1. This Article, if we were to attempt to treat it fully, would carry us too far, considering that we are not to fix our attention upon any one Ar- tide, so as to neglect the rest. The volumes, which have been written upon the Doctrine con- tamed in this second, are innumerable. Our bu- siness must therefore be to select such considerations as seem most essential, and belong most immedi- ately to us. In order to do this, we may observe, 1. That what has been said under the preceding Article, need not be repeated under this;—and the Doctrine of the Trinity is fo intimately connected with our present Doctrine, that many things hay […] cen

BOOK IV. ART. 11. SECT. I; 293

been said already, which might have been now said with at least equal propriety. _

2. That every thing relating to the /af? clause of this Article, which affirms, that Christ was a vic- tim both for original and actual fin, may properly be omitted till we have gone through the ninth Ar- tide: especially as 1t will have a place under the eleventh. _ 1

3. That we may leave the minuter parts of Con- troversy to those, who make the Doctrine of this Article their sole object, and content ourselves with more general views of the matters, on which di- putes are apt to turn.

Our plan may nevertheless be the same as in the preceding Article. First, too take an hiforical view of our subject. Secondly, to give an explanation (which will be chiefly historical) of the expressions of the Article. Thirdly, to prove the truth of the propositions contained in it. And, lastly, to make an Application of the whole to the present situation of things. „„ .

First then, we are to take an historical view of the Doctrine contained in the second Article of our Church: first, of the Orthodox Doctrine; after- wards, of the deviations from it. 19 5

The Jeꝛos seem to have had some notion of a Fon of God before the Christian era, and to have applied the term Ace to him; as allo to have, in some way, connected their ideas of their expected Messiah with the same Perlonage.—It is scarcely to be expected, that their notions should be found definite and dissinct, as they had not distinct in-

formation, but only obscure intimations: if they only afford a sufficient apology for St. John’s men- tioning the Word fo * seldom as he does, that will,

I presume, Four times; or however in only four different wer/zs. John i. 1.—John i. 14. —1 John v. 7.— Rev. xix. 13. Abp. Tillot- fon talks of St. John’s frequent mention of the Word; he mult mean his repetition in John 1. 1. surely ?

294 BOOK IV. ART. 11. SECT. I.

I presume, be deemed sufficient ;—and for giving a title to so sublime a character without. any pre- paration, or explanation,—It he addreffed himself to those, to whom his term was familiar, he had ‘no need to explain it.

Whence we colle& what were the notions of the Firms: has been already shewn.

That what J have affirmed is true, must appear from consulting a number of passages in the most ancient Jewish writings ; I will therefore content myself with referring to those wwriters*, who have collected such passages; only I will read some of them to those, who may not happen to have the Books in which they are contained.

1 here are {ome patlages, especially of the Old Testament, which mention the /Ford of God, fo as to give me no idea of that Word’s being a Per- son; and the fame of the Breath or Spirit“ of God: Lardner seems to speak of these, as if there were no others; but there are {ome passages of the an- cient Jews, which I can underitand only as making

the Word a Person. These may be seen in Allix, before referred to.

It must be confessed, that the Jews, in our Sa- viour’s time, when they came to fact and practice, seem to have not been much influenced, at one time, by these habitual notions, received by tra-

dition; they seem to have given themselves up to | the

o Art, 1. Sect. 11. Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, might be added. Allix on Unitarians, beginning: p 2. 102. also Chap. 12, p 18. Chap. 16, and 17. p. 253, and 265. Tillotson, Vol. 1. Fol. p. 410. Pearton on the Creed, p. i17, Fol. or 233, Quarto. Grotius de Ver. . 2. Parkhurst’s Gr. Lex. under Ac yo.

d Psalm xxxiii. 6. Yet those, who were upon the watch for intimations, might consider © Word” as meaning the 500 of

God; and “ breath”? as meaning his Holy Ni, It. e Works, Vol. 6. p. 216.

BOOK IV. ART. 11. SECT. f. 295

the delusive hopes of being rescued from their state of dependence, by a temporal Prince; but that only proves, that their notions of Logos, and Son of God, as connected with Me/tah, were not definite, and distiuct, (as was just now allowed) but to be confirmed by acts, like prophecies : and therefore were such as might be set aside, at times, by the force of passion. See Dr. George Campbell’s Essay on Kveres, p. 316; and Waterland’ s Answer to Dr. Whitby’s Reply, p. 51

But we are told*, that Jess and Christians have both borrowed notions of Abyeg from Plato: —our answer to this has been already given, under the preceding Article.

The opinions of Christians, with regard to the Mord, seem to correspond to their several opinions of the Person and dignity of Christ.—Even Dr. Priestley ® says, the Word, or Christ,” as if he did not difown, that the Word might mean Christ, as Socinus * himself supposed; yet he rather fol- lows the more modern Socinian notion, that the Word means only © the Power or Energy of God.” As the word Aoyoc may mean either inward rea- jon, or audible speech, two epithets have been added to it, in order to distinguish these senses; Azye; eu- q ere, Or inward realon, has been opposed to a TroPopmog, or speech pronounced or set forth; but using Ahe in either of these senses, seems to interfere with the Personality of the Word: on which account, I suppose, the Council of Sirmium

condemned

b % Verbum vel Filium“ Cat. Racov. p. 61, and * Allix, p 2. See also Lardner’s Works, Index Logos: and Vol. 3. p. 70. Vol. 6. p. 215, bottom.

. A These two sorts of Aeyo; are found in the 77 pinities, Art. 1. ert. I, |

T 4

296 BOOK Iv. ART. 11. SECT. 11.

[…]

The orthodox hold the Avyos and the Son of God

to be the fame; yet this does not occur in our Creeds. Some writers, as Epiphanius and Philaster, fay, there was a sect called Alogians, from their rejeQing the Logos, and those parts of Scripture where he is mentioned. Lardner thinks (Her. end) there is not sufficient esimony of the existence of such a sect; —it does not in itself seem unlikely ; and the evidence is not bad.

Indeed, our proper business is now with the or- ode Doctrine; though, that we might not need to return to the History of the Ace, I have mentioned some notions of those, who were not orthodox.

11. What was police said of the Doctrine of the Trinity, may be said of that of the Divinity of Christ; which makes a part of it; that it seems, in some sort, to have existed at all times, though not to have been made up into a speculative, systematic form, till it was discussed in controversy’. As, in different parts of Scripture, written on different oc- casions, and in different circumstances, some ex- pressions seem to favour one Doctrine, some ano- ther; so it is in the writings of the early Fathers“; — whilst this was the case, it may either be said, that the Doctrine existed, or that it did not exist; though more properly perhaps, that is, more according to the customary use of words, it might be said not to exist, or at least not to have come to maturity; but then the same may be said of any Doctrine opposed to that of the uchi:

al

& Hilay’s Works, p. 1175, Sth Anathema. A. D. 357. 1 Art. 1. Sect. 1v.

n Bingham has collected the orthodox passages. 13. 2» 1, Ke.

Christ: when one could be said to exist, in any sense, its opposite might be said to exist in the same sense. — However, I look upon the Doctrine of the Divinity of Christ to have come to maturity before that of the Trinity, as seems to appear from the Nicene Creed ; which dwells most particularly on

the Son of God. 8

We may reason thus: the establishment of a doctrine must depend, not only on its being dis- cussed in controversy, but on the extent of that con- troversy. Though we suppose Tertullian and Praxeas to have discussed the Doctrine of the Tri- nity ever so accurately, yet, if the dispute was known to but fezww Christians, and was not noticed by the main body of the Church, it might not pro- duce a Doctrine, in the common sense of the word. Now, the extent of the controversy concerning the Son of God was very great, so that whatever opi- mon was fixed by that, might properly be called a Doctrine; an efabli//hed Doctrine of the main body of Christians; who would, of course, call them-

selves the Catholic Church®, It we withed to lee particularly the nature of the progress, which our Doctrine made, we need only

put ourselves in the place of the early Christians, and think what they might naturally do. They might at first use warm and lofty expressions of Scripture, addressing themielves to the Father or the Son, as the occasion dictated. Then the might vary or paraphrase thele expressions a little, loaf to make them suit their own circumstances, without intending to introduce any new meaning: when variations were used, different people would ule different variations or phrases; according to their views

Bp. Burnet talks of the Trinity being »niver/ally received,

&c. on the Articles, p. 48, Octavo; near close of first Article. This mentioned Art. 1, Sect. Iv,

views and dispositions: this would produce mutual remarks; and remarks would produce controversy, What began in sentiment, would end in specula-

tion, and so religion would be transferred from the

Heart to the Head.

111. But 1 will not dwell longer on the History of the orthodox Doctrine: — I will now endeavour to look so far into the history of other opinions, or fancies, as may suffice to give us the same views which the compilers of our Article had, while their attention was confined to the business of forming it. It seems probable to me, that all the notions, ancient and modern, respecting the Son of God, have arisen from a desire and hope of /olving the dificulties naturally arising from the scriptural ac- counts of his Person and character? :—these diffi- culties are no doubt very great; nay, the only

way to conquer them is to allow them to be 1% perable ; yet, as allowing that might be the effect

of carelessness and indolence ; attempts to clear them up cannot be universally blameable.

It is not easy to determine what method to pur- sue in reducing to order accounts so heteroge-

neous, so distant in time and situation, as those

relating to Christ; but it seems as if we had best first mention what are the Points, on which difter-

ence can arise; and what are the Sefs and per sous,

who have held any opinions with regard to those points, The points, on which men have differed, when

they thought on the subject} of the nature and cha-

rater of Christ, have been these. 1. His Consub- e . ftantiality

o Could it be said, that there is no one of the solutions of Heretics, which we should not be defirous to adopt, while we only considered the arguments for it, and for. it alone! before we came to see what diffica/ties arose out of it, from its incon- sistency with some parts of 9

BOOK Iv. It. 299

feantiality with the Father. 2. His? pre-existence, before his nativity. 3. The manner of his Tncar- nations or the manner in which the Word was. made Flesh. 4. What is called the Hypostaric Union, or the conjunction of the Divine and hu- man natures“, (Ovrers) 1 in one Person Gros erig) or agent, called Christ; 5 LWG K vroraow .

The sedts, or persons, who have differed on these different points, I should reckon as eleven; dividing all the early Christian Heresies into two classes, and reckoning them only as two. We should notice then, 1. The Oriental, 2. The Jewish Heretics of the two or three first centuries, 3. The Arians. 4. The followers of Photinus. 5. Nesto- mans. 6. Eutychians. 7. The Monothelites. 8. The Adoptionaru. 9. The Socinians. 10. The Ana- baptists. And lastly, some particular persons, who may not have given a name to a sect.— Though these may seem numerous, there is no doubt but the compilers of our Articles had them * all in view; indeed their views were much more extensive

than

? This does not mean pre-existence as mere man, a thing which the Jews were inclined to believe; see Macknight on John ix. 2.

4 Whoever denies the second point mull deny the first Who ever grants the first must grant the second.

r ‘Ymorwagic is used for a Divine Person of the Holy Trinity, see Nicholls, Fol. on the 1st Art. p. 27. Yet what is here said musl, I think, be right in Do2rine: it must be the two; of two Datures in una vropacz, though not of the 7 rinity. —] see, in Nicholls, Nestorius was blamed for holding two vuzoracus or two Persons; two Christs: p. 40. col. 2. vroracs in Suicer, signifies this fame thing called Hern (as in Heb. i. 3.) —and, in one quotation, it is said, that one persen of the Trinity took man’s nature, united it with the Divine Nature (without confusion) and yet still was but oe Person — Under seie, there are men- tioned several unions: EVWOk KATH Fan. JELIE XAT B91; and the hypostatic union is called imo; xar! vio ac,

See Title to Dodrina, &c. Ecclesiæ Anglicanz, and the title of the Articles in that Collection: or Sect. iv. of the lutrod, to tlis Book rv,

—

300 BOOK IV. Iv.

than ours will be merely for having considered these. |

IV. We are to consider, or recollect, what the Oriental early Heretics held concerning our present subject; concerning Christ.— Here Iavould wish to have it seen, that men do not in general pay respect enough to their adversaries: instead of declaiming against those who oppose us, we should endeavour to find out what misled them, supposing their intention good: we should put ourselves in their place, and endeavour to see with their eyes.

This is difficult with regard to Eastern Chris- tians, we have such different habits and prejudices from theirs: and I suppose that even Travel would not put us in their place, because most of their _ notions have taken their rife in remote antiquity.— All that we can now do is only to reser to the ac- count of early Heretics given in the Appendix to our first Book, and select what is to our present purpose. The Oriental sects were strongly tinctured

with notions of a number of ons: some of them

from being accustomed to the worshipping of the Sun, let their fancies run to the heavenly Lumina- ries: most of them, if not all, had some abhor- renee of matter : these notions subsisted, in some degree, before the coming of Christ; and those, who were unwilling to relinquish them, endea- voured to incorporate them with Christianity. The consequence was, that they had doctrines, which seem to us strange, concerning the creation of the world, the nature of Christ’s Body, and of his re- lidence after his ascension.ä— They held, that the material world was framed by ons, or Spirits, amongst whom they reckoned Lagos, Monogenes, Oos, and many others; or that some inferior arti-

ficer

Lord King mentions 7hree principles; from Origen, King on the Creed, p. 93.

BOOK IV. ART. II, SECT. v. 301

ficer or Demiurgus in particular, was employed in that imperfect work: not any being so perfect as Christ. They maintained, that Christ had not a real body, but only an apparent one; and they were, on that account, called Docetæ, or Phantafi-

glæ: this was denying our Saviour’s humanity : and they were obliged, in order to be consistent,

to carry on their notions, by saying, that the ac- counts of the crucifixion, &c. were allegorical, or mystical; this was of courle to deny a proper nat:-

vity. Lastly, endeavouring to connect their notions.

of Christ with their notions of the luminaries, some of them held, that Christ was taken from the Sun“, or Stars, and was to return to them; in which

case, Christ was only supposed to pass through the

Womb of the blefled Virgin, as through a tube. This was an old notion; see Lord King on the Creed, p. 116. 157.—See Div. Leg. Index, Soul.“

Mani made the second person of the Trinity to

reside in the Sun, and made him correspond to the Persian Mithras. Some conceived Christ to come not from Heaven, but from the four Elements; and to be resolved * into them again. Yalentinus is allo said to have supposed Christ, as the Son of God,

to be cut off, as it were, or separated ? from the Father; so that a part of the Father was (or must

be) taken away. ve v. As the Oriental early Heretics denied the humanity of Christ, the Jew denied his“ di- 1 e | vinity. u Valentinus; Lard. Works, Vol. 9. p. 444. * Lord King on Creed, p. 277. 5 Y See Lord King on Creed, bottom of p. 133. = Eusebius, Ecclef. Hist. 3. 27. calls Ebionites and Naza- renes two sorts of Ebionites ; see Lardner’s Works, Vol. 7 p. 20. The former thought Christ merely human, though they had an high opinion of him as a mar the latter held Christ to be born supernaturally, but did not allow his pre-existence.— Lardner says, that there were few of the former sort, and that their notion is not maintained in any Christian zoriting.

. n ons. […] 8 * — :

5 TR

[…] 2 7 2

— f — 2 — 23 RES —— :

IE eo Tiaras ww. = 7

2 […] - » — wm ———— -

[…] 2 =S. — 2 < 1 * 8 . , * — 7

—

=

[…]

8 — - ® N […] wat ? 5 2 ”

— ES

— — —

—

E

$08 BOOK iv. ART, II. SECT. vi.

vinity. But as what was said * in describing these related wholly to our present subject, we cannot select from it, and therefore must refer to 1t. —Pof. fibly, the Ebionites might think of nothing, with regard to the Messiah, but that he was to be a temporal Prince, and a mere man. — The Nazarenes might be more impressed with the notions of the Logos, and the Son of God (John i. 49.) being the same with the © King of Ilrael,” or Messiah. We might mention, as before, some Christians, who seem to have mixed Oriental and Judaical no- tions: Cerinthus and Carpocrates may perhaps be

mentioned in this class. It was not uncommon, |

amongst the early Heretics, to make a difference between Jesus and Christ: and some made two | Christs even on Jew principles, one suffering, another triumphant: Pearson on the Creed, p. 371, 1st. edit, —And we may, lastly, repeat a remark on the difference between those, who held 7700 Principles, and those who held ove; that the former used to deny the Humanity of Christ, and the latter, his Divinity.

We have now finished our references to the Ab- pendix of the first book; it relating only to the early Heretics.

vi. We pass on to the Arians.— Arius seems to have been an African: he 1s placed in 316; it is well known, that he was a presbyter at Alexandria; a man of parts, and of commanding appearance, though affable; particularly ready at dispute. The name of his Bishop, that is, the Bishop of Alexan- dria in his time, was Alexander: by degrees, Arius got into a dispute with this Alexander, concerning the nature and dignity of the Son of God; which spread, till the whole Christian world was involved

in

• Appendix to Book b. Sect. xxl. See also Lardner n Vol. 7 P- 20.

in it: Constantine ordered the Council of Nice, in order to fettle it; but without effect: he has been reckoned too partial on the orthodox fide, though his Epistle before mentioned shews some moderation : other Emperors favoured the. Arians, but mederation was but little practised in those days.—We have already taken a flight view of Arianisin from the Council of Nice down to the present time: we may just add the name of Dr. Price, as Dr. Pricftley’s Letters to him give that description of Arianism, which is most recent.

As to the Doctrines of Arius, I do not see, that we can learn them better than from 7wwo Epistles of his own, written with great care, the one to Eu- sebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, who was of his own way of thinking, complaining of persecution, and mentioning the particular opinions, on account of which he suffered the other to his own diocesan, Alexander, apologizing for himself and his doc-

trines, which had probably been misrepresentedè. This latter is signed boy fourteen others as well as

Arius.

That. there should have been so Sch acrimony

and virulence in the Arian controversy, and so

much misery arising out of it, seems the most

strange when we observe, how very near Arius

comes to the truth, and reflect, that the difference

between the orthodox and him relates to a thing, of which we have not distinct ideas. He seined to think, that, if the Son could in any sense be called by that name, or could be {aid to have been begotten, the Father must have existed before him : J. e. there must have been some sime, when the Father was and the Son was not: he was willing to

NI put d Art. 1. Sect. vi.

[…]

— == ä — — 2 “it 222 — 1 — _ . . © If * 7 : […] N - - — — FRI - - […] n = . 22 2238 i L - En […] : = : ; ———— ew = IR 3 — . OE tte rt ESD : = . : 2 - ” pr: pgs LT 2 […] . . — 2 : a_ - W- […] 0 2 8 28 - 3 […] 2 3 A — 27777 Zo, GE 2 ** * 0 5 : = bt — - — * 2 - - Y ; : l R . 2 […] 2 2 2 = wy. Fr * * 5 4 N 4 5 — 4 © - […] 7 x […] - — 2 - De: 2 a —— * 3 - y N ny - […] pe — + g 3 Sag 2 […] a n 2 * == G - j — ** . : - 3 - […] - […] - r +. EZ — — _ “1 : 2 amy DE = 2 - […] 8 _ […] by […] 3 TI 2 1 — 2 W * 2 — 2 — al = — ng […] r — — WE: — FE: — — _ […] n 3 af 4. 3 == \ - = 5 — © OO […] 2 — NT ou IR; n FILED Fas. 3 2 . — - . —.—— x = r - — * ECT AOUES […] oF == Bot .: —_— i — — _ 2 — F […] P - * 8 . N * - To - 1 — anon —— = 2 oy R F - — XL” : bg - 5 hy —— — - Do

= — ww = = RR, 5 : A Ke AT 3 * De * HERS bg — ne >

[…] —

304 BOOK Iv. ART, 11. SECT. vi.

put that time as far back as any one pleased; he would call the Son * X,povuws Jevvnd eig, Doo r alkvuy, and the Nicene Creed only says, begotten before all worlds; go ron awwy; we do not conceive Christ to be unbegotten; only as we want ideas, we do not dare to reason, or make the least variation in what the Scripture seems to represent. — The fame may be observed of the reasoning of Arms, when he says, that, as Christ came from the Father, if

he was consubstantial with him, a part of the Father

must have left the rest; he must be arvifible. A laying accommodated to ien intellects is not to be taken or used as a plain saying not accommo- dated, to which we have adequate ideas. — Indeed Arius Hows call the Son a Creature, or xriopz, but then he says, that he is not on a footing with other creatures; going probably upon the text, which calls Christ the #r/f-born of every creature*:— and besides, 1t seems to be indifferent to him, whe- ther he uses the word yewnus, Or xi, he uses

them promiscuoully ; x7oma Tv ts TiAtLov, an us

ws ey Ty XTI pa TW), YEWNAG, * N 8% I: £v TwWv YEW au ww.—And, though he had not used any word but creation, yet the difference between his creation be- fore all ages, and our geperation * before all worlds,” would not be great to those, who estimated ideas by their distinctness: it needed not surely to have been a cause of war and persecution.—But we are now only concerned with Hj/ory;—we lee then, that Arius and his followers denied the consub/tan- tiality of the Son with the Father, but acknow: ledged his pre-exi/ence.

There is another opinion sometimes ascribed to the Arians, and that is, the opinion, that Christ

had not properly an human fol on this account.

the Col. i. 1 b.

BOOK IV. ART, II. SECT. vi. 30 5

the Arians are sometimes joined with the Apolli- narians; which will be a sufficient reason why we should mention the Apollinarian Doctrine at this time. — Indeed, the word Arian has sometimes been used as a sort of generic * term including even So- (IMLANS. |

Apollinarius (or Apollinaris, for the name is dif- ferently written) is placed in the year 362: he is called Bishop of Laodicea, but there is some doubt

whether he ever was Bishop. He seems to have been a great man, and a great writer; the loss of

his thirty books against Porphyry is particularly lamented; the more, as they seem to have been destroyed merely on account of his solutions of the Incarnation. It seems to have occurred to this eminent man, that, if Jesus was informed by the Word dwelling in him, 1t was needless for him to have the use of human reason; nay, impgible for a being, who saw and knew as the Son of God, to investigate slowly after the manner of men. He

therefore held, that the Logos must, to Jesus

Christ, supply the place of an human * soul, —I see nothing like folly in the notion taken separately, nor do I find any reason why Lardner should speak

of it as a fancy of old age®; its weaknels consists

In

e Lord King on the Creed, p. 181, 182. Pearson on the Creed He was conceived” —p. 324, Ist Edit. see also p. 380, about the Abo suffering: Lardner’s Works, Vol, 11. p. 80.

f Mosheim, 19th Cent. end of Chap. 6. This may perhaps be some defence of Voltaire. See Note on Art. 1. Sect. vi.

This is the most common idea, of the doctrine of Apollina- rius, but in the Serm. 191 or 236 de Tempore, where the Creed of Pelagius is introduced, that doctrine is described as consisting in this; that the A umed man is only a part of the or- dinary natural man, whether deficient in carne, anima, or sensu, Which agrees with Waterland on the Athanasian Creed.

b Lardner (Works, Vol. 4. p. 387) - only says, “ latter part of his life,” but at the same time he expresses an irksomeness

VOL. 11. U | about

SS

— — SEED — —

by

2.0.0 ts. > > 44 - *

£4 ; […] — — — - +. += a4

— . — ä —

Pos

— 2 RS — — 1 * 1 2 . “x ; 2 22 - = n e _ — : 2 = _— a 7 IE. * 3 — if […] a W * e S * - […] Mi… = — sp Pp — — : ä I S […] 2 A © * 4 . — : S TI 1 — 4 8 : — = - : […] - Ee oo = 8 —— n $ “4 4 A: - = - i. 2 2 5 — . - p- — 5 i […] S- = = , 2 5 - 1 by” „ S255 2 = 8 […] - . — — _ — 8 - 5 In _ - A = Se x TT. * - EXFz SI? Sy 2 2 - 2 […] ; © oe — - 4 — . […] - T 5 2 * — - - # 4 N C — = n 1 i — * S + ad : 4 - - 5 : = 4 * — 3 — 3 = bs 7 = - A […] ; 2 - — 1 gy - — R l - — = SY Wa LS : : ; E: : : — — PEW Ro OS ; - n bo _ — LE! n 4 n […] 4 = . 4 24 - K 2 . — ry . . 1 = 2 2 1 SE” Sn […] - - 4 — WE. _ 5 — — , , 1 — 3 […] hy […] 8 4 ay + _ — — 2 = e SF IE - — - =; * - = 4 […] - ” * a f 2 8 […] . — _ — - a fx 22 […] . 4 — 2 . S- 2 * 5 ’ l - 2 = 2 = — „ — g — CG _— b + Aa * a * I 1 An —— ” . 2 ES 7 £ : 2 […] _ E 6 l 2 mi 8 A : i 8 — SP = L 2 —. - ; — oo — - […] 9 — — ay — — - — — ge — E. - * 2

306 BOOK Iv. ART. It, SECT: VI.

in. its being inconsistent with some parts of Scrip. ture, which describe Christ as © perfect man,” in body and mind. Bishop Pearson * makes Aring’s notion to be this which we have now described; and that of Apollinarius (as differing from Arius’s) to consist in a distinction between the animal and rational foul; but body with animal foul seems to me to mean only the body living. And, when the ancients called the followers of Apollinarius Dimæ. ritæ, I understand them t ean, that the Apolli- narians held Christ to be * was really only 77 thirds of Christ; that 18, ody and Avyos, instead of Body and Soul and Aoyos, Apollinarius seems not then to differ from the Catholics, as to the consubstantiality or pre-exist. ence; but as to both the other points, the Incar. nation and Hypostatic Union. Semi-arians are {aid * to have allowed, that Christ was opozrzos With the Father, but not by nature, only by privilege. We will not be more particular about the followers of Arius, who softened his doctrine, and approached nearer to orthodoxy than their Master. — 1 0 vii, We about relating the opinion: that is perhaps as a sort of Socinian, or Nazarean: he has written against it; on occasion, probably, of Mr. Whiiton’s reviving it. See his Works, Vol. 11. p. 80. Lardner’s own notions appear in the same tract or Letter; Works, Vol. 11. p. 110. lowest line (of text). p. 97. 104. The Word is not a Person, does not mean the Son (97). — The Sor and M/ fali are the same: The Son was miraculously conceived (99) ; yet he was a Man ( 104); but they are very wrong who * him born of Joseph and Mary (110).—Lardner disapproves

terpretations of professed Socinians as far as he has read them (112), but he has not read much of them; has not read Crellius

de Uno Deo Patre (112). | |

k When 9%porge signifies a double portion, there seems to be an idea of dividing the thing between wo persons, giving one of them double the other, that is, zavo thirds of the whole.

| Mosheim, Cent. 1 v. Part 2, Chap. 5. Sect. 16.

yii. We are next to mention the notions of

the followers of Photinus relative to our present

subject.— This Person was of Galatia, and is placed A. D. 431 3 he was a Bishop, an eloquent speaker, and a good writer; and extremely beloved in his diocese ;—he had followers, so as to make a sect,

called, after him, Photinians, He seems to have

been convinced, by the plainness of the scriptural accounts, concerning the miraculous Sri of Christ, but to have been confounded by the majesty of those

expressions, which proclaim the condition of our

Lord before he came into this world: and thus to have fixed his doctrine; that Christ could not be called the Son of God, till he was born; and that he was called so, because he was born of a Virgin, by the operation of the Holy Ghost. —So that Pho- tinus denied the pre-existence 7 of Christ, and there- fore his consub/antiality with the Father. His ene- mies called him an Ebionite, but this was reviling®. As Photinus was condemned for following the errors of Paul of Samosata, and of Marcellus, they may be mentioned here. Paul of Samosata (on the Euphrates, near Antioch) was Bishop of Antioch in 260; a good deal is said of him, because, by his Ed. and oftentation, he had gained a popularity, which made him troublesome : His enemies differ 1n their representations of him, and we have no accounts of his own. On the whole, I fee nothing better for us to c his doctrine was really much t just now described; agreeably . Augustinꝰ; the Paulians were,

what is said by

ih his time, called

Photinians. — Marcellus is placed in 320; he was Bishop of Ancyra, and, as such, a countryman of

Photinus;

; bg Vincent. Lirin. os. 17. Lardner’s Works, Vol, 4. p- 301.

Her. Sect. 44. Augustin died A. D. 430.

dude, than that same with that

TY TD ; 4

_

— — - ”= x - i © = : 4 = 1 […] 7 A —“S * 2 ts mh VE. oe” ary — — 2 — * - 2 — 2 […] 2 — —— . * * wo 2 * Ry C _ - i xs — — . 7 - | . A : \ l bs = , […] 2 A

US

= A BW 3”. * - Ev a — —

— — ; yy

— —

• R EEG […] ů

—

; — 8 2 E F Wade”. 8 — =

=© = be If

M4 […] oF 7 EX 2 3 x1 ;

1 : - […] 2 8 […] 5 4 Et […] : - — ED — = LD 1 3 F — JOY - […] 5 E ; 8 - - (RE Soy 2 he 5 — . _ - […] 2 — C = Fg © RE + 4 […] x * 7 […] - […] 2 4 p = S - *. — 2 a […] 2 4 4 * I - . - : […] c EET) ETC, K — — 2 : = — x […] . — 7 1 n — D IEEE. — — Jo — 2 PG + TT” L - […] A 5 — 2 = * - 2 2 a — = w : l ”- Eye 4 XD EE […] . — — - 2 „ 5 £ rey! pn - Pe 3 , i . — 2 : 8 […] Tas $ * - 6 af = - […] 0 — TY * I ” 5 4 2 1 * . k he x * 7 — * p 3. - — a 7 _ — — [oe . 2 — 1 : — _ : […] ye A —— 3 2 — 22 : _ 2 : 2 —ͤ— l […] AT 2

—

8 ͤ — . […] 7 y-. |

—— p

308 BOOK Iv.

Photinus; he was also his master. —lt does not seem as if there was any difference between their Doctrines, which we can now ascertain, on good grounds. —I have read somewhere, that Paul took the term Ao og in the sense of Ao /o edi Ne rog, Or

internal reason; and that Marcellus said the Aces was to be finally absorbed in the Father: which implies, that Marcellus made the Logos, the Son,

or a Person, * though Paul did not. VIII. The next opinions are those of Nef. rius. We have already © mentioned him; but with a different view from our present one. In Scripture, we find many things predicated of Jesus Christ, which cannot be predicated of man; and many, which cannot be predicated of God; and yet, though he 1s sometimes said to do divine things, sometimes human, there is only one subject to those different predicates; he is only spoken of as one agent, or person. The Church has no better way of ex- pressing this matter, though it is unintelligible to all men, than by saying, that 2 natures, the di- vine and human, are united in one person. —In this, Neforins fancied he saw some great difficulties; for though it be true, that things both divine and human are predicated of Christ, yet this seems to be under certain regulations or limitations of reason and common sense: would any evangelist have said, that Mary was the mother of her Creator? that the Divinity died? that the blood of the Deity was shed on the Cross? that the same person was God and Victim? if they would not, then it cannot be 5 laid 1 See Bp. Pearson on the Creed; Note about Marcellus;— &« Sitteth on the right hand, &c. * Whose Kingdom shall have no end.” Marcellus thought, that Christ should reign for ever

after his ascension, but that his human nature should have an end, 5 |

r Art. 1. Sect. XVIII.

BOOK iv. ART, 11. SECT, VIII, 309

laid down, that all language is proper, which suits the Hypothesis of two Natures in one Person. No; says Nestorius, there would be less difficulty in . divine Jesus Christ knew men’s thoughts, &c ; human Jesus Christ was hungry and thirsty.”

: Though there 1s certainly but one outward ap- pearance — But, however such a language might solve any difficulties, the Church was right in not adopting it, because it 1s not the language of Scrip- ture: nevertheless, it is a lamentable thing, that any man should suffer so much as Nestorius did,

for an opinion so near to Orthodoxy as his was, and differing only in what was unintelligible. For we say, that Jesus Christ has some things mentioned of him as God, and some as Man, so that he may be said to have two charafers; he knew thoughts as God, had appetites as man; the former, by vir- ne of his Divine N ature; the latter, by virtue of

his human nature. Thus Nestorius leaves our two

first points untouched; but he differs from Catho- lics, as to the incarnation and the hypostatic union: —PFor his notion led him on to say something, which we should understand thus; the divine Christ was not born, Mary was only the Mother of the

[…]

though the divine Christ was united with the hu- man Christ in one vile form’.

But we have not mentioned, that Nestorius may be placed in 428, when he was made Bishop of Constantinople. He was a Syrian. He was con- demned in 431, at the General Council of Ephesus, and was banished to Mgypt; the town where he

resided

nify an outward appearance; and therefare he fa 1 (on Creed,

p · 331. 1sk edit. ) that Nestorius contradicts himse A 3

1 5 […] k 2 + A * — 3 | nl =D 5 * : l r = . A o 2 . F E R — — 2 FA ; : : - […] is * 2 2 […] ard […] 4 — = 3 […] 7 Ea. [4 - — 5 mY G . — . = - . 4 a — — 4 2 — — OD — — 8 — ra - — 2 XS 4 — = by ; […] N […] Ef = =

—— 4 […] i « ————, . = WJ - = — 2 OO IE > ARE mY — 3 >; OED r * 2 1 2 * J 2 —— a — — - […] - , - — —

þ

“RY J 4 “Fr A — : — =

ä

r

• 3 * 2 7 — A > nd 8 2 […] 23. 2 we 1 = - N = > SE . — — SS TPC […] 7 a

[…] DD —

— —

. IF, > 9 22

p ” De — — 2

resided being attacked, he wandered about in want and misery till he died! Though Vincent of Lerins speaks * of him as an enemy, we may collect, from what he has said, that Nestorius was a man of oreat abilities, which he applied with diligence to the service of Christianity, and was very much re- vered and beloved. SLY | Ix. Eulycsies was only the Head of a Mona. tery at Constantinople. We may place him in

451, the time of the General Council of Chalcedon, by which he was condemned. — The errors of Nes-

torius are said to have animated his zeal so much, as to make him run into an opposite extreme: but,

in order to be as candid as possible, let us, as in

other instances, put ourselves in his place, and conceive how he might be drawn into his peculiar opinions.—* Nestorius certainly, we may imagine him to say, breaks through all scriptural expres- sions and ideas, in making two Ghrifts; nothing can be more plain, than that there is but one; nay, it seems impossible in itself that there should be more than one; I should rather be inclined to fay, Christ had but one Nature; for, if the Divine Na- ture 1s united to the human, what alas! can the human be in such a compound? it must be as 0- thing! nay indeed, if you suppose it to have any magnitude, or any efficacy as an ingredient, must

it not be as {o much alloy to lower and debase? but

the Divine Nature is incapable of being debased; therefore the human nature must be annihilated, or swallowed up in the Divine“. However Euty- * . een t P. 330. Edit. Paris. 1669. 7

« I should rather be apt to conjecture, that Eutyches had made use of some illustration taken from metals, so much is said of

inconfus?, and other words from confundo; which seems to imply. putting into /#/on, or pouring together two things, so that they

become one? the Athanafian Creed says, that Christ is“ my […] no

BOOK Iv. ART. 11. SECT. IX. 311

ches reasoned, this was his opinion, —It does not interfere with orthodoxy, as to the points,of con- substantiality, or pre-existence ; but it does, as to those of Incarnation and Hypostatic Union. For Eutyches was obliged to have a particular theory, as to the conception and Birth of Christ. It was ob- yious to ask him, if Christ is all divine, by the Divine Nature swallowing up the human, how could he be born?? To this Eutyches mult find some answer : but it does not seem agreed, whether he said, that the Aoyog entered into the Virgin’s Womb, and grew in it, as an human being would do; or that the Logos joined himself to an human embryo, converting it, by the union, into divine. In the former cale, his notion would be the same in effect with the old one mentioned before“, as having been ascribed to Valentinus.

Eutyches seems to have been near the orthodox, „ taking the manhood into God.“

The followers of Eutyches were called Monoph Te iter; and we are told, that the Eastern Chris. tians are still divided into Neforians and Mono- physites * But I luppose, that the latter do not acknowledge

not by confu/fon of substance? (or nature) © but by unity of Per- son.” —Livy has © confundere in unum corpus”—to consolidate. Photius, in his account of Theodoret’s 2d Dialogue, uses the expression, » Nn ROVYNUTOS EVWO KGs

x Sect. rv. and Ld King on Creed, p. 116, 157. |

Called so, in effect, by Asseman: In Asseman, T. 3, there is a catalogue of 198 writers (besides Appendix), who are called Syrian Neftorian writers: but the New Testament is one book reckoned, and Clemens Romanus one Author. The Syrian Nesto- rians reckon the Apostles to have been of their Sect. See T. * Part 2.—In the 2d Tom. there is a Catalogue of 48 Syrian wrj- ters, Monopliysites; the source of whom was Eutyches. Dr. Joseph Asseman is spoken of by Lard. (Works, 4+ 425) a alive when he wrote,

212 BOOK IV. ART, 11. SECT. x.

acknowledge any veneration for Eutyches, or even own that they hold his opinions?.

x. On the Monothelites we need not dwell much; they did not exist till the seventh Century: they held, as I understand, that, as Christ was but one Person, he of Sour could have but one Mill; and one Operation, or act; - this was not an Unnatufal idea; but then, on the other hand, how could the 7wo Natures of Christ be perfect, if there was not a Will of God, and a will of Man!? — For my own part, I think we understand so little of the Hypostatic Union, or of the Will of God, or even of our own Will, that a man might be doubtful, which fide of this question would be reckoned or- thodox, and which heretical. The notion of 7200 Wills might seem to approach as near to Neforins’s two Persons, as that of one Will, to Eutyches’s one Nature: yet the notion of each Nature having a Will, seems the orthodox notion. I mention the question partly to shew the wisdom and moderation of our Church in not meddling with it; though partly because it concerns our present subject, and was once thought important.— When it was agi- tated, it occasioned several Councils, though nothing more seems to have been urged (in substance) than what I. have now mentioned. Pope Honorius, who died in 638, happened to be a Monothelite’, and his Heresy has been quoted against the Pope’s Infallibility; otherwise probably the debate had been dropped. —This Pope was condemned at the

©… th

6 The more 8 or bigotted Monophysites losing their Leaders br heads, who chose to come into terms and keep their

[…]

name they are often mentioned in History, See Mosheim, In- dex, Acephali. |

[…]

BOOK Iv. ART. 11. SECT. X1.XIT. 313

sixth General Council, held at Constantinople, in 680; which demonstrates, that the authority of one of them (Pope, or General Council,) is fallible. x1. The notion of avoiding all difficulties respecting the miraculous conception of the Son of God, by considering him only as an adopted Son, was held by Elipand in the eighth Century“. It was of consequence enough to occasion the Council of Frankfort, in 794. —Elipand was Arch- bilbop of Toledo, and he was joined by Felix, Bishop of Urgel in Catalonia; but these two only solved. the birth of Jesus by their Hypothesis of adoption; they owned the Son of God to be really and na- turally such, in his pre-existent state®. Thus they interfered with the Catholic Doctrine only as to the | Incarnation, and with that chiefly in words. They would probably urge, that, though Christ in his divine nature was properly called the Son of God, yet it was absurd to say, that a man was begotten by God; when therefore Christ in his unn nature was called the Son of God, the words must not be taken literally; Jesus might be an adopted Son, but not a real one. X11. The Socinians have been mentioned be- fore*. I do not know, that I need add any thing here. Socinus is said to have allowed, that Chrifl was born of a Virgin, by the Holy Ghost; and that he was a God, so that he might be adored ;— Dr. Prie/dey’s Letters to Dr. Price give us the most recent ideas of Socinianism, and shew the degrees

of

© See Mosheim, Vol. 2. 8vo. p. 274. or Cent. 8. 2. 5. 3. and Forbes’s Instruct. Hist. Theol. aud Bp. Pearson as above.

• Art. 1. Sect. vi.

f See South’s derm. 7, of Vol. 3.

of its, In the lowest kind of Socinianism, he says, „ Christ is considered as a mere man, the Son of Joseph and Mary, and naturally as fallible and peccable as Moses, or any other Prophet.” All this is to banish super//ition, it would be said, and foolish admiration; and to restore the authority of

Reason and common lense®. | XIII. With regard to Anabaplisis, as they are expressly mentioned in another Article, we may hereafter have occasion to give some account of them. Menno denied, that Christ derived his Body from his Mother; said that he assumed it:— it was created out of nothing; created in his mo- ther’s womb — The Anabaptists in general, at the time of the Reformation, held the old doctrine ! of Christ passing through the Womb of his Mother, as through a tube. Joa of Kent was burnt®, be- cruse she would not, after a twelvemonth’s trial, renounce this doCtrine. Bishop Pearson, from Episcopius, speaks * of Flandrian Anabaptists, who took this phrase, The Word was made Flesh,” in a sense strictly literal: who supposed a © conver- fion of the Godhead into Flesh,” — And this ex- pression of the Creed seems to shew, that the same

opinton had been declared before?. 1 xIiv. Lastly, we were to mention the no- tions of a few individuals. Servede, or Servetus, held some extravagant notions at the time of the Reformation, and suffered death for them at Ge- neva

See p. 101 of Dr. Priestley’s Letters. ® Art. 1. Sect. xvi.

3 Art 38. * Lived A. D. 1505-1561.

1 Seck. Iv. ;

m Nicholls on Articles, p. 37. col. 1. Hume’s Hist, Edw. vi. Chap. 4. end. Fuller, B. 7. 398. K. Edw. vi. Diurnal.

» Creed, Art. 3. p. 3 26, ist edit. :

[…]

neva in 1553, on the prosecution of Calvin; but, as our ? Article does not certainly allude to them, and as they are to me àunintelligible, I will not transcribe any Historian about them; he was a Spaniard, a famous Chykician’s „and much noticed in his time.

Mr. Whiston’, well known at Cambridge, in his ay, adopted the opinion of Apollinarius.—This was mentioned before, as also the opinion of Ema- nuel Sedenborg.

The notion of Valentinus Gentilis, who, after re- canting, relapsed, and suffered death at Geneva, in 1566, would probably be known in 15625. Here we close the History of the second Article: and I think it will appear, from our manner of describing Heresies, that Heretics might honestly mean, in forming their several hypotheles, to avoid _ difficulties, which had given uneasiness, and to give solutions, which would afford relief and comfort to the doubting mind. And moreover, that they have used some arguments, which are powerful (sometimes irresistible) in themselves, when only the For is considered, and we attend only to their words, though they failed by overlooking some _ of Holy Writ, or reasoning without intelligi-

ble

? That some: of our Articles were made against Servetianss see Doctrina & Eccles. Angl. 1617. Contents.

1 Mosheim’s acconnt might be read; see his Index, under Servetus.

Pr. Hunter said, that Servetus saw enough to find out the 1 of the Blood, but did not infer properly from what

aw |

• Art, 1. Sect, vi. A remarkable mixture of science and heated melancholy imagination. He was deprived of his Ma- e Professorship, and expelled Cambridge U W

wo 75

His opinions are best foen i in his recantation. See Cheynell’s

Nie . r p. 9.— His death is mentioned, p. 13. ect. 111.

ble propositions: —Ought such persons to be per- fecuted? ought they not rather to be respected and pitied? ought we not to own ourselves indebted to them for the services they have done to the com- mon cause, on many occasions? ought we not to be kindly affectioned towards them, with brotherly love? — If indeed they attack us, or disturb our social devotions and instructions, we may defend ourselves; and acts of defence must precede the actual attack, otherwise they come too late; but, even in this case, we must not be impatient, nor timid; we must hope all things, and endure all things, as far as is consistent with our safety as members of a religious society. © Hut I have said such strong things, pleading the cause of those who maintained heretical tenets, that J am afraid of being thought to favour them too much: such a suspicion would however do me wrong: — No; I with all Christians happy, but my own opinions coincide with those of our Church; and I think, that our Church, in forming its doc- trines, has acted as wisely as possible. All the parts of Scripture relating to any particular subject, have been, seemingly, collected and * arranged: an opinion has been formed out of them all; so that none have been neglected. If any doctrines have only had strong reasons urged on their: side, but have been formed by those, who overlooked some parts of Scripture, these have been rejected. Whatever clamours may have been made by some about our neglecting Reason, we can fay, that we have been far from undervaluing 1t: nay, we have, in the method of acting just now described, done what the most enlightened Reason would dic- tate. We do indeed object to reasoning by means of unintelligible propositions, because reason tells = * Sect, VIII,

us, that we cannot reason without ideas; and ex- perience proves, that we get wrong whenever we attempt it. We object to calling pre-conceived notions at any ra the dictates of Reason, in the more difficult doctrines of Scripture; because rea- son tells us, that we are not to trust our precon- ceived notions against the Scriptures 7 in things, which relate to the Nature of God, or to the man- ner, in which he is to act, in order to promote the happiness of his creatures; especially in cases out of the common course of Nature.

xv. Having finished our historical view of this Article, we come to the Explanation of the expressions contained in it. This will be little more than a brief recapitulation of the historical remarks already made, taking the order of the expressions as they stand. We prove nothing now; nay, we afirm nothing: we only shew what is-affirmed or implied; what rejected. Indeed, the best idea of all explanations of Articles is, that they shew what particular Errors or Heresies are intended to be rejected or denied by the words made use of. The language of each Article is affirmative, but the true meaning negative. — In some cases it may perhaps, in strictness, mean only, that no one has 4 Fights to afirm that which we reject.

Our Church first declares, that the Anu 15 not merely either ’ reason or speech, but a Person, the fame, who is called the Son of God; who is not to be on a footing with what have been called Aons, except in the same sense in which the Scrip- ture says, that God is a! Spirit.“ When it is laid, that this person is “ begotten” of the Father, the meaning is, to acknowledge the relation of pater-

nity

_ 7 Seea 8 to this purpose translated in Lardner, Works, Vol. Ze P. 16. John iv. 24.

318 BOOK IV, ART. It. SECT. XV.

nity and filiation, without pretending to have a

distinct or adequate ideas of it; to acknowledge it as what has been mentioned to us by authority, as the thing most proper for us to conceive as far as we are able; as least likely to make us run into impiety or profaneness: the relation itself may pol.

sibly bear some analogy to that, which we call by

the same name; this we say with diffidence;— but we use the word begotten” with more confidence to deny and reject the notion, that this Person was created, at any time whatsoever, either before

all worlds,” or in the Virgin’s womb: to deny,

that the Son can with propriety be said to be cf

forth, or separated* from the Father; to come from

the Stars, or the elements.

When it is said, that this generation was from everlasiing,” it is meant, not only to reef the no- non, that Christ might be called the Son of God merely because he was conceived by the Holy Ghost; but to deny, that any /imit whatever can be assigned to the duration between the generation of Christ and his birth of the blessed Virgin: which is to de- clare, that duration to be mfinite®.

« Of the Father” serves to make the Genera-

tion just now mentioned still more definite; and to

distinguish it still more clearly from that operation of

the Holy Ghost, by which the Son of God © took

man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin.“ When our Church calls this Person ** the very

and eternal God,” the meaning is, that he is not >

only divine, or a God in some inferior sense, but that we have no right to distinguish between him and the real God; that we are incapable of settling

5 . any

2 This explains impartibilit in the first Article; and may af- terwards be of ule, when the words of one substance with the Father,“ occur, |

5 Art. 1. Sect. X.

BOOK iv. ART. 11. SECT. XV. 319

any precedence between them, so as to say, with Arius, that the Father was before the Son. What- ever the truth may be, we declare against that be- ing professed by any Christian: and, in several points, we may perhaps be said not so much to reje& a notion, because we see it to be false, as to declare, that no man has a right to hold such a notion. Any of these expressions must of course disclaim the notion, that the first existence of Christ was upon earth. .

The expression, © of one substance with the Fa-

ther,” one spiritual substance, was explained under

the last * Article. This seems opposed to the no- tion, that the Son was (a xe) cast forth, or se- paratea from the Father. A Son is always of the fame rank with his Father: and in this rank there is but one Being. Ti - Ty

This divine Person, our Church affirms, took human nature in the Virgin’s womb; in opposition to those, who held only the Divinity of Christ.— The words of her © substance” mean to reject seve- ral errors: they deny, that the Logos or Word

_ passed through the womb of the Virgin as through

a tube; that Christ was created in her womb, and

every fancy, which describes her as different, in her conception and nutrition of her unborn embryo,

from a proper human mother : they also seem to deny, that the human nature of Christ was, from the time of conception, swallowed up in the divine. The next words at least do this undeniably; * two whole and perfect narures;” they also reject the error, that the Ache was literally made flesh, or converted, or transubstantiated, into the bodily substance of man; as well as that the divine and

human © Art. 1. SeQt. x. | 3 * Ser. de Tempore, 193, (or 238), Sect. 3.

__

• ID SS : 2 Tr TIA

p 4 i, os i, + NI 4 1 \ Wt! on WI. ) 0 g p N $ ; P 4 i Wh 4 i4 ’ lt L 1 Fi j1 i! ’ = ’ 4 ö i, \ \ 1 ! \ 1 iN 4 Wa , ’ * 1 WA j Mt ) / i] \ Þ “n FC . 1. j i , b 1 \ * J ] : 1” FRY FT) fl ul 8 oy a ’ fb 14. p U Wi #1 a \ \ 41 & © 7 Wl be ’ 1 aJ* (1 20) 8 \ 7%. 0 “1 U 1 4 ft! j4 7 W * ! M. Wy.” ö 0 o 1 * j 1 ! 1 p J Wh) tf My * a * *. o […] l tv f td Fo +. N ‘F - fp . [ S 8 ” 1 3k 15 , “1 a8 WH. \ Fl q i 4141 \ N ) b. * o Tn Is + \ Eg * TH ‘f * [1 * ” ’ 8 ! FOÞ + N 1 [# WA” i k

XR

— - WES Li […] tu In rare ——— — LS 2 r a= Se?

=

mee _ —— “An

• — CENTS IDES ———

“Rp” =

—

320 BOOK Iv. ART. 11. SECT. XV.

human natures were me/ted down, as it were, into one. N | | The words © one Person,” or vro-acs, reject the idea, that, because there are two natures conjoined, there must of necessity be 7wo agents, or persons; and imply the same as if it had been said, all is

predicated of one, all was performed by one. And therefore, that Christ, both in his pre-existent and present state, should be called the Sor of God.

Never to be divided,” in Latin © nseparabiliter,” seems to reject the imagination that Christ will fi- nally be absorbed in the Father, or restored to the Luminaries of Heaven, or the Elements of Earth; —it seems also calculated to hinder us from pre-

suming to assign any z7ime, when Christ will become

intirely unconnected with human nature: but we ought not here to encroach on the 4th Article.

„One Christ” the one person, of whom we have spoken, 1s called Jesus and Christ, Jesus being his name, and Christ the name of his Office; bur yet Jesus is not to be looked upon as a different cha- racter from Chri/?, much less as a character opposed to Christ; nor can it be properly said, that Jelus suffered and Christ did 0, suffer; or that Jesus suffered when deserted by Christ: neither is any one, in imitation of Nestorius, to imagine wo Chrifts. |

Very God and very man;” this expression im-

plies, that the Person, of whom we are speaking,

is not more truly and really God, than he is mas; both in soul and body. And therefore, with regard to the human o, it sets aside the notion, that the Abos supplied the place of the rational faculty to

e See Marcellus’s notion, Sect. vit. One of Cerinthus’s no- tions was, I think, that Christ was not, after his death, any longer the Sox of God: But I do not see this in Lardner’s He- resies; nor in Lord King on the Creed.

”= | |

our Lord; and, with regard to the body, it declares, that there was no deception in appearances, no continued trope or mystical expression in the evan- gelical History, relative to the body of Christ*. This last thing, with regard to the Body, 1s more particularly marked in the word © zruly;” Christ suffered, &c. not ev doxnor in appearance only, as the Docetæ, Gnostics, or Oriental Heretics thought, but in reality: and not only Jesus but Christ may be properly said to have suffered, though it cannot properly be said, that the Deity * suffered. If the remaining expressions want any explanation,

it must be deferred till after the int Article, for the reason already mentioned, at the opening of

this Article.

xvi. Having then offered an explanation of the expressions found in our Article, we come, in the next place, to attempt a proof of the propo- fitions, of which it is made up.—And here our best method seems to be, to prove first the prin- cipal doArine of the Article, he Divinity of Christ, and afterwards the secondary, incidental, or sub- ordinate Do&rmes.

In proving the Divinity of Christ, I will beg leave to make use of a small pamphlet, printed in 1772 at Leeds, which seems to me to give the ar- guments or proofs in a good form. The Te is, A short Defence of the Doctrine of the Divinity

of Christ b:“ - the Author’s idea of the manner of

proving

Every English Academic will here recollect the title of Corpus Christi given to a College in each of our Universities.— As also Tertullian’s writing De Carne Christi.

Impassibilis, Art. 1. | |

Written by my Brother, J7lliam Hey, Surgeon at Leeds, Yorkshire. —Several years after I first used it, I asked and re-

ceived permission to mention his name: the following is an extract from a Letter of his.“ The occasion of my writing

VOL. 11. | X Shes i the

— 2 […] . a * 8

. 2 : […] 3 […] : — - 5 — r= 88 — 1 - ry […] : […] x _ […] - — 28 2 — — ks 2 […] 1 […] 2 […] br ng; - - […] on R - * 2 4 Þ 2m” A — - = - - 2 — — A […] : […] _ […] 2 N — — 1 — C Jo […] Fs ” , […] 1 — - 3 : _ © a […] 7 Sf I Fog Av, % F AT ERCS * —— 2 4 — © 4 by 7 - i EE. C N — 8 — — 8 8.” . : — * 2 […] 1 LA F . TT. 2 —— 8 gone, 2 […] 2 9 […] A 4 — 1 1 — 22 — wn. EY — x * ba ＋ wo — * - os 4X - 21 s 3 = 4 rn - — mY - […] . — 4 […] 2322 , wm b 88 — 2 — E 9 oY ”. -_ q […] 7 . […] Ss ad 8 — * . =_ 1 2 = - . 2 5 - fi pd 2 * 2 2 7 4 : 5 - — : 5 — : s 4 * n * — 5 - […] - I = ” 7 bo […] wad he — — Pa […] - . 0 - […] - *

“IT «LEE

dh eu NO IE — ——— 4, =

—— — —

; 322 BOOK IV. ART, II. SECT. XVI. proving any Being to be divine, agrees in a good

measure with that, which I have already men- ; tioned * as my own.

That Being 1s declared by the Scriptures to be * divine, to whom the Scriptures ascribe the distin- W guishing perfections and qualities of Divinity, tc Such are the following. 1. Eternal existence, e: 2. Power of creating. 3. Power of preserving things created. 4. Omnipresence. 5. Omniscience. a 6. A right to be worshipped. —It is now to be 8 thewn, that these perfections and qualities are really 4 in Scripture ascribed to Christ. 1

1. Eternal existence. John i. 1.—John xvi. 5. F

John viii. 58. — (with the interpretation of the ˖

Jews, shewed by their {toning Christ). Phil. ii. 6.— | Col.

the Short Defences was as follows. A large number of penny |

pamphlets against the leading doctrines of Christianity were

_ published here, and were circulated with great industry. .

Without entering fairly into the controversy, they were calcu- | lated to unhinge the minds of the unwary. A very zealous man, but a wild enthusiast, who lived here then, published an answer, which Dr. Priestley, the supposed author of the short tracts, seemed to glory in. Indeed it was most injudiciously written, Other

| short answers afterwards came out; but these were so defective

in argument and so acrid in style, that they were clearly a matter of triumph to the Socinians. Having for many years carefully considered the subjeds for the satisfaction of my own mind, and being urged by some friends, with whom I had conversed on

_ these subjects, I ventured to submit to the public my thoughts

on Dr. Priestley’s Arguments. I first intended to have published three penny pamphlets on the subjects of the Divinity of Christ, tlie atonement, and man’s moral depravity. But the two first swelling out unavoidably beyond my design, I would not any farther break in upon my professional studies, = Whether future leisure may ever tempt me to finish my original plan, I cannot say. At present, I have laid aside all thought of proceeding.

What I have said proceeded from the fullest.conviction of my judgment; I with it may do good,” _ .

The above Letter was written in 1789, seventeen years after the publication of the pamphlet. 4: ATt. 1+: BELT» Xo

BOOK Iv. 323

Col. i. 1).— Rev. xxii. 16. Add If. xliv. 6. com pared with Rev. 1. 17. and xxu. 13. also Micah v. 2. If any of these texts seem only to prove pre- existence, but that not eternal, it may be considered whether, in any of them, Christ | is made inferior

to the Father: as he fo frequently is, when his

earthly situation is described.

3. Power of preserving. Heb. i. 3.—Col. . 17.

4. Omnipresence. John iii. 13. with circum- stances. Matt. xvii. 20.—1 Cor. 1. 2. (invocation

in any place, implies presence in that place).

Matt. xxviii. 20.—compared with Acts iii. 21.—

Heb. ix. 24. and 1. 3. and parallels:— Both On

nipresence and Omniscience are implied 1 in the 6th, a right to be worshipped.

5. Omniscience. John xxi. 1) . with 2 Chron, vi. 30, compare Matt. 1x. 4. and parallel

passages —John ii. 25. (contrast Luke ii. 52. and

Mark xiii. 32).—Col. ii. 3.

6. A right to be worshipped. John xx. 28. — Matt. viii. 2.— Matt. xv. 22, 25, 28. (contrast

Acts xiv. 14.— Acts x. 25. Rev. xix. 10), —

Matt. xxviii. 17.

Before the name of Christians was given at An- tioch, calling upon (or! invoking) the name of

Christ

• A compatison of these two with Rom. xi. 36. and paral- lels, would be useful in shewing, that the same high and kloty expressions are used of the Father and the Son.

; Parkhurst, ETIXXAEGCMOLG.

X 2

10 , a ? * Bi 85

[…]

-=

[…]

—„—

— HO > AGILE

—

— BE _

• ES

—

324 BOOK Iv. ART. II, SECT. XVII.

Christ served as a fille. 1 Cor. i. 2.—(1 Cor. i. 3. is a species of prayer, and has parallel passages.)— Acts vii. 59, leaving out the word […] i. 6. compared with Psalm xcvii. 7. —Rev. v. 8.— add 2 Cor. x11. 8 *.

In general, or collectively; 1 John v. 20.— 1 Tim. iii. 16.— Rom. 1x. 5.—Heb. i. 8.— Matt. XXV111. 19. (compared with 1 Cor. 1. 14, 15.— Col. 11. 9.

If these proofs should not be thought sufficient, any one might consult Bishop Pearson on those words of the Creed, © his only Son;” or Water- land’s Sermons at Lady Moyer’s Lecture; or other works. — The confirmations and illustra-

tions of our Doctrine arifing from a continued

study of the Old and New Testament; from some- times taking comprehensive views, and sometimes examining minutely ; would prove inexhaustible:

this may appear from Bishop Pearson on the Creed, Here might be recollected“, that the Son of God is divine, as far as is consistent with the Unity of God, and the Divinity of the Father and of the Holy Ghost.

The next thing to the proof of the principal pro-

position, must be the proof of the subordinate pro-

positions contained in the Article. Of these I can CONCEIVE a teen.

XVII, The Word 1s a Person; not merely a

Power or * Wisdom: —there are bur four verses, in

which

m In this proof, we must regard something more than the English word ævonsbip; as that jometimes, in old Englith, sig- nifies no more than respect. A wor/hipful Justice of Peace, or Mayor. With my body I thee worship ; &c. &c: we must therefore take notice of the 7h;ng, and the original — 745 as

well as the English word, Yet Christ refuses to wor, p Satalu

Matt. iv. 9. a’ Art, 1. Sect. x 111. | „ Lardner’s Works, Vol. 11. p. 97.

BOOK IV, ART. ti. SECT. XVIT., 325 which the Word is mentioned; as has been already

observed: John i. 1.—John i. 14.—1 John v. 7,

Rev. xix. 13. Now, that the Word means a Per- son in the Jaft, I think even the Socinians 4 do not doubt.— We will only fay then first, ig not St. John ule the {ame term in the fume way, 1n other parts of his writings? But every one must look at

the context of the other passages for himself, and

see whether he thinks, that what is said of the Word can be meant of a Quality. Tropes, no doubt, will do a grear deal in making things into Persons, but it must be considered, how little figurative St.

John’s language is in general, in other parts of his

Narrative.

In the way of direct proof we can only say then, look at John i. 1.; read on; judge, without wish- ing to confirm any particular opinion, whether St. John was likely to be so very figurative, as to re- late what he does of the Word, it he did not mean, that you should have a feeling or conception ot some Person: consider what could induce him to say, that the power and wisdom of God were with God, and were God: what end he could have in view, in giving a {serious account at the opening of his Gospel, or History, of the World being made by these divine attributes. (“ He came to his own.”

The Arians and Socinians give different con- structions of these words, in order to suit them to their respective opinions; and so do those, who are between these, whom Lardner seems to call Na-

Zareans,

P Set. 1.

Where is the passage, in which a Socinian says, that because the Word ig a person here, he is called so elsewhere ? —I do not find this in Prieftley’s Letters to Dr. Price, See Famil. Illuftr,

p. 32, something like this. Vol. x. Works, P- 619, 626.

4 […] rr […] _ […] - […] a […] - _ — 5 - 2 „ — N _ : = IS — — D 2 = C 3 bets nr — . 2 PF 5 CE : — . - - ” CR — £ Mz = * 2 N * — SE. — Fr — FF 2 I 2 : - 7 3 — —— - Ai Fx p _ * 5 […] . * 2 = * 2 […] PPT; p* — n — MS: * 8 : — f — 2 […] 2 — ; […] Ar ES en * , + c : * : […] . — * _ — . aE […] 5 a […] 8 = a “WS PRI . R * 4 2 i . 22 A 3 = — 5 — 5 = : = —— - […] 2 — - […] - = _ _ . — - . . — ” - […] 2 : […] - 2 — 4 - […] ID

„

[…] po _ TERRI IRE = —

FE -

I —

——— <<

EARTH

777 5 3-4:

[…] C

.

326 BOOK IV. ART. 11. SECT. XVIt.

Zareans, himself one of the number :—considering these constructions not would be rather answering ob. Jections than giving direct proof; yet, as there may be no other opportunity, I will now say, that Lardner’s Paraphrase on John 1. (Vol. 11. p. 95, &c.) seems to me very forced and confused: when he is not able to avoid allowing, that some Person is spoken of, he makes that Person to be God in general:— when he comes to some place, where God in gene- ral cannot be meant, he puts, instead of God, the power and wisdom of God: though the same sub- ject, or nominative cafe, is continued; our con- struction is, at least, more confiftent and simple; and, in my opinion, more honest or downright : nei- ther of them is perfectly clear, to any human being. Ass to the next passage, in which Logos occurs, * the Word was made Fle/t;” this may come under the observations just now made on John i. 1.— indeed it is a part of the same passage; J see no materia] break between them.

If this arguing seems /light, it must be considered what the nature of the question allows of; and that more solid argument is not used on the other fide ; we only consider which fide preponderates, not how much weight there is in either scale.

Of the other passage, in which the term Logos occurs, 1 John v. 7, © There are three that bear record in Heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Gnost :”—we may say, the Father here is a person beyond dispute; why not the Word? if he is not, is he a Yizness in the same sense with the Father ?—but then, alas! this goes to prove the Holy Ghost to be a Person, which must be denied, it * at all adventures; so we must leave this, till we come to the 5th Article.

It is to the purpose to observe, that St. John meant to adopt a notion already recely ed, which

Was,

BOOK iv. ART, IT. SECT, XVII. 327

was, as we have * ventured to conclude, that the Logos was a Person.

2. The Word means the Son of God.—I suppose it would not be questioned, that, if the Word was a Person, he must be the same as the Son of God:

therefore, if we have proved the Word a Person, we

have proved our point. But our arguments may not convince every one; therefore we will endeavour to prove, that the Word means the Son, and to infer from Hence, that he is a Person.

By the way, Lardyer, who allows * no pre-exist-

ence to the Son, rejects tne Socinian interpretations of John i. and holds, that the expressions, in which the Word is spoken of, imply proper eternity and Divinity: therefore, if any one is convinced, that the Word is the Son, he must, according to the interpretation of one of our most able adver- saries, allow the Son to be eternal and Divine:

according to the interpretation of one, who pro-

bably would be much pclined to adopt those senses, which he rejects.

That the Word means the Son, must appear

from observing the connexion and consistency of different parts of Scripture. In John i. 15, it seems to be allowed by our Adversaries, that the Son is meant; therefore every one must look back, (with

as little prejudice as may be) from that verse to the

beginning of the Chapter, and see whether he can find two different agents mentioned*, Only let him

not determine to find two, becaule the notion of

one would occasion him fome difficulties ; that would

Sect. 1. t Works, Vol. 11. p- 95. Dr. Priestley says the same, as to the Divinity of the Logos. Letters, p. 114.

v Lardner, Works, Vol. 11. p. 97.

X 4

[1 […] Ll ** j bo ; 4 ol ll b U 4 ; j g N N U bo 1 L393 „ N F i Yy ) ’ j on f U 7 i] TT; Wy. ! 1 [2 r J. by ) \ %. y * 1 ö o * N. 7 ; 41 WER +, i . # ! [0 1 ) bl 8 + 1 m1 1 wh, 1 : ”©! A m Was my 1 by ’ ! Pits. . i Wt - ’ on , I-44 ’ WL. þ I 145 by i; : \ jd \ 4 SA hg

$M 3, ii!

——x nn I LS

Co ——— h a ©

rt

2 I | I “Dh A x

• — — - evo

— oF — 5 r

328 BOOK IV. ART. 11. SECT. XVIII. XIX.

would be to make a revelation, not to interpret one made by the Deity.

A comparison of other passages with the first Chap. ter of John, would influence me very strongly : compare verse 3 with Col. i. 16, and with Heb. i. 27; the same effects and operations seem to be

ascribed to the Word, and to the Son; yet these could only proceed from one. Compare allo 1 John v. 7. with Matt. xxvill. 19 the Word in the for- mer answers to the Son in the latter; and, in that case, there can be no difference between them; when, in near fifty places“, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are mentioned together, it is not likely, that, in this, two of them should be the same, and the third difterent. XVII. 3. Our Church is justified ! in using the term © beporten,” by John 1. 14, and Heb. 1. 5, 6, were there no other texts to the purpose; but e begotten” is 7mp/ied, whenever Father or Son * is mentioned; and in the high sense of our Article, when a time is supposed prior to the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem®. One might add John 1. 18,—i1.

16, 18.—1 John iv.

XIX. 4. Our Church! is to be justified i in 4 the expression © from everlafling:” the expression _ occurs several times in our Translation, but, with regard to the Sou of God, perhaps only in Micah v. 2. | before © quoted, Indeed, the other texts

before

„If it besaid, that aiwac must be translated ages, { Dr. Priest-

ley’s Letters, p. 119) compare Heb. xi. 3. there it seems to mean worlds, |

2 Art. 1. Sec. viit.

2 Every sonship implies a generation; the ind of generation must correspond to the kind of sonship. —St. Paul calls some Christian converts his sons; One/imus was begotten in his bonds, Philemon, ver. 10. (Parallels are 1 Cor. iv. 15, Gal. iv. 19.)

John xvi. 28, —Rom. viii. 32. &c. geek. Kyi.

\

BOOK Iv. ART. IT. SECT, XX, XXI, 329

before quoted to prove the pre-existence of Christ, belong to this point. Add John xvii. 24.— The ancients used to say, that, as Father and Son are correlatives, the Father could not be eternal, except the Son was; there cannot be a Father without a

Son *®,—-Neither, we may add, can there be a Son

without generation. :

XX. 5. Of the Fatsier: - though Father is a correlative term to Son, and therefore implied in it, yet it seems proper for our Church to take no- tice of the different circumstances, in which it is

said, that the Son is, hegotten of the Father, and

conceived by the Holy GHH. If it appeared, from a survey of the Scriptures, that the former mode of expression was chiefly appropriated to a state pre- vious to that described by the latter, such a survey would confirm the notion of our Church, that

Christ 1s described as having existed before his

coming into this world, for a time unbounded.

*XXI, 6. Of one substance :” this is an ex- pression, which has occasioned much dispute : the word epozriog was that, on which debates chiefly turned at the Council of Nice, and even at the Council of Antioch fifty years before : and those de- bates have never yet been wholly given upf. We see that, in 1552, the Article seemed to avoid

them.

That the Son of God can properly be called of one substance with the Father, is not said in Scrip- ture in so many words: if it had, however difficult the conception, disputes must have been terminated before this time: it is rather implied than expressed.

| Supposing

8 Ser. de Tempore, 236 (or 191). Se. 2. Append. to 5th

Vol. Aug. qui semper pater fuit semper filium habet.

3 1. he very and eternal God; these words contain the main proposition of the Article, the proof of the truth of which was

given first, - f See Petavius de Trinitate,

1 4 0 — — bg […] 2 — - hn . 8 — — . 2. 5 A — — bs: — - _ — 5 — oF — = pa A — 4 * . . ——— n S == 2 22 SR. . AED — Foe 2 ot - £ bo * 8 — - IS 1 5 Sg . — — Ng. — . 1 C bn af odds, Lo PI , Yo av . — 4 FU — y […] 8 […] 2. & n * . as g * 5 L 1 […] - […] 2 - = 2&0 Su TAI _— a * 1 - […] 2 — . - a . 2 […] Bf ; ” 8 […] 7 * by 2 LCA — — 7 = - 2 g = = EIS - EIS EEE ITS Aide Sc 5 […] . CE 2 2.8, * _ - ” — 1 - […] ne GO 2 2 — . = —— . - . ; — — 1 — - — — po — * 8 […] _ — — - ry yo — by — - hs _

FT

—

——

Supposing the Divinity of the Son to have been

that also; © thele three are one.”

proved, we fay, the Son is God, and the Father is God, and yet there is but one God, therefore they must be of one substance.” Or supposing

only, that we have proved Christ to be properly

called the Son of God, antecedent to his being con-

_ cerned with humanity, then we say, it is implied

in the idea of a Son, that he is of the fame speci: with his Father: in the species of the Divinity, there is but one individual; therefore the Son must be of the fame substance with the Father. How much is implied in“ only-begotten!“

But, however exact our arguments may be as to

form, we are to use them as sparingly as possible, when we have not * difin& ideas. Therefore we will mention some passages of Scripture, which de- clare the Father and the Son to be one, referring to

what has been * before said to shew that, though

the union expressed may be thought by fome not

to be, beyond a doubt, unity of subsance, it yet

amounts to an intimacy of connexion beyond our defining; one quite out of our reach, one which

we can only look up to with silent awe and admi-

ration. The following paflages are of the fort now

mentioned; John xvii. 11, 21, 22, 23.—in John x. compare verle 30, with 38; remarking the stoning for Blasphemy. After these, consider John xiv. 28. and xvi. 28. as pointing out a derivation of the Son from the Father, of a sort consistent with the pre-

ceding paffages, and with John xiv. 9, 10, 11. which are fo strong, that any candid man will at least pardon their having given occasion to the

profession of what we call consubstantiality. Those,

who account 1 John v. 7. genuine, will consider

BOOK IV. ART, 11. SECT. XXI. 331

It seems as if Athanasius had thought, that per- | sons might be called owoxriasg, who were of one mind, if they were of the same species; and Cur- cellæus, who quotes him in his Preface* to the works of Episcopius, says, of the ancient Fathers in general, that they held this notion ; and blames

the moderns for not confining themselves to it, as

if their consubstantiality was Sabellianism: — bur this solution, though intended to avoid difficulties, would make the thing no easier to me (except it came from thefsame authority with the Scriptures, ) than what [just now observed, that if two could, in any sense,

be of the same species, when there was but one in-

dividual of that species, they must be of the same substance: for the difficulty still remains, of recon-

ciling this solution with al the Scriptures. There-

fore I still seem compelled to maintain consubstan-

tiality, though I am ready to own, that perfect union of v, in infinite wisdom, and spirituality,

| seems to my mind not distinguishable from unity

of substance. However, when I say this, I am in no danger of Sabellianisin, because I never think any thing in Scripture relative to the Trinity is

repeated or applied in a proper and legitimate man-

ner, except when the Christian* scheme is in view, and the different -provinces of the Son and Hol Ghost are plainly seen and acknowledged : and then, there 1s not so much danger of confounding the Persons, - as of dividing the Substance.

After all, though the expression of our Church seems defensible and justifiable, yet I can conceive

a very well-meaning and a thinking man to fay,

i Art. 1. Sect. x. towards end.

E Preface to Episcopius, Sect. vi. Athanasius, (as Curcellzus

here says) called Father, Son, and Holy Ghost consubstantial

only quia in eadem Hecie Deitate conveniant, et summa inter

eos fit voluntatis consensio.“ Art. 1. Sect. xv it.

[…] _ 4 — — 4 * ” 6 _— . 2 „ _ ö 33 * — 4 - R L —— 2 2 […] - I — » 8 2 => £ - A — — 1 * EY yy

— .. 4 — - pb […] Ss 4 — — 4 […] Iz : . — ner — — - 5 = 2 r 12 […] 5 : […] 8 1 . abt + mY 2 5 * 4 — - ———— — - < . = ’

Hon dhe gn? I bn — K = - 2 […] 5

2 […] .- . — - : […] 2 — = . | =

had

: % 1 * a y EE […] 8 […] VE + 5 . go n 33

=

— ac […] oc pan I JETER . 3 . E — - — _———

ES Arte

.. ix Ws HE

• had not such obscure and difficult expressions better be avoided © I should answer, yes;* bur only in the fame sense, in which I should say, all wars and all /aw-suits had better be avoided; that is, without meaning to blame every Prince, who enters into war, or every private man, who engages in a law-s{uit. The truth seems to be, that such expressions, as we are apt to be shocked at, or dif. contented with, have been adopted only in the way of defence; and it is of consequence to be atare of this, because the meaning of expressions, in such forms as Articles of Religion, depends upon the occasions on which they were made, and the errors ® which they were intended to obviate. The doctrine of eternal generation is certainly what the mind of man will never clearly compre- hend; we are lost, if we think on a being existing from eternity; yet there seems additional difficulty with regard to an event (and generation is an event) happening from eternity, or having happened an infinite time ago :—if any one chose to attempt direct or positive solution of the difficulty, he might perhaps say, that the Generation of the Son of God may not perhaps be an event in strictness, though in some respects like our generation; or that even an event, such as a communication of power, &c. may have happened so that it may be represented as eternal to 26; it may have happened before any time assignable by the human faculues; the dura- tion between that and the Incarnation may be one, to which any duration relating to human affairs may bear no proportion.— In like manner, the durect proofs of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, just now urged, may not be without weight; yet I should prefer, as more reasonable and just, as entering better into the minds of those, who m B. 111. Chap, 1%,

who have expressed these difficulties, a * negative solution of both. I should therefore say, that the true intent and meaning of laying down the doc- trines of the eternal Generation of the Son, and his consubstantiality with the Father, was, because no other method could prevent the opinions of those from spreading, who gave positive representa- tions of his nature, which the Scriptures did not seem to warrant; who declared, that he was a creature, that a precedence might be made out; or that the Son came out from the Father, as something is cast out of an engine (Tgoboan); or was separated from him, as a part is from the whole; or had no being before he was man.— In such a negative way, may the words of our Nicene Creed God of God,” &c. be understood,

It may seem strange, that, in our second Article of 1562, there should be these additional expres- sions, which were not in the former Article of 1552; © begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father:”—but I take for granted, that the History of the growth of Sociniauisin, during those ten intervening years, would fully account for the addition, which perhaps the Puritan Interest might contribute to secure. I do not mean to say, that the growth of Socinianism made it absolutely ne- cesary to insert these words; it might, or might not; but I believe, that in fact it occasioned the insertion, —Religious men are sometimes too im- patient and indignant; too apt to consider attacks on their own opinions as aitacks on the Honour and Majesty of the Supreme Being.

But it is one thing to say, that possibly expressions might have been safely omitted, and another to

desire

” Under Art. 1. Sect. x. See quotation from Ser. de T em- Pore.

desire to eject them because they contain what is not agreeable to Reason’. To do this, when the expressions are collected from Scripture by a com- parison of different passages, is to run into several faults and errors. It is to run into the fault of an officious friend, who frustrates all your good plans by intermeddling, without a sufficient knowledge of your intentions: — it is presumption ; it is to in- trude into the place of him, who reveals know- ledge, instead of studying what revelation truly means: — nay, in effect, it is to milead and deceive; for the chances against a man’s judging right, when he follows his own acquired notions about what it is fit for God to do, are infinite; and, if once it is resolved to support one false opinion, a number of other false opinions are propagated as arguments to sapport it.—Nay, I might have said, that the person, who does this, acts insincerely; for he pre- tends, that he believes that to be the true sense of words, which he adopts for a different reason.—If men often dealt out their own Revelations (as we might call them) in this manner, we should have | Revelation a very variable thing; it would vary with every change of fashionable philosophy ; it would veer about with every wind of Doctrine. Let a man then, if he pleases, meditate upon the incomprehensible Doctrines of Religion with awful difidence, and lowly suspense; but, if it be proper tor the good of religious Society, that he should give some preference of one opinion to ano- ther, let him not presume, that the true meaning of Revelation myf be something that is level and tamiliar to his ordinary habitual conceptions. But let us return to the original Article, and proceed with our subordinate propotitions. RT XXIL, 7.

o Set, xi v. towards end.

BOOK IV, ART. 11. SECT. XXII. XXIII. XXIV, 335

XX11. 7. Christ © took man’s nature:” was a real human being, in soul and body :—* of a reason- able foul, and human flesh subsisting. Luke ii. 40, 52. —Mark xiii. 32.—he had the appetites of hunger and thirst, Matt. iv. 2.—John xix. 28.— was wearted, John iv. 6.— He wept, Luke xix. 41. John xi. 35. this implies both body and affe#ions. — He slept, Mark iv. 38.— And, as a reason for the fact must confirm the tact, take Hebr. ii. 17, 18. — 15.—v. 27. 5 | xXXIII. 8. Our Church is not wrong in saying, that the Personage before described * took man nature in the Womb of the blessed Virgin.” — The thing to be observed here is only, that Christ began to be an human being before he was Born, as other human creatures begin to be.—lf he had not, he mult not have been at , properly 4uman, and therefore some change would have been announced, when he became so. To which we need only add, that we have plain accounts of his conception and birth. Matt. i. 18—23.— Luke i. 26—38.—ii. 5, 6. His conception was supernatural; but that is told us plainly; so that we have no reason to think, that any thing farther was out of the course of Nature: e 85

XXIV. 9. We have ground to say, © of her substance. Here we may mention John i. 14. Gal. iv. 4.— Rom. ix. 5.— Heb. 11. 14.—1 John iv. 3.—but, if any one should urge, that these pas- lages do not expressly say, of her substance,” in lo many words; I should answer, that, if even thele passages were wanting, we might conclude, against heretics, that, if Christ was human, and began to be fo from his conception, it must be un-

derstood, that he received that nutrition from the

{substance

» Lardner’s Works, Vol. 11. p. $4.—where the humanity of Christ, as a favourite point, is well proved. |

336 BOOK IV, xxv.

substance of his Mother, which an human mother commonly gives.—Io assert the contrary, would be arbitrary, and without foundation, and going contrary to all analogy of Nature. In all reasoning,

we mult take for granted, that effects are produced

by their usual causes.— In order therefore to dis- prove any notion, that Christ merely passed 7hrough the Virgin’s womb, we need only prove, that he was very man, or really man,—Phil. ii. 7. end, would be sufficient. | 5

xxv. 10. Amidst the difficulties, which arise from the description of Christ, the best language ve can ule is, that he had 22 natures in one Person, This is not a scriptural expression, but a kind of classing of many different {criptural expressions, or a reducing of them 1nto a {mall compass. Not that it would have been used merely on that account: it was intended to keep the Church clear of the errors of Neftorins on the one hand, and of Eutyches

on the other; though every such classing, when

judiciously made, must greatly relieve the mind, labouring amongst a number of texts seemingly inconsistent; afraid to omit any, or to take any

one in so strong a sense, as to incroach upon the

true meaning of others. Of one person * we find it said in Scripture, that he existed before Abraham, and yet that he was the seed of Abraham; that he was the Lord of David, and yet his Son, or de-

scendant; that © all things were made by him,“

and yet that he was © compassed with infirmity;” that he knoweth all things, John xxi. 17. —that

all the world must stand at his judgment-seat; and

yet that he was ignorant when his judgment would take place. N a How

© See John viii. 58. Matt. i. 1. Matt, xxii. 45. John i. 3. or Col. i. 16. Heb. v. 2. 2 Cor. v. 10. Mark xiii. 33.

= 8 1 6 Fr je: a apt. Ken Hon cad _ __. — __——

EE

— —— IE — E

n

BOOK Iv. ART. 11, SECT, XXVIs. 337

*o—

How can we express these seeming inconsistencies {which could not possibly be real ones) better than by saying, that the divine and human natures were joined in one Person? If such an expression will reconcile all expressions of Scripture, and 20 other will, our Church must have sufficient warrant for using it. But we have already © mentioned this ex- pression repeatedly. One of our Creeds means to lay down something equivalent to it, when it says, that Christ is one, © not by confusion of substance (not by confounding the divine and human natures, or conceiving them to be melted * down, as it were, into one) but by unity of Per/on.” Confounding the divine and human natures, would bring on a denial of either the Divinity or the humanity of Christ; and speaking of a plurality of Persons, would be going contrary to the tenor of the Scrip- ture language. 125 |

XXVI. 11. The divine and human natures, united in Christ, are © never to be divided;” are * inseparablliter conjunctæ. — This part seems lit- tle attended to by Commentators. I know not whether it would not be enough for the words, to prove, that this union will continue as long as we have beforehand any distinct views; but there is not occasion to mention any limitations. Alt is not disputed, that Christ had honours and dignity as a reward for his obedience in his human condition: it is not to be conceived, that there will be any time, when he will be depriped of these; and yet, according to our doctrine, they must be, in some way, attached or annexed to his 4umanity ; for, in- ä dependently

• Art, 1. Sect. xv 111. Art. 11. Sect. v111. and xv.

n aovyyxvuroc iwo3;, the unconfounded union, is mentioned by Photius, in his account of Theodoret’s 2d. Dialogue. See defore, Se&. 111. towards beginning.

© Phil. ii. 9. Hebr, xii. 2. ii. 9. Ephes. i. 20, &c.

VOL, 11. =

338 BOOK IV. ART. 11. SECT. xXV II. XXVI II. dependently of that, we do not conceive him to stand in need of additional Glory, or to admit of any. — Some authority he* is to give up; but no hint is given of any division to take place in the Person of Christ. Blessing and honour,” &c. are to be given both * unto him, that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever“. 1 Tim. ii. 5. Acts iii. 2 . xvii. 31. confirm this. But, if it seems above our comprehension to know how Christ, being Divine, enjoys additional _ glory, though we might urge, that Christ as the Son of Man may possibly enjoy-glory or rewards of a peculiar kind, answering purposes of some gra- cious dispensations, perhaps to many more worlds than ours; yet we seem to be on firmer ground, when we use the words, as before, in a negative sense, as excluding the notions and fancies mentioned in the explanation; or as affirming, that no one has a right to hold them ; and put 1t upon our opponents to prove, that a separation will take place. —That Christ, considered as man, may receive additional glory, dating the account from his residence on earth, is perfectly intelligible. _ XXVII.. 12. Our Church is right, in infiting upon the expression © one Christ; but enough has been said upon this, under the tenth of these sub- ordinate propositions, and in the Explanation. „Very God and very man,” has already oc- curred, in other words, xxvIII. 13. Lasily, the Aniele takes the true sense of Scripture, when it considers the accounts of the suffering, crucifixion, death, and burial of _ Christ, as plain narratives of fagts —If we have proved, that Christ had a real human body, we have, in effect, proved all the rest; for no one ever

• 1 Cor. xv. 24—28. * Rev. v. 3.

ever doubted the reality of his sufferings, & c. who did not doubt the reality of his Body.

However, the sufferings of Christ are particularly described by the Evangeli/ts?, and referred to in

the Epiftles*, They are finely enumerated and re-

presented by Bishop Pear son.

His crucifixion is allo expressly related, and al- luded to*. That he was © dead,” is not only re- lated, but referred to as a fact unquestioned : Illustrations and exhortations are founded upon it, -See Luke xxiii. 46 John xix. 33.—Alto Rom. v. 7—Io. Rom. vi. 4, &c. 1 Cor. xi. 26, &c.

The same may be said of the Burial of Christ; it is both related with many circumstances ; and

made the ground of spiritual advice and persua-

sion. See the close of any of the Gospels —and Rom. vi. 4. Col. 11. 120. If any one was to suggest, that Christ might not suffen, &c. though he appeared to do so; I would answer, that there 1s no reasoning against such an arbitrary supposition ; to suppose, that common hænomena are not to be solved by ascribing them

to their established © causes, is to take away all power of concluding any thing from experience.

It is like saying, there is 20 mazter, when all the properties of matter are observed : such an hypo-

thesis makes no difference: every thing mult go on

in the same train, whether it is admitted or not. Indeed, none but the enemies of matrer ever de- ned, that the Body of Christ was material. Not that

• Matt. xxvi. and parallels. z Hebr. v. 7, 8.

• Gal. v. 24, (or 11.)

» It might have been said, in short, that a/ four (suffering, crucifixion, death, and burial) are related and alluded ta: as some passages allude to more than one.

As was observed before, Sect. xx1v.

Y 2

** : ” 5

„ .

Gm te Wa rn I ene —

——

[…]

Jig IE + — 923 . […] PIs a ty ů […] 5 — — PI 34 […] =

that they denied the existence of matter; they only

held it in abomination, as the source of evil. XXIX. What relates to Atonement, or implies

original Sin, is deferred, as before.

xxx. Thus have we gone through the direct proofs of all the propositions contained in our Ar.

[…] a great quantity of argument re.

mains; I mean, the answering of objections; these are innumerable. Not one of the texts, of which

we have given an interpretation, but has had dif-

ferent constructions put upon 1t by our adversaries: and, though these constructions appear to me forced, inadmissible, what such able men as those who have made them could not have run into without a design of obviating difficulties, yet others may think differently : the question 1s, what course to take: —answering objections is certainly a part of Proof; and, as we blame our adversaries for uling arguments already answered, so may they blame us, if we pass by their reasonings without notice: especially if we neglect what they may call improvements: and yet to answer all objections, in the present case, should be a separate undertaking ; not only on account of their-nmumber, but because,

In many of them, truth and error are got so entan-

gled, that they cannot be disentangled in a little time. We must therefore hit upon some middle

way. 5 The best medium seems to be, to give up the idea of answering /ingle objections, and only lay down a few general rules or observations, each of which may be applied on more occasions than one.— It will be found then, that several objections may be solved, by attending to the following things: ’ XXX1, f. By attending to the three several conditions, in which Christ is mentioned. One, in which he existed before he assumed man’s nature, in

BOOK IV. ART. 11. SECT, XXXI. 341

in which he is spoken of as equal to the Father, though some kind of communication or generation had taken place, from unbounded time, which we can only confess, not understand:—a second, in which « hrift was a partaker of human nature and lived upon earth :—a third, in which he is said to fit at the right hand of the Majesty on high, invested with dignity as Head of the Church, or general Society of those, who worship God under the Christian dispensation ; interceding for sincere be- lievers, and looking forward to the time, when he will pass judgment upon them. It is not likely, that these three conditions should be all mentioned, whenever one of them is; nor that it should be expressly declared to which of them any account of Christ belongs, which is in- troduced incidentally, as it were, in the course of an _ ealy and artless Letter, or exhortation ; this is to be discovered from the context, from the occasion on which such account is introduced. We should always keep them all in mind, and let circumstances determine of which we should understand any par- ticular saying. In the Epistle to *the Pilippians, Christ is set forth as an example of condescension: the very idea takes in an 4higher and a /ower state ; and the reward points out a third, which must be more exalted than the second. —ln the first Chapter of the Epistle to the Colossianse, the intention might probably be, to give the converts high ideas of the don of God, in comparison of those Mons, to which many of them ascribed the Creation of the World, 9 bf believe, continued superintendence over their favourites. Flere, the humiliation of Christ would be less to the purpose than his fir condition, when « all things were made by him,” and his 14%, when he

• phil. ii. 537, Col. i. 1620.

342 BOOK IV. ART. II, SECT, xxx I.

he protected the Saints :—though his suffering was not to be wholly omitted.

The opening of the Epistle to the Hebrews, or Jews, was probably meant to obviate the low no-

tions, which the Ebionites entertained of the cha-

racter of Christ; in which case, the dignities belong- ing to the fir/? state naturally came to be mentioned;

the second state must be mentioned at least as a con-

necting link, and the Aird subjoined: the third

is not probably very unlike the first (John xvii. 5. in our conceptions; and what difference there is,

was not to be marked out Here: To the fu state belong, “ let all the angels of God worship him,” (Heb. i. 6.): to the second, „ho was made a little lower than the Angels; and, “ for the suffering of death crowned him with glory and honour,” (Heb. ii. 9.) to the ird. John xiv 28, Christ is speaking as being in the form of man, and as going to quit this world; he is therefore in his se- cond state, and what he says 1 is suitable to our no- tions; “ my Father is greater than I.” The Epis- tle to the Ephesians seems intended to induce the Jews to admit other men into religious society be-

sides those, who had lived under the law of Moses:

and therefore what is said of Christ, in the first

Chapter of that Epistle, commences* from his re-

surrection, and relates 8 to his third state or condition.

Now, many objections to our doctrines concern- ing the dignity of Christ may be solved, by attend-

ing to the difference of these free fates: as our

adversaries make their arguments against us, by consounding them together, and taking what is

laid of one, as if 1 it belonged to another. Dr.

Priestley

f Eph. i. 20, &c, to the end.

BOOK IV, ART. 11. SECT. XXIII. 343

Priestley makes © being in the ® form of God,” to belong to Christ after he had. been on earth; and describes his power in his rd slate, as if it was all the kind of power he ever had. —He also makes the glories ascribed to Christ, Heb. i. 10. to have been conferred on him in consequence of his suffer - ing*; though the sixth verse mentions bringing him into the world. An hint has been already given of something like this rule, with relation to John xvii. but he, who would see these three conditions described in a masterly manner, must read Bishop Sherlock’s first discourse in his fourth Volume; in four parts. e 5 xxXII. 2, Objections may be answered, by at- tending to the two charafers or natures of Christ, divine and human. The meaning of these has been sufficiently explained. But, though our adver- faries will agree, no doubt, to reconcile Christ’s being called a Lion, with his being called a Lamb; and, though they would not object to uniting all the cha acters of a suffering and a tri- umphant Messiah in the person of Fesus*; yet they are not willing, in like manner, that we ould

unite the marks of: Godhead and manhood in the

person of one Christ. -I confess, I do not under- stand Foro the divine and human natures are joined in him; but yet the mode of expression seems ne- cessary (as before mentioned) to collect into one agent all the acts and qualities ascribed to Christ. Socinus declares against this as any one may be apt to do, who denies the divinity of Christ—for

b Phil. ii. 6. Familiar Illustr. p. 23. 46. the latter is from 1 Pet. 1. 20, 21. which gives hints of all rec states. See also Prieftley’s Letters, p. 119.

& Reconciling passages about Faith and works, and making ent doctrine out of them, is a process of the same nature.

—

• __ . — — 2 : oO 1 =

— * 2 — Dome […] oe. ACE

——

Ll (R [+4 TRE 4 U FN + 1 W141. * , þ 1 & * j 5 n 4 * +? F \ \ E. [ N We N [ 1. […] 11868 [ ’ ’ ’ i FM . I 1. f i. 195 V 1 N i A [ i? J ‘s dS. 1 + ETSY 1 , U (+ 0 va e : a y] vw } 3 1] q n Filas bi 4 A) bp i K 5 giF Li ’ 12 1 #1 a: 4 by f [1 v “nt 4 15 h \ 4 [4 Y 10 f ul 4 WHE N 8 in KL Th. Wit q 149 […] N | Z Bi , ’ i” p p 7 4 Wh! (}

344 BOOK IV. ART. 11. SECT. XXX1T,

his divinity is pre-supposed:—and Dr. Prieftley (Let- ter 5. to Students, p. 80, 81.) says things against it something like what I have said in Sect. vitt,

in the character of Nestorius.—But no one should -

ay any thing upon it, who does not previously ac- knowledge the divinity of Christ; it concerns only our method of classing texts, which, suppofing some

of them to express the divinity of Christ, seem

contradiflory, by sometimes making him God, some- times man: till any one thinks, that there are some texts, which represent Christ as divine, he has no concern with our method of classing … or settling a seeming inconsistency, which he does not allow to exif. This remark may possibly preclude some dispute. The form of the objeftions, which I am now speaking of, is this; Christ is spoken of in Scripture as mere man, as in nferior to the Father, and so on; therefore he cannot be equal to the Father. Our answer 1s, we acknowledge Christ to be human, and inferior to the Father as much as you can; but besides those passages, which you alledge in order to prove him man, there are others, which seem to us to speak him drvine.—Dr. Priestley seems to

argue in this manner’, from John v, where he says,

„ that the honour to which Christ is intitled is“

{&c.) © on account of what he derives from God, by his Ambassador.” —No doubt, his being the sent

of God is one reason for his being honoured. —To

argue from human qualities of Christ against divine ones, would be the same as to argue from marks of a suffering Messiah against his being triumphant: or to infer, from Christ’s divine qualities, that he was not human. To prove that we are consistent

pa * Ss

is nothing in this case ; we own, that we cannot reconcile Christ’s divine qualities with his human. | Suppose, on a Lato trial, that the evidence of Mar- cus seemed inconsistent with that of Quintus, that these witnesses were men of equally good character, but that the Judges had made out the best decision in their power: what would be thought of a man, who dwelt upon the evidence of Quintus as certain ? and insisted, that the evidence of Marcus muy? be false, because it contradicted that of Quintus, as Quintus was a man of good character: would this be entering into the difficulty ?—would not there be the same ground for arguing, that Quintus’s evidence was false, because it contradicted that of Marcus? would such arguing prove any thing wrong 1n the Judges? The-text tar 4 mentioned, Mark xii, 32.

having always appeared to me the most difficult of any of those quoted in the Socinian Controversy, I am inclined here to take some notice of it. This text may be considered in wo lights, as the word Hon“ is understood to mean Christ as superior to the Angels, (Heb. i.) or as mere man; his being mentioned, in . to the Father, after the An- gels, makes some (as Macknight) conceive him here in a rank higher than the Angels; his being said to be ignorant, makes him seem mere man. Now, in the former sense, as above Angels, the passage may afford an argument against the divinity of Christ, and in the latter sense, the difficulty is to conceive, how one per/o could, at the fame time, know and be 1gnorant of the same event. If Christ had the divine nature joined with the human, he knew all ® things; yet, at the fame time, he did not know the day of judgment. —Taking the text in the ff light, one might say, First, supposing

ONE m John XX1, 17.

346 BOOK IV, ART. 11. SECT. XXXIM.

que text inexplicable, that does not seem a sufficient reason for giving up a doctrine built on many others. The Text might be left in suspense. 2. Aacknieht understands the verse to mean, that the Son of God was not to make known the time of his coming to judgment, but by uncertainty was to keep up the vigilance of his disciples: on the prin- ciple, © watch, for ye know not, &c.— 3. The stile 1s prophetic; and probably the patlage has a double sense; which puts it upon a different footing from other descriptions of Christ. 4. It may mean to describe the Mice of the Son of God, as Ambas- sador from Heaven to Earth, who might not in khat Office have the fixing of the day of Judgment in his Department. But the text may be taken in the second light, as speaking of the Son of May, notwithstanding his being mentioned between the Angels and the Father: had the gradation been, Man, the Son, Angels, the Father,” it would have been much more harsh and wrcouth than as it is now; Man, Angels, Son, Father; nay, it is scarcely conceivable, that an artlefs writer, who had a good ear, would not prefer the second series ag the first, except falssood was clearly declared by : but, when we consider, that Father, Son, and Hal Ghost are not always mentioned in the same order, in different passages, we must not lay very oreat stress upon order in the present case; espe- cially when we consider, that the Son must be in some respects higher, though in others“ lower than the Angels: —and that here Christ is not spoken of 1n his pre-existent state. The Socinians will allow © e Son“ to mean here the Son of Man, though a good part of our difficulty arises from there being this gradation; © no man,” © not the Angels; —< neither the Son; — © but the Father: — Man, Angels, Son, F ather. Let us then 2 5

„ zhe

BOOK IV. ART, 11. SECT, KXXIT. 347

« the Son” to mean here the Son in his zuman na- ture ; our observation, founded on this supposition, may be of general use.— We cannot conceive how the same person can know as God, and yet be 7g- norent as man? I apprehend it might be sufficient to observe here, that there is the same difficulty in conceiving how the fame person can be fone and weak; have dominion over the elements, and yet be © wearied with a walk; for this would put us on

seeing, that the Hypostatical Union is, what it might be expected to be, totally above our comprehen- sion; and therefore, that we cannot reason about it: when we presume to think and perplex ourselves about any part of it, we deceive ourselves, by fan- cying that, because we have an expreshon, we have some sort of 1dea: ‘but we should never fancy this, if we did not forget how 1t was, that we arrived at that expression.— We find different qualities, some divine, some human, predicated of the same person; we want to express this briefly, in order to relieve the mind, and preserve unity of Doctrine: we get a mode of speaking* „but that is all: we cannot stir a step farther. It we kept this process in mind, we should never expect to solve any such question as the present; therefore it would never give us any pain or perplexity: we should aim at nothing

but noting accurately, and recording faithfully. This seems the true answer to the N. . P diffi- culties, and to Dr. Priefiley’s”.

When we reason in mathematics, or in any Glu jet which we really comprehend, 1t we arrive at

some

, John 5 iv. 6,

. Somerting? like this has been said before (see Art. 1. Sect.

XVIII.); yet the idea was not precisely that of getting ap to what would be called a Doctrine, and being unable to as upon it as a principle,

? Set. vItt, © Letters, p. 81.

348 BOOK Iv. ART. 11. SECT. xxxiit.

some proposition, we can go on from 1t as an axiom: but when, as in the present cafe, we arrive only at a verbal proposition, though it may be very useful, we cannot proceed any farther. This thought ought to cut short our arguing on the Doctrine of the Trinity, as well as on that of the Incarnation. For in neither do we do more than collect various texts of Scripture, and arrange them, so as to ease the mind, and ward off error; so as to promote, or not obstruct, religious sentiments, So that Mark xiIi. 32. does not contain a peculiar difficulty: every particular union of qualities divine and human, which have any correspondence, contains the same. xxXxXIII. 3. We may, not unfrequently, solve objections, by attending to the difference between the Deity of natural religion, and a divine person of the Holy Trinity. —We may give the form of these objections, and an instance at the same time. Dr. Priestley * says, with regard to John xvi. 3. «© How can the Father be He only true God, if the Son be true God also?” Here, © the only true God” is opposed to false Gods, and means the Deity in natural religion; the Divinity of the Son is, according to our doctrine, entirely consistent with the Unity of the Supreme Being; that unity is a part of our Doctrine of the Trinity, It may indeed seem at first, that, if Christ prays to the EL Falle, This paragraph might be better put: The substance is this; —sometimes the word God means God in general, some- times a person in the Holy Trinity: and sometimes the word Father likewise signifies God in general, sometimes a person in the Trinity. We have then Four propositions, all proved or illustrated here, or under the first Article; but the proofs might be better arranged. In which sense Gad, or Father, is to

be taken, at any time, must depend on context and circumstances: God in general will be always in some way plainly or tacitly

opposed or contradiftinguished to Idols; a Person of the Trinity

will always be contradistinouished to ether Persons of the Trinity. Famil. IIlustr. p. 33.

3 „ ana” p ad. ad as; kStie

ROOK IV. ART. Il. SECT. XXXIV. 349

Father, he must mean a person of the Trinity; and therefore, if the Father be the only true God, another person of the Trinity cannot be God: but yet I think we bave before shewn, that Christ, as the sent, or the Ambassador of God, may call God his Father, meaning God in general, as it were, and not a Person of the Holy Trinity. A Prince calls his Father sometimes his King, sometimes his Father®: and if, as in the first Article (Sect. xv11.) one of a Triumvirate went on an Embasly, having himself a share in the Government, his dispatches might, if any one pleased, be said to be directed to * himself. — And the same, if any one of a com- mercial partnership travelled abroad as agent, and fent home accounts of his negotiations. There are sometimes stories of a King’s Son being a Servant; he would always have Royalty; he would rule (in right and justice) as a Prince, and serve as a servant. 1 Cor. xi. The head of Christ is God; —cer- tainly no member of the Church of England con- ceives, that the Deity is not superior to the Mefiah as such: - or to Christ considered as the Head of the Church, or © the Head of every Man.” XxxIV. 4. Objections may sometimes be au- swered, by examining quotations made from Scrip- ture to support them, and seeing, whether they are complete, or partial. Thus, when Dr. Priestley quotes Phil. ii. 8—11?, we say, the quotation is incomplete, as leaving out the account of Christ’s pre. existent state. He ought to have begun with the 5th verse. As incomplete quotations are fre- quent in controversy, it should be a general rule always to read what comes immediately before and er any passage that is quoted. Not that all par- tial

t Art, 1. Sect. xv 11. u John xx. 17. 2 Cor. xi. 31. * Dr. Prieftley’s Letters, p. 83.

Famil. Illustr. p. 45, bottom.

tial quotations must be deemed to be made so purposely. |

xxxv. 5. Objections may often be solved, by attention to that imperfection of language, which consists in the fame word being the sign for several different ideas.— The general form of such objec- tions is this; © an expression has sometimes his meaning, therefore it can never have that.” As if a man were to say, * momentum signifies sometimes a {mall portion of time, therefore it can never fig- nify force.” —This is not said quite plainly, only you fee, by the conclusion, that it is implied or infiauated: the kind of argument is not wholly wrong, but it is not wholly right; for an expression may mean one thing in one case, and another thing in another case: and the meaning is to be determined, in each case, by circumstances, and legitimate interpretation. But, when a mind is on the stretch, anxious, scrupulous, feeble; and haas been used to affix a certain sense to an ex- pression; this kind of argument, which proposes 5 another sense, and supports it by instances, gives a shock, unhinges, unsettles; and cherefore its effects ought to be obviated.

It is said, that we take the expression he Son of God in too high a sense; men are the Sons of God; &c.—no doubt, God 1s the common Parent of man- kind, and Christians are his adopted Sons; as op-

osed to those, who laboured under bondage to the elements of the world, (Gal. 11. 4.—iv. 3, 9, 25. and as they will inherit eternal life It 1s a fair topic of holy eloquence to say, that they are © heirs of God, and therefore joint heirs * with Christ:“ — but may not the fir/f-begotten, whom all the Ange!s were to worship, be Son in an higher sense ? if not,

how 1s he the oulybegotten ?—but, instead of cri- ticising

BOOK IV. ART. 11. SECT. XXXV, 351.

ticising on words, we will bring the testimony of the Jews, who understood the force of the language used, and the Mosaic Law. The Jews sought to il!ꝰ our Saviour, because he said, that God was his Father, making himself equal » with God.“

It is said, that eyw eh. means nothing more than ] am he,” and is so translated, except in the con- tested place, John viii. 58“. —Here, the shortest way would be to call in the same interpreters, the Jews; they took up stones to punish Christ for blasphemy according to their law. That e «pu

might be 7ranslated here, so as to exhibit an uncom- mon expreffion, is plain enough, because the passage, quoted as it were from the Book of Exodus, was uncommonly expressed.—And, supposing we were to adopt © I am he,” instead of 7 am,” the confusion of tenses remains; before Abraham was; I am he; - the meaning, we are told, is, before Abraham was, I was intended, fixed upon in the Divine Counsels, as the Messiah: - the probability of our Saviour’s expressing such a thought by such words, shall be left to every one’s privare judg- ment.

We fay, that ermaktenasignifies to invoke; but we are told, in answer, that it signifies to © surname: —why may it not signify both one and the other? — and also to appeal? —there seems good reason to think, that the LXX often used it to imply invo- cation, and therefore the Fews would be accustomed to it in that sense. I refer to Parkhurst’s Lexicon.

Creation * sometimes is used in a comparative or metaphorical sense; may it not therefore be some- times used in a plain and proper sense, even with

© a to the Son of God?—that it should be understood

John v. 18, Famil. Illustr. p. 114. ; * x vr. before. * Il p. 40. Famil. 37. 3.

— r „ oSE_t

Price, p. 120.

352 BOOK IV. ART. 11 SECT. XXXVI.

understood figuratively in Col. i. 16. seems * stranpe to me. It appears to me, that it would not have been so interpreted, if any other way of denying

Christ’s pre-existent state could pofibly have been invented, —Bishop Pearson has replied to this inter-

pretation, in his masterly manner, long ago®; but it is urged again and again. ö

xXxXXVI. 6. As the force of objections often depends upon authorities, and the credit of wit- nesses, we may not unfrequently obviate them, by attending to the particular situations and views of those witnesses. Such attention will sometimes enable us to confirm an evidence, which 1s reckoned weak; weaker than it really is: sometimes to over- 15 one, which 1s accounted rong er than it really

In both ways obviating that prejudice, by which

men are led into error. If, in an objection, the Fathers are spoken of as credulous, attention to circumstances will enable

us to confirm their evidence: by shewing, that Pliny and Plutarch were“ equally weak; and there-

fore, that the charge falls on the age, without af-

fecting the character of the Persons; who therefore

may be deemed credible witnefles in all things not connected with the vulgar errors of the times. If it

is said, that the Jeꝛos were unpolished and ignorant, we can ask, were they ignorant of those Laws

against blasphemy „which they themselves exe- cuted ? or were they, in general, more ignorant in matters of Religion, than Idolaters ? — Oneirocritics

are folly, but do they not shew us the language of

Symbols f

f Famil. llustr p. 44. See Dr. Priestley? s fifth Letter to Dr,

Symbols? most men are weak in some things, but were those, who attest any thing, weak in the priz- cipal matter ?—A doctrine is confirmed by a writmg;

it is objected, that that writing is Hpurious: what

then? did not many ancients put the names of famous authors to their works rather than their own names? and that with a good intention?

Attention to circumstances and views will fome-

times enable us to overturn an authority, which

seems stronger than it ought. Sir Isaac Newton *

has proved, that such a text of such a MS has been corrupted; which way did the prejudices of that

great man (mentioned by our adversaries, because

he was a great man) particularly incline him?— |

Hume was indeed a philosopher, but an iel; Whiston had studied Church history, and read the

[…]

every thing into its vortex.

XXXVII, 7. Lastly, we may often solve object tions, by sub/ituting the interpretation instead of the words interpreted. We have already asked, what could induce St. John to say, that the powwer and wisdom of God were with God in the begin- ning®,—Socinus himself, as I remember, makes the Word to mean the Mandate of God. An Academic.

might say, in the same way, the King’s Mandate is the same as the King; a Degree by Mandate is a Degree by the King; but would he fay, In the beginning (before Mandate-degrees began to be taken) was the Mandate, and the Mandate Was

with the King, and the Mandate was the King:

the same was in the beginning with the Rag would he, particularly, 1 this in ny opening of |

an Hiflory ?

mn Famil. Illulk. p. 38 twice. a Seck. XVII.

BOOK tv. ART. 11. SECT. xxxvII. 353

es > —ͤ—

Wwe |

[…] q My [ f - N 4 tl ‘n ; [ : 1 1 j ) 4 ’ 4 Lal ’ ö j N U ’ y ? [1 + (1 i” 1 si: f Wh. I I’s ’ [1 * „ 197 1 j l TY SIN ! ” i “y \ Ane 1 ne TH . if n An 1 ö J 8 U * TREE £YL Wl $0 i Wo […] 4; 1 Hs 1 0 ! \ 10 j i KF =. Th THEE 13! ; 1 , 1 4 4 J. EF 2 d I 18 HY 4. \ 1 j bs 0 L U ’ 19 K ’ Ti 4 ; f 10 N 1 iy) 19h 1 $ 7 4 in! ; iT. g 28 a it WW [1 N : 4 “20 1 as . ih £

—— NE DEED […] e 2 420 7117 5 — * 2

—— — A

——

—

354 BOOK IV. ART. 11. SECT. XXXVIL.

We have an instance of the effect of substitution in the Short Defence, &c. recommended before, in which the Socinian Interpretation of Matt. xxviii, 19. is put instead of the text“. Let us try its effect now, while we are suggesting this caution. These are all the Rules or observations on the Controversy concerning the Son of God, with which I shall trouble you. In several arguments, our adversaries prove what we Hold as well as they: q (see Short Defence, p. 29, and Note,) which is i sometimes an infinuation, that we do ot hold what chey prove; and, when it is so, it is a misrepresen- tation, and an unfairness and justice to us. They prove what we call the 7hird condition or state of Christ, (Lard. Vol. 11. p. 91); they prove, that Christ is zxferior to the Father;—that the Unity of God is maintained through the Scripture (Lard. Vol. 10. p. 619, &c.)—that creation does not al- 1 ways mean literal creation; that Christ’s being wearied is not reconcileable, in our minds, with his

[…]

— a —

PPP on or Ie oo ET AREAS $6 27 —

= creating all worlds. All these things we are far 4 trom denying: to grove them, in controversy with 4 us, is to misrepresent us: nor must they say, that

we cannot hold these things, because they are incon- stent with our other tenets; we must not be charged with any consequences of our Doctrines, except those which we ourselves acknowledge: we may speak L foolishly or inconsistently; but what we profess to 4 hold we should be allowed to hold. I could have i wished to say something on 1 Tim. iii. 16. but 14 it would lead us into discussions too like those on 1 John v. 7.—and what observations I had to make, I made in reading to you Bishop Pearson’s Note upon it. Dr. Priestley seems to“ refer to the Alex- andrian MS, when he speaks of it: I produced Dr. i Woide’s fac-fimile, and gave my opinion on the

; modern o Short Defence, p. 32. * Famil. Illnstr. p. 38.

BOOK IV. ART. 11. SECT, XXXVIII. XXXIX. 355 modern appearance of the word ge. Bishop Hurd has a Sermon on the verse, and Mr. John Berrimun has published an Octavo Volume upon it, which seems to contain much useful inftra&tion to the critical Divine,

___ xxxv111, Having now finished the Proof of our Article, we come to what we have called the Application, which will consist of the same parts as before. xxx1x, We are first to consider, in what sense a thinking man would now assent to this second Article. Let us conceive such an one meditating upon it in his closet, with a view to determining, whether he should give or withold his affent.—* Let me re- fleet, he might say, can I with a safe conscience subscribe to what is now proposed to me for sub- scription? “ The Son, which is the Word of the Father:”—yes, it appears to me much more pro- bable, that the Logos means a Per/on, than that it denotes only the Power or Wisdom of God, or his Mandate: and I do not see; from the connexion of expressions, that any Person can be meant different from him, who is called the Son. — That this Per- son may be said to have been begotten of the Fa- ther,” is plain from the very appellation of Son, and from many passages of Scripture. But, © from ever- lasting !” that may require a pause. I find the idea of eternal Generation too much for my grasp: yet 1 can say, that, according to the Scriptures, the Son

nas begotten of the Father before he was conceived. by the Holy Gho/t.—Nay, it seems to me, that 10 man has a right to %u any time as prior to that

derivation or communication, which is represented to us as in some sort parental: or to say, that the Son of God is a creature: I so far understand what I say,

as to deny that; and I apprehend, that such negation

2 2 was

[…] 8 — P 7 —— = 53, 2 wa n — 2 * —

(1 1 SY) \F: E g }

ft 1 I, 16H } [| i T4]

SY ax a =

AN ——

rr ww. a =.

r — * —

P

= 2 […] rr

_ - […] JJ - —— — 22 ws „ r

22 SS — — ww 4 ͤ —ĩ⁵˙ᷣ»——

356 BOOK iv. ART. 11. SECT. XXXIX.

was what the compilers of the Article principally

intended. 55 5

& The very and eternal God!” The Son seems to me to have the fille of God given to him several times, though verbal criticism has contended to the contrary, in some instances; but besides that,

he, who could do what Christ did, could, as far as my notions reach, do every thing: he, who knew

what Christ knew, must know every thing: and he, who is able to do all things, and who knows

all things, and has existed © from everlasting,” and

moreover 1s set forth as preserving all things, 1s, to me God. Superior Beings may have different views, but I think I may deny, that any Man (and this was the thing chiefly intended, in the framing

of the Article) has a right to refuse that title to Christ, or even to call him a God; that is, a God

of some inferior sort; the worship of whom would be a kind of Hero-worship; or to fix any priority

or precedence between the Father and him, con-

sidered as Divine. Expressions relating to these

high matters might, for me, have been left indefi-

nite, as promoting rather a devout heart, than a speculating head; but, when I am called upon to prevent the spreading of what appears to me error

and heresy, I must reason and define as well as I

am able.“ 4 « Of one substance with the Father! here again

I pause:—but, if I may proceed at all upon the

notion of Christ’s being the fir/t-begotten or only- begotten Son of God, I must say, that the Son 1s umversally of the same species with the Father; and here, in this species it 1s the fundamental principle of all rational religion to assert, that there is but one individual, ] do not understand this, but I lee,

that, if this is not allowed, the Church must either

NO make 4 Art, 1. Sect. x. towards beginning.

BOOK IV. ATR. 11. SECT. XXXIX. 357

make the Son of a different species from the Father, or make a plurality of Gods; and I conjecture, that this might induce the ancient Christians to insist fo much upon the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father;—and I mult have as great an insight into the subject as those have, who would make the Father and Son of different substances; which I must declare against; and the intimacy of connexion between them being unbounded or infinite, I am willing to express that infinity, by the affirmative expression prescribed by Authority.”

« Took man’s nature in the Womb of the blessed Virgin“ —however wonderful, it seems clearly set

forth in Scripture (and I am now thinking of no- thing elic,) that this great Personage became a real man, in foul and body, —This settled, I should con- fider it as implied, that he became an human being, when others became so, that is, before Birth. —His conception indeed, on the part of the Holy Ghost, was supernatural; but there 1s no reason to doubr, that, on the part of his Mother, it was natural; as was all that followed ; some have been shocked at this idea, and have proposed their suppositions in order to avoid it; but, if Christ was real man after his birth, why not before? and, if he received not from his Mother what is usual before parturition, how could he be said repeatedly to be the seed of a woman, and a Few according to the Flesh #

• Two perfect natures” © were joined together in one Person.” -— This is dt ifficult; and, when I try to conceive the knowledge of God, 70-exisling | in Christ with the ignorance of man, the power of God with the weakness of man, I find my rational faculties feeble and impotent: yet I acquiesce in this mode of Rating the matter, in preference to any other,

because

r Art. 1. Sect. x. beginning.

rr

EAA rot TT IB AG. nn GI

— dn Rad interac — —

KT —

KA ary A

FFF Ile” © - E .

lr r

—

358 BOOK IV. ART. 11. SECT. XXXIX.

| because it is smply and fairly taken from Scripture from the whole of Scripture: and because I think it most dangerous and presumptuous to modify, or tamper with, Scripture, where we understand the least, and are /ikely to understand the least. Ne- vertheless, I feel neither surprize nor indignation at those Christians, (I mean now such as have pre- viously allowed both the Divinity and humanity of Christ), who have proposed methods of avoiding difficulties so, striking. The supposition, that the human nature of Christ must be swallowed up in the Divine, may solve some difficulties; imagining two Christs, two Agents, or Persons, the one Divine, the other human; the former all-wise, the latter ignorant; the former powerful, the latter weak; may solve other difficulties: and the same may be

laid of other suppositions (such as the confr/ion of the two natures, or the conversion of one into the

other): but yet all these suppositions have one ra- dical fault, that they neg/e& some parts of Scripture, in attending to others. I cannot but prefer abiding by the whole of Scripture, leaving the difficulties of doctrines evidently above our comprehension to that time, when we shall know even as * we are

known.”

Never to be e „— If Christ, after his ascension is called man, even as Mediator and Judge;

and if Honour shall be ascribed to the Lamb for ever

and ever; I am clearly against any man’s presuming to afign any time, when the Divine and human natures in Christ shall be finally separated. Which seems to coincide with the true intent and meaning of the expression, <« never to be divided.“ There is then but“ one Christ,” truly Di-

vine, truly human. — That he © ful suffered, died, and was buried, can be denied only by mere

arbitrary

5 1 Cor, xiii. 12,

BOOK IV. ART. 11, SECT. XL. 359

arbitrary supposition, or by the extravagance of mystical interpretation; except indeed by those, whose principle it is to hold all matter in abomi- nation, with whom I have nothing to do. Con- cerning the reality therefore of Christ’s sufferings, death, and burial, I have no doubts or difficulties, (except such as have been already considered, arising from the union of the two natures in him); I re- ject all suppositions, which are perfectly arbitrary, when they are opposed to analogy and experience; l allow no mystical exposition, except where it is warranted by the soundest reason: and I account

every work of God good 1 in its kind. — The rest 1

will consider hereafter .

XI. After determining in what manner one of

ourselves may be supposed to give his affent to the Article under consideration, we come to consider how 1t seems possible, that any mutual concessions should take place between our Church and those who dissent from it, tending to an union. |

The general end and design of such concessions (it must always be remembered), is not to produce perfect unity of privale opinion, but only unity of Voctrine and worship.

In what remains to be said on this second Arti- cle, there is such a resemblance and connexion between it and the first, that we must be brief, in order to avoid repetition.— There is the same rea-

son here, as in the first Article, why we should

profess our doctrine to be unintelligible, why we should constantly make public claim to the title of

Unitarians, and why we should consider the nature of

Invocation of the Son of God: and what might be expected from Dissenters, in return for concessions and healing expedients on our part, is much the _ lame

See opening of this Article. B. 111. Ch. 1v.

[…] _ > 2 dy

[…] p […] r —— ———— —

. . nei > mm en

0 a […] . — — 5

2 2 _ =. bs — 2 — ad — — : 2 7 —— 8 . — - - […] - = _ […] - f - — * —

— i […] ng — r ESSE […] - = I — — _ - — — 1 2 DN 2 8 r PIE — * A _—— e La en — 2 - […] 7 * 2 . 2 N F LE MD — — 2 4 —— 5 . : 3 A. 1 : DFT . = : 8

360 BOOK Iv. ART. II, SECT. XLI.

: same as under the preceding Article. —Nay, we may extend the observation even to Improvements: \ these must arise here, as well as before, from at. tending to the true nature and use of Philosophy ; from watching nicely the circumstauces, in which expressions are introduced; from being cautious of forming unintelligible, that is verbal, propositions into Sy/logisms, or arguments; from investigating the different scriptural senses of the word God; from attaining a clearer notion of the 2j es of our Doc-

trine. Moreover, we might make a critical inquir into 1 Tim. iii. 16. an Appendix to this Article, as we made an inquiry concerning 1 John v. 7. an Appendix to the last. The difficulty, in short, is, how to keep up our Form, and suggest any thing

neo. […] h

XLI. What was said, under the preceding Article*, of the general effect of invidious names and appellations, is applicable here; but the particular word there specified, viz. Trinity, does not belong to us at present. As it seems to be of great con- sequence, that we /peak the same thing, and as men are generally more affected by sounds than ideas, we might propose it as a question, whether the word God, in such expressions as Gd the Son,” and © God the Holy Ghost,” could be omitted, in our Offices, without a material fault. _ Though Christ seems to us to be called God in se- veral places, yet there is some dispute on that head; and, for the sake of Unity, we would pay all possi- ble respect to the opinions of our adversaries. [ should imagine, that such an omission would tend, almost as much as any thing, to mollify and con- ciliate. There is not perhaps any express command toinvoke Christ under the title of God, The early 8 Christiaus

• Art, 1. Sect. x1, Y 1 Cor. i. 10.

BOOK IV. ART. 11. SECT. XLII. 361 Christians* used to invoke Christ, and Pliny says, tanquam Deum; yet Pliny’s idea of a God was not confined to the one supreme invisible Being. St. Stephen addresses Christ, but does not use the word God, though it 1s found in our translation, in Ita- lics; and his address is the ejaculation of a man dying in the Christian cause. If Christ was to be worshipped on earth, he must be a proper object of worship when ascended into heaven; but it may be considered, whether he might not be entitled Me- diator, Interceflor, Judge, Head of the Church,

instead of God, The equality of Christ to the Fa- ther was most perfect in his pre. existent state: In his state after his ascension, in which he no exists, he deigns to be called man in some sense; he has not entirely put off his human nature.

XLII. It might tend to promote unity, as far as it is necessary for the purposes of religious Society, if we brought some of our Forms nearer to expres- sions of Scripture: not only those which we are to use in prayer, but those which contain confessions of Faith. We have already * given a scriptural ad- dress to Christ. But to be frank here, I suppose, that some might hope for more from this measure than it would in fact produce. All Christians will assent to Scripture, but then we do not use the Scriptures in the original languages, and different parties translate differently: and, even according to our own translation, Dr. Balguy’s observation has

great © weight. © Subscription to the Scriptures is _ absolutely nothing. It is consistent with every ima-

ginable absurdity and mischief,” &c. We may add, that the manner of placing 4 introducing pas- sages of Scripture 1 is, in a way, interpreting them: as 35 1 1. 2. Book 1. Chap, xv111.. Seck. XIII.

Acts xvii. 31, 1 Tim. ii. 5. * Art. 1. Sect. XIV. F go. p· 277, /

362 BOOK IV. ART. 11. SECT. XLII.

as would appear from comparing two scriptural Catechisms together m disputed * points, —Never- theless, I should imagine, that some good might be attained, in some instances, by the measure here proposed. —It was, I doubt not, an ease of mind to Eusebius to use wewroroxov © macns rief, as he thereby suited his own opinions, and avoided any invidious opposition to them. And ** the Sor of God” has been used by different persons, united in worship, in different * senses. —The more candid people are, the more use will they make of this „„

Epi scopius, as a Leader of the Arminian sect, has composed (or was greatly instrumental in com- posing) a confession of Faith, in terms chiefly scrip- tural: the intent of this was to comprehend men of different religious opinions in one religious $9. ciety : and the effect has been in some measure an- swerable to the design. For the leading writers of the Arminians do differ in many points, though they unite in public Doctrine. However, this agreement has its /imits; Papists are excluded from Arminian Societies as Persecutors, and those Protestants who favour Predęstinationb.

In my Sermon on the Athanafian Creed, I have

recommended inserting Mark xvi. 16. repeatedly, instead of the damnatory clauses.

XL111, With

Compare an orthodox scriptural Catechism, with Biddle; in Cambr. Library, the former is E— 5 - 72 ; the latter C-14— 66. Dr. Priestley has compiled a scriptural Catechism.

© Eusebius’s Creed is in Socrates, L. 1. c. 8; and a Transla- tion into English, in Dr. Rutherforth’s last Charge, p. 82. And in the Histories of the first Nicene Council. |

f Book 111. Chap. rv. Sect. v. |

’ 8 See Episcopius, T. 2. part 2. p. 69.— An account of the

Confession, Part 2. p. 169. Also Mosheim, 8vo. Vol. 5, p. 461. Cent. 17.—2. 2. 3. 12. The Pref. of Curcellæus, Sect. vi. was mentioned before; Art. 1. Sect. x. near end; and

SeR. xx1. of this Art. |

Arminius died in 1609; Episcopius in 1643.

BOOK IV. ART. 11. SECT. XLIII, 363

XLI1I. With regard to what might be done by Disenters towards a coalition, little need be added to what was said under the preceding Article. It appears from thence, that they may more“ easily

yield than we. Such 1s the nature of what we. hold,

that they might suffer us to proceed in our own way, though with contemptuous pity. They might suffer us as fools gladly, seeing they themselves are wise. —But Dissenters from the Church of England are not all upon the same footing. The ancient Arians* (and some, I suppose, of their way of think- ing continue), spake high things of Christ: the original Socinians ” did the same: — But, with re- card to Diflenters in general, on the subject of the second Article, we may say, that our claim to their assistance in reconciling and uniting, is built on the nearness of our Doctrines to theirs; particularly in all points nearly affecting Piety and Virtue; on our not having, in many of the disputed points, what can properly be called an Opinion; and on their relating not to man, and what he has to do; but to the Divine nature, and what is to be tive on the part of God. But I do not perceive, that Dissenters are contriving healing measures; they seem all mere Advocates.

The doctrine of Atonement we take no notice of at present.

xL1v. We

1 Sect. xv.

! Lard. Vol. 4 p. 127. Dr. Priestley’s Letters, p. 100: and other Letters to Dr. Price. Waterland’s Case of Arian Sub- scription, p. 33.

n See Cat. Racov. p. 52, 53, and 116, with preceding. For modern Socinians, see Leck X11. or Dr. Priestley’s Letters, p. 101.

B. 111. Chap. Iv. Sect. Iv. and v. quoted Art. 1. Sect. xv.

364 BOOK iv. ART. 11. SECT. XLIV. xLv.

xXLiv., We are, in the last place, to see what openings there seem to be for improvements relative to the subject of our Article. Here again, as ] have lately observed, we have anticipated, un- der the first Article, what might have been offered under the tecont.

xLv. But yet it seems as if some improvement might possibly arise from examining, whether the expressions of Scripture, about w hich we contend, are to be studied in a {crentrfic manner ?—whether they are not fome of them rather expressions of strong affettion and sublime devozion *—Consider | the case; in the first ages of C hriftianity, Chrituans seem to have elt a great deal of pious ® gratitude, and deyout admiration; and to have uttered what they felt, in an artless manner. Passionate expres- sions are always understood as indefinite, and the language of Scripture being natural language, must be interpreted as such. Expressions that are merely sublime must be indefinite, JI mean such as, in hu- man language, relate to the nature and counsels * of God; becaule they cannot convey disttnct ideas; and they are the more indefinite, because they are affecting, or excite pgssion. Now, if the expressions of the earliest Christian writers were at first 2ndest- nite, they certainly ought always to continue fo; to give any such a definite sense, is to nrisimterpret them. We have mentioned the word wanguy a, as an * instance; others might be added; only there

„ Art, 1. Sect, Iv.

John 111, 12. might be applied here; fabfticuting for belief, x necessary previous step, under/tanding : If I have told you eaithly things, and ye“ understand not, how shall ye MET ian if ] tell you of Heavenly things?“

4 Sect. xv 11. of Appendix to B. 1.

r Heb. 1. 3. brightness of his glory. | Eph. 1. 23. the fulness of him that filleth all in all. f Cor. viii. 6. Heb. ii. 10. the

prepositions: fee before Sect. x v1. They shall be as the Aagels. John XX1, 25. the world would not contain the books.

BOOK IV, ART. 11. SECT. XLVI. 363

is danger lest it should be thought, of any one in- stance, that its being indefinite is too positively asserted. Instances here are only to give a general Making expressions to be, after this manner, taken in an indefinite sense (supposing that their right sense) would not only be an improvement in interpreting, but it would probably tend greatly to lessen dissension, and to promote devotion. Peo- ple would not quarrel about the sense of a paslage, which would only be understood as sentimental and affecting, any more than about an exclamation or an interjection. And, if senses of expressions were indefinite, they would be pliable; all might adopt them, in one way or other, without finding fault with their brethren : there would be no dread of consequences, and probably no jealousy or bitter- ness.— Then, Devotion arises naturally on the ab- sence of dispute*; and we should have a great number of fine sublime and pathetic expressions, which we have not now, to help our devotion’*. XLVI. And, when we are looking forward to imaginary improvements, it is natural to consider, not only what will probably happen, but what may poffibly. Now there seems nothing out of thereach of possibility in supposing, that persons, differing in the points which we have now been discussing, and even in other points, may join in divine worship, and with a sufficient agreement in opinion. A perfect agreement seems beyond all pofile expectation; but a perfect ease, composure, and quiet of mind, and - freedom from actual difsenjion, does not seem so. Such reflexions as we have been making mult thew the mode of beginning, and the instances formerly

produced

s B. 111. Chap. 111. Sect. rv.

t It might be worth while to read here a passage, which Dr. Burney quotes from Augustin; see his account of the Comme. moration of Handel, p. 90. and Hitt. Music, Vol. 2, p. 172.

366 BOOK iv.

produced must afford hopes of success. Some forbearance is certainly required, but not more than might be attained.— The truth is, most men are under the dominion of some Hypotheses ; in most things perhaps; but particularly in the mysterious parts of Religion, where education“ has given a particular view of the Scriptures, and controversy has fixed us in our favoured notions. After this, we are never so easy as in our own habitual train of ideas and conceptions. If this was once uni- versally allowed, and thoroughly acquiesced in, it would be so far from dividing us, that it would be the means of our living quietly together, and even _ uniting in religious wor/aip, without taking offence at each other’s peculiarities. We should let the 9uker and the Dutchman keep their hats on, and they would let us take ours off. And the same mutual indulgence would take place in expressions of Devotion, and declarations of Faith, though made in the presence of all parties.

If it would not seem extravagant, I would pro- pose, as a question for discussion, how much greater forbearance it would require for men, who _ differed in religious notions, to worship together, so as to attain the proper ends of religious society; than for men, who differed in their manner of eating and drinking, to partake of the fame meal, so as to attain the proper ends of convivial society? Eating and drinking different things, you will say, arises only from a difference of 14ste, it is a matter of liking and disliking, it would be very idle, if people were to eat at Heparate tables, because OT

di

u See Dr. Priestley’s PR p. 168,—In this rallies I have the satisfaction to agree with this Author; not in many: I mean, of his controversial writings ; in things unwritten I agree with him, I. suppose, generally. —For the instances Just now men- tioned, see Art, 1. Sect. x.

BOOK IV, ART. 11. SECT, XLVI. 357

did not all prefer the same dish: but have liking and disliking, have taste and distaste, nothing to do with religion? in the extended sense, a great deal. One man loves sacred music above all things; another abominates an organ: one is edisied and moved with a fine picture, of a nativity, or a taking

down from the Cross; another would banish all pictures from every place of worship: —and hymns,

and Sermons, or pulpit-eloquence, and even the eloquence of Prayers, are much connected with taste; and, if some of the lofty sayings, on which

speculative doctrines have been built, are really

expressions of sentiment and affection, the reception and application of them. may be guided by taste, in a considerable degree. Those, who are of noble and generous dispositions, and have been liberally educated, give into doctrines, which are sublime and pathetic: whilst the more cold, precise, barren minds rather give into those doctrines, which lower the dignity of Christ, and reduce all religious notions. to vulgar and ordinary conceptions.—— _ Gloomaness of temper has probably often made a man embrace the doctrine of absolute Reprobation, of condemnation by a direct decree of God to eternal misery. But moreover, dissensions con- cerning meats and drinks, though perhaps they

really arise from taste, may be supported by much

philosophical reasoning. What may not be urged concerning acids, and alcalis, and inflammatory

liquors? what concerning concoction and diges-

tion? the effects, natural and moral, of animal and vegetable sustenance? The Rules of different Con- vents, Orders of Monks, &c. &c. are founded on

these principles. If people were as much inclined

to bigotry and persecution about these things, as

some have been about spiritual food, a convivial

meeting would be a thing impracticable.— And now,

368 BOOK iv. ART, 11. SECT. XLVI;

now, suppose men divided into small parties, re- fusing to eat, except with those who used the same quality and quantity of nourishment with them- selves, what would you fay to them? it your ex- hortations to unity of repast be in general terms, _ observe whether many of them are not applicable | to unity of worship.

F conclude these remarks vich absevring, that what has been said in order to shew, that men might possibly unite in wor/hip, though they differed greatly in opinion, does not affect the force of an thing, which has been urged in defence of the doc- trines of the Church of England, either as to their truth or importance. It supposes each person to rest in his peculiar notions, upon what seem to him good grounds: but only to shew great candour and forbearance towards the opinions of others, _ notwithstanding. all his reasoning in favour of his own.

If agreement in mind and judgment, as well as in teaching and worship, 1s finally to be accomplished in any way, it must be in this.

Notes

• Gibbon’s Hist. Vol. 2. Quarto. p. 237, &c.
• Famil. Illustr. p. 30.
• On Creed, p. 324, 1st Edit. p. 160. Fol. 5
• See Mosheim, Cent. c. Part 2. Chap. v. Set. 12. Mac- laine’s Note. — Bp. Pearson does not seem to have been aware, that Nestorius used wgoowno, instead of Syriac Barsapa, to sig-
• Some earlier writers ward off, or reject, this notion, as ap- pears from Bp. Pearson’s Note. Creed, p. 281, ist edit.— which seems to 5 4 that it had been held before.
• . Creative power. Heb. iii. 4. both as a proof and a principle. Heb. i. 10. &c.—John 1. 3, 10. —Col. i. 16,—Revy. iv. 11.-these are direct proofs ; —but 1 Cor. viii. 6. and Heb. ii. 10. might be reckoned®; and it might be observed, that using different prepositions is like trying to catch some- thing beyond our grasp.—Does not the miracle of Loaves imply a creative power?
• Dr. Priestley makes but oe agent. Famil. Illustr. p. 317. — e Christ being called the Word of God,” Kc.
• , p. 35; Art. 1. Set. xvit. OY
• Familiar Illuftr. p. 25, top: see allo Letters, p. 71. 1 Tim. 11. 5. p. 144. How could he be? „ our Brother, if he was our A =.
• John iii. 2. Famil Illustr. p. 23. Rom. vill. 17.
• Pearson on the Creed, p. 227, first Edit. or p. 114, Fol. * Book 1. Chap. x11. Se, xvi. i John viii. (8,v. 18. * B. 1. Chap. xviI1.
• 8 ; Works, Vol. 2. p. 310. Of this, Book 1 1. . Chay. x11. Seq,
• 1794. I am mortified to find, that Dr. Priestley holds the contrary: Letters, p. 20, 22; and expresses wishes of being accommodated.