aia hp eae 
 Se 
 Sonoeeteorenice 
 
 <= : 2 “4 s Peres 
 Sane geen ~ Dora eons eps = “ eis i] Cea eenenen te 
 
 etn ea : re ° é it 
 Sowcleieekesomaeerae Z 
 
 oe 
 er Sort 
 Serta 
 Sa nance Sol ta Selim hx vara oneooted 
 
Library of The Theological Seminary 
 
 PRINCETON - NEW JERSEY 
 
 DIKE 
 
 PRESENTED BY 
 
 Samuel Agnew, Esq. 
 Marci 25 aalioos 
 
 pelle Wis ihe eaniney, 
 aber, George Stanle IE Fae 
 1854. a 
 The apostolicity of 
 ne sipasechesbeheboi 
 
 —_— re =a =a = —_= = 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2022 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/apostolicityoftrO2fabe 
 
a 
 bm gy 
 
 é sad Ny ra 
 ets Vas 
 
THE 
 
 7a AO ed MOA bE BAY 
 
 OF 
 
 TRINITARIANISM: 
 
 OR, THE 
 
 TESTIMONY OF HISTORY, 
 
 TO THE 
 
 POSITIVE ANTIQUITY, AND TO THE APOSTOLICAL INCULCATION, 
 
 OF THE 
 
 DOCTRINE 
 
 HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 BY 
 
 GEORGE STANLEY FABER, B.D. 
 
 MASTER OF SHERBURN HOSPITAL, DURHAM, AND PREBENDARY OF SALISBURY. 
 
 Opto, cum Melancthone et Ecclesia Anglicana, per canalem Antiquitatis deduci ad nos 
 dogmata fidei e fonte Sacre Scripture derivata. Alioquin, quis futurus est novandi 
 finis?—CAsAuB. Eipist. 774. 
 
 IN TWO VOLUMES. 
 VOTRE: 
 
 LONDON : 
 PRINTED FOR J. G. & F. RIVINGTON, 
 
 ST. PAUL’S CHURCH YARD, 
 AND WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL. 
 
 1882. 
 
eet ine 
 
 a ‘ ; = - 
 ‘ Pr 5 ‘ iy iy 
 ; s fa rs a ' > | Se 
 
 | oh. hii hae ere Np Oona Arua Abia 
 ri \ t 
 
 | | GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, | f 
 one ; . DS cabarets fe . ST. JOHN’S SQUARE. | 
 
 £ : * 
 a 2) ae 
 ; cay dey aa . ray 
 : ih RS Se ee td Samp oh 
 ba 4 , 
 > ww , 
 ; he pa 
 ’ 
 * 
 ~. at f i 
 : 7 al + 
 i a , 
 v ; 
 
 ‘ 
 # a, \ 
 
 “é 
 od 
 A , 
 < 
 
 *. “4 
 ; 
 4 i cbs , F y 
 * 3 Ren 
 “i ' - . 2 
 
 ‘ 
 " 
 
 4 . 
 
CONTEN T8x Ot 4 shy 
 
 ~ rye wy L 2 
 
 BOOK II. 
 
 NOTICES OF OBJECTIONS TO THE TESTIMONY SUPPOSED 
 TO BE BORNE BY HISTORY TO THE FACT OF THE 
 POSITIVE ANTIQUITY AND THE APOSTOLICAL INCUL- 
 CATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. P. 1. 
 
 POGHAPT Eat 
 
 A GENERAL INTRODUCTORY ACCOUNT OF OBJECTIONS TO THE TES- 
 TIMONY SUPPOSED TO BE BORNE BY HISTORY TO THE APOSTOLIC 
 ANTIQUITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. p. 3. 
 
 A work, which professes to exhibit faithfully the testimony of 
 History to the apostolic antiquity and sanction of the doctrine 
 of the Trinity, would be defective, if it pretermitted antitrini- 
 tarian objections made on the very basis of History itself. 
 p. 3. 
 
 I. Statement of objections of this description. p. 3. 
 1. First objection. p. 4. 
 2. Second objection. p. 4. 
 3. Third objection. p. 4. 
 4. Fourth objection. p. 4. 
 5. Fifth objection. p. 6. 
 6. Sixth objection. p. 6. 
 7. Seventh objection. p. 6. 
 8. Eighth objection. p. 7. 
 A2 
 
1V CONTENTS. 
 
 II. With abstract objections to the doctrine of the Trinity, 
 the present Work, from the very nature of its argu- 
 
 ment, has no concern. p. 8. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 RESPECTING CERTAIN PASSAGES IN ATHANASIUS AND ORIGEN 
 AND TERTULLIAN, WHICH HAVE BEEN ADDUCED AS ESTABLISH- 
 ING THE FACT OF THE HUMANITARIAN ANTITRINITARIANISM OF 
 THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS. p. 13. 
 
 After the adduction of such a mass of evidence, it may well seem 
 strange, that, down even*to a comparatively late period, a 
 yast majority of acknowledged Catholics should, uninter- 
 ruptedly from the very beginning, have been strenuous Anti- 
 trinitarians who rejected with abhorrence the doctrine of 
 Christ’s divinity. p. 13. 
 
 I. Yet such is the fact, which Dr. Priestley has undertaken 
 
 to establish on the basis of historical testimony. p. 13. 
 
 TI. Hence an examination of the documents, on which he 
 
 would establish his alleged fact, is plainly rendered 
 necessary. p. 14. 
 
 III. The three authors, whom he adduces in support of his 
 fact, shall be considered, agreeably to the plan of the 
 present Work, in chronologically retrogressive order : 
 Athanasius; Origen; Tertullian. p. 16. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 RESPECTING THE TESTIMONY OF ATHANASIUS. p. 18. 
 
 The testimony of Athanasius as given by Dr. Priestley. p. 18. 
 I. Athanasius attests no such fact, as that which he has 
 been adduced to establish. p. 19. 
 1. The doctrine of Paul of Samosata he pronounces to 
 be an mnovation, p. 22. 
 
CONTENTS. Vv 
 
 9, Notices respecting the phraseology of Athanasius. 
 p- 23. 
 
 (1.) Notice of the true import of a verb employed by 
 him. p. 23. 
 
 (2.) Notice of an important phrase employed by him. 
 p- 24. 
 
 Il. The Antitrinitarians, in the time of Athanasius, what- 
 ever might have been their number, were declared 
 apostates from their original faith in the Holy Trinity. 
 p- 26. 
 
 III. Dr. Priestley seems to have been aware, that this ob- 
 vious answer would be given to his pretended testi- 
 mony: hence, in defiance of the very evidence af- 
 forded by his own freely selected author Athanasius, 
 he would intimate, that the antitrinitarian teachers of 
 that period did not make men converts to Uniperson- 
 alism, but that they fownd them Unipersonalists al- 
 ready. p. 28. 
 
 IV. It may be doubted, whether the multitude, in the days 
 of Athanasius, can be conceded to Dr. Priestley. 
 p. 29. 
 
 1. The prevalent aberration from the faith, in the days 
 of Athanasius, was not Samosatenian Humanita- 
 rianism, but the speculation denominated Arianism. 
 p- 30. | 
 
 2. Real import of the expression the many, as used by 
 
 Athanasius. p. 30. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 RESPECTING THE TESTIMONY OF ORIGEN. p. Se 
 
 The testimony of Origen is as little to the purpose as that of 
 Athanasius. p. 32. 
 I. Origen’s supposed testimony is discovered in three 
 
 several concurring passages. p. 32. 
 
vl CONTENTS. 
 
 1. The first passage. p. 33. 
 
 2. The second passage. p. 34. 
 
 3. The third passage. p. 35. 
 
 II. These three passages are adduced to prove, that, Jn the 
 time of Origen, the gentile Christians were generally 
 Unitarians, who rejected nith abhorrence the doctrine 
 of our Lord’s dwinity. p. 35. 
 
 III. The import of the three passages has been totally mis- 
 understood. p. 37. 
 
 1. Primitive discipline of the Ecclesiastical Mysteries. 
 p. 40. | 
 
 2. To the mechanism of this discipline the three pas- 
 sages most undoubtedly refer. p. 43. 
 
 (1.) Examination of the first passage. p. 43. 
 (2.) Joint examination of the second and third pas- 
 sages. p. 49. 
 
 3. The real testimony of Origen is precisely the re- 
 verse of that, which has been rashly ascribed to him 
 by writers of the modern Antitrinitarian School. 
 p. 54. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 RESPECTING THE TESTIMONY OF TERTULLIAN. p. 58. 
 
 The testimony of Tertullian, with the three propositions de- 
 duced from it by Dr. Priestley and other writers of the mo- 
 dern Antitrinitarian School. p. 58. 
 
 _ I. The first proposition is: that The majority of believers, 
 mithin the pale of the Catholic Church and in actual 
 allowed communion mith the Catholic Church, were, in 
 the days of Tertullian, zealous Antitrinitarians. p. 64. 
 
 1. No such assertion is made in any part of the alleged 
 testimony of Tertullian. p. 65. 
 
 2. Throughout his writings, his unvarying declaration 
 is, that the worship of the second person of the 
 
CONTENTS. Vu 
 
 Trinity was universally prevalent in every coun- 
 try where the Gospel was planted. p. 69. 
 
 II. The second proposition is: that The overwhelming 
 majority of catholic Antitrinitarians utterly abhorred 
 the doctrine of Christ's divinity, contending, lke the 
 modern Antitrinitarians, for the doctrine of his mere 
 humanity. p. 72. 
 
 1. This second proposition is not more true than the 
 Hest pei oe 
 2. The Antitrinitarians, censured by Tertullian, instead 
 of asserting the mere humanity of Christ, main- 
 tained his exclusive unipersonal divinity. p. 74. 
 3. Proof of this assertion. p. 80. 
 (1.) From the immediate context of the alleged tes- 
 timony itself. p. 82. 
 (2.) From other passages in the course of the Trea- 
 tise which contains the alleged testimony. 
 p- 85. 
 (3.) From the attestation of the ancient Supplemen- 
 ter to Tertullian’s Tractate against Heretics. 
 PAST: 
 4. The doctrinal difference between the ancient Catho- 
 lics and the patripassian Antitrinitarians. p. 87. 
 III. The third proposition is: that The antitrinitarian sys- 
 tem of the illiterates, censured by Tertullian, was in 
 truth the faith of the Catholic Church from the very 
 beginning ; while the doctrine of Tertullian himself 
 nas a mere speculative innovation, which confessedly 
 met w:th small acceptance among the honest and sim- 
 ple-minded majority. p. 89. | 
 1. This third proposition stands directly opposed to 
 the whole avowed purport of the testimony itself. 
 p: 89. 
 2. The testimony, instead of being favourable to the 
 cause of modern Antitrinitarianism, is decidedly 
 hostile to it. p. 93. 
 
Vill CONTENTS. 
 
 (1.) Statement of the ground of this assertion. 
 p- 95. 
 (2.) Similar reasoning of Novatian. p. 96. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 RESPECTING THE ALLEGED INTRODUCTION OF THE DOCTRINE OF 
 THE TRINITY BY JUSTIN MARTYR, AND HIS CONSEQUENT SUP- 
 POSED TIMID COURTESY TO THE PRIMITIVE ANTITRINITARIANS. 
 p. 100. 
 
 Five several propositions may be deduced from the language of 
 Dr. Priestley relative to the alleged conduct of Justin Martyr. 
 Peek (3 
 
 I, According to Dr. Priestley, When the novel doctrines of 
 Christ's preéxistence and divinity were first introduced 
 by Justin Martyr, they met with much opposition: for 
 most of his contemporaries held the bare humanity of 
 our Lord. Hence his language has all the air of an 
 apology: and it seems evidently to proceed from a 
 man, who nas not very confident of his opinion, and 
 who was aware that he had not the sanction of the 
 majority. p. 110. 
 
 1. This notion is built upon a gross mistranslation and 
 perversion of a passage in the Dialogue with Try- 
 
 pho..p-.1 10; 
 2. The true translation and sense of the passage. 
 p- 113. 
 
 3. The declaration of Justin is exactly the reverse of 
 that, which Dr. Priestley has put into his mouth. 
 p. 114. 
 4, With the pretended proof vanishes the pretended 
 apology. p. 117. 
 Il. Dr. Priestley further learns, from the phraseology of 
 Justin, that, In his time, Antitrinitarians, who denied 
 
it 
 
 2. 
 
 CONTENTS. 1X 
 
 the godhead of Christ, were very far from being reck- 
 oned heretics; though, afterward, they were pro- 
 nounced to be such by Irenéus : a circumstance, which 
 at once accounts for Justin's extraordinary civility to 
 his humanitarian contemporaries, and evinces the 
 conscious unpopular wnnovator. p. 120. 
 
 The times of Justin and the times of Irenéus were 
 the same: because, though Irenéus was the sur- 
 vivor of Justin, Justin and Irenéus were contem~ 
 poraries. p. 120. 
 
 Therefore, since Irenéus confessedly declares the 
 humanitarian Ebionites to be heretics, they must 
 thence have been esteemed heretics in the days of 
 Justin ; though, in speaking of them, Justin him- 
 self may not have employed that precise appella- 
 tion. p. 124. 
 
 Ill. If, however, we may credit Dr. Priestley, Justin speaks 
 
 bo 
 
 os) 
 
 of his opinion as a doubtful one, and by no means 
 
 propounds it as a necessary article of Christian 
 
 Faith. Hence, distrusting the soundness of that 
 
 hitherto unheard of novelty which he nished to intro- 
 
 duce, and conscious that he had not the sanction of 
 
 the majority along mith him, he carefully provided a 
 
 decent retreat for himself, in case his new speculation 
 
 should be found untenable. p. 127. 
 
 The passage, on which Dr. Priestley builds this 
 notion, is merely a specimen of that very common 
 mode of reasoning, the argumentum ad hominem. 
 p- 128. 
 
 Immediately after the enunciation of the passage in 
 question, Justin goes on to declare, that the majo- 
 rity of believers agreed in doctrine with himself. 
 p-130. 
 
 Conclusion from Justin’s argument. p. 130. 
 
 Erroneous deduction of Dr. Priestley. p. 131. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 IV. According to Dr. Priestley, Justin and his associates 
 borrowed their idea of the new tenet from Plato and 
 Philo. p. 132. 
 
 1. Justin’s own account of his conversion to Christ- 
 lanity. p. 133. 
 
 2. Evidence offered by Dr. Priestley. p. 135. 
 
 3. Origination of the name and doctrine of the Logos. 
 p- 141. 
 
 (1.) Philo’s account. p. 141. 
 (2.) Justin’s account. p. 148. 
 
 4. Confession of Dr. Priestley, respecting the Works 
 of Plato. p. 146. 
 
 V. According to Dr. Priestley, Justin was the first or one 
 of the first, who introduced the doctrine of the Logos 
 into the Christian System. p. 147. 
 
 1. This allegation is directly contradicted: both by 
 the tone and language of Trypho; and likewise 
 by Justin’s own explicit declaration, that, instead 
 of introducing the doctrine into the Church, he 
 really found it on the Church. p. 149. 
 
 (1.) First proof from the writings of Justin. p. 151. 
 (2.) Second proof. p. 152. 
 (3.) Third proof. p. 154. 
 
 2. Dr. Priestley is finally obliged to confess, that the 
 doctrines of Christ’s preéxistence and divinity run 
 up to such high antiquity, that he is unable posi- 
 tively to specify either the precise time when or the 
 particular persons by whom they were originally 
 introduced into the Church. p. 158. 
 
 (1.) This acknowledged circumstance is fatal to his 
 cause. p. 159. 
 
 (2.) Singular gratuitous assertion of Dr. Priestley. 
 p. 162. 
 
CONTENTS. xl 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 RESPECTING THE ALLEGATION, THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT FUR- 
 NISHES NO INSTANCE OF THE DIVINE ADORATION OF CHRIST. 
 p. 164. 
 
 As Dr. Priestley asserts the strict Humanitarianism of the 
 primitive Church: so, consistently, he denies, that the New 
 Testament furnishes any instance of the divine adoration of 
 Christ. p. 164. 
 
 I. Proof, to the contrary, from the familiar descriptive title 
 borne by the earliest believers: They that call wpon 
 the name of Jesus Christ. p. 167. 
 
 1. The rendering of this title, proposed by modern 
 Antitrinitarians, is irreconcileable with scriptural 
 chronology. p. 169. 
 
 2. It is likewise irreconcileable with the well ascer- 
 tained apostolic use of the phrase. p. 172. 
 
 (1.) First proof. p. 172. 
 
 (2.) Second proof. p. 176. 
 
 (3.) Third proof. p. 177. 
 
 (4.) Summary of proofs and conclusion. p. 180. 
 
 3. It is furthermore irreconcileable with the received 
 interpretation of the early Church. p. 182. 
 
 (1.) Tertullian. p. 182. 
 (2.) Novatian. p. 1838. 
 (3.) Cyprian. p. 183. 
 (4.) Jerome. p. 184. 
 
 4. It stands, therefore, on no surer ground, than’ the 
 mere unauthorised dictum of a modern School of 
 Theology. p. 184. 
 
 Il. Proof to the contrary, from the recorded action of 
 Stephen in the agonies of martyrdom. p. 185. 
 
 1. Ineffectual gloss of Dr. Priestley. p. 187. 
 
 2. Ineffectual solution of Mr. Lindsey and the Editor 
 of the New Testament in an Improved Version. 
 p. 190. 
 
Xl CONTENTS. 
 
 (1.) Solution of Mr. Lindsey on the principle of 
 VISIBILITY. p. 190. 
 (2.) Solution of the Editor with an improvement 
 upon that of Mr. Lindsey. p. 191. 
 (3.) Their solutions rest on an unsubstantiated fact. 
 p- 194. 
 III. Proof to the contrary, from the self-recorded actions of 
 the two Apostles Paul and John. p. 195. 
 1. Action of St. Paul. p. 195. 
 2. Action of St. John. p. 198. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 RESPECTING THE ALLEGED OBLIGATION OF THE EARLY FATHERS 
 TO THE GENTILE PHILOSOPHERS IN REGARD TO THE DOCTRINES 
 OF THE TRINITY AND THE LOGOS. p. 202. 
 
 The Fathers, who are chiefly said to have been indebted to the 
 gentile philosophers for the doctrines of the Trinity and the 
 Logos, are Justin, Irenéus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, and 
 Clement of Alexandria. p. 202. 
 
 I. Had those ancient ecclesiastics borrowed from the gen- 
 tile philosophers, they could not have spoken of them 
 in the language of contempt. p. 203. 
 1. Exemplification from the language of Justin. p. 203. 
 2. Exemplification from the language of Tertullian. 
 p- 205. 
 II. -Those early ecclesiastics describe the philosophy of the 
 Gentiles, as the fruitful parent of every heresy. 
 p- 208. 
 1. Such is the language of Irenéus. p. 208. 
 2. Such also are the declarations of ‘Tertullian. p. 209. 
 Ill. Whatever was good in the philosophy of the Gentiles, 
 is alleged by those early ecclesiastics to have been 
 stolen or borrowed from Moses and the prophets. 
 p. 211. 
 
CONTENTS. Xi 
 
 1. Such was the theory of Justin. p. 211. 
 2. Such also was the theory of Clement of Alexandria. 
 p. 216. 
 IV. The Trinity of Plato. p. 217. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 RESPECTING THE ALLEGATION, THAT THE TRINITY OF THE EARLY 
 FATHERS DIFFERED ESSENTIALLY FROM THE TRINITY OF THE 
 MODERN CATHOLIC CHURCH. p. 220. 
 
 It is alleged by modern Antitrinitarians, that the Trinity of the 
 early Fathers differed essentially from the Trinity of the 
 modern Catholic Church: for, though the Son’s equality with 
 the Father be the present accredited orthodoxy, the original 
 introducers of Trinitarianism stoutly maintained the Son’s 
 decided inferiority. Of the alleged difference, in short, the 
 full and complete statement is this. According to Dr. 
 Priestley and others of the same School, The Trinty of 
 the early Fathers was very different from the Trinity of the 
 modern Catholic Church. For the Trinity of the former con- 
 sisted of three UNEQUAL persons, among whom the Father is 
 SUPREME: while the Trinity of the latter consists of three EQUAL - 
 persons, among whom the Father is NOT SUPREME. p. 225. 
 
 I, A statement and examination of the real doctrine held 
 
 by the old Ecclesiastical Writers. p. 231. 
 
 1. Evolution of their doctrine in separate propositions. 
 p- 231. 
 (1.) First proposition. p. 231. 
 (2.) Second proposition. p. 231. 
 (3.) Third proposition. p. 233. 
 
 2. Remarks on the propositions. p. 234. 
 (1.) Remarks on the first proposition. p. 234. 
 (2.) Remarks on the second proposition. p. 235. 
 (3.) Remarks on the third proposition. p. 236. 
 
 3. Summary. p. 237. 
 
XIV CONTENTS. 
 
 4, Citations illustrative of the primitive view of the 
 inequality subsisting between the three persons of 
 the Trinity. p. 239. 
 
 (1.) Inequality, from substantial emanation and 
 orderly gradation. p. 239. 
 (2.) Inequality, from the hypostatical union of God 
 and man in one Christ. p. 242. 
 (3.) Inequality, from the spontaneous economical 
 acceptance and discharge of office. p. 243. 
 5. Remarks on the language of Cyprian, Novatian, and 
 Origen. p. 247. 
 (1.) First remark. p. 247. 
 (2.) Second remark. p. 247. 
 (3.) Third remark. p. 248. 
 Il. Erroneous deductions of modern Antitrinitarians from 
 the writings of the ancient ecclesiastics. p. 249. 
 
 1. The ancient Catholic Church and the modern Catho- 
 lic Church perfectly symbolise in their doctrinal 
 views respecting the Trinity. p. 250. 
 
 2. Statement of the doctrine of the Trinity, as pro- 
 pounded by some of the ablest and most accre- 
 dited of the modern Catholics. p. 251. 
 
 (1.) Bishop Pearson. p. 251. 
 (2.) Dr. Waterland. p. 254. 
 (3.) Bishop Bull. p. 255. 
 
 3. The doctrine of these modern divines has been the 
 doctrine of the Catholic Church in all ages. p. 
 256. 
 
 III. Allegation of Dr. Priestley, that the early Christian 
 Writers style the Father cop contradistinctively 
 from the Son, and that they sometimes call the 
 Father THE ONLY TRUE Gop exclusively of the Son. 
 Moy 
 
 1. Remarks on the allegation. p. 257. 
 
 (1.) Remarks on the first proposition in the allega- 
 tion. p. 258. 
 
CONTENTS. XV 
 
 (2.) Remarks on the second proposition in the alle- 
 gation. p. 262. 
 
 2, Summary respecting the allegation. p. 268. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 RESPECTING THE ALLEGATION, THAT THE ANTENICENE FATHERS, 
 IN THE COURSE OF ONLY A GRADUAL CORRUPTION, DID NOT 
 ASCRIBE PROPER DIVINITY TO THE SON, p. 271. 
 
 Dr. Priestley and Mr. Lindsey assert, that None of the ante- 
 nicene Fathers acknonledged the proper divinity of Christ. 
 Dead Ls | 
 
 I. The error of their assertion demonstrated, from the 
 circumstance, that the antenicene Fathers believed 
 Christ to be Jehovah, the God of Abraham and Isaac 
 and Jacob. p. 273. 
 
 1. Such was the recorded faith of Justin, Irenéus, 
 Tertullian, Novatian, Hippolytus, Theophilus of 
 Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, and Dionysius 
 of Alexandria. Such also was the avowed doc- 
 trine of the entire primitive Catholic Church, 
 as we learn from one of her ancient symbols. 
 p. 274. 
 
 2. It will be observed, that the question before us is 
 not, whether such an opinion be abstractedly well 
 or ill founded, but whether im point of Fact it 
 was entertained by the antenicene Fathers. p. 279. 
 
 Il. The error of their assertion demonstrated, from the 
 doctrine of consuBsTANTIALITY, held by the Ante- 
 nicenes as well as by the Postnicenes. p. 280. 
 
 1. Proof from their own writings, both that the word 
 CONSUBSTANTIAL was used, and that the doctrine of 
 CONSUBSTANTIALITY was held, by the Antenicenes. 
 p. 282. 
 
XVI 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 2. Proof from their standing mode of illustrating the 
 
 doctrine. p. 288. 
 
 (1.) Physical illustrations of the doctrine, as uni- 
 formly employed by the successive Fathers, 
 Justin, Athenagoras, Theognostus, Tertullian, 
 Hippolytus, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, 
 and Lactantius. p. 288. 
 
 (2.) Necessary result of such illustrations. p. 291. 
 
 (3.) Intention of such illustrations expressly de- 
 clared by Origen. p. 292. 
 
 (4.) Adoption of the most prominent of these illus- 
 trations, itself avowedly borrowed from St. 
 Paul, by the Fathers of the first Nicene 
 Council, for the specific purpose of setting 
 forth the doctrine of CONSUBSTANTIALITY. 
 p- 293. 
 
 (5.) Such illustrations, while they set forth the doc- 
 trine of the Son’s coNSUBSTANTIALITY, addi- 
 tionally propound also the doctrine of his 
 
 ETERNITY. p. 294. 
 
 3. The doctrinal system of the Antenicenes and the 
 
 Postnicenes was one and the same. p. 296. 
 
 III. Conclusion and general result of the whole inquiry. 
 
 p. 296. 
 
 a 
 
APPENDIX Il. 
 
 NUMBER I. 
 
 RESPECTING THE APPROPRIATION OF THE ECTHESIS, PRODUCED 
 IN THE YEAR 431 BY THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS AGAINST 
 NESTORIUS, TO THE COUNCIL OF ANTIOCH WHICH SAT IN THE 
 
 YEAR 269. p. 301. 
 
 NUMBER II. 
 
 RESPECTING THE ALLEGED ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN 
 FATHERS, THAT JOHN WAS THE FIRST WHO CLEARLY AND 
 BOLDLY TAUGHT THE DOCTRINES OF THE PRE-EXISTENCE AND 
 
 DIVINITY OF CHRIST. p. 308. 
 
 NUMBER III. 
 
 RESPECTING THE ALLEGATION, THAT ORIGEN DOUBTED WHETHER 
 THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS NOT A CREATURE, AND THAT HE AL- 
 TOGETHER REJECTED THE RELIGIOUS ADORATION OF THE SON. 
 
 p- 326. 
 
 NUMBER IV. 
 
 RESPECTING THE OPINION ENTERTAINED BY THE JEWS CONCERN- 
 ING THE MESSIAH AT THE TIME OF OUR LORD'S FIRST ADVENT. 
 
 p- 334. 
 SECTION I. 
 The cause and plan of the Inquiry. p. 334. 
 
 VOL, II. a 
 
XVill CONTENTS. 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 Evidence from John vii. 26, 27. p. 338. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 Evidence from the jewish estimation of a claim of the Messiah- 
 
 ship. p. 342. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 Evidence from Justin Martyr and Maimonides. p. 351. 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 Evidence from the fluctuating conduct of our Lord’s disciples. 
 p. 362. 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 Summary and conclusion. p. 367. 
 
 NUMBER V. 
 
 RESPECTING THE TRUE IMPORT OF THE PASSAGE CONTAINED IN 
 HEB. 1. 1, 2. p.370. 
 
 NUMBER VI. 
 
 RESPECTING THE ANTITRINITARIAN VIEW OF THE PASSAGES IN 
 SCRIPTURE, WHICH ARE THOUGHT TO PROPOUND THE DOC- 
 TRINES OF SATISFACTION AND PIACULAR SACRIFICE. p, 379. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 The doctrine of satisfaction. p. 379. 
 
 SECTION Il. 
 
 The doctrine of Piacular Sacrifice. p. 398. 
 
 ee ee ee 
 
CONTENTS. X1X 
 
 NUMBER VII. 
 
 RESPECTING THE TEXT CONTAINED IN HEB. 1. 3. p. 415. 
 
 NUMBER VIII. 
 
 RESPECTING THE PRIMITIVE DOCTRINE OF THE THREEFOLD GENE- 
 RATION OF THE WORD OF GOD. p. 422. 
 
 NUMBER IX. 
 
 RESPECTING TERTULLIAN S EXPRESSION, THAT MAN WAS ANI- 
 MATED FROM THE SUBSTANCE OF GOD. p. 431. 
 
 NUMBER X. 
 
 RESPECTING THE ASCRIPTION OF THE TITLE OF THE SON OF GOD, 
 BEING, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, THE 
 SAME AS THE ASCRIPTION OF ESSENTIAL DIVINITY. p. 433. 
 
~— 
 
 2 
 i 
 ‘ 
 . 
 CiAF 
 yi * 
 = * 5 
 i 
 x 
 ; 
 ‘ : 
 ‘ 
 4 
 
 . 
 s 7 
 a 
 -. 
 ‘ 
 Pal 
 oS Wind 
 
 « 
 
 Ten: 
 sheen eure Fan 
 
 HEPA AB SR ii 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 VOL. II, 
 
 Page 59, line 10, note, erase the period after “‘ heresim” 
 — 959, — 11, note, insert a period after “ constituat ” 
 — 112, — 3, for the “ colon” substitute a “ period ” 
 — 237, — 27, for “had” read “ has” 
 
— 
 
 ne : 
 Oy ae Ms few) ORs Pere 
 
 Pe ie | Mit cual) it 
 
 * = 
 
 oa. We muta se Wi 
 
 A ere + maha Ds! 2a 2 way were 
 
 i" - é 
 mines 9 
 al ee, 5 an 
 Sey Pre. allem cer a 
 Es . 
 . P) 
 7 4 
 « . 
 ‘ 
 aa } 
 
 AT bE 
 ar Oey 
 
 axel sual Wy aits Netty a 4abrs poe AAS mail, vo 
 
 * Sing sae nies ya th fia Page" eaeus Shot ll ca 
 
 aye A) Highest: a q}uiyiaad ite "Sauls vy on sii Oy iG 
 alt wad Ded on Fie 
 
 oe ee ee ston i Ls 
 . Le Sais ee eee 
 
 ie) 2 : f 
 a 2 
 ve : 
 ] 
 2) 
 J 
 é 
 r 
 ». * 
 in Ld - 
 . 
 4 
 ‘ 
 ' ‘ 
 ij 
 W' X 
 rin 
 < 
 es 
 iy 
 ; 
 A . 
 hie 
 j bs 
 ‘ 4 
 
BOOK IL. 
 
 NOTICES OF OBJECTIONS TO THE TESTIMONY SUPPOSED TO 
 BE BORNE BY HISTORY TO THE FACT OF THE POSITIVE 
 ANTIQUITY AND THE APOSTOLICAL INCULCATION OF 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 Kai yao ai cara roy Kéopoy dvddsKrot dydpora adN 7 Obvapte Tig 
 rapaddcewc pia kat 4 abrH. Tren. adv. Her. lib. i. c. 3. p. 39. 
 
 "Egurevoay wrioy at yeipec TOU Oeovd Iopajr, d¢ éoriv ‘Inoovc. Dionys. 
 Alex. adv. Paul. Samos. quest. iv. Oper. p. 227. 
 
 Oicéy poi, Eon, péree Adrwvoe, obdé TluOaydpov, ode ate odde- 
 voce ddwe rowadra doEaZovTdc.—AtadoyiZ6pevoc TE wedCG EpmavToY ToC 
 Aéyoue adrov, rairny povyny ebpicxoy pirocodiay doparh TE Kai cvpdo- 
 pov. Oirwe Or) Kai did rata grd6oo0gog éyw. Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. 
 Oper. p. 172, 173, 174. 
 
 Heereticorum patriarche philosophi. Tertull. adv. Hermog. § 4. Oper. 
 p. 339. 
 
 VOL. Il. B 
 
* 
 
 ‘ i 
 ¢ - } - 
 UR 
 ‘ — : 
 ’ a oo . h 
 ' 
 7 ‘ 
 x 
 ‘ 
 FF : 
 3 
 gs , 
 nf ++ 
 av nae wih’ 
 if rt 
 i it er sy 
 ‘A edn 
 « . h. r- 
 2 4 Pm. 
 pth Ay ts 
 4 a 
 
 j 
 . 
 ez 
 J ' 
 + SFP | 
 5 ] 
 ’ 
 % 
 ~ 
 y } re bast, 
 of , 
 t at? 
 5 
 ; ib te 
 4 
 
 Be ee Ree 
 : ay ¢ i ’ a ’ 
 Pa a) ais £00? aa risy cer Cory 
 : bass ; i 
 
 Pra) 
 a 
 
 leek at) wee 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 A GENERAL INTRODUCTORY ACCOUNT OF OBJECTIONS 
 TO THE TESTIMONY SUPPOSED TO BE BORNE BY 
 HISTORY TO THE APOSTOLIC ANTIQUITY OF THE 
 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 A Work, which professes faithfully to exhibit the 
 testimony borne by History to the apostolic anti- 
 quity and the apostolic sanction of the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, would be incomplete, were it to leave 
 unnoticed the objections of those, who, on the 
 very basis of History itself, profess to deny the 
 apostolic antiquity and the apostolic sanction of 
 that doctrine. 
 
 In order, therefore, that nothing, so far as my 
 own knowledge extends, may be kept back from 
 the honest and diligent inquirer, I shall proceed 
 to state and examine the several objections which 
 respect the important Fracr at present under dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 I. The objections, alleged by Dr. Priestley and 
 those who symbolise with him in his theological 
 system, may be conveniently stated and arranged 
 in manner following. 
 
 B2 
 
4 THE APOSTOLICITY [ BOOK ih; 
 
 1. Had Trinitarianism been the doctrine of the 
 Catholic Church from the very beginning, all the 
 various individuals, who were in professed commu- 
 nion with the Catholic Church, must obviously 
 have been Trinitarians. 
 
 Yet, even so late as the middle of the fourth 
 century, we find Athanasius complaining, that the 
 lower classes of Christians were for the most part 
 Unitarians. 
 
 2. A complaint of a similar nature had pre- 
 viously been made by Origen about the middle of 
 the third century. 
 
 Hence it is evident, that the great majority of 
 believers, even in communion with the Catholic 
 Church herself, formed an uninterrupted succes- 
 sion of Unitarians, from the middle of the third 
 century, down to the middle of the fourth. 
 
 3. But these simple-minded and honest Christ- 
 ians did not first spring up in the time of Origen. 
 On the contrary, we find precisely the same lan- 
 euage employed by Tertullian, who flourished at 
 the end of the second and at the beginning of the 
 third century. 
 
 He admits, while he complains, that the greater 
 part of believers in his days abhorred the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity: and he states, that, on 
 genuine unitarian principles, they rejected the 
 divinity of the Son, and that they stoutly con- 
 tended for the exclusive divinity of the Father. 
 
 4. As the great body of Christians, within the 
 
 12 
 
CHAP. I. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 5) 
 
 pale of the Catholic Church, from the time of 
 Tertullian down even to the time of Athanasius, 
 were thus zealous Unitarians: so, agreeably to our 
 natural anticipation from the striking fact that 
 The early Christians were generally Antitrinitarians 
 who denied the godhead of the mere man Jesus of 
 Nazareth, Justin Martyr, by whom and others of 
 the similarly philosophising Fathers the primitive 
 unitarian faith was grievously corrupted through a 
 gradual introduction of the doctrine of the Trinity, 
 adopts a very singular tone of gentleness and com- 
 plaisance toward that vast majority from whose 
 more simple and more ancient creed he had most 
 unhappily been led to deviate. 
 
 This remarkable circumstance distinctly shews 
 the conscious innovator: for it exhibits the precise 
 line of conduct, which would be followed by a 
 person, who knew that he was starting a pre- 
 viously unheard of doctrine, and who was fully 
 aware that the great mass of believers held and 
 had always held opinions of a totally different 
 description. 
 
 The conduct, therefore, of the yet earlier Justin 
 exactly tallies with the angry testimony to the 
 vast prevalence of Antitrinitarianism even within 
 the pale of the Catholic Church, so reluctantly 
 borne by Tertullian and Origen and Athanasius. 
 Justin meekly insinuates his own novel specula- 
 tions: and he ventures not, like later theologians, 
 to style those, who rejected them, heretics. 
 
6 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 5. Accordingly, if we chronologically advance 
 still higher than Justin, and if we advert to the 
 testimony of the apostolical writers themselves, 
 we shall find, in the volume of the New Testa- 
 ment, no traces of any worship of Christ either as 
 enjoined or as practised. 
 
 This circumstance, on the trinitarian scheme, 
 is utterly unaccountable : but, with the direct evi- 
 dence in favour of the early Christians having been 
 (as Dr. Priestley speaks) generally Unitarians, it 
 beautifully and exactly and harmoniously tallies. 
 
 6. Such, then, being the faith of the great mass 
 of primitive believers down even to the time of 
 Athanasius, while the novel doctrines of the Tri- 
 nity and Christ’s godhead were gradually intro- 
 duced by certain of the philosophising Fathers: 
 we are naturally led to ask, whence it was that 
 the Fathers themselves received those doctrines ? 
 
 To this question a very easy reply is afforded. 
 
 The Fathers, most undoubtedly, borrowed the 
 doctrines in question from the pagan school of the 
 Platonists: and, what at first was only their own 
 peculiar cabbala, gradually insinuating itself into 
 Christianity, thus became at length the popular 
 no less than the philosophical belief. 
 
 7. Yet the Trinity, as first troduced and re- 
 ceived, long differed widely from the Trinity of 
 more modern Christianity. 
 
 For, though the Son’s equahty with the Father 
 be the present accredited orthodoxy, the original 
 
CHAP. I. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 7 
 
 introducers and favourers of Trinitarianism stoutly 
 maintained the Son’s decided inferiority. 
 
 Such a circumstance, by the very fact of cumu- 
 lative discrepance, clearly marks the progress of 
 corruption. And, at the same time, it perfectly 
 harmonises with the direct evidence of Athanasius 
 and Origen and Tertullian: that The bulk of the 
 more simple believers, even in their days successively, 
 that is to say, from the latter end of the second cen- 
 tury to the middle of the fourth, were still, unin- 
 terruptedly, determined and uncompromising Uni- 
 tarians. 
 
 8. Agreeably to these several statements, the 
 early Fathers, that is to say, the Fathers who 
 flourished before the first Nicene Council, never 
 ascribe proper divinity to the Son. But, when- 
 ever they depart from the primitive doctrine of 
 the mere manhood of Christ, they exhibit him, 
 not as being truly God, but only as possessing 
 that sort of secondary created divinity which cha- 
 racterised the system afterward known by the 
 name of Arzanism’. 
 
 1 A greater than either Dr. Priestley or Mr. Lindsey, the 
 very learned Jesuit Dionysius Petavius, had already, long before 
 their time, advanced pretty nearly the same opinion as that 
 which is here last enumerated in § 1. 8. 
 
 He asserted, that the antenicene writers symbolised, at least 
 in a great measure, with Arius: for, though they acknowledged 
 the Son to be of the substance or nature of the Father, yet they 
 taught his inferiority to the Father in point of duration and 
 
8 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK Ii. 
 
 Il. Such, I believe, are the chief objections, 
 which, by Dr. Priestley and his associates, have 
 
 power no less than in point of ecumenical order and dignity ; 
 inasmuch as, like all God’s creatures, he had in time a com- 
 mencement of existence, and had by no means subsisted as a 
 distinct hypostasis from all eternity. Petav. de Trin. lib. 1. 
 ce. 5, 7,8. See Bull. Defens. Fid. Nic. proém. § 7. 
 
 I have more than once observed Petavius adduced, with no 
 small triumph, by the pupils of the modern school of Antitri- 
 nitarianism: but I have never observed, on their part, the ad- 
 ditional communication of certain other particulars, which, in 
 common equity and candour, ought not to have been kept back 
 from their readers. 
 
 I. With respect to the opinion expressed by Petavius, there 
 is but too much reason to fear, that it was dishonestly ad- 
 vanced, for the purpose, of extolling-the authority of Kcume- 
 nical Councils to decree new Articles of Faith, and of thus sub- 
 serving the interests of the Church of Rome. 
 
 For the whole drift of his argument, like that of Hosius, 
 Gordon, Gretser, Tanner, Vega, Possevin, Wickus, Perron, 
 Fisher, Floyd, and other writers of the same stamp, goes to 
 shew : that the doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ’s essential 
 godhead can be proved, neither from Scripture, nor from the 
 consent of the primitive antenicene Fathers ; but that their truth 
 rests entirely upon ecclesiastical decisions. 
 
 Whence the obvious and intended conclusion is: that those, 
 who submit not to the Church of Rome as an infallible arbi- 
 tress in points of Faith, can have no assurance of the truth 
 of such doctrines. ; 
 
 II. Be this as it may, and whatever was the object of Pe- 
 tavius in advancing such an opinion, his mere authority, on 
 which some modern Antitrinitarians seem so confidently to 
 rely, is nothing in respect to a bare question of racr, unless the 
 alleged fact itself can be established by competent nviDENCE. 
 
 Now, 
 
CHAP. I. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 9 
 
 been started against the alleged apostolicity of the 
 doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 Now, to judge of such evidence, requires honesty and dili- 
 gence, rather than any special measure of talent and acuteness : 
 and the authority of a great name in a question of this sort is 
 but a foundation of sand, unless it be accompanied by invincible 
 testimony. 
 
 III. But the grand particular, in the suppressing and with- 
 holding of which from their unsuspicious readers our Antitri- 
 nitarian authors are preéminently culpable, yet remains to be 
 stated. | 
 
 Whether, at an earlier period of his life, Petavius was, or was 
 not, sincere, in the assertion which he hazarded: at a subse- 
 quent period, he confessed it to be erroneous, and retracted it 
 accordingly. 
 
 To do justice to the memory of so learned a man as Petavius, 
 says the excellent Mr. Nelson, the Bishop of Meaux told me, 
 discoursing with him once on this subject, that, in the last edi- 
 tion he made of his Works, he retracted this opinion. Hickes’s 
 Letters, p. 334. 
 
 1. The very able and acute Bossuet had penetration enough 
 to see, that such a mode of serving the Roman Church, as that 
 so unhappily and so unworthily adopted by Petavius and others, 
 was In truthnothing better than an undermining of the doctrine 
 of the Trinity and an exposing of it to the ridicule and con- 
 tempt of every impugner, 
 
 For, if the doctrine of Christ’s essential and personally-eter- 
 nal divinity cannot, by the plain and natural construction of 
 language, be proved from Scripture; and if, additionally, it 
 was never held by the most ancient Fathers and Doctors of the 
 Antenicene Church Catholic: the united testimony of criticism 
 and of history will, in that case, be so strong against it, that it 
 will be utterly incapable of establishment by the bare decision 
 of any later Ecumenical Council. 
 
 Ao Lis, 
 
10 THE APOSTOLICITY [BooK I. 
 
 With respect to the mere abstract difficulties 
 which the doctrine itself is said inherently to in- 
 
 2, This, I believe, is felt and acknowledged by the more 
 wise and the more judicious members of the Latin Communion : 
 for, in good sooth, they owe but small thanks to those, who 
 would aggrandise their Church on principles manifestly and 
 inherently untenable. 
 
 Iam myself no prejudiced bigot against Ecumenical Coun- 
 cils, merely as such, On the contrary, I can readily conceive 
 an Ecumenical Council beneficially to define, in imperishable 
 writing, an article of faith, which from Scripture and from the 
 well-ascertained teaching of the Apostles had always indeed 
 been held by the Catholic Church, but which hitherto (no con- 
 troversy having sprung up relative to the subject) had not 
 with ecclesiastical formality and precision been thus defined. 
 
 But, while this I can readily conceive, no man breathing can 
 apprehend the possibility of an Ecumenical Council making, 
 by its mere dogmatical and unsupported decision, a doctrine to 
 be true, which the entire Catholic Church had always anteriorly 
 held to be false. 
 
 3. In fact, the very definition of articles of faith implies their 
 previous existence : and such definition has always arisen, not 
 from the circumstance of their previous non-existence, but 
 from the circumstance of their having been impugned or per- 
 verted by innovators and heretics. 
 
 As no bare decree of an Ecumenical Council can, in the 
 very nature of things, MAKE the doctrine of Christ’s essential 
 godhead to be false : so, by a parity of necessary reasoning, no 
 bare decree of an Ecumenical Council can Maks that doctrine 
 to be true. 
 
 On sufficient evidence, its truth or its falsehood may be DE- 
 cLARED by an Ecumenical Council: but such a declaration will 
 always presuppose the existence of rEsTIMony anterior and prior 
 to itself. 
 
 If 
 
 a 
 
 a ee 
 
CHAP. I. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 11 
 
 volve, I have at present no special concern with 
 them. My inquiry is altogether historical: and 
 it regards nothing more than the naked question 
 
 If the doctrine of Christ’s essential godhead had invariably 
 been rejected by the Catholic Church, from the time of the 
 Apostles down to the commencement of the fourth century ; 
 and if, harmoniously, no proof of it could be set up from the 
 plain and natural construction of Holy Scripture: certainly, in 
 that case, no bare decision of the Ecumenical Council of Nice 
 could suddenly make a doctrine to be true, which bore upon 
 its very front the indelible impress of falsehood. 
 
 The Nicene Fathers, however, acted much more rationally, 
 than, according to the original crude assertion of Petavius, they 
 could have acted. Instead of absurdly pretending, by their 
 own bare fiat to MAKE a hitherto universally rejected doctrine to 
 be true: they very rationally rest their declarative decision 
 upon the well-known Fact of antiquity and priority. 
 
 This, say they, is the apostolic and blameless faith of the 
 Church: which faith, ultimately derived from the Lord himself 
 through the Apostles, and handed down from our forefathers to 
 their successors, the Church religiously preserves, and maintains 
 the same both now and for ever. Gelas. Cyzic. Hist. Concil. 
 Nic. prim. lib. ii. c. 23. Labb. Concil. vol. ii. p. 224. 
 
 4, Statements of the character of those once hazarded by 
 Petavius must ultimately prove fatal to the cause, which it was 
 their object to serve: for, instead of really advancing the 
 authority of Ecumenical Councils, they, by plain necessity, 
 strip them of all authority whatsoever. , 
 
 Petavius, however, retracted: and those antitrinitarian 
 writers, who, to serve their own ends, from time to time ad- 
 duce the unguarded assertion of that great scholar of the Latin 
 Church, ought also to have communicated to their readers the 
 not quite unimportant fact of his retractation. 
 
12 THE APOSTOLICITY OF TRINITARIANISM. 
 
 of ract; Whether the doctrine before us was, or was 
 not, the doctrine taught by the Apostles and from 
 them received by the primitive Catholic Church. 
 Hence I have no concern with any objections, 
 save those which respect the bare question of the 
 
 FACT now under discussion. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 RESPECTING CERTAIN PASSAGES IN ATHANASIUS AND 
 ORIGEN AND TERTULLIAN, WHICH HAVE BEEN AD- 
 DUCED AS ESTABLISHING THE FACT OF THE HUMA- 
 NITARIAN ANTITRINITARIANISM OF THE PRIMITIVE 
 CHRISTIANS. 
 
 Ir the mass of evidence already produced be of 
 any weight in the scale of Trinitarianism, it may 
 well seem strange: that, down to a compara- 
 tively late period, the middle of the fourth cen- 
 tury, a vast majority of the professed and admitted 
 members of the Church Catholic should, never- 
 theless, have uninterruptedly been, from the very 
 beginning, a mighty body of strenuous doctrinal 
 Antitrinitarians; who rejected with abhorrence 
 the divinity of Christ, who denied the distinct 
 personality of the Spirit, and who vehemently con- 
 tended for the exclusive godhead of the Father. 
 I. That certain innovators upon the primitive 
 faith occasionally attempted to introduce specu- 
 lations, which by the Catholic Church were from 
 the very first deemed heretical; and that such 
 
14. THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK IL. 
 
 innovators guitted the communion of the Church 
 from whose well defined doctrines they had apos- 
 tatised, and henceforth formed themselves into 
 separate sects or parties: is, indeed, a fact fami- 
 liarly known to every student of ecclesiastical 
 history. 
 
 But, that the favourite tenets of certain of these 
 innovators should always have been held by an in- 
 calculable majority of believers within the pale of 
 the Catholic Church down even so late as the 
 age of Athanasius or the middle of the fourth cen- 
 tury, may, with the evidence now before us, be 
 reasonably deemed a paradox of most appalling 
 dimensions. 
 
 Yet, in this high field of theological adventure, 
 it has pleased Dr. Priestley to expatiate with no 
 small measure of triumphant confidence: and, 
 under the express character of a diligent historian, 
 he has claimed to adduce direct evidence in favour 
 of the early Christians being generally what he 
 denominates Unitarians ’. 
 
 II. Concerning the blended Antitrinitarianism 
 and Humanitarianism of the primitive believers 
 who constituted the Church Catholic of the first 
 ages, Dr. Priestley is not a little positive. 
 
 That the common people among Christians, says 
 he, were actually Unitarians in the early ages, and 
 believed nothing of the preéxistence or divinity of 
 
 * Hist. of Early Opin. book ii. chap, 13. sect. 2. 
 
CHAP. II. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 15 
 
 Christ before the Council of Nice, we have as ex- 
 press testimony as can be desired in the case *. 
 
 Now this express testimony is discovered in 
 certain passages, which he has adduced from the 
 writings of Tertullian and Origen and Athanasius. 
 
 But the testimony of those Fathers, at least as 
 it is exhibited by the historian, more especially 
 the testimony of Tertullian and of Origen, stands 
 in such strange and direct and paradoxical con- 
 tradiction to the whole body of evidence which 
 has passed in review before us, that it is im- 
 possible to refrain from suspecting the existence 
 either of some extraordinary misapprehension or 
 of some unwarrantable misrepresentation. 
 
 Such being the case, a minute and careful ex- 
 amination of the passages in question, passages 
 evidently by Dr. Priestley considered-as his strong- 
 hold, will not be deemed altogether useless: and 
 I am the more led to undertake the task, partly 
 because these passages have been repeatedly and 
 triumphantly brought forward both by the historian 
 himself and by his zealous followers, and partly 
 because I do not recollect to have ever seen them 
 discussed with that distinct and precise reference 
 to the theory built upon them, which the just es- 
 tablishment of the truth certainly requires. 
 
 ? Hist. of Early Opin. book ii. chap. 13. sect. 2, Works 
 vol. vi. p. 485. | 
 
16 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 III. Dr. Priestley adduces his three authors in 
 their regular chronological succession downward: 
 first, Tertullian ; next, Origen; and, lastly, Atha- 
 nasius. | 
 
 Agreeably, however, to the plan of arrangement, 
 which, throughout the present discussion, I have 
 been led to adopt, I shall exactly invert the 
 downward order of chronological succession: and 
 thus, beginning with the age of Athanasius, I shall 
 trace upward, in the respective ages of Origen and 
 Tertullian, that overwhelming majority of Unita- 
 rians within the pale of the Church, if haply they 
 can there be found to have always existed, which, 
 according to Dr. Priestley, characterised so emi- 
 nently a period extending at the least from the 
 latter end of the second century to the middle of 
 the fourth. 
 
 This retrogressive mode of investigation I con- 
 sider both the best and the fairest. For, if we 
 cannot discover Dr. Priestley’s mass of catholic 
 Unitarians in the age of Athanasius; it by no 
 means therefore follows, that they existed not in 
 the earlier age of Origen: and, if they should 
 prove to be invisible in the age of Origen; we 
 must not therefore too hastily conclude, that they 
 are imperceptible in the yet earlier age of Ter- 
 tullian. 
 
 In short, if Dr. Priestley can retain the evidence 
 of the more ancient Tertullian, as that evidence is 
 
CHAP. I. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 17 
 
 exhibited by himself in his History of Early Opi- 
 nions: his friends will have small need to regret 
 the loss of the evidence, which has been thought 
 to be afforded by the /ess ancient Origen and 
 Athanasius. 
 
 VOL. Il. C 
 
CHAPTER IIT. 
 
 RESPECTING THE TESTIMONY OF ATHANASIUS. 
 
 THE testimony of Athanasius, to THE MIGHTY PRE- 
 VALENCE OF UNITARIANISM WITHIN THE PALE OF THE 
 CATHOLIC CHURCH about the middle of the fourth 
 century, is, according to Dr. Priestley, full and 
 decisive and express. 
 
 I subjoin the historian’s own account of the 
 matter, as set forth in his own precise words. 
 
 Athanasius also, like Tertullian, acknowledged : 
 that the unitarian doctrine was very prevalent, among 
 the lower class of people in his time. He calis them 
 THE MANY: and he describes them, as persons of low 
 understanding. 
 
 It grieves, he says, those who stand up for the 
 holy faith, that the multitude, and especially per- 
 sons of low understanding, should be infected with 
 those blasphemies. Things, that are sublime and 
 difficult, are not to be apprehended except by 
 faith: and ignorant people must fall, if they can- 
 not be persuaded to rest in faith and to avoid 
 curious questions. 
 
_ THE APOSTOLICITY OF TRINITARIANISM. 19 
 
 This being the language of complaint, as well as 
 that of Tertullian, it may be the more depended on 
 for exhibiting a state of things very unfavourable to 
 what was called THE ORTHODOXY of that age. And 
 it was not the doctrine of Arius, but that of Paulus 
 Samosatensis, that Athanasius is here complain- 
 ing of’. 
 
 I. For the better estimation of the evidence 
 here adduced by Dr. Priestley, it will be useful to 
 impress upon the mind a clear idea, both of his 
 object, and of his mode of effecting his object. 
 
 The object of Dr. Priestley is, to establish the 
 alleged historical fact: that Humanitarian Antitri- 
 nitarianism was the doctrine, not merely of a few 
 innovating individuals, but of THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 
 ITSELF, from the very beginning. 
 
 And the establishment of this alleged fact he 
 would accomplish, through the medium of a pro- 
 posed historical demonstration : that Humanitarian 
 Antitrinitarianism continued, IN UNBROKEN SUCCES- 
 sion, to prevail, among the great body of unlearned 
 and uncorrupted believers WITHIN THE VERY PALE ~ 
 OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ITSELF, through the seve- 
 ral ages of Tertullian and Origen, down even to 
 the time of Athanasius; each individual having 
 ALWAYS aud FROM HIS VERY CRADLE professed such 
 doctrine, as his father and his grandfather, recewing 
 
 ’ Hist. of Early Opin, book ii. chap. 13. sect. 2. Works, vol. 
 vi. p. 489. 
 
 Car 
 
20 THE APOSTOLICITY [Book IL. 
 
 it from their predecessors, had, before him, professed 
 it PERPETUALLY and INVARIABLY. 
 
 Now, as this is plainly the sole medium, through 
 which Dr. Priestley’s object can posszbly be effected : 
 so the citation from Athanasius, even as translated 
 and given by himself, does not, in the slightest 
 degree, further that object. On the contrary, 
 nothing can be more evident, than that it is abso- 
 lutely hostile to his theory : insomuch that, for the 
 purpose of effectually subverting it, there is no 
 passage which I should be more inclined to adduce 
 than the present. 
 
 Athanasius does not complain of the prevalence 
 of an opinion, which yet he is constrained to 
 acknowledge had atways and FROM THEIR VERY 
 INFANCY been the HEREDITARY opinion of an incal- 
 culable majority of simple-minded believers wiTHIN 
 THE PALE OF THE CHURCH ; the point, plainly neces- 
 sary for Dr. Priestley’s purpose: but he laments; 
 that such Innovators as the followers of Paul of 
 Samosata should have succeeded in RECENTLY PER- 
 VERTING some of the vulgar from THE ANCIENT 
 APOSTOLIC FAITH, by taking advantage of their 
 ignorance, and by thence the more easily perplex- 
 ing them with captious abstract objections to the 
 doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 Hence the whole evidence of the learned Father 
 goes to shew; that the individuals in question had 
 not ALWAYS been antitrinitarian Humanitarians, but 
 that they had newty become so through the in- 
 
 ae 
 
CHAP. II. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 21 
 
 strumentality of these innovating teachers : and, 
 what Athanasius complains of or rather what he 
 laments, is, not their confessed ABORIGINAL error, 
 but their mere well-known RECENT perversion. 
 
 The innovation of Paul of Samosata, says he, 
 which attempts to overturn the great mystery re- 
 specting Christ, grieved the holy Synod. And it 
 now also grieves those who stand up for the holy 
 faith: inasmuch as, respecting the self-same blas- 
 phemies, it still injures the many, and most especi- 
 ally those who are low in understanding. For 
 matters, which are great and difficult of apprehen- 
 ston, are received by faith toward God. Whence 
 those, who are impotent in knowledge, FALL AWAY, 
 unless they can be persuaded to CONTINUE in the 
 Jaith and to avoid curious questions— But we ex- 
 hort you, as also we exhort ourselves, to guard THE 
 FAITH WHICH HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN, and to turn 
 away from unhallowed NOVELTIES °. 
 
 *ENdrret pev rv dylay obvodov IlavAov rot Yapooarewe 4 
 Ka.voropia, TO Méya pivoThovoy TO Kara Xptoroy dvarpérey ét- 
 xXEpovoa’ uTeEt O€ Kal voy ToUe dyTEXOpévoUE Tie Aylac TloTEWC, 
 
 ~ ~ ~ \ \ / 
 W wept TOY ad’To@yY PrAaodypey PAarrovea Tove wodXovE, partora 
 
 \ wx \ \ 
 
 Tove HAaTTwpEVOUC TEpL THY OvVEoLY. Ta yap peyada Kal dvoKa- 
 Tan io ( f 7 mooe TOV Oeov, AauPdverac 
 nnTa TOY TOAypdTwY, TioTEL TH TOC , Aap ; 
 "Obey ot repli ry yv@ow dovvarotvrec droTinrovaLy, El pi) TELO- 
 ~ ’ , ~ , XV Ny ae / > oe 
 Oeiey Eupeévecy 7H mlorer Kal Tac meEpLep'youc Synrhoere ExrpeTeoOar, 
 ~ ~ e ~ ~ \ 
 —Ilapacvotpey dé ipiv, dmep kal eavrote mapatvovper, THY Tapa- 
 ~ \ \ y 
 dobeioay rior duddrrecy, éxrpeTecIar dé Tae [3ePhove KaLvopw- 
 viac. Athan. de Incarn. Verb. cont. Paul. Samosat. Oper. 
 vol. i. p. 461. 
 
. 
 
 iw) 
 
 2 THE APOSTOLICITY [ROOK Il. 
 
 Such is the attestation of Athanasius, when 
 fully given, and when accurately exhibited in an 
 english dress. 
 
 1. The doctrine of Paul, which at that time 
 was still injuring various individuals among the 
 ignorant vulgar, he pronounces to be AN INNoVA- 
 TION: and, on that precise ground of its novelty, 
 he exhorts all christian believers to guard the 
 faith which had been handed down from the apos- 
 tqlic age and to turn away from the upstart specu- 
 lations of the Samosatenian. 
 
 Now such language is plainly inconsistent with 
 the position which Dr. Priestley would establish. 
 
 For, if it had been a well-known fact; that 
 The great majority of believers WITHIN THE PALE OF 
 THE CHURCH fad ALWays, both FROM THEIR VERY 
 CRADLES, and IN UNBROKEN SUCCESSION FROM THEIR 
 FOREFATHERS, been antitrinitarian Humanitarians : 
 Athanasius could never have idly talked of their 
 having been zyured by the blasphemous 1nno- 
 VATION of Paul of Samosata. 
 
 The very word injured implies the previous 
 maintenance of a directly opposite theological 
 system: and the very term zxnovation contradicts 
 the notion of unbroken perpetuity. 
 
 Had the multitude from their infancy, like their 
 fathers and their fathers’ fathers before them, in- 
 variably and immutably held the system of Paul: 
 that system could not have been said to have in- 
 jured them; for, in such a supposed case, it 
 
CHAP. III. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 23 
 
 would have simply left them as it found them. 
 And, had it been an universally notorious fact ; 
 that The system in question, though now somewhat 
 out of fashion among the philosophising Fathers, 
 had been regularly handed down, WITHIN THE PALE 
 oF THE cHURCH, from the very time and on the very 
 authority of the Apostles themselves, IN UNBROKEN 
 AND UNCHANGING SUCCESSION, by the great majority 
 of believers : Athanasius, in a public controversy, 
 could never have dared to call it an «innovation ; 
 for it is obvious, that phraseology of ¢his descrip- 
 tion must have respected, not the truth or the 
 falsehood of a pocrring, but the truth or the false- 
 hood of a bare Fact, concerning which every midi- 
 vidual would be fully capable of forming a compe- 
 tent judgment. 
 
 2, Thus, even on the first inspection, the gene- 
 ral tenor of the language employed by Athanasius 
 distinctly imports: that These ignorant and fickle 
 persons had relinquished their oricinau faith and 
 had recently adopted a NEw system instead of tt. 
 
 But the point is decided, if it require any de- 
 cision, both by the import of a Greek verb which 
 the learned Father has carefully introduced into 
 his account of the matter, and by the tenor of a 
 phrase which he has placed in studied opposition 
 to the Greek verb in question. 
 
 (1.) This verb, very defectively in sense and 
 very inaccurately in mood, Dr. Priestley translates 
 must fall '. 
 
 1 4 ° i 
 Gi « ATOTIRTOVCL?Y. 
 
24 THE APOSTOLICITY [BooK Il. 
 
 But even such a management of the word will 
 not avail him. For, if, in the judgment of Atha- 
 nasius, the ignorant individuals, under particular 
 circumstances, must fall: they must also, previous 
 to this their inevitable fall, have, in his judgment, 
 stood. 
 
 Still more, then, shall we discern the palpable 
 irrelevancy of the passage to Dr. Priestley’s pur- 
 pose, when, in sense and in mood, the verb is 
 justly translated. 
 
 Those, says Athanasius, who are impotent in 
 knowledge, FALL AWAY OY FALL OFF OF APOSTATISE. 
 
 Such is the proper rendering of the compound 
 Greek verb employed by the zealous Father. 
 
 The impotent in knowledge fall away or apos- 
 tatise from something which they had previously 
 maintained, 
 
 What, then, was the doctrine, from which these 
 ignorant persons fel away, in consequence of their 
 being perplexed by the captious objections or 
 curious questions of Paul’s antitrinitarian disci- 
 ples ? 
 
 Certainly, it was the doctrine, which they had 
 previously held: and, no less certainly, the doc- 
 trine, which they had previously held, was the 
 precise doctrine received and defended by Atha- 
 NASIUS. 
 
 Hence it is abundantly manifest, that Their 
 PREVIOUSLY MAINTAINED doctrine, from which they 
 AFTERWARD FELL AWAY into Samosatenian Antitrini- 
 ‘ariansm, was the doctrine of the foly Trinity 
 
 Le ae 
 
CHAP. III. OF TRINITARIANISM. 25 
 
 viewed as including that of Christ's essential god- 
 head. 
 
 (2.) Accordingly, Athanasius places a very im- 
 portant phrase in studied opposition to the Greek 
 verb which he introduces ’. 
 
 This phrase Dr. Priestley has translated to rest 
 in faith: and he evidently wishes to exhibit it, as 
 importing, what he would deem a blind acquiescence 
 and servile prostration of the intellect to a matter 
 required to be believed without any sufficient tes- 
 timony. 
 
 But the phrase itself, which Athanasius has mi- 
 nutely and verbally borrowed from Holy Writ, 
 bears no such sense as that which Dr. Priestley 
 would impose upon it 7. Its import is: not éo res¢ 
 in faith, or implicitly to acquiesce in some matter 
 which we are required to believe; but to continue 
 in the faith, or to persevere in the profession of 
 sound Christianity °. 
 
 Those, says Athanasius, who are iwnpotent in 
 
 1 Gr. éupé n we 
 » EU pevery TH WloTEL. 
 
 S Ilapakadovrrec € [pEVELY 7] miorer. Act. xiv. 22. Elye ém- 
 pevere TH whore, TEDepedcwpevoe Kal ecpatoe. Coloss. i, 23. 
 
 $ Athanasius himself, in the immediately subsequent con- 
 text, explains his own meaning. 
 
 ‘O \ \ ~~ \ e \ e \ ’ , Py s e oe ~ 
 
 pev yao Cnr@v ra umep eavrov, EmiKivduvoc’ 0 CE ToiC 
 
 mapacobetouy EMPEVOY, dxivovvec. Athan. de Incar. Verb. Oper. 
 vol. i. p. 461. 
 
 Here, 6 6€ roic mapadobeiowy éupévwy answers, and explains, 
 éppévery TH Tiorec: as, in the next clause, rv rapadobeicay 
 
 nioriy corresponds with rote¢ mapadobetaw. 
 
26 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK IL. 
 
 knowledge, FALL AWAY, unless they can be persuaded 
 TO CONTINUE IN THE FAITH. 
 
 In this clause, the opposition clearly lies, be- 
 tween the verb fall away, and the phrase continue 
 in the faith: and the antithesis is so employed by 
 Athanasius, that, unless we wilfully close our eyes, 
 it is quite impossible to mistake his necessary 
 meaning. 
 
 He would persuade the ignorant persons to con- 
 tinue in the faith, which hitherto they had always 
 professed. But, being easily perverted through 
 their impotence in knowledge, they unhappily fad/ 
 away or apostatise. 
 
 They originally held the catholic faith of the 
 Trinity. But, from this their jirst faith, they 
 subsequently fell away into the Samosatenian novelty 
 of Antitrinitarianism. 
 
 II. Dr. Priestley, however, from the language 
 of Athanasius, is willing to believe, not merely 
 that a few unstable individuals, but that the multi- 
 tude collectively, were staunch Unipersonalists : 
 and he inclines to think, that what he calls the 
 complaint of the great Alexandrian exhibits a state 
 of things very unfavourable to the orthodoxy of 
 that age. | 
 
 If it so please him, let the historian of Early 
 Opinions reckon up these Unipersonalists by thou- 
 sands and by millions: still his theological arith- 
 metic can never establish the racr which he has 
 undertaken to establish. 
 
CHAP. IIL. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 27 
 
 The supposed swarms of Antitrinitarians will 
 still be mere RECENT APostaTEs from the faith which 
 they ORIGINALLY HELD. 
 
 No controversial alchemy can transmute them, 
 what is obviously necessary for the establishment 
 of Dr. Priestley’s alleged ract, into am UNDEVIATING 
 and UNBROKEN succession of PERPETUAL wmpugners 
 of Christ's godhead, WITHIN THE PALE OF THE CATHO- 
 Lic cHuRCcH, from the apostolic age itself down to 
 the time of Athanasius. 
 
 The persons in question first held the faith of 
 the Trinity: afterward, they fell away from it, 
 being injured (as Athanasius testifies) by the inno- 
 vating disciples of Paul of Samosata. 
 
 Hence, even if we concede to Dr. Priestley the 
 entire multitude in the days of Athanasius, I see 
 not, how he will be any nearer to the establish- 
 ment of his alleged ract: and as little do I see, 
 how the language of that Father exhibits a state 
 of things very unfavourable to the cause of ab- 
 stract orthodoxy. 
 
 According to the necessary purport of the cita- 
 tion, which Dr. Priestley, however imperfectly and 
 inaccurately, has himse/f made from the Works of 
 Athanasius, he will only have gained a multitude 
 of declared avostatEes to Samosatentic Antitrinita- 
 rianism from their ORIGINAL faith in the Holy Tri- 
 nity: and this acquisition will leave, if I mistake 
 not, the abstract truth of what is familiarly called 
 Orthodoxy altogether unimpaired. 
 
 12 
 
28 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK It. 
 
 III. That the present very obvious answer would 
 be given to his pretended proof from Athanasius, 
 Dr. Priestley seems to have been fully aware. 
 
 Hence, in a subsequent part of his history, we 
 are assured: that the antitrinitarian teachers of 
 that period did not make men converts to their 
 opinions; but that, xo doubt, they rouxp them 
 already staunch Unipersonalists '. 
 
 Clearly this is the very hinge, upon which the 
 whole question turns: but then the degree of 
 value, which we ought to attach to Dr. Priestley’s 
 somewhat peremptory phrase no povust, is best 
 determined by the express testimony of Athanasius 
 himself. 
 
 Now that Father, as we have seen, positively 
 assures us: that The vulgar Samosatenians of his 
 day were aposrates from the faith which they had 
 ONcE held. 
 
 It is clear, therefore: that their new teachers 
 did not rinp them Unipersonalists already (as Dr. 
 Priestley, on authorities best known to himself, 
 pronounces to have been no poust the case); but 
 that they map them so, by a recent perversion from 
 their originally opposite tenets *. 
 
 ' Hist. of Early Opin. book iii. chap. 16. sect. 1. Works, 
 vol. vil. p. 12. 
 
 * Exactly the same remark equally applies to the opposition, 
 encountered in Asia, by Basil and the two Gregories and Cyril 
 
 of Jerusalem. 
 On 
 
CHAP. III. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 29 
 
 IV. We may well, however, be permitted to 
 doubt, whether the multitude in the days of 
 
 On this opposition, as if it greatly tended to vindicate his own 
 speculations, Dr. Priestley expatiates with much satisfaction. 
 
 But, in truth, the sole pertinent question is: Who mere the 
 opponents of these ancient catholic Bishops? Were their opponents 
 ORIGINALLY Antitrinitarians, by hereditary descent, who, with 
 their antitrinitarian fathers before them, had always, without any 
 censure, flourished within the pale of the Universal and A posto- 
 lical Church? Or did their opponents BEcoME Antitrinitarians 
 by an apostasy from their previous T'rinitartanism ? 
 
 In a passage, most infelicitously cited by Dr. Priestley him- 
 self, Cyril affords the desired answer to this question. 
 
 Noy de éorly AIIOZTAXIA’ ATIEXTHZAN yio of dvOpwmot 
 Thc OoOi¢ Tiorewc. Kal oi per viowaropiay KatrayyéAXovow’ oi 
 d€ rov Xotoroy & ob« dyrwy zic TO eivat wapevexOevTa Eye 
 rohp@ot. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. xv. p. 162. 
 
 Now there is an apostasy: for men HAVE APOSTATISED 
 Jrom the right faith. Inasmuch as some maintain the personal 
 identity of the Father and the Son: while others dare to say, 
 that the Christ mwas called into existence from a state of non- 
 existence. 
 
 Whatever might be the number of these declared aposTaTEs 
 from their own original faith in the Trinity, and however loud and 
 fierce might have been their clamours : I see not, how their exist- 
 ence can at all tend to establish Dr. Priestley’s favourite theory. 
 
 For such a purpose, they and their fathers before them, 
 WITHIN THE PALE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, and IN UNBROKEN 
 SUCCESSION FROM THE APOSTOLIC AGE, ought demonstratively to 
 have been UNVARYING and UNCHANGING and sTRICTLY HEREDI- 
 TARY Antitrinitarians. Whereas Cyril expressly informs us : 
 that they were MERE RECENT aposTatTes from the right faith ; 
 which right faith, consequently, they must themselves have 
 HELD previous to their declared and notorious apostasy. 
 
 Had 
 
30 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 Athanasius can be conceded to Dr. Priestley ; 
 little as such an acquisition, under such circum- 
 stances, would benefit the cause which he has 
 espoused. 
 
 1. In his zeal for Humanitarianism, Dr. Priestley 
 seems to have forgotten the historical impossibility, 
 that the entire multitude, or even a great majority 
 of the multitude, should at that time have pro- 
 fessed the tenets advocated by Paul of Samosata. 
 
 The prevalent aberration from the faith, in the 
 days of Athanasius, was not that species of Anti- 
 trinitarianism, which Dr. Priestley fancies to be 
 identical with primitive Christianity: but, on the 
 contrary, as every student of ecclesiastical history 
 well knows, it was the system of opinions advanced 
 and propagated by Arius and his followers. 
 
 If, then, with Dr. Priestley, we suppose the mu/- 
 titude to have been Samosatenian Antitrinitarians, 
 it will be difficult to comprehend, how Arianism 
 could have spread so very widely, as history testi- 
 fies it to have spread. 
 
 2. In truth, a little plain common. sense may 
 teach us: that, when Athanasius speaks of the 
 injury accruing to the many from the blasphemous 
 
 Had Asia even overflowed with religionists thus circum- 
 stanced: the fact would have been no way beneficial to the 
 cause advocated by Dr. Priestley. But, in truth, the testimony 
 of Cyril is positively hostile to his speculation: for the very 
 _process of apostasy establishes, by plain necessity, the priority 
 of the Faith whence the arosrasy took place. | 
 
CHAP. IIL. | OF TRINITARIANISM. dl 
 
 novelties of Paul and his disciples, he does not 
 mean to say; that Hither the entire multitude, or 
 even an immense majority of it, had apostatised, from 
 their original faith, to the upstart speculations of 
 the Samosatenian ; but that The poison was swal- 
 lowed chiefly by individuals of that particular class. 
 
 Some of these, it seems, perplexed by the ab- 
 stract subtleties of their new teachers and impo- 
 tent in theological knowledge, AposTaTIsSED to 
 Antitrinitarianism : and thus, as Athanasius speaks, 
 refusing to avoid curious questions, they ceased to 
 CONTINUE in the original faith once delivered to 
 the saints. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 RESPECTING THE TESTIMONY OF ORIGEN. 
 
 Bur, although Athanasius has proved only a 
 treacherous ally to Dr. Priestley, it does not there- 
 fore follow, that Origen, who flourished about a 
 century earlier, may not render him somewhat 
 better service. 
 
 Accordingly, to the important alleged fact which 
 the Historian of Early Opinions has undertaken 
 to establish, the testimony of that Father is stre- 
 nuously claimed, both by Dr. Priestley himself, 
 and likewise by a yet more recent author who 
 combats under the masquerading appellation of 
 Another Barrister '. 
 
 I. The supposed testimony of Origen is found 
 in no less than three several concurring passages, 
 all of which present themselves in his Commentary 
 upon the Gospel according to St. John. 
 
 These passages I subjoin, translated with as 
 
 ' The Work of this author is entitled, Letters in defence of 
 Unitarianism by another Barrister. ° 
 
 ON 
 
THE APOSTOLICITY OF TRINITARIANISM. 303 
 
 much accuracy as I can command: for I venture 
 to esteem my own version somewhat more exact, 
 either than that of Dr. Priestley, or than that of 
 the anonymous Barrister '. 
 
 1. The first passage occurs in the first tome or 
 section of the diligent Father’s Commentary: and 
 it consists of two parts, separated from each other 
 by the intervention of certain matter which will 
 hereafter be noticed. 
 
 And this it was fit to know, that, as the Law 
 affords a shadow of good things to come, made mant- 
 fest by the Law which is preached according to the 
 truth : so likewise the Gospel, which is thought to be 
 understood by all those who address themselves to tt, 
 teaches a shadow of the Mysteries of Christ. But, 
 what John calls THE EVERLASTING GOSPEL, or what 
 might fitly be styled THE SPIRITUAL GOSPEL, clearly 
 sets forth, to those who understand it, all things, 
 even before their very faces, concerning the Son of 
 God.— 
 
 Wherefore it is necessary to christiamse, both 
 spiritually and corporeally. And, where indeed it is 
 fit to preach the corporeal Gospel, saying to the 
 carnal that We know nothing save Jesus Christ and 
 him crucified: this must be done by us. But, when 
 
 1 As I carefully give, in the margin, the original Greek of 
 all the three passages, according to the plan uniformly followed 
 throughout the present Work, every lettered reader, without 
 any further trouble to himself, will be able to pronounce upon 
 
 the accuracy of my translation. 
 
 VOL. Il. D 
 
34 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK I. 
 
 they shall be found firmly compacted in the Spirit 
 and bringing forth fruit in it: then, as loving the 
 heavenly wisdom, we may impart to them of the 
 Word ascending up again, from having been incar- 
 nate, to the state in which he was with God in the 
 beginning *. 
 
 2. The second passage occurs in the second 
 tome of the same Commentary. 
 
 Thus some, indeed, partake of the Word which 
 was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, 
 and the Word was God: as Hosea, and Isaiah, and 
 Jeremiah, or if any other person has set himself forth 
 to be such, as the Word of the Lord, or that the 
 Word came to him. But others, who know nothing 
 save Jesus Christ and him crucified, even the Wora 
 that was made flesh, thinking that this is the whole 
 
 1 K ys Bi AEs Ce 397 3 a ef e > mi A a EN 
 i TOUTO CE ELCEVAL EXPY, Ort, WoTED EaTl VOpoc oKLAY TAp- 
 exo TOY peNévtwv adyaboy, bro Tov Kar’ addhOecay Karayyer- 
 , , AN "sy al x : .Y 
 Aopévou vopov Cndouvpévwry, ovTw Kat evayyeAoy oKiay pvornplw~ 
 = par OR ~ 
 Xpvarov Cicaoket, TO vopudouevoy bro rdytov Toy évruyxavor- 
 = >\ \ > , r 
 rwv voriabat. “O ce onoty “lwdyyne evayyéduoy aiwror, oikelwe 
 ay AEX Onocpevor TVEVHATLKOY, oap@e TaploTnor Tole voovat ra 
 £ ? F ai \ ; ~ ~ e dine ~ ~ 
 TUVTA EVYWTLOV TEPL A’TOV TOV Yiov Tov Ocov.— 
 / ~ ~ ~ 
 Aveo dvayKaioy TVEVLATLKHC Kal TwLAaTUGE xptoriavigery® 
 4 \ AX \ | A 
 Kal, O7ov pev xpi) TO cwpareKoy Knpvacety evayyehuov, dacKorra, 
 a \ 7 , ~ , ~ 
 pnceyv eivat (lege eicévat), roic capKixore, i) “Inoovy Xotaroy Kat 
 ~ , ~ x & ~ 
 TOUTOY EcTavpwLEVOY, TOUTO ToLnTéoY® éray Oé evoe0@or Karnprtc- 
 , ~ / ~ os ~ ~ 
 peevoe T@ Ivevpare Kal KapTogopourrec ev aUTO, E0WVTEC TE TIE 
 EJ , , iN / bd ~ ~ , ? Qs Ue 
 ovpavlov oopiac, Meracoréoy avrotg tov Adyov éravedOovroc, dnd 
 Tou ceaapxacbai, Ed’ O Hy ev doxn moog Tov Oedy. Orig. Com- 
 
 ment, in Johan. tom. i. Oper. vol. ii. p. 9. Rothomag. 1668. 
 
 ————— a 
 
CHAP. IV. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 35 
 
 of the Word, know Christ only according to the 
 flesh. Now this is the multitude of those, who are 
 commonly reckoned to believe ’. 
 
 3. The third passage likewise occurs in the 
 second tome of the Commentary. 
 
 The multitudes of those, who are commonly reck- 
 oned to believe, are instructed in the shadow of the 
 Word, and not in the true Word who is in the 
 opened heaven”. 
 
 II. These three passages have been professedly 
 adduced by Dr. Priestley, and from him have been 
 implicitly copied by the anonymous Barrister, for 
 the avowed purpose of gaining the testimony of 
 antiquity to the once almost universal prevalence 
 of their own favourite scheme of doctrine within 
 the pale of the Catholic Church. 
 
 According to Dr. Priestley, they afford direct 
 evidence: that The gentile Christians were gene- 
 
 1 ef / e \ x ls > ~ ~ ? ’ fod 
 Oirw roivuy ot pev Tiveg peTéxovolv avrov Tov Ev apxn 
 Adyov, kat ro0c Tov Ocdv Adyou, kal Osco Adyov, Waren "Qoné 
 You; ’ ’ U7] 
 > oh »& B) / Ae 7 ef ~ Ly \ / 
 Kal Hoatac kat lepipiac Kal et Tig ETENOC TOLWYTOV EUUTOY TAPEC~ 
 e \ / a J a \ , / \ > vA 
 tnoev, we Tov Adyov Kupiov, ij rov Aoyor yevéofar moog autor’ 
 e/ \ e \ a J > \ b] ~ \ \ ~ > 
 érepot O€ of pnoev Eeiddrec ei py “Inoovv Xptorov kat Tovrov eorav~ 
 pwpevor, Tov yevopevoyv odoxa Adyov, TO may vopicayTec Eivat 
 tov Adyov, Xpiordy Kara odoKa povoy yivwoKovat rowovTov OE 
 ort TO TANOOC roy wemorevKévat vopuGomévwy. Orig. Comment. 
 in Johan. tom. ii. Oper. vol. il. p. 49. 
 
 2 Ta d€ tAHOn rev wemorevkévat voptlomévwyv, TH oKLG TOU 
 Adyov, kal ovxi rh dAnOive Adyy Ocod Ev TH dvewydre ovpar@ 
 ruyxavorrt, pa@nreverac, Orig. Comment. in Johan, tom. ii. 
 Oper. vol. ii. p. 52. 
 
 D2 
 
36 THE APOSTOLICITY [Book I. 
 
 rally Unitarians, who rejected with abhorrence the 
 doctrine of our Lord’s divinity '. 
 
 According to the anonymous Barrister, They 
 manifest the very same state of things or one highly 
 similar to it, as existing alike in the days of Origen 
 and i the days of Tertullian ; Origen, though partly 
 contemporary with Tertullian, having lived through 
 some years later: and their special utility is this ; 
 that They take away all doubt as to the meaning 
 both of the language of Origen and of the language 
 
 of Tertullian, clearly establishing what was the belief 
 
 of the multitude in the Christian World at the times 
 when they respectively composed the Works in which 
 these several passages occur ?. 
 
 The testimony of Origen, in short, is alleged by 
 Dr. Priestley and the Barrister, as fully establish- 
 ing the important fact: that, At the time when 
 Origen flourished or about the middle of the third 
 century, the great majority of Christians, witHIN 
 THE PALE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, Joth STILL WERE, 
 and FROM THEIR VERY CRADLES HAD ALWAYS BEEN, 
 strenuous Antitrinitarians ; who, while the philoso- 
 phising and semipaganising Fathers were diligently 
 engaged in the unholy labour of its corrupt intro- 
 duction, steadily rejected with honest abhorrence the 
 novel doctrine of our Lord’s divinity *. 
 
 ' Hist. of Early Opin. book iii. chap. 13. sect. 2. Works, 
 vol. vi. p. 483, 
 
 * Letters by another Barrister, p. 276, 277. 
 
 * It might seem, that Origen’s own opinion was in very 
 
 Oe 
 
CHAP. IV. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 37 
 
 III. In themselves, torn away from their context 
 and exhibited (as Dr. Priestley and the Barrister 
 
 tolerable keeping with his testimony. At least, so we are 
 informed by those, who profess to have studied the subject. 
 
 Dr. Priestley and Mr. Lindsey and the anonymous Barrister 
 have adduced Origen, as speaking unfavourably of the proper 
 divinity of Christ. } 
 
 Their alleged ground for this adduction is: that he pro- 
 nounces the Father to be alone The Self-existent Being or to 
 be alone God absolutely ; while he considers Christ, as being 
 simply 4 subordinate God or A God merely by the appointment 
 of the Supreme God and Father. Priestley’s Hist. of Early 
 Opin. book i. chap. 4. Works, vol. vi. p. 253, 254. Lindsey’s 
 Sequel to Apol. p. 198, 199. Letters by another Barrister, 
 p- 19, 20. 
 
 I. These writers, I fear, must be charged, either with a total 
 misapprehension, or with a deliberate perversion, of the learned 
 Alexandrian. 
 
 1. Through the medium of a criticism on the use of the 
 Greek Article, Origen states: that the title of O OEOX, or of 
 Gop with the Article prefixed to the name, is the most fitly 
 applied to the Father; because, in the economy of the Godhead, 
 the Father alone is Atrd@e0¢ or God of himself: while the title 
 of OEOX simply, or of Gop without the Article prefixed to the 
 name, is more properly applied to the Son; because the Son is 
 not God of himself, but Ged of the substance of the Father. 
 
 Even delegated rulers, he goes on to argue, may be cata- 
 chrestically called gods, as they sometimes actually are so called 
 in Scripture, merely as a sort of earthly images or representa- 
 tions of the Most High. 
 
 But the Word, though not Airddeo¢ or God of himself, is, by 
 filiation from the substance of the Father, God properly and 
 essentially, the archetypal image of many images, God eternally 
 
 remaining with God in never ceasing contemplation of the 
 
38 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK IL. 
 
 exhibit them) in a perfectly insulated state, the 
 
 passages, cited from Origen, are dark and obscure : 
 
 paternal profundity. Orig. Comment. in Johan. tom. ii. Oper. 
 vol, il. p. 45—47, 
 
 _ 2. Whatever may be thought of Origen’s criticism on the use 
 of the Article, he assuredly builds upon it no doctrine save that 
 which the Church Catholic has in all ages maintained: the 
 doctrine, namely ; that The Father atone is God of himself; 
 while the Son and the Spirit are eternal emanations from the 
 
 primordial Fountain of Deity, each alike being God, not merely | 
 
 by delegation, but strictly and properly and essentially, inas- 
 much as each is alike consubstantial nith the Father. See below, 
 book i. chap. 9, 10. 
 
 Hence I perceive not, how the criticism of Origen, as avow- 
 edly employed by himself, can at all benefit the cause of 
 modern Antitrinitarianism. Let its abstract merits be what 
 they may, he builds upon it, not the speculation wherewithal 
 our three writers would saddle him, but simply the doctrine 
 which the Catholic Church has invariably held and has invari- 
 ably handed down from the very beginning. 
 
 II. [ subjoin Origen’s distinct assertion, both of The preéxist- 
 ence of the Word, and of The eternal existence of the Word. 
 
 Iloog tov Oedy ov TINETAI (6 Adyoc), we TPOTEPOV OUK wY 
 mo0c abréy' mapa oé 76 AEI SYNEINAI rw lari, Néyerat, Kai 
 o Aoyoc HN mo0e Tov Osdy. Od yao EVTENETO ™p0e TOV 
 Oeov’ Kal ravroy pia, ro HN, rod Aoyou Karnyopeirat, Ore éy 
 doxyn HN kat dre mpoc Tov Ocov HN, odre THC doxiic Kword ope= 
 VOC, OUTE TOU Ilarpo0c dmoherropevoc. Kat, Tay, OvTE ATO TOU 
 MH EINAT éy doyn, TINOMENO® ép apxn* ovre, dro rou MH 
 TYDXANEIN zodc roy Ocdy, émt TW TOC TOV Ogoy eivat TINO- 
 MENOX: zpd yuo xavroc xXpovov Kat ali@voc, év doxn HIN o 
 Aoyocg Kal 6 Aoyoe HN mpoc TOV Oedy. Orig. Comment. in 
 Johan. tom. ii. Oper. vol. ii. p. 45. 
 
 Through the medium of a masterly criticism on the import of 
 
 ——— Oe, 
 
 _— —_ oo 
 
 . ee! 
 
CHAP. IV. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 39 
 
 nor can their obscurity be dispelled, unless we 
 advert, partly to the usages of the Church as they 
 stood in the age of that Father, partly to the con- 
 text and thence evident drift of the passages them- 
 selves, and partly to the distinct and unambiguous 
 testimony even of this very Origen as to what 
 was really in his time the universal faith of the 
 Church Catholic. 
 
 Unfortunately, so obvious a mode of elucidation 
 seems never to have occurred either to Dr. Priest- 
 ley or to the Barrister. 
 
 the two words Eipt and Tivopac, it is here distinctly asserted 
 of the Son: both that He ts uncreated, and that He had eternally 
 before all time coéaxisted with the Father. 
 
 That the enquirer may form a just estimate either of the 
 historical competency or of the theological yvood faith of Dr. 
 Priestley and Mr. Lindsey and the anonymous Barrister, I think 
 it right to state: that this assertion of Origen is taken out of 
 the identical collective passage, whence those three writers have 
 learned ; that, in the judgment of that Father, Christ 1s not God 
 properly and essentially, but that He is only a creature invested 
 mith the character of an official god by the appointment of the 
 Supreme God. 
 
 If, when, on the strength of the immediate context, our 
 three writers described Origen as speaking unfavourably of the 
 proper divinity of Christ, they had never read this decisive pas- 
 sage: the prudent inquirer will know how to value, their his- 
 torical carefulness, and thence their historical competency. 
 
 If, on the contrary, when giving such an account of Origen’s 
 sentiments, they actually had read this decisive passage: the 
 prudent inquirer will equally know how to value their theo- 
 logical good faith and honesty. 
 
 12 
 
40 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK I. 
 
 With a perfect disregard both of context and of 
 circumstances, dipping into the Work of Origen 
 instead of diligently reading it, these two super- 
 ficial writers have hastily pitched upon certain 
 passages, which, through a complete misapprehen- 
 sion of their import, they have unskilfully deemed 
 favourable to the cause of modern Humanitarian- 
 ism: and the disgraceful consequence has been a 
 blunder, extraordinary alike in its character and 
 in its dimensions. 
 
 THE COLLECTIVE MULTITUDE OF CHRISTIAN CATE- 
 CHUMENS, TO WHOM, IN THE COURSE OF THEIR GRA- 
 DUAL THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTION, THE RECONDITE DOC- 
 TRINES OF CHRIST’S GODHEAD AND THE TRINITY HAD 
 NOT AS YET BEEN COMMUNICATED, they have each, 
 on the one hand, mistaken for A NOBLE ARMY OF 
 HEREDITARY AND NEVER DEVIATING ANTITRINITARIAN 
 CONFESSORS, WHO, FROM THEIR VERY CRADLES, HAD 
 REJECTED WITH ABHORRENCE THE DOCTRINE OF OUR 
 LORD'S DIVINITY: while, on the other hand, THosE 
 MORE FULLY INSTRUCTED CHRISTIANS, WHO HAD BEEN 
 BAPTISED AND INITIATED INTO THE ANCIENT ECCLE- 
 SIASTICAL MYSTERIES, they have each pronounced 
 to be THE PHILOSOPHISING VOTARIES OF ORIGEN AND 
 TERTULLIAN AND OTHER MISCHIEVOUS INNOVATORS 
 FROM THE TIME OF JUSTIN DOWNWARD, WHO WERE 
 ENDEAVOURING TO INTRODUCE INTO THE CHURCH THE 
 THEN NOVEL AND GENERALLY OPPOSED THEORY OF THE 
 TRINITY. 
 
 1. I have already, in the way of historical testi- 
 
 a a 
 
CHAP. IV. | OF TRINITARIANISM. Al 
 
 mony, had occasion to notice at some length a 
 very remarkable and a very ancient institution of 
 the Christian Church, which was in full vigour 
 during the times of Origen and Tertullian, and 
 which bore among the faithful the name of THE 
 MYSTERIES. 
 
 The title of this institution by no means im- 
 ported, that certain doctrines were confided only 
 to a few master-minds, while from the bulk of 
 vulgar believers they were carefully concealed : 
 on the contrary, its principle was merely the very 
 simple and the very rational principle of gradual 
 instruction. 
 
 While in training under the care of the episco- 
 pally appointed Catechist, the Catechumens were, 
 for a considerable time, admitted into little beyond 
 the generalities of sincere religion. During this 
 preparatory stage, the rabble of pagan deities was 
 made to give place to the one Almighty Cause of 
 all things: a future state of rewards and punish- 
 ments, according to the conduct of men during 
 their day of probation in this world, was declared 
 and enforced on the authority of a divine revela- 
 tion: and Christ was exhibited to them, as the 
 ereat appointed teacher of righteousness and as the 
 holy prophet of the new and better covenant. 
 
 But, when the Catechumens were judged to 
 have become sufficiently perfect in these prelimi- 
 nary matters, when their godly sincerity had been 
 fully evinced by the correct sanctity of their 
 
42 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK I. 
 
 demeanour, and when they were found to love 
 the heavenly wisdom and to desire yet further 
 communications of it in order to their complete 
 admission into the Church by the initiatory rite of 
 Baptism: then, with the season of Lent, com- 
 menced another series of catechetical lectures, 
 which, in the course of forty days, imparted to 
 them what were deemed the secrets of the Christ- 
 ian Mysteries. 
 
 First and foremost of these secrets, itself so 
 preéminently the grand secret as to be sometimes 
 by writers on the subject even exclusively particu- 
 larised, stood the doctrine of the Holy Trinity: 
 and with it was inseparably connected, as imme- 
 diately emanating from it and as specially de- 
 pendent upon it, the doctrine of Christ’s incarnate 
 godhead. From the palmary secret of the Trinity 
 branched out the entire system of evangelical 
 peculiarities, each of which was counted a subor- 
 dinate and dependent secret of the Mysteries : 
 and the whole conjomtly formed the subject of 
 those instructions, which were at length communi- 
 cated to the more advanced Catechumens who 
 were about to be illuminated or baptised. 
 
 In short, as the first series of lectures treated 
 only of the generalities of the Christian Dispensa- 
 tion: so the second series of lectures professed to 
 set forth its peculiarities, under the technical aspect 
 of an initiation into the Mysteries. 
 
 The adoption of such a plan produced the neces- 
 
CHAP. IV. | OF TRINITARIANISM. AS 
 
 sary result, that the great multitude of the junior 
 Catechumens were ignorant of the doctrines of the 
 Trinity and,Christ’s godhead, except so far as they 
 might accidentally have caught some glimpses of 
 their existence: while, to every individual who 
 had been fully instructed and who had been sub- 
 sequently baptised, these doctrines were of course 
 perfectly familiar. 
 
 Hence, according to their progress in theologi- 
 cal knowledge, the collective body of believers 
 was divided into two classes: the class of Those 
 who were as yet instructed only in the shadow of the 
 Word, as Origen speaks; and the class of Those 
 who had been made acquainted with the true Word 
 in the opened heaven. 
 
 2. To this usage of the Catholic Church, the 
 passages from Origen, which have been so dis- 
 gracefully misunderstood by the Historian and 
 the Barrister, most undoubtedly refer. 
 
 Any person, indeed, who merely reads them 
 with the then existing usage of the Catholic 
 Church in his mind, will immediately perceive the 
 allusion. But the matter is put out of all possible 
 dispute by the entire tenor of their context: a 
 circumstance, which Dr. Priestley and his follower 
 must themselves have perceived, had they taken 
 the very ordinary trouble of perusing that context 
 in connection with the familiar usage of the Church 
 in the second and third centuries. 
 
 (1.) Of the three parallel passages which have 
 
A. THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 been cited from Origen, the first and earliest, as 
 might naturally be expected, furnishes a key to 
 the whole. For, when we examine its immediate 
 context, we shall clearly perceive: that that Fa- 
 ther, speaking in his character of a Catechist, 
 merely sets forth the comparative ignorance of 
 those numerous Catechumens, who as yet had not 
 been instructed in the doctrines of the Trinity 
 and the Incarnation; such doctrines, as we have 
 already seen, being -communicated to Christian 
 Aspirants only during the forty days which im- 
 mediately preceded their baptismal initiation. 
 Almost at the commencement of his Commen- 
 tary on the Gospel according to St. John, having 
 stated how he had wholly devoted himself to the 
 service of God, and having intimated that the 
 Gospel at large was the very cream of the whole 
 inspired volume, Origen mentions his residence at 
 Alexandria, where he long presided in the import- 
 ant office of a Catechist!. Here, what could I do 
 better, he asks, than dedicate the cream of my life 
 to what may well be called the cream of Scripture* ? 
 
 1 In his office of Catechist at Alexandria, Origen succeeded 
 his master Clement, as Clement had succeeded his own master 
 Pantenus : and Pantenus himself was the first Catechist there 
 after the Apostles. Origen was appointed to the office by 
 Demetrius of Alexandria. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. vi. c. 2, 
 5 Pa OPS) , 
 2 Comment. in Johan. tom. i. Oper. vol. ii. p. 3, 4. I have 
 used the English word cream in its proverbial sense, as best 
 
 expressing the idea of Origen’s drapx7. 
 
 Pee ee 
 
CHAP. IV. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 45 
 
 Ile then expatiates at some length upon the 
 idea, which he had started. 
 
 And he finally winds up the whole by saying: 
 that, As the Gospel in general was the cream of all 
 the Scriptures, so the Gospel of John in particular 
 was the cream of all the other Gospels ; for John, 
 who wrote the last and the most perfectly, set forth 
 the divinity of his Lord more clearly and more 
 distinctly than any one of his three predecessors 1. 
 
 After these preliminaries, adopting the then 
 fashionable phraseology of the Mysteries, he re- 
 marks: that Every-one, who had been initiated, 
 lives no longer himself, but Christ lives in him ?. 
 And he adds, in allusion to the sacred speech of 
 the hierophant: that Zhe Gospel is an oration, 
 which propounds to the Catechumen matters exhil- 
 arating on account of their profitableness *. 
 
 Having thus characteristically introduced the 
 topic of catechumenical instruction, he soon pro- 
 ceeds to treat more largely of its principles. 
 
 Even to many of those, he observes, who flou- 
 rished before the advent of Christ, and who from 
 
 * Comment. in Johan. p. 4—6. 
 
 * Comment. in Johan. p- 6. Gr. wae 6 rereXewwpévoc. The 
 word reredewwpevoc is technically allusive to the Tédn or Mys- 
 teries. Every Epopt was styled perfect. 
 
 * Comment. in Johan. p. 6. Gr. roy dxovovra. The phrase 
 6 dkovwy was the technical appellation of a Catechumen. Au- 
 dientes et Auditores, says Rhenanus on Tertullian, ea @tas vo- 
 cabat Catechumenos. ‘Tertull. de poenit. Oper. p. 481. For 
 this remark, he cites the authority of Cyprian. 
 
4.6 THE APOSTOLICITY [ BOOK il’ 
 
 being babes had been rendered more perfect by 
 initiation !, such as the Patriarchs and Moses and 
 the Prophets, the coming of the Saviour was by 
 no means unknown: though the less instructed 
 were wont to entertain but obscure notions re- 
 specting it. And, in a similar manner, even after 
 his corporeal manifestation upon earth, certain 
 discourses, which may properly be termed peda- 
 gogical and which are a sort of precursors of 
 Christ, are still fitly delivered to babes in know- 
 ledge : since, as yet, they are under preceptors, 
 and have not hitherto arrived at the fulness of the 
 time of their initiation. To these persons, who 
 have not been initiated into the higher Mysteries 
 of the Gospel, the Son, who is the glorified God 
 the Word, hath not as yet been declared. For 
 he expects, that a requisite preparation should be 
 undergone by those, who are about to be intro- 
 duced to the recondite doctrine of his divinity *. 
 And this it was fit to know (we are now, after 
 passing through the antecedent context, arrived 
 at the first part of the earliest of the three passages 
 cited by Dr. Priestley and the Barrister): Thus 7 
 was fit to know, that, as the Law affords a shadow 
 of good things to come, made manifest by the Law 
 which is preached according to the truth: so likewise 
 the Gospel, which is thought to be understood by 
 
 ~ ? Comment. in Johan. p. 8. Gr. rote reXevorepore, a technical 
 expression of the Mysteries. 
 ? Comment. in Johan. p. 8, 9. 
 
CHAP. IV. OF TRINITARIANISM. 47 
 
 all those who address themselves to it, teaches a 
 shadow of the Mysteries of Christ. But, what John 
 calls THE EVERLASTING GOSPEL, or what might fitly 
 be styled THE SPIRITUAL GOSPEL, clearly sets forth, to 
 those who understand it, all things, even before their 
 very faces, concerning the Son of God’. 
 
 After this statement of the erroneousness of the 
 opinion ; that all those who addressed themselves 
 to the study of the Gospel, or (in other words) all 
 the hitherto uninitiated Catechumens, really un- 
 derstood its full import, until, by further institu- 
 tion, they had been introduced to the knowledge 
 of the spiritual doctrine: after this allusion to the 
 ignorance in which the Catechumens were syste- 
 matically kept until the forty days of Lent which 
 immediately preceded their baptism, a few unim- 
 portant words occur, which are followed by an 
 hiatus. But, fortunately, from the circumstance 
 of the fragraent, aND BAPTISM, appearing where the 
 text again proceeds in a perfect state, we have a 
 very satisfactory clue afforded us, as to the subject 
 discussed by the learned Catechist in the inter- 
 mediate lost sentence or sentences”. These two 
 broken words, AND BAPTISM, the conclusion of the 
 lost clause or paragraph, shew plainly enough : 
 that, in the course of that lost clause or paragraph, 
 
 ‘ Comment. in Johan. p. 9. 
 * Tovrote d& dkddovOdv éorw éxapdvew, Ort, Ov TedToV 
 * eee * ® cal Bdariopa. Tatdoc péey kat érpoc x. 7. d. 
 
 Comment. in Johan. p. 9. 
 
48 THE APOSTOLICITY [Book I. 
 
 Origen had been treating of the final instruction 
 given to Catechumens during the forty days which 
 immediately preceded their baptism ; instructions, 
 which respected the hitherto concealed Mystery 
 of the Godhead of Christ and of the Holy Trinity 
 with the various doctrines dependent upon it. 
 
 The gap is followed by some remarks upon the 
 conduct of St. Paul: who, to the Jews, became a 
 Jew, in order that he might gain the Jews. And 
 then Origen states: that the person, who lays 
 himself out for the profit of many (meaning, doubt- 
 less, himself, in his quality of a Catechist), cannot 
 improve and advance, to better and higher truths, 
 those individuals, who still continue to be instructed 
 in nothing more than the elements of exoteric 
 Christianity °*. 
 
 Wherefore it ts necessary (we are now arrived at 
 the second part of the earliest of the three passages 
 cited by Dr. Priestley and the Barrister): Where- 
 fore it is necessary to christianise, both spiritually 
 and corporeally. And, where indeed tt is fit to 
 preach the corporeal Gospel, saying to the carnal 
 that We know nothing save Jesus Christ and him 
 crucified : this must be done by us. But, when they 
 shall be found firmly compacted in the Spirit and 
 bringing forth fruit in it: then, as loving the hea- 
 venly wisdom, we may impart to them of the Word 
 ascending up again, from having been incarnate, to 
 
 ‘ Comment. in Johan, p- 9. 
 
CHAP. Iv. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 49 
 
 the state in which he was with God in the begin- 
 ‘ ning '. 
 
 I have now faithfully exhibited the context of 
 the earliest of the three cited passages, together 
 with the passage itself in each of its two separated 
 parts: and, from this exhibition, the purport of 
 the passage is, I think, most abundantly manifest. 
 
 By those multitudes of believers, who are described 
 as instructed, only in the shadow of the Word, and 
 not im the true celestial Word, Origen means: not 
 A HOST OF ZEALOUS ANTITRINITARIANS WHO REJECTED 
 WITH ABHORRENCE THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DIVI- 
 nity, as Dr. Priestley and the Barrister most idly 
 and most ignorantly fancy ; but simply tTHOosE 
 NUMEROUS CATECHUMENS, WHO HAD NOT AS YET BEEN 
 INITIATED INTO THE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE MYS- 
 TERIES OF CHRISTIANITY, AND WHO THENCE OF COURSE 
 WERE IGNORANT OF THE PALMARY DOCTRINES OF THE 
 TRINITY AND THE INCARNATION. 
 
 (2.) Such is the result from a full examination 
 of the context of the first of the three cited pas- 
 sages. Equally explicit and decisive is the joint 
 context of the evidently parallel second and third 
 cited passages, which, in point of collocation, stand 
 at no very great distance from each other. 
 
 Thus some, indeed, says Origen in the second of 
 the three cited passages, partake of the Word which 
 was in the beginning, and the Word was with God 
 
 * Comment. in Johan. p. 9. 
 VOL. II. E 
 
50 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK I. 
 
 and the Word was God: as Hosea, and Isaiah, 
 and Jeremiah, or if any other person has set himself 
 forth to be such, as the Word of the Lord, or that 
 the Word came to him. But others, who know 
 nothing save Jesus Christ and him crucified, even the 
 Word that was made flesh, thinking that this is the 
 whole of the Word, know Christ only according to 
 the flesh. Now this is the multitude of those, who 
 are commonly reckoned to believe ’. 
 
 In this passage,. Origen explains the frequent 
 hebrew phrase of the Word of the Lord coming to 
 any one of the ancient prophets, as referring to the 
 personal Word or the second hypostasis of the 
 Trinity: who, by thus coming to his servants, en- 
 abled them severally to become, in respect to their 
 delegated office of God’s messengers, such, cha- 
 racteristically, as the Word of the Lord himself. 
 And he then intimates: that the multitude of 
 Catechumens, not having as yet been instructed 
 in the recondite doctrine that The Word was in 
 the beginning with God and that The Word was 
 God, thence, of plain necessity, knew Christ only 
 according to the flesh or in his human nature and 
 capacity. 
 
 Having thus penned the second cited passage, 
 the true import of which, like that of the first cited 
 passage, has been so lamentably misunderstood by 
 Dr. Priestley and the Barrister, Origen forthwith 
 
 ' Comment. in Johan. tom. ii. Oper. vol. it. p. 49. 
 
CHAP. IV. ] OF TRINITARIANISM. 51 
 
 proceeds, in the very language of the imitative ec- 
 clesiastical Mysteries, to mark out a difference, 
 between THE PROFANE or the uninitiated Catechu- 
 mens on the one hand, and tux gust or the bap- 
 tismally initiated Communicants on the other hand. 
 To the former, heaven is shut; as the doors of the 
 adytum were closed against the profane: to the 
 latter, it is open; and there they may behold the 
 self-conspicuous apparition of the divine Word 
 riding in his majesty, as described by the prophet 
 of the Apocalypse '. 
 
 Then comes the third of the three passages, 
 adduced by Dr. Priestley and the Barrister. 
 
 The multitudes of those, who are commonly reck- 
 oned to believe, are instructed in the shadow of the 
 Word, and not in the true Word who is in the opened 
 heaven ®. 
 
 Of this passage, the import is obviously the 
 same, as that of its predecessor. The numerous 
 Catechumens, who are as yet only in a gradual 
 course of religious institution, have hitherto learned 
 nothing, save the general exoteric doctrines of 
 Christianity, or what Origen technically styles the 
 shadow of the Word: for, the term of their forty 
 probaptismal days not having arrived, they have 
 thence not been instructed, in what Origen calls 
 the true Word who is in the opened heaven, or in the 
 
 ' The airémroy dyahpa of the imitative and adaptative 
 Christian Mysteries. 
 * Comment. in Johan. tom. ii. Oper. vol. ii. p. 52. 
 
 Eo 
 
52 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK It. 
 
 esoteric doctrines of Christ’s godhead and the 
 Holy Trinity. 
 
 Next follows a florid description of the apo- 
 calyptic rider on the white horse : whose name is 
 the Word of God, whose title no one save himself 
 fully comprehends, and whose regal appellation is 
 King of kings and Lord of lords. And, immediately 
 after it, we encounter a passage which cannot be 
 misunderstood : for it actually describes the know- 
 ledge of those more advanced believers, who have 
 at length been baptised, and who have thus been 
 formally initiated into the Christian Mysteries. 
 
 This Word of God, says the great Alexandrian 
 Catechist, all the armies, which are in heaven, fol- 
 low ; acknowledging him as their leader, and in every 
 thing, more especially in their similarly riding upon 
 white horses, imitating him : for all things are placed 
 before THOSE WHO UNDERSTAND. And, as grief and 
 sorrow and groaning flee away at the general con- 
 summation: thus likewise, I deem, obscurity and 
 doubt flee away, WHEN ALL THE MYSTERIES OF GOD S 
 WISDOM ARE CAREFULLY AND UNRESERVEDLY DEVE- 
 LOPED '. 
 
 No doubt, I think, can now be entertained in 
 regard to the true meaning of the three parallel 
 passages, which, by Dr. Priestley and the Barris- 
 ter, have been so unhappily misunderstood and so 
 
 ! For the entire context here discussed, see Comment. in 
 Johan. tom. ii. Oper. vol. 1. p. 51—54. 
 
CHAP. IV. OF TRINITARIANISM. 53 
 
 wretchedly misapplied. Throughout the whole, 
 indeed, of Origen’s Commentary, which clearly 
 has never been perused either by the Historian or 
 by the Barrister, there are even perpetual re- 
 ferences to this peculiar system of ecclesiastical 
 discipline, which existed as a fact, whatever may 
 be thought of its inherent merits'. For a long 
 season, the multitude of Catechumens were in- 
 
 * See Comment. in Johan.:Oper. vol. ii. pp. 18 B, 25 E, 
 30 BC, 75 A, 97 A, 125 E, 126 ABCD, 203 AB. 
 
 Origen seems occasionally to have had ‘under his charge 
 Catechumens, who rejected, when offered to them, the higher 
 Mysteries of Christianity: for he speaks of the better things 
 being closed to such persons, not from any unwillingness on 
 the part of their appointed instructors, but because they them- 
 selves were unwilling to receive them. See Comment. in 
 Johan. tom. ii. Oper. vol. ii. p. 51 E. 
 
 This statement exactly accords with ecclesiastical history : 
 nor, without it, should we be able to account for the various 
 heresies touching the nature of Christ and the mode of the 
 Deity’s existence, which, in despite of the careful catechetical 
 instruction of the first ages, from time to time produced those fre- 
 quent lamentable separations from the faithful Church Catholic. 
 Presumptuous speculatists either refused to receive the peculiar 
 doctrines of the Gospel, which were regularly communicated to 
 the Competentes in the course of the forty days previous to 
 their baptism: or, at some subsequent period, they rejected 
 them, after they had been received. 
 
 Such a rejection, as in the case of Paul of Samosata, was 
 styled an abjuration of, or an exsiliency from, the Mystery. 
 Tov elooynodpevoy 70 HvoThouy, kal éumopmEevovTa TH pLapg at- 
 pécet 7H Aorewa. Epist. Epise. Antioch. Concil. apud Euseb. 
 Hist. Eccles. lib. vii. ¢. 30. 
 
 12 
 
a4 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK It. 
 
 structed only in the generalities of theology : nor 
 were they admitted to the knowledge of the ab- 
 struse doctrines of Christ’s godhead and the Trinity, 
 until the arrival of the forty days of Lent which 
 immediately preceded their Baptism. 
 
 3. Dr. Priestley, however, and the Barrister 
 after him, are quite sure, that Origen, in the three 
 passages before us, must be viewed, as giving direct 
 evidence in favour of the gentile Christians being, 
 at the time when he flourished, generally Antitri- 
 nitarians. 
 
 For the final settlement, then, of the present 
 matter, let us hear the direct and unequivocal 
 testimony, to the universal belief of the Church 
 that Christ is one God with the Father, borne by 
 Origen in certain other parts of his Works. 
 
 WE worship, says he, speaking plurally on be- 
 half of the Catholic Church in a Treatise profess- 
 edly controversial: Wer worship ONE GOD, THE 
 FATHER AND THE SON: and this confession remains 
 
 Jirmly with us against all others. For, not merely as 
 a person who had recently appeared having had no 
 previous existence, do we worship the Son: but, on 
 the contrary, WE believe his own declaration ; Before 
 Abraham was, IT am.—We worship, therefore, the 
 Father of the Truth, and the Son who is the Truth ; 
 two in personality, one in concord and symphony and 
 identity of will—For we venerate, with supplications 
 and merited prayers, ONE GOD AND HIS ONE SON AND 
 WORD AND IMAGE, to the best of our ability : offering 
 
CHAP Iv. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 5 
 
 up our petitions unto the God of all things, through 
 his only-begotien Son’. 
 
 Josephus, says he again in another place of the 
 same controversial Treatise, 2s willing to ascribe 
 the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans to the 
 vengeance of God on account of the murder of James 
 the Just. But may we not more reasonably say, 
 that it happened on account of Jesus the Christ : to 
 WHOSE DIVINITY, so many Churches of those, who 
 have been reclaimed from the puddle of wickedness 
 and who hang upon him as THEIR CREATOR and 
 who refer all things to his good pleasure, bear wit- 
 ness *? 
 
 ' "Eva ovv Ogdy, we drodedwkapev, Tov Ilarépa Kai rov Yior, 
 Oeparevopev® Kal péver Hiv 6 mode Tove aAAove arevijc Adyoc 
 of 
 Kal ov Toy Evayxoc ye pavéyTa, we TpdTEpOY OvK byTA, UTEpOPNO- 
 / e > ~ \ / ~ 5 / \ 5 \ / 
 Kevopev” avr@ yao reOdpeba ro eimovtt, IIply "APoaau yevéo- 
 Oat, eyo eipc.—Opnokevoper ody, rov Iarépa rijc dAnGelac, Kal 
 My ue \ \ i A of té ioe A Ul / e\ \ 
 Tov Yiov tiv addnOEay, dvra Ovo TH UrooTdoEt TOdypara, EV OE 
 i > 
 o>, © 4 % ~ 'f \ iow / ~ 7 
 TH Opovoia Kat TH ovpdwria Kal TH TavTdryTe TOV PovAnparoc.— 
 Tov va Gedy, kal roy Eva Yiov avrov kai Adyoy kat Eixéva, raic 
 . \ \ € ~ e / \ * 7 fa / 
 Kara TO duvaroy Hpiv ikesiatc Kal déiwoeor céDopev, Tpocdyor- 
 ~ ~ ~ ef ‘ > x 4 ~ ~ 7 ~ . 
 rec TO Oe@ THY OdwY Tac EVXUC OLA TOU povoyevovc abrov. Orig. 
 cont. Cels. lib. vii. p. 386. 
 2 ‘O 0, kai Goren dkwy ov pakoay Tij¢ adAnOElac yevdopevoc, 
 ‘ ~ ae ~ 9 ’ la Js a 2. sg , ’ 2 pA 
 gnot ravTa ouppePnkevar rote “loucaioue Kar’ éxdiknowy “LaK@/ov 
 TOU OLlKalov, OC 7V adedpoc "Incov rov heyopévov Xprorov, éret- 
 Q7 / 9 \ oo ° , of x i \ 3 A 
 Omen Oukatdraroy avroy Ovtra anéxrecvay.—Etmep oby dua *Idkw- 
 , 7 / ~ 9 QD 47 ‘ \ \ 9-7 = 
 Dov cupPePncévar Ever Toic “lovdaloe Ta KaTa THY Ephpwory Tic 
 ‘[eooveandip, THe ovyt evoywTEpoY Cra "Inooty tov Xotoroy rovro 
 epovaadr pM, THC OVX ywreo n 0lo7 
 pdokey yeyovévat, ov tic Oevdrnrog praprupEec ai rooatrar Toy 
 , / 5] \ ~ / ~ ~ ’ / \ > 
 peeraPpadovTwy amo THE yxUGEWS TMY KaKwY EKKAHOLaL, KAaL HPTY- 
 
 péevwv 
 
56 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 From three ill-understood passages of Origen, 
 Dr. Priestley and the Barrister fancy themselves 
 to have learned, on the direct testimony of that 
 Father : that, in his days, the great bulk of Christ- 
 ians were zealous Unipersonalists who held the 
 doctrine of Christ’s godhead in absolute ab- 
 horrence. 
 
 Yet, we see, Origen himself, even in a public 
 controversial Treatise, expressly and openly de- 
 clares: that the entire Catholic Church adored 
 conjointly the Father and the Son, under the pre- 
 cise aspect of their being one God; that the 
 various provincial Churches, which collectively’ 
 formed the single Church Catholic, bore witness 
 to the divinity of Christ their acknowledged Crea- 
 tor ; and that, in strict accordance with this system 
 of doctrine, all Christians devoutly believed the 
 preéxistence of their Lord, on the specific ground, 
 according as they understood it, of his own positive 
 declaration. 
 
 It is difficult to believe, that Origen could have 
 hazarded a public controversial statement of this 
 nature and description, if he had elsewhere freely 
 confessed (which Dr. Priestley and the Barrister 
 assure us is the case) ; that the multitude of Catho- 
 lics, both were 7 his days, and always had been 
 
 Mévwy TOU OnpLoupyov, Kal mayT’ avapepovrwr ert THY TOG EKEl- 
 vov dpéoxecay. Orig. cont. Cels. lib. i. p. 35, 36. 
 For Dr. Priestley’s treatment of Origen, in regard to the 
 
 adoration of the Son, see below, Append. ii. numb. 3. § um. 
 
CHAP. IV. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 57 
 
 before his days, strenuous antitrinitarian opponents 
 of the deity of Christ: it is difficult to believe, 
 when a mere naked matter of Fact is concerned, 
 and that moreover a Fact of the greatest possible 
 notoriety ; that, with needless and foolish gratuit- 
 ousness, he would be in two directly opposite 
 stories: it is difficult to believe, in short ; that he 
 gives any direct evidence in favour of the gentile 
 Christians being generally, at the time when he 
 flourished, what the historian calls Unetarians. 
 
 Any person, who had even read nothing more 
 of the Works of Origen than his Treatise against 
 Celsus, would immediately conclude: that, on the 
 part of Dr. Priestley and the Barrister, there must 
 have been either some strange misapprehension 
 or some dishonest perversion. And, accordingly, 
 the simple truth of the matter is: that the his- 
 torian and his incautious follower have each, 
 agreeably to my preceding statement, mistaken 
 THE QUIET UNCONTROVERSIAL MULTITUDES OF JUNIOR 
 CHRISTIAN CATECHUMENS, TO WHOM AS YET THE DOC- 
 TRINES OF THE TRINITY AND OF CHRIST'S GODHEAD HAD 
 NOT BEEN COMMUNICATED, for A MIGHTY ARMY OF 
 HEREDITARY ANTITRINITARIAN CONFESSORS WITHIN THE 
 PALE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, WHO HAD ALWAYS, IN 
 UNBROKEN SUCCESSION FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, 
 ABHORRED AND REJECTED THE TENET OF THE DEITY 
 OF THE SAVIOUR. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 RESPECTING THE TESTIMONY OF TERTULLIAN. 
 
 ORIGEN, we see, promotes the cause of Dr. Priest- 
 ley, even still less, if that be possible, than Athana- 
 sius. But we must not relinquish the historian’s 
 express testimony as altogether hopeless, until we 
 shall have carefully examined the yet remaining 
 evidence of Tertullian. 
 
 This Father flourished, at the end of the second, 
 and at the beginning of the third, century. Hence, 
 if we find him bearing witness to the ancient and 
 general and unbroken prevalence of simple Huma- 
 nitarianism within the pale of the Christian Church, 
 we shall have small reason to regret the defection 
 of the two Jater Fathers Origen and Athanasius. 
 
 The passage, adduced by Dr. Priestley from 
 Tertullian, translated as accurately as I am able 
 to translate it, runs as follows. 
 
 For the simple indeed, not to say the imprudent 
 and the unlearned (who always constitute the greater 
 part of believers); since also the very rule of faith 
 leads us away from the numerous gods of the age to 
 
THE APOSTOLICITY OF TRINITARIANISM. 59 
 
 the one true God, not understanding, that he is to 
 be believed indeed as one God, but still with his own 
 proper economy ; are alarmed at this economy. The 
 number and disposition of the Trinity, they presume 
 to be a division of the Unity: though the Unity, 
 derwing from itself the Trinity, is not destroyed, but 
 administered, by it. Therefore they are now boast- 
 ing, that two Gods and three Gods are preached by 
 us; whale they assume, that they themselves are the 
 worshippers of one God: just as if the Unity, when 
 uneconomically collected, did not produce heresy ; 
 and gust as if the Trinity, when economically weighed, 
 did not constitute the truth. Wer, say they, HOLD 
 THE MONARCHY. And so vocally do even the Latins, 
 even the wliterate, express the sound of this greek 
 word, that you might imagine them to understand 
 the word MONARCHY, as well as to pronounce it. But 
 the Latins study to give the sound of the greek word 
 MONARCHY: and the Greeks are determined not to 
 understand the economy’. 
 
 * Simplices enim quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotz 
 (quee major semper credentium pars est,) quoniam et ipsa 
 regula fidei, a pluribus deis seeculi, ad unicum et verum Deum 
 transfert ; non intelligentes, unicum quidem, sed cum sua 
 oikovopia, esse credendum, expavescunt ad oikovopiay. Nu- 
 merum et dispositionem Trinitatis, divisionem preesumunt 
 Unitatis ; quando Unitas, ex semetipsa derivans Trinitatem, 
 non destruatur ab illa, sed administretur. Itaque duos et tres 
 Jam jactitant a nobis preedicari, se vero unius Dei cultores pre- 
 sumunt: quasi non et Unitas, irrationaliter collecta, haresim. 
 faciat ; et ‘rinitas, rationaliter expensa, veritatem constituat 
 
 Movapyxiar, 
 
60 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK IL. 
 
 This passage, Dr. Priestley views, as being, on 
 the part of Tertullian, an unwilling and angry con- 
 
 Movapxiay, inquiunt, feremus. Et ita sonum ipsum vocaliter 
 exprimunt etiam Latini, etiam opici, ut putes illos t4m bene 
 intelligere wovapyiay, quam enunciant. Sed plovaoxiay sonare 
 student Latini: oikovouiay intelligere nolunt etiam Greeci, 
 Tertull. adv. Prax. § 2, 3. Oper. p. 406. 
 
 I. On my translation of this passage, it may perhaps be 
 useful to offer a few remarks. 
 
 1. Tertullian’s trrationaliter and rationaliter, I have ren- 
 dered by wneconomically and economically. 
 
 The terms, if I mistake not, are technical: and they allude 
 to what, in the course of the present Tractate, Tertullian calls 
 the ratio @conomie ; by which he means the orderly arrange- 
 ment of persons in the Unity of the Godhead. 
 
 Duos quidem definimus Patrem et Filium, et jam tres cum 
 Spiritu. Sancto, secundum rationem ceconomie que facit nu- 
 merum. Tertull. adv. Prax. § 10. Oper. p. 413. 
 
 In Tertullian’s phraseology, Irrationaliter collecta is as much 
 as to say, lta collecta ut nullam ceeconomie rationem habeas: 
 and Rationaliter expensa is equivalent to Secundum ceconomie 
 rationem expensa. 
 
 He uses the same phraseology, with the same reference to 
 orderly arrangement, in his Work against Marcion. 
 
 Nulla res sine ordine potest rationalis vindicari, tanto abest 
 ut ratvo ipsa in aliquo ordinem amittat. Tertull. adv. Marcion. 
 lib. 1. § 16. Oper. p. 161. 
 
 2. By simplices, Tertullian clearly means semple-minded and 
 unsuspicious of evil. 
 
 His simplices, therefore, were peculiarly liable to be per- 
 plexed by the innovating subtleties of Praxeas. | 
 
 3. The imprudentes are, in characteristic description, a step 
 - beyond the simplices. 
 
 I take them to be persons, not only unsuspicious of evil, but 
 
CHAP. V. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 61 
 
 fession: that The majority of believers, within the 
 pale of the Catholic Church, still were in his tome, 
 as they always had been from the very begining, 
 
 unfortunately also incautious and hasty in taking up a plausible 
 opinion without having well weighed rts evidence and its merits. 
 
 4. This conduct is the more reprehensible and mischievous, 
 because they are zdiote or unlearned. 
 
 Whence, plainly, they are but ill qualified to decide peremp- 
 torily on the right interpretation of Scripture. 
 
 5. The phrase, povapxiay sonare, is, by Dr. Priestley, some- 
 what ludicrously translated, to banl out for the monarchy: and, 
 in this very peculiar rendering, he has been, as usual, carefully 
 followed by the Barrister. 
 
 Yet it may be doubted, whether the expression alludes to 
 any particular strength of lungs possessed by the Latins. 
 
 I conceive it rather to mean: that the Latins did not attempt 
 to translate, into their own language, the greek word povapxia, 
 by any such term (for instance) as uniregimen; but that (just 
 as we English do, when, instead of single-government, we say 
 monarchy, which we have naturalised from the Greek), in their 
 ‘ theological disputes, they used the precise greek word itself 
 untranslated. 
 
 Bishop Horsley, more accurately than Dr. Priestley and the 
 Barrister, renders the original : Latins have caught up the word 
 MONARCHY. 
 
 The true import of the phrase is, I believe, that which has 
 been specified. 
 
 II. These perhaps are matters of no great consequence, so 
 far as the vitals of the debate are concerned: yet, to the best 
 of our ability, we may as well be accurate as inaccurate. 
 
 For the translations of Dr. Priestley and the Barrister, see 
 Hist. of Corrupt. part i. sect. 4. Works, vol. v. p.41. Hist. of 
 Early Opin. book iii. chap. 13. sect. 2. Works, vol. vi. p. 486, 
 487. Letters by another Barrister, p. 275. 
 
62 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK I. 
 
 ZEALOUS ANTITRINITARIANS, WHO SO HELD THE EXCLU- 
 SIVE DEITY OF THE FATHER, AS TO REJECT WITH 
 ABHORRENCE THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST’S GODHEAD. 
 
 Hence he infers : that his own Creed was the un- 
 doubted Creed of the primitive apostolic Church. 
 
 For such persons, he observes, as simple and un- 
 learned people, are very likely to retain old opinions : 
 and are always far less subject to tnnovate, than the 
 learned. 
 
 Let it, then, be particularly borne in mind: 
 that, According to Dr. Priestley, the Antitrinita- 
 rians, censured by Tertullian, were PERsoNs wo 
 DENIED THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 This point, as we shall presently find, is a matter 
 of such considerable importance, that I subjoin 
 Dr. Priestley’s own precise statement. 
 
 Nothing, says he, can be more decisive than the 
 evidence of Tertullian to this purpose: who, in the 
 following passage, which is too plain and circum- . 
 stantial to be misunderstood by any person, positively 
 asserts, though with much peevishness; that The 
 Unitarians, WHO HELD THE DOCTRINE oF THE DIVI- 
 NITY OF CHRIST IN ABHORRENCE, were the greater 
 part of Christians in his time. 
 
 Then, as_ proof peremptory of the allegation 
 before us, comes the passage from Tertullian: 
 which I have already given at fall length, and 
 which forms the subject of the present discussion !. 
 
 ' Hist. of Early Opin. book iii. chap. 13. sect. 2. Works, 
 vol. vi. p. 485—487. 
 
CHAP. V. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 63 
 
 Thus, from his own unambiguous declaration, it 
 appears: that the historical fact, which, on the 
 strength of the passage now before us, Dr. 
 Priestley undertakes to maintain, is clearly and 
 distinctly the following. 
 
 THE UNITARIANS, WHO HELD THE DOCTRINE OF THE 
 DIVINITY OF CHRIST IN ABHORRENCE, WERE THE 
 GREATER PART OF CHRISTIANS IN THE TIME OF TER- 
 “ TULLIAN. 
 
 Such is the historical fact, which Dr. Priestley 
 maintained on the authority of the supposed 
 reluctant confession of the African Father: and 
 such is the historical fact, which is s¢// main- 
 tained by his successors, if I may judge from a 
 recent statement of the matter by the anonymous 
 Barrister ; a statement, wholly borrowed from the 
 previous statement of Dr. Priestley, every argu- 
 ment being industriously repeated, and every error 
 being faithfully retained °. 
 
 Now it appears to me, unless I entirely misun- 
 derstand the purport of their language: that these 
 two writers, the Historian and the Barrister, wish 
 to set forth three several propositions, as being 
 fully and undeniably established by the passage 
 in Tertullian ; for, in good truth, unless it does 
 establish ,these three several propositions, I am 
 quite at a loss to perceive its appositeness to their 
 purpose. 
 
 1 Letters by another Barrister, p. 104, 105, 275, 276. 
 
G4. THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK It. 
 
 The first proposition is: that The majority of 
 believers, within the pale of the Catholic Church and 
 
 wn actual allowed communion with the Catholic’ 
 
 Church, were, in the days of Tertullian, zealous 
 and decided Antitrinitarians. 
 
 The second proposition is: that These over- 
 whelmingly numerous catholic Antitrinitarians vut- 
 TERLY ABHORRED THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DIVINITY, 
 contending, like the modern Antitrinitarians, for the 
 doctrine of his mere humanity. 
 
 ‘The third proposition is: that The antitrini- 
 arian system of this vast majority of believers within 
 the pale of the Catholic Church was the faith of that 
 Catholic Church from the very beginning ; for the 
 
 doctrine, advocated by Tertullian, was a mere spe- : 
 
 culative innovation, which confessedly met with small 
 acceptance among the honest and simple-minded 
 majority. 
 
 These are the three propositions, set forth in 
 the argument of Dr. Priestley and the Barrister, 
 and involved in the alleged historical fact which 
 they have undertaken to maintain. 
 
 That Every one of them, so far as the evidence of 
 Fertullian ts concerned, advances a direct falsehood : 
 it requires small exertion to demonstrate. 
 
 I. The first of the three propositions, supposed 
 to be established by the passage in Tertullian, is: 
 that Zhe majority of believers, within the pale of 
 the Catholic Church and in actual allowed com- 
 munion with the Catholic Church, were, in the days 
 
CHAP. V. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 65 
 
 of Tertullian, zealous and decided Antitrinita- 
 rians. 
 
 1. By the disciples of the modern Unipersonal 
 School, on the authority of Dr. Priestley, no 
 assertion has ever been made more repeatedly or 
 more confidently, than that which is now before 
 us. Yet,so far as the evidence of Tertullian is con- 
 cerned upon which it professes to repose, no asser- 
 tion was ever more totally devoid of truth. With 
 all the care and attention which I can command, 
 I have again and again perused the passage adduced 
 in support of the present assertion: but I can dis- 
 cover nothing like the angry confession, which has 
 been so triumphantly attributed to Tertullian. 
 
 The African Father does nor say: that The 
 majority of believers, IN HIS OWN TIME, shuddered at 
 the doctrine of the Trinity; as, by one humani- 
 tarian writer after another, from Dr. Priestley 
 down to the Barrister, he has been confidently 
 exhibited as confessing. 
 
 But he says: that The majority of believers are 
 ALWAYS ignorant and illiterate men; and_ that 
 those, who took fright at the economy, were of this 
 particular class of individuals’. 
 
 * In his own precise words, Tertullian’s statement is this. 
 Imprudentes et idiotee, quee major SEMPER credentium pars 
 est, expavescunt ad oikovopiay. 
 When thrown out of its accidental relative form, the clause 
 will, of course, run as follows. . 
 Imprudentes 
 VOL. I. EF 
 
66 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 Tertullian’s remark, so strangely distorted by 
 Dr. Priestley and his followers, merely propounds 
 one of those general truths, which are equally 
 predicable of al/ ages. In the days of Tertullian, 
 in the days before Tertullian, in the days of our 
 fathers, in our own days, in every period of eccle- 
 slastical history, ignorant and illiterate men must 
 ALWAYS of very necessity constitute an immense 
 majority of believers. The remark, or (if it please 
 
 Imprudentes et idiotee major sEMPER credentium pars est. 
 Imprudentes autem et idiotee expavescunt ad oikovopiay. 
 
 While speaking of the great majority of believers, Tertullian 
 says not a syllable respecting HIs own TIME in particular: his 
 expression, as the subject plainly required, is the generalising 
 ALWAYS. 
 
 As little does he say; that The majority of his believing 
 contemporaries shuddered at the doctrine of the Trinity. He 
 merely states; that The majority of believers 1s ALways com- 
 posed of ignorant and illiterate and rashly presumptuous men : 
 and then he adds; that Individuals of ‘this class, who are 
 obviously the most liable to be imposed upon and thence pre- 
 maturely to form a hasty judgment, through the suggestions of 
 Praxeas suddenly took fright at the economy. 
 
 From the very plain statement of Tertullian now before us, 
 Dr. Priestley has learned : that The Unitarians, who held the 
 doctrine of the divinity of Christ in abhorrence, were the greater 
 part of Christians in his tume. 
 
 Nay more: he actually declares ; that such, though with 
 much peevishness, is the positive assertion of Tertullian himself. 
 And he crowns all, by gravely assuring us: that nothing can 
 be more decisive, than the evidence of Tertullian to this pur- 
 pose ; and that the passage, which I have given above, is too 
 plain and circumstantial to be misunderstood by any person. 
 
 es 
 
 2 
 
CHAP. V. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 67 
 
 Dr. Priestley and the Barrister so to denominate 
 it) the peevish confession, is very true and very trite. 
 Tertullian is led to make it: not as conceding any 
 thing, which might seem to be extorted from him ; 
 but merely to account for the circumstance, that 
 some simple men in his time were terrified at the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, lest it should appear to 
 carry them back to gentile Polytheism. They 
 were simple men: nay more, they were imprudent 
 and unlearned, such as the majority of believers, 
 in every age and in every country, must aLways be. 
 Hence, what better informed men would not have 
 been equally liable to, they were easily terrified 
 by the abstract difficulties suggested to them in 
 regard to the doctrine of the Trinity. As to the 
 number of these terrified illiterates, Tertullian, in 
 the present passage, is wholly silent. They might 
 be few, or they might be many. All, that he here 
 intimates respecting them, is: that they were sim- 
 ple unlearned men, such as must aLways consti- 
 tute a great majority of believers; and that the 
 panic had seized some persons of this quality and 
 description among both the Greeks and the 
 Latins. 
 
 Such is the general remark of Tertullian, con- 
 veyed in terms, than which nothing can be more 
 clear and explicit. But I vainly seek for the 
 peevish confession, which modern Unipersonalists 
 have gratuitously forced into his mouth: that The 
 majority of his believing contemporaries, within the 
 
 F2 
 
68 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK I. 
 
 pale of the Catholic Church, were zealous and de- 
 cided Antitrintarians. 
 
 In truth, one might well have imagined, that 
 the very word atways, here employed by Ter- 
 tullian, would have effectually prevented the pos- 
 sibility of error. 
 
 Imprudent and unlearned men, says he, when his 
 words are thrown out of their accidentally relative 
 form: Imprudent and unlearned men are ALWAYS 
 the greater part of believers. 
 
 Thus speaks Tertullian: yet, by way of prop- 
 ping up the cause of Antitrinitarianism, a gene- 
 ral proposition is, first, transmuted into a particu- 
 lar proposition; and, next, the recently manufac- 
 tured particular proposition is metamorphosed into 
 quite another proposition of a wholly different pur- 
 port. 
 
 Through the agency of such extraordinary 
 management, Tertullian, could he look out of his 
 grave, would be sorely puzzled to recognise his 
 own literary offspring. 
 
 For, in the plastic hands of Dr. Priestley, the 
 African’s real and very simple proposition; impru- 
 DENT AND UNLEARNED MEN are, ALWAYS, the greater 
 part of believers : becomes, most unexpectedly, the 
 entirely different proposition ; IN THE TIME OF TER- 
 TULLIAN, the greater part of believers were uNITA- 
 RIANS WHO HELD THE DOCTRINE OF THE DIVINITY OF 
 CHRIST IN ABHORRENCE. 
 
 Let only Tertullian’s atways be transmuted into 
 
CHAP. V. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 69 
 
 Dr. Priestley’s IN THE TIME OF TERTULLIAN; and 
 let Tertullian’s IMPRUDENT AND UNLEARNED MEN be 
 metamorphosed into Dr. Priestley’s UNITARIANS 
 WHO HELD THE DOCTRINE OF THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST 
 IN ABHORRENCE: and the establishment of the pro- 
 position, which the English Historian maintains on 
 the authority of the African Father, will be full 
 and complete. 
 
 I have only to add, that, on the strength of the 
 identical clause now before us, Dr. Priestley, not 
 once only, but even REPEATEDLY, describes Tertul- 
 lian as confessing: that Zhe greater part of be- 
 lievers, in his time, were Unipersonalists who rejected 
 with abhorrence the doctrine of Christ's divinity '. 
 
 2. The matter, we might reasonably think, is 
 quite plain from the very language adopted by 
 Tertullian : and the only wonder is, how he could 
 ever have been so singularly misapprehended and 
 so marvellously misrepresented. But, should any 
 antitrinitarian writer be still hardy enough to ad- 
 vocate the strange gloss of the historian, let him 
 hear the learned Father unambiguously declare : 
 that, so far from the majority of his believing con- 
 temporaries symbolising with Dr. Priestley, the 
 worship of the second person of the Holy Trinity 
 
 * See Hist. of Corrupt. part. i. sect. 4. Works, vol. v. p. 41. 
 Letters to Bp. Horsley, part ii. lett. 7. Works, vol. xviii. 
 p- 191. Hist. of Early Opin. book i. chap. 4. sect. 5. Works, 
 vol. vi. p. 140. Ibid. Conclus. sect. 4. Works, vol. vii. p. 190. 
 
 t 82, 
 
70 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK I 
 
 as very God was universally prevalent in every 
 ‘country where the Gospel was planted. 
 
 If, says he, Solomon reigned, but only within the 
 limits of Palestine: in that case, the boundaries of 
 his kingdom reached no further than from Beersheba 
 to Dan. If Darius reigned over the Babylonians 
 and the Persians : still he had no power beyond them, 
 nor did he reign over all nations. The same remark 
 equally apples to Pharaoh, to Nebuchadnezzar, to 
 Alexander the Great, nay even to the Romans. But 
 the kingdom and name of Christ are every where 
 extended: every where is he believed in: BY ALL THE 
 ABOVE MENTIONED NATIONS IS HE WORSHIPPED : every 
 where he reigns : EVERY WHERE HE IS ADORED: every 
 where to all he is equally distributed. With him, a 
 king has no preéminent favour: neither does he 
 specially exult in the submission of some imperious 
 barbarian: nor yet does he pay any peculiar respect 
 to high official rank or to splendid nobility of birth. 
 To all he is equal: to all he is a king: to all he is 
 their judge: TO ALL HE IS GOD AND LorD |. 
 
 * Nam, si Salomon regnavit; sed in finibus Jude tantum: a 
 Beersabia usque Dan, termini ejus regni signantur.—Christi 
 autem regnum et nomen ubique porrigitur. Ubique creditur : 
 ab omnibus gentibus supra enumeratis colitur : ubique regnat : 
 ubique adoratur : omnibus ubique tribuitur eequaliter : non regis 
 apud illum major gratia: non barbari alicujus imperiosi letitia: 
 non dignitatum aut natalium discreta merita. Omnibus, zequa- 
 lis: omnibus, rex: omnibus, judex: omnibus, Deus et Do- 
 minus est. ertull. adv. Jud. de regn. Christ. atern. Oper. 
 pcre, ii: 
 
 For 
 
 — = 
 
CHAP. V. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 71 
 
 Few persons, I think, when they have read this 
 explicit assertion of a naked HISTORICAL FACT, 
 which, if false, would have been forthwith con- 
 tradicted, will incline to believe: that Tertullian 
 elsewhere, as Dr. Priestley assures us, posetively 
 declares, though with much peevishness, that the 
 Unitarians, who held the doctrine of the divinity of 
 Christ in abhorrence, were the GREATER PART OF 
 CHRISTIANS IN HIS TIME’. 
 
 For the distinct attestation of Tertullian; that, both in his 
 own time, and likewise from the very beginning, the doctrine 
 of the Trinity, no less than the doctrine of Christ’s godhead, 
 had been universally received as the undoubted faith of the 
 Apostles : see above, book i. chap. 6. § v. 
 
 1 Hist. of Early Opin. book iii. chap. 13. sect. 2. Works, 
 vol, vi. p. 486. 
 
 ‘Even in the very Treatise whence Dr. Priestley professes 
 to have learned this extraordinary circumstance, namely the 
 Treatise against Praxeas, Tertullian actually assures us: that 
 the great collective body of his plain fellow-believers, as the 
 sweeping word NosTroruM obviously imports, were accustomed, 
 in simplicity of interpretation, to say ; that Z’he Word was mith 
 God in the beginning. 
 
 Jam in usu est NosTRORUM, per simplicitatem interpretationis, 
 Sermonem-dicere in primordio apud Deum fuisse. Tertull. adv. 
 Prax. § 3. Oper. p. 407. 
 
 By the existence of the Word mith God in the beginning, they 
 doubtless understood, as ‘Tertullian himself understood, the eter- 
 nal existence of Christ or the dwine Word nith God the Father. 
 
 Sermo ergo et in Patre semver, sicut dixit; Ego in Patre: 
 
 -et apud Deum sEmpeEr, sicut scriptum est; Et Sermo erat apud 
 Deum. Tertull. adv. Prax. § 6. Oper. p. 409. 
 Tertullian himself, indeed, from the circumstance of the greek 
 
TZ THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 I]. The second proposition, deduced from the 
 passage now before us, is: that The overwhelming 
 majority of catholic Antitrinitarians so peevishly 
 stigmatised by the irascible Father, UTTERLY AB- 
 HORRED THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST’S DIVINITY; Ccon- 
 tending, like the modern Antitrinitarians, for the 
 doctrine of his mere humanity. 
 
 1. Whatever may be the credit which Dr. 
 Priestley has obtained among his own followers 
 as a faithful historian of the manifold Corruptions 
 of Christianity, this second proposition is not a whit 
 more true than its predecessor. 
 
 To the citer nothing is more dangerous, and to 
 the unlearned or incautious reader nothing is 
 more mischievous, than the naked quotation of a 
 
 term Acyoc denoting both Word and Reason, thinks fit to refine 
 upon the phraseology of St. John: for he argues; that, in 
 strict propriety of speech, we ought to say, that the Reason was 
 eternally with God prior to the creation of the world; and that 
 the same Reason, in the superadded character of the Word, was 
 prolatively or (as Athenagoras speaks) energetically nith God, 
 when the world was created. But, nevertheless, he distinctly 
 tells us: that our rEop4s, or the great collective body of his 
 fellow-believers, rested in that simplicity or obviousness of inter- 
 pretation, by which they understood that Christ or the divine 
 Word was with God in the beginning. 
 
 Yet, with this attestation looking him full in the face, does 
 Dr. Priestley, on the alleged authority of this identical Ter- 
 tullian speaking in this identical Tractate, assure us: that The 
 great majority or the bulk of Christians, in the time of that 
 Father, were Unitarians, who held the doctrine of the divinity of 
 Christ in abhorrence. 
 
 my 
 
  . 
 
CHAP. V. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 73 
 
 passage without attending to its general context 
 and bearing. 
 
 The anonymous Barrister, who has recently 
 taken up and in full confidence stated the antitri- 
 nitarian view of the place in Tertullian, clearly 
 and indisputably has never examined the Tractate 
 in which the place itself is contained: but, with- 
 out giving himself any further trouble, both pas- 
 sage and translation and exposition he has alike 
 implicitly borrowed from his great master Dr. 
 Priestley. 
 
 Hence it seems not once to have occurred to 
 him; that the Antitrinitarians, whom Tertullian 
 censured and whom the historian has rapidly set 
 down as an incalculable majority of believers within 
 the pale of the Catholic Church at the close of the 
 second century, might peradventure have been 
 disciples of a totally different School from that to 
 which he himself belongs: but, quite as a thing 
 of course, with all the credulity of soon satisfied 
 ignorance, he notes them in his book to be pal- 
 pably and indubitably his own. 
 
 Every word, in his whole statement of the mat- 
 ter, shews with perfect clearness: that he sup- 
 poses these ancient Antitrinitarians to be the 
 genuine doctrinal forefathers of the modern Anti- 
 trinitarians. That is to say, he supposes these 
 ancient Antitrinitarians to be men, who so main- 
 tained the exclusive divinity of the Father as to assert 
 the mere humanity of Christ. 
 
74 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 This remark, on the Barrister’s opinion im- 
 plicitly adopted from Dr. Priestley, equally applies 
 to various other recent publications of the same 
 School. Their authors, so far as I have hap- 
 pened to notice, profess themselves content to 
 symbolise in doctrine with Tertullian’s simple illi- 
 terates: and are willing to leave the mysteries of 
 Christ’s godhead and the Trinity, to that learned 
 innovator and his philosophical associates. 
 
 Into such an opinion they have doubtless been 
 universally led by their too implicit confidence in 
 the historical accuracy of Dr. Priestley. 
 
 That very unsafe guide, whom they hastily sup- 
 pose to have been careful in examining the con- 
 text of the passage, had, on the alleged authority 
 of Tertullian’s peevish confession, assured them: 
 that THE UNITARIANS, WHO HELD THE DOCTRINE OF 
 THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST IN ABHORRENCE, WERE THE 
 GREATER PART OF CHRISTIANS IN HIS TIME |. 
 
 50, im his own proper words (for, without the 
 alteration of a letter, I am careful to give the 
 diligent historian’s own proper words ), Dr. Priestley 
 had assured them: and, as they entertained no 
 doubt of his strict veracity, so, without further 
 examination, they were content to believe. 
 
 2. Yet, after all, who, in truth, were these 
 simple illiterates, thus highly extolled as the very 
 
 " Hist. of Early Opin. book iii. chap. 13. sect. 2. Works, 
 vol. vi. p. 486. 
 
CHAP. V.| OF TRINITARIANISM. 75 
 
 mirror of unbroken primitive orthodoxy, and thus 
 confidently adduced as perfectly in doctrine sym- 
 bolising with themselves, by Dr. Priestley and his 
 readily acquiescent followers ? 
 
 That the illiterates in question were seized with 
 a panic on account of the supposed consequences 
 which they had been taught to view as flowing 
 from the doctrine of the Trinity, is indeed, from 
 the passage, most abundantly evident: but, that, 
 in their zeal for the exclusive honour of the — 
 Father, they maintained the bare humanity of 
 Jesus Christ (as the Antitrinitarians of the present 
 day, on the authority of their favourite historian, 
 seem much too hastily to have taken for granted), 
 is by no means equally certain. Without its con- 
 text, the insulated passage merely states the Fact: 
 that they were Antitrinitarians’. On the precise 
 
 ‘ For this racr, the anonymous Barrister professes himself 
 much obliged to the learned Father. Lett. p. 276. 
 
 The obligation, I suspect, will turn out to be not more. over- 
 powering than the Barrister’s acquaintanee with the hebrew 
 tongue. | 
 
 I am not so unreasonable, as to assert: that a knowledge of 
 the ancient language of Israel is, in any wise, essential to the 
 supellex of an accomplished lawyer, whether his practice be in 
 the ordinary courts or in the peculiar court of Chancery. But 
 I certainly do think: that, anterior to the gratuitous enactment 
 of a hebrew critic, the hebrew tongue ttse/f ought, as a preparatory 
 step, at least to have been learned, if not profoundly studved. 
 
 I. In order to nullify the proof of Christ’s godhead, derived 
 from the circumstance of his being called in Scripture both Gop 
 
76 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK IL. 
 
 NATURE of their Antitrinitarianism, it throws no 
 light : and this unlucky circumstance, united with 
 
 and jeHovAH, the Barrister teaches us: that Nothing is more 
 common, than for mere men among the ancient Israelites to bear 
 alike each of those two appellations. 
 
 Whence he concludes: that, by establishing too much, the 
 alleged proof destroys itself. 
 
 For, if it establish the divinity of Christ : it will equally es- 
 tablish the divinity of various ancient /sraelites. 
 
 To this criticism of the anonymous Barrister, as the reply is 
 obvious, so it appears abundantly sufficient. 
 
 In Scripture, Christ is called both cop and senovan, simply 
 or uncompoundedly : whereas no ancient Israelite ever bore 
 either the name of cop or the name of sEHOVAH, save complealy 
 or compoundedly. 
 
 Thus, if a prophet bears the appellation of Elijah, the literal 
 import of which is Jah is my God: we do not appear thence 
 to have any very cogent demonstration of that prophet’s 
 divinity. 
 
 Whereas, if the same individual, simply or uncompoundedly, 
 had, like our Lord Jesus Christ, been denominated cop or 
 yEHOVAH : Isee not, how we could have avoided drawing the 
 identical inference respecting him, which, under parallel cir- 
 cumstances, we now draw respecting the Messiah. 
 
 II. Here, however, the Barrister is prepared to meet us, 
 even on our own avowed principle. 
 
 Vhe father of Elihu, one of Job’s friends, says he, was called 
 BARACHIEL: meaning THE VERY Gop. Such being the case, 
 we have a pregnant instance of a confessedly mere man, bear- 
 ing, in the strongest form possible, the absolute undisguised 
 and undissembled appellation of the alone Deity himself. 
 
 Perhaps it is scarcely worth my while to observe; that 
 Barachel, not Barachiel, was the name of the father of Elihu : 
 for, in point of import, the two names do not materially differ. 
 
CHAP. V. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 77 
 
 a servile reliance on the accuracy of Dr. Priestley, 
 has led more than one modern Antitrinitarian into 
 a very extraordinary mistake. 
 
 The simple illiterates, who according to the 
 historian of Karly Opinions, HELD THE DOCTRINE OF 
 THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST IN ABHORRENCE, were, in 
 reality, the disciples of Praxeas, against whom 
 Tertullian writes the Treatise whence the passage 
 has been extracted. | 
 
 Antitrinitarians these men undoubtedly were: 
 but then their Antitrinitarianism, instead of being 
 
 I am concerned with the much graver question of the Barrister’s 
 proposed interpretation. 
 
 BaRracHIEL Or BARACHEL, he assures us, when rendered into 
 English, denotes THE VERY GoD. 
 
 Now where did the Barrister learn the extraordinary glos- 
 sical fact: that THE VERY Gop is the import either of BARACHIEL 
 or of BARACHEL ? 
 
 For the attainment of this most unexpected information, did 
 he study Hebrew, under the auspices of a Jewish Rabbi, or 
 under the fostering care of a Gentile Preceptor ? 
 
 The father of Elihu, one of Job’s friends, was called para- 
 CHIEL: meaning THE VERY Gop! 
 
 Then, resting on the shoulders of this unparalleled criticism, 
 comes the effectual demolition of a long supposed decisive 
 proof of our Lord’s essential divinity ! 
 
 For the benefit of those good-natured individuals who deem 
 the Barrister unanswerable (and, that some such persons actu- 
 ally exist, I have been credibly informed), I think it right to 
 state, what any tyro in the Hebrew would teach him: that 
 BARACHEL denotes GOD HATH BLESSED; while BARACHIEL, if the 
 name were ever used, would signify GoD HATH BLESSED ME. See 
 Letters by another Barrist. p. 32, 132, 133, 135. 
 
78 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 built upon THE DENIAL oR (as Dr. Priestley speaks) 
 THE ABHORRENCE OF CHRIST'S DIVINITY for the pur- 
 pose of more effectually honouring the Father, 
 was, In truth, built upon its complete opposite THE 
 VEHEMENT ASSERTION OF CHRIST’S EXCLUSIVE DIVINITY 
 UNDER THE ASPECT OF HIS BEING AN INCARNATION OF 
 THE SOLE UNIPERSONAL GODHEAD. 
 
 Like their master Praxeas, who had followers, 
 it appears, both among the Greeks and among the 
 Latins, the illiterates contended: that Christ was 
 not only thesame God, but the same person also, as 
 the Father and the Holy Ghost. They maintained: 
 that, when we read of Father and Son and Spirit, 
 each plainly (as they allowed) described as very 
 God; we are thence to conclude, not that there 
 are three distinct persons in one essential Deity, 
 but that God who exists in naked and monoprosopic 
 unity is described to us under three several appella- 
 tions. ‘This one God, thus distinguished by three 
 names, and thus existing not as three persons but 
 as one person, appeared upon earth, in a human 
 form, as the Lord Jesus Christ. For the one 
 person of the one God, under his name of the 
 {oly Ghost, obumbrated the blessed Virgin: the 
 same one person of the same one God, under his 
 appellation of the Father, became incarnate from 
 the womb of Mary thus obumbrated by himself: 
 and still the same one person of the same one 
 God, under his title of the Son, being found in 
 fashion as a man, through the incarnate union of 
 
~~ 
 
 CHAP. V._| OF TRINITARIANISM. i9 
 
 the divine nature of the Father with the human 
 nature of Jesus Christ, suffered death on the 
 cross for the piacular expiation of our transgres- 
 sions in order that he might thus make satisfaction 
 to his own offended attribute of justice. 
 
 Hence Praxeas and his followers, who (accord- 
 ing to Tertullian) were mainly found among the 
 simple and the illiterate; as they contended for 
 the personal identity of the Father and the Son 
 and the Spirit, and as they held that the single 
 person of God (denominated the Father, as well as 
 the Son and the Spirit) suffered death incarnate on 
 the cross: for these reasons, Praxeas and his fol- 
 lowers were styled Patripassians or persons who 
 held the passion of the Father. 
 
 The doctrine, in short, of these ancient Antitri- 
 nitarians, to set it in full contrast with that of our 
 modern Antitrinitarians, was this. 
 
 Instead of so maintaining the exclusive deity of 
 the Father as to assert the bare humanity of Christ, 
 like Dr. Priestley and the anonymous Barrister 
 and all others of the same School: they main- 
 tained, that the one true God, existing in the unity 
 of a single person, became incarnate in the true man 
 Christ Jesus’. 
 
 ' Perhaps I may here be permitted to put a few questions, 
 both to the admirers of the late Dr. Priestley, and likewise to 
 the anonymous Barrister. 
 
 I, With the Works of Tertullian open before him, Dr. 
 
80 THE APOSTOLICITY [Book IL. 
 
 3. With such information relative to the true 
 character of the antitrinitarian illiterates censured 
 
 Priestley has made two assertions, of which I should be glad to 
 hear some further account. 
 
 1. Respecting Tertullian himself, he asserts: that He speaks 
 of the common people, as siMpLE UNITARIANS. Hist. of Early 
 Opin. book iii. chap 17. Works, vol. vii. p. 33. 
 
 By The common people, Dr. Priestley means, no doubt, not 
 A few straggling perverted individuals of that class ; but The 
 whole christian common people collectively : and, by Simple 
 Unitarians, he clearly means, not Arians or Sabellians ; but, 
 as he himself explains his own phrase, Unitarians who held the 
 doctrine of the divinity of Christ in abhorrence, or Persons who 
 so held the exclusive divinity of the Father as to deny the divinity 
 of Christ. 
 
 Now I should feel it an obligation, if any admirer of his two 
 Histories would inform me: wHERE it is, that Tertullian speaks 
 of the common people as being collectively semple Unitarians ? 
 
 2. There is another assertion, which, like his last, Dr. 
 Priestley avowedly makes on the authority of Tertullian. 
 
 This new term Economy, it appears, was not well understood 
 or easily relished by those who called themselves the advocates 
 jor THE MONARCHY OF THE FATHER: a term, much used in those 
 days, to denote the supremacy and sole divinity of the Father in 
 opposition to that of the Son. Hist. of Corrupt. part. i. sect. 4. 
 Works, vol. v. p. 41. 
 
 I shall be thankful to learn: wuerz itis, that Tertullian ever 
 introduces that alleged well known term, THE MONARCHY OF THE 
 FATHER, as the current phraseology of the Antitrinitarians 
 whom he is censuring ; under the precise asserted aspect, that, 
 in those days, the term was much used to denote THE SUPREMACY 
 AND SOLE DIVINITY OF THE FATHER IN OPPOSITION TO THAT OF 
 CHRIST ? 
 
 And 
 
CHAP. V. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 81 
 
 by Tertullian, we are abundantly furnished : both 
 by the immediate context of the passage itse/f, now 
 
 And I shall be yet additionally thankful to learn: how xco- 
 NoMy, as used in reference to the incarnate divinity of the second 
 person of the Trinity, could, in the days of Tertullian or about 
 the year 200, be a new term; when the same term, in the same 
 sense, had already been used, both by Justin and by Tenatius, 
 nearly seventy years and nearly one hundred years earlier than 
 the time of the alleged novelty-manufacturer Tertullian ? 
 Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 204, 258. Ignat. Epist. ad 
 Ephes. § xviii. 
 
 II. The anonymous Barrister, whose intimacy with the writ- 
 ings of Tertullian and Origen may rival that of Dr. Priestley 
 himself, is exactly in the same story with his master. 
 
 Origen knen full well: that, had he ventured to speak out, 
 like Tertullian, to the mixed multitude of greek Christians with 
 whom he was conversant ; he would have heard their voices raised 
 as loudly in favour of THE MONARCHY OF THE FATHER, as Ter- 
 tullian had heard the voices of the Latins. He, therefore, took 
 a more prudent course. Letters, p. 281. 
 
 1. I should be obliged to the Barrister, if he would inform 
 me: WHERE he learned the asserted historical fact; that Ter- 
 tullian heard the voices of the Latins raised loudly in favour of 
 THE MONARCHY OT THE FATHER, according to the sense, which 
 he himself, after Dr. Priestley, annexes to the phrase? 
 
 2. I should be yet further obliged to the Barrister, if he 
 would inform me: wHERE he learned, that Origen knew full 
 well the matter, which he liberally gives him the credit of 
 knowing ? 
 
 With respect to the more prudent course asserted to have 
 been taken by Origen, if, for the accurate information of 
 modern Unipersonalists, the Barrister really wishes to ascertain 
 the mode in which the learned Alexandrian Catechist spake out 
 to the mixed multitude of greek Christians with mhom he was 
 
 VOL. II. G 
 
82 THE APOSTOLICITY [Book Il. 
 
 under consideration ; by other passages, which 
 occur in the course of the same Treatise against 
 -Praxeas whence that passage has been extracted ; 
 and likewise by the express attestation of the an- 
 cient writer of the Supplement to Tertullian’s well 
 known Tractate against Heretics. 
 
 (1.) Let us first attend to the immediate con- 
 text of the passage itself now under consideration. 
 
 Variously has the devil emulated the truth. Some- 
 times, even by defending it, he has tried to shake it. 
 
 conversant, I would advise him to advert to the actual public 
 Homilies of that painful preacher. Let him take, for instance, 
 the following specimen, which I the rather select: partly, be- 
 cause it distinctly sets forth the two-fold nature of Christ, divine 
 and human; and partly because it reminds the mixed multitude 
 of greek Christians with whom Origen was conversant, that 
 such was his Hapituat mode of addressing them from the 
 pulpit. 
 
 Ovyxl 6 Cede, 6 Boro Aeyer 7d, Olpou Eyw prnp’ ANN 7) ay- 
 Oowroc.—H 6& Lux dvOowrivn fv? ova rovro Kat TerapaKrat, 
 Oude ToUTO Kal wepihuTocg Hy. “O O& Adyoc, 6 év doxn Tpdc Tov 
 Ocdv, ov rerdpakrat éketvoc, ovVK Ay NEywy TO, Oipou. Odde yap 
 6 Adyoe émdéyerar Bavarov’ dd\da TO dvOpwmVdY ~oTL TO TOvTO 
 émdegapevoy, OX TOAAAKIS TAPEXTHZAMEN. Orig. Ho- 
 mil. in Jerem. xiv. Oper. vol. i. p. 136. 
 
 The words, Alas me my mother, the Saviour speaks, not as 
 God, but as man.—His soul nas that of a man: therefore he 
 was disturbed; therefore also he was sore grieved. But the 
 Word, who was in the beginning nith God, is not disturbed : nor 
 does he use the expression, Alas! For the Word is incapable of 
 enduring death: but, AS WE HAVE OFTENTIMES PROPOUNDED 
 To you, 7é was the human soul which endured it. 
 
CHAP. V. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 83 
 
 Thus, to the one Omnipotent Lord, he assigns indeed 
 the attribute of Creator : but yet he so assigns it, that 
 Jrom the very unity of God he may elicit heresy. 
 For he says : that the Father wiser descended into 
 the Virgin, was uimse.r born from her, did HIMSELF 
 suffer ; in fine, was uimsELE Jesus Christ.— 
 
 Lhis strange modification of perverseness was first, 
 by Praxeas, transplanted out of Asia into Roman 
 ground.—He banished the Paraclete, and crucified 
 the Father. 
 
 Moreover, the tares of Praxeas, here also dissemi- 
 nated, had not failed to produce fruit, while many 
 were sleeping in simplicity of doctrine: yet, being 
 removed hence by the agency of him whom God willed, 
 they seemed to be even eradicated.—But those tares 
 had then every where shaken out their seed. Hence, 
 through hypocrisy, it lay hid for a time in crafty 
 vivaciousness: and now, at length, it has once more 
 broken out.— 
 
 Lhe Father then, forsooth, was born after time! 
 The kather suffered! The Lord God Omnipotent 
 himself is preached as Jesus Christ !— 
 
 Yet, in the case of those who have been thus per- 
 verted, we ought also to give room for retractations : 
 for let not any perverseness seem to be condemned 
 without examination ; least of all, this, which claims 
 to possess unmixed truth, while it thinks, that The one 
 God is no otherwise to be believed, than of it should 
 pronounce the Father and the Son and the Holy 
 Spirit to be one and the same person.— 
 
 G2 
 
84 THE APOSTOLICITY [ BOOK II. 
 
 For the simple indeed, not to say the imprudent 
 and the unlearned (who always constitute the greater 
 part of believers) ; since also the very rule of faith 
 leads us away from the numerous gods of the age to 
 the one true God, not understanding, that he is to be 
 believed indeed as one God, but still with his own 
 proper economy ; are alarmed at this economy. The 
 number and disposition of the Trinity, they presume 
 io be a division of the Unity: though the Unity, de- 
 riving from itself the Trinity, ts, by it, not destroyed, 
 but administered. Therefore they are now boasting, 
 that two Gods and three Gods are preached by us ; 
 while they assume, that they themselves are the wor- 
 shippers of only one God: just as of the Unity, when 
 uneconomically collected did not produce heresy ; 
 and as if the Trinity, when economically weighed, 
 did not constitute the truth. Wer, say they, HOLD 
 THE MONARCHY. And so vocally do even the Latins, 
 even the illiterate, express the sound of this Greek 
 word, that you might imagine them to understand the 
 word MONARCHY, as well as to pronounce it. But 
 the Latins study to give the sound of the Greek 
 word MONARCHY : and the Greeks are determined not 
 io understand the economy’. 
 
 , Varie diabolus zmulatus est veritatem. Adfectavit illam, 
 aliquando defendendo, concutere. Unicum Dominum vindicat 
 omnipotentem mundi creatorem, ut et de unico heresim faciat. 
 Ipsum dicit Patrem descendisse in virginem ; ipsum ex ea 
 
 natum ; ipsum passum; denique ipsum esse Jesum Christum. 
 
 Ne 
 
CHAP. V. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 85 
 
 (2.) Let us next attend to certain other pas- 
 sages, which occur in the course of the same 
 Treatise against Praxeas, whence Dr. Priestley 
 and the Barrister have learned : that, in the time 
 of Tertullian, an immense majority of catholic be- 
 lievers symbolised in doctrine with our modern 
 Antitrinitarians. 
 
 Behold, I assert : that THe FATHER IS ONE PERSON ; 
 ‘ AND THE SON, ANOTHER PERSON; AND THE SPIRIT, 
 ANOTHER PERSON. orthwith, each illiterate or per- 
 verted individual takes this language in bad part : 
 as if wt expressed diversity, and as if from diversity it 
 protended the separation of the Father and the Son 
 and the Spirit. But I say this through necessity : 
 since they, adulating the Monarchy in opposition to 
 
 Nez iste primus ex Asia hoc genus perversitatis intulit 
 Romane humo,—Paracletum fugavit : et Patrem crucifixit.— 
 
 Fructicaverant avene Praxiane, hic quoque superseminate, 
 dormientibus multis in simplicitate doctrine : traductee dehinc 
 per quem Deus voluit, etiam evulse videbantur.—Avenz 
 vero illze ubique tunc semen excusserant. Ita aliquamdiu 
 per hypocrisin, subdola vivacitate, latitavit: et nune denuo 
 erupit.— 
 
 Itaque post tempus Pater natus, et Pater passus! Ipse Deus 
 Dominus omnipotens Jesus Christus praedicatur !— 
 
 Ubique tamen, propter instructionem et munitionem quorun- 
 dam, dandus est etiam retractantibus locus: vel ne videatur 
 unaqueeque perversitas, non examinata, sed preejudicata, dam- 
 nari; maximé heec, que se existimat meram veritatem possidere, 
 dum unicum Deum non alias putat credendum, quam si ipsum 
 eundemque et Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum dicat. 
 Tertull. adv. Prax. Oper. p. 404—406. 
 
86 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK Il. 
 
 the Economy, contend; that THE FATHER AND THE 
 SON AND THE SPIRIT ARE PERSONALLY IDENTICAL. J 
 mean, however, only: that, BY DISTRIBUTION, NOT BY 
 DIVERSITY, THE SON IS ANOTHER FROM THE FATHER’. 
 
 Christ cannot but be, ertHER the Father, or the 
 Son: for the one or the other of these two persons 
 he must be. And neither are the day and the night 
 the same: neither are the Father and the Son the 
 same, so that they Botu should be ONE PERSON, and 
 that EITHER should be-sotu, as these vain Monarch- 
 wsts contend. We HIMSELF MADE HIMSELF A SON TO 
 HIMSELF, say they. Nevertheless, by the very ne- 
 cessity of language, FATHER implies SoN: and Son 
 implies FATHER. And they, who partake of either 
 relation, can in no wise be so constituted to them- 
 selves BY themselves: so that the Father should make 
 himself a Son to himself, and that the Son should 
 make himself a Father to himself?. 
 
 ' Ecce enim dico: alium esse Patrem; et, alium, Filium; 
 et, alium, Spiritum. Malé accepit idiotes quisque, aut per- 
 versus, hoc dictum : quasi diversitatem sonet ; et, ex diversitate, 
 separationem protendat Patris et Filii et Spiritis. Necessitate, 
 autem, hoc dico; cum eundem Patrem et Filium et Spiritum 
 contendunt, adversus oixovouéay monarchiz adulantes : non 
 tamen, diversitate, alium Filium a Patre; sed distributione. 
 Tertull. adv, Prax. Oper. p. 410. | 
 
 * Ita aut Pater aut Filius est: et neque dies eadem et nox, 
 neque Pater idem et Filius, ut sint ambo unus et utrumque 
 alter; quod vanissimi isti monarchianz volunt. Jpse se, in- 
 quiunt, Lilium sibi fecit. At quin pater filium facit : et patrem, 
 
 fillus. Et qui, ex alterutro fiunt, a semetipsis sibi fieri nullo 
 
CHAP. V. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 87 
 
 (3.) Lastly, in full establishment of the real 
 sentiments of those ancient Antitrinitarians, who, 
 by a professed historian, are declared to have held 
 the doctrine of the divinity of Christ in abhorrence, 
 let us hear the attestation of the old supplementer 
 to Tertullian’s Tractate against Heretics. 
 
 After all these, a certain Praxeas also introduced 
 a heresy, which Victorinus laboured to corroborate. 
 He asserted: that sgsUs CHRIST IS GOD THE FATHER 
 ALMIGHTY. fe contended: that THIS PERSON SUF- 
 FERED AND WAS CRUCIFIED. He propounded, more- 
 over, with profane and sacrilegious temerity: that, 
 HAVING DIED, HE HIMSELF SAT DOWN AT HIS OWN 
 3IGHT HAND '. 
 
 4. Thus, if I mistake not, we have evidence the 
 most explicit and direct: that the Antitrinitarians, 
 censured by Tertullian, so far from holding in ab- 
 horrence the doctrine of Christs divinity, actually 
 maintained the precisely opposite tenet, that Christ 
 exclusively was the sole unipersonal God incarnate. 
 
 This singular speculation produced of course 
 the following doctrinal difference between the an- 
 
 modo possunt, ut Pater se sibi Filium faciat, et Filius se sibi 
 Patrem prestet. Tertull. adv. Prax. Oper. p. 410. 
 
 ' Post hos omnes Praxeas quidam heeresim introduxit, quam 
 Victorinus corroborare curavit. Hic Deum Patrem omnipo- 
 tentem Jesum Christum esse dicit: hune crucifixum passumque 
 contendit : mortuum preterea seipsum sibi sedere ad dexteram 
 suam, cum profana et sacrilega temeritate, proponit. Suppl. 
 in Tertull. de preescript. adv. her. § 22. Oper. p. 117. 
 
88 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK Il. 
 
 cient Catholics and the censured patripassian An- 
 titrinitarians. 
 
 The Catholics held: that the one Deity exists 
 in three persons; the second of which three per- 
 sons became incarnate in Christ. 
 
 The Patripassians held: that the one Deity ex- 
 ists only in one person, variously denominated the 
 Father and the Son and the Spirit; which one 
 person similarly became incarnate in Christ. 
 
 Hence the Catholics held: that Christ, though 
 truly man according to one of his two natures, 
 is, according to the other of his two natures, 
 truly, yet not exclusively, God. 
 
 While the Patripassians held: that Christ, though 
 truly man according to one of his two natures, is, 
 according to the other of his two natures, God, 
 not only truly, but exclusively likewise ’. 
 
 " The precise doctrine, taught by Praxeas in the second 
 century, was maintained by Noéetus in the third century. Hip- 
 polytus, who wrote against this latter heresiarch and his fol- 
 lowers, briefly propounds their system in manner following. 
 
 ‘Opare, adeddol, THe TpoTeTEs Kal roApNpoY Odypa TapELohvey- 
 Kav, dvawxvyrwc éyovrec’ Adréc éort Xproroc 6 Ilarno, abv- 
 roc Yioc, abrocg éyevvhOn, abrog eraber, abroc Eauroy iHyewper. 
 Hippol. cont. Noet. § iii. Oper. vol. ii. p. 7. Hamburg. 1716. 
 
 The same doctrine was also taught by Sabellius. With refer- 
 ence to this last heresiarch, Augustine has given so valuable a 
 comment on John x. 30, that I cannot refrain from subjoin- 
 ing it. 
 
 Audi, quomodo credas Patrem et Filium. Audi ipsum 
 Filum: Ego et Pater unum sumus. Non dixit: Pater ego 
 
CHAP. V. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 89 
 
 III. The third proposition, supposed to be es- 
 tablished by the passage in Tertullian, is: that 
 the Antitrinitarian system of the illiterates, so in- 
 dignantly censured by the African Father, was in 
 truth the faith of the Catholic Church from the very 
 beginning ; while the doctrine of Tertullian himself 
 was a mere speculative innovation, which confessedly 
 met with small acceptance among the honest and 
 simple-minded majority. 
 
 1. It is probable, that, by this time, the modern 
 Antitrinitarian will entertain no great zeal for the 
 establishment of the present proposition. 
 
 The reason is obvious. If the Antitrinitarian 
 system of Tertullian’s illiterates could be shewn to 
 have been the faith of the Catholic Church from 
 
 sum: aut Ego et Pater unum est. Sed, cum dicit; Ego et 
 Pater unum sumus : utrumque audi, et uNuM et sumuUS; eta 
 Charybdi et a Scylla liberaberis. In duobus istis verbis, quod 
 dixit unum, liberat te ab Ario: quod dixit sumus, liberat te a 
 Sabellio. Si unum; non, ergo, diversum: si suMUS; ergo, et 
 Pater et Filius. Sumus, enim, non diceret de wno: sed et 
 uNuM non diceret de diversis. August. in Johan. Tract. xxxvi. 
 Oper. vol. ix. p. 99. 
 
 We, said our Lord, namely I and the Father, are onr. “Eyo 
 kal 6 mary0 EN EXMEN. 
 
 Since he singularly said one: the doctrine of Arius must be 
 false; because that doctrine would make the substance of the 
 Son to be different from the substance of the Father. 
 
 Since he plurally said we: the doctrine of Sabellius must be 
 false; because that doctrine would make the Father and the 
 Son and the Spirit to be nothing more than three variously 
 descriptive titles of one single person. 
 
 rs 
 
90 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK Il. 
 
 the very beginning : it would be quite clear, that 
 modern Antitrinitarianism was Not the primitive 
 faith of the Christian Church. For the illiterates 
 vehemently contended for the exclusive divinity of 
 Christ: whereas modern Antitrinitarians no less 
 vehemently contend for his mere humanity. Hence, 
 even if, from the present passage in Tertullian, 
 Dr. Priestley could have established; that the 
 faith of the censured illiterates was the faith of 
 the Catholic Church from the very beginning : he 
 would only, by such an operation, so far as he him- 
 self was concerned, have given a most effectual 
 death-blow to hes own system. 
 
 Happily, however, the testimony of the learned 
 African needs not to give our modern Antitrini- 
 tarians the slightest alarm : for, whatever might be 
 the faith of the earliest Church, it certainly was 
 not that of the Patripassians. 
 
 That these unlettered objectors to the Economy 
 were, so far as the apostolic age is concerned, mere 
 novel upstarts: is quite clear from the whole ac- 
 count of the matter, as given by Tertullian. 
 
 Their panic in regard to the Trinity, which has 
 been strangely converted into an argument to 
 prove the apostolic origination of modern Antitrini- 
 tarianism, was, for the most part, unfelt and un- 
 heard of in the West, until Praxeas travelled 
 thither out of Asia’. The signal of its com- 
 
 * Tsay, For the most part: because Theodotus, the byzan- 
 
CHAP. V. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 91 
 
 mencement was his arrival among the Latins: as 
 his previous labours in the East had excited a 
 similar panic among the Greeks. His jirst crop 
 of occidental tares, however, speedily, according 
 to Tertullian, disappeared: and, though a second 
 had recently sprung up, the good Father hoped 
 and anticipated, that it would soon experience a 
 similar catastrophe. 
 
 Now could these doctrines, thus described by a 
 contemporary writer, have flourished, within the 
 pale of the Catholic Church, from the very be- 
 ginning ? 
 
 Could Tertullian have used such language, if 
 every body knew: that, in truth, the simple men 
 were the old primitive believers ; and that he and 
 his friends were notoriously the innovators ? 
 
 Could he have represented Praxeas, as zntroduc- 
 ing the doctrines from Asia into the West: if, all 
 the while, they had been zmmemorially flourishing 
 in the West long before the migration of Praxeas 
 himself; and if Praxeas, instead of entroducing, had 
 really found them there ? 
 
 tine tanner, had attempted, much about the same time, to 
 excite an alarm at Rome, though upon totally different prin- 
 ciples. 
 
 Praxeas taught, that Christ exclusively is the unipersonal 
 God: Theodotus taught, that Christ was a mere man. 
 
 To cause a panic in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, 
 each laboured in his vocation: for each was, doubtless, an 
 Antitrinitarian. But they severally went to work in two 
 directly opposite ways. 
 
92 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK I. 
 
 How, on the theory of Dr. Priestley, comes Ter- 
 tulian to say: They are now boasting, that we 
 preach two or three gods’ ? 
 
 The expression, now, clearly implies : that such 
 boasting was of recent origin. At one period, 
 while sleeping in the simplicity of that doctrine 
 which they held BErore the arrival of Praxeas, the 
 illiterates never thought of such a thing. But 
 Praxeas, coming out of Asia where he had already 
 been labouring diligently in his vocation, put it 
 into their imprudent heads where it had never 
 lodged previously: and THEN commenced the boast- 
 ing of superior light and knowledge. 
 
 Even this, however, is not the whole that may 
 be remarked on the present most marvellously 
 perverted subject. 
 
 As the peculiar Antitrinitarianism of the Patri- 
 passians was introduced into the Church, not found 
 a the Church, by the branded innovator Praxeas : 
 so Praxeas himself enjoyed not the sorry dignity 
 of being, with reference to the age of Tertullian, 
 an ancient heretic. He was the first, who intro- 
 duced his palpably new speculation into the West: 
 and, compared with other perverters of the primi- 
 tive faith, he is stigmatised by Tertullian as being 
 an upstart but of yesterday *. 
 
 ' Itaque duos et tres sam jactitant a nobis preedicari. Ter- 
 tull. adv. Prax. Oper. p. 406. 
 * Nam iste primus ex Asia hoc genus perversitatis intulit 
 
 Wie om tne 0 
 
CHAP. V. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 93 
 
 2. So much for Dr. Priestley’s Direct evidence, 
 in favour of the early Christians having been gene- 
 
 Romanz humo, et alias inquietus. Tertull. adv. Prax. Oper. 
 p. 405. 
 
 Hanc regulam ab initio Evangelii decucurrisse, etiam ante 
 priores quosque hereticos, nedum ante Praxean hesternum, 
 probabit tam ipsa posteritas omnium hereticorum, quam ipsa 
 novellitas Praxee hestern. Tertull. adv. Prax. p. 405. ‘ 
 
 Sed, post hos omnes, etiam Praxeas quidam heresim intro- 
 duxit. Supplem. in Tertull. de preescript. adv. her. § 22. 
 Oper. p. 117. 
 
 Dr. Priestley, as we have seen, tells us: that, Jn the teme of 
 Tertullian, the greater part of believers were, as they always 
 had been, Unitarians who held the doctrine of the divinity of 
 Christ in abhorrence. 
 
 Yn another place, he again speaks of an argument, for the 
 novelty of the doctrine of the Trinity, which may be justly 
 framed from the offence that was given by it in the days of that 
 Father: when, so far as he can find, the common people first 
 heard of it. Append. numb. ix. Works, vol. xviii. p. 538. 
 
 And, in yet another place, he teaches us: that /¢t was mith 
 great difficulty that the generality of Christians were reconciled, 
 to the doctrine of the deity of Christ, and to that of the Trinity ; 
 and that We may, therefore, take it for granted, that it had not 
 been much heard of among the common people at least, and, of 
 so, that it had never been taught by the Apostles. Hist. of Karly 
 Opin. book iii. chap. 14. Works, vol. vi. p. 492. See also Ibid. 
 p. 499. 
 
 I. To believe, that Dr. Priestley can have read, with even a 
 moderate degree of attention, Tertullian’s Tractate against 
 Praxeas: is really a matter of no small difficulty. 
 
 So far as the historian can find, the common people First 
 heard of the doctrine of the Trinity in the time of Tertullian ! 
 
 It was with great difficulty, that the generality of Christians 
 
94 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK I. 
 
 rally Unitarians who held the doctrine of the divinity 
 of Christ in abhorrence: evidence, the historian re- 
 
 were reconciled, to the doctrine of the deity of Christ, and to that 
 of the Trinity ! 
 
 We may take it for granted, that it had not been much heard 
 of among the common people at least ! | 
 
 1. Why, the whole Tractate of Tertullian, from beginning to 
 end, is one continued censure of the noventies of Praxeas: 
 who, after all, stead of teaching his disciples to deny the deity 
 of Christ, actually identified him with the Father, and main- 
 tained his exclusive unipersonal deity. 
 
 2. Accordingly, by starting plausible difficulties against the 
 confessedly ancient doctrine of A Triad of three consubstantial 
 Persons in the Unity of the true Godhead, Praxeas is described, 
 as having perverted many of the unlearned and imprudently 
 precipitate, both among the Greeks and among the Latins, 
 from that faith in the Trinity, which the Apostles had handed 
 down to them, and which they had hitherto un1vERSALLY re- 
 ceived. 
 
 8. The very basis of Tertullian’s argument is: The acknow- 
 ledged and notorious priority of the Trinitarian System, which 
 the common people had always held, until some illiterates among 
 them were recently perplexed by the subtleties of the upstart 
 Praxeas ; and the glaring Novetty of the singular Antitrini- 
 tarian System, the System, to nit, of Patripassianism, which 
 that man of yesterday, on the score of his own mere dogmaticaé 
 prwate interpretation, was endeavouring to substitute in its 
 place. 
 
 II. In short, even to say nothing of the mass of primitive 
 testimony which I have already produced, Tertullian himself, 
 as if in anticipatory mockery of the historian, attests, under the 
 aspect of a mere naked mMarrer oF Fact: both that The common 
 people had always, from the very beginning, held the doctrine of 
 the Trinity; and that The doctrine of the Trinity had been 
 
 vee” os 
 
 ee 
 
CHAP. V. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 95 
 
 marks, as express as can be desired in the case. But 
 we have not yet done with the testimony furnished 
 by the passage now under consideration. 
 
 (1.) The simple men, though, in consequence of 
 the suggestions of Praxeas, they took alarm at the 
 doctrine of the Trinity: yet held, not THE BARE 
 HUMANITY OF CHRIST like the Antitrinitarians of the 
 present day, but H1s SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE DIVINITY. 
 
 Now, that their newly adopted doctrine was 
 erroneous, both Trinitarian and Antitrinitarian of 
 modern times will fully agree. 
 
 But still the question will obtrude itself: How 
 came they to adopt such a doctrine ? 
 
 Of primitive truth it was, no doubt, a corruption. 
 On this point, happily, there can be no dispute. 
 
 What, then, was the primitive truth, of which it 
 was a corruption? What was the germ, from which 
 apparently it originated ? 
 
 The modern Trinitarian contends: that his 
 creed was certainly the creed of the primitive 
 apostolic Church. And the modern Antitrinita- 
 
 handed down to them, from the very commencement of the Gospel 
 itself. 
 
 Hanc regulam AB INITIO EVANGELII decucurrisse. 
 
 III. Such is the mode, in which Dr. Priestley writes ecclesi- 
 astical history. And, be it never forgotten, the question before 
 us is, not a question of opinion, but a question of FacT. 
 
 It isin regard to a Fact, we see, that Dr. Priestley and Ter- 
 tullian differ toto ceelo. Yet, incredible as it might well seern 
 to a person unacquainted with Dr. Priestley’s writings, the 
 modern historian, on, this identical point, actually appeals to the 
 
 testimony of the ancient Father. 
 
96 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK Il. 
 
 rian equally contends: that that honour clearly 
 belongs to /zs creed. 
 
 Such being the case, if the modern Antitrinita- 
 rian be right in his opinion : then the Patripassian- 
 ism of the simple men was a corruption of that 
 original faith, which taught; that Zhe Father 
 EXCLUSIVELY 2s God, that God never became incar- 
 nate, and that Christ was a mere man. 
 
 But, on the contrary, if the modern Trinitarian 
 be right in his opinion: then the Patripassianism 
 of the simple men was a corruption of that faith, 
 which from the very beginning taught; that God 
 as one in essence, that He exists nevertheless in three 
 persons, and that The second of these three persons 
 became incarnate in the true man Jesus Christ. 
 
 On which side, then, lies the ground of abstract- 
 edly probable origination ? 
 
 Many perhaps will incline to think, that the 
 Patripassian System of The exclusive worship of 
 Christ as the sole unipersonal Deity incarnate, asso- 
 ciated with the notion that raTHER and son and 
 SPIRIT are simply different names of one divine person, 
 bids fairer : to be the corruption of a System which 
 teaches, that Zhe second of the three divine persons 
 became incarnate in the man Jesus ; than of a Sys- 
 tem which teaches, that Christ was a mere man, 
 that The Holy Ghost is but a quality, and that 
 God under no aspect ever became incarnate. 
 
 (2.) They, who thus incline to think, will not 
 be displeased to see the somewhat similar reason- 
 ing of Novatian. 
 
 ee ae 
 
CHAP. V. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 97 
 
 In this place, says he, I may be allowed to frame 
 an argument from the part which is played by other 
 heretics. That is a firm sort of proof, which is 
 taken even from an adversary: so that, from the 
 very enemies of the truth, the truth may be esta- 
 blished. or so far as this it is manifest, that Christ 
 ts declared in Scripture to be God: inasmuch as 
 most heretics, struck with the magnitude and truth of 
 his divinity, and thence beyond all bounds extending 
 his honours, have dared to broach or to believe ; that 
 he is not distinctively the Son, but that he is even 
 God the Father himself. Which notion, however 
 contrary it may be to scriptural verity, is yet a 
 mighty and powerful argument for the divinity of 
 Christ : since he is so evidently and decidedly God, 
 though, in so far forth as he is the Son of God, born 
 from God ; that most heretics receive him as God in 
 such a manner, as to pronounce him not distinctively 
 the Son but especially the Father. Let persons, 
 then, well consider, whether he must not needs be 
 God, whose authority has so greatly moved some, 
 that they deem him even God the Father himself : 
 the manifest divinity of Christ compelling them to 
 confess divinity in Christ too unrestrainedly and 
 effusely ; so that, whom they read to be the Son, 
 they forthwith, because they perceive him to be God, 
 pronounce him to be the Father’. 
 
 * Novat. de Trin. in Oper. Tertull. p. 614. This statement 
 of Novatian is one of the many passages, from the ancient 
 
 VOL. II. H 
 
98 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 Fathers; which, to serve his own purposes, Dr. Priestley has 
 thought fit completely to pervert and to misrepresent. 
 
 I. From the conduct of the patripassian heretics, who were 
 successively the disciples of Praxeas and of Noétus and of 
 Sabellius, Novatian draws a strong argument for the catholic 
 doctrine of the proper and essential divinity of Christ. But, 
 while he does this, he, at the same time, justly censures them: 
 because, by deeming Christ personally identical with even God 
 the Father himself, they confessed his godhead T00 UNRESTRAIN~ 
 EDLY AND EFFUSELY. | 
 
 ZEstiment, an hic sit Deus, cujus auctoritas tantum movit 
 quosdam, ut putarent illum (ut diximus superius) jam ipsum 
 Patrem Deum: EFFRENATIUS ET EFFUSIUS in Christo divinitatem 
 confiteri ad hoc illos manifesta Christi divinitate cogente, ut, 
 quem Filium legerent, quia Deum animadverterent, Patrem 
 putarent. 
 
 II. The meaning of the passage is so plain, that even a child 
 could not mistake it. Yet, for the avowed purpose of shewing, 
 that The early etclesiastical writers were wont systematically to 
 derogate from the proper and essential godhead of the Son, and 
 that Such language was constantly held until the time of the 
 first Nicene Council: this very passage is, by Dr. Priestley, 
 actually referred to in evidence ! 
 
 1. It will naturally be asked: how such a passage could ever 
 have been made to advocate the cause of modern Antitrini- 
 tarianism ? 
 
 Truly, in the hands of a garbling historian, nothing is more 
 easy. 
 
 By Dr. Priestley, THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT OF NOVATIAN Is 
 CAREFULLY SUPPRESSED: and thus the passage itself is, only 
 PARTIALLY, adduced. Hist. of Corrupt. part. i. sect. 3. Works, 
 vol. v. p. 38. 
 
 2. Novatian, we see, blames the Patripassians: because they 
 personally identified the Father and the Son. But, at the same 
 time, he alleges their very heresy, as affording a remarkable 
 
CHAP. V. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 99 
 
 proof: both how strongly the proper divinity of Christ shines out 
 Srom Holy Scripture ; and how indelibly, from the very beginning, 
 it had been impressed upon the minds of the faithful. 
 
 Thus states, and thus argues, Novatian. And, forthwith, 
 because he rightly censures the patripassian Antitrinitarians 
 for confessing divinity in Christ too UNRESTRAINEDLY AND 
 EFFUSELY; that is to say, because he censures these heretics 
 for so confessing divinity in Christ, as to identify him personally 
 with the Father: Dr. Priestley, quirE suUPPRESSING HIS ARGU- 
 MENT, gravely cites him as an early theologian, who systemati- 
 cally derogated from the Son's essential godhead ! 
 
 Tr. 2 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 RESPECTING THE ALLEGED INTRODUCTION OF THE 
 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY BY JUSTIN MARTYR, 
 AND HIS CONSEQUENT SUPPOSED TIMID COURTESY 
 TO THE PRIMITIVE ANTITRINITARIANS. 
 
 We have now, though with small emolument, 
 travelled through Dr. Priestley’s direct evidence in 
 favour of the early Christians having been generally 
 Unitarians who held the doctrine of Christ’s divinity 
 in abhorrence. He thinks, however, that the same 
 important fact may be gathered, clearly though 
 indirectly, from the timid courtesy of Justin Martyr, 
 who flourished at a yet earlier period than Ter- 
 tullian. It may be useful, therefore, to attend 
 upon him, while stating his theory in regard to 
 the alleged malpractices of this very ancient 
 theologian. 
 
 That the doctrine of Christ’s divinity 1s now 
 held, and that during the lapse of many ages it has 
 been held, by the entire Catholic Church, is a Fact 
 too notorious to be denied. 
 
 Now, by the Antitrinitarians, this doctrine is 
 
THE APOSTOLICITY OF TRINITARIANISM. 101 
 
 supposed to be a gross corruption of primitive 
 truth, utterly unknown to the sincere believers of 
 the apostolic age, and forming no part of the theo- 
 logical system which was taught either by Christ 
 himself or by his immediate disciples. 
 
 Such being the case, the doctrine must have had 
 a commencement at some indefinite time subse- 
 quent to the apostolic age. 
 
 Hence, on their own principles, the members of 
 the Antitrinitarian School stand pledged to define 
 and to specify the time of its commencement: and 
 hence, unless this necessary task can be performed 
 to the satisfaction of the conscientious inquirer, 
 the whole fabric of Antitrinitarianism, so far as 
 respects the point of apostolical sanction and abo- 
 riginal antiquity, must inevitably sink to the 
 ground, a disjointed mass of unseemly ruins. 
 
 The force of the present statement seems to have 
 been tacitly felt and acknowledged : and, as it has 
 produced more than one attempt to solve a diffi- 
 culty of no ordinary magnitude; so it has led to 
 an exhibition of historical inconsistency, which 
 anteriorly might have been justly deemed well 
 nigh incredible. 
 
 _ Mr. Lindsey, unless I wholly misapprehend him, 
 ascribes the invention of the doctrine to the Coun- 
 cil of Nice which sat in the year 325. 
 
 If, says he, the matter is to be put to the vote as 
 it were, it s absolutely necessary, that the less learned 
 should be told, WHAT UPON INQUIRY WILL BE FOUND 
 
102 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 aod 
 
 UNDENIABLY TRUE: that The Fathers of the three 
 first centuries, and consequently all Christian People 
 for upward of three hundred years after Christ tell 
 the Council of Nice, were generally Unitarians'. 
 
 | Lindsey’s Apol. p. 23, 24. I have said: that Mr. Lindsey, 
 unless I wholly misapprehend him, ascribes the invention of the 
 doctrine of the Trinity to the Council of Nice. This saving 
 clause I have thought it necessary to introduce: because, in 
 truth, Mr. Lindsey’s phraseology is not a little uncommon. 
 
 He tells us: that aru Antenicene Christians were GENERALLY 
 Onitarians. 
 
 Now, though the word GENERALLY imports only a high 
 degree of particularity, yet since the word ax decidedly sets 
 forth universality, Mr. Lindsey, I suppose, must mean to assert 
 the unriversAL prevalence of Unitarianism anterior to the 
 Council of Nice; ascribing to that celebrated Assembly the 
 first invention of a hitherto entirely unknown doctrine, the 
 doctrine, namely, of the ‘Trinity. 
 
 These early Unitarians, who comprehended art Christian 
 People for upward of three hundred years after Christ till the 
 Council of Nice, are defined by Mr. Lindsey to have been, 
 what are now called either Arians or Socinians: that is, such 
 as held our Saviour Christ to derive life and being and all his 
 powers from God, though nith different sentiments concerning 
 the date of his original dignity and nature. Ibid. p. 24. 
 
 I. That Mr. Lindsey had himself ever perused the Ante- 
 nicene Fathers, I am unwilling, for the sake of his own credit, 
 to believe. He rather seems, at second hand, to have hastily 
 caught up his opinion from the loose and ambiguously deceptive 
 statement of Faustus Socinus: a statement, however, which 
 that writer found it necessary afterward, in its antitrinitarian 
 sense, to retract. 
 
 — Cognitio asta, says he, sine ulla controversia, usque ad tempora 
 Concilez Niceni, et aliquanto post, inter eos qui Christum profi- 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 103 
 
 This theory of Mr. Lindsey is, with good reason, 
 by no means satisfactory to the anonymous Bar- 
 rister. 
 
 tebantur, esse non desiit. Per totum enim illud tempus, ut ex 
 omnium, qui tune extiterunt, scriptis liquet, ille unus verus Deus, 
 quem passim sacra testimonia predicant, solus Pater Jesu Christi 
 est creditus. Faust. Socin. Epist. ad Radec. ii. Oper. vol. 1. 
 p- 379. 
 
 1. Now, if, in this passage, Socinus meant only to say; that, 
 According to the Antenicene Doctors, the father alone possesses 
 the prerogative of being Abrodeoc or God of himself, while the Son, 
 though consubstantial with the Father and therefore physically 
 and eternally very God, is still derivatively O&d¢ Ex Ocov God 
 from God: he certainly spoke the truth. But, in that case, as 
 his statement will be wholly useless to the cause of modern 
 Antitrinitarianism, so it will exhibit the Antenicene Doctors as 
 saying only what the Catholic Church has imvariably said in 
 ALL ages. 
 
 2. On the other hand, if Socinus meant to intimate ; that, By 
 the Antenicene Doctors, the Father was always accounted God 
 alone ExcLUSIVELY of the Son who himself was deemed by them 
 a mere creature, the matter so boldly asserted by Mr. Lindsey 
 to be undeniably true: he assuredly, in that case, propounded 
 a gross and direct falsehood ; as any person may satisfy himself, 
 by the very simple operation of perusing those same Antenicene 
 Doctors, or (if that be thought too great a labour for modern 
 theological industry) by the easier task of merely reading Dr, 
 Burton’s Testimonies of the Antenicene Fathers to the divinity of 
 Christ, in which most useful Work he will find the precise 
 original words of those early writers. faithfully given in the 
 margin. 
 
 8. Accordingly, as Mr. Lindsey (who professes to teach the 
 less learned) ought to have known and remarked, Socinus 
 
 afterward confessed: that, From about the very conumencement 
 
104 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 Hence, instead of ascribmg the invention of the 
 doctrine to the Council of Nice, instead of pro- 
 
 of the Church of Christ down to his own times, an innumerable 
 host of pious and learned men, some of whom had sealed their 
 faith with their blood, uniformly maintained (what Socinus him- 
 self is pleased to call a most grievous error), that Christ is that 
 one God who created all things, or at least that Christ was be- 
 gotten from the proper substance of the Deity. 
 
 Ab ipso ferme nascentis Ecclesie Christi initio usque ad nos- 
 tra tempora, tot viros non minus pietate quam doctrina clarissi- 
 mos, tot ipsius Christi sanctissimos martyres, adeo ut nullus sit 
 numerus, eum alioqur gravissimum errorem secutos fuisse ; quod 
 Christus sit unus ille Deus qui omnia creavit, aut certe ex illius 
 propria substantia genitus. Faust. Socin. Epist. ad Radec. iii. 
 Oper. vol. i. p. 391. Vide Bull. Defens. Fid. Nic. Procem, § 4. 
 
 II. For his undeniable truth, it is not impossible, that Mr. 
 Lindsey may also have been indebted to Dionysius Petavius 
 and Cardinal Perron: who, as I have already observed, have 
 thought fit, for certain very intelligible reasons of their own, to 
 start the present paradox; though Petavius subsequently re- 
 tracted. See above, book 1. chap. 1. §1. 8. note. I think 
 this the more probable, because, by some recent Antitrinitarian 
 writers, I have seen Petavius adduced as an authority. 
 
 1. With respect to Cardinal Perron, that ecclesiastic, in his 
 Reply to King James, asserts generally, respecting the Ante- 
 nicene Fathers, that the Arians would gladly be tried by them. 
 
 But neither the adventurous Cardinal, nor his equally adven- 
 turous follower Mr. Lindsey, seems to have been aware: that 
 such a trial was once actually proposed to the Arians ; and that, 
 by them, it was very judiciously declined. 
 
 The story is somewhat curious: and, as my object through- 
 out the present Work is to build upon racrs, I shall briefly 
 subjoin it, as given by the two ecclesiastical historians Socrates 
 and Sozomen. 
 
 2. ‘Toward 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 105 
 
 nouncing the Fathers of the three first centuries 
 to have been professed Unitarians, and instead of 
 
 2. Toward the latter end of the fourth century, the Emperor 
 Theodosius, wishing to heal the dissentions chiefly produced by 
 the Arians, proposed to the Patriarch Nectarius, that a con- 
 ference or synod should be held for the purpose of discussing 
 the litigated points and of thus finally bringing the matter to an 
 amicable settlement. 
 
 Nectarius forthwith consulted Agelius: and Agelius intro- 
 duced to him Sicinnius, a shrewd and well-informed Reader of 
 his Church, who recommended that the following plan should 
 be adopted. 
 
 Well knoning, as the two historians remark, that the old 
 Antenicene Writers unanimously taught the coéternity of the Son 
 nith the Father and therefore could never assert that the existence 
 of the Son had a commencement, Sicinnius proposed, that, in- 
 stead of entering into any wearisome and interminable disputa- 
 tion, they should simply ask the Arians, together with the 
 kindred Eunomians and Macedonians: whether they would 
 consent to be tried by those ancient Antenicene Writers who 
 flourished before the eruption of the then prevalent dissentions, 
 and whether they would finally abide by their words in deciding 
 the matters litigated ? 
 
 His advice was followed: and, in the presence of the Em- 
 peror, the question was formally propounded. 
 
 The Arians, however, notwithstanding (as Mr. Lindsey 
 teaches us for an undeniable truth) they had all the Antenicene 
 Fathers on their own side, and notwithstanding (as Cardinal 
 Perron gravely assures us in verbo sacerdotis ) they would gladly 
 be tried by these same Antenicene Fathers ; when the offer of 
 such a trial was fairly and openly made to them, somewhat un- 
 accountably, on the historical principles of Mr. Lindsey and the 
 Cardinal, pEcLINED its acceptance. 
 
 Such being the case, the Emperor, finding that they relied on 
 
 7 
 
106 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK IL. 
 
 declaring that upon inquiry the whole of this will 
 be found undeniably true: the Barrister assures 
 us, that Tertullian and his learned contemporaries, 
 who flourished about the latter end of the second 
 century and the beginning of the third, were in no 
 wise Unitarians, as Mr. Lindsey had too hastily 
 asserted; but, on the contrary, he determines it 
 to be AN INDISPUTABLE FACT, that these erroneously 
 supposed Unitarians were the precise persons, who 
 endeavoured to introduce into the hitherto strictly 
 
 unitarian Church the doctrine of a-Trinity in the 
 Godhead. 
 
 According, therefore, to the more matured in- 
 
 quiry of the Barrister, Mr. Lindsey’s UNDENIABLE 
 UNITARIANS actually turn out to have been the zden- 
 tical mischievous individuals, who first excogitated 
 and who first attempted to introduce the hitherto un- 
 known and unheard of doctrine of the Trinity’. 
 The speculation of the Barrister, I believe, did 
 not see the light until. after the death of Dr. 
 Priestley. From the nature of his own theory, 
 however, it is clear: that the historian neither 
 
 their own bare private opinions and that they refused to abide 
 by the decision of primitive antiquity, reasonably enough 
 adopted the Creed of the Consubstantialists : inasmuch as they 
 alone, confident in the evangelical soundness and the apostolical 
 priority of their doctrinal system, were willing to abide the trial 
 and to stand or fall by the test proposed. See Socrat. Hist. 
 Eccles. lib. v. c. 10. Sozomen. Hist. Eccles. lib. vii. c. 12. 
 ' Letters by another Barrist. p. 105. 
 
 2 Oe ee eee a, 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 107 
 
 would, nor could, have corroborated it, by the 
 sanction of /zs laudatory approbation. 
 
 So far from ascribing the invention and intro- 
 duction of the doctrine of the Trinity either to 
 the Nicene Fathers or to Tertullian and his learned 
 contemporaries ; Dr. Priestley inclines to seek its 
 commencement at a yet earlier period, than that 
 which has been selected, either by Mr. Lindsey, or 
 by the Barrister. 
 
 In pursuance of this plan, he is willing mainly 
 to assign its discovery, together with the discovery 
 of the closely connected tenet of Christ’s divinity, 
 to the philosophical ingenuity of the converted 
 Platonist Justin, who was received into the Church 
 about the year 130. 
 
 Mr. Lindsey propounded /zs theory, as A MATTER 
 UNDENIABLY TRUE; and the Barrister lays down hes 
 speculation, as AN INDISPUTABLE FACT: but the more 
 modest statement of Dr. Priestley’s hypothesis, 
 as if he himself was not perfectly satisfied in re- 
 gard to its solidity, is marked by a considerable 
 degree of hesitation. It lies scattered, somewhat 
 widely, in various parts of his controversial and 
 theological compositions: but, so far as I can catch 
 and understand its purport, we may view it, as 
 setting forth the five following distinct propo- 
 sitions. 
 
 Justin Martyr FIRST INTRODUCED into the Church 
 the hitherto unknown doctrines of Christ's preéxist- 
 ence and divinity. Irenéus, who was partially his 
 
108 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 contemporary, readily caught up the Nove. fancy. 
 And others, who for whatever reason were already 
 predisposed to act the same part, readily followed 
 their evil example. 
 
 But, though Justin virst INTRODUCED these specu- 
 lations into the Church, he did not, in absolute strict- 
 ness of speech, invent them. Having been a Pla- 
 tonist anterior to his conversion, he learned the sum 
 and substance of them in the Schools of his favourite 
 Heathen Philosophy. _ And, finding the doctrine of 
 the Word of God ready formed to his hands in the 
 Works of the platonising Jew Philo, it was small 
 wonder, that he eagerly caught at it, and that thence 
 with a personal application to Jesus of Nazareth he 
 INTRODUCED 2¢ into the Christian System. 
 
 Lhe unscriptural Noveity, thus introduced, met 
 with considerable opposition. For the generality of 
 believers, who lived in the age of Justin, maintained 
 ihe bare humanity of Christ. Accordingly, his lan- 
 guage has all the air of an apology: and it seems 
 evidently to proceed from a man, who was not very 
 confident of his opinion, and who was aware that he 
 had not the sanction of the majority. 
 
 Such being the case, we may easily understand, 
 why he treats his antitrinitarian contemporaries with 
 so much cwility. Kor, in his time, they were very 
 Jar from being reckoned heretics; though, by Irenéus, 
 they were afterwards pronounced to be so. 
 
 _ On the same principle, we may also understand: 
 why, incase his novel speculations should be found 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 109 
 
 untenable, he so carefully provides for himself the 
 respectability of a decent retreat. He speaks of his 
 opinion, as being, in fact, a doubtful one: and, thence, 
 he by no means sets it down, as a necessary article of 
 Christian Faith. 
 
 These five several propositions, unless I wholly 
 and very unintentionally misapprehend the pur- 
 port of his language, it is the object of Dr. Priest- 
 ley’s statement to advance and to maintain’. 
 
 I shall successively consider them, if not in the 
 precise order wherein they have been here enume- 
 
 1 See Hist. of Corrupt. parti. sect i. Works, vol. v. p. 21, 22. 
 sect. 2. p. 29, 30. sect. 3. p. 87. Letters to Bp. Horsley part 1. 
 lett. 6. Works vol. xviii. p. 90. Hist. of Early Opin. book ii. 
 chap. 2. sect. 2. book iii, chap. 14. Works, vol. vi. p. 208, 
 493—495. 
 
 In extracting the above five propositions for the more com- 
 modious discussion of Dr. Priestley’s theory, I have studied to 
 express them as nearly as possible in his own precise words. 
 
 It may not be improper to remark, that the wild notion ad- 
 vocated by Dr. Priestley, respecting the alleged platonising 
 innovations of Justin Martyr, had already been started, long 
 - before the birth of the rapid historian, by Daniel Zuicker in his 
 Irenicum Irenicorum. 
 
 Statuit Justinum fuisse, qui primus dogma, de Flu preex- 
 istentia ante conditum mundum, et de creatione mundi per ipsum, 
 e Platonis Schola in Ecclesias Christianas introduxerit. Bull. 
 Defens. Fid. Nic. sect. i. cap. 2. § 5. Vide etiam Bull. Introd. 
 ad Primit. et Apostol. Trad. § 1—3. 
 
 Bishop Bull justly calls this totally unsupported whim of 
 Zuicker, which has since been revived as a grave matter of 
 History by Dr. Priestley, absurdissomam suam sententiam, Ibid. 
 
110 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK IL. 
 
 rated, yet in the order which for the purpose of 
 eliciting the truth I deem most convenient. 
 
 I. According to Dr. Priestley, When the novel 
 doctrines of Christ's pre-existence and divinity were 
 Jjirst introduced by Justin Martyr, they met with 
 much opposition: for most of his contemporaries 
 held the bare humanity of our Lord. Hence his 
 language has all the air of an apology: and it seems 
 evidentiy to proceed from a man, who was not very 
 confident of his opinion, and who was aware that 
 he had not the sanction of the majority. 
 
 1. This notion of the historian is built upon 
 the following translation of a passage in Justin’s 
 Dialogue with Trypho. 
 
 for there are some of our race, who acknowledge 
 him to be Christ, but who hold that he was a man 
 born like other men. N&ITHER DO I AGREE WITH THE 
 MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS, WHO MAY HAVE OBJECTED 
 TO MY OPINION: because we are commanded, by Christ 
 himself, not to obey the teachings of men, but what 
 was taught by the holy prophets. 
 
 To the translation, thus proposed for our ac- 
 ceptance, Dr. Priestley appends the following re- 
 mark. 
 
 The phrase, NEYTHER DO I AGREE WITH THE MA- 
 JORITY OF CHRISTIANS WHO MAY HAVE OBJECTED TO 
 MY OPINION, which as nearly the most literal render- 
 mg of the passage (though I would not be under- 
 stood to lay much stress on that circumstance), will 
 naturally be construed to mean, that the majority 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 111 
 
 actually did make the objection, or that Justin sus- 
 pected they might make tt'. 
 
 With respect to the leading clause in the passage 
 now before us, its present translation, which is 
 offered by Dr. Priestley and which he pronounces 
 to be nearly its most hteral rendering, indisputably 
 (as I am quite willing to admit) establishes the 
 point, which it has been adduced for the purpose 
 of establishing. 
 
 Neither, says Justin, in Dr. Priestley’s nearly 
 most literal version of his words: Neither do I 
 agree with the majority of Christians, who may have 
 objected to my opinion. 
 
 Now the opinion, here referred to as maintained 
 by Justin, was the doctrine of Christ’s preéxistence 
 and divinity : and, in ¢his opinion, according to Dr. 
 Priestley’s translation, he fairly confesses himself 
 to disagree with the great majority of Christians. 
 
 Since, then, Justin maintained the doctrine of 
 Christ’s preéxistence and divinity; and since, by 
 his own confession in nearly the most literal ren- 
 dering of his words, the great majority of Christ- 
 ians, on this point, disagreed with him in opinion : 
 it will inevitably follow, as Dr. Priestley from such 
 premises with much justice concluded; that The 
 doctrine of Christ’s preexistence and divinity was, in 
 the time of Justin, or only about forty years after the 
 
 * Hist. of Early Opin. book iii. chap. 14. Works, vol. vi. 
 p. 495. 
 
112 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 death of St. John, rejected, under the aspect of an 
 audacious novelty, by the great majority of christian 
 believers : 
 
 Thus finally, however Dr. Priestley may have 
 failed in establishing his point, so far as the times 
 of Athanasius and Origen and Tertullian are con- 
 cerned: thus finally, provided only we adopt the 
 nearly literal translation which he recommends 
 to our acceptance, he has completely established 
 his point, in regard to the much earlier, and there- 
 fore much more important, age of Justin. 
 
 Hence the result of the whole inquiry is: that, 
 About some forty years after the death of St. John, 
 though Justin was attempting to corrupt the sound 
 primitive doctrine received from the Apostles ; yet 
 THE GREAT MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS stz//, even con- 
 Jessedly, maintained the genuine original system of 
 humanitarian Antitrinitarianism. 
 
 So much having been achieved by what the 
 historian pronounces to be nearly the most literal 
 rendering of the passage, we may reasonably won- 
 der, why he would not be understood to lay much 
 stress on that circumstance. The wHo.e strength 
 of the demonstration obviously rests upon the 
 strict propriety of the version: and the nearly per- 
 fect literalness of that version is the very matter, 
 which in argument constitutes its peculiar value 
 and cogency. Yet, with apparently superfluous 
 prodigality of fairness, Dr. Priestley would not be 
 understood to lay much stress upon that circumstance. 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 113 
 
 2. At the first point of view, all this seems very 
 extraordinary: but, by a mere inspection of the 
 greek original, our astonishment will speedily be 
 dissipated. 
 
 Dr. Priestley, no doubt, had some small mis- 
 givings as to the reception of his nearly most 
 literal translation : and hence, just as if the fallacy 
 could escape detection, he would not be understood 
 to lay much stress upon it. The truth is: no two 
 clauses can be more unlike, than Justin’s original 
 Greek, and Dr. Priestley’s nearly most hteral trans- 
 lation into Linghsh. For, while the translation 
 makes the great majority of Christians to DISAGREE 
 with Justin, the original Greek makes that same 
 majority to AGREE with him. 
 
 But let us hear the venerable Martyr, in what, 
 unless I altogether mistake, will be found a strictly 
 accurate version of the entire passage. 
 
 For there are some, O my friends, I went on to 
 say, of our race, who confess him indeed to be Christ, 
 but who declare him to be only a man born from 
 men. WITH WHOM I AGREE NOT: NEITHER WOULD I 
 AGREE ; NOT EVEN IF THE MOST, WHO MAINTAIN HOw- 
 EVER THE VERY SAME DOCTRINE AS MYSELF, SHOULD 
 say so: znasmuch as, by Christ himself, we are com- 
 manded to obey, not mere human instructions, but 
 those which have been propounded through the blessed 
 prophets and which have been taught through himself. 
 
 1 \ , 9 ! z , s/ ) Be! ~ € Z , 
 Kat yap etou rivec, & pido, eheyov, aro TOV IplETEpOU YEvoUC, 
 
 VOL. Il. I 
 
114 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK It. 
 
 3. Thus, in a faithful translation, runs the en- 
 tire passage, of which, to suit his own purposes, 
 
 Opooyovrrec avrov Xproroy eivat, avOowroy oe é dvOpmrwy ye- 
 vopevyov dropatydmevot® otc ov ouvribeat’ ovd ay mrEloroL, Tad- 
 Tad poe Ookdoayrec, Eimotev* ErrELO)) OVK dvOowmetowe Coadypace Ke- 
 kehevopeOa tx’ abrov rod Xptorov reiOecOar, dAXR ToIe Oa TOY 
 Hakaplwy moopnr@y KknovyOeior Kal Ov abrod dwaxOeior. Justin. 
 Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 207. 
 
 I. In the leading clause of this passage, Justin’s Greek, Ole 
 ov ovyvribepar ov0’ Ay mrEioToOL, Taird floc dogaoartec, eiroter, 
 is by Dr. Priestley translated; Neither do I agree with the 
 majority of Christians who may have objected to my opinion : 
 and this he gravely pronounces to be nearly the most literal 
 rendering of the passage ! 
 
 1. The old latin translation runs: Quibus non assentior ; 
 neque id sane multi, QUI IN EADEM MECUM SENTENTIA SUNT, 
 dixerint. 
 
 2. This translation, with merely a slight phraseological 
 variation, has been followed by Bishop Bull: Quibus ego 
 minime assentior ; neque sané plerique, EADEM MECUM SEN- 
 TIENTES, tllud dixerint. 
 
 3. But, by the learned Benedictine Editors, the clause, so 
 grievously tormented by Dr. Priestley, is rendered, as doubt- 
 less it ought to be rendered, in manner following : Quibus ego 
 non assentior, nec assentirer, etiamst maxima pars, QUE MECUM 
 CONSENTIT, 7dem diceret. 
 
 4. From Justin’s own Greek, however, atr interpreters, 
 save Dr. Priestley, clearly saw: that the great majority of 
 believers, or, in other words, the great body of the Catholic 
 Church, AGREED, not DISAGREED, with Justin, as to his doctrine 
 respecting the nature of Christ. On this point, as any one may 
 perceive, Justin is full and express: rdeioro, rabra fo coéd= 
 OAYTEC. 
 
 II. Though it may be of no particular importance to my 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 115 
 
 the leading clause has been so grossly perverted 
 by Dr. Priestley. 
 
 And now, when Justin is permitted to speak for 
 himself, where is the historian’s proof: either that 
 the majority of then existent Christians actually ob- 
 jected to the opinion of Justin, or that Justin sus- 
 pected they mght object ? 
 
 Truly, it exists not. Instead of any confession 
 on the part of Justin, that the great majority of his 
 christian contemporaries objected to his opinion, he 
 
 main point, as occurring not in the leading clause of the pas- 
 sage, I think it right to notice a valuable conjectural emendation 
 of Bishop Bull. 
 
 From Justin’s use of the phrase, rove do rod yévoue YMQN, 
 those of your race, when, in the very passage which immediately 
 precedes the citation now before us, he addresses himself’ to 
 Trypho and his jewish companions: it is contended, by Bishop 
 Bull, that, in the present citation, instead of rod jperépouv yévouc 
 our race, we ought to read rov tuerépou yévove your race. 
 
 In this emendation I agree with the learned Prelate. 
 
 1. The original word yévoc, here translated race, means, not 
 a mingled body of men collected out of all nations such as that 
 which composed the Christian Church, but a single race or a 
 single nation such as that of the Jews to which Trypho and his 
 associates belonged. As Justin, then, in the immediately previous 
 context, talks to Trypho about those who are of your race: so, 
 in the present citation, he says to him and to his hebrew friends, 
 not There are some of our race, but There are some of your race. 
 
 2. The expression your race, happily restored for the ex- 
 pression our race, refers to the sect of the Ebionites : who, in 
 extraction, were Hebrews ; and who, in doctrine, were Humani- 
 tarians. Thus, self-approved, both by context and grammar 
 and naked matter of fact, stands the proposed emendation. 
 
 12 
 
 od 
 
116 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK It. 
 
 declares : that, as he did not agree with some few 
 individuals, meaning doubtless the judaising Ebion- 
 ites, who asserted the Christ to be only a man 
 born of men ; so neither would he agree with them, 
 even if, bysome strange revolution of sentiment, the 
 great majority, who then however held the very same 
 
 doctrine as himself, should at length, most unex- 
 
 pectedly and most unaccountably, come to say so. 
 
 Such is the declaration of Justin: and with it 
 exactly tallies the distinct statement, which, in his 
 first public Apology, he openly makes on behalf 
 of his collective brethren. 
 
 Evidently without the least fear of possible con- 
 tradiction, he tells us: that even the most illite- 
 rate Christians who had been received into the 
 Church by baptism, even those who could neither 
 read nor write, were familiarly acquainted with the 
 doctrine of the Father and the demiurgic Word 
 incarnate and the prophetic Spirit who moved 
 upon the waters at the time of the creation; famili- 
 arly acquainted, in short, with that doctrine of a 
 Trinity in the Godhead, of which, he thinks, some 
 traces might be found in the imitative plagiarisms 
 of the Platonists; the ancient hebrew Scriptures 
 
 being the read source, he alleges, whence they stole 
 
 all their knowledge on the subject '. 
 
 *"Tva dé kal rapa roy Hueréowy Sidackddwy (Aéyouer Os TOD 
 p IPETED y 
 Aoy v oid ray TeodnTw@Y) aBdyra Tov TIAdrwva paOnré rd 
 ‘Vine f ’ os ~ 
 ciety, UAny dpoogpoy ovcay orpéWayra roy cdr, KOGpOV ToLmoar. 
 
 —"Qore Adyw Ocod, &k rHy broKepévwy Kal roodnrwhérrwy dia 
 
 ee a Te a 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 117 
 
 _ 4. The historian’s pretended proof having thus 
 vanished, Justin’s fancied apology for an opinion, 
 contrary to the general opinion, of course vanishes 
 also. 
 
 Justin is making no apology for his sentiments : 
 neither is Trypho urging against him (what we 
 may be sure he would have done, if with truth he 
 could have done) his confessedly new-fangled dis- 
 crepance from the whole Catholic Church. On the 
 contrary, still in exact conformity with his express 
 statement that even the most illiterate Christian 
 was familiarly acquainted with the doctrine of the 
 Trimty, if Dy. Priestley would only have read 
 with ordinary attention the very next sentence to 
 
 Muctwe, yeyevijoOa roy wayra Kdopoy, kat Warwy, kal of ratra 
 A€yovrec, Kal ipeic, Eud0opey.— 
 
 Kal ro évy ro mwapad TAdrwre Tyalw pvovodoyovpevoy rept TOU 
 Yiov rov Ocov, bre Ever, Exlacey avroy ty TO Tari, Tapd Mw- 
 f \ e re FT i / \ \ \ ~ 
 céwe haBwy dpolwc cimev.—Xiacpa voyoac, THY pera TOY TEW- 
 tov O<ov Avvam KeylacOac tv ro wayrl eiwe. Kal ro eimety 
 bd \ 7 2 NP 4 ~ HO / os e \ , ° 
 avroy roiroy, émedy éeravw Tw vodrwy dvéyvw im Mucéwe ei- 
 
 / > nae 4 \ ~ ~ ~ , \ \ he 
 pnpevov exipeoeoGae ro Tov Oeov Ilvevpa. Aevrépay pev ydo xo- 
 ~ ~ , ~ of 4 
 pay T@ wapd Ocod Adyy, dy KexliacOa éy TY TavTi Edn, didwor 
 ~ ~ if 
 Ty O€ rpirny, TO AExOEvre ExipépecOae r~ boare Hyvevpare, ei- 
 mov? Ta o€ rpira wept rov rplrov.— 
 ° ~ 3 y ° ° , x 
 Ov ra aired ody Hpetc GdAotc dogaopev? ANN ot wayrec Ta 
 e , , , > ee ~ x ? ~ Dia ee 
 HueTEpA ppovpevoe Aéyovot. lap’ Hpiy ovy eore ravra aKovcat 
 ~ ~ ~ ~ b3 
 kai padety rapa rwy ovoe TOVE KAPAKTHPAC TWY OTOLXElWY ETLO= 
 ~ / s\ ~ \ \ 
 Tapévwy, lowrov péev Kat BapPapwy ro Pbéypa, copw@y Ce Kat 
 ~ ~ ~ ~ s/ m 
 TLOTWY TOV VOUY OYTWY, Kal THPwWY Kal XNpwY TLVWY rac oerc 
 e ~ bd / >] 7 ~ / > \ iN / 
 we ovveivat, ov copia dvOpwreig ravra yeyovevat, ddAa Ouvapet 
 
 Ocot AéyeoOar. Justin. Apol. i. Oper. p. 72, 73. 
 
118 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK Il. 
 
 the passage which he has so strangely perverted: 
 he would have found a direct confirmation of 
 Justin’s assertion, that the great majority of Christ- 
 tans held the same opinions with himself. Yor he 
 
 would have found Trypho, strong in his jewish 
 
 prejudices, objecting: that cHrisTIANS COLLECTIVELY 
 
 said the self-same things, that sustin INDIVIDUALLY 
 
 said, respecting the nature of the divine Redeemer. 
 
 L'rypho replied: Those, who say, that Jesus was 
 born a mere man, and that by election he was anoint- 
 ed, and that he became the Christ, seem to me to 
 speak more credibly than rou who say those things 
 that THOU sayest'. 
 
 * Kai 6 Tptpur, ’Epoi fev doKxovowy, cimev, of éyovTec dy- 
 
 > 9 . 
 Opwrov yeyovévat abtroy, Kat Kar’ ékoyhy Kexplobat, Kal Xporor 
 
 yeyovevat, mavorepov YMON Kéyery roy radra dizeo DHid Ne~ 
 
 yorrwy. Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 207. 
 
 This passage was certainly read by Dr. Priestley, but not 
 read by him with ordinary attention. The former particular 
 appears, from the fact of his having cited it: the latter, from 
 the fact of his having translated it. In the hands of Dr. 
 Priestley, all attestation to the circumstance of Christians at 
 large (expressed by the emphatic plural word ipéyv, here 
 plainly equivalent to You Christians ) saying those identical 
 things that Justin said, totally vanishes. The following is his 
 version of the place. 
 
 They, who think that Jesus was a man, and, being chosen of 
 God, was anointed Christ, appear to me to advance a more pro- 
 bable opinion than yours. Hist. of Corrupt. part i. sect. 1. 
 Works, vol. v. p. 22. 
 
 To advance a more probable opinion than yours ; a mode of 
 speaking, which would obviously lead a reader, who had not 
 
 i. Pee ab: 
 
CHAP., VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 119 
 
 In this passage, the plural you, as directly con- 
 tradistinguished from the individualising THOU, is 
 plainly equivalent to you curisTIANs. ‘Trypho, 
 consequently, in full accordance with Justin’s im- 
 mediately preceding avowal that tHE most held the 
 very same opinions with himself, remarks: that THE © 
 GREAT COLLECTIVE BODY OF CHRISTIANS said the same 
 things, respecting the nature of Christ, that sustiN 
 HIMSELF said ; but that he deemed the scheme of the 
 humanitarianising individuals, with whom Justin and 
 the majority could not agree, far more credible than 
 that of the Church Catholic. 
 
 In truth, if Justin apologised at all, he must 
 have apologised, Dr. Priestley himself being judge, 
 because his opinion was A NOVELTY, and because no- 
 toriously but rEw had embraced it. Yet Justin de- 
 clares, that THE MOST o7 THE MAJORITY Of those who 
 bore the name of Christians thought as he did: and 
 Trypho, in his immediate reply, confirms the truth 
 of his declaration, while he strongly objects to the 
 abstract incredibility of the doctrine. 
 
 The entire passage, in short, with its immedi- 
 ately consecutive context, indisputably establishes 
 a position the very opposite to that, which, on its 
 authority, Dr. Priestley wished to establish. For 
 
 the original Greek before him, to conclude, that Trypho was 
 speaking only of the mere dividual opmion of Justin: To 
 advance a more probable opinion than yours is Dr. Priestley’s 
 proposed version of Justin’s mifavwrepov YMQN Xéyey roy 
 
 ravra dimen DHiD Aeyovrwy" 
 
120 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK IL 
 
 it clearly demonstrates: that THE GREAT MAJORITY 
 of those who bore the Christian name, or, in other 
 words, THE ENTIRE CATHOLIC CHURCH as contradis- 
 tinguished from those innovators. who had separated 
 themselves from her communion, held the very same 
 doctrine respecting the nature of Christ that Justin 
 himself held. 
 
 To sum up the whole matter, the precipitate 
 historian has, most infelicitously, mistaken a de- 
 cided adversary for a trusty ally. 
 
 II. Dr. Priestley further learns, from the phrase- 
 ology of Justin: that, In his time, Antitrinitarians, 
 who denied the godhead of Christ, were very far 
 from being reckoned heretics ; though, afterward, 
 they were pronounced to be such by Irenéus: a cir- 
 cumstance, which at once accounts for Justin’s extra- 
 ordinary civility to his humanitarian contemporaries, 
 and evinces the conscious unpopular innovator. 
 
 1. A reader, unacquainted with Dr. Priestley’s 
 mode of writing history, would doubtless, from this 
 statement, naturally conclude: that Justin long 
 preceded lrenéus, and that the doctrine of Christ’s 
 mere humanity was not pronounced heretical until 
 many years after the death of Justin. 
 
 Yet, with respect to these two ancient Fathers, 
 how does the question of relative or comparative 
 chronology stand actually ? 
 
 Justin and Irenéus, as Dr. Priestley himself sub- 
 sequently, though not very consistently, observes, 
 were, in truth, coNTEMPORARIES : or, as the his- 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 121 
 
 torian expresses it, they flourished aBouT THE SAME 
 TIME’. For Justin was converted to Christianity 
 
 * Lest any person should imagine that I am misrepresenting 
 Dr. Priestley, I subjoin, in all equity, his own precise words. 
 
 I, They occur in two several places of his History of Cor- 
 ruptions. 
 
 1. The manner, in which Justin Martyr speaks of those 
 Unitarians who believed Christ to be the son of Joseph, is very 
 remarkable: and shews, that, though they even denied the mix 
 raculous conception, they were far from being reckoned heretics 
 IN HIS TIME, as they were BY IRENEUS AFTERWARD. Hist. of 
 Corrupt. part i. sect. 1. Works, vol. v. p. 21. 
 
 2. With this disposition to make his religion appear in the 
 
 most respectable light to the heathens, and having himself pro- 
 fessed the doctrine of Plato, can it be thought extraordinary : 
 that Justin eagerly caught at the doctrine of the Logos which 
 he found ready formed to his hands in the Works of Philo, and 
 that he introduced it into the Christian System; that Irenéus, 
 who was educated among the philosophers aBouT THE SAME 
 TIME, did the same thing; or that others, who were themselves 
 sufficiently predisposed to act the same part, should follow their 
 example? Hist. of Corrupt. parti. sect. 2. Works, vol. v. 
 p- 30. 
 II. It has been truly said; that, for the purpose of preserving 
 a decent verisimilitude, the writer of Romance ought to possess 
 a good memory: and the celebrated slip of the immortal 
 Cervantes has often been adduced in the way of illustration. 
 The memory of Dr. Priestley, who, as an historian, ought not to 
 be a romancer, is so treacherous, that it fails him in the course 
 of nine octavo pages. 
 
 1. In the first of these two passages, when it is convenient 
 for Dr. Priestley to exhibit Humanitarianism, as, at a very 
 early period of Ecclesiastical History, nor marked with the 
 
 brand of heresy, though subsequently, at a later period, dis- 
 
122 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK I. 
 
 shortly after the year 130; and he suffered mar- 
 tyrdom about the year 163: while Irenéus is sup- 
 posed to have been born in the year 97, and to 
 have published his Work against Heresies in the 
 year 175. Dr. Priestley’s assertion, therefore, 
 that, 7 the time of Justin, the maintainers of 
 Christ’s mere humanity were far from being reck- 
 oned heretics, but that by Irenéus afterward they 
 were distinctly pronounced to be such, may well 
 seem not a little paradoxical. If Justin and Ire- 
 néus flourished about the same time, which, in one 
 place at least, the historian rightly asserts to have 
 been the case; and if the Ebionites, under the 
 precise aspect of asserting our Lord to have been 
 
 tinctly marked with that brand: then The time of Justin is 
 contradistinguished from The time of Irenéus; and, with refer- 
 ence to I'he time of Justin, then we are informed, that The time 
 of [renéus was AFTERWARD. 
 
 2. But, in the second of these two passages, when it is con- 
 venient for Dr. Priestley, to dress up a sort of concurring plot, 
 oriental and occidental, to introduce the novel platonic doctrine 
 of The godhead of the Word: then The time of Justin and The 
 time of Irenéus are happily found to syncHRonisE; and then 
 we learn, that these two insidious Fathers, Justin in the East 
 and Irenéus in the West, having been educated among the phi- 
 losophers ABOUT THE SAME TIME, most harmoniously agreed to 
 do the same thing. 
 
 Ill. Some there are, objects the Batchelor Carrasco, who 
 have taxed the author with want of memory or sincerity. For 
 we find, by the story, that the ass was certainly stolen: and yet, 
 by and by, we find its owner riding the same ass again, without 
 any previous light given us into the matter. 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 123 
 
 nothing more than a mere man, are explicitly pro- 
 nounced by Ireneus to be heretics, which the his- 
 torian acknowledges to be a clear matter of fact: 
 I am ata loss to understand what he can mean 
 by the statement; that These persons were very far 
 from being reckoned heretics IN THE TIME OF JUSTIN, 
 as they were BY IRENEUS AFTERWARD. The time of 
 Justin and the time of Irenéus, save that Irenéus 
 wrote about some twelve years after the martyr- 
 dom of Justin, were in truth zdentical. Hence 
 the necessary result must be, that those, who were 
 reckoned heretics in the time of Irenéus, were also 
 reckoned heretics in the time of Justin. 
 
 * Dr. Priestley’s favourite argument is to the following 
 
 effect. 
 
 The ony persons, who, under the specific appellation of 
 heretics, troubled the early Church, were the Gnostics. Now 
 the Ebionites were not Gnostics: and yet these very Ebionites 
 constantly asserted the mere humanity of our Lord and steadily 
 denied his divinity. Therefore persons, who asserted the mere 
 humanity of our Lord and who denied his divinity, provided 
 they did not superadd to this doctrine the special peculiarities 
 of Gnosticism, were not in the early Church reckoned heretics. 
 
 I. Some very able men, chiefly (so far as I can find) on the 
 insufficient testimony of Epiphanius, and certainly in opposition 
 to the authority of Augustine and Theodoret and Irenéus when 
 not gratuitously corrected, have contended : that the Ebionites, 
 whom Dr. Priestley claims as exactly symbolising with the 
 modern Humanitarians, were, after all, no other than a branch of 
 the Gnostics, agreeing with the Cerinthians in their sentiments, 
 not only respecting Jesus, but respecting the Christ also. 
 
 Doubtless, if this opinion could be established, Dr. Priestley 
 
124. THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 2. How this plain and obvious conclusion from 
 the acknowledged declaration of Irenéus THE con- 
 
 would immediately fall by his own weapon: for, in that case, it 
 would be impossible to discover a single early impugner of our 
 Lord’s divinity or a single early maintainer of the mere humanity 
 of Jesus, save among the Gnostics ; who are by himself acknow- 
 ledged to have atways been denominated heretics. 
 
 II. But, as I must freely confess that I have never yet seen 
 the opinion established to my own satisfaction, and as I must own 
 that the weight of evidence strikes myself as preponderating in 
 the other scale (see above, append. i. numb. 2. sect. 4.) : I shall 
 be content to argue with Dr. Priestley on his own avowed pre- 
 mises. | 
 
 1. In the early Church, he tells us, none, save the Gnostics, 
 were reckoned heretics. 
 
 Now, by Irenéus, who was born in the year 97 and who wrote 
 in and prior to the year 175, who consequently through all this 
 period with the exception of the last twelve years was the con- 
 temporary of Justin Martyr, who was equally well acquainted 
 with the Catholic Church both in the East and in the West, 
 and who had received his own theology from the immediate 
 disciple of St. John: by Irenéus, thus importantly circum- 
 stanced, the Ebionites are distinctly specified as heretics under 
 the precise aspect of their asserting the mere humanity of our 
 Saviour. 
 
 2. Such being the case, the argument of Dr. Priestley, how- 
 ever it be met, is alike invalid. 
 
 (1.) Ifthe Ebionites were, as some have contended, a sub- 
 division of the Cerinthian Gnostics: then, by his own confes- 
 sion, they must have been counted heretics; whence it will fol- 
 low, that in the early Church not a single impugner of the 
 divinity of Jesus can be discovered, to whom the charge of 
 heresy did not attach. 
 
 (2.) If, on the contrary, as we are distinctly informed by 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 125 
 
 TEMPORARY OF JUSTIN can be escaped, I must con- 
 fess myself unable to discern. | 
 
 In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin avows his 
 dissent from the impugners of Christ’s divinity : 
 but, not there treating professedly of the early 
 heresies, he does not specifically or in so many 
 words happen to call these Humanitarians by the 
 name of heretics’. His contemporary Irenéus, on 
 
 Theodoret, the Ebionites agreed with Theodotus and Artemon 
 in their opinion respecting the Christ, differing on this precise 
 point from the Cerinthians who held that the Christ was a 
 celestial Eon and that he descended upon the mere man Jesus 
 at the time of ‘his baptism; and if, consequently, in strict 
 accordance with the parallel testimony of Irenéus and Augus- 
 tine, the Ebionites were not a branch of the Gnostics: then, no 
 less than on the other supposition, they still must have been 
 deemed heretics; because, in matter of fact, we find them 
 recorded as such by Irenéus, the contemporary of Justin, and 
 therefore a decidedly primitive writer on that very subject. 
 
 3. In short, let us take the matter as we please, whether the 
 Ebionites were or were not Gnostics, it will be alike impossible 
 for Dr. Priestley to find any early asserters of our Lord’s mere 
 humanity, who were not from the very first pronounced to be 
 heretics. 
 
 ” Justin informs us, that he himself wrote a Work against aut 
 the then existing heresies. 
 
 "Eare 0€ uty kal ovytaypa kara IASON roy VEVEVNMEVwY 
 alpécewy ovvteraypévoy. Apol. i. Oper. p. 54. 
 
 The term anu may seem to import, that he arranged as 
 heretics certain other persons beside avowed and recognised 
 Gnostics. 
 
 This Work has unfortunately perished; so that we are unable 
 to speak positively: but, since we find his contemporary Ire- 
 
126 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 the contrary, treating professedly of that precise 
 subject, unhesitatingly applies the offensive title 
 to religionists of this identical description. Hence 
 the necessary result is: that, In the days of the 
 two contemporaries Justin and Irenéus, impugners of 
 Christ’s divinity were, under that specific aspect, con- 
 sidered in the light of heretics’. 
 
 néus associating, in the common charge of heresy, the Ebionites 
 with the Gnostics and especially with the Cerinthians, because, 
 though they symbolised not with them in all points (non simi- 
 liter) respecting the nature of Jesus Christ, they at least agreed 
 with them in asserting the bare humanity of Jesus ; the pre- 
 sumption is, that Justin did the same as Irenéus, and that he 
 uses the term ALL in reference not only to the various ramifi- 
 cations of the one grand heresy of Gnosticism but likewise to 
 the distinct heresy of Ebionism. 
 
 1 That Irenéus pronounces the Ebionites to be heretics on the 
 simple broad ground of their asserting the mere humanity of our 
 Saviour, is manifest from the following very strong passage ; in 
 which Humanitarianism, strictly as Humanitarianism, is pro- 
 nounced to be a deadly error which excludes a person from 
 eternal life. 
 
 Qui nudé tantum hominem eum dicunt ex Joseph generatum, 
 perseverantes in servitute pristinze inobedientize moriuntur :— 
 ignorantes autem eum qui ex Virgine est Emanuel, privantur 
 munere ejus, quod est vita eterna. Iren. adv. hee. lib. i. 
 c. 21. ps 212. 
 
 The declaration of Irenéus will establish the true exposition 
 of a passage in the Epistles of Jerome, which, by writers of the 
 Antitrinitarian School, has sometimes been adduced for the 
 
 g, that a denial of our Lord’s divinity was 
 
 purpose of shewing, 
 
 not in early times condemned as a heresy. 
 Si hoc verum est, in Cerinthi et Ebionis heresim delabimur, 
 
 qui, credentes in Christo, rroprer Hoc soiuM a Patribus ana- 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 127 
 
 III. If, however, we may credit Dr. Priestley, 
 Justin speaks of his opinion as a doubiful one, and 
 
 thematizati sunt, quod Legis czremonias Christi Evangelio 
 miscuerunt. Hieron. Epist. ad August. Ixxxix. Oper. tom. ii. 
 p. 265, 266. Colon. 1616. 
 
 I. Jerome, it is said, here distinctly states, that the sone 
 cause, which produced the condemnation of Ebion, was his 
 mingling the ceremonies of the Law with the Gospel of Christ. 
 Whence it follows, that, if he had only asserted the mere 
 humanity of our Lord, he would not have been condemned as a 
 heretic. 
 
 The palpable error of this plausible interpretation is readily 
 manifested from the circumstance: that Jerome here associates 
 the Humanitarian Ebion with the Gnostic Cerinthus, and that 
 his expression pROoPTER Hoc soLuM alike relates to both. Hence, 
 if the soLEe cause, which produced the condemnation of Ebion, 
 was his mingling the ceremonies of the Law with the Gospel of 
 Christ: then the same mingling must have been the soxzz cause, 
 which produced the condemnation of Cerinthus. And thus the 
 result of the present interpretation will be: that, had Cerinthus 
 only been a Gnostic, he would not have been condemned as a 
 heretic. 
 
 II. Still it may be asked: What then is it, which Jerome 
 does mean ? 
 
 1. A reply to this question is no very difficult matter. 
 
 Jerome merely wishes to intimate, that, even if there were 
 no other reason than their Judaism, that atonz, independently 
 of all other existing grounds, were amply sufficient to justify 
 the condemnation of Cerinthus and of Ebion. Whatever else 
 they might hold, nothing more than this was necessary to con- 
 vict them of heresy. 
 
 2. Such is the plain and necessary import of the passage. 
 
 Jerome esteemed both the Gnosticism of Cerinthus and the 
 Humanitarianism of Ebion deadly heresies: for, on these points, 
 
 7 
 
128 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK I. 
 
 by no means propounds it as a necessary article of 
 Christian Faith. Whence, distrusting the soundness 
 of that hitherto unheard of novelty which he wished 
 to introduce, and conscious that he had not the sanc- 
 tion of the majority along with him, he carefully 
 provided a decent retreat for himself, in case his new 
 speculation should be found untenable. 
 
 1. The passage, which in Dr. Priestley’s hands 
 is made to vouch for all these extraordinary cir- 
 cumstances, hard as it may be to credit the fact 
 after the historian’s grave citation of it for his own 
 purpose, is merely and simply an instance of that 
 very common mode of argumentation, which is 
 built upon the acknowledged principles of an 
 adversary. 
 
 Justin himself maintains: that The promised 
 Messiah of the Hebrews is undoubtedly God, even 
 the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. But, as 
 Trypho contends that The Christ was to be a mere 
 man; Justin is willmg to argue with him upon 
 his own theory: and, even thus, he undertakes to 
 prove; that his jewish adversary could have no just 
 ground to deny the Messiahship of the man Jesus. 
 
 he fully agreed with Irenéus. But with such specialities his 
 subject did not lead him to have any immediate concern. He 
 was treating of a heresy common alike to Ebion and to Cerin- 
 thus (Cerinthi et Ebionis heresim); the heresy, namely, of the 
 perpetual obligation of the ceremonial Law upon Christians : 
 and, on this account atong, to say nothing of any other ground, 
 they were rightly anathematised (he remarks) by the Fathers. 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 129 
 
 And now, Trypho, said I, the proposition, that 
 JESUS IS THE CHRIST OF GOD, will not become null and 
 void, even if I should be unable to shew: both that 
 He preéxisted, inasmuch as he is God the Son of 
 the Creator of all things; and likewise that He was, 
 through the Virgin, made man. But, From the whole 
 which has been demonstrated, it will still follow: that, 
 Whoever in point of nature he may be, THs PERSON 
 IS THE CHRIST OF GoD. For, even if I could not de- 
 monstrate, that He pre-éxisted, and that Having 
 flesh according to the counsel of the Father he was 
 born aman of like passions with ourselves: séill, in 
 this supposed case, you could with justice only say ; 
 that I had failed of my purpose. Because, even of 
 it should appear that He had been born a mere hu- 
 man being from human beings, and even if it could 
 _ be proved that He was only elected to become the 
 Christ : sti// you would not, on that account, be war- 
 ranted in denying, that THIS PERSON 18 THE CHRIST". 
 
 ae 3 
 
 Hon pévro, bd Tpdowy, eizov, ok axdddurar r6 TOIOYTON 
 EINAI XPIXTON TOY OEOY, éav arodeiéa py Obvwpat, ore 
 Kal rpovmTijoyev vioc Tov rotnrov roy b\wy Osd¢ dy, kal yeyér- 
 vnrat dvOowmoe Cid Tipe mapGevov, adda éx wayroe drodstkyvo- 
 pévov re OYTOS EXTIN O MEISTOS' O TOY OEOY, Carte ov- 
 TOC EaTaL écy dé pur) aTovEkviw, Ore TooUTHOXE, Kal yevynOjrac 
 dvOowroe dpovorab))c Hiv odoxa Exwy, Kal ry Tov Ilarpdc¢ Pov- 
 Any vrépeverv, éy ToUT@ mweThaviobal He povoy héye dikauor, 
 ara pu) dovetoOa 6re OYTOS EXTIN O XPIZTOX, gay dai- 
 yynrae wc avOowmoe és advOporwy yevynDetc, Kat éxhoyn yevoOmevocg 
 ei¢ TO Xptoroy eivar, drodexv’nrar. Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. 
 Oper. p. 207. 
 VOL. II. K 
 
130 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 2. Such is the clear and forcible argument of 
 Justin: an argument, by which, on the disputa- 
 tively allowed principles of his adversary, he un- 
 dertakes to prove against him; that, Whatever may 
 be the precise nature of the predicted Messiah, at all 
 events JESUS OF NAZARETH IS THE CHRIST OF GOD. 
 
 And then, immediately afterward, by way of 
 illustration, and for the purpose of shewing the 
 possibility of An admission of the Messiahship of 
 Jesus with a denial of his preexistence and divinity : 
 he puts down the other passage, so strangely (as 
 we have seen) perverted and misapplied by Dr. 
 Priestley. 
 
 For there are some persons, O my friends, I 
 went on to say, of our race, who confess him indeed 
 to be the Christ, but who declare him to be merely 
 aman born from men. With whom I agree not: 
 neither would I agree; not even if the most, who 
 maintain however the very same doctrine as myself, 
 should say so. , 
 
 3. Thus, the avowed object of Justin’s argu- 
 ment is to establish, on the very principles of his 
 adversary himself, the proposition: that Jesus oF 
 NAZARETH IS THE CHRIST OF Gop. And the illustra- 
 tive example, which he employs, is the case of the 
 Ebionites. 
 
 The whole matter, argument and example to- 
 gether, will run to the following effect. 
 
 _ Even to argue with you on your own erroneous 
 principles, O Trypho and ye other accompanying 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 131 
 
 Jews, you can have no solid ground for denying 
 THE MESSIAHSHIP OF JESUS. Granting for a moment, 
 that I cannot establish the point of his divinity ; 
 do I thence, of necessity, give up the point of his 
 messiahship ? Assuredly not. For some of your 
 own countrymen, who claim to be of our religion, 
 acknowledge his messiahship: while yet, like your- 
 selves, they contend, that the Christ is a mere man. 
 These Ebionites, indeed, as we are wont to call 
 them, do not speak the language of the Church 
 Catholic: and both I myself, and the great col- 
 lective majority who agree with me, deem them 
 wholly mistaken in their views. But this does 
 not, at all, invalidate my present argument. I dis- 
 pute with you, on your own erroneous principles. 
 And, even on those principles, false as they are, I 
 repeat it, you have no solid ground for denying, as 
 a simple abstract truth, THE MESSIAHSHIP OF JESUS. 
 4. Than such a mode of reasoning with an 
 adversary, nothing, as we all know, is more com- 
 mon. Yet, incredible as it may well seem, Dr. 
 Priestley claims to learn from it: that Justin speaks 
 of his own opinion as a doubtful one ; that He allows 
 at to be by no means a necessary article of faith; and 
 that He carefully provides for himself a decent re- 
 treat, in case he should be unable to establish it. 
 These are the matters, which the historical 
 sagacity of Dr. Priestley learns from Justin’s argu- 
 mentum ad hominem. And the account of his re- 
 markable discoveries he triumphantly concludes, 
 K 2 
 
132 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK Il. 
 
 by laying it down, as an indisputable truth: that 
 This is not the language of a man, very confident 
 of his opinion, and who had the sanction of the ma- 
 jority along with him’. 
 
 IV. But, whatever may have been the reception 
 which the doctrine of Christ’s divinity met with 
 in that early age, Dr. Priestley inclines to believe : 
 that Justin and his associates borrowed their idea 
 of the new tenet from Plato and Philo. 
 
 Having himself, says the historian, professed the 
 doctrine of Plato, can it be thought extraordinary : 
 that Justin eagerly caught at the doctrine of the 
 Locos, which he found ready formed to his hands in 
 the Works of Philo, and that he introduced it into 
 the Christian System; that Irenéus, who was also 
 educated among the philosophers about the same 
 time, did the same thing; or that others, who were 
 themselves sufficiently predisposed to act the same 
 part, should follow their example * ? 
 
 By the friends of Dr. Priestley, this speculation, 
 I doubt not, has been deemed highly ingenious 
 
 * Hist. of Corrupt. part i. sect. 1. Works, vol. v. pe 22 
 Much the same perversion of this very plain and familiar argu- 
 ment of Justin had already been adventured by Episcopius. 
 He is answered by Bishop Bull, precisely as I have answered Dr. 
 Priestley. Judic. Eccles. Cathol. c. vii. § 1—5. A very 
 child might have seen, that Justin’s argument is purely an 
 argumentum ad hominem, founded on the principles of his 
 adversary. | 
 
 * Hist. of Corrupt. part i. sect. 2. Works, vol. v. p. 30. 
 
 eee 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 133 
 
 and even altogether satisfactory. Yet, after all, 
 the simple question is: Whether the alleged ract, 
 which it propounds, rests upon any solid evidence ? 
 
 1. At the beginning of the Dialogue with Try- 
 pho, Justin relates the singular and almost ro- 
 mantic circumstance which finally produced his 
 conversion to Christianity. 
 
 As he was walking on the sea-shore, an un- 
 known old man, whom he had never seen before 
 and whom he never saw again, encountered him, 
 and forthwith entered into conversation with him. 
 Justin spoke largely of Plato and Pythagoras. In 
 reply, the old man, who was a Christian, pro- 
 fessed, somewhat unceremoniously, the most hearty 
 contempt, both for Plato, and for Pythagoras, and 
 for the whole generation of philosophers. No- 
 thing whatsoever, said he, do I care, either for Plato, 
 or for Pythagoras, or (plainly to speak my mind) 
 for any other person who advances such speculations’. 
 In their place, he offered to propound to his com- 
 panion that which alone can be deemed solid and 
 essential truth. His offer being accepted, he 
 strenuously recommended the study of prophecy, 
 as setting forth the one God and his Christ : and, 
 at the close of his lecture, he added an admirable 
 exhortation to prayer for spiritual knowledge and 
 
 * Odcey Epol, pn, péree HWAarwroc, obd€ MvOaydpov, ovde ar- 
 AGe ovVdevoe OAWe Totadra Cokdlovroc. Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. 
 yP I 
 p- 172. 
 
134 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK Il. 
 
 illumination. Above all things, said the venerable 
 stranger, pray, that the gates of light may be opened 
 to you. Kor these matters will not be understood 
 and comprehended, unless God and his Christ shall 
 give to any onea right knowledge of them. Were 
 they parted: and Justin declares, that he im- 
 mediately felt his whole love excited toward the 
 prophets and those men who are the friends of 
 Christ. Revolving, says he, the old man’s words 
 within me, I found this to be the onuy sure and 
 beneficial philosophy. Thus, and on account of these 
 things, became I a philosopher '. 
 
 According, then, to Justin’s own narrative of his 
 conversion, he rorsoox Platonism, in order that he 
 might Become a Christian: and this circumstance 
 of his having rorsakeEN it we find to be a matter 
 of public notoriety. 
 
 Trifling accidental expressions will often do 
 more in determining a point, than the longest and 
 most elaborate argument. Of this nature is one 
 of those, which are used by Trypho. I view it, 
 as proving: not only that Justin, subsequent to 
 his conversion, HAD UTTERLY RENOUNCED Platonism; 
 but likewise that his renunciation of it was a fact 
 WELL KNOWN and PERFECTLY FAMILIAR to his con- 
 temporaries. 
 
 * AvaroyiGoperdc re mode Ewavrdy Tove Adyoue avrov, Tabrny 
 MONHN evoLoKoy pirocogiay doganh Te Kat ovpupopor. Otrwe 
 On Kai Out radra piddcopoc éyo. Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. 
 p. 173, 174. 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 135 
 
 It were better for you, says his jewish antago- 
 nist, to be stinu devoting yourself to the philosophy 
 of Plato or of any other master, exercising forti- 
 tude and temperance and modesty, than to be de- 
 ceived with lying words, and to be following men 
 worth nothing ’. 
 
 The force of the evidence, contributed by this 
 passage, rests obviously in the word stitu. Justin 
 had been enamoured of Plato’s speculations. He 
 was now enamoured zo longer. The expression, 
 It were better for you to be stitu devoting yourself 
 to the philosophy of Plato, implies: that he was 
 well known to have then ceasep thus to devote 
 himself. 
 
 2. Such is the account, which Justin himself 
 gives of the revolution in his own sentiments. 
 
 Yet Dr. Priestley is quite sure: that the learned 
 Father is mistaken: for, instead of leaving Pla- 
 tonism behind him, which he gratuitously describes 
 the old man as reprobating in the most contemp- 
 tuous terms; he brought it along with him, by way 
 of improving what he himself styles the ony sure 
 and beneficial philosophy. 
 
 We have, says the historian, the most direct evi- 
 dence of some of the most distinguished writers 
 among the Christians being CHARMED with the doc- 
 
 Ciel ged 
 
 *"Apevoyv o& Hv pirocogetvy ETI ce rijv UWddrwvog i) adAov 
 
 / b] ~ , \ > / \ 
 Tov pidooopiav, deokovvra KapTeplay Kal EyKparEeltay Kat owdpo- 
 aoyny, i} NOyote EarrarnOjvar Wevdéor, kat avOpwrotc dKkodovOijoae 
 
 ovdévoc déiorc. Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 174. 
 
136 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK It. 
 
 érines of Plato: but, especially, Justin Martyr. 
 Marks of Justin's fondness for this philosophy appear 
 in many parts of his writings: and it is not to be 
 wondered at, as he had been addicted to it before he 
 came to be a Christian. He says: THE NOTION OF 
 INCORPOREAL THINGS, AND THE DOCTRINE OF IDEAS, 
 CHARMED ME. What mischief was done to the 
 Christian System by this doctrine of ideas, will pre- 
 sently appear '. | 
 
 Where Dr. Priestley has discovered the many 
 parts of Justin’s writings, which, after he became 
 a Christian, s¢zl/ display his fondness for Platonism, 
 I shall not pretend to determine. He may have 
 diligently observed, what J have carelessly over- 
 looked. One passage, however, from the Dialogue 
 with Trypho, he adduces in eyidence: and, to 
 that solitary passage, I must of necessity confine 
 myself. 
 
 The point, to be established, is: Jaustin’s fondness 
 for Platonism arrrr he became a Christian ; which 
 led to the unhappy result of his largely adulterating 
 the Gospel with that philosophy. 
 
 And the testimony, which is to establish this 
 point, is a passage wherein he says : THE NOTION OF 
 INCORPOREAL THINGS, AND THE DOCTRINE OF IDEAS, 
 CHARMED ME. 
 
 Now, even if Justin, sussequent to his con- 
 
 * Hist. of Early Opin. book ii. chap. 1. Works, vol. vi. 
 p. 199. 
 
 _— = ae 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 137 
 
 version, had been ever so much charmed with the 
 platonic notion of incorporeal things and with the 
 platonic doctrine of ideas; which, according to 
 Dr. Priestley, by his introduction of them into the 
 Christian System, did an infinitude of mischief : 
 still I see not, how ¢his would be any proof of the 
 real ultimate matter in debate ; namely, that Jus- 
 tin, from Platonism, was the first person, who 
 brought into Christianity the doctrine of the Divine 
 Word and of the Trinity. 
 
 Where, I ask, from the writings of Justin, is the 
 historian’s proof of that specific matter ? 
 
 Perhaps it will be said: that, if Justin was 
 charmed with the doctrine of ideas, he might be 
 equally charmed with another platonic doctrine ; 
 and, if he introduced the ove into Christianity, we 
 cannot think it extraordinary (as Dr. Priestley 
 speaks) that he should eagerly catch at the other. 
 
 This inductive reasoning may be very ingenious: 
 
 but, even if its premises were secure, still, I fear, 
 it would not be very solid. What, then, shall we 
 say, when the premises themselves only afford an 
 instance of Dr. Priestley’s utter disregard of truth, 
 when a controversial turn is to be served?- 
 ‘ The historian cites a passage from Justin: to 
 demonstrate, his fondness for Platonism arTeR his 
 conversion, and his consequent ready introduction of 
 at ento Christianity. 
 
 But he completely suppresses that part of the 
 passage, in which Justin states: that his fondness 
 
138 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 Sor Platonism prevailed only BEFORE his conversion ; 
 and that, arrer /us conversion, he became fully con- 
 vinced of the stupendous profundity of his former 
 folly. 
 
 As Dr. Priestley has not thought it expedient 
 to cite more than half the sentence, and as the 
 meaning of Justin will not be distinctly perceived 
 unless we have the whole: I shall supply the de- 
 ficiency by an additional adduction of the remain- 
 ing half. | 
 
 Dissatisfied with his previous philosophical in- 
 structors, the Stoic and the Peripatetic and the 
 Pythagoréan, Justin finally attached himself to an 
 intelligent Platonist, under whose tuition he made 
 a considerable progress '. 
 
 Now, be it carefully observed, Justin, in the 
 passage imperfectly cited by Dr. Priestley, is speak- 
 ing of his admiration of Platonism, not arrer he 
 became a Christian, but serorE he became a 
 Christian: for he is speaking of this his admira- 
 tion, wHILE he was pursuing his philosophical 
 studies with his platonic instructor. And, accord- 
 ingly, AFTER he became a Christian, he freely 
 confesses his former folly, in having vainly, through 
 such means, hoped to attain the professed end of 
 the philosophy of Plato. 
 
 THE NOTION OF INCORPOREAL THINGS GREATLY 
 DELIGHTED ME: AND THE THEORY OF IDEAS SEEMED 
 
 * Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 168, 169. 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 139 
 
 TO GIVE NEW WINGS TO My MIND. So that, in a 
 short time, I fancied : that I had become a wise man. 
 And, in my sottish folly, I even hoped : that I should 
 soon distinctly behold God. For that is the end of 
 Plato’s philosophy *. 
 
 By the expression of distinctly beholding God, 
 Justin alludes, I apprehend, to the enthusiasm of 
 that mystic quietism: which itself was deduced 
 from the writings of Plato ; and which, in the third 
 century, the /ater Platonists of the Alexandrian 
 School finally carried to such a length, that they 
 claimed to be occasionally united to the Supreme 
 God, who sometimes was himself alleged to have 
 appeared to them though he has neither form nor 
 idea. 
 
 This was the great boast of Plotinus and Por- 
 phyry: the latter of whom gravely tells us; that 
 he himself, the man Porphyry to wit, was once, in 
 the sixty-eighth year of his age, thus united; and 
 that he had been the highly privileged witness of 
 no less than four such unions in the person of the 
 wise Plotinus ’. 
 
 1 Kai pe joe opddpa ) THY dowparwy vonotc, Kai h Oewpta 
 TOY Edy dverrepou poe TY Hodvnow* ddLyou TE EvTOC XPdvOV 
 Opn copoc yeyovévar’ Kal, bro PAakeiac, iAmfoy avrika Kar- 
 dWeoba rov Ody? rovro yap réXoc ric UAarwvoc gtdooodiac. 
 Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 169. 
 
 2 Tlod\Aakte évayorre (scil. Plotino) eavrov eic rov mp@rov Kal 
 évéketva Ody raic évvolate, Epayn éketvoc 6 PTE poopgny pune 
 
 = 
 
 Tuva ideay € EXWV, umep o€ yvouv Kal TOV TO vonrov LOpupevoc’ &® 
 
 “ 
 
140 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK Il. 
 
 That honest inquirer Justin, however, was, 
 through God's grace, reserved for better things 
 than such bootless vagaries. Platonism was his 
 last pagan speculation: and we here see, how he 
 speaks of it arrerR he had embraced, what he 
 rightly calls, the onty sure and beneficial philo- 
 sophy. Full of his theory of ideas and his hope 
 of distinctly beholding God, through a mysterious 
 union with, or an absorption into, the divine 
 essence; he entered into his memorable conversa- 
 tion with the aged man upon the sea-shore. 
 And the result was: that he soon heartily despised, 
 what, BEFORE his conversion, he had, in his ac- 
 knowledged sottish folly, admired’. 
 
 O) Kat éyw Tlopdupioc a&rak éyw mAnoidoa Kai EvwOFvar— 
 Tédoc aire (scil. Plotino) cai cxorde jv, 76 EvwOFvae Kal wedGoat 
 7) émlt waar Oey’ Ervye Cé rerpdKe rov, Ore cvynpny avro, 
 Tov oxorov rovrov. Porphyr. in vit. Plotin. apud Cudw. Intell. 
 Syst. book i. chap. 4. p. 549. 
 
 * Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 167—174. With a 
 whimsical sort of gravity, Dr. Priestley concedes the acknow- 
 ledgment of the early christian writers : that They did not adopt 
 the principles of Plato quite indiscriminately. 
 
 In our assertion, says Justin, that All things were produced 
 and arranged by God, me shall seem to follow the dogma of 
 Plato : and, in our belief that There mill be a general conflagra- 
 tion, that of the Stoics. Justin, Apol. i. Oper. p. 51. 
 
 The historian’s concession, I suppose, is meant to intimate: 
 that dn acknowledgment of not quite indiscriminate adoption is 
 a tacit acknonledgment of partial adoption. 
 
 But, if the preceding passage, as cited by Dr. Priestley, will 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 141 
 
 3. But, all this notwithstanding, Justin, accord- 
 ing to Dr. Priestley, received the ready formed 
 tenet of THe Locos from Philo, as Philo had re- 
 ceived it from Plato. 
 
 Justin, no doubt, had been a: Platonist: and 
 Philo the Jew also was confessedly a disciple of 
 the same School. Still, after all, since the question 
 is purely A QUESTION OF FACT; and since it may be 
 fairly denied, that Dr. Priestley has any right to 
 indulge in mere unauthorised conjecture: it seems 
 only equitable to hear their own account of the 
 source, whence they severally professed to derive 
 their doctrine of THE Locos. 
 
 (1.) With respect to Philo, from whom, accord- 
 ing to Dr. Priestley, Justin borrowed the tenet 
 ready formed to his hands, as Philo had previously 
 borrowed it from Plato: Philo himself, so far from 
 
 establish the partial Platonism of Justin arrEr his conversion 
 to Christianity, it will equally establish his partial Stoicism. 
 
 Than such a citation, what can be more ridiculously irre- 
 levant ? 
 
 Did Justin and the early Fathers, forsooth, LEARN and ADoPT 
 the divine creation and the final conflagration of the world from 
 the philosophy of the Greeks ? 
 
 Were they wholly ignorant, until they had been Tavcut by 
 Plato and by Zeno, what apparently they mzght have learned 
 from Moses and from Peter: that God created the world; and 
 that Ultimately it will be destroyed by fire ? 
 
 Until controversially instructed by Dr. Priestley, I was not 
 aware that Partial coincipENcE of opinion is a sure proof of 
 discriminating apoption or of eclectic MUTUATION. 
 
142 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 owning any obligation to Plato, builds his doctrine 
 of THE PERSONAL WORD OF JEHOVAH upon a well 
 known remarkable text in the book of Exodus’. 
 For, in his probative interpretation of that text, 
 he identifies the Divine Word with the Angel in 
 whom is the name of Jehovah?. 
 
 Now, whether he be right, or whether he be 
 wrong, in his opimion, is nothing to the present 
 question. We are simply concerned with his own 
 account of the derivation of a doctrine. 
 
 The case, then, stands, in manner following. 
 
 Philo teaches, as a theological truth, the tenet 
 of THE PERSONAL WORD OF JEHOVAH: and this tenet, 
 in point of authoritative origination, he claims to 
 found upon a-text in the book of Exodus. 
 
 A man, therefore, who attempts to build his 
 doctrine wpon Scripture, professedly, by the very 
 act of such an attempt, makes Scripture its authori- 
 tative source and foundation. 
 
 Probably enough, Philo might wish to identify 
 
 *Exod.xxii.420,.21, 
 
 * KaOdrep yap riva roipyny, yijv Kat dowo Kal dépa Kal 79, 
 
 \ ef 3 ' t 5 Ne 55a . \ a] \ \ Ok a) mee 
 Kal Ooa Ey TOUTOLC HuTa TE av Kat CHa, Ta pev Ovyra, Ta dé Oia 
 ére O& Kal ovpavod dvow, Kat fAlov Kal ceAhync mepwddouc, Kak 
 
 lace > ° , / oe \ f te / oF 
 TwWVv addAwY dorepwy TOOTaC TE AU Kal yooElac Evappoviovc’ we 
 
 N \ ‘\ e \ o/ a \ Ne \ / 
 
 Toupy Kat Baowreve 6 Oedc dye Kara Oikny Kal vOLOY, TpOCTH- 
 / \ b) \ 9 ~ / le RN a a > , 
 capevoc TOY Op90v avrov Adyor mowrdyovoy Yiov, b¢ TIY ETU[LE= 
 Alay Tij¢g “Eepade TavTHE dyéANC, Od TL peyddov Paciréwe vrap- 
 xoc duadéeerau’ Kal yao eipnral mov’ “Idov éyw eit, adtoorehw 
 4 oe ~ has ° 
 “Ayyedov pov cic rpdowrdy cov, rou duddbat oe év ™ 0¢@. Phil. 
 
 Jud. de Agricult. Oper. p. 195. 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 143 
 
 the Locos of the Platonic School, with the worp 
 Or VOICE or ANGEL of Jehovah as mentioned in the 
 Old Testament. But still his professed authority, 
 for the doctrine itself of the Locos, is Moses, not 
 Plato. 
 
 (2.) In a similar manner, with respect to Justin 
 Martyr, that very ancient Father of the Church, 
 who himself should best know whence he received 
 both the name and the doctrine of THE LoGos, in- 
 stead of deducing them either from Plato or from 
 Philo, avowedly fetches them from the Scriptures 
 of the Old Testament. 
 
 L will produce to you, says he, another testimony 
 FROM THE SCRIPTURES : that, in the beginning, before 
 all creatures, the Deity begat from himself a certain 
 rational Power ; which Power ts, by the Holy Ghost, 
 denominated, sometimes 'The Glory of the Lord, 
 sometimes The Son, sometimes The Wisdom, some- 
 times The Angel, sometimes God, sometimes The 
 Lord and THE worp. At other times, again, he 
 styles himself The Chief Captain: as when he ap- 
 peared, in a human form, to Joshua the Son of Nun. 
 For, both from his ministering to his Father’s will, 
 and hkewise from his being born according to his 
 father’s good pleasure, by all those several names is 
 he distinguished’. 
 
 * Mapripuy dé kat ado tiv, & pio, epny, dro TaY yoa- 
 ~ PA e b) \ \ , ce i / e a) N 
 ~wov Cwow, OTe doXIY, TOO TaYTwWY TwWY KTLOpdTwWY, 6 OEde ye~ 
 yévence Avvapey tiva é& éavrod oyurny, rie Kat Adka Kuplov 
 
 ~ / ~ ~ \ AS x N 
 vro Tov Ivevparoc rov ‘Ayiov kaXetrat, wore O€ Yidc, wore Of Lo- 
 
144 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK IL. 
 
 The scriptural testimony, which, agreeably to 
 
 his promise, Justin produces, for the purpose of | 
 
 authoritatively demonstrating, that A certain ra- 
 tional Power was, from the beginning, begotten of 
 the Father before all creatures, is taken from the 
 eighth chapter of the book of Proverbs’. And, ere 
 he brings it forward, he, a second time, specifies 
 the appellation of THE worp among those titles of 
 the Son, which he considers to be employed by 
 the mspired writers of the Old Testament’. 
 
 Now, here again, as before in the case of Philo, 
 the question is: not Whether Justin was right, or 
 whether Justin was wrong, in his doctrinal system ; 
 but, simply, Whence Justin derived his doctrinal 
 system. 
 
 To have stated to a jewish opponent, that He 
 adopted his tenet of THE PERSONAL woRD on. the 
 authority of St. John, and that From the inspired 
 exordium of that Apostle’s Gospel it was universally 
 received as a divine truth in the Christian Church : 
 
 pia, more 0&”Ayyedoc, Tore € Oede, wore Oe Kibproc kal AOTOS. 
 Hore dé ’Apxtorpdrnyoy éavroy éyer, év dyOpwrov popdy ga- 
 vevra TH TOU Navi "Inoov. “Eye yap rdyra rpocovopacecbat, 
 Ek TE TOU UTNpETELY TO TarpLKO PBovAhpart, Kal éx TOD awd ToD 
 Ilarpoc Oedhaee yeyerjoOa. Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. 
 p-. 221. 
 
 7+ Prov. Wil. 2e- our 
 
 * Maprupioe: dé pot 6 Adyoe Tijc Lodbiac, avroe OY ovToe O 
 Ove azo rov Ilarpdce rwy Odwy yevynbele, Kat AOTOX, «kai 
 Lopia, kat Avvapec, cal Ada rot yeryvhourroe irdpxwy, Kal du 
 Loropwvoe phoarroc ravra, Dial. cum ‘Tryph. Oper. p. 221. 
 
 7 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 145 
 
 would, in such a dispute, have plainly been quite 
 nugatory. Very wisely, therefore, he goes further 
 back: and resorts to an authority, which Trypho, 
 as a Jew, could not disallow. 
 
 Hence, if we may believe Justin’s own state- 
 ment, both the name and the doctrine of THE 
 PERSONAL WORD, aS propounded by St. John with 
 reference to Christ, and as received from him by 
 the whole Catholic Church, were, ultimately, in 
 strict theological harmony, deduced, not from 
 Plato or from Philo, but from The familiar phrase- 
 ology of the Old Testament. 
 
 Justin, like many of the old Fathers, was fond 
 of exhibiting Plato and the Greek Philosophers, 
 as the plagiarists of Moses and the Prophets. 
 Hence, in the Locos of the Platonists, he was not 
 unwilling fancifully to discover the scriptural worp 
 OF JEHOVAH |. 
 
 * See below, book ii. chap. 8. § iv. Discoveries or distortions 
 of a somewhat similar nature, let us call them which we please, 
 characterised also the School of the later Platonists: which 
 may be viewed, as commencing with Ammonius, himself a Christ- 
 ian, about the close of the second century. See Euseb. Hist. 
 Eccles. lib. vi. c. 19. 
 
 These operations proceeded so successfully, that Porphyry, 
 in the third century, as an explanation of the tenets of his 
 master Plato, asserts, even in so many words: that The sub- 
 stance of the Godhead advances to three hypostases. 
 
 Ieov 1) capi év. robrore, aXOl TOLWY UTooTdTEWY THY TOD 
 Ociov mpoedOeiv ovaiay, ioxvpiferac. Porphyr. apud Cyril. 
 Alex. cont. Julian. lib. i. p. 34. 
 
 Justin 
 Wd Te Lie: L 
 
146 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK I. 
 
 But, as for his adopting the plan of actual mutu- 
 ation ascribed to him by Dr. Priestley, he hemself, 
 by a plain consequence, altogether disavows it. 
 For, in respect to wltimate derivation, he professes 
 to fetch, both the name and the doctrine of THE 
 PERSONAL worD, from the sacred books of the 
 Hebrews. 
 
 4. The most extraordinary part of the whole 
 matter yet remains to be stated. 
 
 Although, according to Dr. Priestley, the christ- 
 ian tenets of THE TRINITY and of THE PERSONAL 
 WORD OF Gop were certainly, by Justin, borrowed 
 from Platonism: yet still, according to the same 
 Dr. Priestley, Platonism itself contains nothing 
 which at all resembles them. 
 
 Thus have I given, says the historian, the best view 
 that I have been able to collect of every thing, that 
 ‘can be supposed to constitute the trinity of Plato, 
 from his own writings > WITHOUT FINDING IN THEM © 
 
 Justin chronologically preceded these later Platonists. From 
 them, therefore, it cannot be pretended, that he borrowed the 
 doctrines of THE TRINITY and THE LoGos. 
 
 Each, in truth, discovered in Plato, what Plato himself never 
 dreamed of. . 
 
 The avowed rationalé of the discovery, when conducted by 
 the Fathers of the Church, was, as I have already intimated : 
 that The Pagans had corruptedly borrowed the doctrines of THE 
 TRINITY and THE Locos from Moses and the Prophets. 
 
 But this very humour of fanciful discovery, on the part of 
 Justin and others, is alone sufficient to shew: that they could 
 not themselves have received those doctrines from Plato. 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 147 
 
 ANY RESEMBLANCE, TO THE CHRISTIAN TRINITY, OR 
 INDEED TO ANY PROPER PERSONIFICATION OF THE 
 DIVINE LOGOS WHICH HAS BEEN MADE THE SECOND 
 PERSON IN IT}, 
 
 This remark of Dr. Priestley evidently sur- 
 renders the very basis of his favourite argument. 
 
 If Plato were ignorant of a DIVINE TRINITY oF 
 PERSONS, and if he Anew nothing of A REALLY PER- 
 SONAL WORD OF GoD: how could Justin have dor- 
 rowed from Plato, and from his philosophy have 
 introduced into Christianity, a system, which Plato 
 himself, all the while, confessedly had never pro- 
 pounded 2? 
 
 The stream cannot rise higher than the foun- 
 tain: and, clearly, Plato could not have taught, 
 to Justin, doctrines, of which he himself was 
 2onorant *, 
 
 V. It is, however, a matter of very small im- 
 portance, WHERE Justin might have procured his 
 novel doctrine. 
 
 * Hist. of Early Opin. book i. chap. 6. Works, vol. vi. 
 p- 164. 
 
 * A similar unguarded, but fatal, concession occurs also in 
 Dr. Priestley’s Letters to Bp. Horsley. 
 
 As to the trintty of Plato, it was certaimly a thing very 
 unlike your Athanasian Doctrine. For it was never magined : 
 that the three component members of that Trinity were, either 
 equal to each other, or (strictly speaking ) one. 
 
 Here, again, Dr. Priestley destroys his own foundation. 
 Justin could not have borrowed from Plato, what Plato himself, 
 according to the historian, never so much as imagined. 
 
 L 2 
 
 aes) 
 
148 THE APOSTOLICITY [BooK I. 
 
 Whether he borrowed it from the School of 
 Plato, in which, after Dr. Priestley’s most diligent 
 researches, it cannot be found; or whether, with- 
 out any extrinsic aid, he was sufficiently ingenious 
 to invent it himself: whatever may have been its 
 fancied origin, the sole really serious part of the 
 matter is the grave allegation, on the word of a 
 professed historian; that He first apvanceD and 
 INTRODUCED tt into the hitherto strictly antitrimtarian 
 and humanitarian Church Catholic. 
 
 I give Dr. Priestley’s own words, carefully se- 
 lected from four several places of his two His- 
 tories. 
 
 Justin Martyr was THE First, that we can find 
 to have apvancep the doctrine of the divinity of 
 Christ '. 
 
 We find nothing like divinity ascribed to Christ, 
 BEFORE Justin Martyr ’. 
 
 From a careful perusal of the writings of Justin, 
 I cannot help thinking: that he was THE FIRST, or 
 ONE OF THE FIRST, who ADVANCED the doctrine of the 
 permanent personality of the Logos *. 
 
 Can it be thought extraordinary: that Justin, 
 having himself professed the doctrine of Plato, 
 eagerly caught at the doctrine of the Logos which 
 he found ready formed to his hands in the Works 
 
 ’ Hist. of Corrupt. part i. sect. 3. Works, vol. v. p. 37. 
 ® Hist. of Corrupt. part i. sect. 2. Works, vol. v. p. 29. 
 > Hist. of Corrupt. part i. sect. 2, Works, vol. v. p. 30. 
 
 ee” ee 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 149 
 
 of Philo, and ixtRopucep tt into the Christian 
 System* ? 
 
 Against the integrity of the martyred philoso- 
 phical convert ; who yet, on the preceding hypo- 
 thesis, must actually have laid down his life, not 
 for the Gospel of Christ, but for a speculation 
 unaccountably borrowed from Plato who himself 
 all the while had never maintained it: this is, 
 surely, a grave allegation. And it is the more 
 grave : because, instead of making it lightly and 
 ' carelessly, Dr. Priestley professes to build it upon 
 a careful perusal of the writings of Justin. Well, 
 therefore, does it deserve and require a close and 
 serious examination. 
 
 1. Now I cannot refrain from thinking it rea- 
 sonable : that, on a point so strictly personal, we 
 should hear an ancient author’s own statement of 
 the rise and progress of his opinions. And, in- 
 deed, since Dr. Priestley professes to deduce his 
 representation of the matter from a careful perusal 
 of Justin’s writings: no one of his admirers can 
 fairly object to my appealing to the same unques- 
 tionable authority. 
 
 The historian asserts: that Justin inTRoDUCED, 
 into the hitherto strictly humanitarian Church, the 
 NOVEL doctrine of Christ's divinity. 
 
 But Justin himself, at least as I read his Greek, 
 
 * Hist. of Early Opin. book ii. chap. 2. sect. 2. Works, 
 vol. vi. p. 208. 
 
150 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II 
 
 declares: that Both he and his contemporaries 
 LEARNED that doctrine in the Church, while receiv- 
 ang, im order to their baptism, catechumenical in- 
 struction. 
 
 Consequently, we have his own authority for 
 stating: that, Instead of 1nrropucine the doctrine 
 INTO the Church, he really rounp it 1x the Church. 
 
 It may seem strange, that the historian and my- 
 self, each from an alleged perusal of the writings 
 of Justin, should have arrived at two such dia- 
 metrically opposite conclusions. Yet so it cer- 
 tainly is. 
 
 With respect to Dr. Priestley, if any single place 
 in the whole Works of Justin can be found, which 
 authorises his assertion; that Justin borrowed the 
 doctrine of Christ's divinity from the School of 
 Plato, and that Justin was the first who introduced 
 that doctrine into the Christian System: let it, by 
 all means, be brought forward. 
 
 With respect to myself, as I have been unable 
 to discover any such place in any part of the writ- 
 ings of that Father, I scruple not openly to state: 
 that, In no portion of his Works, does Justin give 
 the slightest warrant for Dr. Priestley’s perfectly 
 gratuitous imputation. 
 
 Should my statement be erroneous, it may, by 
 the diligent reader of the martyred philosopher, be 
 easily corrected. 
 
 _.Meanwhile, until that correction shall be ad- 
 ministered, I shall occupy myself with producing 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 151 
 
 the passages, which have led me to adopt an opi- 
 nion the very opposite of that which is favoured by 
 the historian. 
 
 (1.) Throughout his whole Dialogue with Try- 
 pho, Justin Never speaks as the hesitating advo- 
 cate of a consciously Nove. speculation first started 
 by himself. | 
 
 On the contrary: he both appears, as pleading 
 for the RECEIVED and WELL KNown doctrines of 
 the entire Church Catholic; and he is evidently 
 viewed, in that light, by his jewish adversary. 
 
 Had he been starting AN UNAUTHORISED AND 
 GENERALLY REPROBATED NOVELTY, Trypho, we may 
 be sure, would not have failed to tell him: that he 
 was departing from the PRorEessED tenets even of 
 his own sect. 
 
 But nothing of the sort can be detected in any 
 part of the Dialogue. 
 
 Trypho invariably argues, not against Zhe mere 
 nsulated speculatist Justin, but against The entire 
 Church of which he deems Justin as it were the 
 accredited representative. 
 
 This circumstance, to omit numerous other in- 
 stances sufficiently marked by the very tone of the 
 speaker, strikingly displays itself in a passage, 
 which I have already had occasion to quote, and 
 which immediately follows the passages so strangely 
 perverted by Dr. Priestley. 
 
 Trypho repled: Those persons, who say, that 
 Jesus was born a mere man, and that By election 
 
 tad 
 é 
 
 ad 
 
152 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 he was anointed, and that He became the Christ, 
 seem to me to speak more credibly, than you who say 
 the same things that THOU sayest’. 
 
 The asserters of Christ’s mere humanity were 
 evidently the Ebionites, to whom Justin had im- 
 mediately before alluded: and the persons, of 
 whom Trypho speaks plurally as agreeing with 
 Justin, are indisputably that numerous body which 
 Justin had previously mentioned as holding the 
 same sentiments with himself; in other words, 
 they are The constituent members of the whole 
 Catholic Church viewed contradistinctively from 
 schismatics and heretics. 
 
 (2.) Accordingly, Trypho, in an earlier part of 
 the Dialogue, unambiguously expresses himself, 
 as being well aware: that, Ln combating sustin, he 
 was combating THE ENTIRE COLLECTIVE BODY OF 
 UNITED CHRISTIANS. 
 
 It would have been far better for us, says he an- 
 erily to Justin, 7f we had followed the advice of our 
 teachers, and had conversed with NO ONE OF You”. 
 
 The reason assigned is; Because, in the esti- 
 mation of a Jew, many blasphemies were spoken: 
 
 * Kat 6 Totgwr, Epoi pev doxovety, eimev, oi Néyorrec dvOow- 
 Tov yeyovevat avroy, Kat Kar’ éxdoyiy KexoioOat, Kat Xovorov 
 yeyovéva, miBavwrepov YMQN Déyey rev ratra aweo OH 
 Aeyéyrwy. Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 207. 
 
 ? Kai 0 Tptgwy eizerv,’Q dvOowre, kadov iy wevobévrac hae 
 roig Otdackahore vopofericacr, MHAENI EZ YMQN opireiv. 
 Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 198. | 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 153 
 
 such as, that Jesus was the person who talked with 
 Moses and Aaron in the pillar of the cloud ; that 
 That person became man; and that He ought to be 
 worshipped with divine honours. 
 
 Now, the plural phraseology, adopted by Trypho 
 In giving vent to his indignation, No ONE OF YoU, 
 would have been quite nugatory: if he had sup- 
 posed; that he was merely disputing with the in- 
 sulated introducer of a then novel tenet, notoriously 
 rejected as yet, through the very necessity of 
 chronology (for, when Justin conversed with 
 Trypho, he had himself been a convert barely six 
 years ; in which short time, it was morally impos- 
 sible for the zealous neophyte to have effected an 
 universal corruption), by the Christian Church at 
 large. 
 
 Unless it had been a well known fact ; that The 
 great body of believers, in every quarter of the 
 globe, both THEN held with Justin, and had aways 
 from the very first maintained the same doctrine: 
 Trypho could never have said to Justin, No ONE 
 OF YOU. 
 
 Had his opponent, with a few speculative fol- 
 lowers only, been THEN engaged in introducing a 
 new doctrine, which differed radically from the 
 well known old doctrine of the entire Catholic 
 Church: Trypho’s language would obviously have 
 been; We had better have followed the advice of 
 our teachers, and have conversed with no one of you 
 
154 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK Il. 
 
 vain innovators, who depart even from the tenets of 
 your own communion. 
 
 In truth : Against whom did Trypho’s rabbinical 
 teachers caution him ? 
 
 Was it against Justin and a few innovating specu- 
 latists only ? 
 
 Clearly not. Trypho had been cautioned against 
 conversing with Christians in general. And the 
 distinctly assigned REAson of the caution was : that 
 He could not fail to. hear from them doctrines re-~ 
 specting Jesus of Nazareth, which a Jew would 
 deem positive blasphemies. 
 
 Agreeably to the tenor of such a caution, these 
 very doctrines which give so much offence to 
 Trypho; the doctrines, namely, that Jesus con- 
 versed with the old Patriarchs, that Jesus spake to 
 Moses from the burning bush declaring himself to 
 be the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, that 
 Jesus was present with Israel in the pillar of fire, 
 that Jesus became man and yet was very God: these 
 identical doctrines, instead of being a new specula- 
 tion of the mere individual Justin, actually appear 
 in one of the ancient Symbols of the Catholic 
 Church which has happily been preserved by Ter- 
 tullian *. 
 
 (3.) Let us, however, finally hear Justin’s own 
 
 * Varié visum patriarchis. Symbol. vetust. apud Tertull. de 
 preescript. adv. her. Oper. p. 100. See above, book i. chap. 6. 
 §v. 1. 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 155 
 
 explicit declaration, in regard to the quarter, 
 whence he and his christian contemporaries alike 
 learned those doctrines; which he is alleged, 
 thirty six years after the death of St. John, and 
 barely six years after his own conversion, to have 
 so successfully 1ntTRopucED into all the various 
 provincial branches of Christ’s Church Catholic. | 
 
 BotH HIM THE FATHER ; AND THE SON, WHO CAME 
 FORTH FROM HIM (and who, respecting these things, 
 instructed both us and the army of the other good 
 angels who follow him and who are made hke unto 
 him) ; AND THE PROPHETIC SPIRIT: THESE WE WOR- 
 SHIP AND WE ADORE, honouring them in word and 
 wn truth; and, to any person who wishes to learn, 
 freely imparting, AS WE OURSELVES HAVE BEEN 
 TAUGHT '. 
 
 This declaration occurs in a public Apology: 
 wherein Justin, appropriately using the plural form, 
 pleads, in the name and on the behalf of the whole 
 collective body of his suffering brethren, to the reign- 
 ing Emperor Antoninus Pius. And, if, with re- 
 quisite variation, I may be allowed to borrow the 
 words of Dr. Priestley: it is not couched in the 
 language of a man, who from Plato and from Philo 
 
 1° ANN ’Ekcivéy re, Kal rov rap’ avrov Yiov éXOdvra (kal di- 
 dabayra ide ravra Kal Tov Tov d\Awy ETOpévwy Kal éofLoL0Ov- 
 péevwv dyaborv dyyédwy orparor), Iveta re ro rpogyriKoy, ce- 
 
 / \ ~ 7 \ > 4 lan \ sN 
 Popeba Kal roookvvotper, AOyw Kat adyOelg TYwrrec, Kal Tart 
 Bovropévy pabety, we &dvddyOnpev, dpOdvwe mapacuddyrec. Justin. 
 Apol. i. Oper. p. 43. 
 
156 THE APOSTOLICITY [Book 1. 
 
 had recently started a very singular Noverty, and 
 who well knew that he had not along with him 
 the sanction of the majority. 
 
 WE CHRISTIANS, says he, as the accredited apolo- 
 getic annunciator of the leading doctrines main- 
 tained by the Catholic Church, and as the faithful 
 narrator of the mode in which he and his contem- 
 poraries had received such doctrines: WE CHRISTIANS 
 ADORE GOD, THE FATHER AND THE SON AND THE SPIRIT. 
 Nor is this any new. doctrine and practice, recently 
 and unwarrantably introduced among us. To any 
 
 person who wishes to learn our Theological Sys- 
 
 tem, we freely and ungrudgingly impart it, as wz 
 OURSELVES HAVE BEEN TAUGHT BY OUR CHRISTIAN 
 PREDECESSORS |. 
 
 * ‘Qe ediddyOnuev, As we ourselves have been taught. So 
 speaks Justin, in a public Apology, of himself and of his be- 
 lieving contemporaries, with reference to the joint adoration of 
 the Father and the Son and the Spirit. 4s we have been 
 taught. 
 
 Now by whom were Justin and his believing contemporaries 
 taught the doctrine and the adoration of the Father and the Son 
 and the Spirit? By whom were they so convinced of the truth 
 and of the propriety both of the tenet and of the practice ; that 
 they were ready to deliver to any person, who was desirous of 
 learning, both the one and the other, even as they themselves 
 had been taught ? 
 
 Shall we say, with Dr. Priestley : that Justin and his believ- 
 ing contemporaries were thus taught from the writings of Plato 
 and of Philo; and that, having been thus taught, they forthwith 
 antroduced, what they learned, into the Christian System, which, 
 
 To 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 157 
 
 Such is the public declaration of Justin: a de- 
 claration, which, in the very nature of things, 
 
 anterior to such introduction, knew nothing of either the doc- 
 trine or the practice ? 
 
 Or shall we rather say, as that valuable monitor Common 
 Sense seems pretty plainly to charge us: that Justin and his 
 believing contemporaries were thus taught, within the pale-of 
 the Catholic Church, by those regular episcopally appointed 
 Catechists ; whose office it was to prepare the Catechumens for 
 their public baptismal profession of, Iltoretw cic tov Oeov’ TOV 
 Tlargoa, roy Yidv, cal ro “Ayvor IIvevpa, I believe in God: the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ? 
 
 I. Never let the honest christian inquirer forget Justin’s 
 unequivocal and decisive ‘Q¢ eduda yOnpev. 
 
 As, from the very first, the primitive believers were them- 
 selves taught, within the pale of the Catholic Church, and by 
 her regularly appointed public officers, conjointly to adore the 
 Father and the Son and the Spirit: so were they ready to de- 
 liver, both the practice and the doctrine involved in the practice, 
 to any person who might wish to learn the sincere faith of the 
 Gospel. 
 
 II. Yet, strange to say, notwithstanding the distinctness of 
 Justin’s ‘Qe édidyOnpev, Dr. Priestley actually puts down, in 
 one of his Histories, the following statement. 
 
 Whether Justin Martyr was tHE vERY FIRST who started the 
 notion of the preéxistence of Christ and of his superangelic or 
 divine nature, is not certain. But WE ARE UNABLE TO TRACE IT 
 ANY HIGHER. Hist. of Corrupt. part i. sect. 2. Works, vol. v. 
 p-. 29. 
 
 1. What, with Justin’s Works open before him, was the his-< 
 torian unable to trace what he calls the notion of Christ’s pre- 
 éxistence and godhead any higher than Justin himself: when 
 this very writer, in a public Apology, openly declares; that 
 both he and his believing contemporaries had been taught, by 
 
158 THE APOSTOLICITY [Book I. 
 
 could never have been made, if Justin himself, 
 having learned from Plato and from Philo the 
 divinity of the personal Word, were the rirsv who 
 INTRODUCED it into the Catholic Church; a de- 
 claration, therefore, utterly incompatible with Dr. 
 Priestley’s wild unsupported theory respecting the 
 fancied machinations of Justin. 
 
 2. It is a somewhat curious circumstance: that, 
 although the historian wishes to exhibit J ustin, as 
 THE ORIGINAL ADVANCER AND INTRODUCER OF THE 
 DOCTRINES OF CHRIST'S PREEXISTENCE AND DIVINITY ; 
 yet his language evinces a degree of faltering un-— 
 certainty, which is not a little remarkable. 
 
 their ecclesiastical predecessors, the joint adoration of the Son 
 with the Father and the Spirit; and therefore of course had 
 also been taught, unless we make those ecclesiastical prede- 
 cessors rank venders of idolatry, the doctrine of the proper 
 essential divinity of the Son ? 
 
 2. By his plural phraseology, Justin expressly vouches for 
 the universal reception of the doctrine, not only by the Christ- 
 ians of his own generation, but likewise by the Christians of the 
 generation which preceded him. The doctrine was TAUGHT, 
 both to him and to his contemporaries, by their ecclesiastical 
 predecessors : who themselves, by the very necessity of chrono- 
 logy, must have touched the age of St. John and the Apostles. 
 Hence, I suppose, if the doctrine was TAUGHT, the doctrine 
 must have been nexp, by Justin’s predecessors in the Church 
 
 Catholic. 
 
 3. Yet, though Dr. Priestley is not quite sure, whether 
 Justin was the very first who started the doctrine in question: 
 still, with his utmost diligence of historical research, he is 
 unable to trace it any higher. 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 159 
 
 With respect to THE PRECISE TIME WHEN, 07 THE 
 PARTICULAR PERSONS BY WHOM, they were introduced, 
 says he, there is less certainty to be had. This, 
 however, is of no great consequence: it beimg suf- 
 ficient to shew ; that They came in from some fo- 
 reign source, and After the age of the Apostles : 
 which accounts for their not noticing the doctrines 
 at all’. | 
 
 (1.) In my views of historical evidence, 1 am 
 constrained altogether to differ from Dr. Priestley. 
 
 So far from its being of no great consequence to 
 ascertain THE PRECISE TIME WHEN, and THE PARTI- 
 CULAR PERSONS BY WHOM, the doctrines in question 
 were introduced; if indeed, subsequently to the 
 age of the Apostles, they were ever introduced 
 into a professedly humanitarian Church: it strikes 
 me, as being a matter even of vital consequence to 
 the cause of modern Antitrinitarianism. 
 
 If, in regard to the nature of Christ, the Apos- 
 tles and the earliest Church were decidedly hu- 
 manitarian: most certainly, somewhere or other, 
 both THE PRECISE TIME WHEN, and THE PARTICULAR 
 PERSONS BY WHOM, was introduced so vast and so 
 portentous an innovation as the doctrine of The 
 really mere man Christ's proper and essential divinity, 
 must have been specifically recorded, and there- 
 fore might be easily ascertained. 
 
 A trifling ceremony, or even some small cor- 
 
 1 Hist. of Early Opin. book i. chap. 1. Works, vol. vi. p. 53. 
 BAY Pp 
 
160 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK I. 
 
 ruption of a sound doctrine, might, no doubt, 
 have been introduced, without attracting the spe- 
 cial notice of any contemporary writer. But the 
 sudden transition from the bare humanity to the 
 proper divinity of Christ (for never let it be for- 
 gotten, that, as the doctrine of the Church Catho- 
 lic, Justin, again and again, asserts Christ to be 
 Jehovah the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of 
 Jacob); and this transition too (by the hypothesis), 
 in the very early age of Justin, or even in an age 
 yet prior to that of Justin, when the true doctrine 
 of the Apostles must inevitably have been known — 
 in all the successions of the Catholic Church : 
 such a transition is far too extraordinary and too 
 marked a circumstance to have occurred without 
 comment or observation !. 
 
 The name of each heresiarch, with the pecu- 
 liarities of his innovation upon the primitive faith, 
 has been duly and minutely recorded. 
 
 To imagine, therefore, that the name of the 
 daring speculatist, who, in direct opposition to the 
 alleged primeval doctrine of Christ’s mere humamty, 
 first. introduced into the Church the doctrine of 
 Christ's proper divinity, should never, by an y single 
 writer, have been distinctly specified and faithfully 
 preserved, is to imagine the very wildest incredi- 
 bility. 
 
 Had any such introduction ever really occurred, 
 
 ' See above, book i. chap. 10. 
 
CHAP. VI._| OF TRINITARIANISM. 161 
 
 we may be quite sure, when Irenéus so boldly ap- 
 pealed to universality and priority against all the 
 existing heresies of the day: that some favourer 
 of the ebionitic speculation would have confronted 
 him with the precise name and the precise age of 
 the adventurous individual, who, into the ori- 
 ginally humanitarian and antitrinitarian Church, 
 first introduced, with such wonderful success, 
 the novel doctrines of Christ’s godhead and the 
 Trinity. 
 
 The preceding passage I consider, as a virtual, 
 though reluctant, confession, on the part of Dr. 
 Priestley : that, although he has laboured hard to 
 make out a case for Justin Martyr, he found 
 himself quite unable to specify, either THE pPRE- 
 CISE TIME WHEN, OF THE PARTICULAR PERSONS BY 
 wHom, the doctrines of Christ’s preéxistence and 
 divinity were first introduced into the Church 
 Catholic. — 
 
 Hence, the requisition, which Dr. Priestley 
 makes upon the faith of the Trinitarian, will stand, 
 I apprehend, in manner following. 
 
 Through every age, so far as we can learn from 
 existing historical documents, the Catholic Church 
 has uniformly maintained: that the doctrines of 
 Christ’s preéxistence and divinity were doctrines, 
 taught by, and handed down from, the Apostles 
 themselves. 
 
 Without a shadow of proof, Dr. Priestley as- 
 
 VOL. II. M 
 
162 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK Il. 
 
 serts: that those doctrines came into the Church, 
 from some foreign source, Arrer the age of the 
 Apostles. For, though he wishes to give the credit 
 of the matter to Justin Martyr, he reluctantly 
 confesses: that he is unable to specify, either 
 THE PRECISE TIME WHEN, OF THE PARTICULAR PER- 
 SONS BY wHoM, they were introduced into the 
 Church. 
 
 Yet would he fain persuade the sturdy Trini- 
 tarian, as he seems to have persuaded the more 
 facile disciples of his own School: that this palpa- 
 ble defect in his evidence is of no great conse- 
 quence ; and that his crude unsupported specu- 
 lation ought, in absolute defiance of the unbroken 
 and unvarying testimony of the Catholic Church 
 to a directly contrary effect, to be received as an 
 undoubted truth. 
 
 (2.) It is amusing to hear Dr. Priestley with 
 much gravity assuring us: that The doctrines came 
 m, from some foreign source, and after the age of 
 the Apostles ; WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR THEIR NOT NO- 
 TICING THE DOCTRINES AT ALL. 
 
 With cheaply gratuitous assertions of this kind, 
 his Works abound. 
 
 The Apostles, forsooth, notice not the doctrines 
 at all! And, of this perfectly undoubted fact, which 
 of course the very hardiest Trinitarian cannot ven- 
 ture to gainsay, the historian gives the rationale, 
 by stating: that The doctrines came in, from some 
 
CHAP. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 163 
 
 foreign source, and after the age of the Apostles ! 
 THIS ACCOUNTS FOR THEIR NOT NOTICING THE DOC- 
 TRINES AT ALL! 
 
 Thus, with matchless felicity, is the phenome- 
 non of one non-existing fact accounted for by the 
 phenomenon of another non-existing fact. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 RESPECTING THE ALLEGATION, THAT THE NEW TESTA- 
 MENT FURNISHES NO INSTANCE OF THE DIVINE ADO- 
 RATION OF CHRIST. 
 
 As Dr. Priestley contends, that the majority of 
 Christians, even in the days of Athanasius and 
 - Origen and Tertullian, still maintained, in unbroken 
 succession, the primitive apostolic faith of humani- 
 tarian Antitrinitarianism ; and as he pronounces, 
 that the doctrine of Christ’s divinity was introduced 
 into the Church, either by Justin Martyr, or by 
 some yet earlier unrecorded speculatist : so, with 
 necessary consistency, he declares, that the primi- 
 tive believers, quite up to the age of the Apos- 
 tles, inasmuch as they never supposed Christ to 
 be God, thence never made him an object of di- 
 vine adoration '. 
 
 Respecting the general historical fact, that The 
 primitive Christians, from the very apostolic age it- 
 
 * Hist. of Early Opin. Introd. sect. iii. Works, vol. vi. 
 p- 30, 81. See above, book i. chap. 4. note in init. 
 
THE APOSTOLICITY OF TRINITARIANISM. 165 
 
 self, worshipped the Saviour with divine adoration, 
 I have already been at issue with Dr. Priestley '. 
 
 There is a part of the question, however, which 
 I would now somewhat more minutely examine : 
 and that part is, The invocation of Christ supposed 
 by Trinitarians to be recorded in the New Testament 
 as the approved practice of the first believers. 
 
 Of this invocation or adoration I have adduced 
 various instances. Now, should the propriety of 
 those instances be admitted by the theologians of 
 the Antitrinitarian School, the dispute is obviously 
 at an end: for, as Dr. Priestley well argues, if, 
 with the early believers mentioned in Scripture, 
 Christ were an object of prayer ; Christ must also, 
 in their estimation, have been very God’. 
 
 But Antitrinitarians deny the proper divinity of 
 Christ. 
 
 Hence, for the purpose of rebutting the supposed 
 fact, that Divine adoration is recorded in the New 
 Testament to have been rightly paid to Christ, anti- 
 trinitarian writers, by whatever mechanism, are 
 plainly compelled to set aside the various instances 
 of such adoration which are adduced by their op- 
 ponents: and hence, in the regular course of my 
 discussion, I am now brought to consider the va- 
 lidity of the objections which they have started 
 against the adduced instances. 
 
 * See above, book i. chap. 4. 
 * Hist. of Early Opin. Introd. sect. iii, Works, vol. vi. 
 p- 30, 31. 
 
166 THE APOSTOLICITY — [BOOK I. 
 
 From the Council of Nice in the year 325 up 
 to the death of St. John in the year 100, I have 
 traced retrogressively, step by step, the divine ado- 
 ration of Christ by the entire Church Catholic’. 
 Such being the case, we are prepared to expect 
 some record of the same divine adoration in the 
 New Testament: and, accordingly, at least in the 
 judgment of 'Trinitarians, there we actually find it’. 
 
 Antitrinitarians, however, deny the occurrence 
 of this record in the Greek Scriptures: and, to 
 make good their denial, they attempt to put upon 
 the adduced instances such a construction, as may 
 bring out a totally different result *. 
 
 Now, since they themselves contend that their 
 labour has been successful, a Trinitarian has cer- 
 tainly, on their own principles, a right to demand 
 from them some explanation of the singular fact 
 which inevitably springs up out of their alleged 
 successful labour: the fact, namely, that The ado- 
 ration of Christ should have universally prevailed 
 in the Church downward from the time of St. John, 
 and yet that There should be no traces of such adora- 
 tion in the New Testament. 
 
 * See above, book i. chap. 4. 
 
 * See above, book i. chap. 4. § xvur. 
 
 * I do not, however, find: that they have attempted to set 
 ‘aside the case brought from 1 Thessal. iii. 11, 12. See above, 
 book 1. chap. 4. § xvi. 2. (2.) It clearly cannot be disposed 
 of on the favourite principle of vistprttry, respecting which we 
 
 shall hear more as we proceed in the discussion. 
 
 ee ee eee eee ee eee ee 
 
 a 
 
CHAP. VII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 167 
 
 This demand may the more justly be made, be- 
 cause the very circumstance of the actual universal 
 prevalence of the adoration in question, from the 
 death of St. John in the year 100 down to the first 
 Council of Nice in the year 325, involves, even in 
 itself, the presumption ; that the trinitarian exposi- 
 tion of the inspired phraseology is right, and that 
 the antitrinitarian exposition of it is wrong: iInas- 
 much as the one produces a perfectly harmonious 
 concinnity of the circumstance and the phrase- 
 ology, while the other brings out a somewhat 
 unaccountable inconcinnity. But, although the 
 obvious presumption be thus in favour of the trini- 
 tarian expositor, we doubtless ought in equity to 
 hear the objections which have been started by his 
 antagonists. Let us, then, now proceed to give 
 these objections a due hearing and a fair consider- 
 ation. 
 
 I. It has been remarked: that, even on the 
 most cursory inspection of the New ‘Testament, 
 THE UNIVERSAL ADORATION OF CHRIST, ON THE PART 
 OF THE PRIMITIVE APOSTOLICAL CHURCH, immediately 
 presents itself to our attention. 
 
 This circumstance follows from a phraseolo- 
 gical peculiarity, otherwise altogether unaccount- 
 able. 
 
 Unless the fact: of THE UNIVERSAL ADORATION OF 
 curist had been notorious to the very last degree : 
 the ordinary and familiar description of the primi- 
 tive believers could never have been, ALL THAT IN 
 
168 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK IL. 
 
 EVERY PLACE CALL UPON THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST 
 OUR LORD’. 
 
 The phrase sets forth the invocation of Christ. 
 And nothing, save the actual occurrence of the 
 apostolically authorised invocation of Christ, could 
 have given rise to the phrase itself. 
 
 If, then, the primitive believers were familiarly 
 known, as Those that called upon the name of Jesus 
 Christ : they must, notoriously, under the express 
 sanction of the Apostles, have practised the reli- 
 gious invocation of their Saviour. 
 
 And, if, as thus sanctioned, they practised the 
 religious invocation of their Saviour: they must in- 
 evitably, Dr. Priestley himself being judge, have 
 esteemed him very cop; for, otherwise, it will be 
 impossible to vindicate, either the teaching of the 
 Apostles, or the practice of the apostolically taught 
 Church, from the charge of gross and open idol- 
 atry. . 
 
 A conclusion like this, if drawn from well estab- 
 lished premises, cannot but be fatal to the cause of 
 modern Antitrinitarianism. To avoid it, therefore, 
 a case must be made out: which shall acquit the 
 believers of the apostolic age from the charge of 
 invocating the name of Jesus Christ. 
 
 For such purpose, recourse is had to a different 
 translation of those various passages in the New 
 Testament: which, in the judgment of the Catho- 
 
 * See above, book i. chap. 4. § xvu. 4. 
 
CHAP. VII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 169 
 
 lic Church, most explicitly set forth and sanction 
 the religious adoration of the Saviour. 
 
 Instead of understanding the sacred writers to 
 describe the primitive believers, as calling upon, or 
 as religiously invocating, the name of Christ: we 
 are required to understand them, as merely saying ; 
 that the primitive believers called themselves, or were 
 called, by the name of Christ. 
 
 So that, according to the new version, such 
 passages set not forth any religious invocation of 
 Christ ; a practice, which, it is contended, was 
 altogether unknown to the early Church : but they 
 simply record the naked historical fact ; that The 
 early disciples, both denominated themselves, and 
 were also by others denominated, Christians. 
 
 This proposed translation, unless I greatly err, 
 we stand bound most decidedly to reject. 
 
 As it is alike irreconcileable, both with chrono- 
 logy, and with the well ascertained apostolic use of 
 the phrase, and with the interpretation of the early 
 ecclesiastical writers : so, even in itself, e¢ ts altoge- 
 ther inadmissible. 
 
 1. The two earliest occurrences of the litigated 
 phrase are in the continuation of the history of 
 St. Paul’s conversion. 
 
 When Christ commanded Ananias to put his 
 hand on the eyes of Paul, that he might recover 
 his sight : the answer, according to the old version, 
 was, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how 
 much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: 
 
 7 
 
- 
 
 170 THE APOSTOLICITY ~ [BOOK IL 
 
 and here he hath authority from the chief priests to 
 bind ALL THAT CALL ON THY NAME; or, as the text 
 appears, in what has been styled by its authors 
 The New Testament in an Improved Version, to 
 bind ALL WHO ARE CALLED BY THY NAME}, 
 
 In like manner, when the Damascenes heard 
 with amazement Paul strenuously preaching that 
 Christ, whose Gospel he had before so_ bitterly 
 opposed: they asked, according to the old version, 
 Is not this he, that destroyed THEM WHICH CALLED 
 ON THIS NAME 27 Jerusalem ; or, as the text appears 
 in the new version, Is not this he, who destroyed 
 THOSE WHO CALL THEMSELVES AFTER THIS NAME 77 
 Jerusalem? 2 
 
 Now it is obvious: that, in the new translation 
 of the litigated phrase, as it appears in the two 
 preceding passages, an important historical racr 
 is, of very necessity, involved. 
 
 To BE CALLED AFTER THE NAME OF CHRIST, and TO 
 BE CALLED CHRISTIANS, are two kindred phrases of 
 exactly the same import. 
 
 Hence, if Ananias and the Damascenes familiarly 
 mentioned the believers of Damascus and Jerusa- 
 lem, as persons who were then called after the name 
 of Christ: it will evidently follow; that the be- 
 lievers of Damascus and Jerusalem, not only in 
 the day of Paul’s conversion, but also for a con- 
 siderable time previous to that event, were com- 
 
 1 Acts ix. 13, 14. 2 Acts ix. 21. 
 
CHAP. VII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 171 
 
 monly known, both among friends and among 
 enemies, by the appellation or title of CHRISTIANS. 
 
 Such, plainly, is the naked historical racr, in- 
 volved, of very necessity, in the new translation of 
 the phrase now before us. 
 
 And this ract, thus involved in the new transla- 
 tion, draws after it, likewise of very necessity, a 
 direct and open contradiction. 
 
 According to the Editor of the Improved Ver- 
 sion, speaking through the medium of the novel 
 rendering which he proposes to our acceptance, 
 believers were called curistians, both at Jerusa- 
 lem and at Damascus, anterior to the conversion 
 of St. Paul. | 
 
 But, by the sacred historian, we are assured : 
 that the disciples were called cuRisTIANs jirsé at 
 Antioch! And we find: that the Church of 
 Antioch was founded, subsequent to the martyrdom 
 of Stephen, and in consequence of that persecution 
 wherein Paul took so active a part °. 
 
 Hence, if I mistake not, the improved transla- 
 tion of the phrase, as it occurs in the two passages 
 now under consideration, is quite irreconcileable 
 with chronology. 
 
 For the sacred historian declares: that the dis- 
 ciples were called curistians first at Antioch. 
 
 But the Editor, through the medium of his not 
 very felicitous improvement, makes the same 
 
 1 Acts xi. 26. 2 Acts xi. 19. 
 
172 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 sacred historian flatly contradict himself, by assur- 
 ing us: that the disciples had been commonly and 
 familiarly called after the name of Christ, or, in 
 other words, had been commonly and familiarly 
 called curisTIANs, both at Damascus and at Jeru- 
 salem, some considerable time before the Church 
 of Antioch was even founded. 
 
 2. The new rendering, however, not only im- 
 pugns chronology: it is likewise irreconcileable with 
 the well ascertained apostolic use of the litigated 
 phrase. 
 
 (1.) I need scarcely to remark: that the pecu- 
 liar idiomatical Greek of the New Testament is 
 the same modification of the language, as that em- 
 ployed by the Seventy Translators of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures. | 
 
 Now the precise litigated phrase again and 
 again occurs in the Greek Version of the Old 
 Testament : and, there, it INVARIABLY signifies, not 
 the assumption of a distinctive name, but an act of 
 solemn invocation or religious worship '. 
 
 * That the force of the present argument may be the more 
 perceptibly felt, I shall exhibit two classes of passages in which 
 the phrase occurs: the one taken from the Greek of the - 
 Seventy ; the other, from the kindred Greek of the New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 I. The following passages occur in the Greek of the Seventy. 
 
 1. Odroe iAmiocev éruxaneiaOae 70 ovosa Kupiov rov Qcod. 
 Gen. iv. 26. 
 
 2. Kat émexadécaro éxei "APpap 70 dvoua tov Kupiov. Gen. 
 xi. 4. 
 
 3. Kat 
 
CHAP. VII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 173 
 
 If, therefore, we adopt the alleged improvement 
 recommended to us by the Editor: we shall, so 
 
 3. Kat ewexadécaro éxet 70 Gvopa Kvupiov. Gen, xxi. 33. 
 4. Kal érexadéoaro 70 dvopa Kvpiov. Gen. xxvi. 25. 
 
 5. Kat éxt Baotrsiac, at ro Ovopa cov ovK émreKahécayTo. 
 Psalm. Ixxix. 6. 
 
 6. Kal ro dvopa Kupiov érexadeoapny. Psalm. cxvi. 4. 
 
 7. Tod érucandeioOae ravrac 76 Ovopa Kupiov. Zephan. iil. 9. 
 
 II. On the other hand, the following passages occur in the 
 kindred Greek of the New Testament. 
 
 1. Ajoae mavracg rove émucadoupévove TO Ovona cov. Act. 
 ix. 14, 
 
 2. Obx otrdc éoriy 6 TopAhoac év ‘lepovoada Tove émtkadou- 
 pévouc TO dvopa rovro; Act. ix. 21. 
 
 3. Dov waar role émtkadovpévote TO dvopa Tov Kupiov huey 
 "Inoov Xpiorov év wayrt roxy. 1 Corinth. i. 2. 
 
 III. In all these passages, to which others might easily have 
 been added, the self-same phrase, émixadeiobae ro dvopa, will 
 be found to occur. 
 
 Now, in Every passage of the first class, the phrase indis- 
 putably signifies to call upon the name in the sense of religious 
 adoration. 
 
 Yet, in Every passage of the second class, the Editor of the 
 Improved Version renders it in the totally different sense of 
 being called by the name. 
 
 Whence, we may well ask, arises this uniform and systematic 
 deviation from the sense, in which the phrase is INVARIABLY 
 used by the Greek translators of the Old Testament ? 
 
 _ The answer is obvious. Had the phrase, as it occurs in the 
 New Testament, been translated in the sense wherein it is IN~ 
 VARIABLY used by the Greek interpreters of the Old Testa- 
 ment, the Editor would have been constrained to acknowledge, 
 that the primitive apostolic Church is, without censure, recorded 
 
 in Scripture itself, as being accustomed to call upon the name of 
 
174 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 far as sense is concerned, set the kindred idioma- 
 tical Greek of the New Testament in direct con- 
 tradiction to the kindred idiomatical Greek of the 
 Old Testament. 
 
 That is to say, if we receive the projected new 
 version : we shall make a single identical phrase, 
 which occurs very frequently in the kindred 
 Greek of each of the two sacred volumes, to bear 
 uniformly one sense in the one volume and another 
 sense in the other volume. 
 
 Such is the inevitable consequence of adopting 
 the improved translation. 
 
 Now, since the Scriptures are intended for uni- 
 versal instruction, we may well be allowed to 
 
 Christ. But such a version would plainly have involved the 
 doctrine of our Lord’s divinity: and this was not to be toler- 
 ated. In defiance, therefore, of the constant and invariable 
 usage of the Seventy, a new version is excogitated, not on any 
 fixed principles of grammar, but for the evidently sole purpose 
 of serving the turn of modern Antitrinitarianism. 
 
 The original hebrew phrase, MW2 NV, is, by the greek 
 translators, sometimes rendered ézcadeioOa ext ro dvdpart, 
 and sometimes émicadetoOar év To Ovdpart, as well as émixa- 
 AcioOat ro ovoua. But, as, in each case alike, the original 
 hebrew is still the same: so, znvariably, their version of the 
 phrase can only be understood in the sense of religious invo- 
 cation, whether addressed to the true God or to a false god, 
 whether put up to Jehovah or to Baal. See Gen. xii. 8, and 
 particularly 1 Kings xviii. 24,25, 26. That their rendering of 
 the phrase could ever be deemed capable of bearing the totally 
 different sense of nominal compellation, does not seem once to 
 
 ‘have occurred to them. 
 
CHAP. VII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 175 
 
 doubt : whether the inspired writers of the New 
 Testament, in the common conventional honesty 
 of perspicuous composition, either would or could 
 have used an already familiar greek phrase in a 
 sense totally different from what it had ever pre- 
 viously borne in the Septuagint Version of the Old 
 Testament: a phrase, too, of no light or trifling im- 
 port, so that it mattered not very essentially how it 
 might be interpreted ; but a phrase, which, if un- 
 derstood as it had atways been previously under- 
 stood in the kindred Greek of the Seventy, in- 
 volved a point of no less importance than the reli- 
 gious imvocation of the name of Christ. 
 
 If, by the inspired writers of the New Testa- 
 ment, this invocation of Christ had been deemed 
 idolatrous ; and so it must have been deemed by 
 them, had their sentiments corresponded with the 
 sentiments of the modern Antitrinitarian School : 
 in that case, even putting their inspiration out of 
 the question, it is impossible for us to believe : 
 that, simply as honest clear-headed men who 
 wished to make themselves distinctly understood, 
 they would, uniformly and (as it were) indus- 
 triously, have used a phrase, which, in the Greek 
 Version of the Old Testament, is INVARIABLY em- 
 ployed to express the religious adoration of Jeho- 
 vah ; without giving us the slightest hint or inti- 
 mation, that, throughout ¢her productions, they 
 purposed to use the same phrase, in a sense, en- 
 tively new and perfectly different and hitherto al- 
 together unheard of and unknown. 
 
176 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK 11" 
 
 (2.) But this is not the only difficulty, which 
 attends upon the improved translation recom- 
 mended by the Editor. 
 
 As the Greek Interpreters of the Old Testa- 
 ment never use the litigated phrase except in the 
 sense of religious invocation : so, when they wish to 
 express the sense, which this same litigated phrase 
 is, by the Editor, made to bear in the New Testa- 
 ment; they use quite a differeut phrase. And this 
 quite different phrase of theirs, through which they 
 express the sense of one thing being called after 
 the nane of another: is actually, by the writers of 
 the New Testament also, employed in the identical 
 sense wherein they employ it’. 
 
 .* I shall here again exhibit two classes of passages, in 
 which this other phrase occurs: the one, taken from the Greek 
 of the Seventy ; the other, taken from the Greek of the New 
 Testament. 
 
 I. The following passages occur in the Greek of the 
 Seventy. 
 
 1. Tov avayayety éxetBev rijy KiBwrov Tov Oeod, éd’ iy ewexdh- 
 On TO bvopa Tou Kupiov. 2 Sam. vi. 2. 
 
 2. “Iva py KarahaBwpat eyo rhyv modu, Kal KrXnOH 70 ovopd 
 pou éx abryv. 2 Sam. xii. 28. 
 
 3. Kal éay évrpary 6 Nade pov, ép’ ove ertKékAnrat 70 Ovopa 
 jiov ém’ avrove. 2 Chron. vii. 14. 
 
 4. Ilavra ra e0vn, Ep’ OVC ETLKEKANTAL TO Ovo pov Ex’ avTOUE. 
 Amos ix. 12. 
 
 II. On the other hand, the following passages occur in the 
 kindred Greek of the New Testament. 
 
 1, Ilavra re e0yn, ép’ ove émexéxAnrat 70 Ovopd pou ex’ abrove. 
 Act. xv. 17. 
 
 2. OvK 
 
CHAP. VII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 177 
 
 (3.) Nor yet is even this the whole which may 
 be said, by way of shewing: that the new version 
 is quite irreconcileable with the well ascertained 
 apostolic use of the litigated phrase. 
 
 According to the necessary translation of the 
 original Hebrew, in the book of the prophet Joel 
 we read: Whosoever shall call on the name of the 
 Lord, shall be delivered '. 
 
 Now this precise passage in the book of Joel St. 
 
 2. Ov adrot Bracdnpover TO Kady Gvopa TO émtkAnOEv ed’ 
 vpac; Jacob. i. 7. 
 
 III. In all these passages, the same phrase, émuxadeiaOat 70 
 dvoma éxt, will be found to occur: and, as, throughout the 
 translation of the Seventy, the other phrase, éricaXeioOae 76 
 dvopa, INVARIABLY (with the consent, I presume, of the Editor 
 himself) describes invocation ; so this phrase, érecadetoOat 70 
 dvopa éxi, whether we encounter it in the Greek of the Seventy 
 or in the Greek of the New Testament (still, I presume, with 
 the consent of the Editor), tInvariaBLy describes the imposition 
 of a name. 
 
 Such, then, being the constant usage and fixed import of the 
 two distinct phrases, émuadeioOat 70 Ovoua and émixadetoOar 76 
 ovopa eri, we may be sure; that, if St. Paul, in 1 Corinth. i. 2 
 (for instance), had wished to express the idea attributed to him 
 by the Editor, he would not have written, ody maou roic émka- 
 Aouplévote TO dvop.a TOU Kupiov ijpwy Incov Xporev : but, adopt- 
 ing the phraseology of St. James and St. Luke and the Seventy, 
 he would have written, ovyv wdow 颒 odc émuadeirae TO bvopa 
 tov Kupiov typwv *Inoov Xovorov. The same remark applies 
 equally to every other place of the New Testament, Ebel the 
 phrase, éikadeiaPat 70 Ovoma, occurs. 
 
 Y Joel ii. 32. 
 
 VOL. II. N 
 
178 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 Paul quotes, and applies to Christ: Whosoever shall 
 call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved '. 
 
 From the circumstance of the word delivered 
 being employed by our translators in their version 
 of Joel, while in their version of the Epistle to the 
 Romans they accidentally use the different word 
 saved, a mere english reader might perhaps hastily 
 fancy: that we have two distinct passages ; and 
 that the christian agen is not citing the hebrew 
 prophet. 
 
 But, in the Greek of St. Paul and in the Greek 
 of the Seventy, one and the same word will be 
 found to occur: and the whole citation, as we 
 read it in the Greek of St. Paul, corresponds ver- 
 batim with the greek translation of Joel *. 
 
 Hence it is clear; that the citation as it is 
 made by St. Paul, and the cited passage as it 
 occurs in Joel, must each be understood in the 
 same sense: for, in fact, the citation and the cited 
 passage are 7dentical. But the cited passage, as it 
 occurs in Joel, must, by the very necessity of the 
 Hebrew Original, be understood in the sense of 
 
 1’ Rom.x. 13. 
 
 * The Greek of the Seventy runs: Ide, 0¢ av éxucadéonrae 
 70 ovopa Kupiov, cwOjcerat. Joel ii. 32. 
 
 The evidently cited Greek of St. Paul runs: Ide yap, 0¢ ay 
 émtkahéanrat 70 dvopa Kupiov, cwOijcerar. Rom. x. 13. 
 
 Between the Greek, then, of the Seventy, and the cited 
 Greek of St. Paul, the sole difference is this: St. Paul inserts 
 the particle yap, for the purpose of connecting his citation with 
 what he had been previously saying. 
 
CHAP. VII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 179 
 
 envocation. ‘Therefore the citation, as it is made 
 by St. Paul from the Greek Version of Joel, 
 must assuredly be understood in the same sense 
 also. 
 
 Yet, all this notwithstanding, though, from the 
 very necessity of the Hebrew Original, the cited 
 passage in Joel can only be translated; Whoso- 
 ever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be 
 saved or delivered: the Editor of the Improved 
 Version, in absolute defiance of the Hebrew Ori- 
 ginal, and purely to serve the turn of modern 
 humanitarian theology, has thought fit to translate 
 the citation, as made by St. Paul from the Greek 
 Version of this identical book of Joel; Whosoever 
 taketh upon himself the name of the Lord, shall be 
 saved. 
 
 The important passage before us incontroverti- 
 bly establishes the apostolic use of the litigated 
 phrase : for, just as it is translated in the prophecy 
 of Joel, so likewise must it be translated in the 
 citation made of it by St. Paul. 
 
 But it does still more. 
 
 In the original Hebrew of Joel, the person, 
 whose name is to be invocated, is JEHOVAH. 
 Now this very passage, thus characterised, is, by 
 St. Paul, cited and applied to cnrist. Therefore 
 the passage demonstrates: that, in the inspired 
 judgment of St. Paul, curist is JEHOVAH; and, 
 consequently, that, when we invocate Christ, we 
 
 N 2 
 
180 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK I. 
 
 invocate no such secondary God as is presented to 
 us by the scheme of Arianism. 
 
 Such, then, being the essential character of 
 Christ, the primitive believers are consistently de- 
 scribed, as being ALL THAT IN EVERY PLACE CALL 
 UPON THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD. 
 
 (4.) And now let any candid person consider 
 the circumstances which have been stated: and 
 his decision may, I think, be easily anticipated. 
 
 There is a phrase, which the greek translators 
 of the Old Testament untrormLy employ in the 
 sense of religious invocation. Now this self-same 
 phrase is repeatedly used also by the greek writers 
 of the New Testament. Whence, naturally, or 
 rather inevitably, we are led to conclude: that they 
 likewise employ it in the same sense, as their con- 
 fessedly kindred predecessors. 
 
 Yet, if we may credit the Editor of Zhe Im- 
 proved Version, so far is this from being the case : 
 that, while the greek translators of the Old Testa- 
 ment UNIFORMLY employ the phrase in the sense of 
 religious invocation ; the greek writers of the New 
 Testament unirorMLy, though doubtless very un- 
 expectedly, and that too without giving the least 
 hint of their departure from the unvarying usage 
 of their kindred predecessors, employ it in the 
 sense of nominal compellation. 
 
 Again: there is another phrase, which the greek 
 translators of the Old Testament never use in any 
 
CHAP. VII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 181 
 
 sense except that of nominal compellation. And, 
 in the self-same sense of xominal compellation, this 
 other phrase is always used by the greek writers of 
 the New Testament. 
 
 In the case, then, of the second of these two 
 phrases, we have perfect concord, between the 
 greek translators of the Old Testament, and the 
 greek writers of the New Testament. But,in the 
 case of the first of them, if we adopt the improve- 
 ment recommended by the Editor, we have the 
 most complete discord, between these two classes of 
 allowedly kindred modifiers of the greek language. 
 
 Lastly: a passage, which contains the first of 
 the two phrases, is, by St. Paul, cited verbatim 
 from the Greek Version of the prophet Joel. 
 Hence it is clear: that, in whatsoever manner the 
 phrase is translated into English, as it occurs 
 in the prophecy of Joel; in that same manner, 
 also, must it be translated into English, as it 
 occurs in the citation made by St. Paul. But the 
 necessary english rendering of the phrase, as it 
 occurs in the cited passage of Joel, is, most un- 
 doubtedly : Whosoever shall call upon the name of 
 the Lord. Therefore, the proper english render- 
 ing of the phrase, as it occurs in the citation made 
 by St. Paul, is, no less undoubtedly, and by the 
 plainest necessity, the very same also. 
 
 Yet, while the Editor, I presume, would ac- 
 knowledge ; that the phrase, as it occurs in the 
 Greek Version of the prophecy of Joel, can only 
 
182 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK Il. 
 
 be rendered into English, Whosoever shall call 
 upon the name of the Lord: he recommends ; that 
 the se/f-same phrase, as it occurs in the sedf-same 
 passage of Joel, should, nevertheless, when it is 
 cited by St. Paul, be rendered into English, Who- 
 soever taketh upon himself the name of the Lord. 
 
 3. Evil as may now be the plight of the Editor 
 of The Improved Version, his infelicity is not even 
 yet completed. 
 
 The new translation of the litigated phrase not 
 only sets both chronology and apostolic usage at 
 defiance: but it likewise runs counter to the re- 
 ceived interpretation of the primitive Church, which, 
 from its nearness to the times of the original pro- 
 mulgation of the Gospel, may well be thought to 
 have best understood the mind of the inspired 
 writers of the New Testament. 
 
 By Tertullian and by Novatian, by Cyprian and 
 by Jerome, the three former of whom flourished 
 anterior to the Council of Nice, and the last of 
 whom not many years after it, the phrase is, either 
 palpably alluded to, or actually translated. And, 
 in each case alike, it is invariably understood, not 
 after the tenor of the Editor’s misnamed improve- 
 ment, but as it is most justlyrendered in our com- 
 mon English Version. 
 
 (1.) Such is the purport of the manifest allusion, 
 which we find in the Works of Tertullian. 
 
 At this day, nations, which once knew him not, 
 INVOCATE CHRIST: and, at this day, tribes flee for 
 
CHAP. VII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 183 
 
 refuge to Christ, of whom formerly they were igno- 
 rant '. 
 
 (2.) Such also is the purport of the no less evi- 
 dent allusion, which occurs in the Tractate of No- 
 vatian. 
 
 If Christ be only a man, How Is HE PRESENT 
 EVERY WHERE INVOCATED : since omnipresence is the 
 nature, not of man, but of God? If Christ be only 
 a@ man, WHY IS A MAN INVOCATED IN OUR PRAYERS 
 as a mediator: since THE INVOCATION OF A MAN must 
 be judged inefficacious to afford salvation * * 
 
 (3.) Exactly the same sense is affixed to the 
 phrase, in its direct translation by Cyprian. 
 
 The brethren, who: are in bonds, salute you: as 
 also the Presbyters and the whole Church ; which 
 itself, likewise, with the greatest solicitude, watches 
 for ALL WHO INVOCATE THE NAME OF THE LORD ®. 
 
 1 Christum enim hodie invocant nationes, quee eum non scie- 
 bant ; et populi hodie ad Christum confugiunt, quem retro ig- 
 norabant. Tertull. adv. Jud. de secund. advent. Christ. Oper. 
 p- 142. 
 
 2 Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo adest ubique in- 
 
 vocatus: cum hee hominis natura non sit, sed Dei, ut adesse 
 omni loco possit? Si homo tantummodo Christus, cur homo 
 in orationibus mediator invocatur: cum invocatio hominis ad 
 preestandam salutem inefficax judicetur? Novat. de Trin. in 
 Oper. Tertull. p. 610. 
 
 ° Salutant vos fratres qui sunt in vinculis, et Presbyteri, et 
 tota Ecclesia: quee et ipsa, cum summa sollicitudine, excubat 
 pro omnibus qui invocant nomen Domini. Cyprian. Epist. viii. 
 Oper. vol. il. p. 18. 
 
184 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK Il. 
 
 (4.) With its translation by Cyprian, perfectly 
 corresponds its translation by Jerome in the old 
 Latin Version which is still preserved among his 
 Works. 
 
 Paul, called an Apostle of Jesus Christ through 
 the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, to the 
 Church of God which is at Corinth, to the sanctified 
 in Christ Jesus, called Saints, WiTH ALL WHO INVo- 
 CATE THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST IN EVERY 
 PLACE, their Lord and our Lord, grace be unto you 
 and peace from God our Father and from the Lord 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 4. Hitherto I have argued only the particular 
 impossibility of the Editor’s improved translation of 
 the phrase, in those several passages of the New 
 
 * Paulus vocatus Apostolus Jesu Christi per voluntatem Dei, 
 et Sosthenes frater, Ecclesize Dei quze est Corinthi, sanctificatis 
 in Christo Jesu, vocatis Sanctis, cum omnibus qui invocant 
 nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi in omni loco, ipsorum et 
 nostro: gratia vobis et pax a Deo patre nostro et Domino Jesu 
 Christo. 1 Cor. i. 1, 2, 3. Hieron. Oper. vol. viii. p. 192. 
 Colon. 1616. 
 
 Jerome’s own Commentary on the passage distinctly shews: 
 that, in his judgment, the ancient hebrew invocation of J ehovah 
 by the Levitical Priesthood is identical with the evangelical 
 invocation of the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Cum omnibus qui invocant nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi. | 
 Proprié sacerdotum est invocare Dominum: quibus dicitur : 
 Stic benedicite filiis Israel invocantes nomen meum super illos. 
 Et Psalmista dicit: Lt Samuel inter eos qui invocant nomen 
 ejus. Hieron. Comment. in loc. 
 
 ee 
 
CHAP. VII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 185 
 
 Testament which have passed in review before us: 
 and, for all theological purposes, this alone is quite 
 sufficient. 
 
 But I may now safely advance yet further. 
 
 Let the Editor or any of his friends produce, if 
 they be able, a single place, either in the New 
 Testament or in the Greek of the Old Testament, 
 where the sense, imperiously and without any am- 
 biguity, compels the adoption of his proposed ver- 
 sion of the present Hellenism. 
 
 If this can be done: then, at least, the abstract 
 possibility of such a translation will be established. 
 
 But, since, as I will venture to assert, it cannot 
 be done : the Editor’s translation is, even generally 
 and abstractedly, a palpable impossibility. 
 
 II. The recorded action of Stephen, when in 
 the agonies of death, is closely connected with the 
 important phrase which has been last considered : 
 and, by Trinitarians, it is viewed, as demonstra- 
 tively establishing the racr of The apostolically 
 sanctioned adoration of Christ’. 
 
 Unless the whole Catholic Church, from age to 
 age, has been a false interpreter, the primitive be- 
 lievers, as we have seen, are, in the phraseology of 
 the New Testament, denominated ALL THOSE WHO 
 INVOCATE THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS. 
 
 Accordingly, in exact correspondence with such 
 phraseology, we read, as follows, respecting the 
 protomartyr. 
 
 ‘ See above, book i. chap. 4. § xvu. 3. 
 
186 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 They stoned Stephen, 1nvocatina and saying : 
 LORD JESUS, RECEIVE MY spirit. And he kneeled 
 down, and cried with a loud voice: LORD, LAY NOT 
 THIS SIN TO THEIR CHARGE |. 
 
 That the protomartyr, being full of the Holy 
 Ghost*, and therefore being divinely directed in 
 his conduct, invocated Jesus with his dying breath, 
 and that on his knees he besought him to receive his 
 own soul and to pardon his murderers: can neither 
 be denied nor dissembled. That this invocation 
 was a prayer: is indisputable. And, that, without 
 idolatry, prayer cannot be addressed to any one 
 save the Lord God Almighty: is, if I mistake not, 
 a point equally incapable of being fairly and satis- 
 factorily disputed. 
 
 What, then, is to be done with the remarkable 
 circumstance now before us? How are we to dis- 
 pose of the present narrative ? 
 
 If Stephen legitimately invocated Christ: then, 
 by the admission of Dr. Priestley himself, Christ 
 must clearly be God *. 
 
 If Stephen wnwarrantably invocated Christ : then 
 the first of the noble army of martyrs died in the 
 
 * Kal édcbofiddouy rov Srédavoy, éemtkadovpevoy Kal éyorra' 
 Kopre “Inood, degar 70 mvedpd pov. Osic d€ ra ydvara, Expake 
 govn peyary Kipre, po) orhone abroic rijy apapriay ravrny. 
 Act. vil. 59, 60. 
 
 > "Yrdapywr Oe thione Ivevparoc ‘Ayiov. Act. vii. 55. 
 
 * Hist. of Early Opin. Introd. sect. iii. Works, vol. vi. p. 
 30, 31. 
 
CHAP. VII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. ~ 187 
 
 very act of gross idolatry; and yet, as if purposely 
 to delude the Catholic Church into a perpetual 
 repetition of the same wickedness, his deed is re- 
 corded by an inspired writer, not only without the 
 slightest mark of reprobation, but even with an 
 assurance that he was THEN full of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Such being the case, are we, like the collective 
 primitive believers, both before and immediately 
 after the death of St. John (as we learn their stated 
 liturgical practice from the depositions made before 
 Pliny), to invocate Christ as God? | 
 
 Or are we, rejecting the divinity of the Saviour, 
 to pronounce Stephen an unreproved and (para- 
 doxical as the expression may sound) an inspired 
 idolater ? | 
 
 How, on his principles, does the modern Anti- 
 trinitarian solve this appalling difficulty? 
 
 1. Though Stephen himself is said to have been 
 full of the Holy Ghost, Dr. Priestley, so far as I 
 can understand his not very luminous solution, 
 freely admits: that the protomartyr’s conduct was 
 not perfectly correct. 
 
 But, while, according to this admission, he deems 
 the act of Stephen a solitary instance of primitive 
 idolatry: he thinks, that we ought not uncharitably 
 to be too severe in our judgment upon the melan- 
 choly case of the erring culprit; since none of us 
 poor frail creatures can pretend to say, what he 
 might possibly do in a similar situation and in 
 a similar hurry of spirits, even though the Holy 
 
 7 
 
188 THE APOSTOLICITY [Book Il. 
 
 Ghost himself should condescend to be our plenary 
 director. 
 
 To conclude, he remarks, as some have done, trom 
 the single case of Stephen; that All Christians are 
 authorised to pray to Christ: is dike concluding ; 
 that All matter has a tendency to go upward, 
 because a needle will do so when a magnet is held 
 over it. When they shall be in the same circum- 
 stances with Stephen, having their minds strongly 
 impressed with a vision of Christ sitting at the right 
 hand of God: they may then, reruars, be authorised 
 to address themselves to him, as he did. But the 
 whole tenor of the Scriptures proves: that, other- 
 wise, we have no authority for any such practice ?. 
 
 * Letters to Bp. Horsley, part. ii. lett. 14. Works, vol. xviii. 
 p- 245. Hist. of Early Opin. Introd. sect. iii. Works, vol. vi. 
 p- 33. 
 
 Dr. Priestley’s repetition of this solution, in two several 
 places, seems to imply, on his own part, the fulness of satis- 
 faction. But, should any incredulous examiner still remain 
 unconvinced, the fertile historian recommends to his attention 
 yet another solution, which is ingeniously constructed upon an 
 entirely different principle, which has the advantage of being 
 a familiar illustration of evangelical verity, and which certainly 
 brings off the protomartyr far more handsomely than the last 
 even though twice-repeated. 
 
 Stephen, he suggests, after all the labour which has been 
 bestowed on the subject, never did 1nvocatE Christ, in the or- 
 dinary precatory sense of tnvocation. He simply APPEALED 
 to him, from the unjust judgment of the Sanhedrim: just as 
 Paul aprratep to Cesar, from the gross injustice of Festus. 
 Famil. Illust. p. 37. 
 
 J. It 
 
CHAP. VII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 189 
 
 Dr. Priestley’s assertion, relative to the whole 
 tenor of the Scriptures, is a mere assertion. It 
 
 I. It must be confessed, that, in both cases, the case of 
 Stephen and the case of Paul, the same verb émixadéopat is 
 used by the sacred historian. Yet it may be doubted, whether 
 the two cases are exactly parallel. 
 
 1. Stephen’s supplication, from his bended knees, for salva- 
 tion to his own soul and for pardon to his enemies, does not 
 seem to bear any very close resemblance to the subject-matter 
 of a legal process of appeal from a lower court to a higher court. 
 
 2. If Stephen, as Dr. Priestley would familiarly illustrate the 
 language of St. Luke, did nothing more than aprEat to Christ 
 for a reversal of the unjust sentence of the Sanhedrim: his 
 APPEAL to this effect, that is to say, his appEAL to demand 
 justice and a redress of injuries, was oddly couched in the two 
 following apparently quite irrelevant petitions; Lord Jesus re- 
 ceive my spirit, and Lord lay not this sin to their charge. 
 
 II. On such fantastic glosses as the present familiar allus- 
 tration, I may remark : that, so far as my own observation ex- 
 tends, antitrinitarian writers, instead of fairly sitting down to 
 ascertain the sense of a text, irrespectively of any particular 
 theological system, by those various aids (scriptural and extra- 
 scriptural) which we possess in sufficiently rich abundance, 
 merely labour, through the medium of any strained or imagined 
 grammatical or verbal possibility, to make it speak a language 
 which shall not contradict their own predetermined hypothesis. 
 
 The true construction of the place is not so much inquired 
 after, as its possible verbal construction: and the object of the 
 misapplied criticism is, not the honest development of the in- 
 spired writer’s real meaning, but the security of a system an- 
 teriorly and independently adopted. 
 
 If we seek a pregnant specimen of such unhallowed pain- 
 fulness, we need not travel beyond Dr. Priestley’s familiar 
 illustration of the conduct ascribed to Stephen by St. Luke. 
 
190 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK It. 
 
 may, therefore, be fairly and fitly met by a simple 
 negation. 
 
 Whether the conclusion, drawn by the Catholic 
 Church from the act of Stephen, does, or does 
 not, resemble the imagined conclusion from the 
 operation of the magnet; and, in truth, it is a 
 difficult matter to discover the resemblance be- 
 tween the two cases: this, at least, is abundantly 
 evident, that Dr. Priestley was in no ordinary 
 perplexity, when employed in reconciling the con- 
 duct of the protomartyr with the daring specula- 
 tions of modern Antitrinitarianism. 
 
 2. To a man of plain understanding, the solu- 
 tion, proposed by Mr. Lindsey and the Editor 
 of The New Testament in an Improved Version, is 
 equally perplexing and more assumptive. 
 
 Yet, as we shall successively find in the course 
 of our examination, it is marvellous to think, of 
 what wide application, and of what general utility, 
 is the principle upon which that solution is con- 
 structed. 
 
 (1.) Mr. Lindsey fairly and manfully owns: 
 that, what Stephen spake to Christ, was neither 
 more nor less than an absolute prayer. 
 
 The difficulty, however, of an acknowledged 
 prayer being offered up to a creature, he solves on 
 the principle of visipiurry, as specially opposed to 
 INVISIBILITY. 
 
 _ There is no doubt, says he, but that Stephen made 
 this request, ADDRESSED THIS PRAYER, to the Lord 
 
CHAP. VII. OF TRINITARIANISM. 191 
 
 Jesus. But this can be no precedent for directing 
 prayer to him UNSEEN ' 
 
 According, then, ds the principle espoused by 
 Mr. Lindsey, it is perfectly lawful to adore a crea- 
 ture when visIBLE, but perfectly unlawful to adore 
 the same creature when INVISIBLE. 
 
 For, if we may credit this commentator, the sin 
 of idolatry consists: not in the act of Praying to 
 a creature for blessings which Gop ONLY can bestow, 
 as when Stephen prayed the Lord Jesus to receive 
 his spirit and not to lay the sin of his murderers 
 penally to their charge; but solely in the appa- 
 rently unimportant circumstance of Zhe creature's 
 INVISIBILITY. 
 
 (2.) From Mr. Lindsey, the Editor of The New 
 Version has been content to borrow the present 
 solution: but, as being the latest writer of the 
 two, he has not suffered it to pass through his 
 hands, without enriching it by a manifest improve- 
 ment of his own. 
 
 This appress of Stephen to Jesus, WHEN HE 
 ACTUALLY SAW HIM, says the Editor, does not au- 
 thorise us to offer PRAYERS to him, NOW THAT HE Is 
 INVISIBLE *. 
 
 What Mr. Lindsey owned to have been A PRAYER, 
 the more wary Editor, we see, dexterously calls an 
 ADDRESS: and this ADDRESS to a VISIBLE creature 
 
 ‘ Lindsey’s Apol. p. 129. 
 * Improv. Vers. in loc. 
 
192 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 he ingeniously contradistinguishes from PRAYERS 
 offered up to an INVISIBLE creature. 
 
 The appress of the undoubted primitive Huma- 
 nitarian Stephen, to the sren Jesus, does not au- 
 thorise the prayer of a modern Trinitarian to 
 the now UNSEEN Jesus. Stephen appressep Christ 
 simply in the way of ordinary familiar conyersa- 
 tion; just as Paul might address Peter, or Peter 
 address Paul: but Trinitarians pray to Christ ; just 
 as Antitrinitarians pray to the Deity himself. 
 
 This may justly be deemed an improvement 
 upon Mr. Lindsey’s solution. But still, I fear, 
 the language of Stephen, by Dr. Priestley consist- 
 ently pronounced to be not quite correct, let the 
 Editor call it by what name he most affects: both 
 is expressly described, by the sacred historian, as 
 AN INVOCATION ; and, in point of fact, is, to all in- 
 tents and purposes, A pirEcT PRAYER for salvation 
 to himself and for pardon to his enemies, matters 
 which (it is presumed) cop onty can accord. 
 
 Now such an appress or such a PRAYER, accord- 
 ing as we adopt the nomenclature of the Editor or 
 of Mr. Lindsey; that is to say, 4a appress or a 
 PRAYER, for salvation to a man himself, and for 
 pardon to his enemies: may, in the judgment of 
 the Editor, be safely offered to Christ, provided 
 only he be visiste. But this is no warrant for 
 those: who would offer an exactly similar apDREss 
 OF PRAYER to Christ, now that he is INVISIBLE. 
 
 To the mere man Christ, provided only we can 
 
CHAP. VII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 193 
 
 SEE him with our bodily eyes, we may blamelessly 
 make an ADDRESS or a PRAYER, for salvation to 
 ourselves, and for pardon to our enemies: nor 
 shall we, by this act, be in the least danger of 
 incurring the charge of idolatry. But, the moment 
 WE CEASE TO BEHOLD HIM with our bodily eyes, the 
 case 1s quite changed: if we then pray to him or 
 ADDRESS him, for salvation and pardon; we are, 
 ipso facto, convicted idolaters: the very action, 
 which one instant was perfectly lawful, suddenly 
 becomes the next instant perfectly unlawful *. 
 
 * This principle of vistprzrry, when applied to the invocation 
 of the Host of Heaven, will produce results alike edifying and 
 unexpected. 
 
 I. If a man calls upon the Sun in the night-time, when the 
 Sun is INVISIBLE to him: his invocation, then, is rank idolatry. 
 
 But let the same man call upon the same Sun in the day- 
 time, when the Sun is vistnte to him as engaged in the bene- 
 ficent occupation of illuminating and fructifying our lower 
 world: and his invocation is, then, quite free from idolatry ; 
 the invoker is undoubtedly clear in conscience. 
 
 II. Again, conversely: if a man calls upon the Moon and 
 the Stars in the day-time, or when they are INVISIBLE to him: 
 his invocation, then, is rank idolatry. 
 
 But, if he only calls upon the same Moon and the same 
 Stars in the night-time, when their brilliancy in the dark vault 
 of heaven is vVIsIBLE: his invocation, then, ceases to be idol- 
 atry; and he stands perfectly justified before both God and 
 man. 
 
 Il!. As the Editor remarks, mutatis mutandis, the invocation 
 of Ahab’s Baalites from morning even until noon, wHEN THEY 
 ACTUALLY SAW THE SUN, does not authorise us to offer prayers 
 to him or to call upon his name, WHEN HE Is INVISIBLE. 
 
 VOL. Il. O 
 
194 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 Verily, Antitrinitarianism has its hard sayings, 
 no less than Trinitarianism. | 
 
 (3.) The solution, recommended by Mr. Lindsey 
 and the Editor, rests, we see, on the principle of 
 VISIBILITY. 
 
 Such a solution, even if supported by in- 
 disputable matter of fact, still, I think, would 
 be the very reverse of satisfactory. But what 
 shall we say to it, when the alleged fact, upon 
 which it professedly rests, tsedf requires substan- 
 tiation ? | 
 
 Wuere did these two commentators learn: 
 that, at the moment of Stephen’s invocation, 
 Christ actually was visisLe to Stephen ? 
 
 Certainly, I will not venture to deny the fact of 
 our Lord’s visipitity,when Stephen invocated him: 
 for, in truth, having no means of acquiring in- 
 formation, I must even be content to acknowledge 
 my entire ignorance, whether Stephen, at that 
 time, did, or did not, see the Lord. But then, on 
 the other hand, without adducing some pistincT 
 PROOF, a commentator can have no right to assert 
 it: and still less, therefore, can he have any right 
 protessedly to frame upon it an attempted solution 
 of a palpable difficulty. 
 
 Now WHERE have we any DISTINCT PpRoor, that 
 Stephen actually BEHELD Christ, when invocating 
 him in the agonies of martyrdom ? 
 
 The scriptural narrative is wholly silent on 
 the subject: and, unless we can thence learn the 
 
 ‘ 
 
CHAP. VII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 195 
 
 alleged fact, I know not from what other quarter it 
 can be legitimately ascertained. 
 
 While speaking, indeed, zn the council-room be- 
 fore the Sanhedrim, Stephen declares: that he 
 sees, the heavens opened, and the Son of man 
 standing at the right hand of God. But, swbse- 
 quent to this declaration, he is dragged, not only 
 out of the council-room, but even out of the city 
 itself: and, so far as I know, we are no where told, 
 that he continued to behold the heavenly vision. _ 
 
 He might, or he might not. The question is 
 left, by Scripture, in a state of total uncertainty. 
 Nothing, save merely the change of place, is posi- 
 twely known. He beheld the vision, zx the council- 
 chamber : he was stoned, out of the city. 
 
 Yet, upon an alleged fact wholly ¢ncapable of 
 substantiation, have Mr. Lindsey and the Editor 
 constructed the solution, which is to exempt Ste- 
 phen, though praying to a creature, from the 
 charge of creature-worship. 
 
 Ili. But, whatever may have been the conduct 
 of the protomartyr, though he was full of the Holy 
 Ghost, he was certainly not an Apostle. 
 
 Now Mr. Lindsey boldly asserts: that, By the 
 Apostles, at least, prayer was NEVER addressed to 
 Christ’. 
 
 1. In making this assertion, Mr. Lindsey differs 
 from Dr. Priestley: and, as Dr. Priestley well 
 
 " Apol. p. 131,132. Sequel to Apol. p. 67. 
 02 
 
196 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 judged, he differs likewise from the plain language 
 of Holy Scripture. 
 
 St. Paul, if we may credit St. Paul’s own as- 
 surance, thrice besought THE Lorp, that the mes- 
 senger of Satan might depart from him. But THE 
 orp, here supplicated by the Apostle for grace 
 and assistance, is indisputably curist. Therefore 
 CHRIST is the person, to whom the Apostle ad- 
 dressed his thrice-repeated supplication |. 
 
 That such is the true import of the passage, 
 is fairly acknowledged by Dr. Priestley. For he 
 supposes: that curist appeared to St. Paul, in a 
 vision; that the Apostle, then, thrice besought 
 cHRist to remove the thorn which troubled him; 
 and that, in reply, curisr declared his own strength 
 to be made perfect in his servant’s weakness”. 
 
 Here, then, by the confession of Dr. Priestley, 
 is a case directly in point: and the problem, to be 
 solved, is; How, without damage to the Antitrini- 
 tarian Scheme, such a case is to be disposed of. 
 
 In defiance of the context and of Dr. Priestley 
 to boot, Mr. Lindsey would persuade us: that the 
 acknowledged prayer of Paul was addressed, not 
 to Christ, but to the Father; whom he maintains 
 to be, exclusively, the true Supreme Divinity. 
 
 Dr. Priestley, on the contrary, clearly perceiv- 
 ing, and (much to his credit) candidly owning, 
 
 ' See above, book i. chap. 4. § xvir. 2. (1.) 
 * Notes on the Script. cited in Improv. Vers. in loc. 
 
CHAP. VII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 13t 
 
 that curist was the object of Paul’s supplication, 
 strives to rid himself of the difficulty, by callmg in 
 the aid of that grand mystery of modern Antitrini- 
 tarianism, The legality of Creature-Worship, pro- 
 vided only the worshipped creature be VISIBLE. 
 
 Respecting the indigestible paradox of visIBILITY 
 AND INVISIBILITY, nothing more, I apprehend, needs 
 to be said. Those, who can receive such strong 
 meat, are certainly no babes in Theology. At 
 present, then, I have simply to inquire into the 
 alleged fact, upon which Dr. Priestley’s solution 
 professedly reposes. _ 
 
 Paul, says the historian, BEHELD the Lord Jesus, 
 when he thrice besought him to remove the mes- 
 senger of Satan. Therefore, on the principle of 
 VISIBILITY, his prayer to the creature was justi- 
 fiable. 
 
 Wuere did Dr. Priestley learn: that Paul, on 
 this occasion, did BEHOLD the Lord Jesus? WHERE 
 is Dr. Priestley’s proor: that the Apostle, with 
 his bodily eyes, actually saw that Lord, whom he 
 confessedly invocated for grace and deliverance ? 
 
 In St. Paul’s own account of the transaction, not 
 a single syllable is said in confirmation of Dr. 
 Priestley’s perfectly gratuitous theory. He no 
 WHERE informs us: that Christ was VisIBLy present, 
 when he thrice besought him. 
 
 As to the answer which the Apostle received 
 to his prayer, in order to account for such a cir- 
 cumstance, we require not the unsupported hypo- 
 
198 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 thesis of A VISIBLE CORPOREAL MANIFESTATION. The 
 reply may have been, for any thing that appears to 
 the contrary, conveyed to him, either by an audible 
 voice from heaven, or by that infallible impression 
 upon the mind which is identical with inspiration. 
 
 I pretend not to assert, that such actually was 
 the case: for, asin the former instance of Stephen, 
 I must be content to plead my utter ignorance. 
 St. Paul is altogether silent on the subject. He 
 may, or he may not, have then srEen his Master. 
 On this point, we absolutely know nothing. Dr. 
 Priestley, in his proposed solution, asswmes the 
 very matter, which it was his business to prove. 
 For Dr. Priestley’s assertion of Our Lord’s vister- 
 LITY on that occasion rests upon no better founda- 
 tion, than the authority of Dr. Priestley himself. 
 
 Hence, as in the preceding case of Stephen, it 
 is obvious : that a solution, which is built entirely 
 upon the mere conjecture of a hard-pressed con- 
 troversialist (even if, abstractedly, the principle of 
 the solution were, in itself, satisfactory), can never 
 be legitimately admitted in argument. 
 
 The Antitrinitarian, however, is heartily wel- 
 come to Dr. Priestley’s solution. I am myself 
 quite satisfied with his acknowledgment : that the 
 PRAYER of the holy Apostle was addressed: to 
 CHRIST. 
 
 2, Though Mr. Lindsey denies; that, by the 
 Apostles, PRAYER was ever offered up to cuRIsT : 
 yet, somewhat inconsistently, he employs the prin- 
 
CHAP. VII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 199 
 
 ciple of visrsmiry to account for an acknowledged 
 PRAYER, Which is addressed to our LORD by yet 
 another Apostle. 
 
 At the close of the Apocalypse, St. John records 
 himself to have used the following invocation : 
 Even so, come, Lord Jesus’. 
 
 According to Mr. Lindsey, these words are only 
 the Apostle’s reply, addressed to the Lord Jesus 
 then visiBLy present with him. Hence, though 
 clearly a prayer for the speedy arrival of the 
 second advent; a matter, which, if I mistake not, 
 rests exclusively in the providential disposition of 
 THE GODHEAD: they are, nevertheless, perfectly 
 warranted by the industrious principle of visi- 
 BILITY ”. 
 
 I am here, yet a third time, encountered by 
 mere gratuitous assertion: when, to the cogency, 
 if cogency it can be called, of the projected solu- 
 tion, prrecT proor is plainly essential. 
 
 Mr. Lindsey assures us: that Zhe words of St. 
 John are a reply addressed to Christ then VISIBLY 
 present. 
 
 WueEnz is his proor? 
 
 ‘Truly, the whole weight of evidence is against 
 his gratuitous assertion: for the whole context of 
 the prayer establishes, not the visizitiry, but the 
 INVISIBILITY, of Christ. 
 
 ! See above, book i. chap. 4. § xvi. 1. (1.) 
 ? Apol. p. 133. 
 
200 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK I. 
 
 This will be manifest to any one, who carefully 
 peruses the concluding chapter of the Apocalypse. 
 
 The entire conversation, as detailed in that chap- 
 ter, passes, between St. John on the one hand, 
 and an angel who shews him the vision of the 
 heavenly Jerusalem on the other hand. These 
 two are the soe speakers, who are ever brought 
 upon the stage. 
 
 With respect to the angel, he first declares him- 
 self to be sent by the Lord God of the spirits of 
 the prophets: and, as acting in the capacity of a 
 messenger, and as speaking (after the manner of 
 Scripture) in the name of his principal, he says ; 
 Behold, I come quickly’. 
 
 From the circumstance, apparently, of his thus 
 speaking in the first person, St. John mistakes the 
 sent for the sender: and, thence, as he tells us, he 
 fell down before the feet of the angel to worship 
 him *, | 
 
 The angel, however, immediately checks his 
 misplaced devotion, by telling him: that he is 
 nothing more than his fellow-servant °. 
 
 He then proceeds to address his last speech to 
 St. John: in which he professes himself to be sent 
 by Jesus ; and in which, again delivering his mes- 
 sage in the first person, he twice more says, in the 
 name of his principal, Behold, I come quickly *. 
 
 Revs x xn tOr 7. 2 Rev. xxii. 8. 
 3 Rev. xxii. 9. * Rev. xxii. 10—20, 
 
CHAP. VII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 201 
 
 With this thrice repeated declaration in the name 
 of him who sent him, the final speech of the dele- 
 gated angel terminates: and, in reply, John ad- 
 dresses to curistT, though curist throughout the 
 whole conversation was never VIsIBLY present, a 
 direct PRAYER for the speedy arrival of the second 
 advent; Hven so, come, Lord Jesus '. 
 
 Hence, Mr. Lindsey’s very principle of vistsiity, 
 whatever may be its own intrinsic worth, here 
 completely fails him. 
 
 An inspired Apostle addresses a specific PRAYER 
 to curist: Christ himself, at that precise Alcs 
 being not VIsIBLE, but INVISIBLE. 
 
 1 Rev. xxii. 20. The conclusion of the angel’s last speech to 
 St. John, which speech begins Rev. xxi. 10 and ends Rev. 
 xxii. 20, is exactly similar to the style of the old prophets. 
 
 He, which testifieth these things, saith: Surely, I come quickly. 
 
 Thus saith the Lord of hosts : Yet once itis a little while, and 
 I nill shake the heaven and the earth. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 RESPECTING THE ALLEGED OBLIGATION OF THE EARLY 
 FATHERS TO THE GENTILE PHILOSOPHERS, IN RE- 
 GARD TO THE DOCTRINES OF THE TRINITY AND THE 
 LOGOS. 
 
 Tus fable of Dr. Priestley; that Justin Martyr 
 borrowed the speculation of The Personal Divine 
 Word, through the medium of Philo, from the School 
 of Plato ; and thence introduced it, ready concocted, 
 into the Christian System: this fable has, already, 
 been sufficiently exploded. 
 
 Yet, since antitrinitarian writers, one after ano- 
 ther, are wont stoutly to allege; that Certain of 
 the early Fathers, by their too great fondness Jor the 
 plalosophical learning of Gentilism, corrupted Christ- 
 vanity, in respect to the tenets of Christ's godhead 
 and The Trinity, no less than Justin himself who is 
 commonly set down as the ringleader of the inno- 
 vators: it may be useful to inquire, what degree 
 of actual truth there is in this perpetually reiterated 
 allegation |, 
 
 * See Priestley’s Hist. of Corrupt. part i. sect. 2. Works, 
 vol. v. p. 30. Letters by another Barrister, p. 105, 281, 
 
 a) er 
 
THE APOSTOLICITY OF TRINITARIANISM. 203 
 
 The Fathers, chiefly implicated in this serious 
 charge, are, I believe, Justin, Irenéus, Athenagoras, 
 Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria. 
 
 Now, as I have myself perused the entire Works 
 of those early authors, all of whom flourished in 
 the course of the second century: I certainly am 
 at a loss to divine, upon what EvipENCcE the charge 
 in question can have been founded. 
 
 For the satisfaction of other persons, however, 
 the most equitable process will be: to turn to their 
 own writings, and thence to learn what they them- 
 selves really say respecting this matter. 
 
 I. On the hypothesis (for, in truth, it is no better 
 than a mere gratuitous hypothesis); that Z'hose 
 ancient Ecclesiastics recewed their novel speculations 
 from the philosophy of Gentilsm: it is clearly im- 
 possible, that they could have spoken of their 
 cherished instructors in the language of contempt. 
 Yet, so far as dry matter of fact is concerned, we 
 actually find such to be the case. 
 
 1. The language of Justin, to this effect, we have 
 already heard: but it may not be unprofitable to 
 follow the holy martyr in certain yet additional 
 statements. 
 
 You will adduce, says he to the Greeks, the wise 
 men and the philosophers: for, to these, as to a 
 strong-hold, you are wont to make your escape, 
 whenever, concerning the gods, any one twits you 
 with the opinions of the poets. Wherefore, since it 
 is fitting to begin with the first and the most ancient, 
 
204 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK Il. 
 
 commencing with them, I will shew: that the specu- 
 lation of each philosopher is still more ridiculous, 
 than even the theology of the poets’. 
 
 He then proceeds, in regular succession, through 
 the several opinions of Thales, Anaximander, 
 Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Archelaus, 
 Pythagoras, Epicurus, Empedocles, piaro, and 
 Aristotle, for the purpose of convicting them all 
 of manifest and indisputable folly. 
 
 With respect to piato in particular, nothing can 
 be more contemptuous than Justin’s sneer at him. 
 
 Plato, forsooth, is as sure that the Supreme Deity 
 exists ina fiery substance, as if he had come down 
 from above, and had accurately learned and seen all 
 the things that are in heaven”. 
 
 Finally, rejecting the vain speculations of jarring 
 sophists, he pronounces it the best wisdom to seek 
 for truth at the primeval fount of ancient hebrew 
 theology. 
 
 Since, continues he to the Greeks, it is ampos- 
 sible to learn from your teachers any thing true 
 
 st \ s 
 ' Tove copove TavTwe OnTov Kal piroadgove ékere’ Ex rov- 
 \ 4 dl %) > \ 7 27 > r 
 TOUC Yap, WOTED Ext TELXOC OXUPOY, KaTagetyety EiwWOaTe, Execddy 
 Tle UplY TAC TOY TOLNToOY Tept Oe@y anayyéhArn ddgac. Ovxody, 
 ETELONTED ATO THY TadaLwY Kal Tpwrwy apgacbar toocHKel, EvTEev- 
 Bev aptapevoc, ry Exdorouv Oday exOhoomar, TONMXAW ‘yedouoTEpay 
 THC TOV ToLnTwY Beordoyiac ovcay. Justin. ad Gree. Cohort. 
 n e4 
 Oper. ..p..3. 
 2 
 Tarwyv péy yao, dc dvwOev KxarerX AvOWe, Kal re Ev ovpa- 
 ’ | ’ 
 voc amavra akpy3@¢ plenabynkwc Kal EWOaKWe, TOV avwrarw Ody 
 
 Ev TH Tupwoet ovata civac Aێyer. Justin. Cohort. Oper. p. 4. 
 
 ~ 
 
CHAP. VIII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 205 
 
 respecting piety toward God, inasmuch as their very 
 difference of opinion is a plain proof of their igno- 
 rance ; I deem it an obvious consequence, that we 
 should return to our own forefathers: who are of 
 much higher antiquity than any of your teachers ; 
 who have taught us nothing from their own mere 
 phantasy; who among themselves have no discre- 
 pancies ; and who attempt not mutually to overturn 
 the opinion of each other, but who, without wrangling 
 and disputation, communicate to us that knowledge 
 which they have recewed from God. For, neither 
 by nature nor by human intellect, is it possible for 
 men to attain the knowledge of such great and divire 
 matters ; but only by the gift which descends from 
 above upon holy men, who needed not the arts of 
 eloquence or the faculty of subtle disputation, but 
 who judged it solely necessary to preserve themselves 
 pure for the efficacious energy of the Divine Spirit’. 
 
 2. Equally vituperative is the language of Ter- 
 
 * Ovxoty, éredirep ovdev adyOéc wept OeooeBelac mapa Toy 
 UpETepwy dloackdrwy parvOdavey éort duvaroy, ikarviy vuiv an6- 
 oO ~ € ~ 3 , P) \ ~ \ > z ‘A 
 
 elgty THC EAUTOY ayvotag ola THC TOOG AAAHAOVE GTacEwWC TAPET- 
 
 id ou) eee € ~ > ~ aN S € fe 
 
 XnkoTwy" akorovBov jyovpar aveOeiy ext Tove Hperéoove Tp0- 
 f N \ N iV ~ 9: = wy lO fe ~- 
 yovoug, TOVC Kal TOVE ypovoUc THY Tap Viv CLOacKahwy TOAD 
 a. 
 TpoetAnporac, Kal pydey ATO Tig idiac abroy dayragiag dwaé- 
 avrac iypdc, pnce mode adAHdove duevexOévrac y Ta ad\An\wy 
 > he / 5 DJ > ie \ > fe X\ 
 AVATPETELY TELDWpEVOUC, ANN AdioveiKwo Kal doTacLdoTWS THY 
 5 a) ~ O 7 ~ en y Cid e ~ 
 mapa Osov debapévove yvwotv, kal ravrny OwWdacKkovrac Hpac. 
 \ / ~ 
 Ovre yap dice, ore avOowrivn évvoia, o’rw peydda Kal Oeia 
 Id > a] ra Q \ ’ \ ~ 7 , \ \ e , 
 yrwokey avpwroe dvvaroy, ahAa rH dvwhev ext rove dylove 
 
 3! ~ , ~ = bd - > / , 
 avooac TnviKatra karehOovon dwoed, oi¢ ov NOywy éedénaeE TEXYNC 
 
206 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK I. 
 
 tullian: who yet, with his learned philosophical 
 contemporaries (1 employ the singular phraseology 
 of a modern antitrinitarian speculatist), paradoxi- 
 cal as it may seem to an ordinary inquirer, has 
 been roundly and confidently pronounced to have 
 been mainly concerned in bringing into the Church 
 the then novel doctrines of the Trinity and Christ’s 
 godhead. 
 
 or the authors of our theology, says he, we have 
 
 the Apostles of the Lord: who not even themselves 
 
 arbitrarily chose, what they would introduce; but 
 who faithfully delivered to the nations that discipline, 
 which they had received from Christ.— FINALLY, 
 HERESIES THEMSELVES ARE SUBORNED FROM PHILO- 
 sorny.— Lhence spring those fables and endless ge- 
 nealogies and unfruitful questions and discourses 
 creeping like a gangrene: from which the Apostle 
 would rein us back, by charging us, even in so many 
 words, to beware of philosophy.— What, then, is there 
 wn common, between Athens and Jerusalem, between 
 the Academy and the Church, between Heretics and 
 Christians 2? Our institution is from the porch of 
 Solomon: who himself has admonished us to seek: 
 the Lord in simplicity of heart. Let those persons 
 see to it, who have brought forward a stoical or a 
 PLATONIC or @ dialectic Christianity’. 
 
 9 \ ~ ~ ~ ‘ nS 
 OvOE TOU éploTiKwe Te Kat piroveikwe eimety, ddr KaQapove éav- 
 XN ~ ~ ~ Le 
 Tove 7H) Tov Oeiou Iveiparoc wapacyeiv évepyeia. Justin. Cohort. 
 
 Oper. p. 6, 7. 
 
 ‘ Apostolos Domini habemus autores : qui nec ipsi quicquam 
 
 i a ae 
 
CHAP. VIII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 207 
 
 from the prophets and from Christ, we are in- 
 structed in regard to God: nov from the philoso- 
 phers or from Epicurus’. } 
 
 God hath chosen the foolish things of the world, 
 that he might confound the wise-——Through this 
 simplicity of the truth, DIRECTLY CONTRARY to sub- 
 tiloquence and philosophy, we can savour nothing 
 perverse”. 
 
 The person, who thus utterly and avowedly dis- 
 claims philosophy, who declares that all heresies 
 spring from it, who censures the heretical intro- 
 ducers of a stoical or a platonic or a dialectic 
 Christianity, who professes to learn the nature of 
 
 ex suo arbitrio, quod inducerent, elegerunt; sed acceptam a 
 Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus adsignaverunt.—Ipse 
 denique hereses a philosophia subornantur.—Hinc ille fabulze 
 et genealogiz indeterminabiles et queestiones infructuose et 
 sermones serpentes velut cancer: a quibus nos Apostolus re- 
 freenans nominatim philosophiam testatur caveri oportere.— 
 Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis, quid Academie et Eccle- 
 siz, quid Hereticis et Christianis? Nostra institutio de por- 
 ticu Salomonis est, qui et ipse tradiderat Dominum in simplici- 
 tate cordis esse queerendum. Viderint, qui stoicum et platoni- - 
 cum et dialecticum Christianismum protulerunt. Tertull. adv. 
 her. § 2, 3. Oper. p. 97, 98. 
 
 * Deum nos, a prophetis et a Christo, non a philosophis nec 
 ab Epicuro, erudimur. Tertull. adv. Marcion. lib. ii. § 13. 
 Oper. p. 181. 
 
 * Stulta enim mundi elegit Deus, ut confundat sapientes.— 
 Hac simplicitate veritatis, contraria subtililoquentize et philo- 
 sophize, nihil perversi possumus sapere. Tertull. adv. Marcion. 
 lib. v. § 40. Oper. p. 328. 
 
208 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK It. 
 
 God not from the schools of the philosophers but 
 from Christ and the prophets, who states that 
 even the Apostles did not presume to bring any 
 thing of their own arbitrary selection into the 
 Church but that they faithfully taught the nations 
 as they had themselves learned from Christ : this 
 very person is, by a modern antitrinitarian writer, 
 actually accused of having endeavoured, in con- 
 Junction with his learned philosophical contem- 
 poraries, to introduce, from the reveries of pla- 
 tonism, into the hitherto strictly unipersonalising 
 and humanitarian Church, the novel doctrine of 
 a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the God- 
 head '. 
 
 II. As the philosophy of the Gentiles is thus 
 contemptuously reprobated and rejected; while, in 
 its place and in direct opposition to it, the revealed 
 word of God, communicated through Christ and 
 the Prophets and the Apostles, is declared to be 
 the only source whence the Church derived her 
 theology: so, instead of themselves borrowing from 
 that philosophy certain new doctrines hitherto 
 unheard of by Christians, these early ecclesiastics 
 describe it as the fruitful parent of every heresy. 
 
 1. To this purpose speaks the venerable Irenéus: 
 who yet, by Dr. Priestley, has been accused, in 
 conjunction with Justin and sundry others his con- 
 temporaries, of introducing the doctrine of the 
 
 * Letters by another Barrister, p. 105. 
 
CHAP. VIII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 209 
 
 Logos from the schools of the philosophers into 
 the System of Christianity. 
 
 Heretics are not only convicted of stealing from 
 the comic writers: but they likewise collect together 
 the sayings of all those, who are ignorant of God, 
 and who are called philosophers. Out of these 
 numerous vile borrowed rags, they industriously patch 
 up a sort of cento: and thus, through the intro- 
 duction of a new doctrine, they prepare for them- 
 selves, with subtle eloquence, a system superficially 
 plausible '. 
 
 He then goes on indignantly to remark: that 
 their dishonest corruptions of Christianity are no 
 better, than so many mere plagiarisms from ‘Thales 
 and Homer and Anaximander, and Anaxagoras 
 and Democritus and Epicurus and pLato and Em- 
 pedocles and Aristotle and Pythagoras. 
 
 2. Exactly similar also are the repeated de- 
 clarations of Tertullian. 
 
 Turning from the Christians to the philosophers, 
 from the Church to the Academy and the Portico, 
 Hermogenes has thence borrowed from the Stoics the 
 phantasy of conjoining Matter with the Deity. For 
 Matter, he contends, always existed; being neither 
 
 ‘ Et non solum, que apud comicos posita sunt, arguuntur, 
 quasi propria proferentes: sed etiam, que apud omnes qui 
 Deum ignorant et qui dicuntur philosophi, sunt dicta, hac 
 congregant ; et, quasi centonem ex multis et pessimis pannicu- 
 lis consarcientes, superficiem subtili eloquio sibi ipsi preepara- 
 verunt. Tren. adv. her. lib. 1. c. 19. § 2. p. 117. 
 
 VOL. II. A 
 
210 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK I. 
 
 born, nor made, nor having either beginning or end: 
 and, out of this, God afterward created all things '. 
 
 In good. truth, I grieve to say: that puavo has 
 become the universal seasoner of heretics. —Since, 
 then, those matters, which heretics borrow, are in- 
 sinuated by puato, I shall sufficiently confute heretics, 
 if I demolish the argument of ruavo?. 
 
 PHILOSOPHERS ARE THE PATRIARCHS OF HERETICS ®, 
 
 Hinally, heresies themselves are suborned from 
 philosophy *. 
 
 Thus speaks Tertullian respecting what he 
 deems the very hot-bed of heresy. Yet, accord- 
 ing to a favourite and cherished hypothesis of the 
 modern Antitrinitarian School, this very Tertul- 
 lian, it will be recollected, was so enamoured of 
 gentile philosophy, that he became a grievous and 
 
 " A Christianis enim conversus ad philosophos, de Ecclesia 
 in Academiam et Porticum, inde sumpsit a Stoicis materiam 
 cum Domino ponere: que et ipsa semper fuerit, neque nata 
 neque facta nec initium habens omnino nec finem; ex qua 
 Dominus omnia postea fecerit. Tertull. adv. Hermog. § 1. 
 Oper. p. 335. 
 
 * Doleo, bona fide, Platonem omnium hereticorum condi- 
 mentarium factum.—Cum igitur hujusmodi argumento illa in- 
 sinuentur a Platone que heretici mutuantur, satis haereticos 
 repercutiam, si argumentum Platonis elidam. Tertull. de 
 anim, Oper. p. 659. 
 
 * Hareticonum parRIARcCHE pPuitosopui. Tertull. adv. 
 Hermog. § 4. Oper. p. 339. ' 
 
 * Tpsee denique hereses a philosophia subornantur. Ter- 
 tull, adv. her. § 2. Oper, p. 97. 
 
 ~~. =e 
 
CHAP. VIII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 211 
 
 shameless pilferer from it, for the purpose of en- 
 riching Christianity with doctrines which Christ- 
 ianity herselt was wholly ignorant of: and, in the 
 hopeful process of: depredation, he was eagerly 
 joined by those, who have been styled his learned 
 contemporaries. 
 
 III. Bad, however, as pagan philosophy might 
 be in the judgment of the early Fathers; it still, 
 they thought, contained some points, good in 
 themselves, and even conformable to divine revela- 
 tion. But such exceptions to a general rule re- 
 flected small credit upon the philosophers. What- 
 ever was bad, was their own: whatever was good, 
 if we may believe these primitive theologians, they 
 remorselessly stole or borrowed from Moses and 
 the Prophets. 
 
 1. Such is the theory, by which Justin would 
 account for the existence of all that was praise- 
 worthy in gentile philosophy. 
 
 Your philosophers, says he to the Greeks, through 
 the agency of divine providence, have unwillingly 
 been even themselves compelled to speak on our side 
 of the question: and more especially those, who so- 
 journed in Egypt, and who were benefited by the 
 theoseby of Moses and his ancestors. For those of you, 
 who are acquainted with the history of Diodorus 
 and with the productions of other similar writers, 
 can scarcely, I think, be ignorant: that Orpheus 
 and Homer and Solon and Pythagoras and Plato 
 
 Bae 
 
212 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK IT. 
 
 and several others, having sojourned in Egypt and 
 having been benefited by the history of Moses, after- 
 ward set forth matters directly contrary to their for- 
 mer indecorous speculations concerning the gods. 
 
 Thus, for instance, Orpheus, though the first teacher 
 of polytheism among you, declared, to his son Muséus 
 and to other sincere hearers, the unity of the God- 
 head.— We find him also adjuring THE VOICE OF THE 
 FATHER: by which expression he means THE WORD OF 
 GoD, through whom were produced the heavens and 
 the earth and the whole creation, as the divine pro- 
 phecies of holy men teach us. For, becoming parti- 
 ally acquainted with these prophecies in Egypt, he 
 thence learned: that the whole creation was produced 
 by THE WORD OF GoD.— 
 
 Pythagoras, likewise, who through symbols mysti- 
 cally declared the dogmata of his philosophy, learned 
 just sentiments, concerning the unity of God, during 
 his abode in Egypt.— 
 
 After a similar manner, Plato, as it seems, learned 
 in Egypt the doctrine of Moses and the other pro- 
 phets respecting one only God.—For, wishing to in- 
 terpret to the ignorant what was mystically said con- 
 cerning the eternity of God, he wrote as follows: 
 GOD, AS THE ANCIENT DISCOURSE SETS FORTH, HAS THE 
 BEGINNING AND THE END AND THE MIDDLE OF ALL THINGS. 
 Here, under the name of THE ANCIENT DISCOURSE, 
 Plato clearly and openly alludes to the Law of Moses : 
 though, through fear of aconite, he did not venture 
 
CHAP. VIII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 213 
 
 to mention the precise name of the Hebrew Legis- 
 lator’. 
 
 * TlokAa yap Kal avrol, rd rife Oelac rH avOpwrwy mpovoiac, 
 \ of e \ e ~ > ~ 9 lA \ vA er 2 
 
 Kal UKOVTEC UTED IMOY EitEtv HYayKacOnoar, Kal padtora ot EY 
 
 Aiytrre yevopevot, kal a0 tij¢ Movetwe cal roy mooyovwy av- 
 
 Tov DeooeBeiac wpednOEvrec. Ov yap AavOdvew Eviovc budy ol- 
 
 fat, évruxdvrac TAaYTWE TOU TH Te Atodwpov icropia Kal raic Tov 
 
 x ~ ~ \ , . , e/ oN 0 \ ¥ 1"O 
 
 Olm@Y TOY TEL TOUTWY loTOpHaaYTWY, OTL Kal "Opdeve, Kal”"Oun- 
 poc, Kat SAW 6 Tove vopouc ’AOnvaiotre vyeypagwe, kat Iv0a- 
 yopac, kai IINdrwy, kat dddoe Tivec, év TH AiyimTw yevopeEvor, 
 
 Kos ~ * / e , Y x Ag e/ > 7 ~ 
 kat ex Ti¢ Mwvatwe toropiag wpednbérrec, Varepoy évaytia TéY 
 , ‘ ~~. \ ~ Ve D2 ~ > , 
 
 TpOTEpOY pn KaNwC TEL Dewy CodavTwy adroic arEdyvarTo. 
 ‘Opgedc obv, 6 THe woAVOEdTNTOC VUOV, wo av Elmrot TLE, 
 ~ 7] N e \ x CaN 9 ~ ~ 
 
 MOWTOC OLodakadocg yEyovwe, Ola TOE TOY vioY avrod Moveaioy 
 
 Q / A \ 
 
 kai Tove Aovtove yynalove dkpoarac VorEepoy wept Evdc Kai pdvov 
 ~ tA / o) ~ e ~ e ~ \ > ~ 
 
 Ocov Knpurtet AEywy, dvayKkatoy vroprvjcat vudc.—Kal év roic 
 
 dpkote Oe oOVTwe* Odpavdy dpKilw oé Ocod peyddov coped Epyor" 
 
 > \ e 4 \ \ sy 7 ~ e , , 
 Abdny dpxife oé Ilarpoc rv p0éygaro rowror, ivika Kéopoy 
 
 ~ a) ~ , 
 
 &ixavra eatc ornpigaro Bovdaic. Ti PBovdAerae ro déyety abrdv* 
 
 Avony doxilw oé Tarpde thy ¢0éyéaro wperov; Adley évraiba 
 
 Tov Tov Oeod dvopaler Adyor, Ov ov ovpavoc Kal yh Kal 4 waca 
 
 > , , e O Oct a e ~ e ~ a e , 5) O ~ 
 
 EVEVETO KTLOLC, WC OLOdoKOVOLY Hua al Oeiat TOY dylwy dvdpev 
 
 ~ © > , \ ° \ > ~ 9 , \ o/ 
 
 TPoPyTetar, aic Ev péper Kal avToc ev TH AiyinTw TpOTXOY, Ey, 
 
 e ~ Ao ~ a) ~ ~ bd / € apie 
 
 drt TO Adyw Tov Oeov Taoa éyévEeTO f KTiotc. 
 
 e \ ~ ‘ ~ ~ 
 O dé rot Mynodpyov IvOaydpac, 6 ra ddypara rije éavrow 
 pirocodgiac Ouct oupPdorwy pivorik@c éxOépevoc, wc Ondoveoty ot Tov 
 
 Biov avrod yeypagdrec, déia kat abroce rie cic Alyurrov droén- 
 
 / Na '< \ ~ ~ , 
 plac mept Evoc Oeov HoovHy daiverar.— 
 
 i \ a \ 
 Ovrw pev oby 06 IvOaydpact drwy oé, dmodekapevoc HEV, WE 
 
 EOLKEV, THY Tept Evoc Kal pdvov Oz<od Mwvotwe Kal roy dAdo 
 
 ~ 4 A 
 mpopnTayv diackaniay, iv éyv Atyurr@ yevopevog Eyvw.—Aca 
 ~ e ¢€ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
 
 TOUTO TOLvUY WoTED EVUNVEVCAL TOIC dyvoovat TO PvoTLKW TEL TIC 
 
 adidcorynroe Tov Osov Orc Tie PEToXne Eipnuevor Povrd6pevoc © Il\a- 
 
 Twv, avratc AéLeowy otTw yéypader® ‘O pev On OEdc, WareEp Kal 6 
 
214, THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 To the same purpose he speaks in the second 
 of his two Apologies: though he does not here 
 specify the source, whence he supposes the philo- 
 sophical Pagans to have derived the better articles 
 of their theology. 
 
 The doctrines of Plato are not entirely alien from 
 those of Christ, while yet they are not altogether 
 similar : and this remark applies equally to the doc- 
 trines of other writers, whether they be Stoics or poets 
 or historians.— 
 
 Whatsoever things, therefore, have been well spoken 
 by all of these, are the property of us Christians : 
 Jor, next after God (the Father), we worship and 
 we love THE WorD, who is from the unbegotten -and 
 ineffable God ; since, Jor our sakes, he became man, 
 in order also that, being made a joint partaker of 
 our passions, he might effect our healing '. 
 
 His language is still the same in his first 
 
 \ / 3 \ \ \ \ 1s ~ f o/ 
 madatoc Néoyoe, aoxynyv Kat reXeuT HY Kal feoa TWY TAaYTWY ExWY. 
 ‘Evrav0a 6 Undrwr, capwe Kal davepec, rov mwadady oyoy 
 
 oe , ° iL If ~ x bd / OG / VE ~ 
 Mwveéwe dvopaZer YOHOY, TOV fev ovopmaroc Muveéwe, dd6Bw Tov 
 Kwvelov, penyjioOa dedtwc. Justin, Cohort. ad Greece. Oper. 
 pe 11,12, 14, 18. 
 Ud ~ ~ 
 * Ovy Ore ddAOroa éort ra IAdrwvoe Owaypara rov Xororod, 
 
 f > ° ‘ ~~ >, * 
 ANN Ore obK Eore rayTn Opowa, Waren obCe Ta THY ad\\wv, Srwi- 
 KWV TE, Kal ToLNToY, Kal ovyypadéwy.—'Ooa ody Tapa mao Ka- 
 AWE elpyrar, huey roy Xptoriav@v gore? ror yao dwo dyevyy- 
 TOV Kat dppnrov O<ow Aoyoy, per rov Ody, Tp0oKuVOUpmEY Kal 
 ’ ~ bd 0?) SSN p) an 2 ~ of / ef Le aN ~ 
 GYATWHEV, ETELOH Kat Ov ude dvOowmoe yéyover, Oxwe Kal, TOY 
 Tradwy ror NMETEOWY TUM PETOXOC Yevopevoc, tac TOLNONTALs 
 Justin. Apol. ii, Oper. p. 40. 
 
 4 
 
 eS ere a 
 
CHAP. VIII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 215 
 
 Apology, even when he is expressly noticing the 
 fancied Trinity of Plato. Here, as before, his 
 avowed theory is: not that Christians could pro- 
 perly be said to agree with the philosophic Pagans, 
 for such an expression might seem to imply an 
 act of borrowing on the part of Christians; but, on 
 the contrary, that, through imitation of the doc- 
 trine professed by Christians, all the Platonists 
 avowed what they did avow. 
 
 It is not, that we hold the same opinions with 
 others, he asserts: but that all, through imitation, 
 speak our tenets'. 
 
 The cautious inquirer will not fail to observe: 
 that Justin, though, after the humour of the age, 
 very anxious to discover the doctrine of the per- 
 sonal Word and the Trinity in the old theology 
 of Orpheus and in the recondite philosophy of 
 Plato, never once expresses the least notion of 
 borrowing it from those quarters, and of thence 
 introducing it into Christianity. On the contrary, 
 the whole tenor of his language is precisely opposed 
 to the conduct which Dr. Priestley and others of 
 the Antitrinitarian School would ascribe to him. 
 According to this very hasty class of writers, 
 Justin borrows the doctrine of the Word from 
 Platonism, and thence introduces it into Christ- 
 
 1 Ov ra airad ody ipetc ddrote dokdlopev, dAN ot wavTec ra 
 Wpereoa [uploupevot AEyoust. Justin. Apol. l. Oper. p 73. See 
 the entire passage cited above, book ii. chap. 6. §1. 3. 
 
216 THE APOSTOLICITY [BooK I. 
 
 lanity: but, according to his own account of the 
 matter, Justin, finding that doctrine already taught 
 by the Catechists of the Church from the inspired 
 volume of the New Testament and from the then 
 well remembered preaching of the Apostles, feels 
 a strong desire to discover some vestiges of it also 
 in the ancient theology of Orpheus and of Plato, on 
 the avowed theory, that both Orpheus and Plato 
 learned it in Egypt from the writings of Moses. 
 
 2. The hypothesis, advocated by Clement of 
 Alexandria, is exactly the same as the hypothesis 
 of Justin. Plato and Pythagoras are the borrowers 
 from Moses and the prophets: not Justin and 
 Clement, from Plato and Pythagoras. 
 
 Plato remarks: Gop, AS ALSO THE ANCIENT DIS- 
 COURSE TEACHES, COMPREHENDS THE BEGINNING AND 
 THE END AND THE MIDDLE OF ALL THINGS.— Whence, 
 O Plato, did you thus darkly set forth the truth 2— 
 THE NATIONS OF THE BARBARIANS, says he, ARE WISER 
 THAN THOSE. Lruly I well know your teachers, 
 though you may wish to conceal them.—From the 
 Hebrews you have borrowed, both all your good laws, 
 and your opinion respecting the Deity’. 
 
 " ‘O pév O} Ode, Wore Kal 6 TUdaLOE oyoc, doxyy Kal re- 
 AeuTiy kal péca roy bytwy ardytwy éxwv.—lldbev, & IAdrwy, 
 ai Oevay aivirrn 3 —Lodwrepa, dno, rotTwv BapBdowy ra yéyn. 
 Oidd cov rove OvldackdAove, Kay adroKkourrey é0éAnc.—Nopove 
 dé rove Ocor adnbeic, cal ddéap THY TOU Ooi, Tap avrwy whédn- 
 ou ray ‘Efpaiwy. Clem. Alex. Admon. ad Gent. Oper. p. 
 45,46. 
 
CHAP. VIII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 217 
 
 Pythagoras transferred largely from our Scrip- 
 tures into his own system of dogmatic philosophy. 
 For Numenius, the pythagoréan philosopher, undis- 
 guisedly writes: WHAT IS PLATO, SAVE MOSES AT- 
 TICISING*? 
 
 Lhe philosophers of the Greeks, without acknow- 
 ledging their obligations, borrowed the best of their 
 dogmata from Moses and the prophets?. 
 
 IV. With respect to what has been denominated 
 the Trinity of Plato; however its component 
 members may be enumerated, it certainly is no 
 Triad of three distinct persons. 
 
 According to Justin Martyr, the three principles 
 of the greek philosopher were God and Matter and 
 Form: to which he sometimes added a fourth, 
 under the title of The Soul of the Universe*®. But 
 
 IIvOaydpac rodda Tov Tap’ ipiv perevéeyKac eic THY EauTOU 
 doyparorotiay. Noupyvioc 6 Ilv8aydpevoc pddcogoc aVTUKOUC 
 ypager Ti yap éore WAdrwy, 7} Mwaojjc drruxifwy ; Clem. Alex. 
 Strom. lib. i. Oper. p. 342. 
 
 2 KnXérrac NéyecOae rove ror ‘EAAQVoy pioodgove, mapa Mw- 
 géwe Kal TwOY TpOpNToY TA KUPLWTATA THY doypdTwy ovK ebya- 
 plorwe eidngddrac. Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. v. Oper. p. 550. 
 
 3 Tov ydop Wrarwroc TOELC Apyde TOU TayToc Elva AEyorroe, 
 Ocdv Kai"YAnv cat Eidoc’ Ody MEV, TOY TaYTwY ToLNnThY" "YAnv 
 O€, TY UmoKEmevny TH TPWTH TOY YyEvouevwy yeEvécet, Kat THY 
 mpdgacty aT Tic Onpuovpyiag maoéxyovoay’ Ejidoe be, ro éxdo- 
 TOV TWY YyivoMévwY Tapdoevypa. Justin. Cohort. ad Gree. Oper. 
 p. 5. 
 
 "O y' ody Iddrwy more pév roeic adpxac Tov mavroe eivae dé- 
 yet, Oedv kat"YAnv kal Eldoe: wore be Téooapac, toooTlOnat yp 
 
 THY KaBdAov Wuxijv. Justin, Cohort. ad Gree. Oper. p. 6. 
 
218 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 Porphyry exhibits Plato’s second and third prin- 
 ciples, as being active instead of passive: whence 
 he sums up the entire three, as the Highest Good 
 God, the Second Creative God, and the Soul of 
 the World’. And this last statement of the specu- 
 lation seems to be favoured by the language of 
 Plato himself: for, mentioning them altogether in 
 his second epistle to Dionysius, he denominates 
 his three divine principles, Essential Goodness, and 
 Creative Intellect, and The Universal Mundane 
 Soul’. 
 
 Now, in the Triad of Plato, some of the early 
 Fathers wished to discover a real though corrupted 
 declaration of the three persons of the Trinity: 
 and the theory, upon which they proceeded, was 
 avowedly the following. 
 
 The doctrine of the Trinity, they maintained, 
 so far from being an invention of Plato, was in 
 truth a primitive patriarchal revelation of the 
 divine nature. This primitive revelation was, with 
 a more ample development, confirmed under the 
 Gospel. Plato, meanwhile, had corruptedly bor- 
 rowed its outline from the writings of Moses and 
 
 1 Tlop@tpwe ydo gnow, UWdarwvoc éxriOépevoc ddéar* "Axot 
 TPLWY UTOCTAGEWY THY TOV OEiov TooEhDEiy oOvoiay’ Eivat O€ TOV 
 pev dyvwrdrw Ody rdyabdy’ per avroy o& Kal detrepoy, roy An- 
 puoupyov" rptroy dé Kal ry Tov Kdopou Wuyi" dxou yao Vuyxiie 
 THY Oeornra wooedOeciy. Cyril. cont. Julian. lib. i. p. 34. 
 
 ? See Cudworth’s Intellect. Syst. book i. chap. 4. p. 406— 
 408, 
 
CHAP. VIII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. | 219 
 
 the Prophets. Consequently, men need not won- 
 der to have found a prominent dogma, both of 
 the ancient Hebrew Church and of its successor 
 the Christian Church, in the Works of a specu- 
 lative Greek, who had been largely conversant 
 with the Orientals’. 
 
 1 "Oore Adyw Oe0v ék Twv Urokepevoyr Kal rpodnwlérrwy 
 
 \ ~ 
 dia Mocéwe, yeyeryiobat rov mavra Kocpoy, kal IINarwy, kat ot 
 
 ~ U BWweed ~ > / Neve ~ ~ 7 
 ravra XEyorTec, Kal ijpeic, epaboper, kal tueic mecoOivar dvvacbe. 
 —Kai ro év rg rapd Wdarwre Tipaiw pvooroyoupevoy rept rod 
 Yiov rod Ocov, Ore Ever, "Eyiacey airoy évy 76 wayrl’ Taod Mu« 
 
 ’ YEt, LY’ ¢ 
 Ss oY ~ S 
 géwc aPwy, dpolwe etzwev.—Ty pera Tov To@Tov Oeoy dbyapuy 
 U 5 ~ Ng F. \ \ C ~ 9322 N , ? on 
 KexidoOar év 7@ Tayrl cime. Kal ro eimeiy abroy TOLTOY, EELOn, 
 e 4 2 i ~ Ny 4 b , e \ 4 b 
 We Tp0ELTOMEV, ETAaVW THY VodTwY avéyvw t7d Mwoéwe eipn- 
 
 7 3 / \ ~ ~ ~ = / \ \ A 
 Hevoy exipepeoOar 70 rov Ocov Iveta" devrépay flev yao ywoar 
 T~ Tapa Ood Adyy, Ov KeyrdoOae év TO TavTl Edn, Oldwat’ Tipy 
 o€ Tei7ny, TO Ex Gerri exipéoecOar r@~ voare IIvetpare, eixwy, Ta 
 
 \ = S 5 
 d€ ToiTa wept Tov roiroy. Justin. Apol. i. Oper. p..72, 73. 
 
 Kat Undrwy d&, pera roy Ody cal rv "Ydyv, 70 Eldoc ToITnY 
 aoxny eivat éywy, od« d&ddoOEv TOUEv, AAA Tapa Mwvcéwe ry 
 Tpodacty eihnowc gaiverat. Justin. Cohort. ad Gree. Oper. 
 p- 22. 
 
 "Ap obv 6 Tov dtdwoyv Noty cat Oyo karahapCavopuevoy mept- 
 
 7 \ faz \ NSE, a] eid 2 ete 94S ~ Nao Pst oN 
 vonoac Qeov, Kat ra ércoupPeynkdra aro ékeureiv, ro dyrwe dy, 
 
 \ \ ne BD \ nt) > ~ 3 / e b \ 7 
 TO povodvec, To ayaboy dz’ abrov droxyeduevoy, OTEO EoTL AdN- 
 Oeva* Kat rept TOWTNC duvdpewc® kat we wept roy madvTwy Bact 
 Aéa wdvra gor, Kal éxelvou evexey Tdyra, Kal ékélvoe airiy mdy- 
 
 9 ? 
 x \ y \ fe". ¢ / \ \ \ 7 \ fe 
 TWY, Kat TEpL OvO Kal TPLa Cebrepoy O€ wept ra devrepa, Kat Tolroy 
 wept Td TpiTa* wept THY eK TOY alaOnroOy ye TE Kat ovpavow NEvo- 
 
 , vA rhe \ 2 ¢ A 3 \ ~ 5 , 
 HEevwy yeyovevat, peilov ij kal’ eavroy rddybec pabety EVO[LLOEY 5 
 Athenag. Legat. § xxi. p. 92, 93. 
 
 Lw7r6 yao Udrwva dyriKpuc ovToc, &y ™ ™p0c ’Epaoroy kat 
 
 Kopioxoy éexvorohy, paiverat Marga cat Yidy, ove of8 Orwe, éx 
 
220 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 Such was their theory, by which they would 
 account for the appearance of a remarkable specu- 
 
 ~ ed ~ ~ 4 . 
 rév ‘EBpaixéy ypadov éudaivwr, rapakedevdpevoc Kara écv 
 ? UY od ef wis i \ ~ ~ ’ ~ 
 Exopvivrac oroven re Ga po) dpovow, Kal rijc orovdic ddedoy 
 
 V4 \ f \ of \ ~ e 4 \ be] 7 
 madela, TOY TadvTwy Ody airiyv, Kat Tov ‘Hyepdvog Kat Airiou 
 Ilarépa, Kupwoy éxopvirvrac: édv dp0ic pthooophonre, etoeobe. 
 “Hre év Tysaip dSnpoyopia Iaréoa cadet rov Anuovpyor, héyouoa 
 EVs ~ |e of 
 WOE Tuc’ Ocol Dewy, Gv &yw Ilario, Anuovpydc re eoywr. “Qore 
 
 \ > A s/ \ ds / , / bd \ peg 
 kal, érdy eixy’ Ilept roy radvrwy Baoiéa madvra éori, Kdkelvou 
 er 4 4 5 « ~ % J € , cert ! \ 
 évekey Ta Tavra’ KaKElvo airwy ardyvTwy Kadwy* CevrEpoy Oe, 
 
 \ \ / \ , \ \ / ‘ 9 2 yi ’ 
 mepl ra Oevrepa’ Kal rpiroy, epi ra rpira* ovK addwe Eywye eba- 
 
 <i 
 
 Kovw, i) THY ‘Aylay Torada pyvvecOa? rpirov pev yao sivat, 70 
 “Ayvoy IIvetpat rov Yidv dé, devrepoy, ov ob maya Eyévero Kara 
 BovrAnorv rov Tlarpdc. Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. v. Oper. p. 598. 
 
 IlvOaydoac dé kal WAdrwr, dvarerpepdrec év AiyuTry, Kal Toh- 
 Noic rote avrdOe Tepirvyyavorvrec, are CH prropabesrarw TE OvTE 
 Kat diAotaTopE, OVK Hyvonodrny tiv Mwocéwe doerhv.— Evrevey, 
 ic 2 \ \ ~ , > cee é 5 , > 
 oipat, TOY ment Oeov Aoyor ovK dképbweo éxpepabnkorac, ercet- 
 
 t \ \ of \ \ b ~ / a \ 
 Kéorepdv Two Tapd Tove adAove Ta TEpt adbrov dogacat, Kai py 
 kal EhécOar dooveiv.—tloppiptoc yao pyar, Adrwrog exribépevog 
 ode ‘ af ~ e , \ ~ f ~ ’ ‘ " 
 diay? “Aypt rpwov vrooTacEewy Ty TOU Oeiov mooeNOEty ovotay 
 z \ A \ ’ / \ 4 ie 3 2 ae % . \ / 
 eivar o€ Tov pev dywrdrw Ocdy rdyabdv’ per’ adbrov de kal devre- 
 
 \ (Atle , be \ Vy ~ 7 RACE 
 pov, Tov Anpuovpydv* rpiroy o€ Kat rijyv Tov Kdopou Wuxi’ axoe 
 
 ~ ~ \ ~ 
 ydo Puyiic rv Oedrnra rpoenOety. "Idov on cagpwe év TOUTOLC, 
 s/ lod e / x ~ / ~~ 9 4 3 / 
 ayol TOLWY UrooTaGEWY THY TOV OEiov rooENOEtY ovaiay, ioxuptle- 
 < \ [pals Cpe as el ead r \ of 
 
 rat. Eic pev yap gory O Twy OX\wY OEoc’ KaTEvpUVETaL O€ WOTED 
 e \ 9 ~ ~ 9 e , WE / as of 
 } wept avrov yvworc eic ‘Ayiav re Kal ‘Opoovooy Tpidda’ elec re 
 Ilarépa, gnpl, kat Yiov, cai“Aycoy IIvevpa, 0 cat Wuyny rov 
 kdopov gnoly 6 IlNdrwy.—Kal radw 0 avrocg Iopdbpuoc Tept 
 
 4 
 
 , 2 \ > 4 Cy. ‘ , a , , 
 IIXkarwvoc’ Ato év adroppynrote wept TovTWY aiviTTOoMEvoeg yar’ 
 \ ‘ / / > \ ee / e/ / \ > ~ 
 Ilept rov Pacwiéa wdvra éort, kal éxeivou Evexa Tavra, Kal éxeivo 
 / / ~ 9 \ 
 airwv TdyTwY KadwWY, CevTEpoY O& TEDL Ta CEvTEDA, Kal TpiToY Teel 
 x , 5 € \ ! \ \ ‘ ~ > ‘ 3 
 Ta TPITA’ WC Yap TaYTWY [EV TEPL TOUC TPEIC OvTWY OEovc, aX 
 
 > \ Q 
 HOn TpwTUS pev Tept Tov TdyTwy Pagirga, OevTépwc OE EPL TOY 
 
CHAP. VIII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 221 
 
 lation in the writings of a gentile philosopher. 
 But, as for borrowing the doctrine of the Trinity 
 from the Triad of Plato and thence introducing it 
 into the primitive Christian Church; which is 
 the wild hypothesis of the modern Antitrinitarian 
 School: we have no evidence whatsoever, that such 
 a notion at any time entered into their heads, or 
 that such a mutuation was ever adopted in prac- 
 tice. In truth, to speak more accurately, this 
 strange phantasy is not only negatively unsupported 
 by any testimony, but it is even positively contra- 
 dicted by a mass of evidence the most complete 
 and the most overwhelming. For, since we have 
 direct proof, that Justin and Irenéus and Athena- 
 goras and Clement and Tertullian found the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity already from the very first 
 existing 1n the Church : it is obvious, that, by no 
 possibility, could they have borrowed and intro- 
 duced, as a hitherto unheard of novelty, this iden- 
 tical doctrine into the Church. 
 
 Under the presumption, in short, that the greek 
 philosophers stole largely from Moses and the Pro- 
 phets, the early Fathers seem to have been fond 
 of discovering fancied affinities. But here the mat- 
 
 dm’ éxelvov Oedy, kal Tpirwe wept rov dxo rovrov. AsediAwKe Oe 
 Eudaivwy kal ry €& dd\dX\hrwy brdcracu, adpxopevoc dro Tov Bact 
 
 , \ \ e , \ ef ~ \ \ ~ re re 
 AEwe, Kal THY UrdBaaty Kal upeoly TWY META TO TOWTOY, ia Tov 
 mowrws Kal devrépwe Kal rpirwe eimeiv, kat Ore 2& Evo ra Tavra, 
 Kal ov avrov owlerau Cyril. Alex. cont. Julian. lib. i, 
 p. 29, 34. 
 
222 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 ter ended. Their conduct closely resembled the 
 conduct of various modern writers among our- 
 selves, who have fancied that they could detect 
 vestiges of the Trinity of Scripture in the Triads of 
 Paganism. My own persuasion is: that not the 
 slightest connection subsists between them, and 
 that the Triads of the Gentiles originated from a 
 totally different source’. But, whether my in- 
 dividual persuasion be well founded or ill founded, 
 even a Horsley has .condescended to tread in the 
 steps of the early ecclesiastical speculatists : for, 
 nearly after their fashion, he has adventured to 
 trace the christian dogma, in the Mysteries of 
 Orpheus and Pythagoras, in the traditional state- 
 ment of Plato, in the secrets of the Egyptian 
 Priesthood, in the theology of Persia and Chaldéa, 
 in the Orgies of the Samothracian Cabiri, and in 
 the joint adoration of the three great gods of the 
 Roman Capitol *. 
 
 How, then, stands the real question? ‘Truly, 
 those ingenious theorists of the Antitrinitarian 
 School, who, because Justin and the early Fathers 
 discovered the doctrine of the Trinity in the writ- 
 ings of Plato, thence rapidly advance to the con- 
 
 * The Triads of the Gentiles, with a singular mixture of Sa- 
 bianism and Materialism, originated, as the legends attached to 
 them distinctly shew, from the three sons of Adam, viewed as 
 transmigratively re-appearing in the three sons of Noah. See 
 my Origin of Pagan Idolatry, book i. chap. 1. 
 
 ? Bp. Horsley’s Charge, § II. 2. Tracts, p. 43, 44. 
 
CHAP. VIII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 223 
 
 clusion, that Justin and the early Fathers borrowed 
 and introduced the doctrine into the primitive 
 Church: truly, those ingenious theorists, among 
 whom shines out preéminently the Historian of 
 the Corruptions of Christianity, might with equal 
 cogency, on the self-same principles, demonstrate; 
 that, because Bishop Horsley discovered the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity in the Triads of Paganism, he 
 most indubitably from that quarter borrowed and 
 mtroduced the doctrine into the hitherto antitrini- 
 tarian Church of England. 
 
 It is not unworthy of note, that, when - Celsus, 
 in the second century, for the purpose of depre- 
 ciating the Gospel, had alleged, not merely (like 
 Dr. Priestley) against the Christians of that day, but 
 even against Christianity itself, that it had largely 
 borrowed from the philosophers and especially from 
 Plato: Origen, who answered him in the third 
 century, treated the whole of this attack as a mere 
 baseless calumny', on the ground; that, what 
 Celsus would refer to Plato or to Heraclitus, had 
 been said, long before their time, by the ancient 
 hebrew prophets®. 
 
 I may add, what is somewhat remarkable, that, 
 although Celsus adduced from Plato the same 
 passage as that which is also adduced by Justin 
 and Clement and Athenagoras and Cyril, he did 
 
 *"AdAny KéXoov xarnyopiav. 
 * Orig. cont. Cels. lib. vi. p. 283—293. 
 
224 THE APOSTOLICITY OF TRINITARIANISM. 
 
 not bring it forward for the purpose of shewing 
 that Christians had borrowed from Plato the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity, as they brought it forward for 
 the purpose of shewing that Plato had borrowed 
 that doctrine from Moses and the Prophets: but he 
 adduced it, simply in order to intimate, that some 
 of the magnificent scriptural descriptions of the power 
 and majesty of God fell short of it in dignity and 
 sublimaty ’. 
 
 * Tatra 0 hynodpny Boaxéa dro mrElorwy dowry THY TEpl OE 
 Toic tepoic dydpact vevonpévwr rapabécbar, dekvuc, Ort TOY Bav- 
 pacbérvrwr vrd Kédoov tAarwviKoy NOywy EEL TL oEMVOTEpOY, 
 Tote Exovow dpOadpovg PrErEv Ta CEVA THY yoapwy dvVa- 
 plévouc, TA Lepa TOY TPOPNTWY ypaupara. 
 
 "Exee 0’  WAdrwvocg dékitc, tiv 6 Kédoog éfé0ero, rovroy rov 
 TpoToy. 
 
 Tlept rov mavrwy Baciéa wav7 éorl, Kal éxelvou Evexa mavra, 
 kal éketvo airwoy aravrwy kad@yv. Agvrepov o&, wept ra devrEpa* 
 
 kal rpirov, wept ra rpira. Orig. cont. Cels. lib. vi. p. 287, 288. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 RESPECTING THE ALLEGATION, THAT THE TRINITY OF 
 THE EARLY FATHERS DIFFERED ESSENTIALLY FROM 
 THE TRINITY OF THE MODERN CATHOLIC CHURCH. 
 
 Tuat The doctrine of a Trinity was taught and main- 
 tained by the Fathers of the early Church: is a fact, 
 which at length it has been found impossible abso- 
 lutely to deny. 
 
 Under such circumstances, for the purpose of 
 avoiding the consequence which from this incon- 
 trovertible fact so obviously results ; the conse- 
 quence, namely, that, If the doctrine of a Trinity 
 was publicly taught and maintained by the Fathers 
 of the early Church, the early Church, of which they 
 were the accredited teachers, and with which they 
 were always in unreproved communion, must herself 
 also, from the very beginning, have held that doctrine’: 
 
 * Mr. Lindsey, as we have seen, fully acknowledges: that, 
 what the Fathers of the three first centuries held and taught, 
 all christian people, by a necessary consequence, must also have 
 held. This he acknowledges: the only question therefore is, 
 what those Fathers did teach. See above, book ii. chap. 6. in 
 init. 
 
 VOL. II. Q 
 
226 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK Il. 
 
 under such circumstances, the writers of the 
 Antitrinitarian School are wont to contend: that 
 The Trinity, as first introduced and received into 
 the Church, long, most widely and most vitally, dif- 
 fered from the Trinity of more modern Christianity ; 
 for, though THE SON’S PERFECT EQUALITY WITH THE 
 FATHER be the present approved scheme of orthodoxy, 
 ithe original introducers and favourers of Trinitari- 
 anism stoutly maintained THE SON’S ESSENTIAL IN- 
 FERIORITY TO THE FATHER. 
 
 Now, by the very occurrence of cumulative dis- 
 crepance, this matter, they allege, clearly marks 
 the progress of corruption. 
 
 When Trinitarianism, say they, was first en- 
 grafted upon the simplicity of primitive Unitari- 
 anism, no one ever asserted: that Christ is properly 
 and essentially God. On the contrary, he was 
 viewed in a light greatly inferior to the Father: 
 and, instead of being deemed equal to him, he was 
 considered rather as a sort of secondary and created 
 God; for, at the commencement of the corruption, 
 the new theory was not very dissimilar to that sys- 
 tem of doctrine, which, at a later period, received 
 the name of Arianism. With respect to the favour- 
 ite modern tenet of THE PERFECT COEQUALITY AND 
 COETERNITY OF THE THREE PERSONS OF THE TRINITY, 
 it was altogether unknown, until the huge fabric 
 of gradual corruption was at length completed. 
 
 Such a statement, even were it admissible, 
 would not, so far as I can discern, materially serve 
 7 
 
CHAP. IX. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 227 
 
 the cause of modern Antitrinitarianism : for, if, on 
 the one hand, it condemned Trinitarianism, as at 
 present understood and received; it would equally, 
 on the other hand, condemn Antitrinitarianism, as 
 now propounded and enforced by the School of 
 Dr. Priestley. 
 
 The early Fathers, quite up to the apostolic 
 age, held and taught some doctrine of a Trinity. 
 But, in whatever mode the early Fathers held the 
 doctrine of a Trinity, in that same mode the 
 Catholic Church from the very beginning must 
 have held it. Consequently, let the precise doc- 
 trine have been what it may, it could only, as 
 having been universally received from the very 
 beginning, have been introduced into the Church 
 Catholic by the Apostles themselves. Hence, if 
 we admit the divine inspiration of the Apostles 
 (and, if we deny it, we entirely shift the ground of 
 the argument): modern Antitrinitarianism would 
 be proved, even by the present statement, to be a 
 palpable departure from the primitive faith, quite 
 as much as, though in an opposite direction to, 
 modern Trinitarianism. 
 
 Let this, however, pass: and let us hear the 
 determination put forth by the Historian of the 
 Corruptions of Christianity. 
 
 We find, upon all occasions ; that the early Christ- 
 ian Writers speak of the Father as superior to the 
 Son: and, in general, they give him the title of cov, 
 as distinguished from the Son; and sometimes they 
 
 Q2 
 
228 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 expressly call him, exclusively of the Son, THE ONLY 
 TRUE GoD: a phraseology, which does not at all accord 
 with the idea of the perfect equality of all the per- 
 sons in the Trinity. But it might well be expected, 
 that the advances to the present doctrine of the 
 Trinity should be gradual and slow. It was, indeed, 
 some centuries before wt was completely formed ’. 
 
 Thus speaks Dr. Priestley: and, forthwith 
 adopting the speculation advanced by the His- 
 torian, his implicit follower the Barrister eagerly 
 promulgates it afresh with increasing confidence. 
 Having stated anew the discoveries of his prede- 
 cessor, that Tertullian and Origen confess and 
 lament the horror with which the bulk of their 
 contemporaries viewed the then novel doctrine 
 of Christ’s divinity, he proceeds in the following 
 manner. 
 
 Though we are not to consider the Fathers as 
 AUTHORITIES 7 the interpretation of the Scriptures, 
 but are bound to examine and judge for ourselves: 
 yet we cannot avoid considering their TESTIMONY to 
 be of great weight, when they are relating matters 
 of fact ; more particularly when they are facts mili- 
 tating against their own peculiar opinions. Which, 
 we must bear in mind too, shocking as they then ap- 
 peared to the great body of plain unlettered Christ- 
 zans who at that time constituted the majority of 
 
 a Priestley’s Hist. of Corrupt. part 1. sect. 3. Works, vol. v. 
 p- 36, 
 
 Vs 
 
CHAP. IX. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 229 
 
 believers, were much less calculated to shock their 
 minds, than those which succeeded them in the course 
 of another century; as one corruption paved the 
 way for, and was closely followed by, another. For 
 the Trinity of the Fathers of that period, as declared 
 by themselves (of which I can produce very clear 
 and satisfactory proofs from their own writings ), 
 consisted of three UNEQUAL persons, of whom the 
 Lather was SUPREME}. 
 
 Like his prototype Dr. Priestley, the Barrister 
 has unhappily fallen into the delusive habit, of 
 hastily catching up a promising expression, and of 
 forthwith expecting it to do wonders for the cause 
 which he has unguardedly been led to espouse. 
 Without once stopping to examine the drift or 
 context of the place, he incontinently notes it 
 down as a very clear and satisfactory proof of the 
 point to be established: and then rapidly sends it 
 forth into the world, totally pretermitting and ap- 
 
 ‘ Letters by another Barrister, p. 282, 283. The reader will 
 recollect, that ihe great body of plain unlettered Christians, 
 whom the Barrister represents as shocked at the doctrine of 
 Christ’s divinity, were, in truth, certain ignorant individuals, 
 who, by Praxeas, had been seduced, from the primeval doctrine 
 of the Trinity in Unity, to the monstrous novelty of believing : 
 that Christ himself, exclusively, is the sole supreme unipersonal 
 Deity ; who, in respect to his different functions or offices, variously 
 assumed the several mere titles of Father and Son and Spirit. 
 See above, book ii. chap. 5, Such is the manner, in which ancient 
 ecclesiastical history is read and propounded by the doctors of 
 the modern Antitrinitarian School ! 
 
230 THE APOSTOLICITY [Book I. 
 
 parently having never read those other explana- 
 tory passages, which, if adduced, would have im- 
 mediately shewn, that his merely partial and utterly 
 misunderstood authority was nothing to the pur- 
 pose. 
 
 This unfortunate propensity of the Historian 
 and the Barrister, I have already had occasion to 
 notice, in more than a single instance, as Athanasius 
 and Tertullian and Origen and Justin successively 
 passed before us in masquerading habits which 
 might well have concealed them from the sagacity 
 of even maternal inspection. I have now to per- 
 form the task of exhibiting another specimen of 
 the same very mischievous and very reprehensible 
 humour. | 
 
 Our two authors, it seems, are quite sure: that 
 The Trinty of the early Ecclesiastics, as declared 
 by themselves (of which the Barrister can produce 
 very clear and satisfactory proofs from their own 
 writings), was very different from the Trinity of 
 the modern Catholic Church; for the Trinity of the 
 former consisted of three UNEQUAL persons, among 
 whom the Father is supREME ; while the Trinity of 
 the latter consists of three EQUAL persons, among 
 whom the Father 1s NOT SUPREME. 
 
 The knowledge of ancient Theology, and the 
 knowledge of modern Theology, possessed by Dr. 
 Priestley and the Barrister, may justly, in point of 
 extent and accuracy, be pronounced much about 
 equal. 
 
CHAP. 1X. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 231 
 
 I. With respect to the doctrine, really held by 
 the old Ecclesiastical Writers in regard to the 
 mode of the Deity’s subsistence, it may be briefly 
 stated in manner following. 
 
 The perfect Unity of the Godhead subsists, as an 
 undivided and mutually inherent Trinity. But, in 
 the divine Trinity, there is an orderly gradation of 
 consubstantial and coéternal and coequal persons, 
 with an economical distribution of covenanted offices. 
 
 1. This primitive doctrine, which plainly in- 
 volves the two ideas of EquALITY under one aspect 
 and of INEQUALITY under another aspect, it may be 
 useful to state somewhat more largely under the 
 form of separate propositions. 
 
 (1.) In regard to the double nature of Christ, 
 divine and human, the ancient writers taught as 
 follows. 
 
 The Son is Equa to the Father, as touching his 
 godhead. But he is irertor to the Lather, as 
 touching his manhood. 
 
 (2.) In regard to the Trinity, when viewed ab- 
 stractedly from the humanity of the Son as that 
 Trinity was believed to have existed before the 
 incarnation of the divine Word, the following was 
 their doctrine. 
 
 Essentially or physically, the three divine consub- 
 stantial persons are nquaL. But there is a gra- 
 dation in them, which places the Father First in 
 order. 
 
 For the Father is God of himself or The Unde- 
 
232 THE APOSTOLICITY [Book II. 
 
 rived Fountain of Deity: and, therefore, he is so far 
 SUPREME '. : 
 The Son is God from the Father, eternal Ema- 
 nation from eternal Light, true God from true God. 
 And the Holy Ghost is God from the Father and 
 
 Srom the Son, eternally by the Son proceeding from 
 the Father: so that the Father and the Son are one 
 God in the unity of the Spirit *. 
 
 * The titles of Airé@coc and IInyi Oedrnroe, which by the 
 early ecclesiastical writers are so often bestowed upon the Fa- 
 ther, are not so bestowed (as Dr. Priestley and the Barrister 
 seem to have fancied) for the purpose of excluding the Son and 
 the Holy Spirit from full participation of essential and perfect 
 and actual divinity, but simply for the purpose of setting forth 
 the Father as the underived fountain of Godhead: a character 
 of independent Autotheism, which they judged to be inapplicable 
 either to the Son or to the Spirit, and which in truth if so ap- 
 plied would as its inevitable result bring out the doctrine of 
 absolute separated Tritheism. 
 
 Oicer oby abo (scil. rd: Iveta) cat trdpxor idwovordrwe, 
 Kat ra rdvra Lworowvy cat TOEhOY, Kal we éé ayiac rnyipe HoTn- 
 pevoy Tov Ocov Kal Taredc* mpderor yao €& abrov Kara pio, Kal 
 OC Yiot xoonyetrat rH Kricet. Cyril. Alex. cont. Julian. lib. i, 
 p. 3d. 
 
 * The Latins held, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father 
 and from the Son: the Greeks held, that the Spirit proceeds 
 from the Father by the Son. 
 
 In the text, I have embodied both these two ideas : which 
 are by no means incompatible ; but which, the latter being ex- 
 planatory of the former, ultimately and effectively, so far as I 
 can see, amount to the same doctrine. 
 
 On the principle that the Father alone is the A’rodeoc and 
 
 the Uny) Gedrnroc, I should say: that the expression, From 
 
CHAP. IX. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 233 
 
 (3.) In regard to the economical distribution of 
 covenanted offices, they further taught in manner 
 following. 
 
 the Father by the Son, is perhaps the most strictly accurate. In 
 either case, the doctrine is the same. 
 
 I may add: that the phraseology, preferred by the Greeks, 
 seems, if we may so conjecture from its adoption by Tertul- 
 lian, to have been familiar even in the Latin Church of the 
 second century. 
 
 Hoc mihi et in tertium gradum dictum sit, qui Spiritum non 
 aliunde puto, quam a Patre per Filium. Tertull. adv, Prax, 
 § 3. Oper. p. 406. 
 
 The inseparable junction, of the three nevertheless distinct 
 persons in the Godhead, through the unity of the Spirit, is very 
 clearly set forth by Athenagoras, who flourished about the year 
 170. 
 
 ‘Evoe dvroe rou Marpdg Kat rov Yiov" dvroc O€ Tou Yiov éy Harp, 
 kat Tlarpde év Yio, évdrnrexat dvvaper Uvevparoc. Athenag. 
 Legat. § ix. Oper. p. 38. 
 
 This mutual inherency of the three divine persons in one 
 Godhead was conventionally styled their reprywpnoce. 
 
 From the acknowledged fact of such inherency, I conceive : 
 that, when we speak of the Father being the Atrd@eo¢ and the 
 IInyi) Gedrnroc, and when we say that the Son derives his sub- 
 sistence by generation from the Father; we must be under- 
 stood, as using that language solely with reference to the mutual 
 relations of the persons in the Trinity. | 
 
 As the Son, conjointly with the Father and the Spirit, is The 
 Supreme Numen : he is, I apprehend, under this aspect, self-ea~ 
 istent ; whence, accordingly, we find him denominated Jehovah. 
 
 But, as the Son is, personally, the second in gradation: he 
 derives, I conceive, under that aspect, his subsistence from the 
 Father. 
 
 If we deny the Son’s numenical self-existence, we deny him 
 
234 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 The Son, as the Word or communicative Oracle 
 or delegated Messenger of the Father, is, to the 
 Father, officially wrertor. And the Holy Spirit, 
 as sent both by the Father and by the Son, is, both 
 to the Father and to the Son, officially 1wrERtor in 
 like manner also. 
 
 But then this 1rrenwortty, on the part of the Son 
 and of the Spirit, is purely official, not physical or 
 essential. or it is the sort of VOLUNTARY INFE- 
 RIORITY which AN EQUAL assumes, when he freely 
 agrees to act as the messenger of AN EQUAL, or when 
 he freely consents to be delegated by AN EQUAL. 
 
 2. Such is the INEQUALITY, associated with 
 EQUALITY, which was held and taught by the doc- 
 tors of the primitive Church. Whether they were 
 right, or whether they were wrong, in their views: 
 this, in point of fact, was their pocrRINE. 
 
 (1.) With respect to the first of these three 
 kinds of INnEquaity, it requires not that any par- 
 ticular observation should be made upon it. For 
 it springs, zxevitably, from the doctrine of the two- 
 fold nature of the Son, subsequent to the incarna- 
 tion. 
 
 If the Son be perfect man, as well as perfect 
 God; which, in all ages, the Catholic Church has 
 
 to be Jehovah: for the very import of that name is The Self- 
 existent. 
 
 If we deny the Son’s personal derivation from the Father, 
 thus ascribing independent personal self-existence toall the three 
 hypostases alike: we inevitably run into direct Tritheism. 
 
CHAP. IX. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 235 
 
 maintained: then it will clearly follow; that, as 
 man, he must be inrertor to the Father; and 
 that, as God, he must be Equat to the Father. 
 
 (2.) With respect to the second of them, it sets 
 forth, not AN INEQUALITY OF NATURE ITSELF in the 
 three persons of the Trinity, but aN ORDERLY GRA- 
 DATION IN A MUTUALLY COMMON NATURE. 
 
 No words can perfectly convey to our Atel a 
 distinct conception of the Deity’s mode of exist- 
 ence in unity: but the phraseology of Scripture, 
 borrowed as it is from relations which are tho- 
 roughly familiar to us, most amply warrants the 
 doctrine of the primitive Church on the present 
 question. 
 
 In the mutual heavenly relationship of the two 
 first persons of the Trinity, there must be some 
 analogy to the mutual earthly relationship of 
 father and son; or the terms, Mather and Son, we 
 may be sure, would never have been adopted: for, 
 without the actual existence of some analogy, the 
 use of the terms could only serve to mislead’. 
 
 Respecting the case, then, of an earthly father 
 and son, when they are jointly viewed with refer- 
 ence to all other classes of physically inferior 
 beings ; then, as being mutually consubstantial or 
 as partaking of a mutually common nature, they 
 are undoubtedly equal: yet, when, in gradation 
 and in office, they are severally viewed with refer- 
 
 1 See below, append. i. numb, 10. 
 
236 THE APOSTOLICITY — [BOOK I. 
 
 ence to each other; then, they are certainly w- 
 equal, 
 
 Now, utterly imperfect as the resemblance may 
 be; yet, as they were contemplated by the early 
 Fathers of the Church, the same mode of reason- 
 ing, at least, is applicable to the two first persons 
 of the Trinity: and, beyond this, Scripture does 
 not authorise us to extend the comparison. 
 
 The only-begotten Son, being of the same sub- 
 stance or of the same physical substratum with 
 his eternal Father; a form of speech finally adopted 
 to meet the evasions of the Arians, though both 
 the very name of consubstantiality had been fre 
 quently used, and though the doctrine of consubs 
 stanteality had certainly been held by all the 
 antenicene catholic theologians: must, as such, 
 be essentially nquar to him. But, in gradation of 
 order, the Father being the underived fountain of 
 deity, while the eternal Son has never not been 
 born of the eternal Father; and, in subordination 
 of office, the Son being the messenger of the Fa- 
 ther, while the Father is the sender of the Son: 
 under swch an aspect, the Son must doubtless be 
 pronounced (as indeed he himself most expressly 
 declared ', and as, accordingly, the early theolo- 
 gians did pronounce him) invertor to the Father. 
 
 (3.) With respect to the third kind of meEe@ua- 
 LITy, it leaves the essential equality of the divine 
 
 * John xiv. 28. 
 
CHAP. IX. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 237 
 
 three wholly untouched : for it is, in truth, a mere 
 voluntary inequality of covenanted offices. 
 
 3. It may be useful to observe, that, when the 
 ancients treated of the second of these three kinds 
 of InEquALITY, they were very fond of using such 
 physical illustrations as clearly shew; that they 
 held the consubstantiality or common nature of the 
 three persons in the Trinity, while at the same 
 time they maintained the doctrine of an orderly 
 gradation: and, in like manner, when they treated 
 of the third kind of rvequatity, they scrupled not, 
 under this aspect also, to pronounce the physically 
 equal Son officially inferior to the Father. 
 
 The general system of doctrine, in short, which 
 they held, and which with the Catholic Church at 
 large they invariably professed to have received in 
 regular succession from the Apostles, inevitably 
 produced, and always must produce, the language, 
 which has been so lamentably misapprehended by 
 Dr. Priestley and the Barrister. 
 
 Under some certain aspects, the Son ts EQUAL to 
 the Father: under other certain aspects, the Son is 
 INFERIOR to the Father. 
 
 This was the doctrine of the early theologians : 
 and its necessary consequence was, that they used 
 language, which, from a slovenly neglect of really 
 examining their writings, had led the Historian 
 and the Barrister to adopt and to print the crude 
 speculation; that The ancient doctors of the 
 Church held a Trinity of ESSENTIALLY. UNEQUAL 
 
238 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK It. 
 
 persons, among whom the Father is PHysicALLy 
 SUPREME. 
 
 Now ¢his opinion they Never maintained : nor, 
 in fact, consistently with their avowed principles, 
 was it even possible, that they could maintain it. 
 For those, who taught the pHysicaL consuBSTAN- 
 TIALITY of the three divine persons, could not, 
 without a palpable self-contradiction, teach also 
 their ESSENTIAL INEQUALITY. 
 
 The Works, however, of the ancient doctors 
 are open to the writers of the modern Antitrinita- 
 rian School. Let such writers, then, if they be 
 able, produce, from the Works of those alleged 
 maintainers of a PHYSICALLY UNEQUAL Trinity, Jus- 
 tin (to wit) and Athenagoras and Irenéus and 
 Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, a single 
 passage: in which the Son is pronounced to be 
 INFERIOR to the Father, and in which the Father 
 is asserted to be supreME with reference to the 
 two other divine persons, on the specific ground ; 
 that The NaTuRE or suBsTANCE of the Father differs 
 Jrom and is superior to the NATURE Or SUBSTANCE of 
 the Son and of the Spirit. 
 
 Whenever the admirers of Dr. Priestley can do 
 this, they will have effected their purpose: but, 
 certainly, the labours of that Historian and his 
 follower the Barrister, by which they claim to 
 have shewn that the Trinity of those early ante- 
 nicene writers consisted of three UNEQUAL persons 
 among whom the Father is supREME, serve only to 
 
CHAP. IX. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 239 
 
 demonstrate their own complete ignorance of the 
 subject which they have so rashly undertaken to 
 discuss. 
 
 4. The following passages, extracted from the 
 writings of certain of the earlier Fathers, and 
 arranged severally under their proper heads, may 
 serve to illustrate the primitive view of the In- 
 EQUALITY subsisting between the three persons of 
 the Trinity: an inequality, be it observed and 
 remembered, which is mever described, aS AN | 
 INEQUALITY OF ESSENCE OR NATURE. 
 
 (1.) Let us first notice the ancient statement of 
 that inequality, which results from substantial 
 emanation and orderly gradation. 
 
 We will demonstrate, says Justin Martyr, that we 
 reasonably honour the Son of him who ts truly God; 
 reckoning him in the second place, and the prophetic 
 Spirit in the third order.—For the first Power, after 
 God the father and lord of all, 1s the Son, who ts 
 also the Word’. 
 
 If, on account of your surpassing intellect, says 
 Athenagoras, you wish to learn what the Son means : 
 in few words I will tell you. He is the first-offspring 
 of the Father, but not as any thing created: for 
 God is from the beginning ; and, being an eternal 
 
 1 ev 9 ~ ~ oof ~ f \ bd , 7 
 Yiov avrov rov ovrwe Oeod pabdrrec, Kal Ev OevrTé woa 
 B ’ Z XwPg 
 of Tl ~ A \ 9 , ld = e Q / 
 exovrec, Ivetya re toopnrikoy év rpirn Traber Ore pera Adyov ri- 
 pope, arodelZopev.— H oé TpoTNH dvvapuc pera tov Warépa wav- 
 Twy Kal Ceoworny Oeov, Kat Yidcg 6 Adyoe éoriy. Justin. Apol. i. 
 
 Oper. p. 47, 57. 
 
24.0 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 mind, he himself had within himself the Word, being 
 eternally comprehensive of the Word.—The Holy 
 Spirit likewise, acting efficaciously in those who pro- 
 phesy, we assert to be an emanation from God, flow- 
 ing from him and returning to him, as a ray of the 
 sun. Who, then, might not well think it strange ; 
 that we, who declare God the Father and God the 
 Son and the Holy Spirit, shewing both their power 
 in unity and their distinction in order, should yet be 
 called Atheists ' ? 
 
 * Ei, 00 trepPodjy ovvécewe, oxorety vpiv eExevowy, 6 Maig ri 
 PovdErat, ép@ cra Boayéwr" D ; i > Ilarot, ot 
 vAETal, EpW Cra Poayéwy* Tpwroy yévynpa eivat TM Llarpl, ovy 
 
 e / > ? ~ A e \ ~ > LD *\ > Ce, 
 wo yEvouevoy® é& apxiic yao 0 OEdc, vovc atdwe wy, elyev AUTO 
 
 . 
 
 e ~ 
 
 NV \ a ni \ \ 
 Ev tauT@ tov Adyor, didiwe NoytKkoe dyv.—Kail roe cal abro, ro 
 
 > 
 
 evepyouy Toic Expwvovor moopnTuKwe, “Aywy Ivedpa, drdpporay 
 eivat papev Tov Ocov, dxoppéoy Kal ETAVAPEPOMEVOY, WE akriVva 
 yArlov. Tic oby ovk &y adrophaa, éyovrac Ody Ilarépa kat 
 Yiov Ody cat IIvevpa “Ayr, detkvivrag abrov kal ray éy ™ 
 Evooet Ovvapuy Kal Thy év ™ Taése OLaipecty, dkovoac dBéove Ka- 
 Aoupevouc ; Athenag. Legat. § x. p. 38—40. 
 
 The clause, Eixev abroc év avrg rov Adyor, didiwe AoyiKd¢ 
 cy, 1s untranslateable, so as to preserve the turn of the original. 
 I have done my best : but I have not succeeded. The argument 
 of Athenagoras is this. 
 
 God’s personal Word is the Reason of God. But God is 
 eternally rational, or eternally comprehensive of Reason. There- 
 fore the Word or Reason of God is eternal also. 
 
 The play upon the terms Adyoc and Aoy:kdc, in their greek 
 acceptation, cannot be preserved in an english version. 
 
 There is a parallel passage of Athanasius, which may serve 
 to elucidate this of Athenagoras. 
 
 *Qy éoriy didioc 6 Osde. "Ovroc ovv del rov Marpoc, gore kal 
 
 POON \ \ , 9 fi e/ > \ e , bd ~ \ 
 didlwe Kal TO TOUTOV anravydaopa, oreo Early o Adyog avrov. Kat 
 
CHAP. IX. ] OF TRINITARIANISM. 241 
 
 The Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, 
 says Tertullian, are three: not in state, but in 
 degree ; not in substance, but in form; not in power, 
 but in kind. For they are of one substance, and of 
 one state, and of one power: because God is one ; 
 from whom these degrees and forms and kinds are 
 deputed, in the name of the Father and of the Son 
 and of the Holy Ghost’. Whatever comes forth 
 
 madty 6 Oy Oedc é& abrov cal dvra rov Adyov exer. Kal ore 6 
 Adyoc émvyéyover, ovK Oy mporepov’ ovte 6 aro adoyoe Hy 
 more. “H yap kara rov Yiov réApa eic rov Iarépa ry Bdacdn- 
 play dydye, eiye twOev éwevonoey aire codiay Kai Adyoy kal 
 Yiéy. Athan. Orat. ii. cont. Arian, Oper. vol. i. p. 154. Com- 
 mel. 1600. 
 
 The a@doyoc of Athanasius is evidently the opposite to the 
 Aoytxoc of Athenagoras. 
 
 Tertullian has imitated, in Latin, the same form of phrase- 
 ology and the same peculiar line of argument. 
 
 Ante omnia enim Deus erat solus, ipse sibi et mundus et 
 locus et omnia: solus autem, quia nihil extrinsecus preter 
 lum. Czeterum ne tune quidem solus: habebat enim secum, 
 quam habebat in semetipso, Rationem suam scilicet. Rationalis 
 (Athenagore, 76 Aoyixdc) enim Deus: et Ratio in ipso prius: 
 et ita ab ipso omnia. Que Ratio sensus ipsius est, hance Greeci 
 Aoyoy dicunt. Tertull. adv. Prax. § 3. Oper. p. 407. 
 
 The whole argument is founded upon the double sense of 
 the term Adyoc, which imports either Verbum or Ratio. On 
 this double sense, Athenagoras and others of the old Fathers 
 delighted to play. As the Father is eternally Aoycxdc, his Adyoc 
 (they argued) must be eternal also. 
 
 * Tres dirigens, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum : tres 
 autem, non statu, sed gradu; nec substantia, sed forma; nec 
 potestate, sed specie: unius autem substantize, et unius status, 
 
 VOL. II. R 
 
24:2 THE APOSTOLICITY [Book II. 
 
 from any thing must needs be second to that, from 
 which it does come forth: but yet it is not, on that 
 account, separated. Now the second is, where there 
 are two: and the third is, where there are three. 
 for the third is the Spirit from G'od and the Son: 
 even as the frat from the tree is the third from the 
 root; and as a runlet from the river is the third 
 from the fountain ; and as the apex from the sun- 
 beam is the third from the sun. Yet, from the ori- 
 ginal whence it deriwes its proprieties, nothing is 
 separated. Thus the Trinity, descending from the 
 Father through united and connected gradations, 
 both presents no obstacle to the monarchy, and pre- 
 serves the state of the economy ’. 
 
 (2.) We may next attend to the primitive state- 
 ment of that other mode of inequality, which re- 
 sults from the hypostatical union of God and man 
 in one Christ. 
 
 et unius potestatis: quia unus Deus, ex quo et gradus isti et 
 formze et species, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, 
 deputantur. Tertull. adv. Prax. § 2. Oper. p. 406. 
 
 * Omne, quod prodit ex aliquo, secundum sit ejus necesse 
 est de quo prodit: non ideo, tamen, est separatum. Secundus 
 autem ubi est, duo sunt: et, tertius ubi est, tres sunt. Tertius 
 enim est Spiritus a Deo et Filio: sicut tertius a radice, fructus 
 ex frutice; et, tertius a fonte, rivus ex flumine; et, tertius a 
 sole, apex ex radio. Nihil tamen a matrice alienatur, ex qua 
 proprietates suas ducit. Ita Trinitas, per consertos et con- 
 nexos.gradus a Patre decurrens, et monarchiz nihil obstrepit, 
 et vikovopiag statum protegit. Tertull. adv. Prax. § 7. Oper. 
 p- 409, 410. 
 
CHAP. IX. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 243 
 
 When, respecting the single person of the Son, 
 says the ancient author of The Exposition of the 
 Faith, you hear contradictory declarations : divide, 
 between his two natures, all such varying expres- 
 sions. If, for instance, any thing great and divine 
 be said of him ; ascribe it to his divine nature ; if, 
 on the other hand, any thing low and human be said 
 of him; ascribe it to his human nature. Thus, each 
 nature receiwing its due, will you avoid all contra- 
 dictoriness of language '. 
 
 (3.) Finally let us observe the primitive state- 
 ment of that third mode of inequality, which 
 results from the spontaneous economical accept- 
 ance and discharge of office. 
 
 Christ, says Tertullian, 7s called Taz ANGEL OF 
 THE GREAT COUNCIL, that is, THE MESSENGER. But 
 this is a name of office, not of nature *. 
 
 fle, who, being baptised among heretics, says 
 Cyprian, can put on Christ : that person must be 
 even yet more capable of receiving the Holy Spirit, 
 whom Christ hath sent. But, if a person baptised 
 
 1 "Oray ovy dkovone ment rou évoc Yiov ric évayrlac pwrvac, 
 karaddhrwe peice raic puoeor ra heydpeva. “Av péya rl Kal 
 Oeiov, 7H Oeig dice roocvépwr' ay dé ri puxpoy kal dvOpamtvoy, 
 Th dvOpwrivn NoytCopevoc. Otrw yap cal ro réy dwvor aovp- 
 gwvov dvadedvén, Exdorne & TEPUKE OEXOMEVNC HUTEWC. Expos. 
 Fid. de rect. confess. in Oper. Justin. Mart. p. 299. 
 
 * Dictus est quidem Magni Concilii Angelus, id est, Nuncius : 
 officil, non nature, vocabulo. Tertull. de carn. Christ. § 10. 
 Oper. p. 32: 
 
 Ree 
 
244. THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK I. 
 
 out of the Church can put on Christ, and yet not 
 receive the Spirit: then the sent will be greater than 
 the sender ’. 
 
 Christ, says Novatian, is God: but yet so God, 
 that he is the Son, not the Father.—If Christ were 
 only aman, how doth he say: that The Comforter 
 would take, from what was Christ's, the things which 
 he was about to communicate? For neither doth 
 the Comforter recewe any thing from man ; inas- 
 much as the Comforter giveth knowledge to man: 
 nor doth the Comforter receive future things from 
 man; masmuch as the Comforter instructeth man 
 respecting future things. Therefore the Comforter 
 either did not receive from the man Christ, what he 
 should communicate ; since man can give nothing to 
 the Comforter, from whom man himself ought to re- 
 ceive: and thus, on such a supposition, Christ, in 
 the present place, misleads and deceives us, when he 
 says; that, from himself, a man, the Comforter 
 would receive what he should communicate. Or else 
 he doth not deceive us ; as indeed he deceives us not: 
 and then, on this more fitting supposition, what the 
 Comforter should communicate, the Comforter did 
 himself receive from Christ. But, tf the Comforter 
 
 * Qui potest, apud hereticos baptizatus, Christum induere ; 
 multo magis potest Spiritum Sanctum, quem Christus misit, 
 accipere. Czeterum major erit mittente qui missus est, ut in- 
 cipiat foris baptizatus Christum quidem induisse, sed Spiritum 
 Sanctum non potuisse percipere. Cyprian. Epist. Ixxiv. Oper. 
 vol. ii. p. 213. 
 
CHAP. IX. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 245 
 
 received from Christ what he should communicate : 
 then, since the Comforter would not have received 
 from Christ, unless he had been inferior to Christ ; 
 it is plain, that Christ is greater than the Com- 
 forter. Now this inferiority of the Comforter to 
 Christ demonstrates Christ to be God, even on this 
 precise ground: namely, that The Comforter re- 
 cewed from Christ what he communicates. Thus 
 the circumstance, that The Comforter, being inferior 
 to Christ, receives from Christ what he delivers to 
 others, may be a good testimony of the divinity of 
 Christ. Whereas, if Christ were only a man, the 
 whole matter would be directly inverted. For, in 
 that case, Christ would, from the Comforter, receive 
 what he should say: not the Comforter himself re- 
 ceive, from Christ, what he should communicate '. 
 
 * Deus est ergo (scil. Christus): Deus autem sic, ut Filius 
 sit, non Pater.—Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo Para- 
 cletum dicit de suo esse sumpturum, quee nunciaturus sit (Jo- 
 han. xvi. 14.)? Neque enim Paracletus ab homine quicquam 
 accipit, sed homini scientiam Paracletus porrigit: nec futura 
 ab homine Paracletus discit, sed de futuris hominem Paracletus 
 instruit. Ergo, autem, non accepit Paracletus a Christo homine, 
 quod nunciet; quoniam Paracleto homo nihil poterit dare a 
 quo ipse homo debet accipere: et fallit in praesenti loco Chris- 
 tus et decipit; quum, Paracletum a se homine accepturum que 
 nunciet, dicit. Aut non nos fallit ; sicut nec fallit: et accepit 
 Paracletus a Christo, que nunciet. Sed, si a Christo accepit 
 que nunciet ; major ergo jam Paracleto Christus est : quoniam 
 nec Paracletus a Christo acciperet, nisi minor Christo esset. 
 Minor autem Christo Paracletus, Christum etiam Deum esse, 
 
 7 
 
246 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK IL. 
 
 If, in Isaiah, says Origen, our Lord declares 
 himself to have been sent by the Father and his 
 Spirit: we must urge, respecting the Spirit who 
 sent Christ ; that the Saviour differs not from him 
 m nature, but that he becomes inferior to him on 
 account of the economy of the inhumanitation of 
 the Son of God. Now, should any one be offended 
 at my assertion; that The Saviour, having taken 
 human nature upon him, is made inferior to the 
 Holy Ghost: I would bring against him the de- 
 claration of St. Paul to the Hebrews; that Jesus 
 was made less than the angels on account of his suf- 
 fering death.— When the Father, therefore, as the 
 leading principle, sends the Son; the Holy Ghost 
 also jointly sends him: promising, that in due time 
 he would descend upon the Son of God and would 
 cooperate with him in the salvation of mankind». 
 
 hoc ipso probat ; a quo accepit, que nunciat : ut testimonium 
 Christi divinitatis grande sit ; dum, minor Christo Paracletus 
 repertus, ab illo sumit, quee ceteris tradit. Quandoquidem, si 
 homo tantummodo Christus: a Paracleto Christus acciperet, 
 quze diceret ; non a Christo Paracletus acciperet, quee nunciaret, 
 Novat. de Trin. in Oper. Tertull. p. 621. 
 ' Ei 6€ xara rov “Hoatay ono 6 Kvouoc E@Y UTO TOU Ilarpoc¢ 
 ° / \ ~ 7 > ~ 3 \ ’ ~ \ = 
 aréeora\Oat kat rov IIvevparoc avrov, gore kal évravba TEOL TAU 
 dmooreihavroc Toy Xproroy Ivetparoc anod\oyijcacbat, ovx we 
 “4 / 9 \ x \ Fd 3 , ~ > 
 puoet Cvagéporroe, adda Cra Tipy YEvomEervny oLKovomiay Tic évay- 
 Oowrhcewe Tov Yiov rov Ocod, éNatrrwlévroc Ta0 avTO TOU owrh- 
 poc. Ei 0€ év rovrw mpockérret Tp déyetv HrarrGoOar mapa 7d 
 "“Aytov IIvetpa rov joa évayv@ yoavra® TE UTO 
 Y be owrypa evavOownyoar7a’ ToocaKkTéoy avror, 
 
 \ ~ ~ , ~ * 
 amo TwWY Ev 7H mpdc "EBpatove Aeyohévwy excotoy, Kai dyyédwy 
 
CHAP. IX. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 24.7 
 
 5. The three last of these passages, that from 
 Cyprian and that from Novatian and that from 
 Origen, deserve jointly our peculiar attention. 
 
 (1.) As Cyprian and Novatian argue, for the 
 temporary official inferiority of the Spirit to the 
 Son; on the ground, that the Spirit is sent by the 
 Son, and that the Spirit receives from the Son 
 what he is about to communicate: so Origen con- 
 versely argues, for the temporary official inferiority 
 of the Son to the Spirit; on the ground, that the 
 Son is sent by the Spirit no less than by the 
 Father. 
 
 Nothing shews more strongly the sentiments of 
 the primitive Church in regard to EQUALITY under 
 one aspect and INFERIORITY under another aspect, 
 than this apparent discrepance of arrangement. 
 
 In nature, as Origen remarks, the Son differs not 
 from the Spirit: but in the economy of office, when 
 the Spirit jointly with the Father sends the Son, 
 then the Son is inferior officially to the Spirit; 
 while, on the other hand, when the Son sends the 
 Spirit from the Father, then the Spirit is inferior 
 officially to the Son. 
 
 (2.) Yet, from this very circumstance of official 
 
 éXdrrova, dua 70 TaOnpa Tov Bayvarov, aropynvapévov rov avdov 
 yeyovevat roy "Incovy.—Tod Ilarpoc we ipyoupévov amoorédNovrog 
 tov Yiov, cvvarooréAXet Kal ouprporépTe TO “Ayuy Ivevpa av- 
 
 \ > aa ¢ Ul ~ \ N\ en ~ ~ 
 TOV, EY KALNO UmiexvoUpEvoy KaTraPivat tpdc TOY Yiov Tov OEov 
 
 \ ~ — ~ > 7 4 : bs 
 
 kal cuvepyjoa TH TOY avOpwrwy owrnpia. Orig. Comment. in 
 Johan. tom. ii. Oper. vol. il. p. 57, 58. 
 
248 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK Il. 
 
 inferiority, when the Spirit stands thus economi- 
 cally related to the Son, Novatian deduces a very 
 clear and very ingenious argument in proof of the 
 Son’s divinity. 
 
 His reasoning, as I have given it above in his 
 own words, may be briefly stated in manner fol- 
 lowing. 
 
 The Holy Ghost receives from Christ the things 
 of Christ, and communicates them to mankind. 
 But this act of ministerial reception demonstrates 
 the inferiority of the Holy Ghost to Christ. Now 
 the Holy Ghost is very God, proceeding from the 
 essence of the Father. Therefore Christ, who in 
 office is superior to the Holy Ghost, must himself, 
 a fortiori, be very God. 
 
 (3.) With respect to the text in Isaiah com- 
 mented upon by Origen, it is a curious circum- 
 stance: that, as there is an ambiguity both in the 
 Hebrew and in the Greek, so this learned Father, 
 while he notes the fact, annexes, in two different 
 places of his Works, two different senses to the 
 passage. 
 
 In his Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 
 he understands the eternal Son to say: The Lord 
 Jehovah and his Spirit hath sent me’. 
 
 But, in his Treatise against Celsus, he under- 
 stands him to say: The Lord Jehovah hath sent me 
 and his Spirit’. 
 
 _ * Orig. Comment. in Johan. tom. ii. Oper. vol. ii. p. 57. 
 
 * Orig. cont. Cels. lib. i. p. 35. 
 
CHAP. IX. ] OF TRINITARIANISM. 249 
 
 Yet, however the passage be rendered, Origen 
 views it, as a clear and illustrious attestation, from 
 the ancient Hebrew Scriptures, to the doctrine of 
 the Holy Trinity. 
 
 II. Passages, such as those which I have now 
 adduced, although to any person even moderately 
 versed in Theology, their meaning is most abund- 
 antly evident, have, nevertheless, taught the His- 
 torian of The Corruptions of Christianity: that 
 The doctrine of the early Fathers does not at all 
 accord with the idea of the perfect equahty of all 
 the persons in the Trinity; and that The advances 
 to the present doctrine of the Trinity were slow and 
 gradual. 
 
 The anonymous Barrister, likewise, on the 
 strength (I suppose) of these same or of some 
 other similar passages, confident in the decision 
 of his precursor, has positively asserted: that The 
 Trinity of the more ancient christian writers, as 
 declared by themselves (of which he can produce very 
 clear and satisfactory proofs from their own com- 
 positions ), consisted of three unequal persons, among 
 whom the Father was supreme. 
 
 In the judgment, then, of the Historian and the 
 Barrister, the Trinity of the ancient Church was 
 something ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT from the Trinity 
 of the more modern Church. For the Trinity of 
 the ancient Church, as set forth by the early ec- 
 clesiastical writers, consisted of three UNEQUAL per- 
 sons, among whom the Father is supreme, But 
 
250 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK I. 
 
 the slowly perfected Trinity of the more modern 
 Church, which Trinity (as Dr. Priestley assures 
 us) occupied some centuries before it was com- 
 pletely formed, consists of three persons PERFECTLY 
 EQUAL IN ALL RESPECTS, among whom the Father 
 possesses NO SUPREMACY. | 
 
 1. Such is the matter, deliberately propounded 
 as A FACT, both by one who claims to be an His- 
 torian, and by a writer whose very profession itself 
 might have rendered him jealously careful in the 
 sifting of evidence. ) 
 
 In what volumes these two authors have studied 
 modern Trinitarianism, I shall not undertake to 
 determine. But this, at least, I may safely assert : 
 that The pretended discrepance, which makes so jor- 
 midable an appearance in the researches of the two 
 investigators, exists solely in their own partial and 
 defective and indeed grossly inaccurate representa- 
 tions both of the ancients and of the moderns. 
 
 The early ecclesiastics held a Trinity, the per- 
 sons of which were unEQuaL in gradation and 
 office, but EQUAL in nature and substance. 
 
 Modern Catholics hold a Trinity, the persons 
 of which are EQUAL in nature and substance, but 
 UNEQUAL In gradation and office. 
 
 The early ecclesiastics taught the supremacy of 
 the Father in gradation and office : but maintained 
 his Equauiry to the Son and the Spirit, in regard 
 to time and nature. 
 
 Modern Catholics maintain his zquanity to the 
 
CHAP. IX. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 251 
 
 Son and the Spirit, in regard to time and nature: 
 but, along with it, they teach his supREMAcy in 
 gradation and office. 
 
 This, I believe, is the sole amount of the for- 
 midable discrepancy, which Dr. Priestley and the 
 Barrister have discovered, between ancient Trini- 
 tarians and modern Trinitarians. 
 
 2. We have now heard the decisions of the 
 ancients, in regard to the true scriptural doctrine 
 of the nature of the Godhead. 
 
 Let us next hear the declarations of those 
 moderns, who, among us Anglican Catholics, are 
 justly venerated as fathers. 
 
 We may then, by a comparison of the former 
 with the latter, securely judge, whether there be 
 any ground for the assertion: that Zhe Trinity of 
 the present day differs essentially from the Trinity 
 of the early ages: inasmuch as the modern Trinity 
 contains three persons in all respects EQUAL, no one 
 of which is SUPREME; while the ancient Trinity con- 
 tained three wholly UNEQUAL persons, among whom 
 SUPREMACY was ascribed to the Father. 
 
 (1.) I shall begin with stating the scheme of 
 doctrine, propounded, under the avowed aspect of 
 its perfect identity with the primitive scheme, by 
 the eminently learned Bishop Pearson. 
 
 We may safely observe : that, in the very name of 
 FATHER, there is something of eminence, which is not 
 in that of the Son. And some kind of priority we 
 must ascribe unto him, whom we call THE FIRST; im 
 
252 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 respect of him, whom we term THE SECOND, person. 
 And, as we cannot but ascribe it: so must we endea- 
 vour to preserve it. 
 
 Now that privilege or priority consisteth not in 
 this ; that THE ESSENCE OR ATTRIBUTES OF THE ONE 
 ARE GREATER THAN THE ESSENCE OR ATTRIBUTES OF 
 THE OTHER: but only in this; that THE FATHER 
 HATH THAT ESSENCE OF HIMSELF; THE SON, BY COM- 
 MUNICATION FROM THE FATHER. 
 
 Whence he acknowledgeth : that He is from him; 
 that He liveth by him; ¢hat The Father gave 
 him to have life in himself. And he generally re- 
 Serreth all things to him, as received from him. 
 
 Wherefore, in this sense, some of the ancients have 
 not stuck to interpret those words, The Father is 
 greater than I, of Christ, as the Son of God, as the 
 second person in the blessed Trinity: but still with a 
 reference, not unto his essence, but unto his genera- 
 tion; by which he is understood to have his being 
 from the Father, who only hath it in himself, and 
 who is the original of all power and essence in the 
 Son. I can of mine own self do nothing, saith 
 our Saviour ; because he is not of himself: and, who- 
 soever receives his being, must receive his power, from 
 another ; especially where the essence and the power 
 are undeniably the same, as in God they are.— 
 
 We must not, therefore, so far involve ourselves in 
 ihe darkness of this mystery, as to deny the glory 
 which is clearly due unto the Father : whose preemi- 
 nence undeniably consisteth in this: that HE 18 GoD, 
 
CHAP. IX. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 253 
 
 NOT OF ANY OTHER, BUT OF HIMSELF; and that THERE 
 IS NO OTHER PERSON WHO IS GOD, BUT IS GOD OF HIM. 
 
 It is no diminution of the Son to say: that HE Is 
 FROM ANOTHER. Lor his very name imports as much. 
 But it were a diminution of the Father so to speak of 
 him: and there must be some preeminence, where 
 there is place for derogation. 
 
 What the Father is, he is from none: what the 
 Son is, he is from the Father. What the first is, he 
 gweth: what the second is, he receweth. 
 
 The first is a Father, indeed, by reason of his Son: 
 but he is not God by reason of him. Whereas the 
 Son is not only so, in regard to the Father: but he 
 7s also God, by reason of the same. 
 
 Upon this preéminence, as I conceive, may safely 
 be grounded the congruity of the divine mission. We 
 often read: that Christ was sent. — Whence he bears 
 the name of AN APOSTLE himself: as well as those, 
 whom he therefore named so ; because, as the Father 
 sent him, so sent he them. The Holy Ghost also is 
 said to be sent, sometimes by the Father, sometimes 
 by the Son. But we never read, that the Father was 
 sENT at all: there being an authority in that name, 
 which seems inconsistent with this mission.— 
 
 The dignity of the Father will yet further appear, 
 from the order of the persons in the blessed Trinity: 
 of which he is undoubtedly the first. Kor, although, 
 in some passages of the apostolical discourses, the 
 Son may first be named :—yet, where the three per- 
 sons are barely enumerated and delivered unto us as 
 the rule of faith, there that order is observed which 
 
254 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK Il. 
 
 is proper to them ;—which order hath been per- 
 petuated in all confessions of faith, and is for ever 
 wnviolably to be observed.— 
 
 Now this priority doth properly and naturally 
 result from the divine paternity: so that the Son 
 must necessarily be second unto the Father, Jrom 
 whom he receiveth his origination; and the Holy 
 Ghost unto the Son. 
 
 Neither can we be thought to want a sufficient 
 foundation for this priority of the first person of the 
 Lrinity, if we look upon the numerous testimonies of 
 the ancient Doctors of the Church: who have not 
 stuck to call the Father, the ortcin, the cause, the 
 AUTHOR, the Root, the FouNTAIN, and the HEAD, of 
 the Son or the whole Divinity. 
 
 For, by these titles, it appeareth clearly : first, 
 that they made a considerable difference, between the 
 person of the Father of whom are all things, and 
 the person of the Son by whom are all things: and, 
 secondly, that the difference consisteth properly in 
 this ; that, As the branch is from the root and the 
 river from the fountain, and as by their origination 
 from them they receive that being which they 
 have; whereas the root receiveth nothing from 
 the branch, or the fountain from the river: so the 
 Son is from the Father, receiving his subsistence 
 by generation from him; but the Father is not 
 from the Son, as being what he is from none‘. 
 
 (2.) Exactly the same tenets are maintained by 
 
 * Pearson on the Creed, art. i. vol. i. p. 59-63. Oxon. 
 
CHAP. IX. | OF TRINITARTANISM. . 255 
 
 Dr. Waterland, in his Commentary on the Atha- 
 nasian Creed. 
 
 When it is said, NONE IS AFORE OR AFTER OTHER; 
 we are not to understand it of order. For the 
 Father is first: the Son, second: the Holy Ghost 
 third in order. Neither are we to understand it of 
 office. For the Father is supreme in office: while 
 the Son and the Holy Ghost condescend to inferior 
 offices. But we are to understand it, as the Creed 
 itself explains it, of duration and dignity’. 
 
 (3.) The same system of doctrine is equally 
 maintained by Bishop Bull: who, in stating the 
 tenets of the ancients, avowedly makes them his 
 own by adoption. 
 
 That decree of the Nicene Council, in which it is 
 defined that THE SON OF GOD IS GOD FROM GoD, the 
 catholic Doctors, who wrote etther before or after 
 the Council, have confirmed by their approbation. 
 For they unanimously taught: that The divine 
 nature and perfections appertain to the Father 
 and to the Son, not collaterally or codrdinately, 
 but contrariwise subordinately. To wit: that The 
 Son, indeed, has a common nature with the 
 Father, but communicated from the Father. So 
 that the Father alone has that divine nature from 
 himself or from no other: but the Son, from the 
 Father. Whence the Father is the fountain and 
 origin and principle of the divinity which ts in the 
 Son. 
 
 * Waterland on the Athan. Creed, p. 144. 
 
256 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 The catholic Doctors, both antenicene and post- 
 nicene, unanimously defined: that GoD THE FATHER, 
 EVEN IN RESPECT TO DIVINITY, IS GREATER THAN THE 
 son. hat is to say, not greater in nature or in 
 any essential perfection, which might be in the Fa- 
 ther though not in the Son: but greater solely in 
 authority or in origination ; since the Son is JSrom 
 the Father, and not the Father from the Son. 
 
 Lhis doctrine, concerning THE SUBORDINATION OF 
 THE SON TO THE FATHER AS TO HIS OWN PROPER ORI- 
 GIN AND PRINCIPLE, the ancient Doctors thought to 
 be very useful and altogether necessary to be known 
 and believed: because, agreeably to such a system, 
 the divinity of the Son may be strenuously asserted ; 
 while yet the unity and the divine monarchy of the 
 Godhead may be strictly preserved. For, though 
 the title and the nature be common to two, namely 
 to the Father and to the Son of God: yet, since the 
 one is the principle of the other whence that other is 
 propagated, and that by interior not exterior pro- 
 duction ; the result is, that God may justly be pro- 
 nounced one. The same system was, by the ancients, 
 deemed alike applicable to the divinity of the Holy 
 Spirit’. 
 
 3. Such, in a// ages, has been the faith of the 
 Catholic Church: such it was formerly ; and such 
 it still continues to be in the present day. For the 
 attestation both of its truth and of its immuta- 
 
 * Bull. Defens. Fid. Nic. sect. iv. c. 1. §1.¢.2.§ 1.4. § 1. 
 
CHAP. IX. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 257 
 
 bility, the modern Trinitarian, with the Works 
 of Pearson and of Bull and of Waterland in his 
 hands, appeals to the doctrinal statements of the 
 early ecclesiastical writers: for he is perfectly con- 
 scious, that, between Ais tenets and their tenets, 
 there exists no discrepancy. 
 
 III. Though much has already been said, for 
 the purpose of rectifying the gross misrepresenta- 
 tions of the Antitrinitarian School of Theology : 
 it will be necessary, yet again, to attend upon the 
 steps of the very remarkable Historian of the Cor- 
 ruptions of Christianity. 
 
 We find, upon all occasions, says Dy. Priestley : 
 that the early christian writers speak of the Father 
 as superior to the Son: and, in general, they give 
 him the title of cov, as distinguished from the 
 Son: and sometimes they expressly call him, ex- 
 clusively of the Son, THE ONLY TRUE GOD ; a phrase- 
 ology, which does not at all accord with the idea 
 of the perfect equality of all the persons in the 
 Trinity. 
 
 1. In what manner the early ecclesiastical wri- 
 ters represent the Father as superior to the Son, 
 and in what sense they held the persons of the 
 Holy Trinity to be egual, and again under what 
 aspect they likewise deemed them unequal; mat- 
 ters, wherein they exactly accord with the modern 
 Trinitarian, though Dr. Priestley and the Barrister 
 sedulously announce their discovery of an ima- 
 ginary discrepance: I have now explained with as 
 
 VOL. Il. S 
 
258 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 much brevity, as the nature of the subject would 
 admit. 
 
 Under the hands of Dr. Priestley, however, it 
 seems, that our ancient church-literature is a mine 
 absolutely inexhaustible. He finds, that the early 
 christian writers give the title of cop to the Father, 
 as distinguished from the Son: and he observes, 
 that sometimes, even exclusively of the Son, they 
 expressly call him THE ONLY TRUE GoD. 
 
 These are certainly discoveries, alike novel and 
 important and unexpected. 
 
 That the ancient ecclesiastics often style the 
 Father both Gop and THE ONLY TRUE GOD, is indis- 
 putable: and it were special wonder, if they re- 
 fused to him such titles; for these are the very 
 appellations bestowed upon the Father in Holy 
 Writ itself. All this, I admit, is quite clear and 
 incontrovertible. But, for the alleged fact, that 
 they so bestowed the titles in question, either 
 contradistinctively from the Son or exclusively of 
 the Son, in order thereby to intimate their belief 
 that Zhe Son is nor very God: for this alleged 
 fact, I find no proof, save Dr. Priestley’s own as- 
 sumptively gratuitous interpretation of their lan- 
 guage. 
 
 (1.) His allegation, that the ancients in general 
 style the Father cop contradistinctively from the 
 Son, the historian, if I rightly understand him, 
 would rest on the circumstance: that the Trinity 
 is sometimes propounded by them, as consisting 
 
 fi 
 
CHAP. IX. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 259 
 
 of cop and The Son and The Spirit. Whence, I 
 suppose, he would demand our assent to the in- 
 ference: that the writers, who thus propounded 
 the Trinity, wished us to exclude the Son and the 
 Spirit from all participation of deity. 
 
 Nothing can be more vain than such an infer- 
 ence. As I wish not to weary the inquirer with a 
 multiplication of proofs, I shall content myself 
 with shewing its utter futility from nothing more 
 than the two early cases of Justin Martyr and 
 Tertullian. 
 
 Both those writers enumerate the three persons 
 of the Trinity, as being cop and The Son and The 
 Spirit *. 
 
 But do they, therefore, deny the divinity of the 
 Son: the inference, which Dr. Priestley would 
 have us draw from their phraseology? 
 
 Truly, the merest dabbler in their compositions 
 will scarcely hazard such a crude assertion’. 
 
 * See Justin. Apol.i. Oper. p. 43, 47. Tertull. adv. Prax. 
 §7. Oper. p. 410. 
 
 ? On the principle laid down by Dr. Priestley, it is unfor- 
 tunate, that he did not communicate his sentiments, respecting 
 the enumeration of the persons in the Trinity by Justin’s con- 
 temporary Athenagoras. 
 
 I. This very ancient writer styles the Father cop and the Son 
 cop: while yet he omits giving the same appellation of cop to 
 the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Aéyovrag Oeov Iarépa, cal Yiov Ocov, cat Ivedpa “Ayior. 
 Athen. Legat. § x. Oper. p. 40. 
 
 Therefore, if Dr. Priestley’s system of inductive reasoning 
 
 s 2 
 
260 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK I. 
 
 The real principle of the phraseology, from 
 which Dr. Priestley has learned that the ancients 
 
 be just, we must conclude: that Athenagoras maintained the 
 divinity of the Son, no less than he maintained the divinity of 
 the Father; but that he denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 II. Dr. Priestley, indeed, though not precisely on the strength 
 of this passage, asserts, as I remember: that The doctrine of 
 the personality of the Holy Ghost was unknown, until the time, 
 and after the time, of the first Nicene Council. 
 
 The utter futility of such an assertion will readily be per- 
 ceived by those, who are in any measure conversant with the 
 writings of the Antenicene Fathers. 
 
 To demonstrate its falsehood, I shall not crowd my margin 
 with authorities: three, I apprehend, will be quite sufficient. 
 
 1. Irenéus repeatedly styles the Son and the Spirit the two 
 hands, by which the Father created man: and he asserts; that 
 the Father spake to these two hands, when he:said, Let us make 
 man after our image and likeness. Iren. adv. her. lib. iv. in 
 prefat. p. 232. lib. iv. c. 37. p. 266. lib.v. c. 8, 14. p. 322, 
 336, 337. See the originals cited above, append. i. numb. 1. 
 text 1. 
 
 Now the personality of the Son was indisputably maintained 
 by Irenéus: as, indeed, no one ever dreamed of denying his 
 personality. 
 
 Therefore, since he homogeneously styles the Son and the 
 Spirit the two hands of the Father, the plain analogy of lan- 
 guage requires us to conclude: that he also held the personality 
 of the Spirit. 
 
 2. With Irenéus agrees Origen. For he, distinctly and even 
 verbally, asserts: that The Father and the Son and the Holy 
 Ghost are three kypostases or personal subsistences. 
 
 ‘Hpeic pévrovye rpeic troardeste meBopevon Tuyxavety, TOY 
 Tlarépa kat roy Yiov cal ro" Ayr Hvedpa. Orig. Comment. in 
 Johan. tom. ii. Oper. vol. ii. p. 56. 
 
 3. The 
 
CHAP. IX. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 261 
 
 styled the Father cop contradistinctively from the 
 Son, was simply this. 
 
 They rightly taught, that the Father alone is 
 God of himself and the original fountain of Deity’; 
 while both the Son and the Spirit are eternally 
 derived from the substance of the Father: for, had 
 they taught otherwise, they would have fallen into 
 direct Tritheism. Hence, in enumerating the 
 three persons of the Trinity, they were wont, pre- 
 eminently, though not contradistinctively, to bestow 
 the appellation of cop upon the Father *. 
 
 In such phraseology, however, they meant not 
 
 3. The same doctrine is taught by Origen’s contemporary, 
 Dionysius of Alexandria. For, in a professed statement of the 
 three persons of the Trinity, he introduces Christ, as describing 
 himself coéternal with the Lord the Spirit. 
 
 °"Eyw 0 évumdoraroc del Ov Xpuordc, 6 tooe 7@ Ilarpt Kara ro 
 drapadXakrov rij¢ broordcewe, Oy ovvaidioc Kal TO Kupcw Ivev- 
 part. Dion. Alex. adv. Paul. Samosat. quest. iv. Oper. p. 232. 
 
 In this striking passage, the term Lord is clearly a personal 
 appellation: nor could such a title have ever been given to the 
 Spirit by one, who either denied or had never heard of the 
 Spirit’s personality. 
 
 I may add: that the passage, occurring, as it does occur, 
 in a professedly controversial Work, against one, who, in op- 
 position to the whole Catholic Church, rejected the doctrine of 
 the Trinity; the inevitable conclusion is, that Dionysius was pro- 
 pounding, not merely his own private sentiments, but a fami- 
 liarly recognised dogma of the entire Church Catholic. 
 
 * Airé0eoc and Inyn Oedrnroc. 
 
 * See Bp. Pearson on the Creed, art. i. vol. i. p. 64, 65, with 
 the dependent notes and authorities. 
 
262 'THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK It. 
 
 to distinguish the Son from the Father, with re- 
 spect to the point of deity. The fancied contra- 
 distinction, on ¢hzs point, exists only in the gloss 
 of Dr. Priestley : it is utterly irreconcileable with 
 the express statements of the early ecclesiastical 
 writers themselves. 
 
 (2.) But Dr. Priestley further asserts: that the 
 ancients sometimes expressly call the Father THE 
 ONLY TRUE Gop exclusively of the Son. 
 
 With respect to the simple fact, that, adopting 
 the words of Christ himself, they sometimes call 
 the Father THE ONLY TRUE GoD: that fact, as we 
 may readily suppose, is indisputable’. 
 
 But, with respect to the alleged circumstance of 
 their so styling him exclusively of the Son: the 
 mode, in which they quoted and understood the 
 language of our Lord when he thus denominated 
 his heavenly Father, actually conveys an idea, 
 precisely the reverse of that gratuitously suggested 
 by Dr. Priestley. 
 
 Gop, when written with the article, says Origen, 
 zmports HIM WHO IS GOD OF HIMSELF OF GOD THE 
 FATHER. Wherefore also our Saviour, in his prayer 
 to the Kather, says: That they may know thee Tne 
 ONLY TRUE GOD. ut every thing, that, beside um 
 WHO IS GOD OF HIMSELF, becomes God by a participa- 
 tion of his divinity, is not Gov written with the article 
 or GOD OF HIMSELF : but may more properly be called’ 
 
 ’ John xvii. 3. 
 
CHAP. IX. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 263 
 
 GOD simply, or Gop as written without the article ; 
 that is to say, GOD, in the sense of GOD EMANATING 
 FRoM GoD. Wherefore, he who was born before all 
 creation, inasmuch as he was first in regard to his 
 being with God, having from God's divinity derived 
 divinity to himself, is more honourable than those 
 others who beside him are styled gods, of whom God 
 is the God: as it is said; The Lord, the God of 
 gods, hath spoken’. 
 
 1 Airobeoc 6 Ode éore’ Acdrep kat 6 Lwrijo gnoly év TH mpoc 
 rov Ilarépa ety? “Iva yuwwoxwol ce rov povoy adnOivoyv Ocor. 
 lav dé 70, mapa 76 Abrdbe0c, peroxy Tig éxeivou Oedrnrog Deoror- 
 ovpevov, ovx & Oedc, drANA Oede KupLwrepoy AV Neyolro. *Qu 
 mavrws 6 TewTdTOKOg ThoNE KTicEws, Are TOHTOC TH TOG TOY 
 Ody eivat, ordcac Tic Oedrnroe ic EavTOY, ETL TLLWTEVOS TOIC 
 Aoiroic wap’ avror Oeoic, wv 6 Oed¢ Ode ~ore’ Kara TO eydpevor’ 
 Ocdc VeGv Kiproc éhadyoe. Orig. Comment, in Johan. tom. il. 
 Oper. vol. 11. p. 46, 47. 
 
 I. It may here be proper to remark: that I am no way con- 
 cerned with the abstract propriety or impropriety of the primi- 
 tive explanations of our Lord’s phraseology. I adduce them 
 purely in evidence with respect to an alleged Fact. 
 
 Dr. Priestley says: that The early ecclesiastical writers call 
 the Father, uxciustvEty of the Son, THE ONLY TRUE GOD. 
 
 Now the primitive explanations, which I adduce, be their 
 abstract merits what they may, distinctly shew: that The as- 
 sertion of the Historian ts A POSITIVE FALSEHOOD. 
 
 It is for this sole purpose, and for no other, that such ex- 
 planations are adduced : and I conceive them to be perfectly 
 effectual. | 
 
 Il. As for the explanation given by Origen, it is strictly 
 catholic in its purport and object. For it proceeds upon the 
 sound principle: that, By his own special prerogative, God the 
 
264 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK Il. 
 
 If Christ were only a mere man, reasons Nova- 
 tian, why did he deliver to us such a rule of faith as 
 this, wherein he says: This is life eternal, that they 
 should know thee THE ONLY TRUE Gop and Jesus 
 
 Father is alone the Airdeoc or the Unyh Qedrnroc; while the 
 Son and the Spirit are severally God, by emanative participation 
 in the deity of the unoriginated Father. 
 
 1, This will equally be the case, whatever becomes of the criti- 
 cism upon the arthrous term 6 Oed¢ and the anarthrous term Qedc. 
 
 I have already had occasion to notice it, when pointing out 
 the strange blunder into which Dr. Priestley and other writers 
 of his School have fallen respecting the purport of the present 
 passage and its context (See above, book ii. chap. 4. § 11. note) : 
 I may now add, that its merits have certainly been overlooked 
 by others of the early ecclesiastical writers. For Justin and 
 Melito and Dionysius of Alexandria all concur in styling Christ 
 6 Ode or God with the article: though they all maintained ; 
 that the Son emanates from the substance of the Father, as 
 light emanates from the substance of light ; and, consequently, 
 that, in point of nature, the Son is true God from true God. 
 
 Xprorde 6 Oede. Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 266. 
 
 ‘O Ode réxovOey td Sektaic "IopanAiridog. Melit. Fragment. 
 apud Anastas. Hodeg. in Routh. Rel. Sacr. vol. i. p. 116. 
 
 ‘O @y Ext rdvtwy Cede, Kuptoc 6 Ode "Iopann, Inoode 6 Xouc- 
 toc. Dion. Alex. Oper. p. 248. | 
 
 2, But the most curious part of the matter remains yet to 
 be told. 
 
 In the best of his Works, Origen himself, in despite of his 
 own criticism the first hint of which he appears to have taken 
 from his master Clement (See Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. iii. Oper, 
 p- 460), actually styles the Son rév Ody or God with the article 
 prefixed. 
 
 ‘Qe evOewpnrov rov Oeov roy Yidv zxep ev. _ Orig. cont. Cels. 
 lib. vi. p. 323, 
 
CHAP. IX. ] OF TRINITARIANISM. 265 
 
 Christ whom thou hast sent 2 Why spake he thus, 
 if he wished not that he himself also should be 
 deemed God? Why did he add, And Jesus Christ 
 whom thou hast sent; unless he wished his own divi- 
 nity also to be acknowledged? For, had he meant 
 to say that he was not God, he would have added, 
 And THE MAN Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. 
 But now he has neither made this addition, nor has 
 he described himself to us as a mere man. On the 
 contrary, he has joined himself to God, as wishing 
 by this conjunction to be deemed God: for such in- 
 deed he is. We must therefore, according to the 
 prescribed rule, believe, in the Lord THE ONLY TRUE 
 Gop, and consequently in Jesus Christ whom he hath 
 sent. For, as we have said, Christ would never have 
 joined himself to the Father, unless he had wished 
 also to be understood as God’. 
 
 1 Si homo tantummodo Christus, quare credendi nobis talem 
 regulam posuit, quo diceret: Hac est autem vita eterna, ut 
 sciant te unum et verum Deum, et quem misisti Jesum Christum ? 
 Si noluisset se etiam Deum intelligi, cur addidit; Ht quem misiste 
 Jesum Christum; nisi quoniam et Deum accipi voluit? Quo- 
 niam, si se Deum nollet intelligi, addidisset: Ht quem misiste 
 HOMINEM Jesum Christum. Nunc autem neque addidit, nec se 
 hominem nobis tantummodo Christus tradidit: sed Deo junxit ; 
 ut et Deum per hanc conjunctionem, sicut est, intelligi vellet. 
 Est ergo credendum, secundum preescriptam regulam, in Domi- 
 num unum verum Deum, et in eum quem misit Jesum Chris- 
 tum consequenter : qui se nequaquam Patri, ut diximus, junxis- 
 set, nisi Deum quoque intelligi vellet. Novat. de Trin. in Oper. 
 Tertull. p. 621, 622. 
 
 I subjoin 
 
266 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 We are not worshippers of stones which possess 
 no sense, says Melito, but of THE oNLY Gop who is 
 before all things and above all things: and we are 
 likewise worshippers of his Christ, truly, before the 
 worlds, God the Word’. 
 
 In addition to these early writers, it were easy 
 to cite Gregory Nazianzen and Athanasius and 
 Epiphanius and Hilary: the three first of whom 
 consider our Lord’s expression to be used, as inti- 
 mating nothing more, than that the Father is the 
 
 I subjoin, what Novatian evidently gives, as the true rationalé 
 of our Lord’s phraseology. 
 
 Est ergo Deus Pater omnium institutor et creator, solus origi= 
 nem nesciens, invisibilis, immensus, immortalis, zeternus, unus 
 Deus.—Ex quo, quando ipse voluit, Sermo Filius natus est.— 
 Hic ergo, cum sit genitus a Patre, semper est in Patre. SEMPER 
 autem sic dico, ut non innatum, sed natum, probem. . Sed, qui 
 ante omne tempus est, SEMPER in Patre fuisse dicendus est. 
 Nec enim tempus illi assignari potest, qui ante tempus est. 
 SEMPER enim in Patre, ne Pater non semper sit Pater.—Nam, 
 cum id sit principium ceeteris quod innatum, Deus solus Pater 
 est qui extra originem est. Ex quo hic est qui natus est : dum, 
 qui ex illo nascitur, merito ex eo venit qui originem non habet ; 
 principium probans illud esse ex quo ipse est, etiamsi Deus est 
 qui natus est. Unum tamen Deum ostendit: quem hic, qui 
 natus est, esse sine origine comprobavit. Est ergo Deus: sed 
 in hoc ipsum genitus, ut esset Deus. Novat. de Trin. in Oper. 
 Tertull. p. 633, 634. 
 
 * Ob éopév NMMwy obdepiay aicOnow éxovrwv Oeparevral, 
 adda pedvov Oeod rod Tod mdyrwv Kal éxt wdyrwr* Kad Ere row 
 Xptorov avrov, dvrwe Oeot Adyou 70 aiwvwr, éopey Oonoxeurai. 
 Melit. Apol. in Chron. Pasch. ad a.v. 164, 165. apud Routh. 
 Rel. Sacr. vol. i. p. 112. 
 
CHAP. IX. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 267 
 
 only true God, to the exclusion merely of the 
 multitude of false gods, not to the exclusion of 
 the Son and the Holy Ghost; while the last pro- 
 nounces, that, in the use of the expression, Christ 
 did not mean to separate himself from the verity 
 of the Godhead’. But I am willing to confine 
 myself, as Dr. Priestley (I conclude), from the 
 nature of his argument, wished that his oppo- 
 nents should be confined, to the antenicene writers 
 alone. 
 
 Now, by these, as the text, containing the ex- 
 pression THE ONLY TRUE GOD, Is sometimes ex- 
 plained: so, at other times, as by Cyprian for 
 instance, it is merely guoted without any explana- 
 
 * In order that, from a single specimen out of many, the 
 reader mayjudge for himself, how far the Postnicenes, any more 
 than the Antenicenes, support the alleged historical racr of 
 Dr. Priestley ; that The early christian writers were wont, Ex- 
 CLUSIVELY of the Son, to call the Father THE ONLY TRUE GOD: 
 I subjoin gratuitously the explanation given by Hilary. 
 
 Debitus Patri a Filio honor redditur, cum dicit: Ze solum 
 verum Deum. Non tamen se Filius a Dei veritate secernit, cum 
 adjungit: Ht quem misisti Jesum Christum. 
 
 Non habet intervallum confessio credentium: quia, in utro- 
 que, spes vitee est. Nec Deus verus ab eo deficit, qui in con- 
 junctione succedit. 
 
 Cum, ergo, dicitur; Ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum et 
 quem misisti Jesum Christum: sub hac significatione, id est, MiT- 
 TENTIS et Missi, non Patris et Filii veritas et divinitas sub aliqua 
 aut significationis aut dilationis diversitate discernitur ; sed ad 
 GIGNENTIS et GENITI confessionem fides religionis instruitur. 
 Hilar. de Trin. lib. 11. §14. Oper. p. 815. 
 
268 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 tion’. But, whether formally explained or whether 
 simply quoted, so far at least as my reading and 
 memory extend, it is NEVER, as I understand Dr. 
 Priestley to allege, quoted for the purpose of 
 scripturally shewing: that Zhe Father, uxciv- 
 SIVELY of the Son, is called THE ONLY TRUE GOD; 
 or, in other words, that Zhe Father is so called 
 THE ONLY TRUE GOD, as to intimate that the Son is 
 Not truly God. On the contrary, as we have 
 seen, both Origen. and Novatian and Melito ad- 
 duce the expression, in avowed union with a dis- 
 tinct statement: that Christ is truly God the 
 Word ; that he is not a mere man; but that he is 
 God also as well as the Father, though (as the Ca- 
 tholic Church has ever held) God begotten of the 
 Father before all worlds, or (as Origen speaks) 
 God by a derivation of deity from him who alone 
 is the fountain of deity or God of himself. 
 
 2. Thus interpreted the ancients: yet, respect- 
 ing their plan of interpretation, thus speaks a 
 modern ecclesiastical historian. 
 
 We find, upon all occasions, that the early christ- 
 tan writers speak of the Father as superior to the 
 Son: and, in general, they give him the title of con, 
 as DISTINGUISHED from the Son ; and sometimes they 
 expressly call him, nxcLustveLy of the Son, THE 
 
 * Cyprian. adv. Jud. lib. ii. § 1. Oper. vol.i. p. 31. Cyprian. 
 de Orat. Domin. p. 151. Cyprian. de Exhort. Martyr. § 2. 
 p. 172, Cyprian. ad Demet. p. 195. Cyprian. Epist. Ixxiii. 
 Oper. vol. ii. p. 205. 
 
f 
 
 CHAP. IX. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 269 
 
 ONLY TRUE GOD: @ phraseology, which does not at 
 all accord with the idea of the perfect equality of 
 all the persons in the Trinity. 
 
 To convey a distinct impression of the amount 
 of Dr. Priestley’s historical accuracy, this naked 
 repetition of his own statement is, I conceive, 
 amply sufficient. | 
 
 With too much reason, as Bishop Horsley ob- 
 serves, Mr. Badcock complained: that pr. prirst- 
 LEY WROTE FOR THE UNLEARNED }. 
 
 The ground of such a complaint will readily be 
 understood. 
 
 When an historian is strictly and conscien- 
 tiously correct : to write for the unlearned is praise- 
 worthy, rather than blameable. 
 
 But, when, through an intemperate desire of 
 promoting some favourite object, an historian is 
 incorrect ; nothing, surely, can be more mischiev- 
 ous; for, by such practices, to hundreds and to 
 thousands, who possess not the means of detect- 
 ing his inaccuracy, the very fountains of truth 
 itself are miserably poisoned. 
 
 On the authority of Dr. Priestley, many per- 
 sons, it can scarcely be doubted, of this descrip- 
 tion, who have rashly adopted the Antitrinitarian 
 System as the indisputable System of the primi- 
 tive Church ere it was corrupted by Justin and 
 Irenéeus and Tertullian, believe, with the full as- 
 
 * Bp. Horsley’s Letters to Dr. Priestley, lett. x. p.184. 
 
270 THE APOSTOLICITY OF TRINITARIANISM. 
 
 surance of implicit credulity: that The early eccle- 
 siastical writers, when as yet the infant doctrine of 
 the Trinity had not attained its present gigantic sta- 
 ture, habitually denominate the Father tun ONLY 
 TRUE GOD, for the express and avowed purpose of 
 MARKING THEIR DISBELIEF IN THE PROPER DIVINITY OF 
 THE SON. 
 
 Such, if words possess any force and distinct- 
 ness, is the idea clearly and necessarily inculcated 
 by the statement, which, for the information of 
 the less learned, Dr. Priestley has thought it ex- 
 pedient to propound. 
 
 According to his own estimate of the duties of 
 a faithful historian; whose business is, not to 
 decide upon the abstract propriety or impropriety 
 of theological expositions, but honestly to set 
 forth simple racts as he finds them recorded : he 
 conceives himself to be fully warranted in assert- 
 ing the specific circumstance; that The early 
 christian writers sometimes expressly call the Father, 
 EXCLUSIVELY of the Son, THE ONLY TRUE GOD. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 RESPECTING THE ALLEGATION, THAT THE ANTENICENE 
 FATHERS, IN THE COURSE OF ONLY A GRADUAL COR- 
 RUPTION, DID NOT ASCRIBE PROPER DIVINITY TO 
 THE SON. 
 
 In his History of Early Opinions, Dr. Priestley 
 devotes one chapter of his Work to the doctrine 
 of the Antenicene Writers and another chapter to 
 the doctrine of the Postnicene Writers. 
 
 The object of the former chapter is to prove ; 
 that All the Antenicene Writers held the doctrine 
 of THE SON’S INFERIORITY TO THE FATHER: the ob- 
 ject of the latter chapter is to shew; that AJ/ the 
 Postmcene Writers held the opposite doctrine of THE 
 SON’S EQUALITY TO THE FATHER. 
 
 If we ask, how these two widely different ob- 
 jects are to be accomplished: it may be replied ; 
 that, on the strictly eclectic plan of investigation 
 adopted by Dr. Priestley, nothing is more easy. 
 
 From the Antenicene Writers, let no passages 
 be quoted, save only those which treat of the Son’s 
 acknowledged inferiority to the Father, in the 
 three respects of emanative gradation and ecu- 
 
272 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK I. 
 
 menical office and hypostatical inhumanitation ; 
 while, from the Postnicene Writers, let no pas- 
 sages be quoted, save only those which treat of 
 the Son’s perfect equality to the Father, in regard 
 to substance or essence or substratum or proper 
 divine nature: and, doubtless, to the full satisfac- 
 tion of those who never inquire for themselves, 
 the business will be happily accomplished ?. 
 
 The speculation of Mr. Lindsey, though not 
 formally supported by the apparatus of select evi- 
 dence, is similar to that of Dr. Priestley. 
 
 He teaches us: that The Fathers of the three 
 Jirst centuries, and with them the whole body of 
 Christians until the time of the first Nicene Council, 
 were generally what he calls untrarians. And, by 
 this term, he explains himself to mean: either 
 strict Humanitarians, who altogether denied the 
 godhead of Christ, and who pronounced him to be 
 a mere man; or religionists, who, according to the 
 theory which was afterward denominated Arian- 
 zsm, conceded to him a sort of secondary godhead, 
 by admitting that he was the greatest and earliest 
 of all created beings, and by maintaining that 
 through him the Deity subsequently created the 
 entire Universe’. 
 
 * Priestley’s Hist. of Early Opin. book ii. chap. 4, 10. 
 
 * Lindsey’s Apol. p. 23, 24. I have already noticed the sin- 
 gular phraseology of Mr. Lindsey, where he teaches us: that 
 _ ALL Christian People, for upward of three hundred years after 
 Christ till the Council of Nice, were GenrRALiy Unitarians. 
 
CHAP. X. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 273 
 
 By these statements, the matter is obviously 
 brought to a mere question of HISTORICAL FACT. 
 
 Dr. Priestley and Mr. Lindsey assert: that 
 None of the Antenicene Writers acknowledged THE 
 PROPER DIVINITY Of Christ. 
 
 Such being the case, nothing more is requisite, 
 than simply to hear the precise declarations of 
 those very Writers themselves. 
 
 I. It will not, I presume, be controverted ; that 
 Jehovah, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Ja- 
 cob, is, in the strictest and highest sense of the 
 word, THE TRUE GoD: for, assuredly, we shall find 
 it impossible to deny his proper divinity, without 
 running counter to the very plainest language of 
 Holy Scripture. 
 
 See above, book ii. chap. 6. note in init. His meaning I suppose 
 to be: that None of the Antenicene Christians acknowledged 
 the proper divinity of Christ; that they arr, without excep- 
 tion, deemed him a mere creature ; and that they were UNIVER- 
 SALLY ignorant of the doctrine of the Trinity, which was the 
 original invention of the first Council of Nice. Whether he 
 wished to qualify this large assertion by the use of the word 
 GENERALLY, I will not undertake positively to determine. If 
 such were his intention, the doctrines of Christ’s godhead and 
 the Trinity must clearly have existed before the session of the 
 Council of Nice, and therefore could not have been the invention 
 of that Council: which yet I understand Mr. Lindsey to as- 
 sert. But, whatever may be his precise meaning, he assures 
 us ; that, upon inquiry, it nill be found undeniably true: and, 
 for the better promotion of sound historical knowledge, he deems 
 it absolutely necessary that the less learned should be told ; that 
 ALL Antenicene Christians were GENERALLY Unitarians. 
 VOL. II. A) 
 
274: THE APOSTOLICITY [BooK 11 
 
 Neither yet, I presume, will it be controverted : 
 that the Antenicene Fathers well knew the real 
 character of the seHovan of the Patriarchal and 
 Levitical Churches; and that they could not 
 doubt, whether proper essential divinity ought to 
 be ascribed to that ineffably glorious Subsistence. 
 
 1. Under these circumstances, if the Ante- 
 nicene Fathers pronounced Christ, to be the Lord 
 of Hosts, and to be the God of Abraham and 
 Isaac and Jacob: they must plainly have ascribed 
 to him proper essential divinity. 
 
 Nor, so far as I can judge, since the God of 
 Abraham and Isaac and Jacob is always denomi- 
 nated JEHOVAH, is it possible to evade this con- 
 clusion, save by a flat denial that the senovau of 
 the Patriarchal and Levitical Churches is very and 
 eternal God. 
 
 Now, of Justin Martyr, and of Irenéus, and of 
 Tertullian, and of Novatian, and of Hippolytus, 
 and of Theophilus of Antioch, and of Clement of 
 Alexandria, and of Cyprian, and of Dionysius of 
 Alexandria, it is the constant and unvarying lan- 
 guage: that Christ, as the Son or Word of God, 
 is the Lord of hosts and the God of Abraham and 
 Isaac and Jacob; who, under the character of 
 JEHOVAH sent by JEHOVAH (as Zechariah speaks), 
 conversed with Adam and Noah and Abraham and 
 Isaac and Jacob, confounded the rebellious build- 
 ers of Babel, rained down fire from jenovau out 
 
 of heaven upon Sodom and Gomorrha, talked with 
 7 
 
 Se ee ee 
 
CHAP. X. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 275 
 
 Moses from the bush, accompanied the Israelites 
 in the pillar of fire, and in short was the Being 
 who appeared under a human form to the Patri- 
 archs and whom the Patriarchs always worshipped 
 as THE SUPREME DIVINITY '. 
 
 1 Kar’ éxeivo yup Tov catpov bre Mwojjc éxeXevaOn KaredOoy 
 ei¢ Atyunroy elayayety Tov éxet Naov THY “lopandiTHy, Toipai- 
 vovroc avrov év rH “Appafsixh yn mpdBara Tod mode pyrpdc Oetov, 
 év idea Tupde ek Darou THOTWULLANGEV AUTO O Hpéreooe Xorordce.— 
 Kai eimev “Eye eipe 6°Qy, Oedc "APpaap, Ode "load, Cede ’la- 
 KW, 0 O<dce Ty Tarépwy cov. Justin. Apol. i. Oper. p. 74, 75. 
 
 Ta viv 0& cvyyuphoec por ToW@Tov éexipuvnoOyvac OVTED Pov- 
 Aopat TOOPHTELY, EiC érloeeuy, OTe Kal Ode Kal Kvoue rév ov- 
 vapewv 0 Xprordc. Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p.197. 
 
 “Ore yap “Inoote iv, 6 Macet cat ro “AGpadm Kal rote &AXote 
 amOc Tarprapyate gavelc Kal OpiAjoac, TO TOU Ilarodc OeAnpare 
 umnoer@y, drédetha* O¢ Kal avOowroc yevynDijvar dud Tic wap- 
 Oévov Mapiac Ae, kal gory del, £96. Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. 
 Oper. p. 266. Vide etiam Ibid. p. 214, 243, 278—280. 
 
 Vere igitur cum Pater sit Dominus, et Filius vere sit Domi- 
 nus, merito Spiritus Sanctus pomini appellatione signavit eos. 
 Et iterum, in eversione Sodomitarum, Scriptura ait: Et pluit 
 Dominus super Sodomam et Gomorrham ignem et sulphur a 
 pomINo de celo. Filium enim hic significat, qui et Abrahe 
 conloquutus sit, et a Patre accepisse potestatem ad judicandum 
 Sodomitas propter iniquitatem eorum. Iren. adv. heer. lib. iii. ¢. 6. 
 
 St enim crederetis Moysi, crederetis et mihi: de me enim 
 ile scripsit. Scilicet quod inseminatus est ubique in Scripturis 
 ejus Filius Dei, aliquando quidem cum Abraham loquens, ali- 
 quando cum eodem comesurus, aliquando autem Sodomitis in- 
 ducens judicium : et rursus cum videtur et in viam dirigit Ja- 
 cob, et de rubo loquitur cum Moyse. Et non est numerum 
 dicere, in quibus a Moyse ostenditur Filius Dei. Ivren. adv. 
 her, lib. iv. ¢. 23. 
 
 ped 
 
276 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK I. 
 
 Nor was this language any way peculiar to a 
 few innovating speculatists merely, who delighted 
 to expatiate in wild unauthorised phantasies. 
 
 Propter hoc Judzei excesserunt a Deo, Verbum Dei non re- 
 cipientes ; sed putantes, per seipsum Patrem, sine Verbo, id 
 est sine Filio, posse cognoscere Deum : nescientes eum, qui in 
 figura loquutus est humana ad Abraham et Aaron, et ad Moy- 
 sem dicentem ; Videns vidi veaationem populi mei in Algeypto, 
 et descend: liberare eos. Hic enim Filius, qui et Verbum Dei. 
 Jren. adv. heer. lib. iv. ¢. 17. 
 
 Verbum ait de rubo ad’ Moysem: Ego autem scio, quoniam 
 non dimittet vos Pharao rex Lgypti abire, nisi cum manu valida. 
 Tren. adv. heer. lib. iv. c. 48. 
 
 Filius itaque est, qui ab initio turrim superbissimam elidens 
 linguasque disperdens, orbem totum aquarum violentia puniens, 
 pluens super Sodomam et Gomorrham ignem et sulphurem 
 Deus a Deo. Ipse enim et ad humana semper colloquia de- 
 scendit, ab Adam usque ad patriarchas et prophetas :—et Deus 
 in terris cum hominibus conversari non alius, quam Sermo qui 
 caro erat futurus. Tertull. adv. Prax. § 11. Oper. p. 417. 
 
 Quid si idem Moyses ubique introducit Deum Patrem,— 
 omnia continentem et cuncta complexum, ut merito nec de- 
 scendat nec ascendat :—et tamen nihilominus introducit Deum 
 descendentem ad turrem quam edificabant filii hominum, con- 
 siderare queerentem, et dicentem; Venite, et mox descendamus 
 et confundamus illic ipsorum linguas. Quem volunt hic Deum 
 descendisse ad turrem illam? Deum Patrem?—Neque ergo 
 Pater descendit.—Superest ergo, ut ille descenderit, de quo 
 Apostolus Paulus; Qué descendit, ipse est qui ascendit super 
 omnes ccelos, ut impleret omnia: hoc est Dei Filius, Dei Ver- 
 bum. Verbum autem Dei caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis : 
 hic erit Christus. Deus ergo pronunciabitur Christus. Ecce 
 idem Moyses refert alio in loco, quod Abrahe visus sit Deus. 
 Atquin idem Moyses audit a Deo, quod nemo hominum Deum 
 
CHAP. X. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 277 
 
 Both in and before the time of Tertullian, the 
 doctrine, conveyed by it, was the avowed doctrine 
 
 videat, et vivat. Si videri non potest Deus, quomodo visus est 
 Deus ?—Non utique Scriptura mentitur. Ergo vere visus est 
 Deus. Ex quo intelligi potest, quod non Pater visus sit, qui 
 nunquam visus est: sed Filius, qui et descendere solitus est, et 
 videri quod descenderit. Novat. de Trin. in Oper. Tertull. 
 
 Kvpue de rév dvvapewy 6 Yidc, 6¢ ob remoinxey dpapriay. 
 Hippol. Comment. in Gen. Oper. vol. ii. p. 24. 
 
 Tiv de devrépay tiv did roy Tooont@y we ded Tov LDapovrjr 
 dvakahov, kal értatpépwy Tov Nady dro Tijg CovrElag TOY aAdO= 
 pudov" THY O€ TpiTnY, ev 7 EVOADKOC TAOnY TOV &K THe mapbEevov 
 avOowroyv dvadkawv. Hippol. Fragm. in 1 Sam. i. Oper. vol. i. 
 p. 267. 
 
 "AvarapPavwy ro mpdcwrov Tov ILarpdc kat Kupiov ray drwy, 
 
 7 b) \ , ba lA ~ ~ \ e U 
 mapeyivero eic TOY TapddElooy éy TOVGWTH TOU OEOv, Kal wpiret 
 7) ’Acap. Theoph. Antioch. ad Autol. lib. ii. c. 22. p. 365. 
 
 t Lwi4 € We \ ef a c] ~ e , ~ 
 
 O cé fpérepoe Tawaywyode, &ytoc Oedc Inaotc, 6 mdaone Tic 
 avOpwrornroc Kabnyeuwy Adyoc’ abroc 6 dikavOowmoc Dede ore 
 maoaywydc. Aéyer O€ mov, dia rie @oijc, TO Ilvedpa ro "Aywor 
 ic avrév? Avrdpknoe roy haoy ev TH Eph’ Kuowe povoc fryev 
 
 t t = 
 
 avrovc, Kal ok Hy per abrwv Bed ddAdrpLWG. DagPwe, oipar, rov 
 Taloaywyoy erioeikvuTa } year), THY dywyiv adrov dunyoupérn. 
 Haduv de, drov Néyn Cid Tov idiov mpocwrov, EavTov dpodoryet 
 Tavwaywyov' “Evo Kupvoe 0 Oedc¢ cov, 6 eLayaywr oe EK vic Ai- 
 
 - \ ¥. of EM: ? ~ o/ ld PAN ey ° \ 
 yurrov. Tic ovr exer ELovolay Tov aye Etow TE Kal ELw 5 Ovyi 
 6 Taldaywyic 3 Otroc &¢0n TO ’ABpadp, Kat eivey airo* "Eyo 
 eit 6 Oedc cov, evapéoret évwrdv fov.—Tod o€ "lakwP évapyéo- 
 Tara Talaywyoc Elva daivera’ Aéyer yoy air@* *Idov éyw 
 
 \ ~ > le ? ~ 50M ‘ Ee DTA ~ 
 
 peeTa cov, Crapvdacowy ce Ev TH 00M TaoN, OV av TopEVOHc.— 
 Touro oé cal cupradaiey éyerat. ‘YredeigOn dé, pnory, laxcwB 
 pedvoc’ Kal éxddauev per” avrov dvOawroc, 0 Tatdaywyoc, pexpt 
 
 mpwt.—O Adyoc ny 0 dXeinrng ipa TO Lakwf> Kal mawaywyodc 
 
278 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 of the Church Catholic. For, im an ancient sym- 
 bol preserved by that Father, one of the articles 
 is: that The Word or the Son of God, who after- 
 ward became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, vari- 
 ously appeared to the Patriarchs '. 
 
 But the person, who thus variously appeared to 
 the Patriarchs, always styled himself senovan: 
 
 ric dvOowrdrnroc.—TIdjv ddda 6 *laxwf éxddece TO Cvopa Tov 
 romov ékeivov, Hidog Ozov* Eidoy yap, dnow, Oedy zpdowror 
 Tp0¢ Tpdowrorv Kat éo00n pou 7) Wuyi. lpdcwroy dé rov Ocov 
 6 Adyoc,  gwrilerat 6 Osde cal yvopilerar. Tore cat Iopajr 
 etwvopacrat, Ore cide Tov Ocdy Tov Kupioy. Orde éorw 6 Oede, 
 0 Adyoe, 6 ravaywydc.—Airoce yoty ovroe cal rov Mwcéa o- 
 Odoke Tadaywyeiv’ Eyer yap 6 Kipuoc’ Eiree hudprykey évoredy 
 frou, éladrelow avroy éx rite Bifdov pov? vuvt dé PddiZe, Kal ddn- 
 ynoov Tov Nady TovTOY Eig TOY TOTmOY Oy Eiméy Got. ’*EvravOa ol- 
 ddokahdc éart raWaywyiac Kal yap hy we ddynOde, Ou wey Mo- 
 céwe, TAaWaywyd¢ 6 Kipwe rod aod rod radawod* Ov adrod oe, 
 Tov véeov Kanyenwy aod, medcwroy modo mpdcwroy. Clem. 
 Alex. Pzedag. lib. i. c.7. Oper. p. 109,110, 111. | 
 
 Quod Deus Christus. In Genesi: Dixit autem Deus ad 
 Jacob: Exsurge, et ascende in locum Bethel, et habita illic, et 
 fac illic altare Deo qui tibi apparuit cum fugeres a facie Esau 
 frairis tui. Cyprian. adv. Jud. lib. ii. § 6. Oper. vol. i. 
 p. 34. . 
 
 ‘ANN, avacrac rH TpiTn Hpmeog, 6 Cede rod IopayA 6. Kvproc 
 Tove dvagrapévrag YKoddpnoev Ev EavT™ vady kywor. Dionys. 
 Alex. adv. Paul. Samosat. quest. iii. Oper. p. 221. 
 
 "Evrevoay wrioy ai xeipec Tov Oeov IopanA, dc éorly Inaoic. 
 Dionys. Alex. adv. Paul, Samosat. queest. iv. Oper. p. 227. 
 
 * Id Verbum Filius ejus appellatum: ejus in nomine Dei 
 varié visum patriarchis. Symbol. vetust. apud Tertull. de pree- 
 script. adv. heer. Oper. p. 100. 
 
CHAP. X. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 279 
 
 and, under that specific character of THE SELF- 
 EXISTENT, always received divine adoration. 
 
 Therefore, a profession of belief, that Zhe Son 
 variously appeared to the Patriarchs, is equivalent 
 to a profession of belief: that Zhe Son is JEHOVAH 5 
 or that Christ possesses true and proper divinity. 
 
 2. It will, of course, be observed, agreeably to 
 the fixed plan of the present discussion : that the 
 question before us is not, Whether such an opinion 
 be well founded or wll founded. 
 
 At present, we have nothing to do, with the 
 abstract truth, or with the abstract falsehood, of 
 an opinion. 
 
 We are solely concerned with AN HISTORICAL 
 FACT. 
 
 Now the common assertion of Dr. Priestley 
 and Mr. Lindsey is: that None of the Antenicene 
 Fathers ascribed to Christ proper and essential 
 diwinity. 
 
 But the racr is: that, Whether abstractedly 
 right or abstractedly wrong in their opinion, the 
 Antenicene Fathers believed Christ, by virtue of his 
 being the second person of the Trinity incarnate 
 from the Virgin Mary, to be the senovan of the 
 Patriarchal and Levitical Churches ; who was the 
 God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and who in 
 old times variously appeared to the Patriarchs. 
 
 Such being the case, we may, if we please, 
 think the Antenicenes quite mistaken in their 
 opinion: but still the naked nisroricaL Fact, that 
 
280 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 They held such an opinion, will obviously remain 
 altogether unaffected by any estimate of their 
 theology. 
 
 II. Dr. Priestley, however, teaches us: that, 
 Respecting the nature of Christ, the true point or 
 touchstone of difference, between the Antenicenes 
 and the Postnicenes, is the doctrine of CONSUBSTAN- 
 TIALITY. 
 
 If the Father and the Son be coNsuUBSTANTIAL, 
 they clearly, he admits, must be PHYSICALLY OR 
 ESSENTIALLY EQUAL. 
 
 On the basis, therefore, of coNSUBSTANTIALITY, he 
 argues, rests THE ESSENTIAL OR PHYSICAL EQUALITY 
 of the Father and the Son. 
 
 Now, both the phrase and the tenet of consus- 
 STANTIALITY commenced, he asserts, with the first 
 Council of Nice. 
 
 Hence, provided his assertion be accurate, the 
 obvious and indeed necessary consequence is : that 
 The Postnicenes held the consuBsTANTIALITY of the 
 Father and the Son, and therefore held also their 
 ESSENTIAL OR PHYSICAL EQUALITY ; while The Ante- 
 nicenes denied their CONSUBSTANTIALITY, and there- 
 fore denied their ESSENTIAL OR PHYSICAL EQUALITY 
 also. 
 
 Such, when reduced into few words, is the vital 
 principle of all Dr. Priestley’s long discussion ’. 
 
 * Yet, by a singular sort of fatality, even the basis of this 
 very argument the perpetually stumbling historian is unable to 
 
 lay down with accuracy. 
 
 By 
 
CHAP. X. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 281 
 
 To this principle, therefore, viewed as resting 
 upon AN ALLEGED HISTORICAL FACT, it will now 
 
 By all the postnicene writers (I give his own precise words), 
 the Son was pronounced to be oF THE SAME SUBSTANCE with the 
 Father, and THEREFORE equal to him in aut respects. 
 
 Where did Dr. Priestley find any postnicene writer main- 
 taining the equality of the Son to the Father in az respects, 
 aS THE NECESSARY RESULT of their CONSUBSTANTIALITY ? 
 
 The diligent peruser of the old ecclesiastics will readily be- 
 lieve, that the Historian has produced no authority to that pur- 
 pose: and I consider it not as the least impeachment of Dr. 
 Priestley’s reading, if I venture to say, that such an authority 
 came not within its extent. 
 
 In truth, the assertion of the primeval doctrine of consuB- 
 STANTIALITY led the Postnicenes, like their predecessors the 
 Antenicenes, to maintain, not The equality of the Son to the 
 Father in aut respects, but The equality of the Son to the 
 Father in nature and duration ony. 
 
 They taught, as the Antenicenes had taught before them: 
 that, In the Holy Trinity, there 1s an emanative gradation and 
 an official economy. 
 
 Turrerore they likewise taught: that, /n point of order and 
 office and inhumanitation, the Son ts not EQUAL, but INFERIOR 
 to the Father. 
 
 Yet, with a most harmonious disregard both of historical 
 fact and of conclusive reasoning, does the strangely inaccurate 
 author now before us make dn equality in ALL respects to be 
 THE NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of the doctrine of Consubstantiality. 
 
 He has evidently taken up the same crude notion in regard to 
 the doctrine held by modern Trinitarians: for he talks, as we 
 have seen, of the phraseology of the early Christian Writers not 
 at all according with the idea of THE PERFECT EQUALITY Of all 
 the persons in the Trinity. Hist. of Corrupt. part i. sect. 3. 
 Works, vol. v. p. 36. 
 
 Verily 
 
282 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK Il. 
 
 be proper that we should carefully direct our 
 attention. 
 
 By the confession of Dr. Priestley himself: They, 
 who hold the consusstantrauity of the Father and 
 the Son, inevitably hold also the PHYSICAL OR ESSEN- 
 TIAL EQUALITY Of the Father and the Son. 
 
 Therefore, as he fully admits: They, who hold 
 the CONSUBSTANTIALITY, and thence also the PHYSICAL 
 OR ESSENTIAL EQUALITY, of the Father and the Son, 
 attribute to the Son, by a necessary consequence, 
 REAL AND PROPER DIVINITY. 
 
 So stands the criterion, as propounded by Dr. 
 Priestley’s own proper hand. 
 
 Hence we have simply to inquire into the truth 
 of THE ALLEGED HISTORICAL FAcT: that The Ante- 
 nicene Writers unanimously denied, and in reality 
 were altogether unacquainted with, the postnicene 
 doctrine of the Son’s CoNSuBSTANTIALITY with the 
 Father. 
 
 1. From the circumstance of the first Nicene 
 Council having, for the purpose of frustrating the 
 
 Verily it were strange, if their phraseology did accord with 
 a speculation, which, at no time, either past or present, either 
 antentcene or postnicene, was ever entertained by the Church 
 Catholic. 
 
 Where did Dr. Priestley ever find a well instructed Trini- 
 tarian, holding THE PERFECT EQUALITY, or (as he otherwise ex- 
 presses it) THE EQUALITY IN ALL RESPxrcTS, of the three persons 
 in the Trinity ? 
 
 Never, surely, did a theologian betray such a complete /gno- 
 ratio Llenchi. 
 
 BOP ne ae ee Te Ce te ae, oe Pa 
 
CHAP. X. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 283 
 
 evasions of the Arians, introduced into their Creed 
 the word consupsTantTIAL'; Dr. Priestley, with his 
 characteristic rapidity of decision, and without the 
 labour of any further examination, has evidently 
 taken it for granted, both that the word consus- 
 STANTIAL itself was first employed, and that the 
 involved doctrine of coNSUBSTANTIALITY was jirst 
 introduced, by that grievously innovating Synod. 
 
 Yet, had the historian submitted to the trouble 
 of reading the Epistle of Athanasius, respecting 
 the Decrees of the first Nicene Council against the 
 heresy of Arius; a production, assuredly, of no 
 very portentous magnitude: he would have there 
 found an express statement; that the Fathers of 
 that great Assembly did not invent either the term 
 or the doctrine, but that they received both the 
 one and the other from yet older theologians their 
 ecclesiastical predecessors *. 
 
 1 Gr. dpoovcwc. 
 
 ? Oi pev oby év rh Nexala ovvedOdrrec, Tavrny exovrec Tiy 
 dudvoway, rowavrac Kat Tac ésece (scil. obaia et dpuoovawc) Eypa- 
 
 ef Wes € ~ r 2 , , > ‘ ; 
 Wav dre o€ ovy EavTotc TAdoayTEc ETEVOnTAY TaUTAC, ErELOr) Kal 
 rovro mpopaciLovrat, GAN avwlev Tapa THY TY a’T@y wapaha- 
 Bodrrec eiphkact, dépe Kal rovro dtedéyEwper. Athan. Epist. de 
 Synod. Nic. cont. her. Arian. decret. Oper. vol. i. p. 420. 
 
 See also Athan. Epist. ad Afric. Oper. vol. i. p. 721, 723, 
 724: where he adduces the similar testimony of Eusebius. Kat 
 Tov Taka@y rac Noylove Kal émupavetc ériokoTrove Kal ovyyoa= 
 
 ¢ 7 > A ~ ~ \ Ss ec ~ / ~ ~ e 
 péac Eyvwper, Ext ric Tov Marpoc¢ Kat Ytov Oedrynroc, TP Tov opo- 
 ovolwov xKpHnoapévove ovopare. 
 
 The same testimony of Eusebius to the antenicene use of 
 
284 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK Il. 
 
 Of these predecessors, giving their own precise 
 words in proof of his assertion, Athanasius men- 
 tions Theognostus and Dionysius of Alexandria ?. 
 He also, to the same effect, mentions the labour- 
 loving Origen: and, though the passages which he 
 cites from that author contain not the precise 
 word Usia, but (so far as the first-cited passage is 
 concerned) only the word Hypostasis which by 
 the earlier writers is used in the sense of Substance 
 as well as in the sense of Person ; yet his accuracy, 
 
 the word 6u00vew¢, is adduced also by Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. 
 lib. fh, Ce 8. p- 29. 
 1 a \ ’ \ , ? U ye E42 ~ LJ - 
 Oeoyvworog perv, vo Adytoc, ov TAPNTHOATO TO EK THC OVaiagG 
 9 ee ory / x X e ~ > ate SS V4 ~ € , 
 ElT@elv’ ypadwy yao wept Yiov, év To CEevTéow THY ‘YroruTMCEwY, 
 ovrwc EipnKer. 
 Oix eiwOév rie éoriv édevpeOeioa Tov Yiov odcia, obde éx pny 
 dvrwy érevonxOn? adrAa ek THe Tov Ilarpo¢ obciac edu’ we, Tod 
 \ \ > 7 € ef 5) , of ‘ \ 5) , 
 pwroc, TO aTavyacpa’ wc, Voaroc, arpic. Odre yap 70 adrad- 
 Ly e€ > \ t iat to \ vO ? \ \ > \ Wel *, bd ° 
 VACUA, OUTE ATIC, AUTO TO VOWD EoTLY, Ij AUTOG O HALOC* OUTE aA- 
 Adrptov. °AAAA dmdppota Tie Tov Ilarpdc¢ ovciac’ ob [eplo pov 
 
 e 
 
 e U ~ ~ \ ’ , € \ / e e/ 
 vTopetvacne THC TOU Ilarpo¢ ovaiac. ‘Qe yap pévwy 6 ruc 6 
 avrog ov petovrat Taic EKYEOMEVaLE UT’ aVTOU avyaic, ovrurc ovee F 
 9 J ~ x % / € la ) We e ~ 3] y 
 ovaia rou Ilarpo¢ d\Xowoy vrépetver, eixova Eaurije Exovoa TOY 
 Yiov. 
 4 \ Fa ~ 
 Avovbovoc 0&, 6 yevopmevoc éxiaxoroc rife "AdeLavdpeiac,—éreton 
 € , le , \ \ f \ x \ Xe hf 
 uTevonOn we woinpa Kal yevnrov Aéywr roy Yioy, Kal fur) Opoovatov 
 7 ILarot ade TOC TOV OMe v avro Avwyt OV eTrloK. 
 , ol, youd 00c 7 fewvupov avt@ Awovvovoy rov éxicKo- 
 e , 9 , o2 FT , ) > ~ 
 mov Pwunc, drodoyoupevog ovKopaytiay elvat ravrny Kar’ abvrod. 
 if \ \ \ \ s 
 Mire yap rounroy eionkévat roy Yidv, d\Xa Kat Omoovotoy avroy 
 e ~ ~ 
 opodoyeiy, OvePeBawoaro. “Eyer dé abrov f déétc obrwe.— 
 bd Af ~ ~ ~ ~ 
 Ov roinpa ovoE KTiopa 0 Tov Ood Adyoc' adda idvoy rije Tov 
 \ > s , iNY . 
 Tlarpo¢ ovoiac yévynua addaiperdy gore. Athan. Epist. Oper. 
 vol. i. p. 420, 421. 
 
 OE a 
 
CHAP. X. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 285 
 
 not only in regard to the doctrine of Consubstan- 
 tiality, but even in regard to the very word Usia 
 itself, is fully confirmed by the yet existing Works 
 of the learned Catechist '. 
 
 To these may be added Tertullian and Justin 
 and Novatian and Ireneéus: all of whom in so many 
 words maintain, that Zhe susstance of God the 
 
 Son is identical with the susstance of God the 
 Father *. 
 
 * Tleot dé rov didiwe ouveivat tov Aéyov ro Iarot, cat pr) éré- 
 ¥ t Ply fed 
 ’ U r) \ ~ ~ \ of oye N 7 e oy Ff 
 pac ovatac, adda Tie TOU Ilarpoc LOLOV QUTOY ELvas, WE ELON KAGLY 
 AD | ~ aN bb i a lf e ~ > ~ XN 4 La 
 Ol EV TH TUVOCW, ELEoTW TAALY KUdc AKovVoaL Kal Tapa TOU pedo- 
 movov “Qovyévovc. Athan. Epist. Oper. vol. i. p. 423. 
 
 Ei dé kat cGpa Ovnroy Kat Woyry avOowrivny dvadapwr, 6 
 abavaroc Bede Adyoe Coxet T@) Kédow dd\\arrecBat Kal peradAar- 
 rea0ar' pravOavérw, drt 6 Adyoe, rh ovoia pévwy Adyoc, ovdey pev 
 
 , xs 4 \ ~ \ e 7 , 3. 3 > ef 
 TACKEL WV TAGKEL TO CW MA Y 7) Wuxi’ ovykarapPaivwy } eo0 OTE 
 TO pn) Ovvapevy adrov pappapvyac Kal Ty Napmpdrnra Tic Oewo- 
 TyTo¢ Bérety, olovel cups yiverat, owpwariKwe Aadovpevoc. Orig. 
 cont. Cels. lib. iv. p. 170. 
 
 Communionem substantia esse Filio cum Patre. Orig. Com- 
 ment. in Epist. ad Hebr. Oper. vol. iv. p. 697. Edit. Benedict. 
 Pavisaliiss: 
 
 ? Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum. Tres autem, non 
 statu, sed gradu ; nec substantia, sed forma ; nec potestate, sed 
 specie: unius autem substantia, et unius status, et unius po- 
 testatis: quia unus Deus, ex quo et gradus isti et forme et 
 species, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, deputantur. 
 Tertull. adv. Prax. § 2. Oper. p. 406. 
 
 Ego et Pater unum sumus ; ad substantia unitatem, non ad 
 numeri singularitatem. Ibid. § 15. p. 425. 
 
 Due substantize censeantur in Christo Jesu, divina et humana. 
 Ibid. § 17. p. 429. 
 
 THv 
 
286 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 Nor, in truth, was either the term or the doc- 
 trine any way peculiar to a few mere individuals : 
 though, of those individuals, quite sufficient have 
 been adduced to shew, in opposition to the crude 
 phantasy of Dr. Priestley ; that Both the word con- 
 SUBSTANTIAL and the involved doctrine of coNsuB- 
 
 Thy dvvapuy rairny yeyevvijcbar dro rot Harpdc, dvvdper kal 
 foun advrov, dXN od Kara droropiy, wc dropeptlopévne Tipe TOU 
 Ilarpoe ovaiac, drota ra &hAa TavTa peorlopeva Kal repvdueva 
 ov Tad aura éoriy & Kal rely TyNOAVal’ Kal, TapadEelyparoc xapLY, 
 TapEtnijpery Ta we dx0 mupdc dvanrépeva mupa ErEpa O0@MEY, 
 ovoev ENATTOVLEVOU éxelvou €& ov advapojvar To\Na Ovvavrat, d\Aa 
 Tavrov pévovtoc. Kat viv eic drddeéty rovrov éo@. “Orav déyn, 
 "EPpete Kuproc rip rapa Kupiov éx rov ovpavov" ovo dvrac dotb- 
 H@ pnvier 6 N6yocr. Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 281. 
 
 Sermo Filius—in substantia prolate a Deo virtutis agnosci- 
 tur. Novat. de Trin. in Oper. Tertull. p. 633. 
 
 Unus Deus ostenditur verus et seternus Pater, a quo solo 
 heec vis divinitatis emissa, etiam in Filium tradita et directa 
 rursum per substantia communionem, ad Patrem revolvitur. 
 Ibid. p. 634. 
 
 Hzec autem scripta sunt, ut credatis, quoniam Jesus est 
 Christus Filius Dei:-providens has blasphemas regulas, que 
 dividunt Dominum, quantum ex ipsis attinet, ex altera et altera 
 substantia dicentes eum factum. Iren. adv. heer. lib. iii. ¢. 18. 
 p. 204. 
 
 Diligenter igitur significavit Spiritus Sanctus, per ea que 
 dicta sunt, generationem ejus que ex virgine, et substantiam 
 quoniam Deus: Emanuel enim nomen hoe significat. Ibid. 
 HID. aie Cc) 20; peeelvs 
 
 Neque ab altero Deo dicere prophetas, nisi a Patre ejus ; 
 neque ab aliqua alia substantia, sed ab uno et eodem Patre. 
 Tbidvlib: 1v.'¢. 70. p. 301, 
 
CHAP. X. | OF TRINITARTANISM. 287 
 
 STANTIALITY were familiar to the Church Catholic 
 long before the days of the first Nicene Council. 
 The very remarkable Ecthesis of the Council 
 of Antioch, which, in the year 269 or fifty six 
 years anterior to the Council of Nice, sat to con- 
 demn the heresy of Paul of Samosata, still remains 
 to demonstrate, if any further demonstration were 
 necessary, the gross inaccuracy of the historian 
 in asserting: that The Antenicene Writers were 
 ignorant of the doctrine of the Son’s cONSUBSTAN- 
 TIALITY with the Father; and that The occurrence 
 of such doctrine will be found exclusively in the 
 later productions of the Postnicene Writers. Under 
 almost every conceivable turn of phraseology, this 
 Kcthesis, again and again, distinctly and speci- 
 fically, asserts: that The Son, in respect to his 
 human nature, is OF THE SAME SUBSTANCE with man ; 
 while, in respect to his divine nature, he is or THE 
 SAME SUBSTANCE with God’. 
 
 * ‘Opodroyovpey rov Kipwoy huey Incovy Xprorov, rov ék rov 
 Ilarpdc kara mvetpua red aiwvev yevynbévra, ew ECXaTwY THY 
 e ~ g , \ / / a , / 
 ypEeo@y ex Tap0Eevou Kara capKka rexOévra, Ey tpdowroy ovyOErTor 
 5 t > 4 Need 7 yy ke ZN : A of 
 ex Oedrnroc ovpaviov kai dvOpwmeiag capKdc’ Kal, Kal0 dvOowzoe, 
 év' Kat Gov Ocoy, kat Gov dvOowmrov* bdov Ody Kal pera rod 
 
 ~ ‘ U ? ~ 
 cwparoc, AAN odyi KaBo cHpa Oedy* Kai Gov dvOowmoy perarifc 
 Dedrnroc, dX ovyt Kara tTyVv Oedrynra avOowrov ovTwe dXov 7™00G- 
 KUYNTOV Kal pETa TOD GwpaToc, AAN ovXL KATH TO CHa TOCKU- 
 / ef ~ \ x ~ f b] 9 > \ ‘ 
 vntov’ Ohoyv TpocKUVOUYTa Kat pEeTa TIC DedrnTOC, AAN ody! Kare 
 tiv OedrnTa TpoGKUYOUYTA’ GAoY UKTLOTOY Kal pETe TOV GwpaToc, 
 ~ > e \ ‘ ~ 
 GAN ovxXt Kara TO cwpa aKTLoTOY’ bov ThacTOY Kal jreTa Tijc OE6- 
 \ ef ~ 
 THTOC, AAN OVXL Kara THY OedrnTa TAaGTOY* GOV Opoovo.oy OE~ Kal 
 
 nae ~ he “AN > Nar Ney as ~ ie / , 20 ep ek 
 Eel a TOU TWHMATOC, ie ovxt KaTaA TO TWA OPOOVGLO} TH E@ WOTED 
 
288 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK Il. 
 
 2. As the very term CONSUBSTANTIAL is used, 
 and as the involved doctrine of CoNSUBSTANTIALITY 
 is directly asserted, by the Antenicene Writers : 
 so their favourite mode of illustration removes all 
 doubt, in regard to their real sentiments on the 
 subject. 
 
 (1.) For the purpose of shewing and explaining 
 the mutual physical relation of the three persons 
 in the Trinity, they perpetually employ the several 
 images of A FOUNTAIN and A TREE and THE SUN. 
 
 When the first of these illustrative images is 
 used: the Father is exemplified by the Fountain ; 
 the Son, by the River proceeding from the Foun- 
 tain; and the Spirit, by a Runlet or Stream issu- 
 ing ultimately from the Fountain through the pri- 
 mary intervention of the River. 
 
 When the second of them is used: the Father 
 is exemplified by the Root of the Tree; the Son, 
 by the Trunk; and the Spirit, by the Fruit. 
 
 9 \ \ A Me b) uy » x e i , \ ~ 
 ovde Kara THY OedrnTra avOpwrote EoTiv OpoovaLog, KaiToL YE [ETA THC 
 Oedrnroc OY Kard cdpKa Spoodbo.e piv? Kal yao, bray NEeywpev 
 
 ° \ \ ~ ~ e / > 'e Q ~ ’ a 
 avrov Kara TvEvpLa Oe Opoovaror, ov NéEyomev Kara TvEvpa avOpw- 
 moc Opoovawy" Kal TaALY, Gray KnptooomEey abroY KaTa odpKa dy- 
 
 , e fi 9 ges / oN \ e y ~. 
 Opwrore Opoovo.oy, ov KNPVOTOLEY AUTOY Kara GapKA OpoovaLOY DEW 
 ef \ \ ey. € ~ bd 2 \ e U 2 \ Cg GJ 
 @oreo yap kara rvevpa Hpty ovK Early bpoovaroc, Ered Oem ore 
 
 \ ~ e if ef > \ \ / ? \ ~ e t 
 kara@ Touro dpoovotwe, ovTwe ovde KaTAa OApKa EoTi OE Opoovatoc, 
 > ee ~ ’ \ ~ e a ef \ ~ / 
 éeton Hpiv éore Kara TOUTO Opoovotoc’ Ware Oe Tatra dujpbpwrac 
 
 \ t ) ’ ‘ Pee V4 ~ ) 
 kal secaphyvecrat, ovK cic taipeoy Tov EvOE TPOGWTOU TOU doLat- 
 
 / > J ’ 7 Lagk > i“ ~ é] , ~ ‘ 
 pérou, &AN ic dfAWoLY TOU dovyxbrov THY idwparwy Tie capKOG 
 
 NY ~ / ef \ Q ~ FN va , / 
 kal rov Adyou, otrw kat Ta Tig aevawpérou cvyPécewe mpEa[Evo- 
 pev. Ecthes. Antioch. apud Concil. Ephes. par. ii. c. 6. Labb. 
 Concil. vol. i. p. 979. See below, append. ii. numb. 1. 
 
CHAP. X."] OF TRINITARIANISM. 289 
 
 When the third of them is used: the Father is 
 exemplified by the Solar Fire; the Son, by a Ray 
 emanating from it; and the Spirit, by the Apex 
 of the Ray. 
 
 Such are the illustrative images, employed, with 
 singular uniformity, by the successive Antenicene 
 Writers, Justin, Athenagoras, Theognostus, 'Ter- 
 tullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Dionysius of Alex- 
 andria, and Lactantius: and, since, from genera- 
 tion to generation, they have thus been regularly 
 transmitted as the ordinary common places of 
 Theology; we cannot reasonably doubt, that they 
 exhibit the unvarying sense of the Catholic Church 
 from the very beginning’. 
 
 , ~ cE ~ ~ 
 
 1 Mapripioy dé kat &ddo bpiv, @ Piro, EMny, awd THY ypador 
 
 s ¢ 
 dwow, Ore dpyiy mpd wavTwYy Tov Krioparwy 0 OEog ‘yeyerynke 
 dvvapiy riva é& Eavrov oyixny, free Kal Adga Kupiov vro TOU 
 Ivevparoc rov ‘Ayiou kaXeirat, wore 0& Yide, wore de Lopia, wore 
 dé” Ayyedoe, more d&€ Oedc, Tore dé Kiptoc cat Adyoc.— Oroiov 
 ao TN \ 5 ae! 3} , > 3 ‘ Ly bias ed 
 éxl mupoc dp@pev &dAO yivdpEvoy, OVK EXaTTOUPEVOU EkELYOU EG OV 
 € of / HEE \ at OE 8 ~ 2 \ Nd 9 AS 
 y avatuc yéyovey* AXA TOU abrov pévovToc, Kat TO €§ avrov dv- 
 
 \ ~ ~ ° 
 apOey, Kai abro Oy paivera, ovK éeaTTwoay éxetvo €& ov dvidOy. 
 Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 221. 
 
 >/ Ok \ > , ~ \ UE \ Qs 
 
 Arpnrov cé kal dywproroy rou Harpd¢g ravrny riy duvvapey 
 e 7 e/ \ rs / \ ~ SEN ~ 
 wrdpyev, Oven TOdToY TO TOV HAlov huct owe Ext yije eivas, 
 arpyroy Kal dxwptotoy, OyToe Tov HAiov Ey TM ovpavy. Justin. 
 Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 280. 
 
 Kaé roe kal avro 70 évepyovy roic Expwvovar TpogyriKwc "Ayo 
 Ilvevpa, drdppotay eivac paper Tov Osov, droppéoy Kai eravapepd~ 
 plevov, we dkriva jAtov. Athenag. Legat. § x. p. 40. 
 
 Ocdv daperv, kal Yidv tov Adyoy airov, cat Mrvevpa"Ayor, 
 ¢ ie \ Ae By / \ , \ e\ \ ~ 
 Evovpeva prey Kara Ovvapur, Tov Ilarépa, rov Yur, ro Wvevp 
 
 VOL. Il. U 
 
290 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK II. 
 
 Accordingly, both the evident principle of the 
 images, and the most remarkable and most gene- 
 
 dre Nove, Adyoe, Lopia, Yio rou Ilurpoc, kat drdppota, we pac 
 do wupdc, 70 Uveipa. Ibid. § xxii. p. 96. 
 
 Ovk ebw0év ric éorw EpevoeBeioa fy rou Yiov ovola, ovde ék py 
 OvTwy ereconyOn’ adda éK THe Tov Ilarpoc obsiac edu’ we, Tov 
 gwroe, TO aravyacpa’ we, voaroc, drpic. ‘Theognost. Hypot. 
 lib. ii. apud Athan. Epist. de Synod. Nic. cont. her. Arian. 
 decret. Oper. vol. i. p. 420. 
 
 Prolatum dicimus Filium a Patre, sed non separatum. Pro- 
 tulit enim Deus Sermonem, sicut radix fruticem, et fons fluvium, 
 et sol radium. Nam et iste species probolz sunt earum sub- 
 stantiarum, ex quibus prodeunt. Nec dubitaverim Filium 
 dicere, et radicis fruticem, et fontis fluvium, et solis radium: 
 quia omnis origo parens est; et omne, quod ex origine pro- 
 fertur, progenies est : multo magis Sermo Dei, qui etiam proprié 
 nomen £2/i accepit. Nec frutex, tamen, a radice, nec fluvius 
 a fonte, nec radius a sole, discernitur. Tertull. adv. Prax. § 6. 
 Oper. p. 409. 
 
 Exivit autem a Patre (Filius), ut radius ex sole, ut rivus ex 
 fonte, ut frutex ex semine. Ibid. § 15. Oper. p. 422. 
 
 "Erepov 0€ Aéywr, ov Ovo Ocodc AEyw" aAAN, we Hie ék pwroc, } 
 we vowp ék THYiIC, i} Oe dkriva dd FHXlov. Avvapuc yap pla 
 EK TOV TAaYTOC' TO O& TAY Ilario, € ov dvvapuc Adyoc. Hippol. 
 cont. Noet. c. xi. Oper. vol. ii. p. 13. 
 
 ‘Hpeic prev obv paddrrec, ric éorly 6 Yidg rod Ocov, Kat dre 
 aravyaoud éore ripe Odéne, Kal KApAKTIP THC VTOoTAGEWE adTod, 
 Kat drpic pev Tio Tou Oeov Ovvapewc, drdppora O€ ric row Tav= 
 ToKparopog Odéne eihekpivac, Ere O€ dravyacpa ¢wroe didiov, cat 
 Eoonrpov dkndtowroy ric row Oeov évepyeiac, Kal eikwy rijc dya- 
 Gornroc abrov' topev, Ore ovroc Yidc é& éxelyov, Kal éxeivoc rovrou 
 Iazvijo. Orig. cont. Cels. lib. viii. p. 387. 
 
 -—"Ovroe obv aiwviov row Ifarpoc, aiwviec 6 Yide éort, pac éK 
 
 \ ofan hist Y , > NAR oN ig . 5) SN \ , / 
 OWTOG WY OVYTOC YAP YOVEWS, EOTL Kat TEKVOY" EL OE [Ly) TEKVOY Ein, 
 
CHAP. X. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 291 
 
 rally employed of the images themselves, are of 
 no mere human excogitation ; but have been di- 
 rectly borrowed, by the ancient ecclesiastics, in 
 many instances even to the very precision of 
 actual phraseology, from the inspired volume of 
 Holy Scripture. 
 
 For, if the Church Catholic from the beginning 
 taught; that Zhe Son is from the Father, as light 
 is from light, or as a ray is from the solar fire: she 
 only faithfully delivered what she had first received 
 from the Apostle Paul; that Christ is the Reful- 
 gence from the Glory of God the Father und the 
 very Impress of his Substance *. 
 
 (2.) What, then, isthe necessary purport of the 
 images, thus perpetually employed, by the Ante- 
 
 mac kal rivoe eivae Ovvarae yovetc; ’AXN Eloy Gpidw, Kat Eloy 
 del. Dwrodc pev ovy dvroe Tov Oeod, O Xouoroc Early dravyacpa. 
 Dionys. Alex. Elench. apud Athan. Epist. de sentent. Dionys. 
 cont. Arian. Oper. vol. i. p. 437. 
 
 Cum dicimus Deum Patrem et Deum Filium, non diversum 
 dicimus, nec utrumque secernimus. Quia nec Pater sine Filio 
 potest, nec Filius a Patre secerni. Siquidem nec Pater sine 
 Filio nuncupari, nec Filius potest sine Patre generari. Cum 
 igitur et Pater Filium faciat, et Filius fiat: una utrique mens, 
 unus spiritus, una substantia, est. Sed ille quasi exuberans 
 fons est: hic, tanquam defluens ex eo rivus. Ule, tanquam 
 sol: hic, quasi radius a sole porrectus. Qui quoniam summo 
 Patri et fidelis et carus est, non separatur: sicut nec rivus, a 
 fonte; nec radius, a sole. Quia et aqua fontis in rivo est: et 
 solis lumen, in radio. Lactant. Instit. lib. iv. § 29. p. 446. 
 
 1"Oc dy dravyacpa ripe ddéne Kal xapaKrijo Tij¢ UrocTAGEWS 
 avrov. Heb. i. 3. See below, append. 1. numb. 7. 
 
 We 
 
292 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK It. 
 
 nicene Writers, for the illustration of the mutual 
 physical relation of the three persons in the Tri- 
 nity ? 
 
 Truly, even to say nothing of St. Paul’s sub- 
 joined exposition, The very Impress of his sus- 
 STANCE, it stands out open and conspicuous and 
 self-explained. 
 
 Unless we be prepared to deny; that a River 
 and a Runlet from a River are oF THE SAME sUB- 
 STANCE with the parent Fountain, or that a Tree 
 and its Fruit are oF THE SAME SUBSTANCE with the 
 Root, or that a Solar Ray and the Apex of that 
 Ray are OF THE SAME SUBSTANCE with the Solar 
 Fire: we must perforce acknowledge; that those, 
 who systematically employed such illustrations, 
 could not but have maintained, that the Son and 
 the Spirit are oF THE sAME SUBSTANCE with the 
 Father. 
 
 (3.) The doctrine of consuBsTanriatiry, in short, 
 is plainly and inevitably set forth in every illustra- 
 tion of this peculiar description: and, if any doubt 
 on the subject could possibly remain, that doubt 
 would be effectually removed by the express state- 
 ment of Origen, that these illustrations were de- 
 signedly employed to propound and to elucidate 
 the precise doctrine in question. 
 
 According to the similitude of that exhalation, 
 which proceeds from any corporeal substance, Says 
 he: so, Likewise, Christ himself, who is the Wisdom, 
 emanates, after the manner of an exhalation, from 
 
 er 
 
CHAP. X. | OF TRINITARIANISM, 293 
 
 the virtue of God himself. Thus the Wisdom, pro- 
 ceeding from him, is generated from THE VERY sUB- 
 STANCE Of God: and thus, according to the simili- 
 tude of a corporeal emanation, he is said to be a 
 certain pure and sincere emanation of THE GLORY of 
 the Omnipotent. Now both these comparisons shew 
 most evidently : that there is A COMMUNION OF SUB- 
 STANCE to the Son with the Father. For an EMA- 
 NATION SEEMS TO BE OF THE SAME SUBSTANCE WITH 
 THE BODY, FROM WHICH IT IS AN EMANATION }. 
 
 (4.) The propounding of this doctrine being thus 
 the avowed object of all such comparisons, we 
 shall readily understand, why the Nicene Fathers, 
 as they borrowed from the long line of their pre- 
 decessors both the term and the doctrine of con- 
 SUBSTANTIALITY, borrowed also from them, and 
 through them ultimately from St. Paul, one of the 
 most familiar and most regularly established modes 
 of illustrating and enforcing that doctrine. 
 
 Christus, qui est Sapientia, secundum similitudinem ejus 
 vaporis qui de substantia aliqua corporea procedit ; sic etiam 
 ipse, ut quidam vapor, exoritur de virtute ipsius Dei. Sic et 
 Sapientia, ex ipso procedens, ex ipsa Dei substantia generatur : 
 sicnihilominus, et secundum similitudinem corporalis aporrhoee, 
 esse dicitur aporrhoea gloriz Omnipotentis pura quedam et 
 sincera. Que utreeque similitudines manifestissimé ostendunt 
 communionem substantiz esse Filio cum Patre. Aporrhea 
 enim 6poovevc videtur, id est, unius substantize, cum illo cor- 
 pore, ex quo est vel aporrhocea vel vapor. Orig. Comment. in 
 Epist. ad Hebr. Oper. vol. iv. p. 697. Edit. Benedict. Paris. 
 1733. 
 
294 THE APOSTOLICITY [BooK II. 
 
 When they declared Christ to be, God from 
 God, true God from true God, begotten not made, 
 being OF ONE SUBSTANCE with the Father: they 
 failed not to add, after the ancient mode of illus- 
 tration, and from symbols yet older than their 
 OWnh, LIGHT FROM LIGHT. For it was well known: 
 that the expression, LIGHT FROM LIGHT, was, in the 
 ordinary conventional language of Theology, and 
 on the direct interpretative authority of St. Paul, 
 precisely equivalent to the expression, coNsuB- 
 STANTIAL WITH THE FATHER. 
 
 (5.) Illustrations, then$ of this description, in- 
 evitably and avowedly, set forth the doctrine of 
 MUTUAL CONSUBSTANTIALITY on the part of the three 
 persons of the Holy Trinity: and, in setting forth 
 such doctrine, these illustrations also yet addi- 
 tionally set forth the doctrine of THE ETERNITY 
 both of the Son and of the Spirit. 
 
 The argument, implied and involved in them, 
 was, by the ancients, rightly propounded in man- 
 ner following. 
 
 If a Fountain or a Root or the Sun had existed 
 from all eternity: their several effluxes or emana- 
 tions, though respectively proceeding from them, 
 must likewise have existed from all eternity. Be- 
 cause, on the supposition of the eternity of their 
 several originals, there never could have been a 
 time, when such effluxes or emanations did not 
 proceed from them : and, consequently, the proces- 
 sion itself could never have had a commencement. 
 
 ee ee 
 
 Ce ee ee ee 
 
CHAP. X. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 295 
 
 But God the Father, the declared Fountain or 
 Root or Primal Glory of the Deity, has existed, no 
 doubt, from all eternity. 
 
 Therefore the Son and the Spirit, though gene- 
 rated or emanating from the Father, must have 
 existed from all eternity likewise. For, their pro- 
 cession from the substance of the Father never 
 having had a commencement, there never could 
 have been a time when they were not ’. 
 
 ‘"Aravyacpa dé OY hwrd¢g aidiov, TAaYTWE Kat avroc (0 Yioc) 
 diduec éorty. “Ovroc yap det rod pwroe, OnAOY we EaTly déEt TO 
 dravyacpa’ rovrp yap Kal, Ort Hc éoTt, TH Karavyalety voeirac. 
 Kal dc ov dbvarat pr} dwriZoy civar. Wad yap éMwper emt ra 
 
 / b) > A e ef > \ > x b2 \ e / € t} 
 mapadelypara, Hi éoriv 6 ioc, éotiy abyy, éoriy Hepa’ et 
 ~ , ? ‘ ~ x ~ ef % \ cs 
 TowvuToy pindey Eote TodVye Cet Kal TapEtvat Huoyv. Ei pev ody 
 of. ef 3 t¥ ~ \ 
 didwsg 6 frdwoc, dmavaroe av Hy Kal } tpéoa. Noy o€ ob ydp 
 % > / o/ Si , f e , 
 tory. ‘“Aocapévou re, ijogaro* kal, mavopévov, maverar. ‘O O€ 
 me f ~ 
 ye Ode aiwvidy Eore hic, ovre dokdpevor, ovre AHEdv Tore. Odx- 
 ovv aiwvioy wpdxerrat, Kat ovveorw aire ro dravyacpa avap- 
 xov kal devyevec, Tooparvomevoy avrov Oreo éoriy i) héyovoa 
 9 %: ° 
 
 Lopia’ "Eya ijpnyv 7 moocéxarpe’ KaOnpépay o€ evpoatvopuny év 
 moocwrw airov év mayvri katog. Dionys. Alex. Elench. apud 
 Athan. Epist. de sentent. Dionys. cont. Arian. Oper. vol. 1. 
 p- 436, 437. 
 
 “Ore ro, Yide pov el av, éyw ofpepov yeyévynxa oe, EYETaL 
 
 ~ ~ x an 
 mo0c¢ avrov trod Tov Ood, g det gore Td ohpepov. OdK Eve yao 
 éovrépa Ocov' éyw o€ *yyovpar, drt oboe Towia. ~AXN O cupTap- 
 / ee 3 7 \ 97 3 ~ ~ eo9 e sf , 
 exrelvwv TH ayevyyT@ Kal didiw avdrov wn, tv’ ovTw¢ Einw, \pd- 
 ~ G q a, 
 voc, npépa éorly avr@ afpepov, év n yeyévynrat 0 Yidg dpxiic 
 ° ~ \ ~ 
 
 yevésews avrov ovrwe ovK EvpLoKopévnc, WC OVOE Tic Hmépac. 
 Orig. Comment. in Johan. tom. i. Oper. vol. i. p. 30, 31. 
 Huet. Rothom. 1668. 
 
 he / 3) ‘ ~ \ / eX 
 "Quy éor didwe 6 Oedc. “Ovroe ody det rov Warpoc, eore wat 
 
296 THE APOSTOLICITY [BOOK IL. 
 
 3. From this statement of the doctrine of the 
 primitive Church, it obviously follows: that The 
 Antenicenes, like the Postnicenes, maintained the 
 EQUALITY of the three divine persons in point of 
 their NATURE and DURATION; while yet, like the 
 Postnicenes also, they maintained their 1NEQUALITY 
 in point of their ORDER and OFFICE. 
 
 There is, in short, between the Writers before 
 the first Nicene Council and the Writers after 
 the first Nicene Council, no difference of opinion. 
 
 Each, alike, held the doctrine of tHE con- 
 SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE THREE PERSONS IN THE 
 TRINITY. Each, therefore, alike, by the somewhat 
 unguarded concession of Dr. Priestley, held also, 
 of very necessity, the doctrine of THER EQUALITY, 
 and thence likewise the doctrine of THE pRoPER 
 DIVINITY OF THE SON AND THE SPIRIT. 
 
 I myself have done nothing more, than simply 
 detail the evidence. The cautious inquirer must 
 form his own judgment respecting the hypothesis, 
 which is the common property of Dr. Priestley and 
 Mr. Lindsey. 
 
 Ill. The objections of the Antitrinitarian School, 
 which respect the broad naked question of m1sto- 
 RICAL FACT, have now, I trust, been removed: and, 
 with the mere metaphysical subtleties affecting 
 THE DOCTRINE ITSELF, I have plainly, from the 
 
 A \ , , e? ’ ae 
 adlotwe Kal To ToUToU dravyacua, omen éatiy 6 Adyoe abrov, 
 
 Athan. Orat. il. cont. Arian, Oper. vol. i. p. 154. 
 
 a 
 
CHAP. X. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 297 
 
 very nature and plan of my discussion, no sort of 
 concern. 
 
 Hence I venture to think: that our testimony, 
 to THE BARE HIsTorIcAL Fact of The Apostolical 
 Antiquity and the Apostolical Declaration of the 
 doctrine of THE TRINITY, remains complete and 
 decisive. 
 
 It has been my purpose simply to establish a 
 FACT: precisely as a diligent and impartial his- 
 torian might set himself, if his evidence were suf- 
 ficient, to establish any other ract, with the sub- 
 stantiation of which he should happen to be con- 
 cerned. 
 
 Now, unless I have altogether failed of my pur- 
 pose, THE HISTORICAL FAcT, which has been esta- 
 blished, is this : that THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, 
 VIEWED AS SUBINCLUDING THE DOCTRINE OF THE SON’S 
 PROPER DIVINITY AND HUMAN INCARNATION FROM THE 
 SUBSTANCE OF THE VIRGIN MARY, WAS, FROM THE VERY 
 FIRST, TAUGHT BY THE APOSTLES; AND WAS, FROM 
 THE VERY FIRST, RECEIVED, ON THEIR ACKNOWLEDGED 
 INSPIRED AUTHORITY, BY THE EARLIEST CHURCH CA- 
 THOLIC. 
 
 In the abstract; THE DOCTRINE ITSELF may be 
 very true, or it may be very false: but, in the 
 concrete, THE BARE HISTORICAL FACT remains, in 
 either case, unaltered. 
 
 If, like Barcochab or Mohammed, Christ and 
 his Apostles were mere uninspired impostors : In 
 that case, though we shall still be compelled to 
 
298 THE APOSTOLICITY OF TRINITARIANISM. 
 
 admit THE HISTORICAL Fact that THEY TAUGHT THE 
 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, We Shall in no wise be 
 compelled to admit THE ABSTRACT TRUTH OF THE 
 DOCTRINE ITSELF. 
 
 But, if Christ and his Apostles were no im- 
 postors, and if (on the contrary) they really were 
 what they always claimed to be: in that case, we 
 shall be compelled to admit, not only THE HIsTo- 
 RICAL FACT, but THE TRUTH OF THE DOCTRINE ITSELF 
 likewise. ? 
 
 For any professed adoption of a sort of middle 
 course, by which We avowedly acknowledge the 
 divine mission and the consequent infallible authority 
 of an inspired teacher, and yet reject as untrue the 
 doctrine which under that special character he claims 
 to reveal, is certainly the very height of hopelessly 
 irrational inconsistency. 
 
 The general conclusion, therefore, fro my 
 whole argument, will be the following. 
 
 WE CANNOT, CONSISTENTLY WITH AN ESTABLISHED 
 HISTORICAL FACT, DENY THE TRUTH OF THE DOCTRINE 
 OF THE CO-EQUAL AND CO-ETERNAL TRINITY, UNLESS 
 AT THE SAME TIME WE BE PREPARED TO DENY ALSO 
 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY ITSELF. 
 
APPENDIX Il. 
 
PORE 4 YON WIA hs PSR cake Sai ep De puri 
 re | & i? . 
 
 VF 
 f he “ a gil ' ‘ 
 y et rae ta | 
 ie i ey 
 r : vlad 
 4 u i & 
 ’ 4 fee’ % 4 
 : - 
 64 \ i <. 
 uk ; 
 " wie: i oer ; 
 y 2 Yee 
 moe) te rs 
 } 
 oo  ? Tyr ‘ A * 
 eet eras: ay ie: P| =. ri 
 : 
 4 bag a be : 
 1 ’ > 
 . { ‘ / », * 2 
 ; Ky : 1 : , y 4 ¢ ( 
 - < hee! > Ae ag tj J ru ; : Ay 
 : is lt fa f 
 ae oe Lae 4 nl . a .) ? 
 ° 
 > ee - - ee ee ae ‘ 
 ’ 12 | F 
 4 ] 
 £ * % 
 acs 
 ' a i i ff 
 4 i 5 7 ae Se he oo 
 bore : ‘ t i) } 
 ‘ 
 " 
 Ss 
 ’ 4 é = ~ 
 ’ ~ | 
 ' ete Fe 
 * “5 
 ’ ‘ a 
 ‘ < 
 r > at 
 ~ 4 + we’ rg —_r oi we 
 KEGEL 
 ‘, “ t G 
 Te ae ~ be z \a he ~ e * 
 a2 
 I ‘ o— 
 apt eats I i eioait) Paks seat 
 Se ‘ : i~ fir : i se? 
 “ stu ae 5 . 
 t ~ 
 x : f : ' ; Fr: 
 , 
 Pa ¢ 
 N = J ire 
 ~ , ‘ 
 ¥ tts ; Tey ae halt + Y! 
 + i ep ' 
 : 4 % i's y (Leg , 4a YA 
 fis { ty at 4 YY " ie ; un . 
 as | “ 
 i ‘ t ¥ a : “ 
 ‘ 5 4 ; ’ ¢ 
 ‘ ‘ > 
 ‘ « " . 
 ° J ‘ é ‘ 
 AA vj } ’ = 
 , Tae) 
 
 / rie, 918 Gilera bees | sili iy aig hes a: 
 
 : . x es ae > 
 s . i ‘ ‘ ie ie >aJ - 
 + date sive) ree: ee : Pee ee ae! ees 1 a F 
 d if ‘at la 
 A 
 
 Te 
 
 AAU ME a I Ce Yeas et Made 
 
 1 + rake ¥ ia We AiG ty hy 
 : ; , , Peel 5S4 4 re 2.4 The kb tt 
 
 od eyrsiiFeas oe 
 
APPENDIX II. 
 
 NUMBER IT. 
 
 RESPECTING THE APPROPRIATION OF THE ECTHESIS, PRODUCED IN 
 THE YEAR 43] BY THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS AGAINST NES- 
 TORIUS, TO THE COUNCIL OF ANTIOCH WHICH SAT IN THE 
 
 YEAR 269. 
 
 In conjunction with Justin and Irenéus and Tertullian and 
 Novatian and Origen and Theognostus and Dionysius of Alex- 
 andria, I have not scrupled to adduce the Ecthesis, produced in 
 the year 431 by the Council of Ephesus against Nestorius, for 
 the purpose of shewing: that Zhe doctrine of THE son’s CON- 
 SUBSTANTIALITY WITH THE FATHER, instead of having been 
 invented by the Council of Nice which sat im the year 325, 
 had, in truth, even with the use of the very words OYXIA and 
 OMOOYZXIOS® or susstantTiA and CONSUBSTANTIALIS themselves, 
 been the established doctrine of the Catholic Church, in regular 
 succession downward, from the time of St. John who died in the 
 year 100. See above, book 1. chap. 10. § u. 1. 
 
 The ground of this adduction was: that Zhe Lcthesis, 
 although brought forward by the Council of Ephesus in the 
 year 431 against Nestorius, was really, either drawn up by the 
 Antiochian Fathers themselves in the year 264 or 269, or 
 adopted by them as being a then already existing yet more 
 ancient document which fully spoke their own sentiments. 
 
 Whence, if this chronological arrangement be accurate, the 
 
302 THE APOSTOLICITY [LAPP. II. 
 
 Ecthesis may justly be brought forward as an antenicene 
 testimony. 
 
 Such an arrangement of the Ecthesis I first met with in Dr. 
 Burton’s valuable Work on The Testimonies of the Antenicene 
 Fathers to the Divinity of Christ, p. 397—399: but I did not, 
 immediately, feel altogether satisfied as to its propriety. 
 
 Under this impression, I freely offered my objections to that 
 gentleman: and, in return, he favoured me with the following 
 statement, which convinced myself, and which he has kindly 
 allowed me to make public. 
 
 I feel no scruple in saying: that, when I admitted the Creed 
 to which you allude, as a Creed drawn up at Antioch a.p. 269; 
 I had some doubts, as to its genuineness. But I thought, that 
 the evidence in its favour preponderated: and, upon recon- 
 sidering that evidence in consequence of your letter, my former 
 impression is rather increased than diminished. 
 
 The objections against it appear to me to be two, which are 
 stated by yourself. 
 
 The document, which contains the Creed, cites it, as drawn up 
 at Nice and not at Antioch. 
 
 The Creed contains the word époovowc, which the Fathers 
 assembled at Antioch are known to have rejected. 
 
 I. As to the first of these objections, it must be allowed, that 
 the correction of évy "Avrioyeta for év Nixaig rests upon con- 
 jecture and inference only: for the Acts of the Council of 
 Ephesus published by Labbe, and also Kuthymius Zygabenus 
 (Panopl. Dogmat. p. 141.), expressly ascribe it to the Council 
 of Nice. 
 
 These are, I believe, the only ancient authorities, which 
 notice the Creed. But I should wish to know: how many 
 
 MSS of the Acts of the Council of Ephesus are in existence ; 
 and whether they all read éy Nuxatg. For I find: that the 
 
NUMB. I. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 303 
 
 Latin Version of these Acts, published by Peltanus in 1576, 
 ascribes the Creed to the Fathers assembled at Antioch. 
 
 If it were not for the frequent recurrence of the word 
 opmoovewwc, perhaps no person would object to the substitution 
 of ’Avrwyeig for Nuaiqa. For there is no other account what- 
 soever of the Council of Nice having pronounced’ sentence 
 against Paul of Samosata; who had been dead, when that 
 Council sat, at least fifty years. And, if they had intended to 
 condemn his doctrine: this Creed would hardly have been 
 called "Ex@eote rode Watdov Sapocaréa, but rather “ExOeore 
 m™o0¢ Tove ta IavAov dofaZlorrac. 
 
 I would add, that we have many histories of the Council of 
 Nice: and none of them contain mention of this Creed. If it 
 were really drawn up at Nice, it must have preceded that which 
 was ultimately adopted. Yet, though Eusebius mentions a 
 Creed proposed by himself to the Council, he does not say a 
 word of any other being presented or agreed upon. 
 
 II. I now come to the second objection: namely, that The 
 word opoovawwc, which so frequently occurs in this Creed, was 
 rejected by the Fathers assembled at Antioch. 
 
 This has been often asserted : but there are strong grounds 
 for doubting the truth of the assertion. 
 
 1, The two best Dissertations upon the subject, with which 
 I am acquainted, are, by Bishop Bull (Def. Fid. Nic. 1. 1, 9.), 
 and in the Preface to the roman edition of Dionysius Alexan- 
 drinus. 
 
 Bull adopts the notion; that the term was rejected by the 
 Council of Antioch: and gives a very satisfactory reason for the 
 circumstance. But, in the Preface to Dionysius, there are some 
 cogent arguments to shew: that the story, of the Antiochene 
 Council having rejected the term, was an entire fable. 
 
 The first time, it was ever heard of, was at the Council held 
 at Ancyra about A.D. 358: when the Semiarians, assembled 
 there, put forth a letter, in which the Antiochene Fathers con- 
 demned many blasphemous expressions of Paul, and among 
 others the word 6,00tcv0¢ which had been used by him. 
 
 7 
 
304 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. II. 
 
 This letter has never been produced. By which I mean: 
 not only that it has not come down to our times, but that Atha- 
 nasius and Hilary had also never seen it. 
 
 Hilary, who relates what took place at Ancyra most in detail, 
 merely says as follows. 
 
 Secundo quoque 1p appipisTIs, quod Patres nostri, cum 
 Paulus Samosatenus hzreticus pronunciatus est, etiam momo- 
 ouUSION repudiaverunt. Hilar. de Synod. 81. 
 
 Athanasius tells us expressly: that he had never seen this 
 letter, which mentioned the rejection of the term dpoovco.oc by the 
 Council of Antioch, 
 
 "Eero? 0&, we abrot act (ry yap éxtatohjy ovK Eaxor ey), 
 ol Tov Lapocaréa Karakpivarrec éEmloxorror ypapoyrec eipyKact, 
 eivat duoovatoy Tov Yidv ro Ilarpi.—Ei dé dvvarov iy evropjaat 
 Kal rij¢ érvaro\ie iy héyovow éxelvove yeypadévar, Hyovpac weEl- 
 ove evpeOhoeo0at rac mpopdacerc. Athan. de Synod. 43, 47. 
 
 Basil certainly states it, as a matter of fact: that the Fathers 
 at Antioch calumniated the phrase as not perspicuous. 
 
 AtéBaroy tiv E~w we ovK evanuory. Oper. vol. ili. p. 145. 
 
 But Basil lived some time later: and we can prove, that he 
 was not well informed about the matters, which took place 
 during the time of Paul of Samosata. 
 
 Thus he says :°A 0€ ércgnretc rév Atovucion, ie per cic hudc 
 Kal Tavd TOAAA' Ov wa pEOTL C€ pryy Ta PiPALA, dudwED OdK amEOTEL- 
 Aapev. Epist.ix. p. 91. 
 
 So that he confesses himself not well furnished with evidence 
 concerning Dionysius: and he proves this most fully, when he 
 goes on to say; that Dionysius disapproved of the term opoovcwe. 
 Now this we know to be a mistake; since Athanasius tells us, 
 that Dionysius used the term: and, what is more, we have a 
 Work of his remaining which actually contains it. Since, 
 therefore, Basil adopted a false report concerning Dionysius, it 
 was perfectly natural: that he should adopt another and a 
 similar one concerning the Council of Antioch. At least, we 
 cannot attach much credit to his testimony in this particular. 
 As to Athanasius, he certainly doubted the truth of this 
 
NUMB. I. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 305 
 
 story: and one reason, which he gives, is; that Both the 
 Dionysii, of Rome and of Alexandria, who lived before the 
 Council of Antioch, used the term dpoovove. 
 
 In regard to what is said; that The Antiochene Fathers 
 avoided the term, because it had been used by Paul: this seems 
 to be a mistatement. Paul only endeavoured to draw the 
 Catholics into a dilemma, by quibbling upon ther use of the 
 term: and Marius Mercator, who lived a.p. 418, expressly 
 says; that Paul did noé call the Son consubstantial with the 
 Father. Oper. p. 165. 
 
 2. I come now to other evidence, respecting the point at 
 present before us. 
 
 If the Fathers assembled at Antioch had rejected the term, it 
 would probably not have been in use in that diocese. 
 
 But Epiphanius, speaking of the people of Antioch itself, 
 says: ‘Opodoyovar wept Yiov Oavpaorc, Kat Td Opoovc.oy obK« 
 éxaddovory. Heer. Ixxiil. 28. 
 
 There was also another Council held at Antioch a.p. 363: 
 in which the party of Meletius wrote a letter to the Emperor 
 Jovian. In this letter, they defended the term dpoovctoc, to 
 which the opposite party objected. 
 
 “Ozore kal ro doxovy év abry Eévor Tioly Gvoma, TO TOU Opoovctov 
 paper, dopadoic TETUXNKE TAPA TOC TaTpaoLY Epunvelac. Socrat. 
 il. 25. 
 
 They would hardly have used this language, if they had 
 known of such formidable evidence being against them, as 
 the official rejection of the term, a hundred years before, in 
 their own city: and I cannot help thinking; that the total 
 silence of Eusebius upon this matter (who would certainly not 
 have been sorry to have heard of it) is some proof, that the 
 story was not true: and it is also strange; that the Arians 
 should never, before the Council of Ancyra a.p. 358, have 
 brought it forward. 
 
 3. The arguments, hitherto used, might perhaps lead us to 
 doubt, whether the story was not invented at that Council. 
 But we have another testimony, which decidedly confirms the 
 
 VOL, Il. x 
 
306 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. II. 
 
 notion: that the term duoovcwe was used at the Council of 
 Antioch. 
 
 Eusebius Doryleensis, who lived a.p. 448, and who strenu- 
 ously opposed Nestorius and accused him of agreeing with Paul 
 of Samosata, quotes the following passage, as from a Creed 
 drawn up at Antioch when Paul was condemned. 
 
 Ody ddyOivdy ék Ocod cdyOtv0d, 6pooboroy 7@ Ilarpi, ov ov 
 kat ol aid@vec karnotioOnoay. Euseb. Doryl. apud Anastas. Si- 
 nait. Hodeg. p. 324. 
 
 It is true, that these words are not found in the Creed which 
 is inserted in my Book: but they at least shew, that we ought 
 not to object to that Creed merely on account of its containing 
 the word opoovawc. In fact, the Creed, which I have inserted, 
 is not properly a Creed, but rather an Exposition of Faith con- 
 cerning the Son only: whereas Eusebius may have taken his 
 extract from what was actually a Creed. We can hardly con- 
 ceive, that the Council of Antioch did not draw up a Creed, 
 beside its Synodical Epistles still extant : and, since two Councils 
 were held against Paul, in a.p. 264 and a.p. 269, it is not im- 
 probable, that two or even more Creeds may have been agreed 
 upon. One of them may have been that, which was produced 
 at the Council of Ephesus: and another, that, from which 
 Eusebius made his extract. 
 
 In the collection of Councils published by Harduin, I find a 
 passage: which shews, that the Council of Antioch did draw 
 up such a Creed ; and which may perhaps explain, why the 
 one produced at Ephesus was said to have been agreed upon 
 at Nice. 
 
 This passage speaks of the great and holy Council at Nice 
 having confirmed the decision of the Fathers at Antioch. 
 
 BeBawwodone rov boy rév év’Avrwyelg. Harduin. Concil. 
 vol. i. p. 1639. 
 
 If the Council of Nice, in its authentic Acts, really inserted 
 the Creed of the Council of Antioch with its own ratification of 
 it: this may have misled the Council of Ephesus. 
 
 4. You will judge, whether there is any weight in this last 
 
NUMB. I. OF TRINITARIANISM. 307 
 
 argument: but I really think the evidence very strong; that 
 The Antiochene Fathers did not reject the term opoovowc, and 
 that They used it in their Creed. 
 
 5. Whether the Creed, which is now under discussion, was 
 drawn up by them: is more, than I can venture to decide. 
 
 But, if there is no external evidence to make us think that it 
 was drawn up at Nice, and if the only argument against its 
 being ascribed to Antioch is taken from the use of the term 
 époovowc: I should not be afraid of boldly altering Nicaig to 
 "Avrwyxelg. 
 
 The quibble of Paul of Samosata, alluded to by Dr. Burton, 
 was this. 
 
 With what cogency it is not very easy to discern, Paul chose 
 to argue: that, if the Father and the Son were of the same 
 substance; then there must have been a common substance 
 prior to them both, out of which the Father and the Son alike 
 emanated, or (as he expressed it) which was divided into the 
 Father and the Son. 
 
 The very existence of this quibble is of considerable histo- 
 rical importance. 
 
 Unless the term d6ootvc.w¢ had been familiarly known, and 
 constantly employed, in the early Antenicene Church: it is 
 quite clear, that the quibble itself could never have occurred. 
 
 The existence of the quibble, therefore, historically demon- 
 strates the antenicene antiquity both of the term and of the 
 doctrine set forth by the term. 
 
 xi 
 
NUMBER II. 
 
 RESPECTING THE ALLEGED ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN 
 FATHERS, THAT JOHN WAS THE FIRST WHO CLEARLY AND 
 BOLDLY TAUGHT THE DOCTRINES OF THE PREEXISTENCE AND 
 DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 As a matter of great importance to the cause of Antitrinita- 
 
 rianism, Dr. Priestley alleges the testimonies of certain of the ~ 
 
 Fathers, which, he thinks, distinctly prove: that St. John was 
 THE FIRST, who clearly and boldly taught the doctrines of the 
 preéxistence and divinity of Christ. 
 
 He then, to the allegation, subjoins the following reflections 
 by himself. 
 
 After reading these testimonies, so copious and so full to my 
 purpose, and UNCONTRADICTED BY ANY THING IN ANTIQUITY, if 
 is not possible to entertain a doubt with respect to the opinion of 
 the Christian Fathers. They must have thought: that The 
 doctrines of the preéxistence and divinity of Christ had not been 
 preached mith any effect before the writing of St. John’s Gospel ; 
 and, consequently, that, Before that time, the great body of 
 Christians must have been Unitarians. And rHEY ARE FAR 
 FROM GIVING THE LEAST HINT OF ANY OF THEM HAVING BEEN 
 EXCOMMUNICATED ON THAT accounT. When we consider how 
 late the three first Gospels mere written, the last of them not long 
 before that of John, which was near, if not after, the destruction 
 of Jerusalem; and that, in the opinion of the writers above 
 mentioned, all this caution and reserve had been necessary, till 
 that late period, on the part of the christian teachers : how is it 
 possible, that, in their idea, the Christian Church in general 
 
THE APOSTOLICITY OF TRINITARIANISM. 309 
 
 should have been well established in the belief of our Lord’s divi- 
 nity? They must have supposed: that, At the time of these 
 publications, which was about the year 64, the doctrine of the 
 divinity of Christ was not generally held by Christians. At 
 this period, therefore, it may be inferred: that, In the opinion of 
 these writers, the Christian Church was principally unitarian ; 
 believing only the simple humanity of Christ, and knowing 
 nothing of his divinity or preéxistence. Hist. of Early Opin. 
 book i. chap. 7. sect. 2. Works, vol. vi. p. 437. 
 
 In another part of his Works; apparently by a process not 
 dissimilar to that, through which a person, by the frequent re- 
 petition of a fable, succeeds finally in persuading himself that 
 there must be a great deal of truth in it: in another part of 
 his Works, referrmg to what he had previously written, Dr. 
 Priestley, with increasing confidence, advances still further. 
 
 I have suewn, says he: that, by the UNIVERSAL ACKNOWLEDG- 
 MENT OF THE ORTHODOX WRITERS, neither the preéxistence nor 
 the divinity of Christ was publicly taught by any Apostle before 
 John. Origin of the Arian Hypoth. Works, vol. vii. p. 482. 
 
 Such, with its asserted proof, is the allegation of Dr. 
 Priestley. 
 
 I. Now, even if we suppose the historian to have fully 
 SHEWN this matter by the universat acknowledgment of the 
 orthodox writers: still, under that supposition, I do not dis- 
 tinctly perceive, what benefit will accrue to his cause. 
 
 1. So far as I can understand the value of such a demon- 
 stration, it will amount only to this. 
 
 The Catholic Church did not receive the doctrines of Christ’s 
 preéxistence and divinity, until those doctrines were revealed to 
 her. 
 
 Now this revelation, by the untveRsaL acknowledgment of the 
 orthodox writers, as Dr. Priestley assures us, did not take place 
 until the year 69 when St. John put forth his mspired Gospel : 
 for, hitherto, neither the preéxistence nor the divinity of Christ 
 had been publicly taught by any Apostle. 
 
 Therefore, until the year 69, the Catholic Church, never 
 
310 THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. II. 
 
 having been publicly taught by any Apostle the doctrines of 
 Christ's preéxistence and divinity, did not receive and embrace 
 those doctrines. 
 
 2. What then? The inquirer will naturally ask. How does 
 this circumstance promote the cause of modern Antitrinita- 
 rianism ? 
 
 Really, I am quite unable to tell him. 
 
 If Dr. Priestley’s testimonies shew any thing, they simply 
 shew: that The Catholic Church did not hold the doctrines of 
 Christ's preéxistence and divinity, until, in the year 69, through 
 the inspired medium of St. John’s written Gospel, those doctrines 
 were for the first time publicly delivered to her ; but that, Ever 
 since that time, she has faithfully maintained them, on the ground 
 that they had been then publicly taught by direct apostolical 
 authority. 
 
 3. This, even by his own statement, is the whole, that Dr. 
 Priestley’s alleged testimonies either do or can establish. For, 
 if, anterior to the year 69, the Church held not doctrines, which, 
 at that time, had never been publicly taught to her by any 
 Apostle: her conduct, I apprehend, cannot afford much matter 
 either of triumph or of astonishment. 
 
 Yet, how all this, even if we grant it to be well established, 
 can benefit the cause of modern Antitrinitarianism : I am utterly 
 unable to divine. 
 
 I should rather think: that Dr. Priestley has been indus- 
 triously sharpening a sword against his own vitals. For, if, in 
 the year 69, the Church was, for the first time, publicly taught, 
 by apostolical authority, the doctrines of Christ’s preéxistence 
 and divinity: we may reasonably ask, wuy Dr. Priestley 
 rejected those doctrines, when, according to the alleged tenor 
 of his own testimonies, they have been thus, by inspired apos- 
 tolical authority itself, fully, though not immediately, delivered. 
 
 IJ. Let, however, the value, of what Dr. Priestley professes 
 to have surwn, be what it may: yet, since it certainly seems 
 strange, that the Church should never have known the doc- 
 trines in question until the year 69, and that in that precise 
 
 ee ee 
 
NUMB. I. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 311 
 
 eventful year they should for the first time have been publicly 
 taught by the inspired apostolical authority of St. John; we 
 may justly inquire, whether Dr. Priestley has really shewn 
 what he claims to have shewn. 
 
 He tells us: that he has sunwn the point before us by the 
 UNIVERSAL acknonledgment of the orthodox writers. 
 
 1. As this word untvERsaL is a very large word and mightily 
 comprehensive : so Dr. Priestley satisfies its grasping requisi- 
 tions after a manner peculiarly his own. 3 
 
 (1.) His jury of witnesses are, in number, precisely twelve : 
 and their authorities he produces, as he himself carefully in- 
 forms us, nearly in the order of time in which the writers flou- 
 rished. Hist. of Early Opin. book iii. chap. 7. Works, vol. vi. 
 p- 427. 
 
 (2.) Now the oldest of his witnesses is Origen, who flou- 
 rished about the middle of the third century: and the two 
 youngest of them are Nicephorus and Nicetas, who both flou- 
 rished in the ninth. 
 
 (3.) How, then, can the empanelling of such a jury, ad- 
 mitting them for the present to be wnanimous in their verdict, 
 substantiate the large allegation of the historian: that he has 
 actually sHewn the point before us by the UNtIvERSAL acknow- 
 ledgment of the orthodox writers ? 
 
 2. I would not unhandsomely trouble Dr. Priestley to pro- 
 duce evidence later than the ninth century: but I may justly 
 marvel, that he should lay claim to the un1vERsAL acknonledg~ 
 ment of the orthodox writers, and yet that he should call up no 
 jurors older than the middle of the third century and only a 
 single juror even of that antiquity. 
 
 One might think, that the verdict of his chosen twelve would 
 not have been injured by the concurring verdict of their seniors, 
 Clement of Rome, and the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, 
 and Ignatius, and Polycarp, and Justin, and: Irenéus, and 
 Athenagoras, and Tertullian, and Hippolytus, and Clement of 
 Alexandria, and Cyprian, and Novatian, or any other Father 
 
312 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. II. 
 
 of the Church either prior to or contemporary with Origen : if 
 such concurring verdict could have been obtained. 
 
 But the historian deemed it superfluous : and the voice of his 
 twelve men, good and true, albeit none of the oldest, is amply 
 sufficient to complete the UNIVERSAL acknowledgment of the 
 orthodox writers. ) 
 
 Ill. If, however, the early theologians refuse to assist Dr. 
 Priestley positively, by their unanimous, or indeed by any, 
 attestation of what he wishes to establish: they may, perad- 
 venture, at least serve him negatively, by the accommodating 
 excellence of holding their tongues. 
 
 Something of this sort-may seem to be insinuated by the bold 
 declaration, that the testimonies of his select twelve are UNCON- 
 TRADICTED BY ANY THING IN ANTIQUITY. 
 
 The phrase any tTu1N¢ is as large as the word unrversat. It 
 comprehends both uninspired and inspired testimony. As it is 
 dangerous to use ; because a single exception will evince its 
 fallacy : so it is easy to discuss; because its discussion requires 
 not, like its establishment, the copiousness of omnigenous 
 reading. 
 
 1. Dr. Priestley’s testimonies are uncontradicted by any thing 
 in antiquity. 
 
 What, then, shall we say to the distinct and perpetually re- 
 peated declarations of orthodox writers, older than any of those 
 adduced by the historian: that The doctrines of Christ’s god- 
 head and the Trinity, instead of being taught for the first time 
 by St. John in the year 69, were harmoniously delivered to the 
 Church, from the very beginning, by all the Apostles collectively ? 
 
 Does this circumstance leave the historian’s testimonies wn- 
 contradicted? Yet, in speaking of those doctrines, such are 
 the declarations, of Justin, and of the Writer to Diognetus, and 
 of Irenéus, and of Polycarp, and of Tertullian, and of Clement 
 of Alexandria. The list might easily be enlarged: but this 
 catalogue of ancient witnesses may suffice. 
 
 : i wv yévog dvOpwmrwy éNOdyre Tavra édidatay’ Kal 
 (1.) Eic wiv y p c; 
 
 7 
 | 
 
NUMB. II. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 313 
 
 ATIOSTOAOI xpoenyopebOncay. Justin. Apol.i. Oper. p. 67. 
 Compare Ibid. p. 43, 46, 47,52, 57, 58, 65. 
 
 (2.) AIOZTOAQN yevdpevoc padnrijc, yivopat ddacxadoc 
 2Ovev* ra wapacobévra a£iow VaNETH Yytvopevote dAnbeiac pa- 
 Onraic. Epist. ad Diog. in Oper. Justin. p. 387. 
 
 (3.) ‘H pév ydo’ExeAnoia, caimep kal? Sdye rife oiKkoupérne Ewe 
 mEparwy Tie vie cleaTappévn, Tapa de roy ATIOSTOAOQN kal 
 Tov ékelvwy pabytey mapadaovoa ry wiortv. Tren. adv. heer. 
 lib. i. c. 2. p. 84. Compare Ibid. lib. i. c¢. 2. p. 34—36. ¢. 3. 
 p. 36. lib. iv. c. 17. p. 243. 
 
 (4.) Hic (Polycarpus) docuit semper, quae ab apostoris di- 
 dicerat, que et Ecclesiz tradidit : et sola sunt vera. Iren. adv. 
 heer. lib. i. c. 3. p. 171. 
 
 (5.) Ebionzi etenim, eo evangelio quod est secundum Mat- 
 theeum solo utentes, EX ILLO IPSO convincuntur non recté pre- 
 sumentes de Domino. Iven. adv. her. lib. il. c. 11. §12. 
 p- 186. 
 
 (6.) Hane regulam as in1T10 EVANGELI decucurrisse. Ter- 
 tull. adv. Prax. § 2. Oper. p. 408. 
 
 (7.) In ea regula incedimus, quam Ecclesia ab APosToLis, 
 Apostoli a curisto, Christus a peo, tradidit. Tertull. de prae- 
 script. adv. her. § 14. Oper. p. 109. 
 
 (S.) "AAN’ ot pév ripy ayOA Tij¢ paxapiag owlorvrec Ovoackadiag 
 mTapdoocty, evOve dxo TETPOY re cat IAKQBOY, "lwavvov re 
 cat IAYAOY, rav ayiwy AMOZTOAQN, ratc rapd arpa 
 éxdexdpevoc’ dAtLyou O€ of Tarpdoty Gpovoc’ WKov o& avy O«@ kat 
 gic ude TA TOOYOVIKA EKelva kat droarodtKka Karabnodpevor oréo~ 
 para. Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. i. Oper. p. 274, 275. 
 
 (9.) "Eoucey d€ 6 Madaywyde tpay, d raidec tpeic, ro Tari 
 avrov To Og, ovmép ~orw Yiog avapapryroc, averidntros, Kar 
 arabic riy Wuyhv? Ode év avOpwrov oxhpart, dxoayroc, Tarpt- 
 k@ OedXnpare dvaxovoc, Aoyoc, Ocdc, 6 év ro Iarpl, 6 ék dehwr 
 rou [larpoc, ody Kal re oxnpare Oedc. Clem. Alex. Peedag. 
 lib. i. c. 2. Oper. p79, 80. 
 
 2, But Dr. Priestley’s testimonies are uncontradicted by any 
 thing in antiquity. 
 
314 THE APOSTOLICITY (APP. II. 
 
 That his testimonies are, again and again, flatly contradicted 
 by the really ancient writers of the Church: we have already seen. 
 
 That these same testimonies are virtually, though decisively, 
 contradicted even by the very Gospel of St. John himself: we 
 shall next see. 
 
 Most singular and most unaccountable is the confusion of 
 ideas, under which Dr. Priestley seems to have laboured 
 throughout the whole of his discussion. 
 
 His object is to prove: that John, in the year 69, through the 
 medium of his written Gospel, was the rixst, who publicly taught 
 the hitherto not publicly taught, and therefore the hitherto eccle- 
 siastically unknown and unreceived, doctrines of Christ's pre- 
 existence and divinity. 
 
 For this purpose, he adduces the testimonies of twelve 
 several writers. 
 
 And then he declares: that these testimonies are uncontra- 
 dicted by any thing in antiquity. 
 
 Yet, all the while, even to say nothing of the constantly op- 
 posing language of writers much earlier than any one of those 
 whom he adduces, the very structure of St. John’s written 
 Gospel ¢éself alone demonstrates THE ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY 
 of the fact alleged. 
 
 (1.) I need scarcely point out the familiar peculiarity of the 
 last published Gospel, as written by the beloved disciple of the 
 Lord. — 
 
 Much less historical than any one of its three predecessors, 
 it is composed almost exactly upon the plan of Xenophon’s 
 Memorabilia of Socrates or of Boswell’s Life of Johnson. 
 
 Throughout, it is dramatic, rather than narrative. Of the 
 Saviour it recites numerous discourses, which appear not in the 
 other more professedly historical Gospels: it states many of the 
 objections, which were made to the peculiarity of his language : 
 and, in short, it may well be styled The Memorabilia of the great 
 Founder of Christianity. 
 
 What, then, is the inevitable result from this mode of com- 
 
 position ? 
 
NUMB. II. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 315 
 
 Clearly, it is the following. 
 
 With the single exception of the remarkable exordium of his 
 written Gospel, it was PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, that John, whe- 
 ther he stated facts or wrote down discourses under the influ- 
 ence of that divine inspiration which effectually preserved him 
 from all error and inaccuracy of detail, could communicate any 
 thing new: that is to say, with the single exception of his 
 exordium, it was PHYSICALLY IMpossIBLE, that John could com- 
 municate any thing which had not been previously knonn. 
 
 For those, who had heard our Lord’s discourses, well knew 
 what he had said, long before John authoritatively committed 
 them, for the benefit of late posterity, to the durability of 
 writing : and those, who had witnessed the recorded facts, must 
 have been fully acquainted with the facts, long anterior to the 
 time when the facts themselves were recorded in imperishable 
 letters. 
 
 Hence it is manifest: that The onty part of the last written 
 Gospel, which can strictly be called new or which can be viewed 
 as previously unheard of, is its brief, though very remarkable, 
 exordium. 
 
 The true question, therefore, is: Do we find no supposed in- 
 dication of Christ’s preéxistence and divinity in any part of St. 
 John’s Gospel, save in the exordium which stands prefixed to wu ? 
 
 If this be the case: then it might, plausibly at least, be urged ; 
 that John was the rirst who publicly taught those PREVIOUSLY 
 UNKNOWN doctrines. 
 
 If this be not the case: then the exordium can be viewed in 
 no other light, than that of a compact and well digested state- 
 ment of doctrines, which had already been revealed, and which 
 in fact (agreeably to the express attestation of the really early 
 Fathers) had been known to the Church from the very beginning. 
 
 Now Dr. Priestley must have been well aware: that proofs 
 of the preéxistence and divinity of Christ, no matter whether 
 he deem them valid or invalid, are brought by the Catholic, not 
 merely from the exordium, but also from various other parts, of 
 
 St. John’s Gospel. 
 
 ° 
 
316 THE APOSTOLICITY  [App. 11, 
 
 Such being the case, every proof of this latter description, if 
 it demonstrate the divinity of Christ, will, of plain necessity, 
 demonstrate also: that the doctrine of his divinity could not 
 but have been known Jong anterior to the time when the last 
 written Gospel was published. For all such proofs are taken 
 from facts or discourses, which John indeed has recorded in 
 writing, but with which numbers beside himself must have been 
 previously acquainted. 
 
 Hence, the very necessity of the mode, in which the last write 
 ten Gospel is composed, puysicaLLy precludes the possibility 
 of St. John having been the FIRST, who, through the medium 
 of his written Gospel, publicly taught the doctrines of Christ’s 
 preéxistence and divinity. 
 
 Thus, to give a single instance, the beloved disciple has com- 
 mitted to durable writing the important fact : that Thomas, in 
 the presence of all the assembled disciples, addressed his Saviour, 
 nithout incurring the slightest rebuke, by the compellation of mx 
 LORD AND MY GOD. 
 
 Now the fact itself was notorious, long before St. John com- 
 posed his Gospel. And, from the primitive ages down to the 
 present day (See above, append. i. numb. i. text 26.), the 
 Catholic has never ceased to view it as a direct and positive 
 proof: that The divinity of Christ was well known to the whole 
 body of the faithful, at least as early as the occurrence of the 
 resurrection. 
 
 Therefore it is puystcanty rmpossiBie: that John could have 
 been the rrrsr; who, under the aspect of a perfectly new and 
 hitherto unheard of doctrine, revealed it through the medium 
 of his written Gospel. The record of tHE Fact inevitably 
 demonstrates the anterior knowledge of run TENET. 
 
 (2.) As illustrative of this mode of examining St. John’s 
 Gospel, I shall here adduce a very important statement of 
 Trenéus. 
 
 After giving us the most ancient Symbol extant, in which 
 the godhead of Christ is distinctly and even verbally asserted 
 (Xpior® “Inood, ro Kupi iyuoy Kat Oe), Irenéus goes on to 
 
 | 
 
NUMB. II. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 317 
 
 repeat, what he had already said in his introduction of the 
 Symbol: that The Catholic Church, in the beginning, received 
 this faith from the Apostles. And then he adds: that, Jn re- 
 gard to such faith, there was no diversity of opinion throughout 
 any of either the provincial or national Churches, whether 
 founded in Germany, or among the Iberians, or among the Celts, 
 or in the East, or in Egypt, or in Libya, or in the middle re- 
 gions of the world. 
 
 Such being his testimony to a Fact, we are obviously led to 
 ask: After what precise manner, was Christianity, in the first 
 instance, planted by the Apostles ? 
 
 The answer is: that They planted it, in those various regions, 
 altogether oratty; before any one of the four wrirren Gos- 
 pels, much more consequently before the latest of them, was pub- 
 lished by each several evangelist. 
 
 This was the mode, then, in which doubtless Christianity was 
 originally planted by the Apostles. ; 
 
 Yet, by the express testimony of Irenéus, wherever they 
 went, when as yet no written Gospel was in existence, they 
 always preached the godhead of Christ. And, in consequence 
 of this their antecedent orat predication, that doctrine was, 
 from the very first, an unvarying article of faith with all the 
 provincial or national Churches throughout the world. Iren. 
 adv. heer. lib. i. c. 2, 3. p. 3436. 
 
 Accordingly, in another place, Irenéus, with invincible force, 
 presses home, against the innovating heretics of his own day, 
 this identical fact: that Numerous Churches had been aposto- 
 ically planted among the unlettered barbarians BY woRD OF 
 MOUTH ONLY; and that, 4s these Churches received the doctrine 
 of Christ’s incarnate godhead (1rpsE PER SE HOMINEM ADUNANS 
 DEO) without ANY WRITTEN LETTERS, So, still without ANY WRIT- 
 TEN LETTERS, diligently guarding the ancient ORAL communica- 
 tion, they preserved inviolate and unchanged the same doctrine. 
 Iren. adv. heer. lib. iii. c. 4. p. 162. 
 
 (3.) To the illustrative testimony of Irenéus may be added 
 
318 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. II. 
 
 that, which is afforded by the Epistles of the great Apostle of 
 the Gentiles. 
 
 Every one of those Epistles was composed and published 
 prior to the Gospel written by St. John. 
 
 Now the same doctrines, which St. Paul taught in his 
 Epistles by writing, he would doubtless teach to his converts 
 by word of mouth also. For it is incredible: that he should 
 write one doctrinal system, and yet that he should preach 
 another. 
 
 But, in the Epistles of St. Paul, according to the judgment 
 of the ancient as well as of the modern Catholic Church (See 
 above, append. i. numb. 1. texts 27——34.), are contained some 
 of the very strongest written attestations to the doctrines of 
 Christ’s preexistence and divinity. 
 
 Therefore, as Irenéus most truly states under the aspect of a 
 then well-known and familiar ract, these doctrines must, from 
 the very beginning, and consequently long before the publication 
 of St. John’s written Gospel, have been orally delivered, to all 
 the first planted Churches, by the collective inspired Apostles 
 themselves. 
 
 IV. The well-informed student of ecclesiastical antiquity, 
 who recollects that from the very first the Ebionites were con- 
 demned as heretics, will readily absolve me from the necessity 
 of taking any lengthened notice of Dr. Priestley’s assertion : 
 that The early Fathers are far from giving the least hint of 
 any primitive individuals having been excommunicated, on ac- 
 count of their believing only the simple humanity of Christ. 
 
 Such an assertion closely resembles but too many other 
 assertions of the historian: and with this brief remark I dis- 
 miss it. | 
 
 V. I might now freely yield to Dr. Priestley his twelve 
 comparatively modern authorities: but, partly from a love of 
 truth, and partly from a wish to give a distinct idea of his mode 
 of writing history, I shall not suffer them to stand without some 
 examination. 
 
 ~ 
 
 — s 
 
 whe | ee 
 
 ree ee 
 
 — 
 
 Pe ee ee ee ee a 
 
 ij 
 
 ik 
 
 4 
 * 
 * 
 
NUMB. II. | OF TRINITARIANISM. B19 
 
 The witnesses, whom he summons to.attest the asserted 
 Fact; that St. John was the rirst, who, in his written Gospel, 
 clearly and boldly taught the doctrines of Christ’s preéxistence 
 and divinity: are Origen, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, 
 Jerome, Ambrose, Cyril of Alexandria, Marius-Mercator, 
 Cosmas-Indicopleustes, Theophylact, Nicephorus, and Nicetas 
 the Paphlagonian. Hist. of Early Opin. book iii. chap. 7. 
 sect. 1. Works, vol. vi. p. 427—437. 
 
 1. Now, of Dr. Priestley’s cited witnesses, two, namely 
 Origen and Ambrose, are imperfect, and therefore insufficient, 
 in their testimony. 
 
 (1.) These two writers do not say: that John was THE FIRST 
 who taught the doctrines of Christ's preéxistence and divinity 
 nith clearness and boldness ; whence, anterior to the publication 
 of his Gospel in the year 69, the great body of Christians must 
 have been Unitarians, believing only the simple humanity of 
 Christ, and knowing nothing of his divinity or preéxistence. 
 
 But they only say, even according to Dr. Priestley’s own 
 exhibition of their sentiments: that No previous EVANGELIST 
 taught those doctrines so clearly as John; and that John almost 
 alone, out of the four EVANGELISTS, has introduced them into uts 
 GOsPEL. Orig. Comment. in Johan. Oper. vol. ii. p. 5. Ambros. 
 de consens. evangel. lib. i. c. 5. 
 
 (2.) Now declarations of this description are widely different 
 from a sweeping declaration: that, Before the publication of 
 St. John’s Gospel in the year 69, the Church believed only the 
 simple humanity of Christ, and knew nothing of his divinity or 
 preéaistence. 
 
 Such declarations, as those of Origen and Ambrose, respect 
 solely, even ex professo, the four EvANGELIsTs. They refer not 
 to any other of the inspired writers: for some of the strongest ' 
 proofs of Christ’s preéxistence and divinity have constantly 
 been adduced from the Epistles of St. Paul; all of which were 
 written, as I have already observed, anterior to the Gospel of 
 St. John. In regard to the specific plan and character, therefore, 
 of the four cosPELs exclusively, the declarations assert only, 
 
320 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. Il. 
 
 what we all know to be true in fact: that John entered into the 
 doctrines more largely, than either Matthew or Mark or Luke. 
 The comparison, in short, lies, between John and the three 
 other EVANGELISTS, not between John and Paul. 
 
 2. A similar measure of inaccuracy characterises Dr. Priest- 
 ley’s management of the language of Eusebius. 
 
 (1.) That historian does not say: that John was THE FIRST 
 who clearly taught in his written Gospel the doctrines of Christ's 
 preéxistence and divinity ; and that, For want of such antecedent 
 teaching, the Church, prior to the year 69, was doctrinally anti- 
 trinitarian and humanitarian. 
 
 He only tells us: that, While Matthew and Mark and Luke 
 chiefly related those actions of our Lord, which were performed 
 after the imprisonment of the Baptist ; John detailed those which 
 preceded that imprisonment, beginning his Gospel mith his 
 Master’s divinity which by the Holy Spirit had been more pecu- 
 liarly reserved to him as their superior. Euseb. Hist. Eccles, 
 lib. ili. c. 24, 
 
 (2.) Here, as inthe former case of Origen and Ambrose, we 
 have nothing more than a remark, which exclusively affects the 
 four EVANGELISTS. 
 
 Eusebius very truly states: that the fourth Gospel was 
 written on a different principle from that of its three prede- 
 cessors. For, while the three first Evangelists were led by 
 the Spirit to give an accurate detail of the later actions of 
 Christ, the fourth Evangelist was led by the same Spirit to note 
 indeed his earlier actions, but chiefly to enter largely and fully 
 into the doctrine of his divinity. 
 
 (3.) In good sooth, had Eusebius asserted any such matter 
 as Dr. Priestley would put into his mouth, he would have flatly 
 contradicted himself. For, in the course of the very same 
 chapter he tells us: that John, who had long orally preached 
 the doctrinal truths of Christianity without using any written 
 document, was finally induced to commit his sentiments and his 
 ‘information to the durability of immortal letters. The result 
 of this was the production of the fourth Gospel. 
 
 Se Ss ee 
 
 Se a 
 
NUMB. II. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 321 
 
 According, then, to Eusebius, when Eusebius is fairly allowed 
 to tell his own story: what John finally committed to writing, he 
 had previously been in the constant habit of orally preaching. 
 
 Now, what John orally preached, we are quite sure, that all 
 his other brethren of the Apostolical College, equally and har- 
 moniously, preached orally likewise. 
 
 The testimony of Eusebius, therefore, instead of shewing 
 that the doctrines of Christ’s preéxistence and divinity were 
 only for the first time clearly revealed to the Church when 
 John published his written Gospel, distinctly shews the very 
 reverse. For it shews: that The identical doctrines, which 
 were finally committed to writing, had always, before that time, 
 been orally preached and declared. 
 
 3. Much the same remarks equally apply to Dr. Priestley’s 
 treatment of Chrysostom. 
 
 (1.) This writer, after giving a comparative account of 
 the four Evancetists exactly similar to that of Eusebius, con- 
 cludes with an observation, which contradicts, instead of corro- 
 borating, the wild speculation of the modern historian of Early 
 Opinions. 
 
 John on the one hand, he tells us, and the three prior Evan- 
 GELIsTs on the other hand, had respectively their own proper 
 plan marked out by the good Spirit of God. But still none of 
 them so rigidly adhered to their several plans, as not mutually 
 to participate in the plans-of each other. Thus, if John was 
 not so absorbed in his higher theme of the Lord’s divinity, but 
 that he could also briefly touch upon the economy of his 
 human incarnation: Matthew and Mark and Luke, conversely, 
 were not so tied to a bare narrative of actions, as to be silent 
 in regard to his eternal preexistence. For it was one and the 
 same Spirit, who influenced the minds of them all. 
 
 “O dé d&ioy pera rovro Oavydout, éxeivo pddiora eimely éorw" 
 Ort pre ovroc, modc Tov bndOrepoy EavTdy Néyor Adeic, rife oi- 
 Kovopiac péednoe pre Exetvor, THY TEpl TaUTNE EgTOVOAKdreEc OLT}~ 
 yuo, THY TpOaLwYLoY éoiynoay vrapity. Kal pada eikdrwc’ ev 
 yap hy To Ivetpa ro Kevovy Tac amravrwy Wuxac. Ato kat mwodA-= 
 
 VOL. Il. Ni 
 
322 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. I. 
 
 Ajy, Tet THY amayyedtay, érecdetEavro Tiv dpdvotay. Chrysost. 
 Homil. iv. in Johan. i. 1. 
 
 (2.) Instead of setting John in a sort of opposition to the 
 three prior Evangelists, as Dr. Priestley would have him do: 
 Chrysostom avowedly celebrates the abundant (7zodX)}y) mutual 
 concord and harmony of all the four. 
 
 4. Let us next pass conjointly to Epiphanius and Jerome. 
 
 (1.) Dr. Priestley’s grave adduction of these two writers is 
 not a little unaccountable: for, like Chrysostom, they bear 
 testimony directly adverse to the opinion, which they are oddly 
 brought forward to support. 
 
 Epiphanius declares: that John wrote his Gospel to call back 
 into the fold of the Church those who had unhappily strayed 
 from it into the heresy of Humanitarianism. Epiph. Her. 
 Ixix. 23. 
 
 And Jerome asserts: that the Apostle composed his Gospel, 
 at the intreaty of the Asiatic Bishops, for the purpose of con- 
 founding the Cerinthians and the Ebionites, who, though with 
 some difference of modification, alike maintained, that our 
 Lord had no existence before his birth from Mary. Hieron. 
 Oper. vol. vi. Procem, in Matt. Evan. 
 
 (2.) Thus speak Dr. Priestley’s two witnesses, Epiphanius 
 and Jerome. 
 
 If, then, John wrote his Gospel, to bring back those who 
 had wandered from the truth of Orthodoxy mto the error of 
 Humanitarianism ; and if he wrote at the request of the Asiatic 
 Bishops, to confound the heresy of the Cerinthians and the 
 Ebionites : it is quite clear, from the very necessity of such 
 statements, that he could not, by the act of publishing his Gos- 
 pel, have been the first who clearly and boldly taught the doc- 
 trines of Christ’s preéxistence and divinity; and it is equally 
 clear, from the very necessity of the same statements, that the 
 Church could not, anterior to the publication of his Gospel, 
 have been ignorant of Christ’s preéxistence and divinity, and 
 ‘thence (as Dr. Priestley would persuade us) have believed 
 only in his simple humanity. 
 
 ee 
 Ln 
 
NUMB. II. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 323 
 
 For the wanderers, whom John sought to reclaim, had actu- 
 ally strayed from those identical doctrines of Christ’s preéxist- 
 ence and divinity: and the Asiatic Bishops, at whose special 
 request he wrote against the humanitarian heresy, certainly 
 could not themselves, either have been ignorant of the doctrines 
 in question, or have all the while been holding that very hu- 
 manitarian dogma which they besought him to confound by the 
 authority of his apostolical censure. 
 
 Hence, even on the very surface of the case, it is manifest : 
 both that the wanderers must have originally held the doctrines 
 of Christ’s preéxistence and divinity, and that the Asiatic Bi- 
 shops must always have held them. For no man can be brought 
 back to what he had never forsaken: and no man can gravely 
 urge the condemnation of a doctrine, which he himself has never 
 ceased to maintain. 
 
 Epiphanius and Jerome, therefore, are witnesses, not for Dr. 
 Priestley’s wild speculation, but against it. So far as their 
 testimony can avail, they distinctly prove: that The doctrines 
 of Christ’s preéxistence and divinity were the familiar and esta- 
 blished doctrines of the Catholic Church, BEForE St. John wrote 
 and published his Gospel. 
 
 5. But the most gross and shameless perversion of an 
 ancient author, which it has ever been my fortune to encounter, 
 is involved in Dr. Priestley’s adduction of Cyril of Alexandria. 
 
 (1.) The Emperor Julian had alleged: that Christians did 
 not abide even by what had been declared by the Apostles. 
 
 For, said he, neither Paul nor Matthew nor Luke nor Mark 
 had ever dared to call Jesus cov, but only the good man John: 
 and he was induced to do so, merely because a great multitude, 
 both in the greek and in the italian cities, had been infected with 
 the humour of deifying and worshipping the deceased. Cyril. 
 Alex. cont. Julian. lib. x. p. 327. 
 
 (2.) Such, in form was the allegation of Julian: and Cyril 
 meets it, not by an acknonledgment of its general truth, but by 
 a flat contradiction of it altogether. 
 
 John, says he, was nor the first, who called Jesus cop. But 
 
 Y 2 
 
324 THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. IT. 
 
 those, who wrote before him, Luke, I mean, and Matthew and 
 Mark, called him torpv and Gov: every where ascribing to him 
 the highest glory. 
 
 "AN ovde ToGToe Edn Oedy elvar Tov Inooty’ adda Kal ot pd 
 abrov yeypaddrec, Aoukde re dnpi, kat MarOaioc, kat pév roe kat 
 Mdpkoc, Kiprov 0é cat Ocdy wvdpaloy adroy, thy bmeprdrny ddgayv 
 amovépovrec wavraxov. Cyril. Alex. cont. Julian. lib. x. p. 331. 
 
 The mode, in which the earlier Evangelists called Christ cop, 
 he states to be, partly by their setting forth the fact of his 
 miraculous conception in the character of EMANUEL or of GoD 
 witH vs, and partly by their denominating him THE SON OF GOD: 
 inasmuch as the phrase, THE SON OF GOD, indicates, of necessity, 
 The Son’s Consubstantiality and Coéternity mith the Father. 
 For, says Cyril, they well knew: that He is cop in nature and 
 im verity. See below, append. ii. numb. 10. 
 
 Christ being thus Trur Gop, because he is the consubstantial 
 and coéternal son oF Gop, John (as Cyril proceeds to state) 
 consistently teaches us: that Jn the beginning was the Word; 
 and that God was nith God. Cyril. Alex. cont. Julian. lib. x. 
 p- 328. 
 
 So much for the three earlier Evangelists. With respect to 
 Paul, whom the Emperor had associated with them in his alle- 
 gation, Cyril here again meets his opponent with a flat denial: 
 and he proves his point, precisely as the Church Catholic in all 
 ages has proved it. 
 
 Paul, says Julian, never dared to call Jesus cop. 
 
 You totally err, replies Cyril. For Paul expressly calls him 
 cop, when, in his Epistle to the Romans, he says: Whose are 
 the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came ; 
 who is over all cop blessed for ever. Cyril. Alex. cont. Julian. 
 lib. X. p.. 828, 
 
 (3.) These are the materials, on the strength of which, 
 incredible as it may well seem, Dr. Priestley alleges Cyril, 
 as asserting: that Nezther Matthem nor Mark nor Luke ever 
 taught the divinity of Christ; but that That doctrine was, for 
 the first tume, publicly and boldly declared by St. John. 
 
NUMB. II. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 325 
 
 Doubtless, such an assertion is to be found in the Works of 
 Cyril: but, in truth, the real proprietor of the assertion is, not 
 Cyril himself, but the apostate Emperor Julian. 
 
 6. The only witnesses, whom Dr. Priestley can now, in any 
 sort, call his own, are Marius-Mercator, Cosmas-Indicopleustes, 
 Theophylact, Nicephorus, and Nicetas the Paphlagonian. 
 
 In my retired situation, I have not those authors at hand for 
 the useful purpose of verification. But, if I may draw any 
 inference from the general character of Dr. Priestley’s his- 
 torical discoveries, I should strongly suspect; that they have 
 been grievously misrepresented: I should strongly suspect ; 
 that they never affirm, what Dr. Priestley alleges them to 
 affirm. | 
 
 Be this, however, as it may; even if they have advanced the 
 monstrous and absurd assertion ascribed to them: still, ina 
 question of the present nature, chronology alone might well 
 forbid the assigning of any weight to their authority. 
 
 Marius-Mercator, the earliest of Dr. Priestley’s remaining 
 witnesses, lived in the fifth century: Cosmas-Indicopleustes, 
 in the sixth: Theophylact, in the seventh: and Nicephorus 
 and Nicetas, in the ninth. 
 
 Not one of them, in short, can be reckoned an ancient wit- 
 ness: a witness, that is to say, who, from his nearness to the 
 times of the Apostles, might give a really valuable and authori- 
 tative testimony. 
 
 In the professed redundance of Dr. Priestley’s evidence, he 
 actually produces only a single solitary witness from the three 
 first ages: and that witness, Origen to wit who flourished not 
 earlier than the middle of the third century, is nothing to his 
 purpose. 
 
NUMBER III. 
 
 RESPECTING THE ALLEGATION, THAT ORIGEN DOUBTED WHETHER 
 THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS NOT A CREATURE, AND THAT HE ALTO= 
 
 GETHER REJECTED THE RELIGIOUS ADORATION OF THE SON. 
 
 [ wave already noticed the extraordinary historical information, 
 which Dr. Priestley professes to derive from the language of 
 Origen (See above, book ii. chap. 4.): it may be useful, in the 
 way of illustrating his very peculiar mode of writing history, 
 to observe yet further his dealings with that ancient Father. 
 
 I. Origen, Dr. Priestley tells us, considered it as doubtful ; 
 whether, since all things were made by Christ, the Spirit also 
 was not made by him: and the historian then proceeds to verify 
 his remarkable assertion through the medium of a passage, in 
 which Origen expresses no doubt ai all. See Hist. of Early 
 Opin. book il. chap. 9. sect. 1. Works, vol. vi. p. 303. 
 
 This paradox may well nigh seem incredible: but the truth 
 is; that the notion of Origen’s doubtfulness was hastily caught 
 up, in direct opposition to his own express statement, from a 
 superficial view and a total misapprehension of the preceding 
 context. 
 
 1. Origen’s imaginary doubifulness is, in reality, a brief 
 account of three several opinions: one of which seems to be a 
 purely hypothetical case ; and another of which is evidently 
 meant, as an exhibition of the doctrine of the Patripassians. 
 
 Since tt 1s a truth, says he, that all things were made by the 
 Word: let us now inquire; Whether the Holy Spirit was also 
 made by him. 
 
THE APOSTOLICITY OF TRINITARIANISM. 327 
 
 Non I think: that a person, who believes the Spirit to have 
 been made, and who alleges the text All things were made by the 
 Word, must needs hold; that the Word made the Spirit. 
 
 But the person, who denies that the Spirit was made by Christ, 
 and who yet believes the assertion in the Gospel to be true, must 
 maintain: that the Spirit was unmade. 
 
 A third person, again, may advance yet another opinion : for 
 he may teach; that the Holy Spirit has no existence distinct 
 
 From the Father and the Son. . 
 
 But, of this man nill only give his attention, he may the rather 
 think that the Son is distinct from the Father, inasmuch as there 
 as an evident distinction made between the Son and the Spirit in 
 that text: Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of 
 man, it shall be forgiven him; but, whosoever shall blaspheme 
 against the Holy Ghost, he shall not have forgiveness either in 
 this or mn the future world. 
 
 2. Such is the preceding context: and then follows the pas- 
 sage, which Dr. Priestley adduces in connection with it, by way 
 of proving; that Origen thought it a matter of doubt, whether 
 the Holy Spirit was not made by Christ. 
 
 But we, indeed; who are persuaded that there are three hypos- 
 tases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and who 
 believe, that nothing beside the Father is unbegotten : we main- 
 tain, as being more pious and true; that, although all things 
 mere made by the Word, yet the Holy Spirit is more honourable 
 in degree than all those things which were made through Christ 
 by the Father. Comment. in Johan. tom. ii. Oper. vol. ii. p. 56. 
 
 8. Agreeably to this decision, which is plainly given in op- 
 position to those who would either reduce the Spirit to the rank 
 of a creature or confound him with the Father and the Son 
 conjointly, Origen, in the course of the same Work where he 
 makes it, more than once speaks of the Holy Ghost as being 
 the third person of the Trinity: remarking, that, if to the 
 Father and the Son you add the Spirit, your theology will then 
 be the best and the most perfect. Ibid. p. 397, 416. 
 
 4 The speculation, Whether the Holy Ghost was not made 
 
328 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. II. 
 
 by the Word because all things were made by the Word, is ob- 
 viously a mere quibble, which Origen amuses himself with 
 discussing. But, as for his entertaining any doubt himself on 
 the subject, his own words, even as cited by Dr. Priestley, are 
 utterly irreconcileable with such a notion. 
 
 The Father, as the fountain of Deity, he maintains, with the 
 Catholic Church in every age, to be alone unbegotten or self- 
 originating; while the Word is the only-begotten Son of the 
 Father ; and while the consubstantial Spirit proceeds from the 
 Father by the Son. 
 
 IJ]. Dr. Priestley furthermore cites two several passages 
 from Origen, for the purpose of shewing: that Origen alto- 
 gether rejected the religious adoration of the Son. 
 
 1. According to the first of the cited passages, Origen speaks 
 as follows. 
 
 No Christian prays to any other than to the God who is over 
 all, by our Saviour, the Son of God, who is the Logos and the 
 Wisdom and the Truth, Orig. apud Hist. of Early Opin. 
 bookii. chap. 4. Works, vol. vi. p. 254. 
 
 (1.) In his wonted eager desire to establish by whatsoever 
 means a favourite position, the historian has unluckily quite 
 forgotten to tell his readers: that, in the course of the very 
 same brief passage whence his citation is taken, Origen spe- 
 cially dtsavows the opinion wherewithal it is attempted to saddle 
 him. 
 
 As he teaches us, that Christ is the living Word and God: 
 so, in strict harmony with such instruction, he adds ;_ that while 
 we pray to the Father through the Word, it is also our duty, to 
 supplicate the Word himself, and to offer up intercessions to 
 him, and To PRAY TO HIM. 
 
 Haoay pev ydo dénoty, kal moocevyny, Kal éevreviiy, Kal ed- 
 Xapioriay, dvameuTréov TO Evi Taot Oe@, Cid Tov éxl TayTwy dy- 
 yélwy doxtepéwc, Euoyov Adyov kai Oeov. Aenodpeba cai adrov 
 Tov Aoyov, kal evrevedpeOa air@, Kat evyaptorhooper, Kat IIPOX- 
 EYZOME®@A 0é, éav Ovvwpeba Karakovery Tig TeEpl TPOTEVX IC 
 kupwodeciac Kal karaxphoewco. Orig. cont. Cels, lib. v. p. 233. 
 
NUMB., III. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 329 
 
 After this, follow four lines, in which Origen reprobates the 
 worship of angels: and then occurs the clause, from which, 
 because it inculcates the worship of God the Father through 
 the mediatorial Son, Dr. Priestley has rapidly learned and tri- 
 
 ‘umphantly communicated, that Origen REJECTED ALTOGETHER 
 the worship of Christ. 
 
 Atrn 4 émoripin, mapacrioaca riy dbo. abroy Kal E@’ oic 
 elaty éxacrot (scil. dyyéAdor) retaypévor, ovK édoer GAAw Oappety 
 evyxec0at, 7] TO To0C TavTa OlapKel éwl TaOL DEW, dia TOU Bwriooe 
 hpov Yiov rov Oot" be gore Adyoc, kal Logia, kat “AAHDea, 
 cat doa c&dNa Eyovar TEpl ad’rov ai THY TpodyTGY TOV OEov Kal 
 tov dxoorddwy Tov Inoot ypagai. Ibid. lib. v. p. 233. 
 
 (2.) According to Origen, the Father is to be worshipped 
 with his own proper worship ; and the Son is a/so to be wor- 
 shipped with Ais own proper worship : inasmuch as the Father 
 is God over all; and inasmuch as the Son is the living Word 
 and God. 
 
 The opposition lies, not between the adoration of the Father 
 and the adoration of the Son, but between the adoration of the 
 Father through the Son and the idolatrous adoration of angels. 
 
 (3.) That part of Origen’s statement, which respects the 
 adoration of the Son, whether it be in the way of intercession 
 or of thanksgiving or of prayer, Dr. Priestley deliberately sup- 
 presses; and then, citing alone that other part which inculcates 
 the worship of the Father through the Son in opposition to the 
 idolatrous worship of angels, he, on the strength of this garbled 
 citation, assures his readers; that Origen REJECTED ALTOGE- 
 THER the worship of the Son. 
 
 2. The historian, however, quotes yet another passage from 
 Origen. 
 
 If we know what prayer is, we must not pray to any one of 
 things produced, not even to the Christ himself, but to the alone 
 God and Father of all things : to whom also our Saviour himself 
 prayed. Orig. apud Hist. of Early Opin. book 11. chap. 4. 
 Works, vol. vi. p. 254, 255. 
 
 In thus giving the words at least of Origen, Dr. Priestley is 
 
330 THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. IL. 
 
 certainly correct: for the Greek of that Father runs in manner 
 following. 
 
 "Edy 0€ dxovwmev Ore mor éort TOOTEVYX)}, PNTOTE OVOEVL THY 
 yevenTwov TpogEvKTEéOY Early, OvdE adTO TO XpuoT@, GAAA pdvy TO 
 Oe@ Twy Owy Kal Larpi: § Kal abroe 6 LwrIp Ov TeoondbyeETO, 
 we TapeBeueba, Kal OvddcKer nag moocebyxecbat, Orig. de Orat. 
 § 15. Oper. vol. i. p. 222. Paris. 1733. 
 
 (1.) Any person, who is moderately conversant with Ori- 
 gen’s writings, will immediately perceive: that Dr. Priestley 
 would put a sense upon this detached passage, which is utterly 
 inconsistent with various other statements of that Father. 
 
 Whence it will obviously follow: that Origen, though here 
 quoted with verbal accuracy, has, in point of wmport, been 
 grossly misrepresented by the historian. 
 
 Some few of these statements I shall present to the cautious 
 reader: that so he may be enabled to form his own judgment 
 on the matter now before us. 
 
 In the recently considered passage which has been garbled 
 by Dr. Priestley, Origen, we have seen, declares: that, while 
 we pray to the Father through the Word, we must also suppli- 
 cate the Word himself, and offer up our intercessions to him, and 
 give thanks to him, and pray to him. 
 
 Aenoomeba dé Kat abrod rod Adyov, kai évrevédueba aire, Kal 
 eVXALOTHOOMEY, Kal mpocevcoueOa o€. Orig. cont. Cels. lib. v. 
 p- 233. 
 
 So likewise, in another passage, Origen declares of himself 
 and of the whole colleztive Church Catholic: We worship one 
 God, the Father and the Son. 
 
 "Eva ody Osdy, rov Iarépa cal rov Yidv, Oeparevouev. Orig. 
 cont. Cels. lib. viii. p. 386. 
 
 Again, in another passage, Origen similarly declares of him- 
 self and of the whole Church: We recite hymns, to the alone 
 God who is over all, and to his only-begotten Son God the 
 Word. 
 
 ef \ ’ \ ~ 
 Ypvouc yap eic pdvov rov ént maar héyomey Ody kat rov 
 
 Hovoyevyn avr7ov Oeov Adyor. Orig. cont. Cels. lib. viii. p. 422, 
 
 —. Ss, 
 
 .., 0 a 
 
 2 ee, ee 
 
NUMB. III. | OF TRINITARIANISM. ddl 
 
 So again, in another passage, Origen teaches us to pray, both 
 to God the Father, and to the only-begotten Word of God. 
 
 Mov@ yde mpocevkréoy Tp Ett aot Oew* Kal mpocEvKTEOY YE 
 T@ [LOVOYEVEL Kal TOWTOTOKWY TdONC KTioEwC Ady Ocod. Orig. 
 cont. Cels. lib. viii. p. 395. 
 
 Again, in another passage, calling men away from the adora- 
 tion of the Host of Heaven, he says, contradistinctively to 
 them: We nill worship, the Father who is the author of all 
 prophecies in them, and the Word of God who administers them. 
 
 Ove obrwe abrovc, d\Aa Toy Llarépa ray év abroig rpognTEWwr, 
 Kat Tov Otaxovoy abrwy Adyor tov Qed, rp0ckvvjcopmev. Orig. 
 cont. Cels. lib. v. p. 239. 
 
 And, yet again, in another passage, he exhorts: that prayer 
 should be offered to the Word of God who is able to heal us. 
 
 Ovdev irrov Kat 6 rowiroc evyésOw 7H Adyy Tod Ocov, duva- 
 pévy abroy idcacba. Orig. cont. Cels. lib. v. p. 238. 
 
 (2.) With such positive declarations before us, to which it 
 were an easy task to add many others, we may be quite sure, 
 unless Origen be the very pink of self-contradictive inconsist- 
 ency: that Dr. Priestley, when, in his own sense of that 
 Father’s words, he would exhibit him as roundly declaring, 
 that We ought not to pray to Christ, has grievously, though 
 peradventure through sheer ignorance quite unwittingly, mis- 
 represented his meaning. 
 
 For, if, in the second cited passage, Origen be thus under- 
 stood, we shall make him hopelessly and utterly irreconcileable 
 with himself. 
 
 (3.) It will be asked: What, then, could Origen design to 
 intimate in the singular passage now under consideration ? 
 
 I reply: that the passage before us, adduced and (so far 
 as 1ts wmport is concerned) misrepresented by Dr. Priestley, 
 merely sets forth one of those refinements, in which Origen 
 so much delighted to expatiate. 
 
 As the whole context of the passage shews, he would teach 
 us: that, under two several aspects, prayer is not to be offered 
 to Christ. 
 
332 THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. II. 
 
 Thus, Christ is not to be prayed to, under the aspect of That 
 mhich has been born, or under the aspect of The incarnate Son’s 
 human nature. For adoration is due to the Essential Deity 
 alone. 
 
 And thus, again, Christ is not to be prayed to, under the 
 aspect of Our High-Priest or Mediator. For, in that capacity, 
 his ecumenical office is, not to receive our prayers as addressed 
 immediately to himself, but to present them intercessively to 
 the Father. 
 
 But, though, in the judgment of Origen, Christ ought not to 
 be prayed to, under either of these two precise aspects; yet, 
 as Origen himself in numerous passages elsewhere instructs us, 
 this is no reason, why prayer should not be offered to him, as 
 God the Son, the eternal Word, inseparably united to the Father 
 in the substance of the strictly one Godhead. 
 
 Accordingly, as Dr. Priestley ought to have known and to 
 have stated, Origen actually refers to such a distinction in the 
 very passage, which was first cited, and which has been so 
 daringly garbled by the faithless historian. 
 
 We shall supplicate also the Word himself, and offer up our 
 intercessions to him, and give thanks to him, and pray to him: 
 IF, RESPECTING PRAYER, WE SHALL BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND 
 DICTIONAL PROPRIETY AND INCORRECT ABUSE. 
 
 Aenoopueba o€ Kat abrov Tov Adyov, kal evrevedueba abvro, cal 
 evxXaploThaopuey, Kal roocevisucba O&, edy dvvopeba Karaxovery 
 THC wept TMoocEVXc Kuptoneciac Kal KATAXPNTEWC. 
 
 Here we have the distinction in form, stated, exactly where 
 it ought to be stated, regularly and explicitly. 
 
 We must not, says Origen, pray to Christ, as Our Migh- 
 Priest and our Mediator: nor yet must we pray to him, as 
 That mhich according to his human nature has been produced. 
 For, when Christ is thus viewed, we must pray to no other 
 than God who is over all: and, if, under either of these two 
 aspects, we pray to Christ, we pray to him (what Origen calls) 
 
 catachrestically or abusively. 
 
 But, to the Word himself, as One God from all eternity with 
 
NUMB. III. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 333 
 
 the Father, it is our duty to offer every form of supplication, 
 even as we offer it to the Father. For, when Christ is thus 
 viewed, we pray to him (as Origen speaks) cyriolexically or 
 nith strict dictional propriety. 
 
 (4.) Thus, from two passages, the one shamelessly garbled, 
 and the other woefully misrepresented, Dr. Priestley, in de- 
 fiance of Origen’s repeated declarations to the contrary, would, 
 to his unwary readers, exhibit that Father, as, totally and under 
 every aspect, REJECTING the divine adoration of Christ. . 
 
 On the second passage from Origen’s Treatise on Prayer, 
 the purport of which Dr. Priestley has completely misrepre- 
 sented, there is an excellent note by Mr. Reading, which is 
 given in the Paris edition of Origen. See Origen. Oper. vol. i. 
 p- 917, 918. Paris. 1733. The inquirer may also profitably 
 consult the remarks in Huet. Origenian. lib. 11, c. 2. quest. 2. 
 § XXIXx. 
 
NUMBER IV. 
 
 RESPECTING THE OPINION ENTERTAINED BY THE JEWS CONCERN- 
 ING THE MESSIAH AT THE TIME OF OUR LORD'S FIRST ADVENT. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 THE CAUSE AND PLAN OF THE INQUIRY. 
 
 Dr. Prizstrzy has attempted to perplex the subject of our 
 Lord’s divinity by talking of the prodigious change of ideas 
 which must have occurred, when the Apostles, ceasing to view 
 him as a mere man like themselves, began additionally to esteem 
 him the Most High God: and he thinks, that we can find no 
 trace of any such change recorded in Holy Scripture. On 
 these matters, he is so positive, that he is sure it must be 
 acknowledged, even by the Trinitarian himself: that The first 
 ideas, which the Apostles entertained concerning Christ, were ; 
 that he was a mere man like any other mere man. Hist. of 
 Corrupt. part i. introd. Works, vol. v. p. 14, 15. 
 
 I. I know not, that the Trinitarian is any way bound to seek 
 an answer to curious questions of this description, merely be- 
 cause it has pleased Dr. Priestley to propound them. 
 
 The burden of chronological demonstration rests upon those, 
 who reject the doctrines of the Catholic Church ; not upon those, 
 who maintain them. 
 
 If the tenet of Christ’s godhead be a corruption, andif it were 
 unknown to the primitive believers: it is the business of those, 
 who advance such a charge, to make it good, by pointing out 
 
THE APOSTOLICITY OF TRINITARIANISM. 9335 
 
 specifically, the precise time when, and the precise person by 
 whom, it was introduced into the Church; a matter, as we have 
 seen, given up by Dr. Priestley himself in utter despair. 
 
 As for those who receive the tenet, it is amply sufficient for 
 them to have learned: that Thomas, without censure, openly 
 addressed his Saviour as his God; that the protomartyr Ste- 
 phen closed his mortal career, by solemnly invoking him with 
 prayer and intercession; that John explicitly declared him to 
 be God; that Paul, while he pronounced him to be God over 
 all, used language respecting him, which is inapplicable save 
 to THE DEITY; that the primitive believers were familiarly, from 
 their ordinary practice, denominated those who invocate the 
 name of Christ; and that the early writers of the Church, who 
 must have best understood the real doctrine of the Apos- 
 tles, understood all these matters precisely as they are now 
 understood by modern Trinitarians. To them it is enough, 
 that the doctrine has been revealed: and, if their opponents 
 think otherwise, they call upon them demonstratively to point 
 out a period, when the doctrine existed not in the Church; they 
 call upon them to specify the time when and the person by whom, 
 the doctrine was first introduced into it. 
 
 This, I think, would be quite a sufficient answer to Dr. 
 Priestley’s curious inquiries: nor is the Catholic bound to fur- 
 nish any other reply. But, though he be not bound, he may of 
 his own good pleasure prosecute the matter further: and, as it 
 involves a subject of considerable interest and of some difficulty 
 to the Humanitarian, I shall enter into it a little more at large. 
 
 II. If Dr. Priestley means only to say; that, When the seve- 
 ral Apostles first accidentally beheld Christ, or when they were 
 first miroduced to him as one person is introduced to another, 
 they supposed him to be a mere man like themselves : his asser- 
 tion, no doubt, will be readily admitted even by the most stre- 
 nuous Trinitarian. 
 
 But, if he means to say; that They still continued to hold the 
 same opinion, when they believed and acknowledged him to be the 
 promised Messiah ; we must have something more cogent, than 
 
 7 
 
336 THE APOSTOLICITY (APP. Ul. 
 
 the mere assertion of the historian, to induce us to adopt his 
 sentiments. 
 
 1. The first disciples of our Lord, previous to their receiving 
 any particular instruction from him, must certainly have enter- 
 tained that opinion respecting the promised Messiah, which 
 generally prevailed among their countrymen. 
 
 Hence, when they, subsequently and concretely, confessed 
 Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah : they must forthwith have 
 entertained that identical opinion respecting Jesus, whatever the 
 opinion itself might be, which they had antecedently and ab- 
 stractedly entertained respecting the Messiah. 
 
 2. Thus far, the matter is perfectly clear: and, from this 
 point, the sole question is; WHAT opinion, respecting the 
 Messiah, was entertained by the Jews, at the time of our Lord’s 
 Jirst advent ? 
 
 III. The question before us is settled, in a way more sum- 
 mary than satisfactory, by the historian of the Corruptions of 
 Christianity. 
 
 The Jews, says he, were taught by their prophets to expect a 
 Messiah, who was to be descended from the tribe of Judah and 
 the family of David ; a person, in whom themselves and all the 
 nations of the earth should be blessed: but none of their pro- 
 phets gave them an idea of any other than a man like themselves 
 in that illustrious character ; and no other did they ever expect, 
 or do they expect to this day. Hist. of Corrupt. part i. introd. 
 Works, vol. v. p. 14. 
 
 Those, who are conversant with Dr. Priestley’s historical 
 productions, must be fully aware; that rashness, rather than 
 accuracy, is the grand characteristic of his assertions: and, 
 indeed, so generally, from long experience, have I found this 
 to be the case, that I may safely say ; whenever some bold and 
 extraordinary allegation has tempted me to consult the authority 
 upon which it professed to be founded, that I have invariably 
 been led to the discovery either of some gross falsification or of 
 some complete perversion or of some ignorant misapprehen- 
 sion: insomuch that an allegation of this sort, upon the first. 
 
NUMB. IV. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 337 
 
 blush, now always leads me to anticipate, as a thing of course, 
 either misconstruction or inaccuracy. 
 
 That The Jews, in the present day, professedly expect only a 
 man in the character of their Messiah: is readily allowed. 
 
 But, that None of the ancient prophets gave them an idea of 
 any other than a man like themselves in that illustrious cha~ 
 racter, and that No other than a mere man did they uvER 
 expect: can be considered only in the doubtful light of hardy 
 asseverations, cheaply thrown out at random, according to his 
 wont, by the rapid historian of the Corruptions of Christianity. 
 
 1. With respect to the ancient prophets, it will be sufficient 
 to observe ; that those, who announce the Messiah, as The 
 Wonderful One, as The mighty God, as The Lord the messenger 
 of the covenant whose temple was the temple of Jehovah himself, 
 as The Ruler in Israel whose goings forth have been from old 
 even from everlasting, as The Sun of righteousness, as Jehovah 
 sent by Jehovah, as Jehovah himself whose precursor should be 
 the mystical prophet Elijah, as God whose throne should be for 
 ever and ever: it will be amply sufficient to observe, that those, 
 who employ such language, can scarcely be said to have given 
 the Jens an idea of nothing more than a man like themselves in 
 that illustrious character. And be it remembered, that these 
 several predictions were believed by the Rabbins of old to 
 relate to the Messiah: the application of them is not a modern 
 figment of Christians. 
 
 2. ‘To make this observation, respecting the ancient prophets, 
 will be quite sufficient. Whether Dr. Priestley’s other asser- 
 tion, that The Jews NevER expected any save a mere human 
 Messiah, be more accurate, will form a very curious subject of 
 investigation. 
 
 In prosecuting such an investigation, [ shall not have recourse 
 to the well known Work of Dr. Allix ; though, from the very 
 language of the Rabbins themselves, that Work clearly enough 
 establishes many points in the arcane theology of the Sanhedrim, 
 which cannot but displease the School of modern Antitrinita- 
 rianism ; neither shall I advert to the remarkable system of 
 
 VOL. Il Z 
 
338 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. II. 
 
 doctrine, propounded and advocated by the Jew Philo, as early 
 as the middle of the first century. 
 
 On the contrary, I shall take the simple and unexceptionable 
 course of appealing to the documents of the New Testament : 
 and, if I should be tempted to call in the evidence of Justin 
 and Maimonides by the way of corroboration, still, unless I be 
 much mistaken, even those documents alone will be found 
 quite sufficient to evince the erroneousness of Dr. Priestley’s 
 assertion; that No other, than a mere human Messiah, did the 
 Jews EVER expect. 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 EVIDENCE FROM JOHN VII. 26, 27. 
 
 When the contemporaries of our Lord were led to speculate 
 on the question, Whether he could possibly be the Messiah or 
 not, they expressed, we are told, their abstract sentiments 
 respecting that mysterious character, in the following very 
 remarkable terms. 
 
 Do the rulers know imdeed, that this is the very Christ ? 
 Howbeit, we know this man, whence he is: but, when the Christ 
 cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. John vii. 26, 27. 
 
 I. I am fully aware, that an attempt has been made to ex- 
 plain or to nullify this extraordinary passage by the adduction 
 of an alleged Jewish tradition: but I have been not a little 
 amused by the simple operation of tracing backward the legend 
 in question to the authority, upon which it has been made ulti- 
 mately to repose. 
 
 The Editor of the Improved Version, with his usual compen- 
 dious dogmatism, boldly remarks upon the text: that Jt was 
 
 a tradition of the Jens; that,*after the Messiah was born, he 
 mould be conveyed anay and miraculously concealed, till Elias 
 
NUMB. IV. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 339 
 
 came to reveal and anoint him. For this note, the Editor’s 
 professed authority is Dr. Whitby. 
 
 On turning to Dr. Whitby’s Commentary on the New Testa- 
 ment, I found not a syllable about any miraculous conceal-~ 
 ment ; the mzracle being an improvement, the sole property of 
 which is vested in the Editor: but the legend itself I found 
 stated, as follows. 
 
 Lhis is doubtless spoken from the vain traditions of their 
 Rabbins: who owned, indeed, that their Messiah was to be 
 born at Bethlehem ; but who imagined, that he was presently 
 to be conveyed thence and concealed till Elias came to anoint 
 him. 
 
 For his authorities, Dr. Whitby refers to the Targum on 
 Micah and to the statement of Trypho in Justin Martyr. 
 
 1. The words of the Targum, which is the first of Dr. 
 Whitby’s authorities for the asserted legend, are these. 
 
 Thou, O Messiah, who lyest hid for the sins of the children of 
 Zion, to thee shall the kingdom come. arg. on Micah iv. 8. 
 
 Here the Messiah is doubtless described, as lying hid for 
 the sins of Israel: but, whether there is any reference intended 
 to the alleged tradition, or whether (what seems much more 
 probable) the place means only that the sins of Israel might 
 prevent the manifestation of the Messiah at his appointed time 
 and thus cause him to lie hid for the sins of the children of 
 Zion (a notion, well known to prevail among the Jews), cannot, 
 I think, be determined independently of other information. 
 
 2. This information I might well have expected to find in 
 ~Justin, had I not already been tolerably acquainted with the 
 writings of that Father, 
 
 Now, from such an acquaintance, I can securely assert: that 
 not the smallest trace will the most diligent inquirer be able to 
 discover, either of the Editor’s recently invented miracle, or of 
 Dr. Whitby’s conveyance from Bethlehem and subsequent con- 
 cealment. 
 
 (1.) Respecting both the one and the other, Trypho, though 
 regularly adduced as an authority, is profoundly silent. 
 
 Zz 2 
 
340 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. Il. 
 
 The jewish disputant merely intimates: that the Messiah, 
 after his birth, would not be conscious that he was the Messiah; 
 and that the Messiah himself (and thence of course his neigh- 
 bours) would remain in this state of ignorance as to his true 
 character, until Elias should have anointed him, and thus should 
 have made him publicly known to all. 
 
 As for any assertion, that even this state of temporary un- 
 consciousness of character was the result of the sins of the 
 children of Zion; most assuredly no such assertion is ever 
 made by Trypho. I subjoin, however, his own words, that 
 every person may be able to judge for himself. 
 
 Xptorée C&, ei kal yeyevnrae Kal éore wou’ adyvworde gore. cal 
 ove abréc Tw EauToy extorarat odbO€ EXEL CVYaply TLVA, pEx~LC 
 iv eMwv “Hriac xolon avroy Kat davepoy mace noijon. Justin, 
 Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 174. 
 
 (2.) According to Trypho’s account of the speculation, just as 
 Saul lived in his native place until manhood, wholly unconscious 
 that in the counsels of God he was destined to the kingdom of 
 Israel; so would the Messiah live quietly in his native place 
 until manhood, wholly unconscious that in the counsels of God 
 he was destined to the Messiaship: and, just as Saul was un- 
 aware of his appointed lot, until anointed and publicly proclaimed 
 by Samuel ; so would the Messiah be unaware of his appointed 
 lot, until anointed and publicly proclaimed by Elias. 
 
 How, then, could such a supposed circumstance (and this is 
 the whole that Trypho tells us) lead the Jews to say: When the 
 Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is ? 
 
 The legend merely intimates: that the Messiah would for a 
 season live privately among his kinsmen and neighbours, un- 
 conscious of his beng the predicted Messiah. 
 
 Hence, most assuredly, the persons, who received this legend, 
 must also have believed: that, when at length he should be 
 anointed to his high office, every one of his pristine kinsmen 
 and neighbours would know perfectly well, both whence he was, 
 
 cand where he had previously resided. | 
 
 Consequently, from their reception of any such legend as that 
 
NUMB. Iv. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 341 
 
 given by Trypho, the Jews, our Lord’s contemporaries, could 
 never have been led to say: When the Christ cometh, no man 
 knoweth whence he is. 
 
 In other words, the legend, as given by Trypho, accounts 
 not, in the smallest degree, for the very peculiar language, em- 
 ployed by the Jews, our Lord’s contemporaries. 
 
 8. There is, indeed, a wild figment, given in the Jerusalem 
 Berachoth and in the Bereshit Rabba, which bears some. re- 
 semblance to the legend detailed by the Editor and Dr. Whitby: 
 but, from the very nature of its chronological construction, it 
 canmot serve the purpose of rabbinically illustrating the text 
 in St. John’s Gospel. 
 
 (1.) According to this figment, Messiah was born on the day 
 when the temple was destroyed by Titus: and afterward, at 
 the age of five years, and in the presence of Elias, was suddenly 
 rapt away to the great sea. While the prophet was lamenting 
 the disappearance of the hope of Israel, the Bath-Kol was — 
 heard to declare: that, after remaining four hundred years in 
 the great sea, and eighty years in the ascent of smoke with the 
 sons of Korah, and eighty years in the gates of Rome, he should 
 return and rule over every great city even to the time of the 
 end. See Raymund. Martin. Pug. Fid. par. ii. c. 7. 
 
 (2.) Such is the figment. But, since it must have been 
 fabricated after the destruction of the temple, it clearly cannot 
 be legitimately employed to elucidate a remark of the Jews, 
 which was made in the days of our Lord or nearly forty years 
 before the destruction of the temple. 
 
 II. Setting then aside the idle legend, which the Editor with 
 a gratuitous improvement of his own has borrowed from Whitby, 
 and which Whitby purports to have discovered where it cer- 
 tainly cannot be found, we may reasonably ask: What could 
 the Jews mean, in saying; When the Christ cometh, no man 
 knoweth whence he is ? 
 
 1. Had our Lord’s contemporaries expected a mere man like 
 themselves (which, Dr. Priestley assures us, was the fact), they 
 could not but have been aware, that hundreds must have known 
 
342 THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. II. 
 
 his origin: for how could an individual be born like any other 
 man, and live among his kindred in his native place to the age 
 of maturity ; while yet all his neighbours should be ignorant, 
 both of his parentage, and of his local habitation ? The thing 
 is clearly impossible: and, with such views of the Messiah’s 
 character, the Jews never could have employed such phrase- 
 ology. 
 
 2, What then did they mean by their language, as recorded 
 by St. John? 
 
 They indisputably referred, I think, to the familiar declara- 
 tion of one of their own ancient prophets. 
 
 Out of thee, Bethlehem, shall he come forth unto me, that is to 
 be ruler in Israel: whose goings forth have been of old, from 
 everlasting. Micah vy. 2. 
 
 To suppose, that our Lord’s contemporaries expected a mere 
 human Messiah or (in the language of Dr. Priestley) a man like 
 themselves, is irreconcileable with the testimony of the sacred 
 
 historian. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 EVIDENCE FROM THE JEWISH ESTIMATION OF A CLAIM OF THE 
 MESSIAHSHIP. 
 
 But it may be said, that. the language of the Jews, though 
 sufficient to prove their belief in the mysteriousness or the pre- 
 &xistence of the Messiah, is insufficient to prove their belief in 
 his divinity. 
 
 Be it so: yet, even in that case, enough will have been ad- 
 duced to shew the total inaccuracy of Dr. Priestley’s assertion ; 
 that The Jews never expected any other Messiah than a mere 
 man like themselves. But the remarkable passage, which I have 
 last considered, is not the only one, from which the sentiments 
 
 of the ancient Jews may be collected. 
 
 ei ae 
 
NUMB. IV. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 343 
 
 I. When Pilate openly exculpated our Lord from all crimi- 
 nality, the whole assembled multitude of the Jews gave him the 
 following answer. 
 
 We have a law: and, by our law, he ought to die ; BECAUSE he 
 made himself the Son of God. John xix. 7. 
 
 Such, be it observed, was the general language of the people 
 at large : and, with it, the particular language and action of the 
 high-priest perfectly corresponded. 
 
 The high-priest answered and said unto him: I adjure thee 
 by the lwing God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the Christ 
 the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him: Thou hast said. Never- 
 theless, I say unto you: Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man, 
 sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of 
 heaven. Then the high-priest rent his clothes, saying: He hath 
 spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses ? 
 Behold now, ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? 
 They answered and said: He is guilty of death. Matt. xxvi. 
 63—66. 
 
 1. From these passages, it is demonstrably evident : that, Jn 
 the judgment both of the high-priest and of the Sanhedrim and 
 of the whole Jewish nation at the time when our Lord appeared 
 upon earth, a claim of the Messiahship, by one who was counted 
 a mere man like themselves, constituted a species of blasphemy, 
 for which the Law of Moses had appointed the penalty of death. 
 
 (1.) Now, in the whole Law of Moses, there is no statute, 
 which, 2 so many words, pronounces A claim of the Mesiah- 
 ship to be blasphemy, and which thence makes it a capital 
 offence. 
 
 Yet we may be sure, that persons, so well versed in their own 
 Law as all the Jews were from the high-priest down to the 
 peasant, would never have unanimously appealed to a provision 
 of that Law, if no such provision had been in existence. 
 
 What, then, could have been the particular statute, to which 
 they all, with one voice, so confidently appealed ? 
 
 Doubtless, they alluded to that enactment, by which it was 
 provided : that, /fany prophet or dreamer of dreams should en- 
 
344 THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. Il. 
 
 tice them to THE WORSHIP OF FALSE GoDs, he should surely be put 
 to death by the punishment of stoning. Deut. xiii: 1—11. 
 Compare John vill. 56—59. x. 30—39. xix. 7. Matt. xxvi. 
 63—66. Mark xiv. 60—64. Luke xxii. 66—71. 
 
 (2.) To seek any other statute save this, under which our 
 Lord could be adjudged to death as a blasphemer, will be a 
 fruitless labour: and the mode, in which they must prescrip- 
 tively have construed this statute for the purpose of bringing 
 him within its provisions, affords a clear and distinct indication 
 of the sentiments which they entertained respecting the pro- 
 mised Messiah. 
 
 Jesus they considered as a person, who claimed to be a pro- 
 phet, though they themselves disallowed his claim. In his pro- 
 phetic character, he declared himself to be the Messiah and 
 the Son of God. But, in the theology of the ancient Jews, 
 Messiah or the Son of God was that Jehovah, the Messenger 
 of Jehovah, whom they well knew their Fathers to have wor- 
 shipped, and whom they revered as possessing undoubted di- 
 vinity. Jesus, therefore, in thei apprehension, by declaring 
 himself to be the Messiah, declared himself to be God.~ His 
 declaration, however, they rejected: and himself they deemed 
 an impostor. Hence, as he arrogated proper divinity by the 
 very act of claiming to be the Messiah, they pronounced him 
 to be a blasphemer, who, by enticing them to the worship of 
 himself, led them after a FALSE cop from the one Jehovah. 
 This construction of his conduct brought him within the sta- 
 tute : and, for the blasphemy there described, he was sentenced 
 to death. We have a lan, cried the whole body of the people, 
 in strict accordance with the legal opinion of the high-priest 
 and the Sanhedrim: We have a law: and, by our law, he ought 
 to die; Because he made himself the Son of God. The punish- 
 ment, provided for the offence, was stoning: but, had our Lord 
 been stoned, the prophecies would not have been accomplished. 
 Hence, by the providence of God, Judéa had been reduced to 
 a roman province anterior to his death: and the consequence 
 was, that, under the roman government, the roman punishment 
 
NUMB. IV. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 345 
 
 of crucifixion was substituted for the levitical punishment of 
 stoning. 
 
 2. The judicial case of our Lord, founded upon the statute 
 in Deuteronomy, is strongly illustrated, both by what had an- 
 tecedently happened to himself, and by what subsequently hap- 
 pened to his disciples. 
 
 (1.) On two several occasions, it is recorded, that the Jews 
 attempted to stone our Lord: or, in other words, on two several 
 occasions, it is recorded, that they attempted to inflict upon 
 him the punishment ordained for those blasphemers, who should 
 seek to introduce the worship of A FALSE DEITY. John viii. 
 54—59. x. 22—39. 
 
 Now, on each occasion, the specific ground of their assault 
 was the circumstance: that, from his own uncorrected lan- 
 guage, they understood him, in his claimed capacity of the 
 Messiah and the Son of God, to arrogate to himself the proper 
 character of the Godhead. 
 
 A claim of the divine Sonship, as they well knew, was iden- 
 tical with a claim of the Messiahship: and a claim of the 
 Messiahship, as they also well knew, was equivalent to a claim 
 of divinity. 
 
 Hence, when, in answer to their question whether he were 
 indeed the Christ, our Lord styled God his Father and declared 
 that he and his Father were one: the mode, in which the Jews 
 understood his language and in which they vindicated their 
 attempt to stone him, was by themselves expressly stated in 
 manner following. 
 
 For a good work, we stone thee not: but ror BLASPHEMY; and 
 BECAUSE THAT THOU, BEING A MAN, MAKEST THYSELF GOD. 
 
 The blasphemy, for which they stoned him, is declared to 
 be The profane assumption of divinity by a mere human indi- 
 vidual. But our Lord had made no assumption of divinity, 
 save by the acknowledgment, that he was the Messiah, the Son 
 of God, one with the Father. ‘Therefore, most indisputably, 
 so far as I can understand the purport of the allegation made 
 by the Jews, they must have pronounced him guilty of making 
 
346 THE APOSTOLICITY. [ APP. Il. 
 
 himself God, Because he claimed to be the Messiah: a cir- 
 cumstance, which inevitably brings out the result, that They 
 believed the Messiah to be God. 
 
 This, according to their own statement, was the blasphemy 
 which he had spoken: and this same was also the blasphemy, 
 alleged against him by the high-priest and the Sanhedrim, and 
 reéchoed by the whole body of the people. He claimed to be 
 Messiah the Son of God: and therefore, in their estimation, 
 he was guilty of blasphemy; Because that he, being a man, 
 made himself God. 
 
 (2.) Exactly the same punishment of stoning was inflicted 
 by the Jews, both upon Stephen and upon Paul: upon Stephen, 
 mortally ; upon Paul, not mortally. Acts vil. 54—60. xiv. 19. 
 
 The reason was: that each alike proclaimed Jesus to be the 
 Messiah, and that Stephen additionally asserted his own per- 
 sonal view of him standing on the right hand of God in the 
 glory of the Shechinah. 
 
 Now, had the Jews, as Dr. Priestley assures us, believed, 
 that The Messiah would be nothing more than a man like them- 
 selves ; they might have deemed our Lord and his disciples 
 impostors or enthusiasts: but, if they entertained only such 
 sentiments of the Messiah, it is difficult to comprehend, both 
 why they should have charged the former with the arrogation 
 of divinity because he claimed to be the Messiah, and why they 
 should so furiously have proceeded to inflict the prescribed 
 punishment of blasphemers upon persons, who, according to 
 Dr. Priestley’s hypothesis, had done nothing more than pro- 
 claim a particular individual to be the mere man whom the 
 Jews expected under that well-known appellation. 
 
 3. It may not be useless here to remark: that there is 
 a curious passage in Limborch’s Friendly Conference, which 
 strongly illustrates the ancient Jewish construction of the statute 
 in Deuteronomy ; though the hebrew speaker, unlike his fore- 
 fathers, denies, not merely the godhead of Jesus in the con- 
 crete, but the godhead of the Messiah himself in the abstract. 
 
 (1.) Orobio insists: that, if the expected Christ should 
 
NUMB. IV. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 547 
 
 teach the doctrine of his own divinity, he ought to be stoned 
 for blasphemy as a false prophet. Such a thing, indeed, he 
 deems utterly impossible. But still, putting it as an hypothe- 
 tical case, he pronounces: that the penalty, annexed to blas- 
 phemy, ought to be the punishment. 
 
 Dato impossibili, quod Messias, quem expectamus, eam 
 doctrinam Israelem doceret; jure foret, ut pseudopropheta, 
 lapidandus. Limb. Amic. Collat. cum Jud. p. 111. 
 
 (2.) The statute, alluded to by Orobio, is plainly that in the 
 book of Deuteronomy, to which his forefathers similarly al- 
 luded, when, speaking of our Lord, they said: We have a 
 law: and, by our lan, he ought to die; Bucause he made him- 
 self the Son of God. 
 
 4, Antitrinitarians sometimes attempt to nullify the con- 
 clusion drawn from the peculiar language of the high-priest and 
 the Jews, by saying: that blasphemy is a very indefinite term, 
 and that it is used in several different senses. 
 
 (1.) I readily allow, that the word blasphemy is not always 
 employed in the same sense: but, with what pertinence such an 
 observation is made in the present case, I am unable to discern. 
 
 In the application of the charge of blasphemy against our 
 Lord, there is not the slightest degree of indefiniteness. He is 
 unanimously pronounced to be a blasphemer, on the specific 
 ground of his claiming to be Messiah the Son of God: and the 
 nature of his blasphemy had already been strictly defined to 
 be this; that, In claiming to be Messiah the Son of God, he, being 
 aman, made himself God. Such was the crime alleged against 
 him: and, for this crime, the Law, they assert, has appointed 
 the punishment of death. 
 
 Now, by what conceivable process, can a claim of the Mes- 
 siahship be construed to be any species of blasphemy, for which 
 the Law has appointed the punishment of death: if, in the 
 opinion both of the judges and of the whole people, the Mes- 
 siah was expected to be nothing more than a mere man like 
 themselves ? 
 
 (2.) That the imputed blasphemy of our Lord was thought 
 
 7 
 
348 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. II. 
 
 to be of the very worst kind, is evident from the action of the 
 high-priest. 
 
 Would he have rent his clothes with the most vehement ex- 
 pression of horror, if he had considered Jesus as claiming to 
 be nothing more, than what he and the whole nation deemed a 
 mere human prophet : a prophet, indeed, of higher rank than 
 Ehjah or Isaiah; but still, in universal hebrew estimation, a 
 mere human prophet ? 
 
 On such principles, the circumstance is utterly unnatural 
 and overcharged and incredible. But, if we adopt the opinion ; 
 that, in the person of their Messiah, the Jews expected a per- 
 manent manifestation of that exalted Messenger of Jehovah, 
 whom they knew to be the acknowledged God of their fathers 
 Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and whom they knew to have 
 been worshipped by their ancestors without any imputation of 
 idolatry whenever he appeared upon earth: if we adopt this 
 opinion, which exactly accords with and explains the recorded 
 belief of the whole nation, that, When the Christ should come, 
 no man could adequately know whence he was: if, I say, we 
 adopt this opinion, all will be perfectly clear and reasonable and 
 intelligible. 
 
 The ancient Jews expected: that The Messiah would be a 
 permanent manifestation of the worshipped Angel of Jehovah. 
 
 Hence the blasphemy, of which Jesus was said to have been 
 guilty, and for which he was finally put to death, was evidently, 
 in their apprehension, a claim of proper and essential divinity. 
 
 For, even according to their own explicit declaration on a 
 prior occasion, as he could not claim to be the Messiah, without, 
 at the same time, asserting his own godhead: so he could not 
 claim to be the Messiah, without, at the same time, being guilty 
 of that alleged species of blasphemy which consisted in making 
 himself God. 
 
 5. In this view of his pretensions they were doubtless con- 
 firmed by the very tenor of his own language, when he was 
 solemnly adjured by the high-priest to declare whether he was 
 indeed the Messiah. 
 
 ee ee ee ee ee ee eee ee 
 
NUMB. Iv. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 349 
 
 Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man, sitting on the right 
 hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 
 
 He was adjured to declare, whether he was the Christ the 
 Son of God: and he not only answered in the affirmative; but 
 he also appropriated to himself the description of that august 
 Being, whom Daniel beheld in the visions of the night, coming 
 with the clouds of heaven, and taking his regal station before the 
 Ancient of days. | 
 
 The whole amount of his claim was now as clear as the light 
 of the firmament. With a sensation of inexpressible horror, 
 the high-priest forthwith rent his clothes, and exclaimed Blas- 
 phemy. The cry was caught up by the Sanhedrim, and was 
 reéchoed by the whole mass of the people. We have a lan: 
 and, by our law, he ought to die ; BEcAUsE he made himself the 
 Son of God. In thus claiming the Messiahship, he has been 
 guilty of blasphemy : BEcause that he, being a man, has made 
 himself God. 
 
 6. Such was clearly the principle, on which our Lord was 
 adjudged to be guilty of blasphemy: and it must be confessed, 
 that, had he been a mere man, he would have been guilty; for, 
 on the scheme of modern Antitrinitarianism, I see not the judi- 
 cial possibility of his acquittal. 
 
 But no charge of this description could have been rationally 
 or even plausibly brought against him, unless the ancient Jews 
 had held the divinity of their expected Messiah. 
 
 Therefore I see not what conclusion can be legitimately 
 drawn from the premises, save that such was actually their 
 doctrine at the time when our Lord appeared upon earth. 
 
 7. It will of course be recollected, that, with the abstract 
 truth or falsehood of the doctrine, I have, in the present discus- 
 sion, no immediate concern. 
 
 I am nom treating, not of the soundness of a doctrine, but of 
 the reality of a fact. 
 
 Dr. Priestley has asserted, that The Jews never expected 
 any other than a man like themselves in the character of the 
 
 Messiah. 
 
350 THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. Il. 
 
 Here we have a simple question of historical fact: and this 
 question exclusively is now before us. 
 
 II. In my view of this question I am the more confirmed by 
 yet an additional circumstance, which is set forth in another 
 passage of the New Testament. 
 
 The jewish contemporaries of our Lord avowepty held: that 
 The claim of a proper Sonship to God was equivalent to a direct 
 claim of equality mith God. 
 
 But they likewise held: that The character of a proper Son- 
 ship to God was inherent in the nature of the Messiah. 
 
 Therefore they held: that The Messiah was equal with God. 
 
 And thence, of very necessity, they also held, as they them- 
 selves expressly declared: that Any mere man, who claimed the 
 Messiahship, was guilty of blasphemy; because that he made 
 himself God, while yet he was no more than a mere man. 
 
 1. Lhe Jews, we read, sought the more to kill him: because 
 he had not only broken the sabbath; but said also, that God was 
 his own proper Father (rarépa icuov), making himself equal with 
 God. John v. 18. 
 
 2. Now we all know full well: that to call God our father, 
 simply in that general sense wherein the phrase occurs in the 
 Lord’s prayer and wherein the very Jews themselves were ac- 
 customed to use it on their own behalf (John viii. 41.), is by no 
 means to make ourselves equal with him. 
 
 But Christ, as he was understood by the Jews (no matter, so 
 far as the present argument is concerned, whether they under- 
 stood him aright or not), so called God his own proper Father, 
 as, in their apprehension, to claim an equality with God. 
 
 Yet I think it evident: that no such idea could ever have 
 been excited in their minds by the language of our Lord, unless 
 ANTECEDENTLY they had believed in the abstract; that The 
 Messiah, inasmuch as he is the proper Son of God, is, in that 
 precise capacity, equal with him. 
 
 But no one can be equal with God the Father, unless also he 
 be himself very God. 
 
 Hence, from this yet additional unexceptionable evidence of 
 
NUMB. IV. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 351 
 
 the New Testament, I cannot but deem it clear: that The an- 
 cient Jews maintained the divinity of their expected Messiah, 
 identifying him mith that apparent Messenger of Jehovah who is 
 declared to have been the God of their fathers Abraham and 
 Isaac and Jacob. Gen. xlvili. 15, 16. Compare Hos. xii. 
 3—5. Exod. ili. 2—22. Gen. xvi. 7—13. Judg. ii. 1—5. 
 vi. 11—24. xiii, 2—23. Isaiah lxiii. 9. See below, append. ii. 
 numb. 10. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 EVIDENCE FROM JUSTIN MARTYR AND MAIMONIDES. 
 
 From a perusal of their own Scriptures and from the con- 
 comitant instruction of the Levitical Priesthood, the jewish 
 contemporaries of our Lord had, I think, derived those opinions 
 respecting the promised Messiah, which may be collected with- 
 out much difficulty from the history contained in the Gospels. 
 
 At a subsequent period, hatred of Christianity led to the 
 abandonment, or rather (to speak more accurately) the sup- 
 pression and concealment, of the ancient doctrine of the Hebrew 
 Church. What had formerly been taught unreservedly to all 
 the people, was gradually locked up and finally hidden in the 
 Cabbala of the Rabbins: and the natural consequence was, 
 that, in the course of some generations, it became, to the Laity 
 at least, utterly unknown. 
 
 Yet, that the old doctrine was secretly preserved, is, I think, 
 indisputable. To say nothing of the writings of Philo, proof 
 upon proof, from the very Works of the Rabbins, has been 
 accumulated by the industry of Dr. Allix: and, when I con- 
 sider the direct concurrent evidence afforded by the Evan- 
 gelical History itself, I cannot but build much upon the cita- 
 tions produced by that learned author. These citations tell 
 their own story: and, if Dr. Allix had done nothing more than 
 
352 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. II. 
 
 simply collect and publish them without a single note or com- 
 ment of his own, they alone, unaided and undiscussed and 
 unexplained, would have been amply sufficient to corroborate 
 and to verify the attestation borne so pointedly by the Gospels. 
 
 I am the more led to attend to them, from the evidence 
 afforded at a very early period by Justin Martyr, and froma 
 remarkable statement or confession made by Maimonides. 
 
 I. Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew was carried on in 
 the year 136: and it exhibits, in a curious manner, the state of 
 theological opinion, which then prevailed among the members 
 of the house of Israel. 
 
 This discussion took place at so early a day, that we may 
 reasonably expect to find in it some traces of the system which 
 appears with such prominence in the Evangelical History: for, 
 though the Jews had been desolated and dispersed by Titus in 
 the year 70, and though they were in the midst of their troubles 
 from Adrian at the very time when Justin was discoursing with 
 Trypho; yet, even shattered as their polity was, and distracted 
 as was their condition, we can scarcely believe, that the doc- 
 trine of their fathers, if it were indeed their doctrine, could so 
 soon have been entirely lost or abandoned or concealed. 
 
 Under such circumstances, an examination of the Dialogue 
 cannot but be both interesting and important. 
 
 1. We may, I think, clearly enough learn two points from 
 this venerable monument of Christian antiquity. 
 
 (1.) The first is: that Zhe doctrine of the Messiah’s mere 
 humanity was then, among the more freethinking of the Hebrew 
 Laity, beginning to suyplant the ancient doctrine of his divinity. 
 
 (2.) The second is: that The old doctrine of the Messiah’s 
 divinity, as it prevailed a century earlier in the days of our 
 Lord, was still maintained by the Rabbins and thence apparently 
 by the bulk of the people; that The subsequent system of con- 
 cealment and suppression had not then commenced ; and, conse- 
 quently, that, The existence of the doctrine among the Rabbins 
 nas well known, both to intelligent Christians like Justin, and 
 likewise to the Jenish Laity themselves. | 
 
 Ee 
 
NUMB. IV. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 393 
 
 2. Respecting the grounds of the doctrine, Trypho, Justin’s 
 antagonist, appears to have been somewhat ignorant: and, 
 though he materially improves in temper toward the close of 
 the Dialogue; yet, in the course of it, he is not a little conceited 
 and opinionated. 
 
 (1.) His ignorance is evinced from the wonder which he 
 expresses at the line of argument taken up by Justin. 
 
 That learned Father, mighty as he shews himself to be in the 
 Scriptures, undertakes to prove, even from the writings of the 
 Old Testament: that The promised Messiah was that Messen- 
 ger of Jehovah, who yet himself was no other than Jehovah, who 
 conversed mith the ancient patriarchs, and who was worshipped 
 by the house of Israel under the special aspect of the God of 
 Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. 
 
 In reply to the reasoning of Justin, Trypho exhibits a sort of 
 stupid amazement: declaring, that he had never before heard 
 any person, either thus examining, or thus inquiring, or thus 
 demonstrating. 
 
 “Hpeic mode rae ovrwe éreciydvyove dmokpicetc ovK éopev Erot- 
 fou éretdn ovdEvoc OvdéTOTE TaUTa EpEevYWYTOE, i) CnrovYTOC, 7) dro- 
 dexvoyroc, dknxdapey. Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 215. 
 
 This answer of Trypho certainly indicates, either his own 
 carelessness, or the discontinuance (for whatever reason) of 
 rabbinical instruction. Yet, even under every disadvantage of 
 the times, had his information been a little more extensive, he 
 might have encountered the same line of argumentin the Works 
 of one of his own countrymen: for Philo, who flourished about 
 a century anterior to him, would have taught him, that Justin 
 could neither claim originality nor could be truly charged with 
 singularity. 
 
 (2.) The ignorance of Trypho, as might naturally be antici- 
 pated, makes him not a little conceited and opinionated. 
 
 As for what you assert, says he; that this person, being the 
 Messiah, preéxisted as God before all ages, and that he then 
 submitted to be born a man, and yet that he was not man from 
 man wm the ordinary course of nature: the whole of such asser- 
 
 VOL. Il. Aa 
 
354 THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. Il. 
 
 tion strikes me to be, not only a paradox, but even absolute 
 NONSENSE. 
 
 To yao héyey ce, ToovTapyely Oedv dvTa TPO aiwywy roOvTOY 
 tov Xoeoroy, ira kal yevynOijvar avOowmor yevomevoy Uropetvat, 
 cal Ore ovK &vOpwrog && dvOpwrov, ov povoY mapddogoy OoKet prot 
 civat, d\Aa Kat pwpdy. Justin, Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 207. 
 
 (3.) After this ebullition of spleen and vanity, Trypho, in his 
 next reply, goes on to state: that, In the universal opinion of 
 the Jews, the Messiah would be a man born from men; and that 
 Elias would come to anoint him to his high office. 
 
 Kal yup mdvrec hpetc, -rov Xpioroy avOpwroy #& dyOparwy 
 ToocdoKmpev yevnoeolat, Kat vov HXlay xpicae abroy édOovra. 
 Dial. Oper. p. 207, 208. 
 
 Now it is a curious circumstance, that, while Trypho petu- 
 lantly rejects the very idea, of Jesus being the Messiah, and 
 (in that character) of his preexisting as God before all ages: he 
 does not venture to say, that his brethren universally denied 
 the godhead of that Messiah whom they themselves expected. 
 
 We all expect, says he, that the Messiah mill be born a man 
 from men. 
 
 But he does not say: We all deny his divinity. 
 
 This last proposition, be it observed, is by no means neces~- 
 sarily involved in the former proposition. For, as Justin be- 
 lieved, that Jesus was God incarnate, born from the Virgin, and 
 therefore (under that aspect) a human being born from a human 
 being: so the belief, stated by Trypho as universal among his 
 brethren, that Messiah would be a human being born from human 
 beings, though it might exclude the doctrine of an incarnation 
 of the Godhead from a virgin, does not of necessity exclude the 
 doctrine of an incarnation of the Godhead in the course of 
 natural conception and parturition. 
 
 (4.) Trypho himself, and probably bis companions at the 
 debate with Justin, had adopted, precisely in the tone and after 
 the manner of the modern Antitrinitarian School, the doctrine 
 of the Messiah’s bare humanity: for he says to his opponent ; 
 You are attempting to demonstrate a point incredible and well 
 
NUMB. IV..] OF TRINITARIANISM. 355 
 
 nigh impossible, that God submitted to be born and to become 
 man. 
 
 "Artoroy yap Kat ddvvaroy oyeddy TOAypa eTryetpEetc aTo- 
 dexvivat, bre Cede Umépeve yevynOjvat Kar dvOownroe yevécOar. 
 Dial. Oper. p. 228. 
 
 But, though such were the avowed sentiments of the indi- 
 vidual: I have thought it right, on account of what occurs in a 
 Subsequent part of the Dialogue, to point out the preceding 
 cautious peculiarity of his language ; in which he ventures not 
 to assert, that the Jews of his time universally denied the di- 
 vinity of the Messiah. 
 
 3. Justin, evidently bearing in mind what his antagonist had 
 said, and probably understanding it as a direct affirmation that 
 the Jews universally rejected the doctrine of the Messiah’s 
 divinity, attacks him, in due time, upon this very position. 
 
 Whenever, says he, we Christians produce to your Rabbins 
 those Scriptures, which unequivocally exhibit the Messiah, as 
 liable to suffering, and yet as being adorable and as being God ; 
 those Scriptures, I mean, which I have already cited to your- 
 self: they are compelled to acknonledge, that these relate in- 
 deed to the Messiah in the abstract ; but they dare to say, that 
 this person, namely Jesus of Nazareth, is not the Messiah in the 
 concrete. Nevertheless, they fairly acknowledge : that the Mes- 
 siah himself will come, and will suffer, and will reign, and will 
 be GOD WoRTHY OF ALL ADORATION. Now this, surely, is, on 
 their part, most ridiculous and absurd. 
 
 “Ac 0 ay AEywpev avrote ypagpac, at dvapphony roy Xptorov Kat 
 maOnrov Kat roookuynroy kal Ocdy amocekvvovoty, te Kat Tpoavig- 
 TOpHTAa Div’ ravrac éic Xotoroy pey eionabar avayKal opevot ovv= 
 TWevrat, rovroy 6é pup Elva roy Xprordy ToAp@ot Néyerv. ’EXed- 
 ocabar O€, Kat wabeiy, Kal Pacrevoa, Kal mpockuyynToyv yevéabar 
 Ocor, opodoyovaw" dep yedoioy Kal dvdnrov. Dial. Oper. p. 229. 
 
 Here we have a direct assertion, openly made by Justin in 
 the presence of Trypho and his companions: that The Rabbins, 
 however they might expect the incarnation of their Messiah to 
 take place, whether from a virgin or in the ordinary course of 
 
 Aaz 
 
356 THE APOSTOLICITY [ APP. II. 
 
 parturition, acknonledged, on the authority of their own Scrip- 
 tures, that, although he would be destined to suffering, still he 
 nould be GoD HIMSELF WORTHY OF ALL ADORATION. 
 
 Justin, with much reason, urges the inconsistency of the 
 Rabbins: because, while, on account of his sufferings, they 
 objected to Jesus of Nazareth being received as the Messiah 
 and thence as THE ADORABLE GoD; they themselves, all the while 
 confessed, that their own expected Messiah, though cop wortHy 
 OF ALL ADORATION, would nevertheless be liable to suffering. 
 But still the assertion, we see, is the broad and naked assertion 
 of a Fact: a fact, accordingly, which Trypho was obviously 
 reduced either to confess or to deny. 
 
 You yourself, says J ustin, may allege it to be a point incredi- 
 ble and well nigh impossible : that God submitted to be born and 
 to become man. But, though such may be your individual opt- 
 nion, it is not the doctrine of your Rabbins. They fairly ac- 
 knonledge: that your expected Messiah mill come, and mill 
 suffer, and will reign, and nill be GOD WORTHY OF ALL ADORA- 
 tion. If he ill suffer: he must be man; for God, as God, 
 cannot suffer. If he be God and yet man also, as your Rabbins 
 confess: God must submit to be born and to become man; the 
 very point, which you allege to be incredible and well nigh im- 
 possible. In a word, though your Rabbins deny Jesus of Naza- 
 reth to be the Messiah: they acknonledge, that the Messiah 
 limself will be cod TO WHOM ALL ADORATION IS DUE FROM HIS 
 CREATURES. 
 
 (1.) Such is the racr asserted by Justin. 
 
 In what manner, then, does Trypho deal with this bold alle- 
 gation of his antagonist ? 
 
 Does he promptly ridicule it, to the high enjoyment of his 
 hebrew companions, as a matter too absurd for the belief even 
 of a Christian? Does he at once deny it, as a notorious and 
 impudent fabrication? Does he readily retort: that the Rab- 
 bins never made, or ever thought of making, such an acknow- 
 ledgment 2? Does he deservedly censure Justin for his gross 
 controversial dishonesty? Does he, at the same time, express 
 
NUMB. IV. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 307 
 
 his amazement at the infatuated hardyhood, which could gra- 
 tuitously hazard an assertion, so liable to easy and immediate 
 confutation and exposure ? 
 
 (2.) Truly, nothing of the sort. 
 
 To deny it, he ventures not : to confess it, after his own rash 
 and presumptuous language, he is apparently unwilling. Hence, 
 however singular it may appear to those who think with Dr. 
 Priestley, he actually passes it over in total silence: and thus 
 he tacitly acknowledges its perfect accuracy. 
 
 He could, with ease and unconstrained freedom, ridicule the 
 idea: that this person, as he contemptuously styles Jesus of 
 Nazareth, should be the Messiah, and that he should have pre- 
 éxisted as God before all ages. But he does not deny: that, 
 in the scripturally formed judgment of the Rabbins, the Mes- 
 siah, though a man destined to suffering, would yet be cop 
 WORTHY OF ALL ADORATION. 
 
 The taciturnity of Trypho is imitated by his hebrew com- 
 panions. They all equally heard the assertion of Justin: but, 
 to controvert it, not a mouth was opened. With one consent, 
 it is suffered to pass unnoticed and uncontradicted. 
 
 (3.) The whole matter is remarkable: but it is no more than 
 what we might have expected from a School, which, about 136 
 years before, had rightly applied to the Messiah a prophecy, 
 wherein the goings forth of that expected ruler in Israel are 
 declared to have been of old, from everlasting. Matt. ii. 1—6. 
 Micah v. 1, 2. 
 
 In fact, this identical prophecy sets forth, in continued series, 
 the two precise points, which Justin asserts the Rabbins to 
 have deduced from the Hebrew Scriptures. 
 
 The Messiah, they confessed, was destined to suffer: yet, as 
 they also confessed, that same Messiah would be cop wortny 
 OF ALL ADORATION. 
 
 Accordingly, Micah foretells: that The judge of Israel should 
 be smitten, nith a rod, upon the cheek ; and yet that His goings 
 forth should be from of old, from everlasting. 
 
 II. As the doctrine of the divinity of the Messiah was be- 
 
358 THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. II. 
 
 ginning to be denied by some of the Jewish Laity in the time of 
 Trypho, though it was still confessed by the Rabbins to be the 
 ancient doctrine of their own Scriptures: so, through hatred to 
 Christianity, the Rabbins themselves gradually suppressed and 
 concealed it, until at length all knowledge of it was lost save 
 among those who were initiated into what they had constituted 
 the mysteries of their secret discipline. 
 
 1. This. is no mere phantasy of my own: my authority is 
 one of the greatest of the rabbinical writers. The system of 
 concealment, and the very principle upon which that system 
 has been adopted, are most fully and explicitly acknowledged 
 by the celebrated Moses Maimonides. 
 
 All things, says he, which are spoken in the work of the cre- 
 ation, are not to be understood according to the letter, as the 
 vulgar imagine. For, otherwise, our mise men would not have 
 commanded them to be concealed: nor would they have used so 
 much care in hiding them in parables: nor would they have so 
 studiously prohibited all discourse concerning them before the 
 unskilful multitude. But, in truth, the literal interpretations of 
 such matters either produce evil thoughts and imaginations and 
 opinions concerning the nature of God; or they overturn the 
 foundations of the Law, and bring in some heresy. 
 
 Whoever, then, possesses any knowledge in these points, let 
 him beware of divulging it: as we have often admonished, in our 
 own Commentary on the Mishna, 
 
 Hence also our Rabbins say, in express terms: that, rRom 
 THE BEGINNING OF THE BOOK TO THIS POINT, IT IS FOR THE GLORY 
 OF THE LORD TO CONCEAL THE WORD. 
 
 But they have inserted this note after those particulars, which 
 are written concerning the works of the sixth day: whence, the 
 truth of what we have said is clearly apparent. 
 
 Yet, because he, who has gained some perfection, is bound also 
 to communicate it to others: therefore it must needs be, that 
 those, who have learned any such secrets, whether by their own 
 industry or by the aid of a preceptor, should sometimes declare 
 a fen of them. Still, however, this must not be done openly and 
 
 7 
 
 aeE.CcCcTh eS ee]. Sb as 
 
NUMB. IV. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 309 
 
 distinctly, but covertly and only by signs and hints; such as 
 may be found scattered and mixed nith other things in the words 
 of our more celebrated and more excellent Rabbins. I, there- 
 fore, as you mill observe, in these mysteries, often mention only a 
 single word or saying, which may serve as a hinge to the whole 
 matter: the rest I leave to those, to whom they ought to be left. 
 
 Non omnia secundum literam intelligenda et accipienda esse, 
 quee dicuntur in opere Bereschith seu creationis, sicut vulgus 
 hominum existimat. Nam alias non preecepissent sapientes 
 illa occultari ; neque tanta cura in eis abscondendis et parabolis 
 involvendis usi fuissent; neque etiam tam studiosé prohibuis- 
 sent, ne de ils sermo fieret coram imperita plebe. Sensus enim 
 illorum literales vel gignunt pravas cogitationés, imaginationes, 
 et opiniones, de natura Dei Optimi Maximi: vel certe fun- 
 damenta Legis evertunt, heeresimque aliquam introducunt. 
 
 Quicumque vero aliquam in illis scientiam habet, cavere 
 debet ne illa divulget ; sicut szepius monuimus in Commentario 
 nostro in Mischnam. 
 
 Hine claris verbis dicunt quoque Rabbini nostri: a pRiNncIPIo 
 LIBRI USQUE HUC, GLORIA DOMINI EST CELARE VERBUM. 
 
 Dixerunt autem hoc post ea, que scripta sunt de operibus 
 sexti diel: ex quo patet veritas illius, quod nos diximus. 
 
 Quia vero is, qui perfectionem aliquam nactus est, tenetur et 
 obligatur illam aliis quoque infundere et communicare :—ideo 
 fieri non potest, quin ill, qui aliquid ex secretis istis, sive pro- 
 prio Marte et industria, sive ope preeceptoris alicujus, appre- 
 henderunt, nonnunquam pauca quedam dicant. Verum non 
 aperté et claré hoc faciendum est, sed tecté, et non nisi per 
 signa et indicia, qualia sparsim et aliis rebus permixta, in verbis 
 celebriorum ac prestantiorum Rabbinorum nostrorum, inve- 
 niuntur. Ideoque et ego, ut observabis, in istis mysteriis, seepe 
 unius alicujus verbi vel dicti solum mentionem facio, quod cardo 
 quasi est totius rei: cetera vero illis relinquo, quibus relin- 
 quenda sunt. Maimon. Mor. Nevoch. par. ii. c. 29. p. 273, 
 274. 
 
360 THE APOSTOLICITY (APP. It. 
 
 2. In this very remarkable passage, the whole rabbinical 
 system stands confessed and revealed. 
 
 It is allowed to be a system of studied mysterious conceal- 
 ment: and the hints, which are dropped by this eminently 
 learned Jew as to the principle on which it was adopted, are so 
 perfectly intelligible, that he who runs may read. 
 
 The true explanation of the plural phraseology, which is 
 employed by Moses in the history of the creation, and to which 
 Maimonides palpably refers, was on no account, it seems, to be 
 communicated to the profane vulgar: lest it should introduce 
 heretical sentiments concerning the nature of God, and should 
 subvert the foundation of the Law. ‘To the privileged Rabbins 
 alone such knowledge was to be confined: and, for the purpose 
 of throwing dust into the eyes of the uninitiated Laity, some 
 other exposition was to be devised, which might preserve them 
 in their state of happy and unsuspecting ignorance. 
 
 Accordingly, upon this principle Maimonides himself acts 
 with perfect consistency. 
 
 While he hints at the secret and concealed interpretation 
 possessed by none save the rabbinical epopts, he himself kindly 
 accommodates the vulgar with the idle unscriptural fancy of the 
 house of judgment. Mor. Nevoch. par. ii. c. 6. 
 
 3. The confession of Maimonides perfectly establishes those 
 citations from the Rabbins, which have been made with so 
 much copiousness by the learned research of Dr. Allix: while 
 the undisguised purport of the citations fully explains, if ex- - 
 planation were necessary, the drift of the confession. 
 
 From the confession we learn; that the Rabbins have long 
 had a system of concealed interpretation, which respects the 
 mode of God’s existence as set forth in the plural phraseology 
 employed by Moses in the history of the creation: from the 
 citations we learn the specific drift and nature of that occult 
 system. 
 
 Finally, the whole matter is confirmed and demonstrated, by 
 the testimony which is borne to the doctrine of the ancient 
 
NUMB. IV. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 361 
 
 Levitical Church, both by the inspired Evangelical History 
 which is possessed by the Christian Church, and by the uncon- 
 tradicted allegation of Justin Martyr. 
 
 III. I cannot refrain from here placing upon record an asser- 
 tion of singular intrepidity, which has been made by that zealous 
 Antitrinitarian Mr. Haynes, and which has been cited with 
 entire approbation by Mr. Lindsey. . 
 
 It ws very remarkable, says he, that, in ati the books of the 
 Old and New Testament, wheresoever the sacred writers intro- 
 duce Almighty God speaking of himself, it is by the singular 
 pronouns 1andMmx. Lindsey’s Sequel to Apol. p. 27. 
 
 1. This REMARKABLE Fact is deficient in nothing, save the 
 single article of veracity : in hardyhood, the assertion is super- 
 abundant. 
 
 Did Mr. Haynes and Mr. Lindsey imagine: that their 
 readers, being altogether unacquainted with the Bible, were 
 prepared to swallow whatever fictions they might be pleased to 
 assert ? 
 
 Or is it possible: that they themselves could be wholly igno- 
 rant of the existence of texts ; in which God, whose very hebrew 
 name is most commonly written m the plural number and is 
 constructed both with plural adjectives and plural participles, 
 actually speaks of himself by the plural pronouns us and our ? 
 
 (1.) God said: Let us make man m our image, after our 
 likeness. Gen. i. 26. 
 
 (2.) And the Lord God said: Behold, the man is become as 
 ONE of us. Gen. iil. 22. 
 
 (3.) And the Lord said:—Go to, let us go down and there 
 confound their language, that they may not understand one 
 another’s speech. Gen. xi. 6, 7. 
 
 (4.) I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: Whom shall I 
 send, and who nill go for us? Isaiah vi. 8. 
 
 2. As texts of this description have been duly commented 
 upon by Justin and others of the early Christian Fathers: so 
 they have not been left unnoticed by the Jewish Rabbins Huna 
 and Samlai and Moses Haddarschan and Jochanan and others 
 
362 THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. I. 
 
 of the same School. Raymund. Martin. Pug. Fid. par. iii. c 3. 
 p- 484——490, 
 
 To enter upon them, is not my present business. I merely 
 record: that Mr, Haynes and Mr. Lindsey adduce, as an over- 
 whelming argument in favour of Antitrinitarianism, THE VERY 
 REMARKABLE FAcT; that, Jn aux the books of the Old and New 
 Testament, wheresoever the sacred writers introduce A lmighty 
 God speaking of himself, it is by the singular pronouns 1 
 and ME. 
 
 Such is the racr and such is the argument, by which two 
 modern Antitrinitarians establish and defend their system. 
 
 | 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 EVIDENCE FROM THE FLUCTUATING CONDUCT OF OUR LORD'S 
 DISCIPLES. 
 
 Whatever sentiments, respecting the Messiah, were enter- 
 tained by the jewish nation at large: the same sentiments, we 
 may be sure, must have been entertained by our Lord’s disci- 
 ples in particular. 
 
 Hence, when they acknowledged him to be the Messiah, 
 they must have deemed him an incarnate manifestation of that 
 Angel of Jehovah, who by their ancestors was adored as Jeho- 
 vah himself, and who by Jacob was confessed to be the God of 
 his fathers Abraham and Isaac. Gen. xlviii. 15, 16, xxxii. 
 24—30. Hos. xu. 83—5, 
 
 I. That their belief was mingled with much uncertainty and 
 hesitation, and that it was from time to time accompanied by: 
 many painful and anxious misgivings, will probably be doubted 
 by no person. 
 
 1. Such a state of mind would only be the natural result of 
 those additional opinions, which, in common with the great mass 
 
NUMB. IV. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 363 
 
 of their countrymen, until their minds were fully enlightened, 
 they held respecting the Messiah. | 
 
 It was confidently believed and expected: that the promised 
 Saviour would appear in the dignified character of a mighty 
 and victorious prince, who would deliver the Jews from the 
 hated yoke of the Romans, and who would speedily make them 
 the triumphant head of the nations. 
 
 2. Many familiar indications occur throughout the Gospels, 
 that this was the original faith of our Lord’s disciples: and. 
 every thing, which concerned his actual appearance, served to 
 perplex and stagger that faith. 
 
 It was not, I apprehend, that they had any doubt, as to the 
 essential character of the Messiah in the abstract: but they 
 very often, I believe, doubted im. the concrete; whether Jesus 
 of Nazareth were the Messiah. 
 
 On the one hand, his astonishing miracles, and that mild 
 though irresistible superiority which as a perfect matter of 
 course he evidently assumed, forced them, as it were, to con- 
 fess, that he could not but be the Christ the Son of God. | 
 
 Yet, on the other hand, his lowly and unambitious appear- 
 ance, so totally different from what they had been led to antici- 
 pate, often, from time to time, induced them to suspect that 
 they were deceived and had been mistaken. 
 
 IJ. This internal war of opinions will, I think, be evident to 
 any person, who reads the Evangelical History with even a 
 moderate degree of attention: and it will account for much of 
 that singular variation of conduct, which so remarkably cha- 
 racterised the collective body of the disciples. 
 
 1. Nathanael, compelled by an invincible demonstration of 
 our Lord’s omniscience, confessed him to be the Son of God, 
 even the promised Messiah-king of Israel: and, in return, Christ 
 strengthened his faith by appropriating to himself the mysterious 
 vision which Jacob beheld in Bethel. Johni.45—51. Gen. 
 xxviii, 1O—19. Hos. xii. 3—5. 
 
 Yet, in no very long time after this occurrence, many of the 
 disciples, offended at certain doctrines which they heard in- 
 
364 THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. II. 
 
 culcated, went back, and walked no more with him. John 
 vi. 66. 
 
 2. On that last occasion, Jesus appealed to the twelve, whe- 
 ther they also would go away: and Peter then, in the name of 
 his apostolic brethren, professed a firm and assured belief, that 
 he was Christ the Son of the living God. . John vi. 67—69. 
 
 Yet this very Peter, when commanded to leave the boat and 
 to approach his Lord who was walking upon the surface of the 
 lake, evinced a remarkable mixture of belief and unbelief. Nor 
 was it, until Christ brought him safe into the vessel and stilled 
 the tempest by a word, that the hitherto terrified and doubting 
 disciples came” and worshipped him, saying, what in hebrew 
 phraseology was an acknowledgment of his divinity: Of a 
 truth, thou art the Son of God. Matt. xiv. 24—33. See below, 
 append. ii. numb. 10. 
 
 3. The same mingled faith and uncertainty we may behold 
 very strongly exemplified in a subsequent part of the sacred 
 history. 
 
 (1.) When Jesus was come into the coasts of Cesaréa Phi- 
 lippi, he inquired of his disciples what character he generally 
 bore throughout the nation at large. 
 
 The reply was: that some believed him to be John the Bap- 
 tist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias or one of the prophets. 
 
 Upon this, he put to them the direct question: But whom say 
 ye that I am? 
 
 Here eleven out of the twelve disciples remained silent : 
 while Peter, with a faith surpassing that of his brethren, readily 
 answered; Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 
 
 This reply procured for him a very remarkable attestation 
 from the mouth of Jesus himself. Blessed art thou, Simon 
 Bar-Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, 
 but my Father which is in heaven. Matt. xvi. 13—20. 
 
 The attestation before us is the more extraordinary, because 
 Peter was by no means the first person who had made this con- 
 fession. In truth, it had already been made, both by Nathanael 
 individually, and by all the twelve Apostles collectively in the 
 
NUMB. IV. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 365 
 
 ship. Hence we are imperatively led to inquire, what our 
 Lord can have meant, when he declared: that Peter’s confession 
 was revealed to him, not by flesh and blood, but by his Father 
 which is in heaven. 
 
 (2.) The ground and purport of our Lord’s declaration I take 
 to have been this. 
 
 Hitherto, the confession had been made, so far as respected 
 Jesus personally, with a considerable portion of doubt and 
 distrust and hesitation. 
 
 That the Messiah was the Son of the living God, or the 
 worshipped Angel of Jehovah, or (as the ancient Paraphrases 
 express it) the Word of the Lord; the disciples, like all the 
 rest of their countrymen, were fully persuaded: and, in conse- 
 quence, whenever they inclined to believe that Jesus was the 
 Messiah, they forthwith confessed him to be the Son of the living 
 God and the divine King of Israel. 
 
 But this belief, unfixed and unstable, was perpetually fluc- 
 tuating. 
 
 They had no assurance, that Jesus was the Messiah, beyond 
 what arose from their own reasoning on his character and his 
 miracles. In other words, the specific application of the Mes- 
 siahship to the precise individual Jesus of Nazareth was re- 
 vealed to them only by flesh and blood: for the sole ground, 
 on which they could take up this opinion, was the exercise of 
 their own unassisted intellect. 
 
 Hence, as might naturally be expected, they sometimes be- 
 lieved, and they sometimes doubted. 
 
 But, at length, it pleased the Father which is in heaven to 
 convey into the mind of Peter the full assurance of a divine re- 
 velation. Every doubt as to the proper ascription of the Mes- 
 siahship being thus removed, the Apostle, not merely in conse- 
 quence of his own reasoning upon probabilities, but under the 
 immediate influence of a divine revelation, now confidently ex- 
 claimed: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 
 
 The confession of St. Peter, in short, was not a bare confes- 
 sion of the Messiah’s divinity an the abstract: for that doctrine, 
 
366 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. II. 
 
 as we have seen, was, in the time of our Lord, held by the 
 whole Jewish nation. Neither was it a simple hesitating de- 
 claration, founded on apparently sufficient evidence: that Jesus 
 of Nazareth, in the concrete, was the expected Messiah. But 
 it was a heaven-inspired acknowledgment, free from every 
 shadow of doubt and perplexity: that the person, who then stood 
 before them under the aspect of a man, was the Messiah, in 
 that precise divine character of the Son of the living God, a 
 filial emanation from the substance of the paternal fountain of 
 Deity, under which he was universally expected. 
 
 Ill. It is observable: that, so far from correcting the general 
 belief in the important article of the Messiah’s preéxistence 
 and divinity according to the specifically applied prophecy of 
 Micah (Micah v. 1, 2. Matt. ii. 1—6), our Lord, by the praise 
 which he bestows both upon the confession of Peter and upon 
 the yet earlier parallel confession of Nathanael, clearly and dis- 
 tinctly confirms it. 
 
 Nor does he confirm it merely in words: on the contrary, 
 by an action, at once most extraordinary and most significant, 
 which followed the confession of Peter at an interval of only 
 six days, he establishes, both the general doctrine of the Mes- 
 siah’s divinity, and the particular ascription of the Messiahship 
 to himself. 
 
 In the remarkable event of the Transfiguration, Christ de- 
 clared his godhead after a manner, which no devout and intel- 
 ligent Jew could misunderstand. He appeared, radiant in all 
 the glory of the Shechinah: as Daniel beheld him, in the visions 
 of the night; as Stephen saw him, immediately before his 
 martyrdom ; as Paul viewed him, on his journey to Damascus ; 
 and as the worshipped Angel of Jehovah was wont, to display 
 himself to the patriarchs, or to blaze in the burning bush, or to 
 gleam from the cloudy pillar of fire. Moses and Elias were 
 his attendants, thus fully confirming his claim of the Messiah- 
 ship: and, to strengthen the faith of the witnessing Apostles 
 and to remove the stumbling-block of his approaching cruci- 
 fixion which had given such heavy offence to Peter even after 
 
NUMB. IV. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 367 
 
 his inspired confession, they spake, we are told, of his decease 
 which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. The intent of the 
 vision could not be mistaken by those, who, as Justin speaks, 
 believed, from the ancient prophecies, that the Messiah would be 
 God worthy of all adoration: and, as the three witnesses were 
 charged to communicate it not until after his death, we may be 
 sure; that, when he was risen from the dead, the important 
 communication would be no longer, even for a moment, with- 
 held. See my Sermon on the Transfiguration. Serm. vol. ii. 
 serm, 4. | 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 
 
 { have now given a sufficient answer to the objection of Dr. 
 Priestley: that, In Holy Scripture, me can find recorded no 
 irace of the prodigious change of ideas which must have oc- 
 curred, when the Apostles, ceasing to view Christ as a mere 
 man like themselves, began additionally to esteem him the Most 
 High God. 
 
 I, The truth is: from the time of their acknowledging him 
 to be the Messiah, they never, save when their concrete faith 
 in his own particular Messiahship failed, viewed him as a mere 
 man like themselves. 
 
 1. In their minds, as in the minds of all their countrymen, 
 the two ideas, of THE MESSIAH and THE WORSHIPPED ANGEL OF 
 JEHOVAH, Of THE PROMISED RULER IN ISRAEL and THE BEING 
 WHOSE GOINGS FORTH ARE FROM EVERLASTING, Of THE PREDICTED 
 suiton and (as Zechariah speaks) JEHOVAH SENT BY JEHOVAH, 
 were inseparable. 
 
 Hence it were most strange, if, in Holy Scripture, we could 
 find recorded a change of sentiment, which in reality never 
 occurred. j 
 
 2. Man, indeed, true and proper man, the Apostles, no 
 
368 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. lI. 
 
 doubt, believed our Lord to be: for, in the language of St. 
 John when opposing the error of the Docetz, they had heard, 
 and they had seen with their eyes, and they had looked upon, 
 and they had even handled with their hands, the Word of life. 
 
 But then they deemed him no other, than the visible and 
 tangible man, with whom Jacob wrestled, whom both he and 
 Hosea have declared to be God, and whom (in his capacity of 
 the eternal Son of the eternal Father) John himself determines 
 to be God with God in the beginning and from the beginning. 
 1 John i. 1—3. Gen. xxxti. 24—30. xlvili. 15,16. Hos. 
 xii. 8—5. John i. 1—8. 
 
 That such, accordingly, was the faith of the primitive Church 
 at a time so early that it could not but have been received 
 from the Apostles, is most abundantly manifest from the writ- 
 ings of Justin: for, as we have seen, between Justin and St. 
 John, there cannot have been more than a single intervenient 
 link of communication. Hence we shall not wonder to have 
 found, that Christ’s personal converse with the ancient patri- 
 archs was even introduced, as an article of faith, into one of the 
 primitive ecclesiastical Symbols preserved by Tertullian. Justin. 
 Apol. i. Oper. p. 74, 75. Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 278—281. 
 Tertull. de praescript. adv. heer. Oper. p. 100. 
 
 II. Agreeably to the view of the question which has been 
 here taken, we have positive demonstration: that the doctrine 
 of our Lord’s divinity was known to the Apostles even before 
 the descent of the Holy Ghost, whose special office was to teach 
 them all things and to bring all things to their remembrance 
 whatsoever Christ had said unto them. John xiv. 26. 
 
 This is evident, as I have already elsewhere observed, from 
 the recorded fact of Thomas styling him his Lord and his God: 
 for the passage, in which that fact is set forth, was understood 
 and expounded by the doctors of the primitive Church precisely 
 as it Is understood and expounded by every modern Catholic. 
 
 Hence, of course, after the descent of the Holy Ghost, the 
 doctrine could not but be, a fortior?, perfectly well known and 
 firmly established. 
 
NUMB. IV. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 369 
 
 Accordingly, in the narrative of one of the earliest mentioned 
 subsequent occurrences, Stephen, in the agonies of martyrdom, 
 after beholding Jesus in the divine glory of the Shechinah, 
 solemnly invocated him, that he would receive his parting soul 
 and that he would forgive his blood-thirsty murderers: and so 
 notorious was this primitive rite of znvoking Christ as God (to 
 adopt the phraseology of the depositions taken before Pliny), 
 that the very first name, by which believers seem to have been 
 distinguished, was the appellation of Those who call upon the 
 name of the Lord Jesus. 
 
 III. In exact agreement with these facts, and in perfect ac- 
 cordance with the testimony of those very ancient Fathers 
 Justin and Irenéus; the Apostles, instead of never mentioning 
 Christ save as a mere man, the assertion which Dr. Priestley 
 has been pleased to make (Hist. of Corrupt. Introduct. Works, 
 vol. v. p. 14.), both style him God, and appropriate to him the 
 very name of Jehovah, and ascribe to him all the attributes of 
 the Deity, with so much positiveness and clearness and decision, 
 that it requires the most strange and unnatural glosses to evade 
 the force of their testimony. 
 
 I know perfectly well the mode, in which Dr. Priestley and 
 his associates deal with such texts: but, as the universal exposi- 
 tion of them by the primitive Church is still upon record, we 
 do not conceive ourselves to act irrationally, in preferring 
 evidence to mere dogmatism, in adopting the ancient rather than 
 the modern interpretation. 
 
 Atall events, Dr. Priestley can have no right, in a professed 
 historical Work, to come forward and to declare, without the 
 slightest qualification: that the Apostles of Christ never spoke 
 of him save as a mere man like themselves. He must have known, 
 and he ought to have specified, that, although such might be 
 his own arbitrary view of the apostolic language, no one, either 
 in ancient or in modern times, agreed with him, save only the 
 members of that small party in which he ministered. 
 
 VOU; Bb 
 
NUMBER V. 
 
 RESPECTING THE TRUE IMPORT OF THE PASSAGE CONTAINED IN 
 HEE. 121, 2: 
 
 Ir has been urged by Dr. Priestley, and other writers of the 
 same School: that the doétrine of the primitive Church, relative 
 to the frequent personal appearances of Christ to the ancient 
 patriarchs under the character of Jehovah the Angel or Mes- 
 senger of Jehovah, as distinctly set forth by Justin and Irenéus 
 and Clement and Tertullian and others of the early Antenicene 
 Fathers, is irreconcileable with the exordium of the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews. 
 
 God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in 
 tame past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath, in these last 
 days, spoken unto us by his Son. Heb. i. 1, 2. 
 
 From this passage, it is argued in manner following. 
 
 The personal appearance of Christ in the last days is here 
 placed contradistinctively to The personal appearance of the 
 prophets mn former days. 
 
 But, if Christ had himself personally appeared in former 
 days: the studied antithesis of the Apostle would plainly be 
 altogether unfounded. 
 
 Therefore, consistently with the language of the Apostle, 
 there could not have been any personal appearance of Christ in 
 former days. 
 
 Whence it will follow: that Justin, and the other ancient 
 Fathers who agree with him, cannot have propounded the true 
 doctrine of the primitive Church; but must have given us 
 nothing better, than their own unchastised imaginings. 
 
THE APOSTOLICITY OF TRINITARIANISM. 37] 
 
 The present objection, which was urged by the earlier Soci- 
 nians long before the time of Dr. Priestley, is somewhat plausi- 
 ble: but it will not bear the test of a close examination. 
 
 I. Its conclusion, that The doctrine in question cannot have 
 been the doctrine of the primitive Church, however it might have 
 been started by certain speculative individuals, is contradicted 
 by the direct evidence of a fact. 
 
 I might fairly argue: that, in the very nature of things, 
 Justin could not have advanced the doctrine in a public 
 Apology and under a plural phraseology, which is actually the 
 case; had he not been well aware, that he was speaking the 
 sentiments of the entire Church on behalf of which he stepped 
 forth as its accredited defender. 
 
 But, in the present matter, I require not the argument from 
 inference. The doctrine is avowedly and openly propounded, 
 as an article of faith, in an ancient Symbol preserved by Ter- 
 tullian. 
 
 Id Verbum Filius ejus appellatum: ejus in nomine Dei varid 
 visum patriarchis. Reg. Fid. vetust. apud Tertull. de preescript. 
 adv. har. § 4. Oper. p. 100. 
 
 Now it is clear: that a doctrine, rejected by the early Catholic 
 Church, could not possibly have appeared, as an article of faith, 
 in a public Symbol or Creed or Confession put forth authorita- 
 tively by that identical Church. 
 
 Therefore the occurrence of the doctrine in the Symbol 
 proves, that the early Catholic Church taught and maintained it. 
 
 II. But it will be said: that, whether the early Catholic 
 Church did or did not, teach and maintain it; still, if it con- 
 tradicts the decision of an Apostle, we cannot receive it as a 
 genuine dogma of Christianity. 
 
 1. Should this unhappily prove to be the case, we must 
 then, I fear, abandon a very excellent canon laid down by Dr. 
 Priestley himself. 
 
 For the canon asserts the moral impossibility of error, re- 
 specting the true nature of Christ, on the part of that early 
 
 Bb 2 
 
372 THE APOSTOLICITY [ APP. Il. 
 
 community, which received its doctrines immediately from the 
 hands of the Apostles. 
 
 Whereas the result shews: that, in despite of the canon, 
 that early community had adopted, even as an article of faith, 
 avery considerable error combated by St. Paul in the Exordium 
 of his Epistle to the Hebrews. Priestley’s Reply to Animad. 
 Introd. sect iv. Works, vol. xviii. p. 23. 
 
 2. But, in truth, we need be under no apprehension for the 
 credit of the canon, which is certainly one of the very best pro- 
 ductions of Dr. Priestley. The objection, at present before us, 
 has been framed upon a complete misconception of the nature 
 and purport of St. Paul’s antithesis. 
 
 (1.) That antithesis does not respect The personal appear- 
 ance of Christ, as opposed to The personal appearance of the 
 prophets. But it respects The tmmediate ministration of Christ 
 in his character of the personal introducer of the New Covenant, 
 as opposed to The immediate ministration of Moses and other 
 prophets in their character of the personal teachers of the Old 
 Covenant. 
 
 (2.) Here lies the real intended contradistinction between 
 Christ and the prophets. | 
 
 The original Patriarchial Dispensation was, personally, com- 
 municated by Adam to his children. What may be called the 
 second or intermediate Patriarchal Dispensation was, similarly, 
 communicated by the personal intervention of Abraham. “And 
 the Levitical Dispensation was, in like manner, communicated 
 to the Israelites by the personal intervention of Moses. 
 
 In all these instances, with the subordinate instances of 
 Enoch and Noah and Elijah and other similar declarers of 
 the divine behests, God spake in time past unto the fathers by 
 the prophets. 
 
 But far more highly privileged was the Christian Dis- 
 pensation. 
 
 There, en these last days, God hath spoken unto us by his own 
 Son. Unlike all the former Dispensations, this crowning Dis- 
 
NUMB. V. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 373 
 
 pensation was communicated to us by the direct personal inter- 
 vention of the divine Word himself: for the Word was made 
 flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory 
 as of the only-begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth. 
 
 (3.) Thus, when the apostolic antithesis comes to be rightly 
 viewed and accurately stated, the socinian objection plainly 
 loses all its force. 
 
 St. Paul speaks, not of Christ’s mere temporary personal ap- 
 pearances, but of Christ’s personal and immediate ministration 
 as the prophet of a new and better Dispensation. 
 
 3. I may add: that, if the objection had possessed any force, 
 it would not only have annihilated Dr. Priestley’s very useful 
 canon; but, what is. still worse, it would have made St. Paul 
 contradict himself. 
 
 It is certainly a remarkable circumstance: that the doctrine 
 of Christ’s frequent appearance to the patriarchs should have 
 been made even an article of faith in a Symbol, which, from the 
 circumstance of its having been preserved by Tertullian, must 
 have chronologically approximated very closely to the apostolic 
 times. But the framers of that primitive Symbol had not only 
 the advantage of knowing, with moral assurance, the doctrine 
 of Christ’s immediate disciples: they had likewise good written 
 or scriptural authority for their insertion of such an article. 
 
 (1.) St. Paul, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, had 
 taught them: that The Israelites im the wilderness tempted 
 Christ and were destroyed of serpents. 1 Corinth. x. 9. 
 
 Now the person, whom the Israelites tempted on that occa- 
 sion, was, as we are assured both by Moses and by David, 
 Jehovah himself, the God of the whole earth. Numb. xxi. 4—7. 
 Psalm cvi. 14. | 
 
 But the Jehovah, who conducted the Israelites through the 
 wilderness, and who was tempted of them when they were 
 destroyed by serpents, was undoubtedly that Jehovah, who 
 always described himself as the peculiar family God of Abraham 
 and Isaac and Jacob. 
 
 The Jehovah, however, who thus described himself, appeared 
 
O74 THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. Il. 
 
 to Moses in the bush. And the Jehovah, who appeared to 
 Moses in the bush, is declared to be the Angel or Messenger of 
 Jehovah: that is to say, he is declared to be, as Zechariah 
 speaks, Jehovah sent by Jehovah. Zechar, ii. 6—11. 
 
 Now this Angel or Messenger of Jehovah, himself also Je- 
 hovah the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, is declared 
 to be likewise the Being, who repeatedly appeared to the patri- 
 archs, and who also repeatedly appeared during the earlier 
 times of the Levitical Polity; invariably receiving divine adora- 
 tion from those persons to whom he did appear, and invariably 
 considered by them as a manifestation of the Deity. 
 
 But St. Paul, by asserting that The Israelites tempted Christ 
 in the wilderness, virtually asserts also: that Christ is the 
 Angel of Jehovah and (as such) the God of Abraham and Isaac 
 and Jacob. 
 
 Therefore, finally, he teaches the doctrine, which, in the 
 primitive Church nearest to the times of the Apostles, was 
 received as an article of faith: that The Son or the Word of 
 God variously appeared to the patriarchs. 
 
 Such, then, is the doctrine of St. Paul. But, if we interpret 
 the Exordium of the Epistle to the Hebrews according to the 
 tenor of the socinian objection, we shall clearly make St. Paul 
 
 contradict in one place what he asserts in another. Therefore, 
 
 we have yet an additional reason for maintaining, that any inter- 
 pretation of this nature is untenable. Accordingly, as I have 
 shewn above, the true interpretation of the passage is liable to 
 no such objection. 
 
 (2.) That Christ is the real ancient reading of the text in the 
 first Epistle to the Corinthians, appears, not only from Hilary the 
 deacon and Chrysostom and Ecumenius and Theophylact and 
 Primasius, but likewise from the preéminent authority of the 
 much more ancient Irenéus: for this venerable Father, who 
 was born in the year 97 anterior to the death of St. John, and 
 who conversed with that Apostle through the single intervening 
 
 link of Polycarp, cites the passage precisely as it stands in our 
 common Bibles. | 
 
NUMB. V._| OF TRINITARIANISM. 375 
 
 Nec tentemus Christum, quemadmodum quidam eorum ten- 
 taverunt, et a serpentibus perierunt. Iren. adv. her. lib. iv. 
 c. 45. § 4. p. 281. 
 
 In strict accordance with such a citation, Irenéus asserts the 
 precise doctrine, which, in framing the ancient Symbol pre- 
 served by Tertullian, the early Church, if I mistake not, 
 founded upon this identical text in the first Epistle to the 
 Corinthians. 
 
 . Qui igitur a prophetis adorabatur Deus vivus, hic est vivorum 
 Deus et Verbum ejus: qui et locutus est Moysi, qui et Saddu- 
 czeos redarguit, qui et resurrectionem et Dominum estendit.— 
 [pse igitur Christus cum Patre vivorum est Deus, qui et locutus 
 est Moysi, qui et patribus manifestatus est. Iren. adv. heer. 
 lib. iv. c. 11. p. 239. 
 
 Et iterum, in eversione Sodomitarum, Scriptura ait: Et pluit 
 Dominus super Sodomam et Gomorrham ignem et sulphur a 
 Domino de ceelo. Filium enim hic significat, qui et Abrahee 
 conloquutus sit, et a Patre accepisse potestatem ad judicandum 
 Sodomitas propter iniquitatem eorum. Iren. adv. heer. lib. iii. 
 e, 6) pil75. 
 
 Inseminatus est ubique in Scripturis ejus Filius Dei, aliquando 
 quidem cum Abraham loquens, aliquando cum eodem come- 
 surus, aliquando autem Sodomitis inducens judicium: et rursus, 
 cum videtur et in viam dirigit Jacob, et de rubo loquitur cum 
 Moyse. Et non est numerum dicere, in quibus a Moyse osten- 
 ditur Filius Dei. Tren. adv. heer. lib. iv. c. 23. p. 248. 
 
 III. Before this subject be dismissed, I may be allowed to 
 notice the very extraordinary interpretation of certain parallel 
 texts in the book of Exodus, which has been given by Justin 
 Martyr. 
 
 That early Father, like his contemporary Irenéus, strenuously 
 maintains the doctrine propounded in the ancient Symbol; that 
 The Filial Word of God variously appeared to the patriarchs : 
 and this divine Word he contends to have been that God of 
 Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, who, under the appellation of 
 
376 THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. I, 
 
 the Angel of Jehovah, conducted the Israelites through the wil- 
 derness. 
 
 1. Such being the principle of his debate with Trypho, he is 
 led in the course of it to adduce the sum of the following well- 
 known passages in the book of Exodus. 
 
 (1.) Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee in the 
 nay, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. 
 
 Benare of him, and obey his voice: provoke him not; for he 
 nill not pardon your transgressions : for my name is in him. 
 
 But, if thou shalt indeed obey his voice and do all that I 
 speak: then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an ad- 
 versary unto thine adversaries. For mine angel shall go before 
 thee; and bring thee in unto the Amorites and the Hittites and 
 the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hwvites and the Jebu- 
 sites: and I mill cut them off. Exod. xxiii. 20—23. 
 
 (2.) And the Lord said unto Moses :—Therefore now go, lead 
 the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: be- 
 hold, mine angel shall go before thee. Exod. xxx. 33, 34, 
 
 (3.) And the Lord said unto Moses: Depart and go up 
 hence, thou and the people which thou hast brought up out of the 
 land of Egypt, unto the land which I sware unto Abraham and 
 to Isaac and to Jacob, saying; Unto thy seed will I give it. 
 
 And I will send an angel before thee: and I mill drive out 
 the Canaanite and the Amorite and the Hittite and the Perizzite 
 and the Hivite and the Jebusite: unto a land floning mith milk 
 and honey: for I nill not go up m the midst of thee. Exod. 
 Xxx. 1—3. 
 
 2. Of these several passages conjoined Justin has given us 
 the following interpretation. 
 
 (1.) The Lord, who promises to send his angel or messenger 
 before his people Israel, he understands, consistently with his 
 universal plan of exposition, to be Jehovah the Filial Word of 
 God: who, of old, spake to Moses from the burning bush ; 
 and who, in the fulness of time, took our nature upon him from 
 the womb of the Virgin. 
 
NUMB. V..| OF TRINITARIANISM. 377 
 
 (2.) Having thus interpreted the character of the Lord who 
 sends his messenger before the people into the land of Canaan, 
 he next proceeds to ascertain that of the promised messenger 
 himself. 
 
 Now this he does from the description of the peculiar office 
 assigned to him. 
 
 The messenger was to go before the people, and to bring 
 them in unto the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites 
 and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites. 
 
 But this was the precise office discharged by Joshua. 
 
 Therefore, he contends, Joshua was clearly the angel or mes- 
 senger, whom Jehovah the Filial Word of God promised to 
 send before the people. 
 
 (3.) Jehovah the Filial Word, however, declares: that [His 
 own name is in this his messenger. 
 
 But the name, borne by Jehovah the Filial Word, when in- 
 carnate from the Virgin Mary, was Jesus. 
 
 Therefore, since his own name is in his messenger, by the 
 same name of Jesus must that messenger be also distinguished. 
 
 Accordingly, in matter of fact, by that identical name the 
 great and victorious captain of Israel was distinguished : for, as 
 we all know, the word Jesus is only the Greek mode of writing 
 the Hebrew word Joshua. Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. 
 p. 234. 
 
 3. It is no part of my business either to confirm or to con- 
 trovert this primitive interpretation. Iam concerned only with 
 ‘ts resuli: and that resulé is not a little important, whether the 
 interpretation itself be tenable or untenable. 
 
 (1.) Dr. Priestley and others, as we have seen, please them- 
 selves, and endeavour to satisfy their party, with alleging: that 
 The earlier Fathers, though they first broke in upon the ori- 
 ginal simplicity of the Gospel, never allowed proper divinity 
 to the Son; but that Their system of doctrine mas not unlike 
 that scheme, which, at a subsequent period, was denominated 
 Arianism. * 
 
 (2.) Yet what is the inevitable result of this present inter- 
 
378 THE APOSTOLICITY OF TRINITARIANISM. [APP. II. 
 
 pretation, as proposed, about thirty years after the death of St. 
 John, by Justin Martyr ? 
 
 The person, who promises to send his messenger before his 
 people Israel, is, in the cited book of Exodus, declared to be 
 Jehovah himself. 
 
 But Justin asserts: that the unspecified name appertaining 
 to Jehovah, which Jehovah himself here alludes to as about 
 to be in his appointed messenger, is no other than the name 
 Jesus. 
 
 Therefore Justin, so far from denying proper divinity to our 
 Lord, unequivocally pronounces: that he is nothing less than 
 Jehovah, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. 
 
 Such, indisputably, must be the result from the interpreta- 
 tion, whatever becomes of the interpretation itself: for that 
 interpretation, be it in the abstract tenable or untenable, never 
 could have been advanced by an individual, who, in his doc- — 
 trinal system, allowed not to the Son any true or proper 
 divinity. 
 
NUMBER VI. 
 
 RESPECTING THE ANTITRINITARIAN VIEW OF THE PASSAGES IN 
 SCRIPTURE, WHICH ARE THOUGHT TO PROPOUND THE DOCTRINES 
 OF SATISFACTION AND PIACULAR SACRIFICE. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION. 
 
 As the Catholic believes Christ to be very God imcarnate: so 
 he believes, that God the Son became incarnate for the purpose 
 of making satisfaction to the absolute justice of God the Father, 
 without which satisfaction the sinful race of fallen man could 
 not be saved consistently with the nature of that unbending 
 attribute ; and he further believes, that the mode, in which this 
 satisfaction was made, was by the piacular sacrifice or the ex- 
 piatory self-devotement of Christ his Saviour. 
 
 I. The doctrine of Satisfaction may sometimes have been 
 not quite accurately expressed by those, who have occasionally 
 handled it. 
 
 Thus, for instance, by some writers, the death of Christ has 
 been described as THE cause, which renders the Almighty Fa- 
 ther pisposED to forgive our sins. 
 
 Now this statement, I apprehend, is not perfectly correct. 
 
 God so loved the world, said ovr Lord himself, that he gave 
 his only-begotten Son: in order that, whosoever believeth im 
 him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. John i. 16. 
 
 Here, and in many other passages, THE FIRST IMPELLING 
 
380 THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. Il. 
 
 causE, by which the Father is pisposxp to forgive our sins, is 
 his own merciful love. 
 
 To assert, therefore, that The death of Christ was tHE CAUSE 
 which rendered the Father pisposED or INCLINED to forgiveness, 
 whereas PREVIOUSLY he was NOT SO DISPOSED Or INCLINED, is, I 
 conceive, not scripturally accurate. 
 
 II. But, though by some good men the doctrine may not 
 always have been expressed with perfect correctness; whence 
 occasion has mischievously been taken to say, that it exhibits 
 God the Father under the unlovely aspect of antecedent impla- 
 cability : still Catholics are fully agreed, as to the main position 
 which it sets forth; and I may perhaps venture to assert, that, 
 as the following is the most general view of the subject, so 
 likewise it is deemed the most sound and exact. 
 
 1. The perfect inherent love and mercy of God were the first 
 impelling cause, which disposed him, to forgive the fallen race 
 of man, to reconcile them to himself here, and finally to admit 
 them to glory hereafter. 
 
 But, though inherent love and mercy were the first impelling 
 cause ; yet God is a God of perfect justice, as well as a God 
 of perfect mercy and love: and, however his love and mercy 
 might be displayed in the unconditional pardon of a sinner ; 
 his justice would cease to be perfect, if the sinner were par- 
 doned without full satisfaction being made for his offence. 
 
 Now such satisfaction the sinner himself cannot make: for 
 mere repentance, though doubtless required by God at his hands, 
 cannot in perfect justice exempt him from merited punishment. 
 A murderer may profess to be, and reallymay be, very sorry for 
 his offence: but his punishment cannot on that account be re- 
 mitted without manifest injustice; he must still pay the penalty 
 of the broken law. Hence, analogically, however the mercy of 
 God may dispose him to pardon, he would cease to be a God 
 of perfect justice, if he pardoned nithout adequate satisfaction, 
 
 What, then, was to be done ? 
 
 According to the mode in which the Catholic understands 
 Scripture, such was the infinite impelling love of the Father, 
 
NUMB. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 381 
 
 that he gave his only-begotten Son, the Son himself fully con- 
 senting and’ freely undertaking the task, to stand in the place 
 of sinners: so that, by undergoing the punishment due to them, 
 he might make complete satisfaction to the Father, and thus 
 render it possible (as St. Paul speaks) for God at once to be 
 just and yet the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. Rom. 
 ili. 26. 
 
 This is held by the Catholic Church to be that grand christian 
 paradox, in which perfect mercy and perfect justice unite to 
 pardon and to save the guilty. } 
 
 If, without satisfaction to his violated Law, God semply for- 
 gave sinners, he might be merciful, but he could not be per- 
 fectly just: for the idea of simply pardoning a criminal and 
 the idea of perfect justice are clearly incompatible. 
 
 But God’s mercy provided a satisfaction to his justice: 
 through the vicarious death of the incarnate Son for the sins of 
 all mankind, the two otherwise jarring attributes were fully re- 
 conciled: and a way of pardon and acceptance was freely 
 opened to every one, who was willing to avail himself of the 
 propounded terms. 
 
 2. The Father, says Justin Martyr or whoever was the very 
 ancient apostolic writer of the Epistle to Diognetus, ‘nen all 
 things by himself; though, economically, in conjunction nith his 
 Son. 
 
 Down to the termination of the former time, he suffered us, as 
 we ourselves desired, to be hurried anay by disorderly impulses, 
 and to be governed by our own pleasures and desires. Not, in- 
 deed, that he was pleased nith our sins; but that he endured 
 them: not that he was consentient during the season of iniquity ; 
 but that he mas forming a purpose of justice: for he formed 1t, 
 in order that, during that time being from our own actions con- 
 victed of unworthiness of life, we might now through the good- 
 ness of God fitly obtain it; and, having so far as concerned 
 ourselves fully displayed the impossibility of our entering ito 
 the kingdom of God, me might now through the power of God 
 be rendered able so to enter. 
 
382 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. II. 
 
 When, therefore, the measure of our unrighteousness was fully 
 accomplished ; and when tt had been made completely manifest, 
 that punishment and death might have been expected as the fit 
 nages of sin: then came the time, in which God had predeter- 
 mined to display his own goodness and poner; that, through his 
 exceeding great love to man, he did not hate us, nor reject us, 
 nor remember our evil deeds ; but that (as he himself declared ) 
 he long bore with us, and took wpon him the burden of our sins. 
 
 His own Son he gave a ransom for us: the holy for the un- 
 holy, the good for the bad, the just for the unjust, the meorrupti- 
 ble for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. For what 
 else could cover our sins, eacept his righteousness? In whom 
 mas it possible that such lanless and impious beings as ourselves 
 could be justified, except in the Son of God alone ? 
 
 O sweet interchange ! O contrivance past all investigation ! 
 O unexpected benefits! That the wickedness of many should be 
 hidden in one righteous person, and that the righteousness of one 
 should justify many who were nicked. | 
 
 Having, therefore, in former time demonstrated the wmpossi- 
 bility of our nature obtaining life; and having now set forth a 
 Saviour, able to save those who in themselves were incapable of 
 salvation: from both these circumstances, he has wished us to 
 rely upon his goodness, and to deem him our nourisher, our 
 father, our teacher, our counsellor, our physician, our intellect, 
 our light, our honour, our glory, our strength, our life. Epist. 
 ad Diog. in Oper. Justin. p. 386. 
 
 III. Now the whole of this grand scheme of mercy, which 
 the Catholic esteems the very essence of the Gospel, the Anti- 
 trinitarian in our modern days rejects as an unscriptural cor- 
 ruption. 
 
 If, then, it be rejected, upon what specific ground is sinful 
 man to hope for pardon and acceptance ? 
 
 Clearly, he is thrown altogether, upon his own merits or de- 
 merits, upon his own resources or deficiencies. 
 
 That all men are sinners, will scarcely, I presume, be denied 
 even by a modern Antitrinitarian. The amount of their sin- 
 
 7 
 
NUMB. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 383 
 
 fulness he may possibly seek to extenuate: but still he will 
 not venture to maintain, that there lives a human being, who 
 has never offended against God in thought or in word or in 
 deed. 
 
 Under such circumstances, if we reject the doctrine of the 
 atonement : how, without adequate satisfaction being made, is 
 guilty man to be pardoned; while yet the perfect justice of 
 God is preserved inviolate and unimpeached ? 
 
 IV. Lest I should unwittingly misrepresent the system or 
 systems of the Antitrinitarian School, I shall borrow the state- 
 ment of a writer, whose authority, I believe, is deemed among 
 his friends the very reverse of contemptible. 
 
 Some fen of those, who are united by accordance in the great 
 principles of Unitarianism, says Dr. Carpenter, believe: that 
 the judgment, by which the condition of each is decided, takes 
 place, for each, at death; and that there nill be no general 
 judgment. 
 
 Some few believe: that, although there nill be a general 
 judgment, yet the decisions of the great day will not be conducted 
 by our Saviour as a personal judge. 
 
 Many believe : that the individual, immediately after death, 
 enters into a state of happiness or misery; and yet that there 
 will be a general resurrection of the dead. 
 
 But the greatest proportion, I imagine, among Unitarians, 
 regard the interval between death and the resurrection as a 
 period of unconsciousness (in which, to the individual, the in- 
 stants of those great events must be in immediate succession) : 
 and believe ; that, in the strictest sense, we shall all stand before 
 ithe judgment-seat of Christ. 
 
 Yet, in the midst of these diversities of opinion, all receive, 
 what is surely the grand essential point: that the future life 
 nill be a state of righteous retribution, and that all shall be 
 judged according to their works. j 
 
 Here the influence of Unitarianism shines forth resplendently. 
 —Nothing, which can be derived from Unitarianism, interferes 
 with the solemn, authoritative, decisive, declarations of the Gos- 
 
384 THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. II. 
 
 pel: Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap; and 
 Every man shall bear his own burden. 
 
 Yet blessed be God, that, with the gift of eternal life through 
 Christ Jesus, 1s not connected the disclosure of eternal, irremedi- 
 able, unmingled, anguish to an incomparably large proportion of 
 the human race !—The Gospel does indeed persuade men by the 
 terrors of the Lord: and it displays to us those terrors im terms 
 too clear to allow the guilty sinner, either to hope that sin shall 
 go unpunished, or to doubt the truth that indignation and wrath 
 nill be on the workers of iniquity. Its declarations, respecting 
 ther future sufferings, are anful and alarming: but, of the 
 duration of these, it speaks in language too indefinite to require 
 us to believe a doctrine, at which the best feelings of the human 
 heart revolt. . 
 
 In rejecting this opinion, Unitarians are universally agreed : 
 and the connection is close and (I think) indissoluble, between 
 the fundamental doctrines of Unitarianism, and those views of 
 the divine character and dispensations which forbid us to make 
 his glory depend on something different from and even opposed 
 to his justice and goodness. 
 
 I should be disposed to go further, and say: that those views 
 of the divine character, to which I refer, inevitably lead to the 
 belief; that there mill be a time when all the rational creatures 
 of God will have been purified from every pollution and made 
 fit for holiness and consequently for happiness. 
 
 But there are among us able and pious scripturalists, who are 
 induced, by what they consider the plain declarations of the 
 Gospel, to believe: that the sufferings of the nicked, according 
 to their works, will be ended by their destruction. 
 
 Most of us, however, believe : that a period will come to each 
 individual, when punishment shall have done its work, and when 
 the anful sufferings, with which the Gospel threatens the impeni- 
 tent and disobedient, will have humbled the stubborn, purified 
 the polluted, and eradicated malignity, impiety, hypocrisy, and 
 every evil disposition. Examin. of Abp. Magee’s Charges, 
 p. 3/—43. 
 
NUMB. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 385 
 
 If I can collect any thing like a tangible and consistent creed 
 from the confessed diversity of opinions which prevail among 
 Antitrinitarians ; for, by the vague and undistinguishing name 
 of Unitarians, a name equally the property of every denomi- 
 nation of Christians, Dr. Carpenter means, I presume, to point 
 out religionists of that description: I must specify that creed 
 in some such terms as the following. 
 
 Either immediately after death, or immediately after the gene- 
 ral doom, good men nill enter into happiness and bad men mill 
 enter into penal misery. But the punishment of the wicked will 
 not be eternal: on the contrary, it will be exactly proportioned 
 to their several demerits. When they shall have remained in tor- 
 ment sufficiently long to make satisfaction for their sins and to 
 purge away their pollutions, they nill then either be admitted 
 into bliss or will have an end put to their sufferings by annthi- 
 lation. 
 
 V. Inmaking this brief statement, I have not been designedly 
 guilty of misrepresentation: should I have erred unintentionally, 
 the ample quotation from Dr. Carpenter’s exposition of the 
 matter will doubtless correct my mistake. ‘Trusting, however, 
 that my statement contains no error at least of moment, I shall 
 proceed to inquire: how far the antitrinitarian theory, either 
 secures the perfect justice of God, or agrees with the plain lan- 
 guage of Scripture. 
 
 1. The leading idea, which pervades the whole system, is: 
 that Satisfaction to the divine justice is made by the exactly pro- 
 portioned future penal sufferings of every sinning individual. 
 He, who has sinned less, is punished less: he, who has_ sinned 
 more, is punished more. He, who is less guilty, makes his 
 escape sooner from the place of purifying torment: he, who 1s 
 more guilty, remains in it during a longer period. 
 
 Such, so far as I can understand the system, is its leading 
 and palmary idea: such, at least professedly, is the principle, 
 upon which it claims to repose. But, when it.is actually brought 
 into play, this idea and this principle are very widely departed 
 from. For we are then taught: that, immediately after either 
 
 VOL. Il. cc 
 
386 THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. Il. 
 
 death or judgment (no matter which, so far as the difficulty or 
 inconsistency is concerned), each individual enters into a state 
 either of happiness or of misery. 
 
 Now we may well ask: how can this be, if the present sys- 
 tem of apportioning an exact remuneration of punishment be 
 correct ? 
 
 That art have sinned more or less, will scarcely be denied : 
 unless indeed the Antitrinitarian be prepared either to contro- 
 vert or to disfranchise the declaration of St. Paul; that aLy 
 have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Rom. ii. 23. 
 But, if aru have sinned: then ax1, unless the very principle of 
 the present system be abandoned, must make satisfaction to 
 the precision of divine justice by undergoing their respectively 
 merited share of punishment hereafter. | 
 
 Hence it is clear, according to the Antitrinitarian scheme : 
 that, immediately after either death or judgment, atx, whether 
 comparatively good or positively bad, must enter into a state of 
 penal misery. Some may suffer more, and some may suffer 
 less; some may remain in torment a longer time, and some 
 may be subjected to it for a shorter time: but still, on the 
 avowed principle of the present system, inasmuch as ALL have 
 sinned, ALL must enter during an ‘appointed season into the 
 common prison-house of retributive punishment. From this 
 fate none can be exempt, save those who have never sinned. 
 But atu have sinned and come short of the glory of God. There- 
 fore att must hereafter be subjected to exactly apportioned 
 penal misery. 
 
 This, so far as I can understand the grounds of just rea- 
 soning, is the legitimate and necessary conclusion from the 
 premises laid down by the Antitrinitarian. Yet, according to 
 this self-same theological speculatist, there are individuals, who 
 enter into happimess IMMEDIATELY after either death or judg- 
 ment, and who thence totally escape even the smallest measure 
 of penal retribution. 
 
 In what manner, then, does he introduce acknowledged sinners, 
 though of course not sinners of the deepest die, into a state of 
 
NUMB. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 387 
 
 happiness without undergoing any punishment for their con- 
 fessed aberrations ; and yet preserve uninjured the perfect justice 
 of God ? 
 
 (1.) Possibly he may say: that, although no persons are 
 absolutely free from sin, yet there is a wide difference between 
 the habitually good and the habitually bad, not only in their 
 general conduct, but likewise in the important article of re- 
 pentance. 
 
 I readily allow, that there are gradations in evil: but I see 
 not, how such a circumstance can solve the difficulty. The 
 only syllogism, which can be framed upon the admitted fact, Is 
 the following. 
 
 Aur sin more or less. But there is a wide difference be- 
 tween the habitually good and the habitually bad. Tuergrore 
 the habitually good, who are only small sinners, will be sub- 
 jected to no punishment; while the habitually bad, who are 
 great sinners though still with a considerable mutual diversity, 
 will be subjected to punishments eaactly apportioned to thei 
 several demerits. 
 
 This strikes me as a somewhat lame and illegitimate con- 
 clusion: nor will the calling in of repentance much mend the 
 matter. 2 
 
 A mere expression of sorrow can neither undo a sin, nor make 
 any legal satisfaction for it. We, no doubt, often pardon an offence 
 on such groundss but this is no decisive evidence, that God either 
 will, or consistently with his attributes can, act in any such 
 manner. The reason is obvious. We are not perfectly just: 
 therefore, without departing from our character, we can depart 
 from perfect justice. But God is perfectly just: therefore God 
 cannot depart from perfect justice, without at the same time 
 departing from his own distinctive character. Now, if God 
 simply pardons an offence without exacting any punishment, on 
 the mere ground that the offender is sorry for what he has 
 done, he most assuredly departs from his own distinctive cha- 
 racter of perfect justice. The departure, possibly, may not be 
 very wide ; because (to speak after the manner of men) the sin 
 
 cceRz 
 
388 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. It. 
 
 may be small, and the repentance may be sincere: but still let 
 there be any, even the least, departure ; and justice ceases to 
 be perfect. Hence, on the Antitrinitarian scheme, we are 
 brought to the appalling alternative: either that God is not 
 perfectly just ; or that atu men, for that aut have sinned, must, 
 after death, enter, during a certain accurately adjusted season, 
 into a state of penal misery. 3 
 
 (2.) In reply, it will probably be argued: that, although a 
 perfectly just God cannot pardon sin without adequate satis- 
 faction, yet the punishment of the offender is not the only con- 
 ceivable satisfaction. _ Repentance, it is true, is not admitted in 
 a human court of judicature to be any legal satisfaction for an 
 offence: but it is easy to-believe, that the case may be very 
 different in the court of a heavenly judge. There, a sincere re- 
 pentance may be received as a full satisfaction: and thus, with- 
 out any impeachment of the divine attribute of perfect justice, 
 an absolute pardon may be freely granted to a sincerely penitent 
 offender. 
 
 With respect to this solution of the difficulty, it may, I 
 think, be well doubted ; whether, in the very nature of things, 
 mere sorrow for an offence can ever be deemed an adequate 
 legal satisfaction for the offence itself: because such an opinion 
 strikes at the very root of justice. Ifa single offence may be 
 justly pardoned on the score of mere repentance: then thou- 
 sands and myriads of successive offences may, on the same 
 principle, be justly pardoned on the same score; for at what 
 precise point shall the line be drawn, which shuts out repent- 
 ance as no longer available? But, if repentance thus operating 
 be always deemed an adequate legal satisfaction: it is abun- 
 dantly plain, that the very end of justice must be completely 
 defeated, and that a most immoral invitation must be actually 
 held out for the diligent multiplication of offence. Hence I 
 cannot but doubt: whether, in the very nature of things, mere 
 sorrow for an evil deed can ever be admitted as an adequate 
 legal satisfaction for the evil deed itself. 
 
 Granting, however, the abstract possibility of such satisfac- 
 
 a a? SS 
 
 Ss Se we ’ ha 
 
 —— = 
 
NUMB. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 389 
 
 tion, we shall still find that no ordinary difficulties attend upon 
 the principle while in supposed operation. 
 
 The theory is: that Repentance is an adequate legal satis- 
 faction for an offence ; so that, without any impeachment of the 
 divine attribute of perfect justice, the penitent offender may be 
 freely pardoned. 
 
 Such is the theory : but the question is, how this theory is to 
 be reduced to actual practice ? 
 
 A man, who has committed a small offence, while his general 
 life has been virtuous; and a man, who has repeatedly com- 
 mitted a multiplicity of great offences, so that the tenor of his 
 life has been eminently vicious; are each, we will say, truly 
 sorry for what they have respectively done: the generally 
 virtuous man having repented, after the commission of his 
 small offence; and the generally vicious man having regularly 
 repented, after the commission of every one of his great 
 offences. | 
 
 According to the present theory, what sentence must be 
 severally awarded to these two culprits? Must both be freely 
 pardoned, on the score that their repentance has made an 
 adequate satisfaction for the offences of which they have 
 each been guilty? Or must both be punished, in exact propor- 
 tion to the offences severally committed? Or must the generally 
 virtuous man be freely pardoned ; while the generally vicious 
 man, though a hearty penitent, is relentlessly condemned ? 
 
 If the first decision be adopted: then it is clear, that the 
 worst of men need be under no apprehension as to future 
 punishment; for, provided only they go on alternately sinning 
 and repenting, they will ultimately, unless they have the ill 
 luck to be cut off by sudden or accidental death before they 
 have had time to settle their moral account of debtor and cre- 
 ditor, fare no worse than the most eminently pious and devout. 
 
 If the second decision be adopted : then the present theory is 
 virtually relinquished as untenable; and it is confessed, that 
 ALL men, notwithstanding their repentance, must hereafter be 
 
390 THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. I. 
 
 punished more or less, in exact corresponding proportion, for 
 the sins which they have committed. 
 
 If the third decision be adopted: then it is acknowledged, 
 that repentance avails in some cases, but that in other cases it 
 is wholly unavailing ; that is to say, it is acknowledged, that for 
 some offences repentance is capable of making legal satisfaction, 
 but that for other offences it is wholly incapable. 
 
 Each decision, so far as I can judge, is attended with difficul- 
 ties not very easy to be surmounted: and the dast of them, 
 though when superficially viewed the most plausible, is in truth 
 the least easy to arrange in any manner which may be deemed 
 at all satisfactory. For, if some offences may be so pardoned 
 upon repentance, that the offender shall escape wholly without 
 punishment; and if other offences cannot be pardoned upon 
 repentance, but the offender must nevertheless give full satis- 
 faction to justice by suffering adequate punishment: where, as 
 to the number and magnitude of the offences, shall the line be 
 drawn ; at what precise point shall repentance become ineffectual 
 to ward off punishment ; and, if at any point it become inef- 
 fectual, why was it effectual at the immediately preceding point, 
 when between the two points the difference is so slight as to be 
 scarcely perceptible? 
 
 It will of course be understood, that in each case I speak of 
 sincere repentance: for insincere repentance is, in truth, no 
 repentance. Under every aspect, therefore, the theory, that 4 
 sincere repentance for an offence may be admitted as an adequate 
 satisfaction to the perfect justice of God for the offence itself, is, 
 I think, encumbered by far too many difficulties and contra- 
 dictions and incongruities to be rationally tenable by any serious 
 and accurate inquirer. 
 
 Again, then, on the antitrinitarian scheme, we are brought to 
 the alternative, of either giving up the perfect justice of God, 
 or of believing that att men after death enter for an exactly ap- 
 portioned season into a state of retributive penal misery. 
 
 (3.) It will perhaps be said: that, in despite of abstract 
 
 Se ee ee ee 
 
NUMB. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 39} 
 
 reasoning on the divine attributes, the pardon of sin is, in mat- 
 ter of fact, repeatedly promised to sincere repentance; God 
 himself best knowing what is an adequate satisfaction to his 
 own justice. 
 
 Assuredly the pardon of sin is so promised: but what then ? 
 Are we to pick and cull from Scripture such texts as may seem 
 to suit our purpose, while we omit those which impede it? If 
 thus we act, we may apparently demonstrate many matters to be 
 the truth, which yet are quite irreconcileable with the general 
 tenor of God’s word. Repentance is necessary, indeed, to 
 pardon; so that, without it, there can be no remission of sin: 
 but we have yet to learn where it is said, that repentance ALONE 
 is sufficient. 
 
 I find no such doctrine under the Law. 
 
 On behalf of those very persons, to whom pardon was pro- 
 mised on their repentance, the high-priest, even to say nothing 
 of individual expiatory sacrifice, entered alone into the most 
 holy place, once every year, not nithout blood, which he offered 
 for himself and for the errors of the people. Heb. ix. 7. 
 
 I find no such doctrine under ancient Patriarchism. 
 
 The friends of Job, we may be sure, when reprehended by 
 the Lord himself, were heartily sorry for their past conduct. 
 But this was not sufficient. Take unto you now seven bullocks 
 and seven rams, said Jehovah to the offenders, and go to my 
 servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt-offering ; and my 
 servant Job shall pray for you, for him mill I accept: lest I 
 deal with you after your folly. Job xii. 8. 
 
 I find nosuch doctrine under the Gospel. 
 
 Joy shall be in heaven, said our Lord, over one sinner that re- 
 penteth: and, when his Apostles went out, they preached that 
 men should repent. Luke xv. 7. Mark vi. 12. But was re- 
 pentance atone sufficient? The tenor of Christ’s preaching 
 was: Repent ye, and believe the Gospel. Marki. 15. Belief 
 in the Gospel was to be added to repentance, in order that re- 
 pentance might be effectual: and, as to the mode in which the 
 
 Gospel operates, St. Paul expressly compares its grand provi- 
 
392 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. II. 
 
 sion for the pardon of sin to the typical provision for the same 
 purpose which was made under the Law. Christ being come, 
 an high-priest of good things to come, by a greater and more 
 perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of 
 this building ; neither by the blood of goats and of calves, but by 
 his onn blood; he entered in once into the holy place, having 
 obtained eternal redemption for us. Heb. ix. 11, 12. 
 
 Now, if repentance ALONE were sufficient to make legal sa- 
 tisfaction and to procure pardon, what need was there, that the 
 Levitical High-Priest should yearly offer blood for himself and 
 for the errors of the people: what need was there, that the 
 friends of Job should offer up sacrifice: what need was there, 
 that Christ should on our behalf enter once into heaven by his 
 own blood ? 
 
 The question, at the present moment, is not: What might be 
 the precise import of sanguinary sacrifice. But the question is: 
 Whether repentance atone be sufficient, in the entire scriptural 
 representation of the matter, to make legal satisfaction for sin. 
 
 Truly the whole Bible, under all the three Dispensations, is 
 against the notion: that The pardon of sin is promised to re- 
 pentance EXCLUSIVELY. 
 
 Thus are we once more conducted to the alternative, forced 
 upon us by the antitrinitarian scheme: either God is not per- 
 fectly just; or aun men, after death, must for a season enter 
 into a state of retributive penal misery. 
 
 2. But we have yet to inquire, how far the system of the 
 Antitrinitarian School will agree with the plain testimonies of 
 Scripture. 
 
 (1.) At the very commencement of such an inquiry, it is im- 
 possible not to observe: that the whole Bible contains not so 
 much as a single syllable, relative to the imaginary purification 
 of sin-polluted souls by the fire of retributive punishment. 
 
 Most of us believe, says Dr. Carpenter: that a period nill 
 come to each indwidual, when punishment shall have done its 
 nork; and when the amful sufferings, with which the Gospel 
 threatens the impenitent and disobedient, will have humbled the 
 
NUMB. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 393 
 
 stubborn, PURIFIED THE POLLUTED, and eradicated malignity, 
 impiety, hypocrisy, and every evil disposition. 
 
 Such, according to Dr. Carpenter, is the general belief of 
 modern Antitrinitarians. But upon what part of the entire 
 Bible, whether Hebrew or Greek, is this general belief founded ? 
 Instead of future punishment in hell having a purifying effect : 
 from Scripture, if we be content to take Scripture for our guide 
 instead of our own vain imaginings, we are led to conclude, 
 that it will have a directly opposite tendency. From Scripture 
 we are led to conclude: that, so far from purifying, it will 
 inflame and irritate and harden the miserable sufferers. 
 
 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still : and he that is filthy, 
 let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be right- 
 eous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And, 
 behold, I come quickly: and my reward is with me, to give unto 
 every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and 
 Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed 
 are they that do his commandments, that they may have a right 
 to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the 
 city. For nithout are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, 
 and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh 
 a lye. Rev. xxi. 11—15. 
 
 It is difficult to say, what such passages as this can mean, if 
 they do not intimate the unalterable moral condition, both of 
 the good and of the bad alike, in the future world. Of any 
 PURIFICATION OF THE POLLUTED by the torments of hell not a 
 hint is given in Scripture: whatever is there said on the sub- 
 ject tends to establish a directly opposite opinion. Ina word, 
 the general belief of the Antitrinitarian School, according to Dr. 
 Carpenter, is: that HELL WILL PURIFY THE POLLUTED. By 
 what single text in the whole Bible do they vindicate their 
 belief ? 
 
 (2.) If, then, purification be not the result of future punish- 
 ment ; the prolonged separation of the nicked from God must, 
 even in the way of cause and effect, be the inevitable conse- 
 quence. 
 
394 THE APOSTOLICITY (APP. II. 
 
 This separation is not more a punishment (the only light, in 
 which Antitrinitarians, with the superadded idea of purifica- 
 tion, seem to consider it), than an act of fatal necessity. ‘The 
 wicked, by their very character, are unfitted for the presence 
 of a pure and holy God. ‘Their impenitent unholiness first 
 separates them from him: their continued unholiness prolongs 
 the separation. If they never cease to be unholy, the separa- 
 tion must needs be eternal: for the same cause, which origi- 
 nally produced the separation, still continues to operate. But, 
 unless some process of purification takes place in hell, it is 
 quite clear, that they can never cease to be unholy. The whole 
 question, therefore, obviously turns upon this alleged process of 
 purification : and, consequently, we are again brought to demand 
 from the Antitrinitarian his scr¢ptural proof; that any such 
 process is carried on, through the medium of future punish- 
 ment in hell. Truly the whole process is nothing more, than 
 the play of his own unchastened imagination. In the Bible, 
 from which alone we can know any thing certain respecting the 
 dread realities of a future world, we have not the slightest hint 
 of the purifying quality of hell. On the contrary, as the moral 
 condition of its wretched inmates is pronounced to be wnchange- 
 able: so, with strict consistency, the separation of the unholy 
 from God is declared to be everlasting. 
 
 If we may believe Dr. Carpenter indeed, the language of 
 Scripture is too indefinite to require the admission of a tenet, 
 at which the best feelings of the human heart revolt. 
 
 Nothing is more easy, than this very cheap display of senti- 
 ment. In the awful idea of an eternity of punishment, the 
 Catholic delights no more than the Antitrinitarian: but the 
 veriest babe in reasoning must surely see, that the whole matter 
 is a question of pure evidence. To talk of the best feelings of 
 ithe human heart, where a question of naked scriptural evidence 
 is concerned, is, in point of argument, the mere babbling of | 
 childishness. If we receive the Bible as the word of God, we 
 must believe, not according to our feelings, but according to its 
 decisions. The question is simply and exclusively: What is 
 
 7 
 
NUMB. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 395 
 
 revealed to us in Scripture? We neither do, nor can, know 
 any thing beyond what 7 teaches us. 
 
 Dr. Carpenter speaks of the indefiniteness of Scripture: but 
 where does it exist ¢ 
 
 So far as feeling is concerned, I may regret, as much as he 
 might do, that I can discover no such indefiniteness : but feel- 
 ing has very little to do with evidence. Not an argument, from 
 the language of Scripture, can be brought to prove the non- 
 eternity of future punishment, which does not equally prove the 
 non-eternity of future happiness. If we quibble about the 
 meaning of the Greek word, which St. Matthew employs to 
 convey the sense of our Lord’s declaration: we must, by every 
 rule of just composition, extend the quibble through the whole 
 sentence. 
 
 These shall go anay into EvERLASTING punishment : but the 
 righteous, into uvERLASTING life. Matt. xxv. 46. 
 
 The self-same Greek word is employed, in each manifestly 
 corresponding clause of the sentence, to describe, the duration 
 of life on the one hand, and the duration of punishment on the 
 other hand. Ifthe punishment be not eternal; then neither is 
 the life eternal : if the life be everlasting ; then likewise is the 
 punishment everlasting. ‘The same word cannot be used in two 
 entirely different senses, as it occurs in two avowedly anti- 
 thetical clauses of a single sentence. 
 
 But, that the word here means everlasting, and consequently 
 that the punishment is everlasting, appears, not only from the 
 allowed circumstance that the life is everlasting, but also from 
 our Lord’s own perfectly unambiguous declaration. He else- 
 where, speaking on the same subject, declares ; that the fire of 
 hell shall xuven be quenched: and he describes it as a place, 
 where the worm of the wicked dieth nor, and where their fire as 
 nor quenched. Mark ix, 43—48. Whether this fire be literal or 
 figurative, is nothing to the purpose: be it what it may, we are 
 assured, in words as little indefinite as can well be conceived, 
 that itis EreRNAL. If hell were a place of temporary purifica- 
 tion, the double object of which was to satisfy God’s justice and 
 
396 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. I. 
 
 to fit the souls in torment for the pure joys of heaven: the 
 worm of the damned would die, and their fire would be quenched. 
 Our Lord, however, assures us : that their worm dieth nor, and 
 that their fire is Nor quenched. Hence, by the pursuit of any 
 intelligible line of argument, it is difficult to conceive, what con- 
 clusion can legitimately follow from such premises, save an 
 eternity of punishment. 
 
 I repeat it, that, in this idea, the Catholic delights no more 
 than the Antitrinitarian. From the manner, in which Dr, Car- 
 penter complacently speaks of the best feelings of the human 
 heart, an incautious reader might imagine, that such amiable 
 feelings were the exclusive property of the latter. But this is 
 a mistake. The Catholic does not believe the doctrine, because 
 it affords a horrid gratification to his perverted feelings: he 
 believes it, because the belief is forced upon his conviction by 
 irresistible evidence. 
 
 (3.) And now, in a ten-fold more appalling form, the question 
 recurs: how the Antitrinitarian, on his principles, consistently 
 with the justice of God, can provide an escape, even for the 
 very best of men, from that punishment which Scripture declares 
 to be eternal. 
 
 If God be perfectly just, the best man, inasmuch as atu have 
 sinned, must, agreeably to the tremendous scheme of modern 
 Antitrinitarianism, be consigned to future punishment. But 
 Christ assures us: that the future punishment of hell, the only 
 future punishment set forth in Scripture, is EVERLASTING. 
 Therefore the Antitrinitarian, who rejects the doctrine of Satis- 
 faction made for guilty sinners by the incarnate Word, must 
 either deny the perfect Justice of God, or must consign the 
 whole human race to eternal punishment. 
 
 (4.) But, in truth, the entire system is radically at variance 
 with Holy Scripture. 
 
 On the one hand, nothing is more clear; than that the anti- 
 trinitarian theory of a future state makes the whole of man’s 
 salvation to depend, cither upon his own righteous works, or 
 upon his own expiatory sufferings in a fancied purifying hell : 
 
NUMB. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 397 
 
 and, on the other hand, nothing is more evident; than that 
 Scripture makes the whole of man’s salvation, so far as right 
 and claim and merit are concerned, to depend upon the exclu- 
 sive meritoriousness of Christ embraced by an act of lively and 
 operative faith. 
 
 Respecting this point, the writings of St. Paul are eminently 
 distinct and precise. The whole argument of the Epistle to 
 the Romans, not to mention various parts of the other Epistles, 
 goes to prove: that any, both Jews and Gentiles, have sinned 
 and are unable to make satisfaction for their offences. Whence 
 the Apostle, most logically and most legitimately, contends : 
 that, if saved, they must be saved by faith in Christ, and not by 
 their own works or deservings. This at once leads him to that 
 great paradox, which is the sole foundation of our hope, whe- 
 ther we be Jews or whether we be Gentiles. 
 
 Aut have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being 
 justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in 
 Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation 
 through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the 
 remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God ; 
 to declare, at this time, his righteousness: that he might be just, 
 and the justifier of him which believeth'in Jesus. Rom. ii. 
 23—26. 
 
 Such is the doctrine of Scripture: but the Antitrinitarian, 
 while he effectually destroys the perfect justice of God, con- 
 tradicts St. Paul by making every man his own Jjustifier, partly 
 through the meritoriousness of his good works, and partly 
 through his expiatory sufferings in a temporary purgatory. 
 
 Nor is this the whole measure of the Antitrinitarian’s utter 
 scriptural inaccuracy. 
 
 In the inspired word of God, the alone sanctifier and purifier 
 of sinful man, who, by first regenerating and by afterward suc- 
 cessively renovating his corrupt nature, gradually fits and pre- 
 pares him for the society of the Lord in heaven, is the quicken- 
 ing and life-giving Spirit of grace and holiness. Respecting 
 any other mode of making us intrinsically meet for the inherit- 
 
398 THE APOSTOLICITY CLAPP. Il. 
 
 ance of the saints in light, the Bible is profoundly silent. Its 
 unvaried language is: that We are justified solely by the Son; 
 that We are sanctified solely by the Spirit. 
 
 But, if, without a shadow of scriptural evidence, or rather to 
 speak more accurately, in direct opposition to all scriptural 
 evidence, we may believe the bulk of the modern Antitrinitarian 
 School, as its dogmata are evolved by Dr. Carpenter: hell, 
 concerning the nature of which the entire Christian World has 
 so grievously erred during the long space of eighteen centuries, 
 is, in the appointment of God’s providence, the grand final 
 instrument of a sinner’s purification and sanctification. If all 
 means, both celestial and terrestrial, unhappily prove ineffec- 
 tive: a merciful and beneficent hell still remains, where, under 
 the special tutelage of the devil and his angels, and in the midst 
 of bitter hatred and perpetual blasphemy, the most hardened 
 and the most reprobate offenders cannot fail to be ultimately 
 made the holy and approved servants of the Almighty. We 
 are inevitably led to the belief, says Dr. Carpenter : that there 
 nill be a time, when atx the rational creatures of God will have 
 been purified from every pollution, and made fit for holiness and 
 consequently for happiness. 
 
 Beautiful is the vision of universal restitution : but, unless it 
 be verified by something more potent than Dr. Carpenter’s 
 abstract views of the divine character, it can be ranked only 
 among those lovely though treacherous dreams, which inces- 
 santly issue from the ivory gate of the great latin mythologist. 
 
 SECTION II, 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF PIACULAR SACRIFICE. 
 
 With the doctrine of a full satisfaction made to God’s perfect 
 justice by the voluntary death of Christ, the Antitrinitarian 
 
NUMB. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 399 
 
 consistently rejects also the belief that Our Lord was an expia- 
 tory or piacular sacrifice. 
 
 It is well known to all persons who are conversant nith the 
 nritings of the Orientals, says Dr. Priestley: that they are in 
 general people of much more lively imaginations than me in 
 Europe; that their style, in speaking or writing, is more figu- 
 rative than ours; and that similes and allegories are much more 
 common nith them than mith us.— 
 
 Expressions like these must infallibly mislead persons, who do 
 not bring to the reading of the Scriptures a portion of common 
 sense, sufficient to enable them to distinguish the true and proper 
 meaning through this close covering of figure: for, at the same 
 tume that the metaphor is exceedingly strong, the turn of the sen- 
 tence gives no intimation of itt. The Evangelists, St. Paul, and 
 all the other Apostles, write in the same manner. In short, this 
 bold metaphorical style, calculated to strike and surprize, was 
 always affected in the East: and there it imposes upon nobody. 
 When such is the taste and manner of writing used by the sacred 
 writers, can it be wondered at, that they use figures when they 
 speak of the death of their Lord and Master ?— 
 
 Accordingly, we find: that their imaginations were propor- 
 tionably struck with it; and that they not only describe the 
 manner, the causes, and the operation, of it, in plain language ; 
 but likewise have recourse to a variety of comparisons and strong 
 metaphors, such as were naturally prompted by their onn strong 
 feelings, and were calculated to wnpress the minds of those to 
 whom they addressed themselves in a suitable manner. 
 
 The most remarkable of these figurative representations of 
 THE DEATH OF cHRIST, which occur in the New Testament, ts 
 that, inwhich he is compared to a sacriricE. Indeed, the figure 
 is just and beautiful. In every sacrifice, the victim is supposed 
 to die for the gcod and benefit of the persons on whose account it 
 is offered. So Christ, dying in the cause of virtue and to pro- 
 cure the greatest possible benefit to the human race, is said to 
 have given his life a sacrifice for us. Moreover, as the proper 
 object of the death of Christ was to open a certain prospect of a 
 
4.00 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. II. 
 
 Suture life and thereby operate as a powerful motive to repentance 
 by which means sinners reinstate themselves in the favour of God: 
 his death is more especially compared to that species of sacrifice, 
 which is called a stN-oFFERING ; because it was prescribed to be 
 offered upon the commission of an offence, and after it the offend- 
 mg person was considered as if he had never sinned. The 
 resemblance, between THE DEATH OF CHRIST (according to this 
 account of the nature and object of it) and these sacririces FOR 
 SIN, appears to me to be a sufficient foundation for its being 
 called by that name: and would abundantly justify the metaphor, 
 even nithout making any allowance for the greater licence in the 
 use of figures which we expect in the East. W. hy, then, should 
 we look for more points of resemblance, between THE DEATH OF 
 CHRIST and A SACRIFICE FoR sIN, than those mentioned above: 
 when the language of Scripture by no means requires any more ? 
 
 Yet, upon this single circumstance, has been erected a system 
 of principles, which is, in the most essential points, the reverse 
 of the plain christian doctrine of salvation by Jesus Christ. 
 Priestley’s One great End. Works, vol. vii. p- 221—223. 
 See also Hist. of Corrupt. part ii. sect. 3. Works, vol. v. 
 p. 105—121. 
 
 In the present citation from a writer, who is justly acknow- 
 ledged to be one of the most eminent of his School, there are 
 many things, which well deserve our attention. 
 
 I. According to Dr. Priestley, in the books of the New 
 Testament, where they exhibit THz praTH oF cHRIST as being 
 A SACRIFICE FOR SIN, there is so large an infusion of Oriental- 
 ism; that, while their bold metaphorical style, in the enuncia- 
 tion of this particular, would impose upon nobody in the East ; 
 it would infallibly mislead those less fortunate Occidentals, who 
 did not bring to the reading of them an acquaintance with 
 asiatic diction, united with a portion of common sense sufficient 
 to develop their true and proper meaning. 
 
 1. Such is the statement of Dr. Priestley: and the circum- 
 stance, which it characteristically indicates as enevitable, has 
 doubtless occurred. 
 
NUMB. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 401 
 
 Books, so constructed as enfallibly to mislead all save the 
 Christians of the East, have, most admirably and most effectu- 
 ally, performed their appointed office. In the greek or oriental 
 Churches, indeed, if we may believe the word of a professed 
 historian, the scriptural language, relative to THE DEATH OF 
 CHRIST being A SACRIFICE FOR SIN, imposes upon nobody: for, 
 throughout those Churches, Dr. Priestley’s view of the phrase- 
 ology before us has always, from the first, been invariably 
 adopted. But, certainly, in the West, on the single circumstance 
 of THE DEATH OF CHRIST being scripturally exhibited as analo- 
 gous to THE CONFESSEDLY PIACULAR SACRIFICES OF THE LEVITICAL 
 DISPENSATION, has been erected a system of principles, which, 
 in the judgment of Dr. Priestley, és, in the most essential points, 
 the reverse of the plain christian doctrine of salvation by our 
 Redeemer. 
 
 2. How the christian doctrine of salvation can be plain ; and 
 yet how the phraseology, in which this plain doctrine is pro- 
 pounded, must zfallibly mislead all save natives of the East 
 where it imposes upon nobody: Dr. Priestley is not careful to 
 explain ; though, to the uninitiated at least, such a matter might 
 apparently require some explanation. 
 
 Let this, however, pass. We are at present concerned with 
 an examination of his theory of Orientalism. 
 
 (1.) The Gospel, we are assured by the sacred writers, was 
 eminently to be preached to the poor and to the ignorant. Nor 
 was it to be confined to the privileged Orientals : it was equally 
 to be propounded to the Occidentals also. 
 
 Such being its professed character, it was, of course, in all 
 its grand essential doctrines, to be remarkable for its easy intel- 
 ligibility. Whence, by Isaiah, it was prophetically described, 
 as a public high-way, in which ordinary travellers, even though 
 possessed of small mental acuteness, should be in no special 
 danger of erring. Compare Isaiah xxxv. 8—10. with Matt. xi. 5. 
 and Luke. vii. 21—23. 
 
 (2.) Yet, according to the paradox offered to our acceptance 
 by the ingenuity of Dr. Priestley, though the phraseology of 
 
 VOL, Il. pd 
 
4.02 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. 1. 
 
 the Gospel could impose upon nobody among the more sagacious 
 Orientals, it would infallibly mislead all other persons who were 
 less favourably circumstanced. 
 
 And, agreeably to this somewhat unexpected view of the 
 matter, in point of fact we actually find: that, with the excep- 
 tion of a few scattered Antitrinitarians, the whole body of the 
 
 “people, denominated Christians, have, in all ages, been thus 
 grievously imposed upon and misled. 
 
 (3.) According, however, to Dr. Priestley’s statement of the 
 question; that such an event should occur, was only to be 
 expected. 
 
 For the admirably contrived phraseology of the Gospel is 
 such : that, with the sole exception of the privileged Orientals, 
 it must ¢nfallibly mislead all who are destitute of what he calls 
 common sense. 
 
 In other words, with the single exception of individuals born 
 and educated in Asia, it must infallibly mislead all those poor 
 and plain and ignorant persons, who, when Christ is repeatedly 
 and systematically described as a sacrifice for sin, in the depth 
 of their simplicity believe him to be what they constantly find 
 him styled. 
 
 (4.) Now, as Dr. Priestley well knew, Tertullian with much 
 truth declares: that Persons of this sort must auways, in the 
 very nature and necessity of things, constitute an immense 
 majority of believers. 
 
 Therefore, if we can follow Dr. Priestley, we shall be content 
 cheerfully to hold: that the Gospel, though specially intended 
 for the poor, was yet, in point of phraseology, so constructed, 
 that it must needs infallibly mislead them. Nothing at least, 
 if they were born and bred elsewhere than in Asia, could save 
 these unhappy men from necessary error, but a diligent appli- 
 cation to teachers, who would assure them: that, When Christ 
 is styled a sacririce, such phraseology is an oriental figure of 
 speech, which really means that he was nov a sacrifice. 
 
 (5.) But we have not even yet arrived at the end of Dr. 
 Priestley’s prodigious paradox. 
 
NUMB. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 4.03 
 
 The historian gravely informs us: that, in the privileged 
 Kast, such language imposes upon nobody. 
 
 Now, in the connection wherein it stands, this information is 
 plainly equivalent to an assertion: that Nobody in the East was 
 ever so emposed upon by the phraseology of the Gospel, as to 
 deduce from it the doctrine of Christ being the strictly proper 
 pracular sacrifice appointed to make satisfaction to the Father 
 for the sins of all mankind. 
 
 Such is the assertion: but how stands the notorious Fact ? 
 
 Why, the Orientals have been quite as much misled as the 
 Occidentals. Vor the doctrine of Christ being made a strictly 
 proper pracular sacrifice was no way peculiar to the Latin 
 Church of the West. From the earliest times, it has equally 
 prevailed in the various Churches of the Hast : notwithstanding 
 Dr. Priestley’s assurance, that the phraseology of the Gospel, 
 in regard to the sacrificial character of Christ, there imposes 
 upon nobody. See Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 200, 201, 
 264, 265. Barnab. Epist. § vii. Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. vii. 
 Oper. p. 707. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. xiii. p. 122, 130. Euseb. 
 Demons. Evan. lib. i. c. 8. p. 24, 25. Athan. de Incarn. Verb. 
 Oper. vol. i. p. 43. Athan. cont. Arian. Orat. iii. Oper. vol. i. 
 p- 192,193. Cyril. Alex. cont. Julian. lib. ix. p. 303. 
 
 IJ. In arguing, however, with Dr. Priestley, on his own 
 gratuitously alleged ground that Christ is styled A sacriFICE 
 only metaphorically or figuratwely, I concede far too much. 
 
 1. To a modern antitrinitarian speculatist, the theory of 
 Orientalism may be sufficiently commodious: and Scripture, 
 indeed, has, no doubt, its own figurative language: but here, in 
 truth, the theory, advocated by Dr. Priestley, is wholly inap- 
 plicable. 
 
 (1.) When, in allusion to the lamb which under the Levitical 
 Dispensation was daily offered up in sacrifice, Christ is called 
 The Lamb of God and is described as A Lamb that had been 
 slain ; or when, in similar allusion to the paschal lamb, it is said 
 of him, Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us : in each of these 
 cases, tropical language is clearly and indisputably employed ; 
 
 pd 2 
 
4.04. THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. Il. 
 
 for no man, let him be oriental or occidental, will contend, I 
 presume, that our Lord was literally the ovine animal which 
 was used both as the daily sacrifice and as the paschal sacrifice. 
 
 Here, every thing is, at once, self-evident to the meanest 
 comprehension: here, every thing is, at once, instinctively 
 manifest to that common sense, which Dr. Priestley would have 
 us bring to the reading of the Scriptures. 
 
 (2.) But will he, or any admirer of his, pretend to say: that 
 ‘The circumstance of Christ bemg called a sacriricE is no less 
 mdisputably a trope, than the circumstance of Christ being called 
 A LAMB? 
 
 To make any such assertion is to carry the very brand of 
 absurdity impressed upon the forehead of the asserter. 
 
 A man, as we all know, may literally be a sacririce: for, 
 in almost every age and country, human victims have been 
 literally devoted. 
 
 But, as weall likewise know, it is a perfectly clear case : that 
 a man cannot literally be a LAMB. 
 
 Hence, when a man is styled a sacrifice and when an animal 
 is styled a sacrifice, Dr. Priestley can have no right, prima 
 facie, to say: that a scheme of phraseology, which in one case 
 is confessedly literal, in the other cast must of necessity be 
 tropical. 
 
 In making this assertion, he begs the very matter in debate. 
 
 When, under the Law, a lamb or a bullock is called a sacri- 
 fice: is it so styled by virtue of a trope? An answer will 
 readily be given m the negative. 
 
 When, under the Gospel, Christ is called a sacrifice: is he so 
 styled by virtue of a trope? Dr. Priestley peremptorily 
 answers in the affirmative. 
 
 Yet, on the principles of just interpretation, what right has 
 he thus dogmatically to insist upon giving an affirmative answer ? 
 
 Where, from common sense, which he invokes to his aid, has he. 
 
 any PROOF, that no answer save an affirmative answer can be 
 given? ; 
 In the bare language itself, as is clear from the case 
 
 “ 
 —- 
 
 *’ 
 
NUMB. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 405 
 
 of the lamb or the bullock, there is nothing NECESSARILY 
 tropical. 
 
 When Christ is styled a tam, we are undoubtedly bound 
 to pronounce such language tropical language. But, when 
 Christ is styled a sacriricr, we are no way bound to pronounce 
 such language a trope or a figure. For, though a man can 
 never literally be A LAMB: it is quite clear, that he may literally 
 be A SACRIFICE. 
 
 Hence it is evident: that Dr. Priestley, in roundly pro- 
 nouncing the present scriptural phraseology to be tropical, and 
 in dogmatically placing it to the score of that convenient thing 
 called Orientalism, is, in effect, assuming the very point which 
 he ought to have proved. 
 
 How does he know: that the circumstance of Christ being 
 styled a sacRIFIcE is tropical; while the circumstance of 4 
 bullock or a lamb being equally styled a sacRiFICcE is confessedly 
 not tropical ? 
 
 The interpretation of the Catholic Church, both oriental and 
 occidental, from the very beginning itself, is positively against 
 him: and, if we adopt his view of the matter, we have abso- 
 lutely nothing to build upon, save his own gratuitous unsup- 
 ported assertion. 
 
 2. But, even independently of the judgment of the Church 
 Catholic, we may, from an honest examination of the New 
 Testament itself, readily learn the notion, under which Christ 
 is denominated A SACRIFICE. 
 
 (1.) As at present I am obliged to consult brevity, I know 
 not where we can more commodiously or more reasonably turn 
 for information than to a treatise, if such there be, professedly 
 written on the subject. 
 
 Happily, a treatise of this exact description will be found in 
 St. Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 Of that most valuable Work the special object is, to explain 
 the ancient Ritual Law, and to shew its bearing upon Christ- 
 ianity. In such a Work, tropes and metaphors would be pal- 
 pably misplaced. They would darken, not illustrate, the sub- 
 
406 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. Il. 
 
 ject. The Apostle is writing a treatise, not a poem. He 
 speaks as an expositor, not as a rhetorician. Upon Christ 
 himself he bestows no figurative names. He is simply shewing 
 the connection of the Law and the Gospel. He is merely 
 illustrating the true character of the Redeemer by a systematic 
 adduction of the ritual observances of the Levitical Dispen- 
 sation. 
 
 (2.) In prosecuting this plan, what does the inspired Apostle 
 tell us? 
 
 He declares, in general: that The Law was a shadow of good 
 things to come. And he asserts, in particular: that The sacri- 
 Jjices under the Law prefigured and represented the sacrifice of 
 Christ under the Gospel. 
 
 Throughout the whole treatise, these two ideas are indus- 
 triously twined together. What the sacrifices of lambs and of 
 bullocks were to the Jews, the sacrifice of Christ is to Christ- 
 ians. With whatever notion the former were sacrificed, with 
 the self-same notion also was the latter sacrificed. 
 
 The efficacy, indeed, of the former, was purely typical: 
 while the efficacy of the latter is real and substantial. But still 
 the bestial victims under the Law, and the human victim under 
 the Gospel, were, respectively, a sacrifice, in one and the same 
 sense of the word sacrifice. 
 
 Unless this be conceded, we must indeed admit the Apostle 
 to be a most inconclusive reasoner. For, be it observed, he is 
 not dealing rhetorically in tropes ; but he is prosecuting a sys- 
 tematic argumentation: he is not indulging in the figures of 
 prophecy or of poetry; but he is at once explaining the typical © 
 character of the legal sacrifices by the solid character of the 
 christian sacrifice, and propounding the true nature of the 
 christian sacrifice by the already familiar nature of the legal 
 sacrifices. 
 
 If the antitrinitarian scheme be the truth, and if Dr. Priestley 
 be a sound expositor of what is written concerning the sacrifice 
 of Christ ; never surely did man take more hearty pains to 
 perplex a very plain subject and to conduct the whole multitude 
 
 7 
 
NUMB. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 407 
 
 of the faithful into gross error, than St. Paul did. If there be 
 no greater resemblance between the sacrifice of Christ and the 
 sacrifices under the Law than what Dr. Priestley is willing to 
 allow: never surely was a train of avowed illustrative exposition 
 more infelicitously and more injudiciously chosen, than that 
 which has been selected by the Apostle. 
 
 Instead of zdlustrating, his exposition serves only to darken : 
 instead of teaching, it serves only to mislead. The fault is in- 
 herent in the very mode of instruction which has been adopted. 
 For darkness and confusion and misapprehension must always 
 be the result, whenever one matter is expressly declared to be 
 the very double or shadow of another matter: while yet, in the 
 most striking and important point, nay in that very point more- 
 over on which the writer specially insists, there is, between the 
 two, no sort of mutual resemblance. 
 
 Verily, on any principles of that common sense which Dr. 
 Priestley claims so eminently to patronise, the behaviour of 
 St. Paul is quite unaccountable. 
 
 According to Dr. Priestley, his object was to teach: that, 
 Although Christ might orientally be called a sacririce, because 
 he died in the service of virtue and for the purpose of procuring 
 the greatest possible benefit to the human race; yet he was No 
 REAL SACRIFICE FOR SIN in any such sense, as were the piacular 
 sacrifices under the Levitical Dispensation. 
 
 Such, according to Dr. Priestley, was the object of St. Paul 
 in his illustrative exposition of the ancient sacrificial ritual. 
 
 Nevertheless, in avowed pursuance of this object, and for the 
 purpose of more effectually demonstrating that the death of 
 Christ was no real or literal sacrifice: the Apostle strangely 
 illustrates that death, under the very name of a sacrifice, by 
 those legal sacrifices of animals, which were well known to be 
 strictly piacular, and respecting which every one must perceive 
 that Not any one of the sacrificed animals could be said to have 
 died in the cause of virtue. In other words, he illustrates the 
 death of Christ by certain rites and ordinances, which, in point 
 of nature and principle, were essentially and altogether diss¢m- 
 
4.08 THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. II. 
 
 far: he proves that death to be no real sacrifice, by the pro- 
 fessedly comparative adduction of what were real sacrifices: he 
 demonstrates it to be not piacular, by placing it in the same 
 class or in studied juxta-position with what confessedly were 
 piacular. 
 
 Nor is this done hastily and briefly and carelessly and inci- 
 dentally. On the contrary, the illustration is worked up ela- 
 borately and prolongedly through a whole treatise: the strict 
 edeal affinity of animal sacrifices under the Law and of the sacri- 
 Jice of Christ under the Gospel being, in truth, the very subject 
 of the treatise itself. And, wherever, in other writings by the 
 same author, the same topic is (as it were) parergically intro- 
 duced: still the identical illustration is employed which per- 
 vades the entire of the regular treatise. 
 
 Certainly, if such were the object and such the plan pursued 
 by St. Paul, it is small wonder: that his illustration and his 
 phraseology should infallibly mislead the whole Catholic Church 
 in every age and country. Certainly it is small wonder: that 
 Cyril and Augustine, speaking the old familiar sense of the 
 Universal Christian Community, should lay it down, from the 
 language of the Apostle, as a matter past all reasonable contra- 
 diction; that Christ, like the piacular sacrifices under the Lam, 
 was a striet and proper sin-offering. 
 
 ‘O ravoogoc Iathoc yéypagé mov epi re Tov Ocod, cal Ilarpoe¢ 
 kal abrov rod Yiov' Tov pa) yvovra dpapriay, treo hudy duao- 
 riay eroince. Otpa yup yéyover brép dpapriac. “QvoucLovro 
 € ai Gpaporia ra brép apapriav opalopueva—llpddnroy of rov 
 kal dmaow évapyec, we obK év rote aiviypace paddov, dX ép 
 Tole Ov ab’roy onpatvomevotc TO ddnOéc Exhalverat. Xptor0¢ yao 
 EoTt TO tipupov Bipa, 70 dPéBndrov tepeiov, ov TEeOvEewroe ure 
 pay Kara odpka, yeyovapey tyeic adroropraior rovr eorw, 
 arepourhoapey Oavarov kal pbopac’ ékeduTp@pEOa yuo T~ aipare 
 avrov. Cyril. Alex. cont, Julian. lib. ix. p. 303, 304. 
 
 Dicit Apostolus: Obsecramus pro Christo, reconciliamini 
 Deo. Lum, qui non noverat peccatum, pro nobis peccatum fecit ; 
 
 ut aos simus justilia Dei in ipso. Deus ergo, cui reconciliamur, 
 
NUMB. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 409 
 
 fecit eum pro nobis peccatum ; id est sacrificium per quod 
 dimitterentur nostra peccata: quoniam peccata vocantur sacri- 
 ficia pro peccatis. Et utique ipse pro peccatis nostris immola- 
 tus est, nullum habens vitium, solus in hominibus quale queere- 
 batur tune in pecoribus quo significabatur unus sine vitio ad 
 vitia sananda venturus. August. contra Pelag. et Celest. de 
 peccat. original. lib. 11. c. 32. Oper. vol. vii. p..304. 
 
 III. Abundantly manifest as it is, that there is neither trope 
 nor metaphor in the fact of Christ being so repeatedly called a 
 sacrifice, but that our merciful Saviour really 2s what he is per- 
 petually denominated: it can only be a matter of curiosity to 
 learn what Dr. Priestley means, when he says; that Our Lord 
 might orientally be described as a sacrifice, because he died mn 
 the cause of virtue and for the purpose of procuring the greatest 
 possible benefit to the human race. 
 
 1. With respect to his dying in the cause of virtue, it is rea- 
 dily allowed: that, by no uncommon figure of speech, we are 
 wont to say; that a man became the victim of malice, or that he 
 fell a sacrifice to his opinions. 
 
 According to the purport of such phraseology, Socrates was 
 a victim, and Paul was a sacrifice. With a similar idea, Christ 
 himself also, no doubt, may be figuratively styled a sacrifice 
 and a victim: for, as Dr. Priestley very truly remarks, he cer- 
 tainly died in the cause of virtue. 
 
 (1.) But this possebility of language is not exactly the point. 
 
 The question is not: whether Christ might not be figura- 
 tively called a victim, just as Socrates and Paul might be simi- 
 larly designated, because he died in the cause of virtue. 
 
 But the question is: whether this can really be the sense, in 
 which by the inspired writers he is styled a sacrifice. 
 
 (2.) Now I will be bold to say: that, if plain common sense 
 only be consulted (an operation, in the present inquiry, specially 
 recommended by Dr. Priestley); we shall soon perceive, that 
 our Lord is Never called @ sacrifice in any such figurative sense 
 as that of dying in the cause of virtue. . 
 
 St. Paul, with an eye to his own approaching martyrdom, 
 
410 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. II. 
 
 speaks of himself as beeng now ready to be offered up: ’Eyw yap 
 ij0n orévoopat. But does he thence take occasion industriously 
 to draw out, through an entire treatise, a long parallel between 
 himself and the animal victims which were offered up under the 
 Levitical Dispensation : intimating, at the same time, that the 
 precise reference, which they bore to the Hebrew Church, hé 
 bore to the Christian Church? Nothing of the sort: he 
 briefly uses a very common figure of speech after a manner in 
 which it was impossible for him to be misunderstood. 
 
 Does he then pursue the same plan, when he speaks of Christ 
 being a sacrifice? So far from it, the difference is such that it 
 may absolutely be touched and felt. When he speaks of him- 
 self being offered up: he briefly and transiently uses a figure 
 of speech, with which we are all familiar, and from which no 
 doctrinal conclusion can possibly be deduced. But, when he 
 speaks of Christ being a sacrifice: he is writing a professed 
 treatise upon the nature and object of the Ceremonial Law; 
 and, in this systematic treatise, he unequivocally declares, that 
 Christ was a sacrifice in the very same sense that lambs and 
 bullocks were sacrifices under the Levitical Dispensation. Heb. x. 
 1—14. Ifthen lambs and bullocks can be said to die victims 
 in the cause of virtue, or if lambs and bullocks can be said to 
 Jall a sacrifice to the opinions which they maintained; Dr. 
 Priestley’s proposed orientalism, though the primitive Church 
 knew nothing of it, may peradventure in the abstract be ten- 
 able: but, conversely, if not; not. Under whatever idea lambs 
 and bullocks were sacrificed for sin during the continuance of 
 the Levitical Dispensation: under that same idea, as we learn 
 most plainly from the elaborate systematic treatise of St. Paul, 
 was Christ sacrificed at the ratification of the Evangelical Cove- 
 nant. 
 
 2. But, though Dr. Priestley denies Christ to have beena 
 sacrifice in the proper and legitimate sense of the word, he is 
 ready to acknowledge: not only that he died in the cause of 
 virlue, but even that he died for the purpose of procuring the 
 greatest possible benefit to the human race. 
 
NUMB. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. All 
 
 (1.) What, then, is this greatest possible benefit? Dr. 
 Priestley explains the whole matter in the course of the trac- 
 tate, whence I have already made a very copious citation. 
 
 If Christ lived and died, says he, to ascertain and exemplify 
 the doctrine of a future state, and if (as hath been represented ) 
 it mas impossible that this should have been done without his 
 actual death and resurrection; he certainly died for us or on our 
 account: and, without his death, the great end of his mission, 
 our salvation from sin, could not have been gained. One great 
 End. Works, vol. vii. p. 216. 
 
 Christ then, according to Dr. Priestley, was a sacrifice, be- 
 cause he died and rose again to ascertain and exemplify the doc- 
 trine of a future state. But, without his actual death and 
 resurrection, this could not have been done. Therefore, with- 
 out his death, our salvation from sin could not have been pro- 
 cured. 
 
 (2.) I am obliged to confess, that I cannot discern the force 
 of any part of this reasoning. 
 
 Even if we admit the statement of his premises to be per- 
 fectly unexceptionable: still nothing can be more woefully 
 illogical than the conclusion, which Dr. Priestley has drawn 
 from them. 
 
 The premises are: that Christ was a sacrifice, because, for 
 our benefit, he died and rose again to ascertain and to exemplify 
 the doctrine of a future state. The conclusion from these pre- 
 mises is: that, Without his death, our salvation from sin could 
 not have been procured. 
 
 Now such a conclusion will by no means legitimately follow 
 from such premises. On the theory of Dr. Priestley, Christ’s 
 death and resurrection might, we will say, be necessary to as- 
 certain the doctrine of a future state: but I see not, according 
 to Dr. Priestley’s estimate of them, how either his death or his 
 resurrection could be essentials, without which our salvation 
 from sin could not have been procured. Certainly, from his 
 avowed premises, by no dialectic machinery with which I am 
 acquainted, can this most singular conclusion be extracted. 
 
412 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. II. 
 
 The only legitimate syllogism, which can be framed upon 
 them, will stand in manner following. 
 
 It is quite easy to conceive: that salvation from sin might 
 practically have been procured witnout any knonledge of the 
 doctrine of a future state. 
 
 But nothing more, than the doctrine of a future state, could 
 be ascertained by the death and resurrection of Christ. 
 
 Therefore, wttuovur either his death or his resurrection, our 
 salvation from sin, on Dr. Priestley’s onn principles, might very 
 well have been procured. 
 
 The palpable fault, in short, of Dr. Priestley’s reasoning, is this. 
 
 He makes the attainment and exemplification of the doctrine 
 of a future state AN ESSENTIAL, without which our salvation from 
 sim could not have been gained. 
 
 But, as this position is in no wise established by his syllo- 
 gism: so, in point of fact, it is absolutely untrue. 
 
 There is no conceivable reason: why, through a sufficient 
 moral discipline and (as the Catholic will add) through the 
 meritorious passion of Christ, salvation from sin might not 
 have been gained by the human race, without any ascertainment 
 and exemplification of the doctrine of a future state. Reformed 
 man might have been saved from sin in a future state, even if 
 it had not pleased God previously to reveal and establish its 
 actual existence. 
 
 Thus glaringly illogical is Dr. Priestley’s reasoning, even if 
 we admit the statement of his premises to be perfectly unex- 
 ceptionable: but, in truth, the entire management of his argu- 
 ment evinces a hopeless confusion of ideas not a little marvel- 
 lous and extraordinary. 
 
 That the resurrection of Christ from the dead was necessary 
 to ascertain and exemplify, at least to our bodily senses, the 
 doctrine of a future state: I can readily understand. But I 
 cannot perceive: that hes viotent death wpon the cross, the 
 ONLY circumstance which even in Dr. Priestley’s orientalised 
 sense of the word could constitute him a sacrifice, was at all 
 necessary for that great object. 
 
NUMB. VI. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 413 
 
 The circumstance, which was necessary to ascertain and ex- 
 emplify the doctrine of a future state, was not our Lord’s vio- 
 LENT death, but his triumphant resurrection. So far as Dr. 
 Priestley’s statement of the matter is concerned, there was not 
 the slightest NEED of Christ’s vioLent death or (as our expositor 
 would say) of Christ’s figuratively becoming a sacriricE. Every 
 end, respecting the ascertainment of a future state, would have 
 been answered just as well, if he had quietly died a NATURAL 
 death. Yor let us suppose that he had died a natural death, 
 and that afterward at the end of a month (when the fact of his 
 death could not be doubted) he had triumphantly risen from the 
 grave: would not (provided only the fact of his death were 
 sufficiently established) the doctrine of a future state have been 
 quite as much ascertained and exemplified by the circumstance 
 of his resurrection, as if his death had been effected by the hand 
 of violence ? 
 
 The truth is, Dr. Priestley has oddly confounded together, as 
 JOINTLY constituting a SINGLE proof, the two perfectly distinct 
 facts of Christ’s violent death and Christ’s triumphant. resur- 
 rection. 
 
 Now that common sense, which he so warmly patronises, 
 may itself teach us: that the death of Christ, whether vioLuNT 
 oY NATURAL, could be no proof or exemplification of a future 
 State. 
 
 The reality of this state could only be ascertained and ex- 
 emplified by the fact of Christ’s resurreciion : and such proof 
 and exemplification would be equally procured by the fact of 
 his resurrection, whether he had suffered a violent death or 
 whether he had quietly died a natural death. 
 
 Hence it is sufficiently clear: that, on the scheme of Dr. 
 Priestley, there was no sort of occasion for Christ’s violent death 
 on the cross ; notwithstanding so much is said, on that precise 
 point, in Holy Scripture. So far as the doctrine of a future 
 state is concerned, such a death was wholly superfluous and 
 useless. To say, therefore, on his own principles, as Dr. 
 Priestley says; that, without Christ's death, that is to say, with- 
 
4 4 THE APOSTOLICITY OF TRINITARIANISM. 
 
 out Christ’s viotenr death (for, through no other death, can 
 the historian even orientalise him into a sacriricz of any de- 
 scription), the great end of his mission, our salvation from sin, 
 could not have been gained: to make such an assertion as this 
 is plainly, under every possible aspect, most inaccurate and 
 most illogical. 
 
 The great end of Christ’s mission was our salvation from 
 sin. 
 
 But, in the first place, the proof and exemplification of the 
 doctrine of a future siate is no way essentially necessary to the 
 accomplishment of this purpose: and, in the second place, even 
 if it were essentially necessary, still, according to Dr. Priestley’s 
 view of the whole question, the proof and exemplification of the 
 doctrine of a future state, and thence the accomplishment of the 
 great end of Christ's mission, might have been effected just as 
 well by a resurrection after a natural death as by a resurrection 
 after a violent death. 
 
 To assert, consequently ; that Christ died for us or on our ac- 
 count, because he died a violent death, and thus became a figura- 
 tive sacrifice, for the purpose of ascertaining and exemplifying 
 the doctrine of a future state: is palpably, on Dr. Priestley’s 
 system, most untrue and most incorrect. 
 
 In fact, that whole system, when legitimately stated accord- 
 ing to its necessary and inevitable bearings, goes directly to 
 maintain, in evident defiance of Scripture and in presumptuous 
 contempt of God’s predetermined counsels, THE UTTER INUTILITY 
 OF CHRIST'S VIOLENT DEATH UPON THE CROSS. 
 
NUMBER VII. - 
 
 RESPECTING THE TEXT CONTAINED IN Heb.1. 3. 
 
 Tux text, which occurs in Heb. i. 3, I have briefly noticed as 
 the mother text, from which originated, and upon which were 
 founded, the language and doctrine, common alike to the Ante- 
 nicene Fathers and to the Nicene Creed: that The Son is de- 
 rwatively from the Father, as light is from light. 
 
 Whence it was concluded: that The Son from the Father is 
 true God from true God, inasmuch as light from light is true 
 light from true light; the Son with the Father being consub- 
 stantial, just as light with light is consubstantial. See above, 
 book i. chap. 10. § m. 2. 
 
 This text, however, which may justly be deemed the special 
 scriptural basis of the doctrine of Consubstantiality, deserves, 
 from its high importance, a somewhat more extended consider- 
 ation. 
 
 The following is the form, wherein it stands in the original 
 Greek of the inspired Writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 “Oc ov dratyacpa rijc ddéne Kal yapaKxTijo Tij¢ UTOCTAGEWC 
 avrov. 
 
 I. In our common English Version, this place, somewhat in- 
 adequately, not to say inaccyrately, is translated as follows. 
 
 Who being the brightness of his glory and the express image 
 of his person. 
 
 1. By thus rendering the passage, our translators, in the first 
 place, lose all the force of the preposition do in composition. 
 
416 THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. ‘Il. 
 
 For dravyacpa rijc ddéne is, not merely the brightness or his 
 glory, but the refulgence FRom his glory: the refulgence itself 
 emanating from the primordial glory of the Father. 
 
 2. And, in the second place, they exhibit the word troorda- 
 cewc, as here meaning person: whereas, in truth, it here means 
 substance or essence or subsistence. 
 
 II. The translation of Bishop Bull is more correct than that 
 of our vulgar English: for he justly renders troordcewe by 
 essentie. But he has equally pretermitted, what I deem the pe- 
 culiar force of dzavyacua: for he simply renders it splendor, 
 as if the Apostle had written uncompoundedly avyacpa. 
 
 Splendor paterne glorie, character essentie ipsius. Bull. 
 Def. Fid. Nic. sect. ii. c. 4. § 5. 
 
 III. On these considerations, I would render the passage in 
 manner following. 
 
 Who being the refulgence from his glory and the very impress 
 of his substance. 
 
 With respect to my translation of dravyacpa rife ddénc, the 
 phrase at once speaks for itself. But it may be proper to state 
 the grounds, why, in common with Bishop Bull, who has not 
 professedly entered upon the subject, I would render tzo- 
 ordcewc by substance rather than by person. 
 
 1. For the convenience of preciseness of expression, while 
 the word ovcia was employed to denote substance or essence, 
 the word txdcracte was at length ExcLusivELY employed to 
 denote person or personal subsistence. 
 
 Hence, when this system of phraseology was fenlls adopted, 
 there were said to be three vrooracere in the single ovata of the 
 Godhead. 
 
 But, anterior to the Nicene Council, the sense of the word 
 umdoraotc Was by no means thus limited. For it was originally 
 employed to denote, not only person or personal subsistence, 
 but likewise subsistence in the sense of essence or substance : in 
 which essence or substance more than one person may partici- 
 pate. — 
 
 2. This circumstance is remarked by Jerome in one of his 
 
NUMB. VIL. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 417 
 
 Epistles to Damasus: and, perhaps not very reasonably, the 
 irritable Father seems to have been a good deal dissatisfied with 
 this limitation of the term. For he labours under the impres- 
 sion: that, by alleging the existence of three bzosracete in the 
 Deity, we might be misunderstood as alleging the heretical 
 notion of three distinct and mutually different substances. 
 
 Nunc igitur, proh dolor, post niczenam fidem, post alexan- 
 drinum juncto pariter Occidente decretum, TRiuM HYPOSTASEON, 
 ab Arianorum preesule et Campensibus, novellum a me, homine 
 romano, nomen exigitur. 
 
 Qui, quzeso, ista apostoli prodidere? Quis novus magister 
 gentium Paulus hee docuit ? 
 
 Interrogamus: Quid tTRES HyposTasEs posse arbitrentur 
 entelligr ? 
 
 Tres personas subsistentes, aiunt. 
 
 Respondemus: Nos ita credere. Non sufficit sensus : nomen 
 ipsum efflagitant ; quia nescio quid veneni in syllabis latet. 
 
 Clamamus: Si quis TRES HYPOSTASES aut TRIA ENYPOSTATA, 
 hoc est, Tres subsistentes personas, non confitetur, anathema sit. 
 Et, quia vocabula non ediscimus, heeretici judicamur. 
 
 Si quis autem, Hypostasin us1an intelligens, non in tribus 
 personis unam hypostasin dicit: alienus a Christo est. Et, sub 
 hac confessione, vobiscum pariter, cauterio unionis inurimur. 
 
 Discernite, si placet, obsecro: non timebo TRES HYPOSTASES 
 dicere.— 
 
 Tota szecularium litterarum schola nihil aliud uypostastn, 
 nisi USIAN, novit. Et quis, rogo, ore sacrilego, TRES SUBSTANTIAS 
 preedicabit ? Una est Dei et sola natura, que vere est.— | 
 
 Sufficiat nobis dicere: Unam substantiam, tres personas sub- 
 sistentes, perfectas, equales, coewternas. Taceantur TRES HyY- 
 POSTASES, si placet: et una teneatur. Hieron. Epist. ad 
 Damas. lvii. Oper. vol. i. p. 163. 
 
 (1.) In asserting it to be new phraseology to say, that There 
 are THREE HYPOSTASES in the one Deity: Jerome, most assur- 
 edly, is mistaken. 
 
 The word wrdcracce had been used, anterior to the first 
 
 VOL. II. Ee 
 
418 THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. Il. 
 
 Council of Nice, in the sense both of person and of substance, or 
 in the sense both of a personal subsistence and of a substratic 
 essence. ‘To Jerome, a Latin, it was familiar only in the latter 
 sense. Hence, when it came to be, by general consent, excLu- 
 sIvELY employed in the sense of person or personal subsistence ; 
 while ovoia was reserved, EXCLUSIVELY also, to denote substance 
 or substratic essence: Jerome was scandalised; because he 
 imagined, that The assertion of THREE HYPOSTASES in the God- 
 head was an assertion of THREE SUBSTANCES, 
 
 (2.) Any dispute, respecting mere phraseology, may, at least 
 with reasonable polemics, be at once settled by accuracy of 
 definition. 
 
 3. The same circumstance, of ixdcraste having been em- 
 ployed to denote substance, was well known also, as we may 
 naturally suppose, to the Greek Athanasius. 
 
 Hence, for the avowed purpose of shewing; that Origen, in 
 common with Theognostus and Dionysius of Alexandria, main- 
 tained the doctrine of the consuBstTanTIALITyY of the Son with the 
 Father: he cites a passage from that writer, in which the word 
 ovoia indeed or the word dpootvetoc occurs not, but in which the 
 doctrine is taught through the medium of the word trdoracte 
 which Origen there uses in the sense of ovcia. 
 
 This passage, which, because it contains not the precise 
 term ovclia or dpoovowoc, I previously omitted to quote along 
 with other passages asserting the tenet of coNSUBSTANTIALITY 
 (book ii. chap. 10. § 1. 1. note.), is highly important, not merely 
 as shewing the doctrine of Origen himself, but as teaching us 
 how the text in the Epistle to the Hebrews was interpreted in 
 the early Church. 
 
 (1.) Origen deduces from it the doctrine of consuBsTAN- 
 TIALITY : and the mode, in which he effects this, is by under- 
 standing the Apostle’s word troordcewe in the sense of ovciac 
 or substance, and by then arguing that The Son cannot but be 
 consubstantial mith the Father, because he is a refulgence from 
 the Paternal Glory and therefore homogeneous Light from ho- 
 mogeneous Light. 
 
 ] 
 
NUMB. VII. _| OF TRINITARIANISM. 419 
 
 Ei €orwy eixwy rov Oot rod dopdrov, ddparoe eikwy. "Eyd oe 
 ToApnoac rpoaGEiny ay, bre Kal Gpordrnc Tuyxavwy tov ILarpoe, 
 ouK tori bre obk Hy. dre yap 6 Ode, 6 Karu roy “lwdyyny 
 pac Aeyopevoc (6 Ocde yao pwc eoriy), dravyacpa ovK Elxe Tie 
 idiac ddéne; “Iva Tohpyoag tic doxyiy 0M eivar Yiod 7 OTEPOY 
 ovK Ovroc. Tldre 0 4) ric dpphrov kal dkarovoptdorov Kat apbeyK- 
 Tov VrogTdaEwe TOU Ilarpdc Eikwy, 6 xapaktio Adyoc, 6 ywwoKkwy 
 ov Ilarépa, ovk v3 Karavoetrw yap 0 ro\pa@y Kal éywr, Ty 
 more Ore ovK hy 6 Yidc, bre épei kat 10, codia wore ovK Hy, Kal 
 Adyoc ovK rv, Kai Cw) ove jv. Orig. apud Athan. Synod. Nic. 
 cont. heer. Arian. decret. Oper. vol. i. p. 423, 
 
 (2.) Yet, though, as Athanasius rightly judged, Origen un- 
 derstands, in the sense of substance or essence, the word Urdaracte 
 as employed in the text from the Epistle to the Hebrews: he 
 scruples not elsewhere to use the word in that sense of person, 
 to which, for the convenience of precision (notwithstanding 
 the complaints of Jerome) it was afterward EXxcLUSIVELY con- 
 fined. 
 
 “Hpetc févrovye roeic vroordoete wevOomevon Tuyydvey, Tov 
 Hlarépa kal roy Yiov cal ro"Aytoy Iveta. Comment. in Jo- 
 hann. tom. ii. Oper. vol. ii. p. 56. 
 
 Ei 0€ rie ék rovrwy reptoracOhoerat, LN 7 avTopoodpEY dE 
 rove avaipovyTac Ovo Eivat broardaete Ilaréoa cat Yidv'—Oono- 
 Kevopeyv oby TOY Ilarépa rij¢ adnGeiac kal roy Yiov ry adhOear, 
 ovra Ovo rH bmoordce xpdypara. Orig. cont. Cels. lib. viii. 
 p. 386. 
 
 4, The text in the Epistle to the Hebrews, thus, by the con- 
 sent of the primitive Church, and indeed by the very necessity 
 of intelligible language authoritatively propounding the doctrine 
 of the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father and thence 
 by inevitable consequence the doctrine of the true divinity of 
 the Son: we may now add, to the host of Antenicenes who har- 
 moniously assert the dogma of Consubstantiality, the venerable 
 Clement of Rome, that fellow-labourer of St. Paul whose name 
 is in the book of life. 
 
 (1.) Evidently on the authority of the text before us, as ap- 
 
 Ee2 
 
4.20 THE APOSTOLICITY (APP. It. 
 
 pears both from the general context of the place and likewise 
 from its express phraseology, Clement calls our Lord the re- 
 fulgence from the majesty of the Father. 
 
 “Oc wy dravyacpa ric peyadwovync avrov. Clem. Rom. Epist. 
 ad Corinth. i. § 36, Cotel. Patr. Apost. vol. i. p. 168. 
 
 But, by thus designating him, Clement avows his own belief 
 to be : that Christ is light from light, and, consequently, true God 
 from true God. 
 
 (2.) In exact accordance with this belief, he professes, in a 
 most valuable fragment preserved by Basil, to hold: that the true 
 living subsistence, as contradistinguished from the dead gods of 
 the Gentiles (agreeably to the just remark of Bishop Bull), is 
 God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit; by the 
 true God meaning the Father, who, by the early writers is com- 
 monly thus styled simply, as being the atrddeoc or the ny?) 
 Qedrnroc. 
 
 "ANAd kat 6 Kring doxaikwrepov’ Zn, pnoty, 6 Ode Kat 6 
 Kiouwe “Inoove Xpiorde Kat ro Hvetpa ro” Ayr. Basil. Oper. 
 vol. u. p. 358. Paris. 1637. 
 
 (3.) The three holy names, we may observe, he unites to- 
 gether as in the baptismal form, which gave rise to what was 
 emphatically styled the Symbol of the Trinity: and, on this 
 union, which the School of Dr. Priestley would persuade us is 
 an union of the Deity and a mere creature and an abstract 
 quality, it is admirably remarked by Athanasius; that Jn the 
 very nature and reason of things, there can be no association 
 of the creature mith the Creator, no connumeration of the thing 
 made mith its Maker. 
 
 Ilofa yap korwvia ro Kriopare mpdc Kreoriy 3 Acari ro meroun- 
 pévoy ovvapiOueirac rp Tloujoarre ic rv TOY TaVYTwY TEdElwoLY 5 
 *H dvari ) wioric Kal? bpac sic Kreor)y Kal ey Kriopa mapadico- 
 rac; Athan. cont. Arian. Orat. ili, Oper. vol.i. p. 218. 
 
 5. Yet, while the early doctors held, on the necessary prin- 
 ciple of the text in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the Son is 
 very God as being of the same substance mith the Father. they 
 carefully guarded against the notion, that by the birth of the 
 
NUMB. VII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 421 
 
 Son, the substance of the eternal Father was divided as if by 
 abscission ; a notion, which would plainly introduce a species 
 of polytheism. 
 
 “Ore dvvapuc airy, iy Kat Ody Kadei 6 rpopnriKdc NOyos, dea 
 TOMY woatTwc drodédetkTat, Kal Wyyedoy, ovx we TO TOU ALOU 
 pac ovopare povoy doOueirar, ddda Kal dou Erepdy Te earl, 
 kal €v roic mpoetonpevore did Boayéwy rov Aéyor éEhraca, cimwy 
 THY Ovyapy Tavrny yeyevvicOa aro TOU Ilarpoc, duvapee Kat 
 Povry advrov* dd ov Kara caTroropy, we dropentLopéerne THC 
 tov Ilarpoc ovoiac, drota rad Ga rayra peptComeva Kal Tep- 
 vopeva ov Ta abra éorwy d Kal roly TunOijvact Kal rapadetyparoc 
 Xap, Tapeypey Tad Wo ATO TUPdC dvarrépeva TUPA ETEpa 
 Opwpev, ovdev éNarToupévou Exsivou é& ov dvabOijvat moda Ou- 
 vavrat, d\Ad rabrov pévovroc. Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. 
 p- 281. 
 
 IV. Thus, through the medium of the text in the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews, with the primitive Church and by the very ne- 
 cessity of intelligible phraseology, we deduce the doctrine of 
 the Son’s Consubstantialhity nith the Father from the express 
 and unequivocal declaration of Scripture. 
 
NUMBER VIII. 
 
 RESPECTING THE PRIMITIVE DOCTRINE OF THE THREE-FOLD GENE- 
 
 RATION OF THE WORD OF GOD. 
 
 Tern is a passage in Tertullian, which, upon a superficial 
 view, might seem to import the inferiority of the Son to the 
 Father, not only in gradation and office and inhumanitation, but 
 likewise, if not in nature, yet in eternity of duration. 
 
 As the clearing of it will lead to a statement of the primitive 
 doctrine of the three-fold generation of the Divine Word, I 
 shall here adduce it at large. 
 
 Det nomen dicimus semper fuisse apud semetipsum et in 
 semetipso ; Dominum vero, non semper: diversa enim utrius- 
 que conditio. Deus substantiz ipsius nomen, id est divinitatis : 
 Dominus vero, non substantice, sed potestatis. Substantiam 
 semper fuisse cum suo nomine, quod est Deus: postea Domi- 
 nus accedentis scilicet rei mentio. Nam, ex quo esse coeperunt 
 in que potestas domini ageret; ex illo, per accessionem po- 
 testatis, et factus est et dictus Dominus: quia et Pater Deus 
 est, et Judex Deus est; non tamen ideo Pater et Judex sem- 
 per, quia Deus semper. Nam nec Pater potuit esse ante 
 Filium: nec Judex, ante delictum. Furr autem TEMPUS, CUM 
 ET DELICTUM ET FILIUS NON FuIT: quod Judicem, et qui Patrem, 
 Dominum faceret. Sic et Dominus non ante ea, quorum Do- 
 minus existeret; sed Dominus tantum futurus quandoque : 
 sicut Pater per Filium, sicut Judex per delictum; ita et Domi- 
 nus per ea, que sibi servitura fecisset. Tertull. adv. Hermog, 
 § 1 Operspasse. 
 
THE APOSTOLICITY OF TRINITARIANISM. 4283 
 
 I. I need scarcely to remark: that, from Tertullian’s igno- 
 rance of the hebrew language, his whole criticism upon the latin 
 word Dominus (most unhappily, from the septuagint greek 
 Kvptoc, employed to express the hebrew word Jehovah, which 
 bears quite a different signification) is completely erroneous. 
 
 But, though the criticism itself be erroneous, it fully sets 
 forth the principle of Tertullian’s reasoning: and thus it will 
 act, as a sort of key to the entire passage. 
 
 1. With respect to the prominent clause in the passage now 
 before us, even if we were to allow, that Tertullian denied the 
 eternity of the Son, we should only allow: that a very acute 
 and inquisitive writer was, by the restlessness of his own mind, 
 led to contradict the universal judgment of the Antenicene 
 Church. But, in truth, no such concession either can or ought 
 to be made. 
 
 Tertullian denies not the eternity of the second person of the 
 Trinity, in the abstract: he merely, in the concrete, asserts ; 
 that that person did not always exist under the specific character 
 of the Son, according to the idea which he would himself annex 
 to the term Son. 
 
 His opinion is: that, when the first person of the Trinity was 
 pleased, through the agency of the second, to create the world ; 
 at that precise time, in the voluntary divine arrangement of the 
 economy, the second person began to be the Son: so that, 
 although the second person had eternally existed as the second 
 person; he did not begin to exist under the specific character 
 of the Son, until the time arrived for the creation of the Uni- 
 verse. 
 
 This opinion is distinctly expressed, in a single short sen- 
 tence, by the ancient author of the Epistle to Diognetus. 
 
 He, who is ETERNAL, is reckoned a Son TopAyY. 
 
 Oiroc O AEI, SHMEPON Yide AoyroGeic. Epist. ad Diognet. 
 in Oper. Justin Martyr. p. 387. 
 
 2. That such is his meaning, is evident from the whole tenor 
 both of his statement and of his argument: for the statement 
 and the argument are, manifestly, to the following purpose. 
 
4.24 THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. Il. 
 
 In the same sense that the Son did not always exist, he tells 
 us, that the Father likewise did not always exist: though God 
 himself, as God, had existed from, and will exist to, all eternity. 
 For God is an absolute term, importing the very essence of the 
 Divinity : but Father is only a relative term, importing and 
 involving the idea of Paternity. Hence, although the Deity in 
 three persons had existed, absolutely as God, from all eternity : 
 still the relative names of Father and Son, being strictly econo- 
 mical and bearing an immediate reference to the creation of the 
 world, commenced alike at the era of the creation. 
 
 3. This speculation of Tertullian, I am no way concerned, 
 either to defend or to oppose: I merely remark, that such was 
 his speculation. 
 
 His whole assertion, in short, is precisely the same, as if he 
 had said: There was a time, when there was no Creator ; though 
 there never was a time, when there was not God. 
 
 Absolutely, God ever existed: relatively, he existed not as a 
 Creator until the creation of the world. 
 
 4. In reality, if Tertullian had meant to deny the eternity of 
 the Son in the same sense that an Arian or a Socinian denies it, 
 he would have flatly contradicted himself. For, in another 
 place, under the absolute name of Essential T. ruth, he directly 
 asserts the eternity of Christ. 
 
 Dominus noster Christus Veritatem se, non consuetudinem, 
 cognominavit. Si semper Christus, et prior omnibus: zeque 
 Veritas SEMPITERNA et antiquares. ‘Tertull. de virgin. veland. 
 § 1. Oper. p. 490. 
 
 II. The speculation before us was no way peculiar to Ter- 
 tullian: and, for the more complete clearing of the matter, it 
 may not be useless to enter yet further upon the subject. 
 
 Among the early ecclesiastical writers, the notion of 4 pro- 
 cession or a demiurgic generation of the Word in the character of 
 _ the Son is by no means uncommon. They seem to have adopted 
 the doctrine, from a combination of John i. 18, with Johni. 
 1—3 and Heb. i. 5, 6. 
 
 Through all eternity, they held, the Word was in the bosom 
 
NUMB. VIII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 4.25 
 
 of the Father: which bosom of the Father they deemed his spe- 
 cial place or habitation. But, when the universe was to be 
 created, the Word, hitherto quiescent, issued forth or proceeded 
 as the Son of God: and then, through his agency, all things 
 were made. 
 
 1. Thus Tertullian himself fully explains what he means by 
 saying, that There was a time when the Son was not. For he 
 intimates; that the Word had aways existed in the essence of 
 God, prior to the creation of the world: and yet he states ; that 
 the demiurgic generation of the Son took place, wmmediately 
 before the creation, and for the precise purpose of the creation. 
 
 Aiunt quidem (heretici) et Genesim in Hebraico ita incipere : 
 In principio Deus fecit sibi Filium. Hoc ut firmum non sit, 
 alia me argumenta deducunt ab ipsa Dei dispositione, qua fuit 
 ante mundi constitutionem, adusque Filii generationem. Ante 
 omnia enim Deus erat solus; ipse sibi et mundus, et locus, et 
 omnia: solus autem, quia nihil extrinsecus preeter illum. 
 Coeterum ne tunc quidem solus: habebat enim secum, quam 
 habebat in semetipso, Rationem suam scilicet. Rationalis enim 
 Deus, et Ratio in ipso prius: et ita ab ipso omnia. Que Ratio 
 sensus ipsius est, hanc Greeci Adyoy dicunt: quo vocabulo 
 etiam Sermonem appellamus.—Tunc igitur etiam ipse Sermo 
 speciem et ornatum suum sumit, sonum et vocem, cum dicit 
 Deus: Fiat Lua. Hee est nativitas perfecta Sermonis, dum ex 
 Deo procedit: conditus ab eo primum ad cogitatum in nomine 
 Sophie ; Deus condidit me initium viarum: dehinc generatus 
 ad effectum; Cum pararet ccelum, aderam illi: exinde eum 
 parem sibi faciens, de quo procedendo Filius factus est ; primo- 
 genitus, ut ante omnia genitus; et unigenitus, ut solus ex Deo 
 genitus ; proprié de vulva cordis ipsius, secundum quod et 
 Pater ipse testatur, Hructavit cor meum Sermonem optimum. 
 Tertull. adv. Prax. § 3,4. Oper. p. 407, 408. 
 
 2. To the same purpose speaks Athenagoras, relative to the 
 ETERNAL existence of the Word in the bosom of the Father 
 anterior to his prolation for the purpose of creating the uni- 
 
 verse. 
 
426 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. I. 
 
 Lpwrov yéevynpa sivat (ror Haida) To sania ovxX we Lettie: 
 vov* €& d aoxije yap 0 Ode, vove dtdwc OY, elyev avroc éy EaUT@ 
 tov Adyov, didiwe oyuKoe dy. Athenag. Legat. § x. p. 38, 39. 
 
 3. In like manner also, Theophilus of Antioch, after calling 
 the second person of the Trinity, The Word who is nver in- 
 herent in the heart of God, Aéyov roy bvra ALATIANTOS éydc- 
 aberov év kapdia Oeod, proceeds to state: that, when God wished 
 to create whatever he had purposed, he begat this Word in the 
 way of prolation, born before the whole creation. 
 
 ‘Ordre O& H0éAnoEY 6 Osde woijoae boa éBovdeboaro, rovtoy 
 tov Aéyov éyévynoe TPOPOPLKOY, TewrdToKOY Thone KTioEwe. 
 Theoph. ad Autol. lib. ii. § 22. p. 365. 
 
 4. The same doctrine, likewise, we find propounded by that 
 very early Father, Justin Martyr. 
 
 "AdAa rotro ro TO Oyre UMd Tod Ilarpoc mooBAnOev yéevynpa 
 700 TavTwy TOY TOMPaTwY ovVIy T@ Ilarpi, cat TOUTW 6 Ilario 
 TPOCOMLAEL, Wo O AOYoe Cua TOU Lohou@voc édprwoer, Ore kal aox?) 
 70 TAaVTWV TOY TOLNLaTwY TOUT auro Kal yévynpa UTrO TOU Ocov 
 éyeyévynro, 6 Logpia dua Lodopsvoc kadeira. Justin. Dial. eum 
 Tryph. Oper. p. 222 
 
 "Ore yeyevvioOar tro Tov Harpo rotro ro yévynua mpd rhy- 
 Twv athoc THY Kriopdrwy, 6 Aoyoe é0HAOV' Kal, 70 YEVV@pevoy 
 Tov yevvavroc apoyo érepdv tort, mac Goric oy opooynoete. 
 Ibid. p. 281. 
 
 5. His contemporary Irenéus, also, similarly maintains the 
 ETERNAL existence of the Word with the Father, prior both to 
 his creation of the world and to his assumption of the nature of 
 his creature man. 
 
 Ostenso manifesté, quod in principio Verbum existens apud 
 Deum ; per quem omnia facta sunt, qui et semper aderat generi 
 humano; hune novissimis temporibus, secundum preefinitum 
 tempus a Patre, unitum suo plasmati, passibilem hominem fac- 
 tum: exclusa est omnis contradictio dicentium ; Si ergo tunc 
 natus est, non erat anté Christus, Ostendimus enim, quia non 
 tune coepit Filius Dei, existens semper apud Patrem. Iren. 
 adv. heer, lib. iii. c. 20. p. 208. 
 
NUMB. VIIL. | OF TRINITARIANISM. AQT 
 
 ILI. Under this view of the question, the ancients attributed 
 to the Divine Word a three-fold generation. 
 
 1. So far as his essential nature is concerned, the Word of 
 God was begotten of the Father from all eternity ; as an eter- 
 nal river from an eternal fountain, as an eternal germination 
 from an eternal root, as an eternal ray from an eternal sun: so 
 that there never was atime, when the Word of God existed not 
 in the bosom of the Father. 
 
 Hence, as thus peculiarly and physically existing in the 
 bosom of the Father, he is, as the Apostle speaks, the onLY- 
 BEGOTTEN Son. 
 
 ‘O povoyerie Yidc, 6 dy Eic tov KédXroy rou Harode. Johan. 1. 
 18. 
 
 2. Yet the Word proceeded from the Father energetically, 
 when he went forth from him to create the universe : and this 
 procession or prolation the early writers were accustomed to 
 view as the demiurgic generation of the Son, in which (accord- 
 ing to Tertullian) the Word first assumed the character ofa 
 Son to the Father. 
 
 Hence he is denominated the rrrst-Born of the whole cre- 
 ation or him who was BoRN BEFORE the whole creation. 
 
 Tlowrdéroxoc maong KTiCEws. Coloss. 1. 1 5 
 
 3. Again, when the same Word came down from the bosom 
 of the Father, and entered into the womb of the Virgin, and of 
 her became man through the obumbration of the Holy Ghost : 
 this also was esteemed a generation or birth of the Divine Word 
 in the character of the Son of God. 
 
 Hence, under this aspect, the predicted Christ is, by the 
 angel, expressly called the Son of God or the Son of the Most 
 Mgh. 
 
 Yioe ‘Ypiorov KrAnOhoerat—KrAnoyjoerat Yioce Ocov. Luce. i. ~ 
 32, 30. 
 
 IV. It may be proper here to remark: that, for the purpose 
 of describing the prolation of the Son from the substance of the 
 Father, some of the early ecclesiastical writers occasionally cite 
 the greek mistranslation of Prov. viii. 22; in which mistransla- 
 
4.28 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. If. 
 
 tion the Divine Wisdom is said to have been created by the 
 Lord. 
 
 Kuptoc Exric€ pe OXY O0WY adTod Eic éoya avrov. 
 
 Such, for instance, is the case, with Justin, Athenagoras, 
 Tertullian, and Dionysius of Rome. 
 
 But, while they doubtless cite this text from the Greek of 
 the Seventy, common equity requires: that their principle of 
 citation should be explained by themselves ; and that they should 
 not be hastily set down, by some rapid antitrinitarian speculatist, 
 as teaching the creation of the Son, because they quote a text, 
 which, in a palpable mistranslation, describes the Divine Wisdom 
 as having been created (éxrie) by the Lord. 
 
 1. Now Justin Martyr expressly tells us: that he under- 
 stands the word éxrue, in no other sense than that of begetting. 
 For, though he cites the mistranslated text, he cites it for the 
 avowed purpose of proving: that God the Father begat (yeyév- 
 vnke) from himself the Power, which is called God the Son or 
 The Word of God. Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 221. 
 Compare Ibid. p. 281. 
 
 2. Athenagoras, in like manner, cites the text to shew : that 
 the Son was the first offspring (xparov yévynja) to the Father ; 
 that he was nor produced in the way of making (ody we 
 vyevouevoy); but that he was eternally inherent (eixey abroc év 
 éavT@ Tov Adyor, didiwe Aoyikoc Wy) in the Father. Athenag. 
 Legat. § x. p. 38—40. Now the whole of this language is 
 plainly incompatible with the idea of creation in our sense of 
 the term. 
 
 3. So likewise Tertullian professes to consider the word 
 ExTloé, aS Synonymous with begetting. Therefore he evidently 
 views it, as Nor involving the notion of any proper creation. 
 
 Denique, ut necessariam sensit ad opera mundi, statim eam 
 (scil. Sophiam) condit et generat in seipso. Dominus, inquit, 
 condidit me initium viarum suarum in opera sua. Tertull. adv. 
 Herm. § 8. Oper. p. 343. 
 
 4. Even yet more express, if it be possible, is Dionysius of 
 Rome. For he actually troubles himself, with what might well 
 
NUMB. VIII. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 429 
 
 have been spared, had he consulted the original Hebrew of the 
 Book of Proverbs : he actually troubles himself with a criticism, 
 by which he would shew; that the verb éxrise does not neces- 
 sarily convey the idea of creation, but that in the text from the 
 ‘Book of Proverbs it ought to be understood in the sense of 
 setting ‘a person over a thing: and the very ground of his 
 criticism 1s AN EXPRESS DENIAL THAT THE SON IS A CREATURE. 
 Ob petoy & dy TL Karapépgowro Kat rove woinpa Tov Ytoy eivac 
 dokalovrac, Kal yeyoveva Tov Kipy, worep Ev Te OvTWE yEVO- 
 pévwr, vopicovrac tév Deiwy hoyiwy, yévynow avT@ THY ao- 
 i \ I 5) b) 2 ae , \ \ s 
 plorrovoay Kal TpETOVOUY, arr ovyt wAaoly TLYa Kal TOlnoLY, 
 TPOTPMAPTUPOVYTWY. Brdognpoy ody ov TO TUXOY, peyloroy pe 
 ovy, Xelporoinroy, Tpdmov Twa, héeyEy rov Kuptoy. Ei yap yé- 
 ex oy e/ > ta > NSN 5: of ? (ond rae € 
 yovey Yidc, iy Ore ovK hy. Ast c€ ayy, evye ev TM lari cor we 
 avroc dno, Kat et Aoyoc kat Yodia cal Advapuc 0 Xptaroc’ 
 ravTa yao siva TOY Xptordyv ai Oeiac héyovor ypapat worep 
 + , ~ \ J Tv ~ ~ id > 
 émlarace, ravra Oe dvvapetc ovcae Tov Oeod rvyxXavovow. Et 
 rolvuy yéyovey 6 Yive, jv Ore ovK HV Tara Iv aoa Kaloo, OTE 
 \ / z e Por / AY ~ ae , oo Jia 
 Xwole TovTwy iv 0 Oedcg’ aromwraroy Ce TOUTO. Kat ré ay ext 
 , \ / \ e ~ U XN a in 
 Tréoy TEpt ToUTWY TOdC tMae CladrEYoIpNY, TOC AvOpaC TYEU{LA- 
 Topopove Kal capac ETLOTAPEVOUS TAC auromiacg Tac EK TOU Toinpa 
 héyew roy Yidy avakunrovaac; Aig plot Coxovar pay T NOTETKNKEVAL 
 Tov vovy ot KaOnynoapervoe THC ddéne Tavrne, Kal Ova TovTO Kopuon 
 Tov adnOove OumpapryKkevat, érépwe i) Povderae raiuTyn W) Osia Kae 
 moopnTiKy yeagy, TO Kuptoc Exrisé poe Goxny ddwy abrod, éxdet- 
 ? bd / x € ~ > e s/ Vege het X 
 apevor. Ov pia yao i Tov Exricey, we lore, onpacia’ “ Exzice yap 
 zyravOa ekovoréoy, avTl Tov, "Eméornoe Tote Um avToU yeyovoow 
 Epyouc, yeyovdar o€ Ov’ avrov Tov Yiov' ovyi o€ ye ro” Exrise viv 
 éyour’ dy émt rov Emolnas’ Cvapeper yd Tov wowjoat TO Krioa. 
 Dionys. Rom. apud Athan. Epist. de Synod. Nic. cont. heer. 
 Arian. decret. Oper. vol. i. p. 422. Vide etiam Athan. Ibid. 
 5. In truth, as it has been well remarked by Valesius and 
 Bishop Bull, the Antenicene Writers used the word xriZecy in 
 the extended sense of production of any description, whether 
 
430 THE APOSTOLICITY OF TRINITARTANISM. 
 
 ereatiwe or generative: and the preceding authorities amply 
 establish the justice of their remark. 
 
 Accordingly, on this principle, Bishop Bull vindicates the 
 phraseology of Clement of Alexandria, in styling the Son, with 
 evident reference to the greek mistranslation of the text in 
 Proverbs zowrd«risroy cogiay. 
 
 Ab aliis id etiam in Clemente reprehenditur, quod Filium 
 Dei alicubi dixerit rpwréxrioroy copiay, primo creatam sapien- 
 tiam. Sed frustra prorsus et illi sunt. Nam constat, vocem 
 krtaToc, in eo Clementis loco, idem significare quod yevynréc ; 
 quemadmodum etiam Latiné creare dicitur pro gignere, ut Sul- 
 mone creatos, id est, progenitos. Sane Clementem non existi- 
 masse, Filium Dei esse c¥eaturam, ex iis quz supra ex ipso 
 attulimus, meridiana luce clarius est. 
 
 Subjungam hic verba preestantissimi virl, Henrici Valesii. 
 
 Cerié veteres theologi, inquit, ac precipué ti qui ante Concilii 
 Niceni tempora scripserunt, per vocabulum krigewv, non solum- 
 modo creationem intellexerunt que ex nrhilo fit, sed omnem gene- 
 raliter productionem, tam que ab eterno esset, quam ilam que 
 m tempore. Bull. Defens. Fid. Nic. sect. ii. c. 6. § 8. 
 
NUMBER IX. 
 
 RESPECTING TERTULLIAN’S EXPRESSION, THAT MAN WAS ANIMATED 
 FROM THE SUBSTANCE OF GOD, 
 
 I nave cited Tertullian, as one of the many Antenicenes: 
 who, even expressly and in so many words, propounded the 
 catholic doctrine of The Son’s consussvantiauity with the Ka- 
 ther. See above, book 1. chap. 10. § 11. 1. 
 
 Now, respecting the creation of man, this writer employs 
 language: which, because it is liable to misapprehension and 
 perversion, may seem to require a brief examination. 
 
 Alluding to Gen. ii. 7, he says: that Man was animated from 
 the suBSTANCE of God. 
 
 Recognosce, ut ex imagine et similitudine Dei, quo habeas et 
 tu in temetipso rationem, qui es animal rationale, a rationali 
 scilicet artifice non tantum factus, sed etiam ex SUBSTANTIA 
 ipsius animatus. Tertull. adv. Prax. § 8. Oper. p. 407. 
 
 I. Language of this somewhat incautious description, which 
 seems to have been used by others before it was employed by 
 Tertullian, gave rise to the not unplausible objection of Marcion. 
 
 Choosing to understand the expression as importing the ab- 
 solute consubstantiality of man’s spirit with the essence of God 
 (much in the same manner, I suppose, as the pagan philosophers 
 held the excerption of human souls from the essence of the 
 Supreme Numen), he urged: that, in that case, The substance 
 of God is made capable of sin. 
 
 Quoquo tamen, inquis, modo, substantia Creatoris delicti 
 capax invenitur; cum afflatus Dei, id est, anima in homine, 
 deliquit: nec potest non ad originalem summam referri corrup- 
 tio portionis. Tertull. adv. Marcion. lib. 1. § 7. Oper. p. 176. 
 
A432 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. II. 
 
 II. The reply of Tertullian, though it excuses not the un- 
 wary incorrectness of the language employed by his predeces- 
 sors and himself, at least explains it to import no such mon- 
 strous opinion as that affixed to it by Marcion. 
 
 He answers: that The breath of God is not the same as The 
 E'ssential Spirit of God. For, though issuing forth from him, 
 it still is by him created. Consequently, the soul of man, 
 though breathed into him by God, is, nevertheless, a work or 
 created production of God. 
 
 In primis, tenendum, quod Greeca Scriptura signavit, afflatum 
 nominans, non spiritum.—Homo imago Dei, id est, spiritus : 
 Deus enim spiritus. Imago ergo spiritis, afflatus. Porro 
 Imago veritati non usquequaque adeequabitur. Aliud est, enim, 
 secundum veritatem esse : aliud, ipsam veritatem esse.—Denique, 
 cum manifesté Scriptura dicat, fldsse Deum in faciem hominis, 
 et factum hominem in animam vivam, non in spiritum vivifica- 
 torem, separavit eam a conditione factoris. Opus enim aliud 
 sit, necesse est, ab artifice ; id est; inferius artifice. Nec ur- 
 ceus enim, factus a figulo, ipse erit figulus: ita nec afflatus, 
 factus a spiritu, ideo erit spiritus. Tertull. adv. Marcion. lib. ii. 
 Soe Dera DL Osh 7a 
 
 Now, in no such inferior creative sense as this, does Tertul- 
 lian say: that The Son and the Holy Ghost are or THE suB- 
 STANCE of the Father. His language, as I have already cited 
 it, is far too definite and express to allow of any misapprehen- 
 sion: nor does he ever give it any such qualifying explanation, 
 as he gives his expression respecting man being animated from 
 God’s supsTancr. 
 
 III. I have thought it right to notice this matter, lest some 
 opponent should peradventure say: that, if Tertullian speaks 
 of the Son being or THE suBsTANCcE of the Father, he also 
 speaks of man being animated rrom THE sUBSTANCE of God. 
 
 As the two expressions are different in themselves: so Ter- 
 tullian, we see, as he himself teaches us, does not use them in 
 the same sense. 
 
NUMBER xX. 
 
 RESPECTING THE ASCRIPTION OF THE TITLE OF THE SON OF GOD, 
 BEING, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, THE 
 
 SAME AS THE ASCRIPTION OF ESSENTIAL DIVINITY. 
 
 Wuen our Saviour directly asked his disciples, Whom they 
 pronounced ‘him to be, or What sentiments they entertained re- 
 specting his personal character ; Peter, on behalf of himself and 
 his fellows, promptly answered : THOU ART THE CHRIST, THE SON 
 OF THE LIVING GoD. 
 
 This reply, specially revealed to the zealous Apostle not by 
 flesh and blood but by direct inspiration from the Father which 
 is in heaven, was so perfectly satisfactory, that it procured for 
 him an eminent blessing: and, with that blessing, was associated 
 a very remarkable and very important declaration. 
 
 Thou art Peter: and vuron tTHIs rock I WILL BUILD MY 
 CHURCH; AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST 
 it. Matt. xvi. 15—18. 
 
 I. By the early writers, three several interpretations have 
 been given of THE RocK upon which our Lord promised thus in- 
 vincibly to found his Church Universal. 
 
 Some, as Tertullian and Cyprian and Chrysostom in one part 
 of his Works, supposed THE rock to be the individual Peter: 
 this high privilege, in consequence of his confession, being 
 specially bestowed upon him to the exclusion of all other indi- 
 viduals. Tertull. de Pudic. Oper. p. 767, 768. Cyprian. de 
 Unit. Eccles. Oper. vol. i. p. 106—108. Cyprian. Epist. Quint. 
 Ixxi. Oper. vol. ii. p. 194, 195. Chrysost. Homil. Ixix. in Petr, 
 Apost. et El]. Prophet. Oper. vol. i. p. 856. 
 
 VOL. Il, Ff 
 
ABA THE APOSTOLICITY [ APP. IT 
 
 Others, as Athanasius and Jerome and Augustine, supposed 
 THE ROCK to be Christ himself. Athan. Unum esse Christ. Orat. 
 Oper. vol. i. p. 519, 520. Hieron. Comment. in Matt. xvi. 18. 
 lib. ui. Oper. vol. vi. p. 33. August. Expos. in Evan. Johan. 
 Tract. cxxiv. Oper. vol. ix. p. 206. 
 
 Others, again, as Justin and Hilary and Chrysostom in 
 another part of his Works, supposed THE Rock to be Peter’s in- 
 spired Confession of Faith. Just. Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 
 255. Hilar. de Trin. lib. vi. Oper. p. 903. Chrysost. Serm. de 
 Pentecost. Oper. vol. vi. p. 233. 
 
 1. For the first of these three interpretations, there seems to 
 be little assignable reason: save that, in consequence of his 
 Confession, the name of Cephas or Peter or Rock was given to 
 Simon. Whence it is concluded: that, since Simon received 
 the appellation of rHz rock, he must, individually, be THE RocK 
 upon which Christ promised to build his Church. 
 
 But this reason is, at once, insufficient in itself, and incon- 
 gruous alike both with the spirit and mith the phraseology of the 
 Gospel. 
 
 (1.) In itself, the reason is altogether insufficient. For, ac- 
 cording to the genius of hebrew personal nomenclature, the im- 
 position of a significant name is quite as often commemorative 
 of a fact, as it is indicative of an individual’s character. 
 
 Whence, as, in the present place, we are no way bound to 
 adopt the latter sense: so the imposed name of THE rock might 
 seem given, rather to perpetuate the recollection of the heaven- 
 inspired Confession, than to point out Peter himself, as the 
 peculiar foundation of the Church Catholic. 
 
 (2.) The reason, moreover, is incongruous alike both with the 
 spirit and with the phraseology of the Gospel. 
 
 In the highest sense of the word rock, it were even impious 
 to deem the mere delegated servant Peter the foundation of that 
 Church which securely rests upon Christ alone. 
 
 And, in its lower and secondary sense, since all the Apostles 
 are equally declared to be the twelve foundations of the Church : 
 it is difficult to comprehend, how Peter could be a foundation 
 
NUMB. X. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 435 
 
 so preeminently above his brethren as to deserve and to obtain 
 this marked and very peculiar notice. Rev. xxi. 14. 
 
 2. With respect to the second of the three interpretations, 
 when it is soundly understood and received, it is doubtless un- 
 objectionable. 
 
 But its inherent fault is a want of definiteness and pre- 
 cision, which might sanction the most unbounded latitudina- 
 rlanism. 
 
 Christ himself, say those great and orthodox divines Athana- 
 sius and Jerome and Augustine, is THE ROCK. 
 
 Doubtless he is, according to their estimation of the Lord’s 
 personal character. But shall we say, that he is equally so, 
 according to estimations of a totally different description ? 
 
 That Christ is THE Rock upon which the Church is built, both 
 the Arian and the Socinian, if I mistake not, will be equally 
 ready to profess. But their profession will not, therefore, be 
 the profession of Athanasius and Jerome and Augustine. 
 
 Now a declaration, which, from its indefiniteness, may be 
 understood in three several senses: namely, that Christ, true 
 God and true man, is THE ROCK; or that Christ, the highest and 
 first of all created beings, is THE Rock ; or that Christ, a mere 
 man empowered of God to found a new religious community wpon 
 earth, is THE RocK: this declaration, thus palpably capable of 
 misapprehension or perversion, can scarcely be the fixed basis, 
 the immobile saxum, upon which our Lord promised to build his 
 Church so securely that the gates of hell should not prevail 
 against it. Such a foundation, thus left undefined and there- 
 fore variable, instead of being a solid rock, seems rather to 
 resemble the ever shifting sand of the desert. 
 
 3. The third only of the three interpretations now remains : 
 and, on every account, I apprehend, it is greatly and decidedly 
 to be preferred. 
 
 As it possesses the authority of being the oldest interpreta- 
 tion upon record: so, inherently, it is the best. 
 
 According to the venerable Justin, who was instituted in the 
 Gospel only about thirty years after the death of St. John, THE 
 
 Bf 2 
 
436 THE APOSTOLICITY CLAPP. I. 
 
 rock is Peter’s memorable and inspired Confession, THou ART 
 THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GoD. 
 
 (1.) To this Confession we are immediately led by the ge- 
 neral context. 
 
 Simon receives a blessing for making it: and then says our 
 Lord; Thou art Peter, and upon tuts rock I will build my 
 Church. The Apostle makes a remarkable Confession: and, 
 from the circumstance of his making this Confession, he com- 
 memoratively receives the new name of THE Rock. What, 
 then, can be THE Rock, which gave occasion to the commemo- 
 rative name, save the Confession itself? As Justin well and 
 briefly states the matter: Upon one of his disciples, who was 
 previously called Simon, Christ bestowed the sirname of Peter ; 
 inasmuch as, through the revelation of his Father, he acknon- 
 ledged him to be THE CHRIST THE SON OF GOD. 
 | (2.) While we are led to Peter’s Confession by the general 
 context, the Confession itself possesses that very definiteness 
 and precision which the mere unexplained name of our Lord 
 necessarily wants. 
 
 Tux rock, upon which the Saviour will build his Church, is 
 not simply The Christ, viewed under whatever aspect this or 
 that religionist may choose to view him: but THE Rock is The 
 Christ, as confessed by Peter; that is to say, THE Rock is The 
 Messiah, viewed in the single and well-defined character of THE 
 SON OF THE LIVING GOD. 
 
 II. According, then, to the most ancient and in every respect 
 the best interpretation, Christ builds not his Church even upon 
 himself endefinitely. 
 
 The opinion, which ought to be formed of his personal cha- 
 racter he leaves not unspecified, as if it were a matter of in- 
 difference, and as if the naked acknowledgment of his Mes- 
 siahship were itself sufficient: so that his Church were equally 
 secure and equally well founded, whatever doctrine she might 
 receive and teach respecting his essential nature. But he pro- 
 fesses to build that Church only upon the Messiah, viened as 
 THE SON OF THE LIVING GoD. 
 
NUMB. X. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 437 
 
 Let the Church be founded upon tHIs Rock of Peter’s in- 
 spired Confession; a Confession so vitally important, that, in 
 perpetual memory of it, the Apostle received the additional 
 name of Peter: and the promise runs; that the gates of hell, 
 or rather the gates of Hades (that is to say, utter and entire 
 destruction from off the face of this visible earth), shall not 
 prevail against it. 
 
 But, if the Church be founded upon any other than THE RocK 
 of Peter’s Confession; that is to say, if the Church be not 
 founded upon the Messiah, definitely viewed and acknowledged 
 as THE SON OF THE LIVING Gop: then, to the Church thus 
 founded (supposing it possible for the true Church Catholic to 
 be otherwise founded than its founder himself intended), the 
 promise of invincibility and perpetuity were inapplicable. 
 
 III. Such being the case, it must needs be a matter of deep 
 import distinctly to ascertain the idea, conveyed by the phrase 
 THE SON OF THE LIVING Gop: and, for this purpose, since re- 
 - vealed truth must ever be the most ancient while a departure 
 from that truth cannot but (by the very terms of the propo- 
 sition) be more modern, our wisdom will be to resort to the 
 exposition of the primitive Church. For, since so much de- 
 pends upon a right understanding of the phrase, we can scarcely 
 suppose that the inspired Apostles would have left the Church 
 in ignorance of its true meaning. 
 
 Now, in the early Church, as far back as we can trace, the 
 ascription of the title of THE son or cop was deemed the same 
 as an ascription of ESSENTIAL DIVINITY. 
 
 Whence it was maintained: that, Whenever, by the inspired 
 writers, Christ is styled THE son OF GoD; he is himself, by those 
 writers, declared to be VERY AND ESSENTIAL GOD. | 
 
 The racr is important: and it ought not to be alleged with- 
 out full substantiation. Let us, then, attend to the evidence, 
 by which it is supported. 
 
 1. When, at the martyrdom of Polycarp, the disciple of St. 
 John, in the year 147, the scorched remains of the holy man 
 were refused to his Smyrnéans, for decent burial, on the plea ; 
 
438 THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. 1. 
 
 that, Leaving the crucified one, they would begin to morship 
 their deceased Bishop : the imputation was indignantly rejected ; 
 while, on the specific ground of his being THE son oF cop, 
 their acknowledged worship of Christ was vindicated. 
 
 Him truly, said they, inasmuch as he is THE SON OF GOD, we 
 adore. 
 
 Tovrov pev yap, Yiov dvra rov Ocod, mpookvvovper,  Epist. 
 Eccles. Smyrn. § xvii. 
 
 Now the primitive Christians rejected all religious adoration 
 as idolatrous, save only that of the one true God whom they 
 worshipped as subsisting in three persons. 
 
 Therefore, when the Smyrnéans, in avowed contradistinction 
 to their mere love of the Saints, openly declared their adoration 
 of Christ, inasmuch as he is THE SON OF GOD: they plainly de- 
 clared also their full belief, inculcated no doubt upon them by 
 their late apostolically instructed pastor ; that the ascription of 
 that title is nothing less, than an ascription of PROPER AND ES- 
 SENTIAL DIVINITY. 
 
 2. The same remark applies to the prayer of Polycarp’s 
 venerable fellow-disciple Ignatius: who suffered martyrdom, 
 either in the year 107, or (as some think) in the year 116. 
 
 Kneeling down, with all the brethren, we are told, he prayed, 
 £0 YHE SON OF GoD, on behalf of the Churches. 
 
 Otrw, perd yorurduciac ravrwy rey ddeAoGy, wapakadécuc 
 rov Yiov Tov Ocov, treo rev éxKAnowwy. Martyr. S. Ignat. § vi. 
 
 3. So, again, we are led to a similar conclusion, by the lan- 
 guage of the very ancient author of the Epistle which bears 
 the name of Barnabas. 
 
 When Christ, says he, chose his Apostles who were about to 
 preach his Gospel: then he manifested himself to be rH son 
 OF GoD. 
 
 But how did he thus manifest himself ? 
 
 The author goes on to tell us: that The manifestation of THE 
 SON OF GOD was no other than the incarnation of the glorious 
 Creator of that less glorious sun; the beams of which, neverthe- 
 less, frail man is unable lo gaze upon. 
 
NUMB. X. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 439 
 
 "Ore O& rove idlove droardXove, TOUS péAAOVTAC KnpYaoELY TO 
 evayyéduoy avrov, éeékaro,—rore Ehavépwoev EavTov Yiov Oeov 
 civat. Ei ydo po) mAOev Ev capKi, THC av éowOnpev AvOowrot, 
 [A€rovrec avrov 3 “Ore Tov peddovTa pA) elvae HLOY, EDYOY KELO@V 
 avurov imdpyovra, Dr€rovrec, OvK inyvovoly Eig akTivag avurou 
 dvrop0adpijoa. Barnab. Epist. Cathol. §v. 
 
 4. The same association of rssENTIAL DEITY with the title of 
 THE SON OF GOD we may notice also in the writings of Justin. 
 
 Christ, says he, preéxisted : inasmuch as he is God, tHE soN 
 OF THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS. - 
 
 Hpotrioxev, Yidg tod Womrod trav bdwy Ode Sy. Justin. 
 Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 207. 
 
 And again: Inasmuch as we have him written, in the Acts of 
 his Apostles, THE SON OF GoD; and inasmuch as we call him 
 THE SON: me perceive, that he exists also before all created 
 things. 
 
 Yidv Ood yeypappévoy avroy éy roic dropynpovevpace Tov 
 drooté\wy avrov éxovrec, Kal Yiov abrov héyortec, vevorkapev 
 dyra Kal po mayTwy Tov Tomnparwy. Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. 
 Oper. p. 255. 
 
 It may be proper to remark: that this second statement of 
 Justin immediately follows that very ancient interpretation of 
 THE ROCK which he has so happily preserved. 
 
 5. We find the same idea still prevalent in the Work of 
 Novatian on the Trinity. 
 
 Christ, says he, wishes to be deemed cov in his character of 
 THE sON OF GoD, not to be mistaken for the Father himself. 
 
 Deum se sic intelligi vult; ut Filium Dei, et non ipsum, 
 vellet, Patrem, intelligi. Novat. de Trin. in Oper. Tertull. 
 p- 621. 
 
 6. Finally, to descend still lower, this idea is stated with the 
 most perfect distinctness by Cyril of Alexandria. 
 
 Julian had alleged: that Neither Paul nor Matthew nor Luke 
 nor Mark had ever dared to call Jesus cop, but only John the 
 latest of the Apostolic Writers; and even he was induced to 
 
 do so, merely because a great multitude, both in the Grecian 
 
44.0 THE APOSTOLICITY [App. 1. 
 
 and in the Italian Cities, had been infected with the humour of 
 deifying and worshipping the deceased. 
 
 (1.) In his reply, Cyril first sets himself to prove, that Paul 
 directly called Jesus Gop: employing, as his mean of demon- 
 stration, the text, in which the Apostle styles him cop over ALL 
 BLESSED FOR EVER. 
 
 (2.) And then, with respect to the three earlier Evangelists, 
 he states, as the Church had always taught before him: that, 
 {n calling Christ tHE son or cov, they ascribed to him rropur 
 AND ESSENTIAL DIVINITY. 
 
 Kaizep eiddow we tore ede Kara puoww Kal adnObec, Yiov abrov 
 ovopagery Osov.— ANN’ ode mp@roc en Oedy eivae roy "Inoovy 
 adda Kat of 700 abrod yeypaddrec, Aovkae re ont, Kal MarOaioc, 
 Kal pév roe kat Mdoxoe, Kipuy o€ cat Osdy wvopaloy avroy, ry 
 uneorarny ddéav amTovépovrec mwavraxov. Cyril. Alex. cont. Jue 
 lian. lib. x. p. 328, 331. 
 
 IV. The scriptural authority, on which the primitive Church 
 held the title of tHE son or Gop to be perfectly equivalent to 
 the title of cop, was the recorded address of the angel Gabriel 
 to the Virgin Mary. 
 
 The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee: and the Power of the 
 Highest shall overshadow thee. Turrerore also that Holy 
 Thing, which shall be born of thee, shall be called tux son oF 
 «op. Luke i. 35, 
 
 In this passage, THE REASON, why Christ is called rHE son oF 
 GOD, Is distinctly stated to be the illapse of the FToly Spirit and 
 the obumbration of the Power of the H rg hest. 
 
 Such a circumstance caused the offspring of the Virgin to be — 
 at once THE SON OF Gop and the son of man: GOD, as the Church 
 rightly interpreted and defined, of the substance of the Father, 
 begotten before the worlds ; man, of the substance of his mother, 
 born in the world. 
 
 Hence the ground and principle, on which the primitive 
 Church judged the ascription of the title of THE son oF Gop to 
 be equivalent to an ascription of PROPER AND ESSENTIAL DIVI- 
 NITY, Is very Clear and satisfactory. 
 
NUMB. X. | OF TRINITARIANISM. AAA 
 
 In the mutual heavenly relationship of the two first persons 
 of the Trinity, there must be some analogy to the mutual 
 earthly relationship of father and son : otherwise, the relative 
 terms, Father and Son, we may be sure, would never have been 
 adopted. For, without the actual existence of some analogy, 
 the use of such terms could only serve to mislead. 
 
 Now, in the case of mutual earthly relationship, a father and 
 a son are beings or persons of one and the same essential nature : 
 and the rule holds equally good in all beings of an inferior 
 order, which severally bear to each other the relationship of 
 parent and offspring. 
 
 Therefore, both from the whole analogy of nature, and from 
 the very necessity of language founded upon that analogy, when 
 Christ the Word is said to be the Son of God, and when con- 
 sequently God is said to he the Father of that Son, the clear 
 result is: that The Father and the Son must be persons of one 
 and the same essential nature, or that The substance of the Son 
 must be identical mith the substance of the Father: in other 
 words, that, 4s the Father of the Son is confessedly very God, 
 so the Son of the Father 1s inevitably very God likenise ; God 
 the Father, as his actual name imports, being (as the early theo- 
 logians were wont to speak) Avrd@eoc, or God of himself, while 
 God the Son, as his actual name equally imports, is Ocdc &k Oeov 
 or God from God. 
 
 1. Thus, accordingly, reasoned Cyril of Alexandria, in the 
 passage to which I have already referred. 
 
 It was a special point, says he, mith the inspired theologians, 
 although they knew that Christ is God physically and truly, yet 
 io call him THE soN OF GoD, even the genuine offspring of the 
 substance of him who begat him: inasmuch as he-is eternally 
 present and coéxistent mith him who begat him, and is known to 
 subsist inthe one nature of the Godhead.—Wisely, therefore, nas 
 it made a point, with the inspired theologians, to say: that [He 
 is physically THE SON OF GOD. For, in such phraseology, the 
 doctrine is altogether inherent : thal HE, WHO IS PHYSICALLY 
 
 FROM GOD, IS HIMSELF TRULY GOD. 
 
4.4.2 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. II. 
 
 Kaé rot orovdn i} oKxoroe Tote Denydoote jv, Kaimep eiddowy we 
 oT. Oede Kara vay Kal ddnBde, Yidv avroy Ovomacev Oo, kat 
 TIC TOU TEKOVTOg OVGiAE yYhoLoY yévinpa, we del ovvdyra Kat 
 ovvuTdpxovra T). yevvyoayrTt, Kal év TN pug rijc O&drnToc pice 
 voovmevoy OvTa Kat évuToorarov.— Eic ovy dpa Kal ovK dope ye 
 rote Denyopote 6 akomdc, TO xpHvat Néyety, Yidy eiva Kara puow 
 Ocov" we Ev ye Ot) rovrw dvr TE Kal TdyTwe évoy Tov Ocdy Elvan 
 kar d\nOevay roy éx Ocod Kara gvotv. Cyril. Alex. cont. Julian. 
 lib.s.xaip. 328).829, 
 
 The reasoning, however, of Cyril, in the fifth century, was 
 no novelty: it had long before been employed by Irenéus, who 
 received his theology from St. John through the single interven- 
 ing link of his master Polycarp. 
 
 Lhe Word, says he, was God, by a necessary consequence. 
 for THAT WHICH IS BEGOTTEN FROM GOD Is GOD. 
 
 Ode Hv 6 Adyoc, dkodobSwe 76 yap éx rov Ocod yevynSer, 
 Ocdc éortv. Tren. adv. heer. lib. i. c. 1. p- 30. 
 
 3. To the same purpose also argues Tertullian. 
 
 Jesus mas man, from the flesh: God, from the spirit. On 
 that part where he was spirit, the angel pronounced him tux SON 
 oF GoD: reserving for the flesh his other title of The son of man. 
 Thus also the Apostle, when he calls him The Mediator of God 
 and men, has determined him to be a partaker of EACH sUB- 
 STANCE. 
 
 Jesus constitit, ex carne homo, ex spiritu Deus : quem tunc 
 angelus, ex ea parte qua spiritus erat, Dei Filium pronunciavit ; 
 servans carni, filiwm hominis dici. Sic et apostolus etiam, Dei 
 et hominum appellans sequestrem, utriusque substantic confir- 
 mavit. Tertull. adv. Prax. § 17. Oper. p. 428. 
 
 We say: that Christ is generated by prolation JSrom Ged ; 
 and, therefore, that, FROM THE UNITY OF THE SUBSTANCE, HE Is 
 CALLED THE SON AND GOD. 
 
 Hune ex Deo prolatum dicimus, et prolatione generatum: et, 
 idcirco, Flium et Deum dictum ex unitate substantia. Tertull. 
 Apol. adv. Gent. Oper. p. 850. 
 
 4. ‘Thus likewise argues Clement of Alexandria. 
 
 « 
 
NUMB. X. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 44S 
 
 The Lord is the Divine Word, THE MOST EVIDENTLY TRUE GOD, 
 who is equalled to the Lord of all things: BECAUSE HE WAS HIS 
 son, and the Word was in God. 
 
 ‘O Kipwc,—6 Oeiog Adyog, 0 pavepwraroc dvTwe OEdc, 6 To 
 Seondry Tay doy cowie Sri Hy Yiog abrov, Kat 6 Aoyog rv év 
 7~ Og. Clem. Alex. Protreps. Oper. p. 68. 
 
 5. In like manner reasons Athenagoras. 
 
 If you nish to learn, what tun son means : in fen words, I 
 will tell you. He is the first offspring of the Father, but not as 
 any thing created: for God is from the beginning ; and, being 
 an eternal mind, he himself had within himself the Word, bemg 
 eternally comprehensive of the Word.—We declare God the 
 Father, and tux son cop, and the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Ei oxoreiy tuiy exevowy, 6 Maite rt Bodderat, Eow ova Boayéwr' 
 nowroyv yévynpua etvat 7@ Iarpl, oby &¢ yevdpevor’ é dpxiic yap 
 6 Oedc, vote dtdwe Oy, cixev adroc év EavT@ Tov Adyoy, aiciwe 
 oyucde Hv.—Aéyorvrac Ocdv Marépa kat Yidv Ocoy cai Tvevpa 
 “Aywoyv. Athen. Legat. § x. p. 38—40. 
 
 6. The same argument is prosecuted by Novatian. 
 
 As nature itself has prescribed ; that He, who is born from a 
 man, must be believed to be a man: so the same nature equally 
 prescribes ; that HE WHO IS BORN FROM GOD MUST BE BELIEVED 
 TO BE GOD. 
 
 Ut enim prescripsit ipsa natura, hominem credendum esse 
 qui ex homine sit : ita eadem natura preescribit, et Deum cre- 
 dendum esse qui ex Deo sit. Novat. de Trin. in Oper. Tertull. 
 p- 606. 
 
 The Holy Spirit, says the angel, shall come upon thee : and 
 the Virtue of the Most High shall overshadow thee. Therefore 
 that Holy Thing, which shall be born of thee, shall be called THE 
 SON OF GoD.—HkE, wHo 1S FROM GOD HIMSELF, IS THE LEGITI- 
 MATE SON OF GOD. 
 
 Spiritus sanctus veniet in te: et Virtus Altissimi obumbrabit 
 tibi. Propterea, et quod ex te nascetur Sanctum vocabitur 
 Filius Dei.—Hic est enim legitimus Dei Filius, qui ex ipso Deo 
 est. Novat. de Trin. in Oper. Tertull. p. 614, 6109. 
 
444, THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. II, 
 
 7. To the same purpose, again, reasons Dionysius of Alex- 
 andria. 
 
 Lhe one undivided Christ, him who is coéternal and cotincom- 
 mencing and concreative with the Father, he calls tH son : for 
 Jesus, who is the Word before all worlds, is THE GOD OF ISRAEL; 
 as is also the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Yiov 0€ NEver, by TpOoKuVEL H TOY dyw wylwy TVEULATWY TAN- 
 Buc, tov éva Kat auépvorov Xowsroy, roy cvvatowyv rov Ilarpoc, 
 ovvavaoyor, our Onpoupyov 7@ Ilarpt: Oedc yao “lopanX *Inootc 
 6 790 aiwywy Adyoc, be Kal 70"Ayuyr Ivedpa. Dionys. Alex. 
 Quest. adv. Paul. Samos. Oper. p. 244. 
 
 8. Such also is the argument of Lactantius. 
 
 Christ was made THE SON OF GOD through the spirit, and the 
 son of man through the flesh: that is, both cov and man. 
 
 Factus est et Dei Filius per Spiritum, et hominis per carnem: 
 id est, et Deus et homo. Lactant. Instit. lib. iv. c. 13. p- 388. 
 
 9. On this and other similar passages, it may be useful to 
 remark: that the ancients used the term spirit, as opposed to 
 the term flesh, for the purpose of setting forth, not the Holy 
 Spirit or the third person of the Trinity particularly, but the 
 divine nature or essence generally. 
 
 Such phraseology is as old as the apostolic times of Clement 
 of Rome: and it was borrowed, apparently, from that passage 
 of Holy Writ, wherein Peter speaks of our Lord, during the in- 
 termediate time between his crucifixion and his resurrection, as 
 being dead in the flesh or in his human nature, but as being alive 
 in the spirit or in his divine nature. 
 
 'O "Inoote Xpuorce 6 Kvouoc, 6 cwoac pac, Oy pev ro TOWTOV 
 Treva, Eyévero cape. Clem. Rom. Epist. ii. § 9. 
 
 OavarwOeic wey capKl, Lworombete bé avevpare. 1 Pet. iii. 18, 
 Vide etiam 1 Tim. iii. 16. ‘Edavep@6n év capki, EdtKatwSn éy 
 TVEVMATL. 
 
 V. To this ancient argument of the Church it might be ob- 
 jected: that We are aut styled THE SONS OF Gop; and that God 
 is spoken of, aS THE UNIVERSAL FATHER of mankind. Whence, 
 if the ascription of the title of tHE son oF Gop to Christ be the 
 
NUMB. X. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 4.45 
 
 same, as an ascription of EssENTIAL Divinity to Christ: the as- 
 cription of the general title of sons oF Gop to all mankind will be 
 the same, as an ascription of EssENTIAL Divinity to all mankind. 
 
 1. For such an objection, the early theologians were far too 
 well acquainted with Holy Scripture to be unprepared. 
 
 They perceived: that Christ is styled, O MONOTENHS 
 YIOS 6 dy cic roy Kédvov Tov [larpdc, THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON 
 who is in the bosom of the Father. John i. 18. 
 
 Now this title, THE oNLY-BEGOTTEN son, would involve a 
 falsehood: if the other title, r#z son oF Gop, when ascribed to 
 Christ, were interpreted in the same sense, as the title, THE SONS 
 oF Gop, is interpreted, when ascribed in common to all mankind. 
 For, if Christ be THE SON OF Gop merely in the same sense, that 
 we are all sons or Gop: he could not accurately have been de- 
 nominated THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON, 
 
 Therefore, since Christ is styled, in plain and necessary con- 
 tradistinction to the whole human race, THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN 
 son : his title of THE SON OF GoD, agreeably to the reason as- 
 signed by the angel Gabriel for its ascription to him who in 
 his human nature was the son of Mary, must be understood 
 conformably. 
 
 In other words, we must believe him to be called THE SON 
 or cop properly and essentially and generatively : while men 
 collectively are called THE SONS OF GOD, catachrestically and 
 non-essentially and creatively. 
 
 Ovxoty, éxevddy Yidg Oeov 6 Xpvarog NEyerau kat Ogdc, Kat 6 
 dvOowmoc Yidc Ocov dEyerat kat Ozdc dy ein (éyw ydp eiza, Ocoi 
 EOTE, ONCE, Kat Yiot ‘YWiorov wavTEc)’ pidovErky Tele TQe MONO- 
 TENEL THE YIOTHTOS, cai obdev phoetc avrov éxely Kara 
 rovro cov whéov; Chrysost. Homil. in. in Johan. i. 1. 
 
 9. Of this distinction, between the proper and the catachres- 
 tic use of the title, the Jews, in our Saviour’s time, were evi- 
 dently well aware. For, otherwise, they would never have said : 
 that, According to their Lan, Christ ought to die, BucausE he 
 
 made himself the son OF GOD. John xix. 7. 
 
AAG THE APOSTOLICITY [APP. II. 
 
 Had he claimed to be a son of God merely as every Jew 
 claimed to be such (Hos. i. 10. John viii. 41, 42.): they would 
 never have alleged the gross absurdity ; that, on that account, 
 he ought to be put to death as a blasphemer. 
 
 So likewise, on another occasion, where we find the phraseo- 
 logical terms of relationship inverted, the Jews sought to kill 
 our Lord, Becauss he said, that Gop Is HIS FATHER. 
 
 Now, had he claimed God to be his father simply as every 
 Jew preferred the same claim: they could never, with any 
 shew of decency or even of common sense, have identified such 
 a claim with the palpable blasphemy of arrogating an equality 
 to God. John v. 18. 
 
 Clearly, on each occasion alike, they were well aware of the 
 distinction between the proper use and the catachrestic use of 
 such phraseology: and, perceiving what our Lord never denied, 
 that he employed it properly and not catachrestically, they 
 thence charged him with an assumption of rssENTIAL DIVINITY ; 
 which assumption, in the case of a mere man, would doubtless 
 have been horrid blasphemy. 
 
 3. Accordingly, as the very basis of the doctrine that The 
 ascription of the title of tHE son oF Gov to Christ is the same 
 as an ascription of ESSENTIAL Divintry to him, this is the pre- 
 cise distinction which was set forth by Justin Martyr only about 
 some forty years after the death of St. John: and he is even 
 verbally followed by Origen, who flourished about a century 
 later. 
 
 Christ is declared to be atonz properly THE SON OF GOD: 
 while all other men, on the bare catachrestical ground that 
 God is the common father of the whole human race, are pro- 
 nounced to be nothing more than THE sons oF GOD commonly. 
 
 Yioc 6€ Osod 6 "Inaovte Aeyopevoc, ei kai KOINQS pévyor dv- 
 Dowzoc, Cue cogiay akc Yioc Ocod héyeoOat' TaTépa yao avopov 
 Te Oewy Te mayrec ovyypagetc Tov Ocdy Kadovow. Ei dd xa} 
 TAIQ™ rapa ry KOINHN yéveow yeyevvnobar avrov éx Oot 
 AEyopev Adyor Oc0d, de MPOEMNMEV, KOLVOY TOTO toTW vuY TolG 
 
 7 
 
NUMB. X. | OF TRINITARIANISM. AAT 
 
 tov ‘Eopiy Méyor rov mapa Ocov dyyedruxoy déyovowy. Justin. 
 Apol. i. Oper. p. 52. 
 
 "Incovs Xprorog povoc TAIQS Yiog ro Oew yeyévynrat, Adyog 
 avrov trapywy Kal Tow7rdroKkoc kal Avyapec. Justin. Apol. i. 
 Oper. p. 53. 
 
 MONOTENHS yeo dre Fv 76 Marpi roy édwy obroc, IAIQS 
 é£ avrov Adyog kal Avyapuc VEyevUNpEevoc. Justin. Dial. cum 
 Tryph. Oper. p. 260. 
 
 7Hy 6 KYPIO™ Yidc Oeod, Ode Adyoe, Kat Advapuc,- Kat 
 Ocot Lodia, 6 Kadovpevog Xproroc. Orig. cont. Cels. lib. 1. 
 p- 52. 
 
 Unicenrtus Filius salvator noster, qui sotus ex Patre natus 
 est, soLus, natura et non adoptione, Filius est. Unus ergo 
 verus Deus solus habet immortalitatem, lucem habitat inacces- 
 sibilem. Unus, ait, verus Deus: ne, scilicet, multis veri Dei 
 nomen convenire credamus. Ita ergo et hi, qui accipiunt spi- 
 ritum adoptionis filiorum, in quo clamant, Abba Pater, fil 
 quidem Dei sunt: sed non sicut UNIGENITUS Filius. Uwnicent- 
 rus enim natura Filius, et semper et inseparabiliter, Filius est. 
 Ceeteri vero, pro eo quod susceperunt in se Filium Dei, potes- 
 tatem acceperunt filii Dei fieri: qui, licet non ex sanguinibus 
 neque ex voluntate carnis neque ex voluntate viri sed ex Deo 
 nati sunt, non tamen ea nativitate sunt nati, qua natus est UNI- 
 GENItUs FILIus. Orig. Comment. in Epist. ad Rom. lib. 1. 
 apud Euseb. Pamphil. Apol. pro Orig. in Oper. Hieron. 
 vol. ix. p. 122. 
 
 4, The Editor of The New Testament in an Improved Version, 
 as that recent translation is called by him, when commenting 
 on John i. 14, vainly labours to escape the difficulty, occa- 
 sioned by the palpably contradistinctive epithet MONOTENHS 
 OY ONLY-BEGOTTEN. 
 
 (1.) Respecting his painful attempt to explain away the 
 meaning of the word, it is quite enough to say: that His per- 
 feetly arbitrary and dogmatically gratuitous view of the term 
 differs, toto coelo, from the view which was taken of it by the pri- 
 mitive Church. 
 
44.8 THE APOSTOLICITY LAPP. II. 
 
 That Church understood Christ to be called THE ONLY-BE- 
 GOTTEN SON OF THE FATHER: because he ALonE, being born 
 from God (rapa rijv Kouny yéveoty) differently from the ordi- 
 nary course of production, is properly (idtwe or kvpiwc) THE SON 
 or GoD; so that no other individual is a son of God in the sense 
 wherein Christ is THE SON oF Gop, though all may catachres- 
 tically bear the name (Kowvéc) in common. 
 
 (2.) In truth, unless this primitive exposition be received, the 
 whole New Testament is a riddle and a paradox. 
 
 The belief, that sEsus CHRIST Is THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD, 
 is described, as the very corner-stone of the Gospel, as the 
 very rock upon which the Church is founded. 
 
 Now, if nothing more be meant by the phrase, than that 
 Christ is the Son of God, just as all men in common are sons of 
 God, or somewhat more specially as all pious Christians are made 
 sons of God by adoption: it is incomprehensible, how the whole 
 sum and substance of the Gospel, and how the entire solidity 
 and security of the Church, could be contained in, and could 
 rest upon, such a thoroughly vague and indeterminate and 
 insignificant acknowledgment. 
 
 VI. We may now, according to the judgment of the primitive 
 Church, clearly see the reason: why THE MESSIAH IN THE 
 SPECIFIC CHARACTER OF THE SON OF THE LIVING Gop is declared 
 by our Lord to be THE Rock, upon which he would so build his 
 Church that the gates of Hades should never prevail against it. 
 
 He founded it upon the doctrine of THE MESSIAH’s PROPER 
 AND ESSENTIAL DIVINITY : he founded it upon the doctrine of THE 
 MESSIAH’S BEING SO GOD AS THE SON, NOT SO GOD AS THE FATHER: 
 he founded it, in short, upon the doctrine, as St. Paul spake, of 
 THE SON’S BEING THE REFULGENCE FROM THE GLORY OF GOD THE 
 FATHER AND THE VERY IMPRESS OF HIS SUBSTANCE. 
 
 Such is THE RocK, upon which is built the true Church of 
 Christ: and, since that Church, whatever may have been her 
 faults in other respects, has never, in the worst of times, fallen 
 off from this sure basis; the promise of her Divine Founder 
 has, on his part, been most faithfully performed. 
 
NUMB. X. | OF TRINITARIANISM. 44.9 
 
 Secure under the protection of her acknowledged and wor- 
 shipped incarnate God, even GoD THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON OF 
 THE LIVING Gop, the gates of Hades have never prevailed 
 against her. 
 
 Through a long series of ages, she has been troubled indeed 
 on every side, yet not distressed: persecuted, yet not forsaken : 
 cast down, yet not destroyed. 
 
 Her vital principle of eternity is THE ETERNAL GODHEAD OF 
 HER FOUNDER. 
 
 The perpetually shifting Empires of this transitory world 
 may fade or may flourish. Persia may succeed to Babylon: 
 Macedon may overthrow Persia: Rome may subjugate Mace- 
 don: and Teutonic Valour may hew in pieces the mighty 
 Kingdom of the Cesars. However they may successively have 
 been instruments in the hand of God, and however their pur- 
 poses may have been overruled to the furtherance of his pur- 
 poses, still human policy has raised them up: and human policy 
 may pull them down. 
 
 But, so long as the Church of Christ, the pillar and ground 
 of the truth, is built upon THE rock of Peter’s inspired confes- 
 sion (and, upon THAT Rock, in one or other faithful portion of 
 her universality, she will never cease to be built): she is in- 
 capable of utter destruction. Thus -founded, the gates of Hades 
 shall never prevail against her. 
 
 END OF VOL, II. 
 
 VOL, Il. G £ o 
 
LONDON: 
 GILBERT & RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, 
 St. John’s Square. 
 
a - uh : 
 ; : =% ai : % ah 
 ee? fy : ui q ; Ma i 
 
 i iT 
 —_ 
 
 ot aoe an 
 =" : ‘ iu : ne 
 i - 
 
ie er ene 
 
 alga 
 ore 
 
 om 
 
 aE: 
 ares 
 
 eee 
 
 b 
 e) 
 es 
 
 (enw he oan noes 
 
 Soni eee 
 tolpeetanrioncst st 
 
 pesirecnt tt 
 fee tess