of it, in tais case, might found unpleasing ; or even like Polytheism; but he calls him by a title, which had belonged to Fehovah, and by which the one supreme God might at any time be lawfully addrefled. - Nothing can be more clear to me, than that St. Paul meant to oppo/e right objects of wwor/lrp to wrong ones; and that he mentions Fesus Christ as a

right

1 Cor. viii. 5.

P. S. Bp. Pearson has a short remark on this text, p. 251, on Creed, 1st. Ed,—or p. 126, Fol. Ed. 7

St. Paul says*, “ to us there is but one God, the

3 i” Bare

—_— 2 >

«3 * X 2

t ! [1 { z + # if

‘W bt

—— —

• Cee FI TIE Io IS

nd .

ng Hs STEAL DPF

” —

A

ern

a Hoe - —-

ny ’ * ag

• F […] F Pe . […] 4 q] —_—

• 4 w& »

[…] *

N + >” 4p

2 3 . * 7 […] E LE 3 f 3 — — E *

Ko OE — wes — * a. > N T2 —

“2

— : 2% 5 E n n

2 — ’ Þ EE 5. - 4

= by habeas. “he be. we

[…] 12 = AL XS

—

—— IÞ

ä ———_— N — 2 VS […] 3 > . » — 22 po _- — * 4 — * 2 3 = * to - _ “4 — 7. EF […] 4 0 E FOE! on DOB. K . - 2 2 — E — — *

268 ROOK-LYCART; 1. er. reit.

right one. By calling him Ter, he conic not mean to deny, that he was Cod ; any more chan hy calling the Father God, to deny, that he was Lord. » It C i is not God, because there is but que God; we must say, that the Za:her is not Lo, for St. Paul tells us here expressly, there is bar ene Lord.

St. Paul says, that, amongsc the Heat beak, there are Gods man), and Lords many,” and then adds, that we Christians have but o::e God, and one Lord; making the Father correspond, in {ome iort, to the Heathen Gods, the Son to the Heg- then Lords; this induces Mr. Locke to conclude, that Christ is called Lord here only as our i Aedic-

„ hot in his divine character: though there does seem some analogy intended between the heathen Lords, or“ Lerds many, and our Lord Chrisc, yet that, I think, cannot destroy the force of the reasoning just now used. 1 should rather say, therefore, that Christ is Lord 4 as mediator, and on account of the Glory which he had with the ather © before the world was“ This is also Bishop Pearson’s opinion, and the most scriptural. Besides, the deseription immediately following the mention of Jesus Christ does not agree so well with the idea of Mediator, as of Crea ont by whom are all chings, and we by him.“ — And let any on? comper? this with what is said in like manner of the

Feather:

f Locke on 1 Cor. viii. 6. Hume (Nat. Hist. 07 Rel. Set. 4.) hews, : t Deĩtice were not always conlidered as Creators of the World. Mr. Locke’s distinction is, into Oro, Gods, who were supposed to reside in Heaven, and Aziponres (answering to Paalim) Lords, or Lord- g i, who were supposed to reside on earth, and do all busi- ness between men and the Orot: the ©:o; being too great to transact business with men 7mmediatch; Locke refers to Mede, john XvIl. 5. See the paflage just now referred to.

BOOK IV, ART. I. SECT. XVII; 269

Father: “e of whom are all things, and we in him :* —let him, who can, interpret these two descrip- tions, fo as to shew, that the one belongs to a Being purely divine; the other to a Being merely human.—1I do not say, that these descriptions con- vey distinct ideas, or are intended to do so;—but

they prevent our assigning limits to the attributes

of the Persons described, | More instances might be produced of the Son being spoken of differently in different circum- stances; in which the consideration of the circum» stances would remove, or account for, any seeming inconsistency: but, the notion being sufficiently opened, I will confine myself to remarking, that Dr. Samuel Clarke, that learned, candid, and va- luable writer, might have corrected and improved,

as it seems to me, some of his observations, rela-

tive to our present subject, by that attention to circumstances, which we are now recommending. —He quotes many texts, in which he seems to think, that the word “ God” is equivalent to the Father : but at the {ame time it should be observed,

that God is very frequently spoken of in Scripture

without any relation to the distinction of ’ Persons in the Holy Trinity; as we should speak of him in

reasonings on natural religion, in shewing his power

and wisdom in the works of the Creation“. To

introduce

& In 2 Cor. xiii. 14. (“ the Grace of our Lord,” &c.) and in other places, (see Clarke’s Scrip. Doctrine Trin. Part 1. Chap. 4. also Part 1. Chap. 1. Sect. 1, 2) The word God does seem to be used where the Father, a Person of the ‘Trinit\ , might be used; but my idea is something of this fort; suppose three persons joined in a civil Government, after the manner of the

Roman 7riumwirate, and two of them went out in certain offices,

(to head an army, treat with foreign Princes, &c.) then he wha remained, and was merely Sovereign, might be called Sovereign, when the others were called General, Admiral, Ambassador, or

_

&. Nor would it follow, that those who were from home hag

na fovereion power Sy © p r

— —

VR r ow PHI RO TE

—

• . OE — a — 71 2 — — 7 - ” 5 >, * 2 4 « PE 2 7 3 »7 Y . - * 8 — 7 4 .. Pr £ * S. A ö 9 AER TATE 2.”

—— * _ I 4 Z oe oh ” 8

l * 1 ” — 22 r 8 — ; _ Rn * EB is 5 4 4 *. > . p SS _— — 1 - ys =. 3 U . OS — Thr 2 Bp os . — 2 8 AS. er 5 13 * - M4 a 15 : EET TE DEEDS: Rs -— = v3 -

. * Ys CIR 7 <> DN OSS = os 2 => ’- 5

8 ” 2 — 7

7 — | =

• bd 3 err 268 3 K 0 Re. 7

1 — ES £ e — r

• 1 2 EY

SORE a TIES

— —

D

——

. F—„—- ontiig, _— a […] —

F

SD mm —_—

bs “ati Pop

1 ——— > ds - mg a 8 22 n

270 BOOK IV. ART. I, SECT. xvII.

introduce the distinction of persons seems often unnecessary, (always perhaps, except when we are concerned with the Christian plan of sanctifying and saving mankind); and, when it is unnecessary, it may also sometimes be improper. However, | should think the word * God” must be, generally speaking, rather equivalent to the 7hree PErsons of the Trinity, than to any one of them’. With regard to Cbrist in particular, when he addreftes himfelt in his human character to God, or speaks of him to the Jews, he calls him not so much his God as his Father ; sometimes the Father, — But even this word *© Father” does not seem always to mean lie Father in the Trinity. I should conceive it to mean, in many cases, God in general, if we may fo speak; God, as independent of the trinitarian distinction of Persons. — When we lay, % Our Father, which art in Heaven,” we mean the one Supreme * God, not one person of the Trinity; and Christ would naturally use the term more fre- quently than we: though not so often as he does, I thould think, if the Socinian hypothesis were well founded; if Christ were a mere man, and only an human teacher, supernaturally assisted: he would, in that case, rather call God his Lord, his Sove- reien, or &c. In some places, particularly where the Son speaks of his existence “ before the world was,” or after the consummation of all things, the word © Father” may signify the Person of the Holy Trinity so called; but that the word © G should ass: denote

Bp. Pearson (Creed, Art. 1. p. <9, ft. edit) has this dis- tinction, which he calls gr,“ that is common; between the Father personally considered, or as a person of the Trinity; and ęsentially considered, © as comprehending the whole Trinity.”

m This language is used by Pope in his Universal Prayer; « Father of all,” &c. by Milton, © These are thy glorious works, Parent of good. 5 ; | 85

denote the Father in ordinary discourses in the New

Testament, seems very unlikely. | St. Mark gives an account of a Dialogue between

our Saviour and a Jewish Scribe; they seem to agree

about the Unity of God. Christ says, The Lord our God is one Lord:“ or, he is one: the Scribe says, © there is one God, and there is none other but he.” — But this has no more concern with the doctrine of the Trinity as it appears to me, than if that doctrine had never been revealed; the Unity of God is here only opposed to Polytheism and Ido- latry; the Scribe could have nothing else in his

mind: — yet Dr. Clarke says, that, in this place,

what is said of God, is predicated ’ of the Father ;

that is, of the Person of the Holy Trinity usually

mentioned first. Surely, a due attention to cir-

cumstances would have prevented this remark.

The Scribe knew, that the fundamental principle of the Mosaic Law was, avoid the Polytheism and Idolatry of your Neighbours.” When, therefore,

he heard Jesus quote out of the Book of Deutero-

nomy? © Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord;” he could agree to the notion, that this

was * the first commandment of all,” in no sense

but this;—* the command, which we Jews ought to consider as principal, 1s to keep clear of the Po- lytheism and Idolatry, with which our neighbours

are corrupted: Jehovah is the only object of ra-

[…]

are all abominations: nay, even the Host of Hea- ven, n Mark xii. ver. 29. 32.

o Clarke’s Scripture-doctrine of the Trinity, Part 1. Chap. 1. Sect. 1 and 2, where the Texts stand in the order of Scripture.

By the way, it appears, I think, from this part, that Athanasius |

[…]

of the Trinity. ? Peut. vi. 4.

trine of the Trinity, and the Father, a Person

Ex SE

„ * , & 5 2 » y_

d p Pa, ’ 4 ff RL tl j 2 bl 8 ge” 140 5 : Dy ’ (ior = > þ To FL) 6.5; + “1 OY 4a A „ f. C. A & Wy

Y Fc; — * —

[…] EE ; —

[…] SIS © 2

2 - ; E 2 _ Fo s - = 4 Mc * „ 22 At […] A x SS k >} . * - Fo => . * E […] 4 E War 1 * a 2 3 - : — 2 4 \ 8 2

ie Ty

= Ihe >

• — 3

n * —

9 x — —

• — * pos 4 © 3 “pots

-_

a 2 *

272 BOOK Iv.

ven, though they declare the Glory of God, are not themselves to be worshipped:

Dr. Clarke has not noticed the difference of cir- cumitances mentioned above in n 17th Chapter of St. Fohi’s Gospel.

may be permitted to add, that the Council of Carthage ordered all prayers offered at the Allar to be addressed to the Father only, I presume, that the notion of the Council might be this; that, when we are at the Altar, while we keep up the strict notion of an Altar, we look upon Christ in the light of a Victim; of the Lamb of God, sacri- ficed for the fins of the world: now no men ever pray to a Victim. Bingham says much the fame* Mr. Gibbon will have it, that Christians have the feme Being for God and Victim: — Christ is God in one view, and Victim in another view; but these are not to be confounded : and the Council might aim at avoiding such confusion.

xv11t. It would be a considerable improve- ment, if we were to increase our caution (and we could not easily increase it too much) in comedting any propositions, which we do not understand; or in forming them into any kind of syllogism, or argument. F or, when we do so, our reasoning is merely verbal, it has no meaning: and yet by the use of it, we may get into hurtful absurdities, which may disoust religious and rational men. Some great writers dem to have fallen i into this fault: and chey have done harm by it to the general cause of Christianity. I fear, I might instance in Bishop Pearton, Bishop Burnet, and Dr. S. Clarke, as well

| as in ancient writers. | The

4 Bingham, 13. 2. f. refers to the third Council of Carthage, (Can, 23,) which according to Cave, (Hist, Lit.) was held A. D. 252.

x Bingham’s Antiquities, I 3. 2. 5.

The Patripis ans were so called from their being said to maintain, that the Father suffered on the Cross. I suppose, they were Unitarians of the an- cient sort; they made too little (or no) distinction between the Father and the Son; from whence, it | seems probable, that their adversaries made them | reason thus. The Son suffered; the Father and

the Son are one; therefore the Father suffered.

Whoever reasoned thus, the fallacy is the same*.

The reasoning may not be illogical in its form, but two ideas could not be compared with a mid-

dle term, when in reality there were no ideas to compare; but only words standing in the place of ideas. When we say, © the Father and the Son are one; we have not comprehension enough of the meaning, to ground any reasoning upon. —By the way, it has not always been thought proper to say, even that the Son suffered; if we mean by the Son one person of the Holy Trinity; though Jesus Christ, who, in some sense, was the Son of God, suffered indisputably. But I do not wilh to revive the controversy of the 6th Century, De uno ex Trinitate passo“. In the time of St. Ambrose, Baptism was some— times administered only in the name of Christ: — that great Father, wishing probably to soften con-

tention, runs into the fallacy here spoken“ of, when

he urges, that baptizing in the name of Christ only is, in effect, baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, because they are

COTTON seems more reasonable, when he? says,

it « Set. v. | t See Aug. Hzr. 41. or Lard. Works, Val. 4. p 1

u Card. Noris wrote an History of this Controversy, which

is quoted by Mosheim—bth Cent. Vol. 2. 8vo p. 137. * De Spiritu dancto, Lib. 1. Cap. 3. See Bingham, 11. 3. 3. 7 See Pingham, 11. 3. 10.

Fot. 11. 8

MR . — — pe 5 —” . 8 $A

g

oo als —

bo ans

= — OO 2 8 . : 7 2 — — , F 8 : WW * * y […] 22 bong 9 SEES ETA FE 7 OL Fe

• […] 2 * - Ss a i I 8 F

8 — I

— > -Z : 5 E T x 8 […] cx : 2X

22 ˙ >

NN. LW. A A ard 7 “0 L Ws. nn { * Y * me “4 We P |, 4 o a * or +; N Wk N vi p47 R * WOE Te Rx a Wy . © . © __ +. “WM . pick, MM 1”. WY - n W Tel ad +7 Yu #4 2 mi 15 id r Wi. 6 wes 7, f by N a Ty as + Wo by 1 ad] a ! ** n #; 4% —

SDS Ss . e *

St FED

eres = *

: —Y =.

274 BOOK IV. ART. 1. SECT. XVIIL.

it would have been improper in St. Paul, speaking of baptizing into the Death of Christ, to mention the Father and Holy Ghost; they having nothing to do with Death: Origen here suits himself to circumstances. In this train of thinking, we cannot but pity the sufferings of Nestorius; he would not call the Virgin Mary — though he had no objection to cal- ling her Xe:-orozos, What perversenets !’ his ad- versaries would say: Mary was the Mother of Christ; Christ is God; therefore was not Mary the Mother of God ?—but the fault was more in this syllogism than in Nestorius:—wben we fay, © Chnist is God,” our ideas are not distinct; we cannot argue on such a proposition’. Nestorius probably „elt or saw this; an human being the mother of her own Creator! was more than he could admit, and his sufferings are a disgrace to the Religion of his age: Christ, when considered as the Son of Mary, should not be confounded with Christ as being in the form of God, before his In- carnation ; or as being © King of Kings, and Lord of Lords,” after his ascension. The orthodox language is, that Christ had zoo natures in one Per- /ou : to which TI have no objection, as things divine and things 4uman are predicated of Christ, as of

_ one agent or person; and this language brings all

the texts into one view; but still it is barbarous to persecute a man, because he cannot get over such difficulties as those of Nestorius just now men- tioned. Neither do we fay, the Son and Holy Ghost are Gods; though we fay the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost God, This will let us know what we are to think of some expressions, which we meet with now 00 then,

• Rom. vi 3.

2 Bp. Pearion calls the Virgin Mary, the Mother of the Sou of God“ - on Creed, p 540. ist Ed.

BOOK Iv. 275

then, particularly in infidel writers; about Papists

eating their God; a crucified God—our saying, that the Jews were murderers of God; &c.—our having the fame Being as God and Victim. (Gibbon.) — « Decree of the Holy Trinity®.” — They are all wrong expressions, as arising from inferring where inference cannot be admitted. _

I cannot say but I feel some difficulty about Acts xx. 28:—and some indulgence for those, who derive expressions from that passage, which do not seem justifiable. Bishop ©* Pearson and Bishop *© Burnet both use this expression ; © the blood of God.” I should not dare to use it; I should be more inclined to say, there is no such 5 expression in Scripture; in strictness there is not; nay, I do not believe, that any of the sacred writers would have used it: they seem to come very ear it in the passage now referred to; but it seems to be,

because

d Hume’s Nat. Hist. of Religion, SeR. 12. paragraph 2 and 4. © Heylin Quinq. 2. 8. 5.—©Suscipe sancta Trinitas,“ p. 37 of Prisent fpirituel,—and p. 58, ** placeat tibi sancta ‘Trinitas,” — p. 20, * Seigneur, je vous ai regu.” Present spirituel is a little French prayer-book. „ 4 On Creed, p. 257. Fol. i e On Article 2d. p. 67. Octavo. : f Bp. Pearson says (Creed, Art. 4. Dead. p. 434, 1ft Edit.)

Cod died for us,” has been the constant language of the Church.

| Whereas Lardner says, (Her. Praxeas, Sect. 8.) © no man ever

allowed, that proper Deity suffered.” Bp. Pearson means, that person died, of whom things both divine and human are predi- cated, so that in one person he is said to have tavo urs so that birth, suffering, and death, &c. are all predicated of him. We should be aware of the reading of Acts xx. 28; Jia rs ature 78 1948, —as well as that Bp. Pearson says, aud proves, that the

Divine Nature cannot suffer, and that Christ did not suffer in his Divine Nature: see Art. 4. p. 379, 380, &c. ist Edit, or p- 187, &c. Fol. VE i .

8 P.S. In this, I find myself agreeing with Dr. Priestley, and disagreeing with the author of the Short Defence of the Divinity of Christ, near end of Appendix. bY S 2

I

{ d 1 if 4 5 , ”” bY. p. * F i” [4 Br El a * fi I. SH, . “PI oy „. * 5 [1 ; 0 A 1 Py Th wt N 8

[…]

r

4 = 25 > ”

5 — “4 5 1 4 […] - Bat „ E

— 2 A

on […] 1 1 —— — 8 ba — : […] re ws * 2 * * TI — hn — mm ol […] 2 > Shs — VF… S — * 2 — _ ” *

P

Fx \ PISS OT

“I mtr”

YA ru

F

a0 K […] u — 22. — —

[…] 2 —.

276 BOOK IV. ART. I. SECT. XvIII.

because the course of the sentence led them to it; « God” was in the first part or member of the sen-

tence, and perhaps © Chris” would have been put

in the second part, if it had required no force to make the change; but, as Christ was God as we!! as man, and as #9 wrong notion could arise out of the expression, the reasons might seem strongest

agaiust interrupting the course of the sentence: but

this I am no way positive about; […] of Christ’ might have been a very good expression;

but St. Paul was very earnest; - wanted to use as strong an expression as possible: however all this may be, I am in general against changing the ex-

pressions of Scripture | in any degree, in things above our comprehension, when it can be avoided,

Is not this speaking against the Doctrine of the Trinity? imagine many Trinitarians would allow, that it might have been as well, if the Doctrine bad

continued in that indefinite state, in which it was

before Christians engaged in controverly about it;

to asseit to it is not to declare, that you would

have put the Doctrine into its present form, had you had your choice. It is not to approve of such a measure, though I think it may be approved on a principle of self-defence. As to the word Triniy,

though it be not scriptural, and though I would

give it up, I think it perfectly harmless and unex- ceptionable;—on the principle already mentioned, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost occur so often in Scripture, and ought to occur fo often in diicourses on Baptism, &c. that a collective name

for them is highly proper and reasonable. . As

k AQs xx. 28. |

i What I have said on Acts xx. 28. does not prevent its being used as an argument for the Dzvinity of Christ: because it seems clear, that such language would not have been used, if Christ as not, in some views, to be considered as Divine,

BOOK IV. ART. 1. SECT. xix. 277

As to 1 John 11. 16. as the word Se is not in our Testaments, and therefore the words of God” are in Italics, we need not dwell upon it. XxIx. I do not fee why it might not be a subject of inquiry, whether the word God is always used in the fame precise sense in Scripture; as im- plying the tame power, wildom, &c? such an in- quiry ought not to determine any thing, but only to open our views; we do not want it for ourselves, as our arguments go to prove the Divinity: of the Son and Holy Ghost in the highest sense; but only to give some case and relief to those, who are shocked with our Doctrines; to open a path, by which they might possibly be able to join us: par- ticularly such an inquiry might be a means of uniting, different sects of Christians in that, which seemed molt difficult, in offering up addresses to the Son and Holy Ghost. I use the more words for fear an 1nnacent expedient should give offence to any well-meaning person. Thoie who should en- gage in such an inquiry would examine John i. 1. where it is said, that the fame Being (the Word) „ was with God” and © wes God:”—they would consider, whether this could be without a plurality of Gods, if the word God was used both times in precisely the fame * sense.— They would consider John x. 34. (with Psalm IXxxXII. 6.) where Christ tells the Jews, that they could not consistently stone him for Blasphemy, in calling himself the Son of

| God, because they acknowledged those persons to

be Gods, who were inferior to him; who could not do the works that he did: e e readers would see, that the reasoning of our Saviour had in it lomething of the nature of the argumentum

ad

k See Theophylact’s answer to Porphyry? 8 cavil, 1 in Larduer” s Works, Vol. 8. P. 211.

r .

S · ET

4a _

—

7 8 > I =

ho BEI

= = bal . IS “I. . […] 1 ID 4 — #

[ * W. ” MAS |} „ 2E 12 V oth “4 k i % nu N N ; «4 on + r N yh FIN 4 —

we “Hy = hy

— —

Nr b ”—%

——

278 BOOK IV. ART. I. SECT. X1X.

ad hominem, and therefore they would think whe. ther he would have blamed the Jews tor calling him God, in an inferior fserise :—lIr would occur to them, that, in the imperfection of human lan- guage, a word was often used to express one kind of thing in different degrees; as a King of Spain and a King of Cherokees, have very different de- grees of power, though both are called Kzngs:— and also that one person had in Scripture different titles in different circumstances, without any change taking place in that person; as Moses was a God and a Servant’, without any actual alteration in his condition. Such Inquirers might debate, whether things might not be represented 7o us with some accommodation to our faculties; as if when it was said such a Being was Divine, the meaning was, in strictness, only that we should a& and speak as if he was so.

Perhaps nothing material could be objected to an inquiry of this nature; nevertheless, the result of it could scarcely be more than this; We do not

absolutely conclude, that understanding the word God in different degrees, as it were, “world solve difficulties relating to the Trinity, but every opportunity of freely thinking, whether some- thing of this fort might not possibly have some concern with the matter, must needs occasion a degree of eale and satisfaction to a mind fatigued with doubt and perplexity ®.”

xx, The last improvement I shall mention is what consists in dice ning more and more clearly

the

| Exod. vii. 1. Hebr. iii. 5. = ArSewng vyn Te Yew ETEY £8, Xen. Mem. &:- Io TH OEM Tranfl. Anima hominis de Divina Natura participat. divine particulam auræ. Hor. Could these expressions be of any use ?

the zses* of the Doctrine of the Trinity. These should always have our diligent attention ; but, at the same time, we should be very cautious, lest we lay too much stress upon our own conjeftures.—] have already said, that our Christian Trinity does not seem to have sprung from the fancy or the ear,

but from the nature of things. I have mentioned

some reasons, why we are unwilling to give it up to our dissenting brethren”; but I have hinted, that the uses ascribed to the Doctrine are only to be put

on the footing of the Hlustralions s; not to be con-

sidered as perfectly understood, but only as tend- ing to abate men’s prejudices against it. I have but little to add: only as the difficulty of the doc- trine arises from seeming contradiction and incon- sistency, it might be expected, that, when we came to act upon the different parts of it, we should find ourselves entangled and impeded by interfering duties and obligations; but that is not the case: we may act and pray, to God; to Father,

Son, and Holy Ghost; as we are commanded j in

Scripture, and never find ourselves, in fulfilling one duty, neglecting another. On this account, I should say, that, though the Doctrine of the Tri-

nity be unintelligible in speculation, it is mntelligible in practice.

u Cornish on the Pre-existence of Christ, and Waterland’s

Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity, might be consulted. o Sect. 111. near the end. p Sect. xv. 4 Sect. x. end. See Jonathan Edwards’s Sermons, on F aith,

p. 141.

y 0 2 F = N

S< _= x Ig ©

PEP… +

2=Y “I ze PIO wr LO I ME * 2 22 =, — 3 bh. ie n

U ere TN — ALL

ER […] C

N ———— De s SS 5 - r 2 > SIE AFR; — 8 —— 8 3 =O. 8 N — 8 — 5 1 2 — 5 8 4 r 4 > £ n TIE — — 2 — n E FX Ea - JI 2 W- - . r

[…] STR _ —

pen ne,

—

• Coda HE 2

n

*% = 2 a0 he 7

EF —

EE SR *

r

FFF E

——

SEN a

1 280 J

CONCERNING THE GENUINENESS OF 1 JOHN v.)

T MIGHT now | proceed to the second Article; but the famous disputed text, 1 John v. 7. being usually accounted one main support of the doctrine of the Trinity, I may be expected not to pass it over, or leave it undistinguished amidst the forty-eight already mentioned. Whether that text is genuine, being a critical 1 inquiry, belongs pro- perly to our first Book; but it will /eem most wor- thy of attention in this place; especially as the controversy on this subject is revived.

It has been said®, that some Anti-trinitarians have in some. degree favoured the genuinenefs of this text, and that some Trinitarians have thought it spurious: who the former are, I do not happen to know, or remember, at this time; but amongst the latter may be reckoned Bentley®, Michaelis*, and, for a time, Erasmus, and even Dr. Waterland: Dr. S. Clarke“, I should add, as I never conceive him to be what I should call an Arian.— We should also add the great Martin Luther: and Bishop Bur- net * seems inclined to reject the Text.

DT Insidels

This Appendix was written in Ogober, I 789. 5 Bengelius, Appar. Crit.

<. Sec Biographia Britannica, end of his life. 5 Introd, Lect. Sect. Fr. © Vol. 4. Fol. p. 121. f On ist Art. p. 05 o davo.

Lagdels seem fond of opposing the genuineness of this Text, taking that occasion to revile the orthodox for fraud and forgery. Voltaire blunders? most terribly about! it; and Mr. Gibbon has been thought very hasty in his assertions respecting it; though I think some Christians seem inclined to defend him. Voltaire dates the forgery about the time of LaQantius, who is placed in 306; Mr. Gibbon says, the Text was first alledged to Hun- neric at Carthage, 484.—His date, in his Table of Contents, is 530; but he says, p. 544, and 545, « Tt (the Text) was first alledged” at the Council of Carthage, which, I think, was 484.

This Text has occasioned much controversy in modern times, but the ancients do not seem to | speak, as if there had been any disputes amongst them relative to it; nor do I happen to remember any controversial Janguage about it in the short

writings of the famous Editors soon after the inven» tion of printing.

The chief opposers of the genuineness of the Text are Emlyn, Wetstein, Michaelis, Benson, and Sir

1. Newton: — the chief defenders, Martin and Twells (who converted Waterland): Bengelius is very candid, but favours the verse on the whole; and Mill does so decidedly, after reckoning up an host

of arguments against it, which one would think angel

The

E See his Works, 4to. Vol. xxiv. p. 450; and Vol. xxvii.

p. 426. In one place, he makes the 7th the disputed verse; in another, the Sth.

i See his History, Vol. iii. p. 544. Quarto. < Cantabrigientis in Gent. Mag. 1788, and 1789.

1794. Mr. Person in his Letters, published 1790, speaks as if this controversy had then continued two centuries and an | half; fee p. 69; it seems to have begun with Erasmus’s publish- ing his first Editions without 1 John v. 7. and the Editors of Alcala, and Stephens with it. In the English Bibles of Hen.

Ir f. it is in a different Character; see Clarke, Scrip. Dodtr. kart 1. _ iv.

The question seemed going against the gennine. ness, till Mr. Travis, in 1784, published some Let- ters to Mr. Gibbon, in quarto, on the subject, in a spirited and eloquent stile, The year after, he

1blished a second edition, in octavo, with cor- rections and additions. These have occasioned some remarks; the most formidable of which, that I have feen, are published in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1788 and 1789, under the signature of Canta- brigiensis, This Author professes to offer nothing eto; but I suppole his animadversions may not be yet (Oct. 28, 1789) completed; and what he has written he has made his own ; he has not the stile and manner of a compiler. 5

This is all the Hzory of the dispute, which I will trouble you with; the arguments on the dif- ferent sides are very numerous; I must content myself with giving general views of them, and then making a few remarks. |

1. In order to prove, that the verse in dispute

is not genuine, it is urged, that it is not found in any Greek MSS, or, not in any of any consequence. One at Dublin and one at Berlin are not reckoned to be worth mentioning.. Voltaire says, it is found in modern MISS, but not in ancient ones: but he does not specify, nor must we take our facts from him, as he appears ignorant of the question. It is also urged, that the verse is not in those

ancient writers, where one might expect to find it; as in those, who commented on Scripture, or who

were

k See Gent. Mag. for Feb. 1789, p. 101. beginning.

! In the Gentleman’s Magazine for June 1780, 1 see it is said (p. £14. Col. 2d.) „ four of which” (eleven) „ omit the di- puted passage: are we to conclude, that it was found in /e ? ‘These MISS. are (or were) in the King of France’s Library. The account is given by Le Long, who is supposed adverse to the passage, and who says, these MSS were what R. Stephens used for his edition of the Gr, Test, 1550.

were engaged in controversy about the Doctrine of che Trinity. Bede, tor instance, placed by Lard- ner in 701, comments on the verses immediately before and after it, without noticing it. And the number of these Fathers, who have omitted this yerse, is considerable: indeed amongst the Greek Fathers, the number is extremely small of those, who have introduced it into their writings. As to Versions, there is doubt, whether it was in the old Italic; or whether it was lin the Arme- nian; it confessedly was not in the Syriac, or the Coptic. Other versions are mentioned, as omitting it; but they do not seem to have been taken from the original, but from preceding versions. Sometimes, the 7th verse is marginal sometimes, the order of that and the 8th is“ changed, which

indicates an unsteadiness; something respecting it,

unfixed, unsettled ; sometimes, the 7th verse ap- pears as a sort of mystical interpretation of the 8th. On the other hand; Mr. Travis reckons up twenty-

three private persons, or writers, who introduce or

acknowledge the disputed text; these are all of the Latin or Western Church, except as Jerom declares

that he had consulted Greek MSS.—Private per- sons, or individuals, are here opposed to Bodies of men: of Bodies of men fen are enumerated, who use or exhibit the Text; including the Apostolus; that is, the collection of Epistles, in Greek, which

were read in the Service of the Greek Church: In

this number are allo included three versions, out of five original versions, the Armenian, Jerom’s Latin, (or the Vulgate), and the old Italic. And a num- ber of omissions are shewn in the Syriac and Cop- tic, such as to take away the effect of their omittin I John v. 7.—Only 7wo Greek Fathers are adduced as having this verse, and one of those 1s of the 11th Century. m 3 thinks it ould be so.

[…]

bs

[…] r ”> » 2 5 — — 1 Y 8 2 % 225 — 8 — —

Century. It is said, that the Complutensian Edi. tors and Robert Stephens, (and Valla and Erasmus before them) all followed Greek Manuscripts; they all undoubtedly have the verse in question; though Erasmus had it not in his two first editions. And now, What judgment 1 is an impartial man to form on these grounds? it is not easy to be quite impartial, but a man may feel more freedom, when his determination will not involve him in any dif- ficulties, on which side soever it is made. First, as to MSS, particularly the Greek; ir seems to me, that the text had been wanting in some early ones, and of course, in all those tran- scribed from them. But it might nevertheless be afterwards admitted reasonably, or restored, into the Canon of Scripture: many things are in our Scriptures now which have been found wanting in some MSS, and those MSS neither modern, as I conceive, nor of bad authority: Instances may be, Acts vill. 37.— John v. 3, 4.— — John vii. 53.— Matt. xvi. 2, 3.— Luke xxii. 43.—And the ac- count of our Saviour’s treatment of the woman taken in adultery, John vii. 3—11. These in- stances make me more easily fall into the notion, that paslages really written by the sacred Penman may have been wanting in MSS older than any now in being. And this I apply to 1 John v. TT But, though our passage may have been wanting in 3 early Greek MSS, I cannot read what 1s said by the Complutensian Editors, R. Stephens, Beza, and Erasmus, nor by Valla, whose work Erasmus published, without believing, that they did fee it in several valuable Greek MSS. And 1 observe the fame of Jerom. All that can make any doubt, with regard to these persons, is the force of preconceived notions, or that these learned

men might have an opinion, chat, by forcing the Text

Text into their Books, they were doing service to the pure doctrine of the Catholic Church, as they would speak. - But the number of the Editors at Alcala is against this; and fo is the number of the Divines of Louvain; (see Travis, p. 296, octavo:) and the characters of the others, their regard for

literature in general, and particularly for sacred

learning; and the circumstance, that no Doctrine would fall to the ground by this text being can- celled. — On the whole, it seems to me rather pro- bable, that the passage was in some MSS as ancient as any of those which the Church used, when it fixed upon four Gospels and twenty-one Epistles; out of a large mixture of writings, genuine and | spurions; though at the same time it might be wanting in others. Mr. Travis supposes those Greek MISS, which were used by the first Editors, or printers, to be bf; and that they might be lost by being neglected after they had been used. Je- rom’s in Palestine could not be expected to survive to this time; but destroying MSS after printing from them seems too common a practice, in gene-

ral. The best judgment, that I can form out of what is urged on both sides relative to Yerfions, is,

that our disputed verse was in the old Italic, be-

caule several of the passages of the Latin Fathers, m which it is introduced, seem to have been writ- ten before that ceased to be the Scripture of the Latin Church. About Jerom’s Vulgate, there is no doubt.—To consider the Armenian, would in- troduce too long a discussion for 26. The omissions in the Syriac and Coptic do seem very numerous. — The old Italic is of consequence; it was much older than any of our Greek MSS; nay, it seems

to have been the Scripture of the Western Church from the earliest times.

; * — 8 - […] - 1 = - :

Fee. 3 3 5 E

“i

Yi by! “HA! N %

\ N

AT N of As,

, of $

Min N

£Y = CE

EZ, „ *

It does seem strange, that the passage in question should not have been more frequently introduced by the Fathers.—lIts being omitted in a continued commentary is the greatest objection to it. Indeed Chrysostom comments in Homilies, and he seems to go no farther than the Epistle to Hebrews; but Bede’s is a direct and pointed omission. In such a case, we may suppose, that, on the whole, those MSS were preferred, which omitted the verse: Bede must rank with Bentley; though Mr. Travis does not allow this; he thinks Bede would have men- tioned the omission, if there had been one.— Or he might rank with Luther, who certainly must have known many arguments on both fides, before controverly began, by being conversant in the works of the ancients.

Of Fathers not commentators, it may be said, that their works are only Fragments, generally speak- ing: (the losses which we have had of the works of Origen are particularly to be lamented:) and that there might be good reasons for not quoting our patlage, which we cannot conceive: that the readings of it might be wse/tIed, and perplexed; and being so, that the sense of it might seem diffi- cult, when put in its place: that, before contro- versy arose, it is not a likely paflage to be often quoted;—and that, after controverly arole, that controversy was not so much about the Trinity as is commonly said; the Arian controverly was more about the Divinity of the Son of God, of which this Text could not be any favourite proof. —Ter— tullian did dispute with Unitarians, as such, and he seems to me to have interwoven the Text in his writing, according to the manner of the early Fathers“; though others seem in che same cale?,

to

” See accounts of what Scriptures the early Fathers owned, in Lardner’s Credibility, » See Mill on the place.

to have passed it by, as if it was not fo much no- ticed formerly as now. ‘This text is undoubtedly

a very good one to justify our speaking of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost together; and the union men-

tioned implies great dignity of character in the

Son and Holy Spirit; but yet the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost (which is included in our

Trinity) appears more satisfactorily from other parts of Scripture, where their attributes are described separately. Indeed I should doubt, whether the belief of it ever would have arisen from this passage,

especially as many learned commentators * look |

upon the Union as meaning only what we call una- nimity.

But, supposing the Doctrine of the Trinity ever o clearly set forth in this Text, yet it might not

have been frequently quoted, if it be true, that there was a reserve in the leaders of Cbristianit

about publishing my/series. Christ himself * and St.

Paul certainly offered Doctrines gradually: —and

I am clear, that, if I was a missionary, or was to be employed in making converts, I should be a good while before I insisted on this verse. — Though

I thould not wish to * expunge it, as there are so

many other texts, which join rhe F ather, Son, and Holy Ghost.

And, after all, we have no Fathers, Grock or Latin, before or after the time when it confessedly

appeared, that make the least obj2#0 to this text, or to its authenticity; so tas: the silence of its friends is to be set against the silence of its enemies. That the Arians should not deny its authenticity,

s a phænomenon, which should be accounted for;

and, US It is said (what is but too true) that many writings

2 Beza is one, 1 think. Bp. Horsley i is of this opinion. 4 John xvi. 12. 1 Cor. ili. 2.

Zee Bengelius on this passage.

• A — 2 22 r 4 . — * 7 P - — 8329 7 6 […] 7 _ F>.z F p my * „. ut * * n n r a WET —

Top. FS

IR —

2 Fo 5 FI +

£4

„ —

— IRS =, - > If ES —

— Beet”

KF 3B:

”-

*%% —

— „ Fa -—=F 6 * 3 APY 75 4 „

writings of reputed heretics have been destroyed through mistaken prudence, yet we might answer, that great numbers of arguments of Heretics are preserved in the writings of those who * answer them; and that, particularly, it is improbable, chat the Bishops should have given in so long a con- session of faith at the Council of Carthage”, and should have made use of the text in question, without giving any intimation, that the Arians dif- allowed it. Of all times for its being / alledged, that is the most improbable, which Mr. Gibbon fixes upon. Ihe Argument arising from the connexion of the contested verse is urged on both sides: those, who reject it, say, that the insertion of 1t * hurts the sense of the whole passage; those, who are for adopting it, fay, that the sense is quite maimed and imperfect without it. —Bengelius, as I remem- ber, grounds his admission of it chiefly on it’s suit- ableness to it’s place. To me the whole passage seems so difficult, as to admit of different 1nterpre- rations: yet that given in the paraphrase 7 of Eras- mus pleases me most. Every one, in such disputes as these, tells his own judgment simply as a fact; claiming liberty at any time to retract it. In forming this or any other judgment, I may be prejudiced; those, who have got warmed in the controversy, shew a considerable bias, I think, one way or the other; a thing which ought to be at- tended to: yet I would, if possible, acquit them all of intentional deceit; all have faults: Mill in- deed 1s dispashonate; Bengelius seems warmly can-

did;

e Aug. contra Faustum, &c. Origen contra Celsum.

u See Travis’s Appendix, No. x1v.

BOOK Iv. APPENDIX, 289

did; even Sir Isaac Newton, in some passages, seems approaching to à kind of perihelion. Mr. Gibbon is disdainful; Voltaire is pert and flippant; but J am very desirous, if possible, to acquit them all of deliberate fraud: — To be sure, when a man, fixed in an opinion, sees a passage that suits him, he seizes on it as his prey, turns to his own writing, and thinks not of going any deeper: if, in such a case, going a page or a sentence farther would have shewn him, that he 1s totally wrong; he does incur some suspicion of having concealed, what perhaps he never knew: but, as this happens to all sides, and as there is no end of critical researches, let us take for granted that degree of innocence, which will ensure liberal treatment and liberal language. Only let every one beware of his own hypotheses ; of his own manner of accounting for the text being in, or out.—An hypothesis is a favourite child; must not be blamed though ever so blameable. Thus self-cautioned, I will make only general suppositions: —either this contested verse mult be genuine or spurious: if genuine, it must have been expunged unfairly ; if spurious, it must have been admitted unfairly: which is easier to conceive? Could it be expunged? many passages, we find, have been, though we cannot now tell why: —so might this; the ancients made very free with Scripture ; even whole books have been rejected, when they stood in the way of settled notions: while a num- ber of writings of doubttul authority were claiming attention, the Judgment of private individuals had more scope than now*. Whoever first omitted any passage 1n any copy, it would be omitted by all transcribers

Yet Luther is id to have rejected the Epistle of James; and Michaelis the Epistle of Jude: well might hey reject 4 single verse.

“YOL I, 7

transcribers from that copy, and from theirs. Some seem strongly persuaded, that governors of a Church, or leading men amongst Christians, might order some things to be omitted in some copies. When those who transcribe do not understand what they write, if two things are /ike, (as the 7th and 8th verses are), one of them gets omitted“. — Though, therefore, there are other passages to the

fame effect with this under consideration, it might

be genuine, and yet get expunged.

Nc suppose it /parious; then it must have got admitted unfairly: is this equally easy? why should it be forged? Voltaire says, a man would be mad

to forge it; but he did not understand the subject;

we may fay, that no one would think of forging such a passage, till it was wanted in controversy : but

_ then, enemies would he upon the watch; and they,

by objecting, could stop the forgery: Mr. Gibbon saysé, this forgery was committed about the time of the Council of Carthage; but, durst the African Bishops forge it at that time? would not the Arians, who were then in power, have been clamorous ?— of such a forgery at such a time, I see no degree of probability. 8 If this Text might be more easily expunged un-

fairly, than admitted unfairly; it is more easy to conceive it genuine than squrious.

Perhaps this question may be determined satis- factorily hereafter; new MSS may be found; in the East, where Jerom was; in Spain, where Car- dinal Ximenes had MSS; or in other places.—At present, I should think Mr. Travis’s book might be

£307” 2 -2-7 0 OCONNENees - 2 4 There are three that bear record,” the scribe writes; looks

up again, takes the second for the first; goes on, in earth.“

d Some suppose it to have been written marginally first, as 3 gloss upon the 8th verse, and afterwards to have been taken

into the Text; as before-mentioned.

© Vol. iii. p. 544. Quarto.

recommended to the perusal of those, who wished to learn something of the critical part of Theology, and yet did not relish a book if it had not anima- tion and acuteness.— Till farther satisfaction be obtained, may all controversialists be careful in their researches, humble in their pretensions, can- did in their judgments, and benevolent in their expression s.

4 1794, March 24. This day, in my Lecture, I read to my Auditors this Appendix on 1 John v. 7. first written in 1789, ani observed, that, supposing the evidence on which the re- narks in it were built, as good as it might appear to be to any reasonable man, there was little in them to be ashamed of: then J mentioned in what points Mr. Person’s Letters called that evidence into question : Stephens’s MSS, Erasmus’s Codex Britannicus, &c. &c, were mentioned; and I read part of dir I. Newton’s Stricture on Beza; and some paslages from Marth’s Michaelis. I said, that, as Mr. Travis was about to publish, it would be indecent and unfair to come to any decision at present, I recommended the «r:x:y on some occasions, and observed that many errors had arisen from impatience under sulpenje. (Ses B, 13. Chap, 13. Sed. 17

— 8 2 […] 5 ne LY

T 2 8 ART ICLE

R 292 BOOK IV. 1.

Notes

• Numerum quinarium composition animæ convenire, tribus de causis, arbitramur. Ficini compendium in Timæum. c. 27. See Plutarch de procreatione animæ, ex Platonis Timæo; and Dacier, p. 103.
• See Voltaire, Vol. xiv. Quarto. and Gibbon, Vol. ii. Pe 243. quarto, t See Lardner’s Tests, under Numenius ; (a Syrian, not im- probably before Christ) ; or Lard. Works, Vol. viii. p. 168. _» Cic, de Nat. Deer. 1. 12.
• Like means in English See Allix’s Jews against Unitarians, p. 116. or Chap. i ix, 2 Parkhurst, I7Z— and WIO&— Lex. Buxt. 12mo. p. 1 59s Some one refers to Le Clerc’s Ars ebene p 150—1 56.
• DG cal © Gibbon, Vol. u. p. 237, &c. Quarto.
• See Gibbon, Vol. ii. p. 249. Note 51. Allix Pref. . Bingham, 11. 3. 4.
• Instances may be seen in Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp; or in * 13. 2. 1, &c.
• Peak 4 Cemury: i See Bingham, 13. 2. 4. Vol. 1. p. 572.
• , 85, and 70. LIED, Vol. 4. p. 191.—Lord King on th
• See Pearson on the Creed, He ce was conceived,” & c. Note on Patripassians.
• Works, 4to, Vol. xxvii. p. 4 52.
• Michaelis, Introd. LeR. p. 382. Quarto. Sect. 151. Travis, Pp. 336. P. S. Sir Isaac Newton’s seems good: and Clarke’s, Scrip. Doctr. Trin. Part 1. Chap. 4. would not bave been objected to, if! It had occurred first,