ree br iL. at eG Sa Ae ‘ iat es Byte eee ete re + ths a 3 wahos as ae . +, shakes WHEY i oy se MAL EGER ee it is os Sei a aH) at a AY tt, tae ae “UY ss fm le © oe tee ee OF THE ath SOLOGUGAL SEMINARY, PRINCETON, N. gS SAMUEL AGNEW, OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. Lette i RSONT Re seas Fs. —— So S000 So ee eee — ny Se { i LEO we HS) 1832 Creat Huntingford, George Isaac, 1748-1832. Thoughts on the dbre ski gibt ay ie. seconduedi tion, corrected POSTHUMOUS WORKS OF THE LATE RIGHT REVEREND G. Il. HUNTINGFORD, D.D. &e. &c. Lonpon : Printed by A. & R. Spottiswoode, New-Street-Square. THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY, SECOND EDITION, CORRECTED AND CONSIDERABLY ENLARGED ; CHARGES; AND OTHER THEOLOGICAL WORKS. BY | vs A THE LATE er REVEREND GEORGE ISAAC HUNTINGFORD, D.D. BISHOP OF HEREFORD, AND WARDEN OF WINCHESTER COLLEGE. EDITED, ACCORDING TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE AUTHOR, BY HENRY HUNTINGFORD, LL.B. FELLOW OF WINCHESTER COLLEGE. LONDON: T. CADELL, STRAND; AND W. BLACKWOOD, EDINBURGH. 1832. bis ier f eae AHO woes ATO 1OaY e ‘ | me | | a t6 oer a # | a a ee a ek | Oma ay +f hota’ 4 ty ha ani. i WN e. ? ie ag “a. a Gre ou some ker ete ; aes ae / x Be) 7, RO tere ae ye ¢ ee | ‘on aye 40% i199 sate masse a0 eae ce “y ae aes nnn a2 10. ease att ‘aay, ni 3 Ry ; 5% 4 ee A at See es Yh va i tg) reir yee! $4. 40 i er we . Joe oe 4 ne . ' z 7 Fa s ahd A Thre . Ping fae nme “iat” ae ea te wy oie a = p ‘i a ‘ \ be _ x Pe ed > = 4 a, ea fit Btn Aida 24. E Kr + . ‘ ty " ny * oars aes 7 ~ ire err mamta 1 Te CPANEL $2 ai GE Oi ATE, ty Tae ay Sie Bo koe ar: Ae de te ae se Si oes CF iat, SEES ‘if ds Ai 138) ‘if hale a ‘ i ay hating Pink Ae: sii CARE ee ioe pelt ts i (jae: iy cent d ma i qe4 Bile tae Lit EEG “Bt 4 ; ; Wa ie ? : € =i pt \ ’ ty sor hb i, * : ae OEE eR, earn es, a owt po ms iF ‘es ; he . f es as Tt se i f° igor ¢ Pera ‘ x et ENE ae OL Ree AL cou . ff a reat Lis fisetté ie thus ae | wie ail Bit a He sai ss ot donee hae Hifi? Partie Rett Hy rid) re Uae Ott wt Natit rot. SE he sit ho cent be sient, [- * ; i < ‘ 4 J a REAP Ce seth tele TRE ee aus idan ie fy aut trey: . pf Uh hae ic thee tridiets a ier iy gat ’ * isi ak id 3 iad is D sttel ie peed ig Ei xe i 7 i cone at ° i‘ N) af sip wae eit as + ins ne s hie He vsnbeily ; * Wie: even) aebee 2 Cer aes ot fy o, celee” ) ie ; Poo ait) Pats ? aa 4 is 5 Se >~37% - iv 4 7 Ao ere Ss ‘ ‘ anys a : cc Stan Sem aegs | Hih) ~ ol ‘ red i p<< = Ce % a | rr beat tN sass t "®1§: ah pe Pe er ¥ Po ae a bs TPE R FF) 3. Oe oe ey 7 Bi hte oeedicy “ert bid, y ; at \ * ‘7 rd ae . > : ue eo . ‘ i> = s a ’ Zs ~ f ith” Suea’ BE ws ty Hi ue ay Ee i. a “aty i tik ) H Z ")* S a 4 r ibistiy’ Sie i? ie pea ne: veil ee Dap date. 'z. bhiaiy: 4 34 pia fee AtTT ioe ht ets A. ; Satay Kee iF Rt i aes sents: Presk! s 8. Fat! Cie he ; al be . nb ars So aE MORON as a ares ” + ia (Wk rs Bp 7 out e oy ie baths 3 M5. < “? 3 “ a We de Coe apetagel ec a Set ay (ih Pa: ty sae 45 ae Ht 1 sey i “aki ’ eo F ie Reet! Stk’ -spitoralitly es ites) whe yer fe! ta THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. «¢ Nor let thine own inventions hope « Things not reveal’d.”’ Mitr. Par. Losr, b. vii. 121. “Win straying souls, with modesty, again ; «¢ Cast none away.”’ Suaxesp. Hen. VIII. act v. se. 2. SECOND AND POSTHUMOUS EDITION. - — ; oh Bits) a, ft t iE ORR 4 a iad Mee che a eg aed Stes r” : ts + TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE HENRY ADDINGTON: Dear Sir, Wuen we look at Great Britain as a well-regulated Nation, we find in its Establishments several causes, which should make us admire its sound judgment, great wisdom, and right disposition. ‘There is however one subject of contemplation, which is particularly mterest- ing and highly gratifying to a serious mind. It is this. Our Country may be considered as dedicated to the worship and glory of Almighty God! For such is the nature of our Constitution, that it is not only provident for the due direction of human concerns, but with great solicitude it extends also its attention to the inculcating and advancing of continual regard for things divine. With its public institutions of Civil Polity it so blends Religion, that with the spirit of Liberty is indissolubly combined a spirit of Sanctity ; and both equally pervade our Laws. It is in perfect correspondence with this idea of Na- tional Consecration, that the King, by our Constitution, is invested with authority to take the lead in Religion. And amidst the various and awful circumstances, which during the course of many late years past have materi- a See Note (a) p. 6. B 2 4, DEDICATION. ally affected several Nations of Europe, a great blessmg it has been to our Empire that its Sovereign, by a moral and pious life, has fulfilled his solemn and sacred obli- gation in a manner exemplary, and on principles con- scientious. That a Monarch, who is actuated by a sense of duty to God and Man, should at a season of difficulty have consigned the administration of public business to your care, was an appointment naturally to have been ex- pected. For, discerners of character, who themselves are possessed of probity and goodness, know how to appreciate the same virtues when conspicuous in others : more particularly when those most excellent qualities of the heart are farther recommended by Talents of the Understanding, tried and approved from the days of Youth to the meridian of Man’s age. To His Majesty, to those Ministers of whom You were Chief, to the whole Legislative Body, the Church not long since was much indebted, for having rescued its Clergy from the cruel operation of an oppressive Statute. The remembrance of this interposition in our behalf should be to us an additional motive for increased diligence in our Clerical Functions, It is one part of our duty to mark occasions, when unequivocal and decided declarations of our opmion on Religious Doctrines may be useful and requisite. Some such occasion has recently presented itself; and has suggested the following sentiments, which are offered as ‘Thoughts on the Trinity.” The subject is indeed sublime ; but not on that ac- count to be avoided. Quite the reverse. With whatever the mind is much conversant, from the same it is accus- tomed to receive impressions. ‘The contemplation of grave and lofty arguments is calculated to create in us similar. conceptions. Meditation on Derry, by directing our DEDICATION. 5 views from earth to heaven, has a tendency to raise us above all that is low and abject, little and sordid. ‘This effect of it, allow me to say, you have sensibly experi- enced and eminently shewn. On Gop and Immortality you began to reflect at an early period of your life. It was thence you derived those high and pure principles, on which in private you have ever founded your actions as a virtuous Man, and on which in public you rested your measures, when, happily for this Country and honourably to yourself, you conducted the State as an attentive and able, a discreet and upright Minister. Tam, Dear Sir, Your most obliged servant and affectionate friend, GEORGE ISAAC GLOUCESTER. Winchester College, June 18. 1804. 6 NOTE (a). Afterwards, LORD VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: a Man, who in private life is most exemplary, virtuous, and amiable; in public most upright, sagacious, vigilant. ‘Those who stand in the nearest and dearest relation to him experience from him the utmost affec- tion: his friends see in him the most constant and kind attachment. His King and Country find in him a Statesman eminently consti- tutional and inviolably adhering to British Polity and British Laws. (G. I. H. 1817.) (Added in 1820.) Under Divine Providence, to his penetration, perseverance, judgment, and firmness, at the commencement of this year the nation was indebted, for having frustrated the san- guinary and incendiary designs of Conspirators worse than Catili- narian. Allusion is here made to the machinations plotted for the horrible purpose of destroying all his Majesty’s Ministers at one and the same time, whilst dining at Lord Castlereagh’s. For a correct and full account of those proceedings, see “ Trials for High Treason,” in April 1820; by William Brodie Gurney. Mr. Addington was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer and First Lord of the Treasury, on March 14, 1801. PREFACE. Tyoucuts are here given in preference to DissErTA- tions, for the sake of brevity and compression. The several Clauses appear detached : there is, how- ever, a gradual connexion between them. The subject is begun on such principles of abstract reasoning as might have been adopted, even if there had been no Revelation, Jewish or Christian. It 1s continued with reference to Heathen and Jewish opinions. It is pur- sued, as implied in the Baptismal Form delivered by Our Lord, and as taught by Evangelists, Apostles, Fathers. Of the question is then taken a retrospective view, which leads to the conclusion. The mind of the Writer has long been much in- pressed with the force of the concluding words in this solemn charge; ‘‘ When thou art converted, © STRENGTHEN THY BRETHREN.” He is anxious to obey it. On examination and reflection being himself convinced, he employs his efforts to assist others, and support them in the Ancient Faith. « ) vy, vee! Ps F ake. a ey ae ’ os - eos re ‘ = ae ad « 7 oe : ‘ a ‘ 4 ms - ' & _ ae : e. > : 3 ah i) qi . fe ; aes fs rE ‘ ‘ A 1 r t a - , +. a 4 4 ines ae, © 6 Na ha hove } = a ee aindochclilty, sr estiodoas +e Es i r ¢ i ae mt, a awe » a mn my z 3 > Ly) pee i ry * i ps? , " ’ ¢ ak a svg te ony ony : Cartel Cost SEY 7 a ap’: < hi : = ° te . via et fs - ‘ON eR PP or yur 4? Pore i a a ett Lt are, iss BS? , es ats OC ibs eed x1 - aa . ne ’ gh J * yoo ff é « PAW ves, age Pua a as - 14 She Pon oF - ere ‘ et < es we GH, eat of ENT {3 “6 he ifs - 3 art he Rt ee ius . oe vg pai t te, ous. edd a 4 are nef Oi ee ap Tonal ; ; cme ee fe ae | Ae an ge nad Ban tsi d's ae Meee aaa ia ei a +E pits es et ok) oa ‘eli bialas heivial, ae ca if Yeah ste cS Toews ee =) > ol 7 ? 2 ‘ : d 1 ety q ee ” i? as e 1, Bee a ae Fy, Lai ws a ee ae a ‘ey o ane ace ak agai THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THIS SECOND AND POSTHUMOUS EDITION. ‘Tue First Edition of this Work called forth many Remarks. Those Remarks were of various descriptions, and therefore must each receive an appropriate answer. 1. The Mottos were censured because taken from Poets. If by one was inculcated Intellectual Humility ; by the other, Spiritual Moderation ; whether the precepts were delivered: in Verse or Prose, must be matter of indifference. ‘They were, in the language of another Poet, davavra cuveroios, “ intelligible to the wise.” (Pind. Olymp. ii. 152.) 7 2. Invectives and Insinuations were thrown out against the Author. — Peace to those, from whom Invectives and Insinua- tions proceeded. No retort of a similar nature will be made by the Author. The subjects considered are much too serious for irritation of Mind, or for asperity of language. 3. Observations of a more grave cast were published. To some of those Observations the followimg pages will offer no reply, and for this reason; to argue on any Question with Disputants who are previously re- 10 PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. solved not to admit in evidence the very testimonies, by the force of which the Question must be decided, is labour ineffectual, and therefore not to be undertaken. But there were other Observations, which are en- titled to a considerable degree of notice. ‘The Writers of them allow we are bound to receive, as Articles of religious Faith, the Doctrines which are either expressly taught in the Holy Scriptures, or which, by clear infer- ence, are deducible from them. ‘The attention due to all who acknowledge the Sacred Writings impart Truths of Divine Revelation; who therefore hold those Writ- ings in profound reverence ; and who take them as the Standard by which to determine whether opinions con- cerning points of Christianity are just or erroneous, demands an attempt to improve the original Copy of this Work. Endeavours have been applied for such purpose. ‘lhe result of those endeavours will be found among the insertions, elucidations, and corrections con- tained in this Second Edition. It is material for the Reader to observe circum- stances, which in past years seem to have been little considered ; viz. that the Argument sometimes proceeds entirely on the grounds of Natural Reason; and that - more than once a Section subsequent is explanatory of a Section antecedent. After a comparison of different passages one with another, and when References with Proofs have been attentively consulted, it is hoped Con- ceptions and Expressions, which if taken singly may on a cursory view appear questionable, will be found in reality to be neither improper, nor unsupported by good authority. Nov. 28. 1820. spi J ON ‘ 8 Seung het wre voqusee™ THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. t I. W urn we mean to speak of a circumstance as difficult to be understood, or as altogether inexplicable, we call it a ‘* Mystery.” In these acceptations of the word mystery, the creation and existence of the Universe ; the production of the several substances in the mineral, vegetable, and animal kingdoms; the combination of instinct with brute forms, and the union of soul and body in Man ; are each of them respectively a mystery. They are however all matters of fact: from which con- sideration we are led to conclude, it is not consistent with true philosophy to deny the reality of a thing, merely because it is mysterious. II. He, who believes that the Universe was created by God, believes a mystery. And he, who believes the Universe, with all its beauty and fitness, was produced by chance, believes a still greater mystery. Between the two cases there is indeed this difference; in the former case, faith is rational ; in the latter, it is against all conclusions of reason. In either case however, faith and mystery are inseparable. IIl. It has often been said, «* where mystery begins, re- ‘‘ligion ends.” ‘The assertion is erroneous. Nothing can 12 THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. be so mysterious as the existence of God. Yet, although his existence is mysterious, still to believe that God exists, is the foundation of all religion. Mystery then and religion are inseparably connected, and must in- evitably proceed with each other. IV. It has been urged, “‘the Being of God is demon- ‘¢ strable : but, if demonstrable, not mysterious : from ‘‘ religion therefore, mystery is excluded.” The Being of God is indeed demonstrable. De- monstrable too are his exalted Attributes ; v7zz. infinite power, wisdom, goodness, holiness, justice, mercy. We are enabled in our researches to advance so far, as to prove there is a God, and that in God are inherent those divine perfections. But if we presume to attempt investigating the self-originate existence of God, our inquiry is retarded by our ignorance. Filled with awe, and humbled in our minds, we must acknowledge self- originate existence to be inexplicable, or in other words mysterious. Yet God, whose existence is thus myste- rious, must be the adorable object of our religious worship. And thus we are brought to our former - conclusion, ‘‘ mystery and religion are inseparably con- ‘* nected, and must inevitably proceed together.” If it should be replied, ‘‘ Although the self-originate ‘* existence of God is mysterious, yet our religious wor- ‘‘ ship is intelligible, founded as it is in faith, a simple ‘‘ act of the mind; ” the distinction would avail nothing ; the conclusion will remain the same. For, as such existence of God is mysterious, your religious worship has in contemplation an adorable object, whose very first attribute is mysterious. Religion then and mystery cannot be disunited. THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. 13 V. When Simonides was asked his opinion concerning the nature of God, he required a day to be given him for deliberating on the question. On the morrow he was asked a second time. He required two days for deliberation. ‘The question was frequently repeated ; and on every repetition he doubled the number of days. Hiero was surprised at this hesitation and delay, and demanded the reason of it. He replied, ‘* The longer ‘«« I think on this subject, the more obscure it appears.” Here then we have, from a man of learning and wisdom, an ingenuous acknowledgment, that the nature of God is incomprehensible to the human mind. And the same confession must every one make, who hath duly considered the limits prescribed to our finite under- standing, and who is not afraid to own, that of many things he must be ignorant, till his mtellectual powers shall have been enlarged in the renovation of his nature. IVE hee If at this time we ourselves were asked, «* What is «God ?” we should answer, ‘* A Spirit.” And what ‘¢ is a Spirit ?”—** Somewhat which is not material.”— ‘¢ Of what substance?” Here we are lost. We can say what God is Nor; but are utterly unable to say what he 1s, with respect to essential substance. Vil. When we contemplate the extensive scale of existence, and the various degrees which appear in that scale, by reasoning on analogy we are led to suppose, there are as many Orders of Intelligent Beings above Man, as there are classes of irrational creatures below him. ‘The modes of existence and spiritual qualities may be as much diversified in the several Orders of Intelligent 14 THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. Beings, as the vital state and animal properties are infinitely various in the subordinate classes of living creatures extending downwards from Man to the zoophyte. That in the Order superlatively exalted above all others in its mode of existence and in its spi- ritual qualities, Deity should be an inherent attribute, it is by no means unreasonable to imagine. Vill. ‘By Deity, or Divinity, or Godhead, we mean an essential nature and a mode of existence the most ex- alted and most perfect. We ascribe to it eternity and infinity. We connect with it power, wisdom, goodness, and holiness, more than human; more than angelic ; greater than any words of mortals can represent, or thoughts conceive. That Deity, in the acceptation just given, cannot exist under three Characters; or cannot have originated in One, and from Him have been communicated to other Intelligences indivisibly united with Him in one and the same essential nature; on principles of reason no man can prove. By natural religion we are taught - to acknowledge a Sovereign Intelligence ; witness the doctrine and appellation of Anaxagoras. Who shall presume to limit the operation of that Supreme Intel- ligence ? 1X? It is not to be forgotten, that the Mathematician is conversant with quantity; the Theologian, who con- ceives there may be a Triad in Godhead, is contem- plating Quality. It is not enough for the Mathematician to assert the self-evident truth, that ‘* three cannot be “one in nwmnber.” If he would convict the Theo- logian of error, he must demonstrate, that « three cannot THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. 15 “be one in nature.” He would attempt such demon- stration in vain. All parts of the Universe would fur- nish proofs in contradiction to this paradox. Xe The Works of Creation demonstrate the existence of Deity exerting itself with unity of design. But they do not demonstrate that Deity and unity of design must therefore necessarily be attributes inherent in one In- telligence only. A human instance will illustrate this. A piece of mechanism curiously constructed to carry on regular motion shews unity of design: but it does not shew that therefore it was the work of one mind only. The design indeed will be one; but the work may have been produced by more minds, all co-operating in the same design. XI. The Peripatetics and later Platonists maintained that the World was eternal. It is as natural for Man to suppose, and as easy for the human mind to conceive, the eternal existence of three spiritual Intelligences indivisibly united in one substance, divine in essential nature and attributes, as to suppose and conceive the eternal existence of the World. It was not thought that violence was offered to the human apprehension by those Philosophers: it should not be thought such vio- lence is offered by a Theologian, who maintains an eternal Triad in Deity. Whether one or both of these suppositions may be erroneous, is not here the question. The only point at present maintained is, that according to the natural apprehensions of man in the first instance, and ante- cedently to Revelation, one of these ideas can be received by the mind with as much facility as the other. 16 THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. XII. The eternity of the World we prove to be a doctrine erroneous from what we know concerning the properties of Matter. The eternity of three spiritual Intelligences in quality of one Godhead, we cannot prove to be a doctrine erroneous, because we have no sufficient know- ledge of spirituality and essentially divine nature. We have, therefore, in this case, no ground on which to reason. If we talk of our own conceptions, and make them the standard of what may be correct and what may be erroneous, we must confess, if after the deepest examination we would speak ingenuously, we can no more form an adequate conception how One should exist from Eternity, than how Three should exist from Eternity. We can adequately conceive neither case. And, supposing the generic Unity of Divine Essence asserted, then there is no argument which will tend to disprove the eternal existence of Three in that essence, which will not go to disprove the eternal existence of One. So that, without great care, metaphysical reason- ers against a ‘Trinity in the one Godhead will prove too much, unless they mean to prove there can be no such thing as eternal existence, either in any Quality, or in” any Being. XITI. It would be Tritheism, if we should maintain a ‘Tri- plicity of divine Intelligences, each diversified in different and opposite essential natures, different and opposite powers, different and opposite wills, different and oppo- site counsels, different and opposite energies. But it would not be Tritheism, if we should maintain that three divine Intelligences exist, being all of the same essential nature, the same power, the same will, the same counsel, the same energies: for, by maintaming THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. “7 the sameness of Quality, we should preserve the Unity of divine Attributes, and thus also preserve the unity of Godhead. XIV. To say that three Intelligences are one Intelligence, would be contradiction; but to say that three divine Intelligences are one God, would not be contradiction. They would be one God, by possessing the attributes, and acting with the energies, of one Godhead. XV. As all human conceptions of Deity must be im- perfect, all illustrations of the doctrine in question must be inadequate. Let it however be observed, that in human cases, unity and multiplicity may be combined. Thus we read; ‘All the rest also of Israel were of ‘one heart to make David king.” (1 Chron. xii. 38.) ** Also in Judah, the hand of God was to give them ‘one heart to do the commandments of the king and ‘of the princes.” (2 Chron. xxx. 12.) ‘“ And the “multitude of them that believed were of one heart ‘and of one soul.” (Acts iv. 32.) If, without contra- diction, Unity of Mental Attribute may be ascribed to many human Beings, it will follow, that without con- tradiction, Unity of Divine Attribute might be ascribed to Three Divine Intelligences. XVI. However much through fanciful additions they may have deviated from their primitive correctness, yet it is reasonable to suppose that opinions, of high antiquity and general reception, must have been founded origin- ally in truth. For, had the case been otherwise, they probably would long ago have been entirely rejected from the human mind. The idea and doctrine of a c 18 THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. Triad, have indeed undergone very strange modifica- tions: but, as the histories of ancient Egypt and of modern India demonstrate, that idea and that doctrine have existed for ages in oriental nations. ‘The fact is extraordinary ; and the most obvious method, by which we can account for it, is this; to conclude, that the doctrine was communicated by the Progenitor of Man- kind, as a notice which he had received from his Maker, and therefore of importance to be preserved among his immediate descendants; and from them it was de- livered down through succeeding generations, from the first to that which is now in being. ‘Taken then by itself, the doctrine of a ‘Trinity is entitled to our regard and veneration, because so ancient and so universal. As Christians however, we must reject the conceptions of Mythology, and the language of heathen Philosophy, when we speak of a ‘Trinity, as deducible from the Old and New ‘lestament. XVII. From the inability of the human mind to comprehend Deity, has arisen, even to Christians, imperfection of language, with which to discourse on that subject. For want of other terms, we use ‘person; subsistence; sub- ** stance; consubstantial,” corresponding with IIzocwzroy, or ‘Yrooracig 3 Quoin; ‘Opoovciog; expressions frequent among the Christian Greek writers. By ‘“ person,” we mean “ one that has actual being.” By <“ subsist- ‘“* ence,” we mean “ real existence.” By ‘ substance,” we mean “ essential nature.” By ‘ consubstantial,” we mean “ having the same essential nature.” By ‘‘ sameness of essential nature,” we mean such identity of nature, as when we say, the essential nature of a fountain and of a river is the same; the essential nature : of the sun and of a sun-beam is the same. ‘This accept- THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. 19 ation of 6nooveios, “* consubstantial,” and this mode of illustration, are of very high antiquity and most allowed authority among Christian Writers; as in that satis- factory Work, the Defensio Fidet Nicene, has been copiously and ably proved. XVIII. The word ** Man” sometimes implies all Mankind ; and sometimes ‘‘ that which possesses the properties of «¢ Mankind.” ‘The word ‘‘ God” sometimes compre- hends all Deity ; and sometimes it means to express ‘that which has attributes characteristic of Deity.” Oucias to Ocog dnAwtixov, “The word Gop indicates *‘ the essential nature,” says Justin Martyr, or rather, «« The Exposition of Faith,” which goes under his name. XIX. That which has all the properties of a human Being, is Man. ‘That which has all the qualities of a spiritual Being, is Spirit. That which has the essential nature, the mode of existence, the power, the wisdom, the goodness, the holiness attributed to Godhead, must be God. The consequence seems to be inevitable. Six He that would decide on what are the mathematical propositions of Euclid, must refer to the Books of Euclid. He that would decide on what are the philo- sophical tenets of Plato, must refer to the Dialogues of Plato. He that would decide on what are the Scriptural passages, from which is deducible the doctrine of a Trinity, must refer to the holy Scriptures. And in each case respectively, he must determine according to what he finds in the Books consulted; for, the very nature of the inquiry and terms of the question imply, Caz 20 THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. that such Books are the standards of information, and their contents the grounds for decision. ‘«¢ Whether those Works are genuine?” and ‘ whether ‘¢ the Writers were competent judges of the subjects on ‘¢ which they wrote?” may be questions very proper in themselves: but they are neither pertinent nor season- able when the sole point to be discussed is, ‘* What are «¢ the actual contents of a Work, received and admitted, ‘‘in the first instance, as authority on which to deter- ‘¢ mine in that particular case ?” This remark is occasioned by the too frequent usage of Controversialists ; who, when they have entered on the question, ‘ Is the doctrine of a Trinity supported, ‘* or not supported by the Canonical Scriptures?” and have proceeded in the argument on the negative side ; imperceptibly lose sight of the subject expressly pro- posed, and digress into Matter, which should form a distinct article either of antecedent or subsequent inquiry. A consistent reasoner will not deny, that for know- ledge of doctrmes communicated to Mankind by Re- velation, we must appeal to those Writings which are allowed to contain what Revelation has imparted and taught. 9.68 By Revelation we mean divine communication. Doc- trines so communicated are doctrines of Revelation. Thus, the doctrines imparted through Moses, and the doctrines taught by Christ, are respectively doctrines of Revelation. XXII. The divine Legation of Moses is demonstrated by the certainty of the Miracles, which God empowered him to work; and by the fulfilment of the predictions . which God enabled him to deliver. But of Moses, in THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. Q1 the Scriptures it was never said, that he pre-existed before he appeared on earth; that he was supernaturally born into this world; that after death he did not experience corruption, but previously to any such cor- ruption rose from the grave. Moses gave not laws either promulgated in his own name, or intended for all mankind, or applicable to all conditions, situations, places, times. Moses never was represented as impec- cable ; nor as knowing the most secret thoughts, words, and actions of Man; nor as possessing inherent efficacy for giving agility to the lame, hearing to the deaf, speech to the dumb, sight to the blind, life to the dead, and this spontaneously and on all occasions which to himself might seem proper. Moses never on his own authority pronounced pardon and forgiveness of sin. He never asserts of himself, that he should lay down his life for his true disciples; that his true dis- ciples should not perish, but have everlasting life; that he had power to lay down and then to resume life ; that he was the author of the resurrection and life; that he would call forth the dead from their graves ; that he should judge all mankind, and assign to every one his just and final retribution; that he was to be honoured even as God the Father is honoured; that he was in divine glory with God the Father before he came upon earth; that to such glory he should return ; that God was his Father, and himself was the Son of God, in the most lofty and adorable sense which those terms could bear according to the apprehension of the Jews. Moses never spoke explicitly of heavenly things; promised not future rewards; sent not Apostles to teach all nations, and admit disciples by a form of words which profess the worship of himself, no less than that of the Father, and of the Holy Spirit. Moses received no testimony by voice from heaven that CS Q2 THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. he was the Son of God ; is no where styled the Saviour of mankind; the Lord; the Lord whom ye seek; the express image of the invisible God, in which image the fulness of Godhead dwells; that eternal life which was with the Father; Emmanuel or God amongst men in the exercise of his divine powers; nor the Sun of Righteousness; nor the true Light which lghteth every man that cometh into the world; nor Jehovah our Righteousness; nor the Word of God; nor Creator of all things that have been created; nor im a direct and unqualified manner is he styled God. It is however fact, that every proposition here denied with respect to Moses, may on the grounds of Scripture be positively affirmed with regard to Christ. The inference is obvious: Moses was human; Christ was divine. XXIII. The design of Revelation is first to re-establish the primeval Laws of Morality, and the primeval Doctrines of Religion, which were originally imparted from God to Man, at the time of Creation; and then to superadd more explicit communications of knowledge on both these subjects. XXIV. Nothing introductory is so full and clear as the complete Work, to which it is intended as an intro- duction. ‘The first or Mosaic Covenant was intro- ductory to the second or Christian; it is not therefore so full and clear as the Christian. What the Old Tes- tament intimates obscurely, the New ‘Testament illus- trates with brighter light. XXV. Revelation speaks to us, as to Beings endued with reason, and expected to exercise our reasoning faculties. THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. 93 It does not therefore always teach us by methodical sys- tem; but often leaves us, from certain facts and given premises, to draw our own conclusions; conclusions how- ever so obvious, that they cannot well be mistaken. This is remarkably the case in the Christian Revelation. XXVI. The laws and ordinances established among the Jews were designed to guard that people from heathen idolatry. On the recollection of this circumstance it appears extraordinary, that Moses, when he is describing the creation of the Universe, should, in order to express his conceptions of the Deity, introduce a term which implies Plurality; and, frequently connecting it with verbs and Persons singular, should use that term thirty times. Extraordinary also it is, that as m the Decalogue, when first delivered, so also on a subsequent repetition of their Laws, after a solemn address demanding their attention, he should speak of the Deity in any words, which could possibly convey an idea of Plurality. Yet such an idea has been conveyed, in the very declaration which is intended to assert the Unity of Godhead. XXVIII. It will not surely be presuming too much, if we sup- pose Joshua and Solomon to be more deeply instructed in the Jewish Religion, than to be capable of using 1m- proper language respecting the Deity. Yet the former says, “ Ye cannot serve the Lord, for he is the Holy «¢ Gods” (Josh. xxiv. 19.); and the latter gives this weighty instruction, “* Remember thy Creators in the «‘ days of thy youth.” (Eccles. xii. 1.) In the book of Proverbs there is also this passage; ‘The fear of «* Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom: and knowledge «‘ of the Holies is understanding.” (Prov. ix. 10.) Ona 24 THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. OBIE When we put together these several considerations ; viz. hat the doctrine of a Triad is very ancient and general; that Moses applies to the Deity a term of Plurality ; that Joshua and Solomon do the same; there is reason for concluding that among the Jews, as among other People, there was an idea of a Trinity: with this difference however between them and the Heathens; the Jews admitted nothing into their opinion, which could contradict Unity of Divine Nature. XXIX. The Mosaic History does not so entirely differ from Heathen, as that there should be no kind of similarity between them. ‘The former is indeed more correct and pure; the latter imperfect and blended with fiction. Still however in many instances there may be traced a resemblance between them. Why may we not reason after this manner, with regard to the Doctrines of Religion? and why not say, the Mosaic and Jewish conceptions of Unity im the Nature of the Divine Triad were indeed most perfectly correct and pure : but as to the doctrine of a Triad in itself, between Jewish and Heathen opinions there was some faint resemblance ; such resemblance as might lead us to imagine both Jews and Gentiles originally derived the doctrine from true communication ; but whilst the former preserved, the latter grossly corrupted the truth ? XXXs If Moses and the Jews held the doctrine of a ‘Trinity, and the word « Elohim” imports Plurality, it is natural to ask, How comes it to pass that the Septua- git Version renders the first verse of Genesis in this manner, Ey apyy eromoey 6 Ocog roy ovpavoy? ‘The THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. Q5 learned and excellent Ridley, after Allix, has answered this question: “The Talmudists own, that the LX XII ‘‘ Interpreters did purposely change the notion of “‘ Plurality implied in the Hebrew ‘ Elohim’ into a ‘Greek Singular, lest Ptolemy Philadelphus should “conclude that the Jews, as well as himself, had a “¢ belief of Polytheism.” According to the Ovopecr- xov, “the Greek appellations of divinity were Qecoc, “© @cor, Aaimoves: Plato calls the Deity rov Layvrog “ Kubepyyryy, weyioroy Aapova: To Oesoy and Aaipovioy ‘are in signification the same.” ‘The expression ro Kpeirrov might also have been added. Of all these, @zog was the only simple and direct term which they could adopt, to counteract idolatrous misconceptions. XXXI. The opening of St. John’s Gospel expounds the opening of the Mosaic History. The words of Moses are, “In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and “the earth.” (Gen.i. 1.) St. John tells us the parti- cular person of the Triune Godhead, by whom the Work of Creation was carried into effect. It was, by the Aoyos, who was mpog tov Beoy, and who was him- self @zog. «* By Him all things were made; and with- ‘out Him was not made any one thing, which was “‘made.” By Him, “the World was made.” He became “ flesh and dwelt among us.” He was not ** God the Father,” but the Movoyevng mapa Ilarzog, by whom “ God the Father” created the Universe, and from time to time revealed himself to Man- kind. The Aoyog and Movoyevyg mean the same person, ‘* God the Son,” the second of the Mosaic Trinity. So true it is that the Old Testament inti- mated m general terms, what the New was afterwards to explain in a manner more particular; and that 26 THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. between both there is the closest connection, the one being the interpreter of the other. XXXII. Grotius denies that the imputation of 'Tritheism can be charged on Christian, with more justice than on Jewish worship. Philo, he observes, styles the Reason, or Word of God, the Maker of the World; and with the Rabbi Nachman, calls him the Angel, or the dele- gated Person who takes care of the Universe. ‘The Cabbalists distinguish God into three Lights, and some of them by the very names which the Christians use, the names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Hebrews allow, that the Spirit, by whom the Prophets were inspired, was not any thing created, and yet was distinct from him that sent it. Many of them also have a tradition that the divine power, which they call «* Wisdom,” should dwell in Messiah ; whence by the Chaldee Paraphrast, Messiah is called «‘ The Word of *“ God ;” as by David, Isaiah, and others, to the same Messiah is given the awful appellation of ‘* God and « Lord.” ‘This is the substance of what is remarked by Grotius, a writer not to be disregarded on such a subject. XXXII. For the certainty of their having been respectively wrought and spoken, the works of Christ and the words of Christ rest precisely on the same authority, the authority of historical testimony by the self-same wit- nesses. XXXIV. The credibility, or in other words, the reason why we think the works recorded and the doctrines taught have a claim to our belief, is founded on conviction of Veracity and Competency, both in the sacred historians THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. Qy and in the divine Instructor. The Evangelists and Apostles gave proof that they were true, in what they related concerning circumstances they were competent to ascertam: and Christ demonstrated the reality of his divine character ; consistently with which, he could not but speak the words of truth, when he delivered doctrines which in his superlative knowledge of heavenly things he was enabled to communicate. XXXV. It has been said the expression “ Trinity in the “« Godhead,” Tpiag ev Ocsoryri, does not occur in Scripture. True. Nor does ‘* Unity in the Godhead,” ‘Evorng ev @emoryrs. Nor the term « Sacrament.” But the subject matter, which those expressions are designed to indicate, does occur : so that the objection has-in it no substantial validity. XXXVI. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing “them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and ‘of the Holy Ghost,” are the words in which our Lord delivered to his Apostles their final commission. (St. Matth. xxviii, 19.) They may be thus para- phrased: “Go and make disciples in all nations, ‘admitting them by baptism into the acknowledg- ““ment and religious service of the Father, the Son, ‘and the Holy Spirit.” XXXVII. On the clause, « In the name of the Father, and of ‘“¢the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” we may observe, there are poited out three distinct objects, each of which has reference to one and the same act of mind implied in the expression “ into the name,” i. e. into 28 THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. the religious service or worship: and the expression ‘« into the name,” though but once written, is in sense and force applied to each of the three objects. Con- sidering then this parity of reference and application, considering also there is not introduced a single word by which to give us an idea that in the acceptation of either term is intended a change from substance to quality, we have the strongest grounds for maintaining that if Subsistence belongs to the first object, Subsist- ence belongs also to the second, and to the third. And, if there be any such thing as propriety in writing, and analogy in rendering, consistently with such pro- priety and such analogy we cannot say, that the terms Father, and Son, imply each of them Subsistence, and then by an abrupt transition unsupported by any word which can indicate mutation, pass at once from real Subsistence to attributable quality. As then to the term ‘‘ Tather,” we annex the idea of one who hath real Subsistence ; so to the term “ Son,” and to the term ‘“* Holy Ghost,” we must respectively annex the same idea, and affirm that each has real Subsistence. XXXVIII. If the regular, natural, and unforced construction of our Lord’s final command will lead us to conclude, that the expression “* Holy Spirit” implies real Subsistence; consideration of the solemn occasion when that com- mand was given ; of the importance which must neces- sarily be attached to it ; and of the improbability that it should be so delivered as to be ambiguous, will furnish a strong reason for adhering to that conclusion. SX _ The argument drawn from his final command would certainly be less forcible, if it did not appear that pre- THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. 29 viously to giving that command our Lord himself had spoken of the Holy Spirit as a real Subsistence. He does however so speak. ‘O d¢ Ilapaxayros, ro Tveupa TO ayloy, 6 meubes o Tlarynp ev rw ovomart prov, exeivoc pas Olas mavra, xa Irouyyoes tag mavra c& Eesroy opiy. (St.John, xiv. 26.) In these words of the Original is to be remarked the application of exesog to IIveype 3 an application which Jortin most properly noticed: « Exewog shows that ** TIvevona is a Person, not an Attribute, and the con- ** struction is like that which the Grammarians call “xatTa to onavomnsvoy.” ‘The correctness of his ex- planation is confirmed by the following considerations, which come immediately to the proof of Personality. In whatever sense we take Ilapaxrynros, whether as “* Comforter,” or ‘ Advocate,” or ‘ Intercessor,” it implies real Being; for, ‘teaching and reminding” are properties belonging to real Being. But the ‘* Holy Spirit” is that Tlapaxayrog; has the properties of teaching and reminding; He has therefore real Being. In this passage it is also to be noticed, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are distinctly marked out. Again: “ When He, the Spirit of truth, is **come, He will guide you into all truth: for, He “« shall not speak of himself: but whatsoever He shall ‘hear, that shall He speak.” (St. John, xvi. 13.) In this passage, ‘« Hearing” is ascribed to the Holy Spirit: but « Hearing” is a property belonging to real Being. The consequence is obvious. The same Spirit is to speak from another, and not from himself only: of course, by the Spirit here mentioned we cannot under- stand the Father, but some One who should speak what he heard delivered from the Father, 30 THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY: ats It is observable, that when our Lord has occasion to speak of the Resurrection, or of the Holy Spirit, his disciples express no wonder, his enemies show no dis- pleasure at the doctrines. ‘The reason might be this. The doctrine of a Resurrection was certainly holden by the Pharisees, and therefore was not novel, nor would appear strange. Probably also some ideas respecting a Holy Spirit were entertained by them; though in both instances there was need of that more full illustration and decisive confirmation, which they received from our Lord’s express declaration and positive assurance. In- deed, the more we consider how frequently our Lord speaks of a Divine Spirit, and how familiar the ex- pression appears to have been among his hearers, the more we shall be persuaded, that however much of this must be ascribed to the idiom of Scripture Language, yet in the time of our Lord the Jews certainly retained, what they had received from their Ancestors, traditional notices which impressed their minds with an opinion that there was an uncreated Spirit really subsisting. This opinion, with all their hatred towards Christianity, the Jews continued to hold for some ages after the commencement of the Christian xra. What if the modern Jews deny the doctrine of a Trinity can be deduced from the Old Testament? They deny also, that the sense in which Christians apply the prophetical texts to Christ, is the true sense. Nor that only. But they moreover deny the Facts of the New Testament to have occurred. ‘The result is this. Their denial in the first case is of no more weight than in the second and third. The judgment of modern Jews is to be rejected in each case. THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY: 31 Ks If we are required to prove the completion of Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit should « teach and guide,” we shall here use the same kind of proof which we adopt when we demonstrate the real exertion of divine Providence: we shall refer to the actual effects, which the Holy Spirit has produced, and still produces. The effects were extraordinary in the Apostles and_ first Converts; they are also powerful in their influence on the hearts and lives of Thousands at this moment. XLII. To effects we refer, when we would demonstrate the divinity of the Holy Spirit. We add also the circum- stance of our Lord’s command, that we should at our baptism be admitted into the religious service and wor- ship of the Holy Spirit. Religious service and wor- ship, in the opinion both of Jews and Christians, must be offered to nothing created, whether Man or Angel. The Holy Spirit therefore, which is to receive our religious service and worship, must be more than Man, more than Angel; must be divine. XLITI. Words, as Words, may be the same. And analo- gically, in part of their meaning, they may resemble each other. But in their full import they may be widely different. An observation thus trivial should not here have been introduced, if Interpreters of Scrip- ture did not sometimes appear to forget the reality of the fact. Their inadvertence will justify illustrations of the remark. These passages occur: * Ye are the light of the ** world,” (St. Matt. v. 14.) ‘ That they, which enter “in, may see the light.” (St. Luke, viii. 16.) In both 32 THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY: these passages, whether we consult the received Trans- lation or the Original ‘Text of the New Testament, we find identity as to combination of letters and force of sound. But that the expression the light, or ro Gus, has in one place a metaphorical, in the other a proper signification, is more obvious than to require proof. “ Let the dead, rove yexpous, bury their dead, rouge “* cauTewy vexpous,” (St. Matt. vill. 22.) is a passage which exhibits similar words in different acceptations. For, that the former are the spiritually dead, but the latter the naturally dead, is evident. Eyw eis is an expression found seven times in St. John’s Gospel. But in different places it leads to very different connected senses. Eyw «us 6 apros, vi. 35. Eyw eips 4 Supa, x. 9. Eye ens 6 roseny, x. 11. Kyo ems 4 apmreros, xv. 1. are figuratively and comparatively spoken. In Eyw ems 7 avacracie, x1. 25. our Lord describes himself as being the cause and Author of Resurrection from the grave. By Eyw emt, in St. John, xvii. 5. our Lord avows himself to be Jesus of Nazareth, whom his enemies sought. By Eye eit, i vil. 58., our Lord asserts his actual and personal existence to have been before the time when Abraham was born. These illustrations shall now be applied for an im- portant purpose. In the language of our received Translation, Chris- tians are styled “ the Sons of God,” (St. John, i. 12.) and Christ is styled ‘the Son of God,” (St. Mark, i. 434) But whether in both places the same manner of Filiation is implied, will plainly appear, after it has been pre- viously and briefly stated for notice, that whenever the Evangelists and Apostles mention Christ as « the Son *‘ of God,” they constantly use the nominative or some | case of the word vios ; but when they speak of Christians THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. 33 as ‘Sons of God,” they use either the nominative or some case of viog or of rexvoy indifferently. And now, let those who are misled by sound, rather than guided by signification, learn to distinguish the transcendent superiority and totally different nature of Christ’s Filiation, as contrasted with that of Christians ; by recollecting, the prophecies which foretold the birth of Christ ; the circumstances which marked his nativity ; the declarations of his Precursor; the testimony given by a voice from heaven; and the power of superseding the Mosaic Covenant, which the same voice intimated to be inherent in him. Through every Age of Christianity, the following prophecies have been considered as predictions of Christ’s birth into this World. ‘“‘ Behold, a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, “and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah, vii. 14.) ** Unto us a Child is born; unto us a Son is given ; ‘and the Government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God.” (Isaiah, ix. 6.) An Angel announced that He should be incarnate, and described his character. “ Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with ““God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy “* womb, and bring forth a Son, and shalt call his name “JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the ‘Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give “unto Him the throne of his Father David: and He ‘shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of ‘his kingdom there shall be no end.” (St. Luke, i. 30.) ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the ‘ power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: there- “¢ fore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee ‘* shall be called the Son of God.” (St. Luke, i. 35.) D 34 THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. An Angel made it known that Christ was born ; and his communication of such an event was followed by a celestial hymn: ‘The angel said unto them, ‘¢ Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of ‘“‘ great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto “ you is born this day, in the city of David, a Saviour, *‘ which is Christ the Lord.” (St. Luke, ii. 10.) ‘* And suddenly there was with the Angel a mul- * titude of the heavenly host, praismg God and saying, «Glory to God in the highest, and on earth Peace, ** Good Will towards Men.” (St. Luke, ii. 13, 14.) Ataperiod not far distant from the time of his Birth, Oriental Magi came to worship Christ : — <¢ There came Wise Men from the East, to Jeru- *‘ salem ; saying, Where is He that is born King of the «¢ Jews? for we have seen his star in the East, and are ‘* come to worship him.” «* And when they were come into the house, they “saw the young Child, with Mary his Mother, and ** fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had ‘* opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; ‘* gold, frankincense, and myrrh.” (St. Matt. ii. 1, 2. rl) John the Baptist professed himself to be that Har- binger of the Messiah predicted by Isaiah : — «| am the voice of one crying in the Wilderness, «¢ Make straight the way of the Lord.” (St. John, i. 23.) Who is that Lord? Isaiah’s words, translated by a Scholar of first eminence, shall describe Him in his true style and dignity : — <¢ A voice crieth; In the wilderness prepare ye the “way of JEHOVAH! “« Make straight in the desert a highway for our *« God. “« Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain © ‘and hill be brought low ; THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. 835 ‘And the crooked shall become straight, and the *‘ rough places a smooth plain ; ‘* And the glory of JEHOVAH shall be revealed ; ‘and all flesh shall see together the salvation of our “‘ God.” (Isaiah, xl. 3.)* The Baptist adduced the proof by which he was convinced, that Christ to whom he had alluded, was the Messiah foretold by Isaiah : — } ‘“¢ I knew him not: but He that sent me to baptize ‘‘ with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou “shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, “¢ the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. «* And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of “ God.” (St. John, i. 33, 34.) His heavenly Father attested the high dignity of Christ’s nature. ‘And lo! a voice from heaven, saying, This is my “¢ beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (St. Matt. il. 17.) His heavenly Father attested the superiority of Christ to Moses. “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well “pleased; Hear Him.” (St. Matt. xvii. 5.) Hear ye fim, i.e. “ HIM and Him only, you are now to hear. “* He is from henceforth to be your Lord, your Legis- “lator, and your King,” as the good Bishop Porteus explains the words. Such, and so extraordinary, are the evidences given to the pre-eminent Filiation of Christ. And it is to be observed on those which appear in the New Testament, that they are not incidental and cursory allusions, which might have been omitted; but they are material and component parts, without which, the history of Christ would have been incomplete and imperfect. They are, * See Bishop Lowth’s Translation of Isaiah. D2 36 THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. moreover, stated in terms so positive, that they will not allow the smallest room or afford the slightest pretence for introducing ideas of regeneration and adoption. They are circumstantial narratives told in the direct language of absolute fact. In their number and in their description they are sufficient to demonstrate, that when the title ‘‘ Son of God” is given to Christ, the Apostles and Evangelists intend by that title to convey an idea of Filiation from Divine Paternity, such as belongs to No one born of a human Father. ‘They mean to describe a Person descended from heaven, adorable in name, character, and attributes. XLIV. It does not appear that the Jews objected to the mere expression ‘Son of God” abstractedly taken : the cause of their rage and the ground of their ac- cusation was, that Christ applied this exalted title to himself; which they deemed blasphemy. We may hence draw these two inferences; the Jews had an idea that there did exist one, whom they eminently styled the ** Son of God;” and the “ Son of God” in their apprehension was essentially possessed of divine at- tributes. Se Comparison of text and context, common sense and the reason of the thing, will in most cases tell us when a word is to be taken in its usual and primary, and when in a figurative and secondary acceptation. Speak- ing of himself, our Lord says, ‘* Before Abraham was, « T am.” —‘* I came forth from the Father and am “come into the World: again I leave the World and ‘oo to the Father.” — “O Father, glorify Thou me «‘ with thine own self, with the glory which I had with “« thee before the World was.” — «I speak that which THOUGHTS-ON THE TRINITY. O7 “J have seen with my Father.” —« All power is ‘*‘ given unto me in heaven and in earth.” To the high priest, who said with great earnestness, ‘“ I adjure “‘ thee, by the living God, that thou tell us whether ‘‘thou be the Christ the Son of God,” our Lord answered, ‘ Thou hast said ;” words which the Jews immediately understood to be directly and unequi- vocally affirmative. St. Mark’s account is, « The high ‘* priest asked him, Art thou the Son of the Blessed? “and Jesus said, I am.” St. Luke’s relation cor- responds with St. Matthew’s in phraseology ; and both agree in sense with St. Mark. If on occasions where the context leads us not to expect parabolical illus- tration or metaphorical allusion, language thus explicit is not sufficiently clear and precise to prove the pre- existing glory and the present divinity of our Lord, words can have no meaning, and all language must be inadequate for conveying ideas. XLVI. It was expedient and necessary that at the close of his Mission our Lord should assert himself to be «* The Son of God.” He makes the assertion in terms direct. We do not however find that in the course of his Ministry he is continually making mention of his divine . character at all times and at all seasons mdiscriminately, as though he rather wished the name of his divinity should be obtruded by repetition, than that the sub- stance which that name imports should be collected by inference. He proceeds in a different manner, a manner more consonant with truth and more satisfactory to a eandid mind. He performs extraordinary works: to those works he makes his appeal: to the same, as to visible and palpable proofs, he refers us: then on the fair ground of argumentative reasoning that extra- Q Dv 88 THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. ordinary effects must proceed from adequate causes, he leaves us to form our own opinions. ‘This is dealing with us as with Beings rational ; free indeed to exercise the powers of judgment, but assuredly accountable for the wilful neglect, or misapplication, or perversion of those powers. XLVI. The Evangelists undeniably describe our. Lord as a Man. But did they mean nothing more than to describe him as a man only? If so, why did they mtroduce these expressions? ‘ What manner of Man ‘is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?” (St. Matt. vin. 27.) ‘ Thou art the Christ, the Son ‘of the living God.” (St. Matt. xvi. 16.) “ I saw “and bare record that this is the Son of God.” (St. John, i. 34.) “ Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.” (St. John, i. 49.) ** We believe ‘¢ and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the ‘living God.” (St. John, vi. 69.) « Yea, Lord; I *“‘ believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, ** which should come into the World.” (St. John, xi. 27.) «« My Lord! and my God!” (St. John, xx. 28.) No one, who understands the language of Scripture, will say the term “Son,” as used in these passages, has no farther import than what it usually implies in common acceptation. ‘The Jews perfectly understood our Lord to intimate divinity of character by that appellation: and hence their anger, that he should assume to himself a title so exalted. ‘The Evangelists then designed to represent his nature as also more than human. For this purpose they introduced the confessions made on several occasions, as testimonies to the divinity of his nature. ‘The same divinity they proved also by recording a series of Facts, the result of constantly mherent powers, such as never resided in mere man. THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. 39 Undeniably also Christ often styles himself “the Son “of Man.” But wherefore ? In allusion to Dan. vii. 13., and with intimation that he was himself the character described by the Prophet. What then is the repre- sentation of Christ’s person and glory delineated by Daniel? Is it that of a mere Man? The plainest reader can answer, when he has considered these words ; ‘« T saw, in the night, visions ; and behold, one like the ** Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came ‘to the Antient of Days, and they brought him near “ before him; And there was given him dominion and ** glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and ‘languages should serve him; his dominion is an ‘* everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and “‘ his kmgdom that which shall not be destroyed.” XLVIII. To Christ, at the very opening of their respective Gospels, St. Matthew applies Isaiah’s term «* Em- ‘‘manuel;”” St. Mark the expression, ‘Son of God ;” St. John the appellation, which corresponds with the ‘¢ Word of the Lord, the Word of Jehovah” in the Old ‘Testament ; but which ** Word” he affirms “ was ‘made flesh and dwelt among us ;” the appellation of Aoyos, who “ was with God, and was God.” From such introductions to the narratives they proposed giving, they may be understood as professing that they believed Christ to be divine, and that they engaged to prove his divinity. These exordial declarations intimate what is to be expected in the sequel of the histories: and conformably with them the subject is so pursued bya plain statement of extraordinary Facts, that the divine nature of our Lord is by far more strongly characterized than the human. There is nothing like elaborate com- position, or studied period, in their Gospels ; but from D 4 40 -THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. beginning to end, in each there is one design. St. John tells you expressly, ‘‘ These things are written that ye ‘might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of « God.” XEIX. Previously to his crucifixion, Christ had asserted the Divinity of his Nature. The veracity of his assertions was to be proved by the event of his raising himself from the dead. When by the testimony of his senses St. Thomas was convinced that Christ was risen indeed, he made a declaration of his sentiments and a con- fession of his faith in these very strong terms, “* My “‘ Lord! and my God!” (St. John, xx. 28.) A para- phrast, not chargeable with the fault of distorting texts in order to prove the Divinity of Christ, shall give the interpretation : ‘* Thou art indeed my Lord, the very ‘same that was crucified; and I acknowledge Thy ‘*¢ Almighty Power in having triumphed over death ; ‘and adore Thee as my God.” — Dr. S. Clarke. Tt is not denied, as a matter of Fact, that St. Thomas did say ‘O Kupiog ov xa 6 Ozog pov. It is not denied, as a Canon for interpretation, that the word Ozoc with the article prefixed should be rendered ‘ God.” The consequence is obvious. In addressing those words to Christ, St. Thomas styled him “Lord and God.” This conclusion cannot be evaded. For even if the expression be considered as an Exclamation, it is an Exclamation similar to ‘O @cog pov in Ps. xxi. 2., and Ps. Ixxxil. 14. (Breitinger’s edition), in both which places the Psalmist is making a direct invocation to God. To suppose it can be taken as an Exclamation, in any other point of view, would be a conceit fanciful, because without foundation ; and inadmissible, because inconsistent with the usage and sentiments of the Jews. No good and pious Jew would dare to violate his sense THOUGHTS ON THE TRINITY. 4:1 of awe for the name of God, by using it in colloquial conversation, as the heathen Greeks did BaSa:. i What is said of ‘‘ Words” may be applied to “ Re- marks,” Multa renascentur que jam cecidere, Revival of occasion will warrant revival of sentiments long since expressed. Glassius shall furnish the re- mainder of this Section. ‘ omppm mm ON Da Dp An cmp) pwn nein dawm 22 qi pris my compas naw Osawn mom yen wa ty Na co agD7¥ MN Ip) AWN We TM hoc est, ¢ Ecce dies ‘venient, dicit Deus, et suscitabo David germen jus- “tum: et regnabit Rex, et intelliget, et faciet judi- “ cium, et justitiam in terra. In diebus ejus salvabitur «« Juda, et Israel habitabit ad fiduciam. Et hoc est “nomen ejus, quo vocabunt eum, Deus (tetragram- ‘‘ maton) Justus Noster.’ Hane prophetiam de Messia “ intelligi, Judai negare non possunt: tim, quia Tal- «‘ mudistee ipsum de Messid exponunt; tum, etiam ‘‘ propter Chaldaicam translationem, que patenter de « Messid loquitur.” Galatin. p. 126. A. B.C. ‘¢ Nec Moses, nec Israel, vocati sunt hoc nomine Dei REFERENCES. 131 “*(tetragrammaton) quo solus Deus ac Messias dun- ** taxat vocati sunt: nec aliquis usquam invenitur, sub “‘ ed forma hoc nomine vocatus, qua Deus ipse et Mes- “ sias vocantur, sed alio quodam nomine quod myndby “ Hlohim dicitur, quodque non modo ad Mosem, et ad *‘ cxteros Israclitas, sed etiam ad Angelos, imd et ad ‘“‘demones, et ad idola sepenumero extensum repe- ** ritur; ut est illud Psal. xevi. ver. 5. crayons 55 «rhb hoc est, «Omnes Elohe, id est * Dii,” popu- lorum demonia, vel idola.’ Legitur quoque in Genes. ** Cap. XXXvV. (ver. 2.) * Jacob domui sue et omnibus, ‘* qui cum eo erant, dixisse, Auferte 5x Elohe, id ‘est, Deos alienos, qui sunt in medio vestri.” Ibid. p- 129. D. E. ‘« Ex dictis clarissimé constat, quod non obstantibus “* Judeorum recentiorum calumniis, nihil preter Deum ‘ipsum et Messiam, nomine Dei (tetragrammaton ) *“‘vocatum inveniri. Ex quo Messiam ipsum Deum ** esse manifesté patet, cim hujusmodi nomen soli Deo *‘conveniat. Hine neque mirum est, si Messiam <‘ipsum Nomen Dei’ (tetragrammaton) esse, non- ““nunquam sacra Litera enunciant.” Ibid. p. 133. B.C. No. XXXIV. “ that they were true.” | Grotius, Lib. II. 6. ** The Truth of the Gospel History,” by Macknight, pp. 180. 4.10. No. XXXVII. « applied to each of the Three Ob- “« jects.” ]_ ‘ The whole force and importance of the ‘‘ expression (i. e. into the name of The Father, Son, ‘and Holy Ghost) does in the same extent belong to ‘‘ Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The Power and ‘« duthority here received, is derived from all Three : «« ‘They are all to be acknowledged as Authors of our “« Salvation ; all infallible, and to be believed in what ‘‘ they teach ; have all the same title to our Submis- K. 2 132 REFERENCES. «sion and Obedience, and are jomt Parties in that «© Covenant we make in Baptism. «« The inference from hence is very plain and easy : « That if any one of these ‘Terms signify God, they « must all Three signify God; and if all Three signify « God, they must all Three signify One and the same « God; for God 1s but One. Now that the One «¢ Supreme God, the Lord and Maker of all things, is ‘here meant by the Word Father, 1s a thing not ques- “tioned: and therefore Son, and Holy Ghost, are «© Terms expressive of the same Divine Nature,” Bishop Gastrell’s “ Considerations on the Trinity ;” p- 119. in Vol. III. of the « Enchiridion Theologicum,” Ed. 1792. No. XL. ‘holden by the Pharisees.”] Acts, XXlil. 8. xxiv. 15. See Biscoe’s “ History of the Acts Con- « firmed,” and the references he makes in Vol. I. p. 95. Ed. 1742. ‘It is certain, that in our Saviour’s time « the Pharisees, with the generality of the people, be- « lieved the resurrection of the dead, though they had “¢ wrong notions of it.” P. 315. Vol. VII. of Sermons by Dr. Jortin, Ed. 1762. To the Sermons is added a Dissertation on «The Doctrine of a I’uture State as it «may be collected from the Old Testament.” ‘This was written, not indeed avowedly, but yet most pro- bably, in confutation of the paradox in Warburton’s «Divine Legation.” The Bishop was superior in Genius; but Dr. Jortin in Erudition and in Argument. The Sermons of the latter sometimes betray a careless- ness in point of style; upon the whole, however, he treats Moral Subjects with copiousness, perspicuity, and energy. His beautiful “ Discourses concerning the « Truth of the Christian Religion” shew learning 3 clearness of thought and expression ; and evident marks that they are the transcripts of a sincere, upright, and REFERENCES. 36 candid Mind. It is much to be lamented, that mis- taken regard for the Name of Jortin should, not long since, have occasioned the publication of what He did not send into the World, the crude misconceptions and hasty remarks of his Early Years. Ibid. ‘* for some ages after.”] Allix, p.173. In the Second Edition, p. 140. Ridley, p. 86. No. XLIV. “ Son of God.”] Allix, Chapter xvii. Ibid. “ blasphemy.”] St. Matt. xxvi. 683—65. St. John, x. 33. See “ The Divinity of Christ proved ‘* from his own Declarations attested and interpreted by ‘‘his Living Witnesses, the Jews;” in a Sermon, preached in the Year 1790, by the Rev. Thomas Bur- gess: to whom, in his rich and valuable treasure of Ante-Nicene Writings, Dr. Routh thus alludes; «« Tho- *‘mas Burgessius, Vir etiam apud exteras gentes Eru- ** ditionis laude insignis; nunc Episcopus Menevensis *«‘ dignissimus.” (Vol. I. p. 139.) That Bishop’s exer- tions in support of the Right Faith have been unwearied. The oppugners of OUR LORD’S Divinity have found in him not only a strenuous, but also a victorious advo- cate of that so very essential and indispensable an Article among the Doctrines of true and uncorrupted Chris- tianity. In p. Ixxix. of his Preface to, « Tracts” re- printed, the Bishop resumes the main Argument of the Sermon: “ On more than one occasion the Jews were *‘ going to stone Him for calling himself the Son of ** God, alleging that in doing so He made_ himself ** God, and equal with God. When He was accused ‘‘ before Pilate, and charged with blasphemy, the Jews, “‘ urging the Governor to crucify him, said, « We have ‘a Law, and by that Law he ought to die, because he «made himself the Son of God.’” (St. John, xix. 7.) For a full and able discussion of this topic, see «« An ‘* Illustration of the method of Explaining the New Qo Ber a} 134 REFERENCES. «¢ Testament by the Early Opinions of Jews and Chris- ‘¢tians concerning Christ ;” by W. Wilson, B. D. in 1797. This Author is equally successful as Horsley, in confuting Priestley on that pomt. ‘To the present purpose the following passages are applicable. ‘ ‘Lo ‘express the Whole Argument in few words: Jesus «¢ Christ was condemned to death by the Jewish Law «for acknowledging himself the Son of God: the ‘phrase ‘Son of God’ admits, and merely admits of ‘“‘ several different acceptations: the declaration must ‘¢ have been thought innocent in the eye of the Law, ‘in any of these significations, except One: in that, it _ «was liable to be accounted a Capital Crime: it might “be thought a breach of the First Commandment: in ‘¢ that sense it must therefore have been understood by ‘« the Jews.” P. 30. ‘© It was for simply professing to be the ‘Son of «‘ God,’ i.e. (as the Jews themselves, on another occa- ‘¢ sion, interpreted this expression, ) for making himself ‘¢ God, that he suffered.” Ibid. p. 31. No. XLV. ‘ Before Abraham was, I am.”] St. John, vil. 58. «s Ex textis visceribus evidentér conspicitur, Chris- ‘tum de tempore preterito loqui; nempeé quod Abra- ‘shami existentiam antecellit, et quo Abraham adhuc ‘‘futurus erat: et tamen quod eodem tempore ipse ‘«¢ (Jesus) extiterit, affirmare.” Philologie Sacra — Glassii, p. 429. Ed. 1694. Aia ti Oy py eure, mow Abpea, yeverda: Eyw HMHN, «av Eyo EIMI; worep o Lars avrov rary xexpytar Ty AcSes TH ELIMI, obrw xa aurog: Tov diyvexws yap EINAL oypayriny abry ravtos amnrAAaY LEVY YpoOvoD. «© Why did he not say, Before Abraham was born I ‘was; but lam? As his Father used this same ex- ‘« pression, v7z. | am, so He also did. For this expres- REFERENCES. LSS “sion limited by no time imports Perpetual Existence.” Chrysostom’s Hom. on St. John, viii. 59. Ibid. « I came.” ] St. John, xvi. 28. Ibid. * glorify.”] St. John, xvii. 5. Ibid. ** I speak.”] St. John, viii. 38. Ibid. «* All power.” ] St. Matt. xxviii. 18. Ibid. «* I adjure.”] St. Matt. xxvi. 63. Ibid. ‘* of the Blessed.”] St. Mark, xiv. 61, 62. No. XLVIII. “appellation of Aoyog.”] Alix, Ch. xu. Kidder, Part III. Ch. v. Ibid. «‘ and was God.”] The profession of Griesbach is so very strong and so very remarkable, that it demands insertion in this place. « Ut iniquas suspiciones omnes, quantum in me est, ‘¢amoliar, et hominibus malevolis calumniandi ansam ‘‘ preripiam, primum pwublice profiteor atque Dewm ‘* ¢estor, neutiquam me de veritate istius dogmatis du- “‘bitare. Atque sunt profecto tam multa et luculenta ‘argumenta et Scripture loca, quibus vera Deitas ‘« Christo vindicatur, ut ego quidem intelligere vix “‘ possem, quomodo, concessa Scripture sacre divina ‘“‘ auctoritate, et admissis justis interpretandi regulis, ‘¢ dogma hoc in dubium vocari possit. In primis locus ‘« ille Joann. 1. 1, 2, 3. tam perspicuus est atqgue omni- ** bus exceptionibus major, ut neque interpretum neque « Criticorum audacibus conatibus unquam everti atque ‘* veritatis defensoribus erip1 possit.” See ‘“* Remarks upon the Systematical Classification,” &c.—by Dr. Richard Lawrence; who in P. 3. of that Work quotes the above-cited passage from Griesbach’s «« Preface to the Apostolical Writings, published in 6 df Oa No. LIL. * St. Stephen meant actually to pray unto ‘¢ Christ.”] St. Stephen’s dying recommendation of ‘his Soul to THE LORD JESUS, so similar in its kK 4 £36 REFERENCES. ‘import to our Saviour’s recommendation of his to « THE FATHER, and so closely accompanied with « that act of more than human generosity m both, the «¢ prayer of intercession for their murderers, then in the «very deed of murder; carries the worship of our «¢ Saviour, to the highest point possible of Christian « Antiquity.” P. 269. of « The Origin of Arianism « Disclosed ;” by John Whitaker, D.D. ~ No. LIV: «were denied.” ] With the division of the Books in the New Testament into ‘Oporcyoupeva, and Aytiasyoeva, made by Eusebius, every student m Divinity is acquainted. See also Grotius de Verit. Rel. Chr. iii. 3. and, “Illustrations of the Truth of the « Christian Religion,” by Edward Maltby, p. 32, sqq- Ed. 1802, where the discriminating marks which dis- tinguish the Genuine from the Spurious Gospels are pointed out with much learning and ingenuity. No. LV. “in the four first Centuries.”] See “ A «New and Full Method of settling the Canonical ‘«« Authority of the New Testament,” by Rey. Jeremiah Jones. Vol. I. pp. 42. 62. Ed. 1798. No. LIX. “says Michaelis.”] Michaelis’s “ Intro- « ductory Lectures to the sacred Books of the New « Testament;” translated by Butler, afterwards Bishop of Hereford, in 1761. Ibid. «‘ an Interpretation of Scripture.”] ‘To the learned, accurate, and diligent Editor of Milton, Spen- ser, and Johnson’s Dictionary, the Nation is indebted for an able and satisfactory Work, entitled «A Vindi- <¢ cation of our Authorized Translation and ‘Translators ‘of the Bible,” by Rev. H. I. Todd. The Reader is referred particularly to the paragraphs between p. 73. and 83., among which is one from Mr. John William Whittaker’s ‘* Historical and Critical Enquiry into the « Interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures.” “The very REFERENCES. 137 laudable objects of Mr. W. are to assert the merits of our Authorized Translation, and to prove a Mr. Bel- lamy not competent for giving a new and improved Version of the Bible. Mr. W. has been completely successful. Sect. iv. of Chapter 1. in the “ Historical Enquiry,” concludes with these sensible and judicious remarks ; «* Actual errors and obsolete words might be removed, ** without attempting any alteration in the tone and «‘ character of the language. The great number of He- ‘* braisms in the English Bible have had a powerful effect ‘‘ upon our language, more particularly observable in ‘‘our national poetry. Were any general change ‘“‘ contemplated in the style of composition, all wise ‘‘men would predict that such a scheme of revision ‘would prove abortive. One lamentable consequence ‘‘may be readily foreseen, should the simple and ma- ** jestic solemnity, which now characterizes it, be dis- ‘missed to make room for what are termed modern ‘‘ refinements, for rounded periods, poised sentences, *‘and antithetical phrases: a deplorable change for *‘the worse would soon be perceptible both in the *¢ spoken and the written English.” p. 113, 114. No. LX. ‘ Erasmus, or Crellius.”] See Mill’s Note on Rom. ix. 5. Wolfii « Cure Philologice,” on the same passage. Michaelis in Butler’s Trans- lation; p.64. The same Professor’s ‘* Introduction ‘“« tothe New Testament,” translated by Marsh. Vol. II. pp: 387. 417. 471. No. LXI. “a well authenticated reading.” ] The same reading occurs in Chrysostom’s Discourse on the Holy Trinity. Kas rarw e& wy 6 Xpiorog To xara TAPKH, 6 wy emt Tavtwy Beco EVAOYYTOS Ekg TOUG aiMYas. Letter D. p. 202. Vol. 6. Ed. Paris, 1624. It is found also in the Epistle sent to Paul of Samosata, by the 138 REFERENCES. Bishops who constituted the Council of Antioch, and who were prior to Chrysostom by a Century. Kos rapa tw AroororAw* E§ wy 6 Xpioros, To xaTA TupKE’ 0 wy ems wavT@y Weog evrAoyyTos Eig TOUS AiwYaS. ALyY. Dr. Routh’s « Relliquie Sacre.” Vol. 2. p. 467. No. LXII. «“ Rennell, p. 97. Animadversions.” ] The full Title is, «* Animadversions on the Unitarian ‘«¢ Translation, or Improved Version of the New « Testament,” by a Student in Divinity. The merits of this Work will justify mention of the Author’s name. We are indebted for it to Rev. Mr. Thomas Rennell, who at an early age was adequate to the Duties, and was deservedly collated to the Vicarage of Kensington. No. LXIV. ‘closest Reasoner.” ] Sherlock, Vol. 1V. Dise. i. p.42. Edit. 1764. No. LXVI. «he will receive.” ] ‘Such a Body as <¢ Christ now hath, since his resurrection, (which is a ‘«¢ heavenly body, such a Body also shall Believers, who ‘¢ are heavenly, have in the resurrection.” Poole’s An- notations, 1 Cor. xv. 48. ‘«‘ Christus, qui nos regenuit, nobis corpus dabit suo ‘«* simile.” Synopsis. Ibid. “had his origin from heaven.” ] In 1 Cor. xy. 648. et 49. ‘O exoupaviog Christus dicitur, quatenus e ‘¢ Coelo in hance Terram venit, seu Divinam Originem ss habet.” Schleusner, under the word exougaviog. No. LX VII. *“ I besought the Lord thrice.” ] * If ‘¢ it be asked, who is meant by ‘The Lord?’ it seems ‘«¢ most probable from the context, that it was not God «¢ the Father, but Jesus Christ.” «¢ St. Paul being under much uneasiness on account ‘© of this thorn in the flesh, and remembering that ‘«‘ Christ himself before his sufferings prayed earnestly | ‘to his Father three times, that the cup might pass ‘‘ from him, followed the example, and besought Jesus REFERENCES. 139 ** Christ with great earnestness, that he might be re- “¢ lieved from this disorder.” “ Schlictingius, and other Socinians, allow that this ‘is a prayer directed to Jesus Christ.” P. 218—290. Vol. IV. of Jortin’s Sermons, Ed. 1771. Ibid. «€ Unquestionably, the words és ehavepwhy, ‘“‘ &c.” |] In the lines, Qui non moderabitur ire, Infectum volet esse, dolor quod suaserit et mens. Hor. I. Ep. 2. 59. Qui cupiet, metuet quoque — Ibid. 16. 65. *« Ile” is understood before « volet,” and ‘ metuet.”? So in 6¢ edavepwiy — avernddy is understood obroc, or EXELVOC. Otros is sometimes inserted, and sometimes omitted in the clause which é¢ precedes. Examples of each usage shall be given. 1. “Og 0 av ronan xo O10ay, obTog peyag xranOyoerai. St. Matt. v. 19. ‘Og 0 av amoreoy ryy Wuyny avrov, obrog Twoe! QUTHY. St. Mark, viii. 35. | ‘Og yy peta cov, obrog PamrriSer. St. John, iii. 26. 2. “Os ov Aapbaver Tov oTaupoy auTOV, oUx EoT! poy a§ioc. St. Matt. x. 38. ‘Og yap ovx cori xal? yoy, Umrep yuwy ects. St. Luke, ix. 50. ‘Og coras ext Tov Owparos, un xarabarw. Ibid. xvii. ol. ‘Og 0¢ exryxey edpaoc, xarAws woes. 1 Cor. vil. 37. ‘Og without odrog is found in several passages, where cay, Or ay is placed before the verb. Concerning which it is to be observed, the introduction of cay, or av, does not alter the acceptation of 6g. It is the verb, but not 6s, which is affected. We do indeed commonly render ‘Og cay, or “Og av by “ Whosoever.”? But the more 140 REFERENCES. literal construction would be ‘‘ He who, &c.’? ‘Thus in St. Matt. x. 42. we read ‘Og eav rorioy, which we usually translate, ‘‘ Whosoever shall give to drink.” But literally we should say, ‘*‘ He who shall give to ‘¢ drink,” &c. Between the four passages above mentioned, (under figure 2,) and 1 Tim. iii. 16. there is close analogy, according to which, ‘Og egavepw4y, &c. &e. is capable of being rendered, ‘* He who was manifested, &c. &c. ‘owas, &c. &c.”’ : Evasion betrays a weak cause. ‘The supposition there- fore that 6¢ is the genuine reading has been adopted at least so far, as to be received with acknowledgment that 6s would be compatible with Grammatical Construction. Beyond this should be conceded Nothing; for the Weight of Evidence is on the side of @eog. «« After the strictest examination of Copies (says ‘¢ Bishop Stillingfleet) those will be found the Best, ‘‘ which have that reading on which our translation is ‘‘ orounded.” P. 339. Vol. 2. Enchiridion Theolo- gicum. Notan, Macer, and Hates are Scholars, Critics, and Divines, of the First Rank in Sacred Literature. Every Argument advanced in support of @ezog in Sect. LXVII. will appear confirmed by reference to one or other of their Works. See p. 259. 285. 289. 512. 507. of ‘* An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or, Received Text ;’? by Rev. Frederick Nolan, in 1815.— See p.100. Note.—p.102. Note, of Vol. U1. Part II. of «* Discourses and Dissertations ‘on the Scriptural Doctrine of Atonement and Sacri- fice ;’’ by W. Magee, Bishop of Raphoe, in 1816. See from p. 70. to p. 104. of ‘ Faith in the Holy ‘Trinity “the Doctrine the Gospel;” by W. Hales, D.D. Rector of Kallesandra ; in 1818. REFERENCES. 141 That @zog was the reading of the Alexandrine MS. may be asserted on the authority of Witnesses, who saw the transverse line of @zog. Convinced, as we are, of their competency for discerning, and of their vera- city in recording, we may adopt the language of Wore on this subject, and say, ‘‘ Credendum erit tes- ‘‘timonio eorum, quorum auctoritatem sequi unice nune licet, Juni, (7. e. Patrick Young) Fellii, Wal- ‘© toni, Grabii, Milli, Berrimani et Aliorum.’’ See Novum Testamentum Grecum e Codice Alexandrino Descriptum a Carolo Godofredo Woide, A. D. 1786. Pref.-p.oxxxi. Ibid. <‘‘a learned Writer on the Greek Article.’’] See p. 223, 224 349. of a Work entitled «* The Doc- ‘‘ trine of the Greek Article,’’ by ‘I’. F. Middleton, in 1808. That Author is now (7. e. m 1821,) the Bishop of Calcutta: and a more able, active, zealous, yet dis- creet Man, could not have been selected for an appoint- ment, which will operate more than any other measure antecedently adopted, towards the gradual conversion of the Native Indians. Devoutly is it to be hoped, that Government will soon form a Church Etablish- ment in New South Wales also. Such an Institution will powerfully tend to conciliate and secure the affec- tions of the Colonists towards their Parent Country. America had not been lost if an Episcopal Church had been established in our former Provinces. No. LXIX. ‘they were admitted into the profession ‘‘ of all, &c.”] ‘The Apostles were enjoined to bap- <¢ tize all Nations in the name of the Father, and of «¢ the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; yet the profession ‘«¢ of the Eunuch, after Philip had interpreted the pyro- ‘‘ phecies relating to our Lord, and instructed him in ‘«« the history of our Lord’s life, was simply, ‘I believe ‘¢ that Jesus Christ is the Son of God:’ because, in 142 REFERENCES. ‘‘ that character of Christ, duly considered, was in- ‘«‘ volved the Whole System of the Gospel Dispensation.” P. 129. of ‘* Seven Sermons,” by Bishop Cleaver ; preached on various occasions ; but collected and pub- lished together in 1808. « It must be acknowledged indeed, that being baptized ‘«‘ into the name of these Three, is no where expressly ‘«¢ mentioned, except in the text. (St. Matt. xxvii. 19.) « But then the more usual phrase, of being baptized ‘¢into Christ, or into his Name, amounts to just the ‘‘same thing. Tor, by bearing the name of Christians, <¢we declare ourselves believers not in Christ alone; ‘but in the Father, of whom, to use the Apostle’s << words, the whole Family in Heaven and Earth is ‘named ; and in the Holy Spirit also: whose name ‘‘ appears evidently never to have been omitted in ‘* Baptism, from that remarkable passage, where some ‘* Professors of the Gospel owning they were entirely ‘ignorant concerning the Holy Ghost, St. Paul asks “them, ‘Unto what then were ye baptized?’ and *‘ finding it was only ¢nto the Baptism of John, com- «‘ mands them to be now baptized, ‘nto the Name of ‘‘ the Lord Jesus.’ So itis expressed : but the foregoing ** Question fully proves, that the Name of the Holy «« Ghost was used likewise: from whence it follows, | ‘that the expression, baptizing into the Name of ** Christ, wherever we find it in Scripture, is only put *‘ for shortness.” Archbishop Secker’s Sermon on St. Matt. xxviii. 19. Ibid. ‘as it was well understood in those days.” ] ** We see it positively settled by the very history (¢. e. ‘“‘ Gospel History.) There the Jews appear expecting «their Messiah to be the Son of Gon, and as such to ‘¢ be Equa with Gop, an AssEssor with Gop upon his ** throne of heaven, and the grand Jupcr of the Uni- REFERENCES. 143 “verse.” P. 22. of Whitaker’s «“ Origin of Arianism Disclosed.” ‘We shall now see all the Jews acknowledging, *‘ that their Messiah, as the Son of Gop, was to be “ Gop, and so to be Equat with Gop.” Ibid. p: 26. See also p. 167. of the same Work. ‘¢ That the expected Messiah was to be the Son of “* God was a Jewish Doctrine. See Allix’s Jewish ‘© Testimonies, ch. xvii. If therefore they believed ‘¢ our Saviour to be the Christ, they must have regarded ° ‘‘ him as the Son of God.” Middleton’s “ Doctrine *‘ of the Greek Article.” p. 229. No. LXX. ‘that relation.”] See Butler’s « Analogy of Religion Natural and Revealed,” piezo: wend, 177.1. Part TI. Ch; 1. Ibid. ‘‘ the same duty.”’] See Bishop Porteus’s ‘* Lec- “tures on the Gospel of St. Matthew.” Lect. xxiv. p. 335., &. Vol. II. Ed. 1802. Bishop Tomline’s ** Klements of Christian Theology.” Part III. Art. i. p- 84 Vol. I]. Ed.1799. Both these Writers found the Doctrine of the Trinity on our Lord’s final com- mission in St. Matt. xxviii, 19.; and with the strongest reason. No. LXAXIV. ‘there came a leper and worshipped “ Him.”] “ We must surely grant, that in the remark ‘‘of the leper the attribute of omnipotence is freely ‘* ascribed to Jesus; ‘Lord, if Thou wilt, Thou canst ‘‘make me clean.? — What was the conduct of our ‘‘ Lord upon this occasion and this address to Him ? ‘**« Did He reprove his confidence? Did He decline “‘ receiving such testimonies of faith and reliance ; or ‘‘ disown the attributes ascribed to Him?— None of ‘ the Evangelists say any such thing ; but simply, that, ‘having compassion on him, He put forth his hand, ‘saying, ‘I will; be thou clean.’ And immediately 144 REFERENCES. ‘«‘ his leprosy left him.” p. 1382—134. of ‘ Discourses ‘¢on the Three Creeds,” by KE. Nares, D.D. im 1819, See also p. 193. Ibid. «he fell down at Jesus’ knees.” | ddoratio vero, «¢ gue Christo exhibebatur, Civilis non erat, sed Re- ‘‘ligiosa, Humili loco is natus erat et conditione, ‘‘adedque in eum qua talem, adoratio civilis non «“ cadebat. -ddorabant illum tum precipue homines ‘‘ adflicti, quum opem quandam miraculosam, quum ‘* divinum aliquid ab eo expeterent. -ddorabant eum ‘¢ discipuli ante resurrectionem rarissime, nec nisi divino ‘¢quodam miraculo ab eo perpetrato uti Luc. v. 8.” Kypke on St. John, xx. 17. The Author of this remark gives a forcible answer to those, who contend that only Civil Homage was paid to our Lord; and he shews his conviction that St. Peter intended to offer Religious ddoration. Ibid. “* on the Apocalypse.” ] ‘* Quicquid autem ‘hac de re statuatur, existimeturne Caius, necne, ‘ad Joannis Apocalypsin spectasse, obiter comme- ‘¢morare mihi liceat, Librum hune omni veneratione ‘¢ dionum, a Novem saltem Auctoribus tanquam @ecozr- ‘“yevorov adductum fuisse, qui quidem omnes aut ‘«‘ vetustiores Caio, aut ipsi equales fuerunt.” Anno- ‘‘ tation by the very learned, accurate, and pious Dr. ‘¢ Routh, in Vol. II. p. 16. of his Reliquie Sacre.” ‘* Quot vero scriptores Caio Presbytero aut vetus- ** tiores, aut saltém ejusdem etatis, Librum Apocalyp- ‘** ticum amplexi fuerint, dixi ante ad Car Fragmenta, «p. 16. Vol. II. quorum et nomina nune apponam ; “ji sunt Papias, Justinus M. Fratres Viennenses et “* Lugdunenses cum Ireneo, Melito, Theophilus An- “‘ tiochenus, Appollonius, Hippolytus, Tertullianus, ‘«¢ Clemensque Alexandrinus.” Annot. Vol. IV. p. 31. _ No. LXXV. *« Markland.” ] See1 Cor. xii. 4, 5, 6. REFERENCES. 14.5 in Bowyer’s “ Conjectures ;” a Work useful to Bibli- cal Scholars, who are capable of discriminating between correct and erroneous observations: but not calculated for Young Students of Divinity. No. LXXVII. « Docete.”] Macknight’s « New ‘¢ Literal Translation of all the Apostolical Epistles,” Sect. III. Preface to the First Epistle of St. John. No. LXX VIII. « Pliny.”] Epistles, 10, 97. No. LX XIX. “ Matron.”] See “ Aristotle’s Trea- ‘tise on Poetry,” translated by Twining, Note 15, p.175. Ed. 1789. Ibid. « Philopatris.”] Dialogue of Lucian so. en- titled. In Vol. II. p.998., Ed. Benedicti. Bishop Bull maintains this Dialogue to have been written by Lucian, in opposition to the opinion of Micyllus, who ascribes it to some more early Author. If, however, it was written by some more early Author, it proves (to use Bp. Bull’s words) ‘ qualisnam fuerit Christianorum “fides de SS. Trinitate, etiam sub Trajani imperio, diu *‘ ante Luciani tempora.” Def. Fid. Nic. p.69. Ed. 1721. No. LXXX. ‘Only Son.”] The expressions «* Only «« Son” in the Apostles’ Creed, and « Only Begotten *« Son” in the Nicene, originate in the appellation given to our Lord by St. John, in his Gospel, i.14. « We ‘“‘ beheld his glory, the glory as of the oNLY BEGOTTEN ‘‘ of the Father.” The Apostle here, and in his 1 Ep. iv. 9. applied that title to Christ, for the express pur- pose of confuting the Gnostics. They maintained, the Aoyog and the Movoyevyg were Two distinct Beings, and that Christ was an A“on inferior to both. In di- rect opposition to such heretical doctrines, St. John studiously asserts our Lord to be in his own Person the Aoyog and the Movoyevys. Two consequences are thence deducible. 1st, Our Lord could not be an AKon of inferior degree; but must be a Person of identical L 146 REFERENCES. character with the Aoyog and the Movoyevys ; for each description belonged to our Lord and to our Lord only. @dly, As our Lord combined in himself the twofold denominations of Aoyog and Moyoyevys, He must have pre-existed before He appeared on Earth, even according to the opinion of the Gnostics. or the Gnostics themselves attributed pre-existence to the Aoyog and Movoyevys ; which Aoyog and Movoyevys our Lord was. Unless attention be paid to the reason, on account of which St. John introduced the epithet Movoyevys, the force of that term, according to his idea and mean- ing, will not be understood. Malchion, a Presbyter of Antioch, affirmed Our Lord to be Tov viov roy Movoyevy, Tov mp0 macys xTIT EWS irapyovra. . ‘ Reliquiz Sacre.” Vol. IL. p. 476 —the last words of which passage lead to a just interpretation of Col. 1. 15. rpwroroxog Tyg xTICEws. No. LXXXV. ‘what those qualifications are.” ] See Bishop Cleaver’s ‘‘ Origin and Utility of Creeds.” in p. 136. and 145, 146. of “ Seven Sermons” by the Bishop of St. Asaph. With his usual ability, mildness, and candour, Arch- bishop Secker has given this subject. due consideration, and has placed it in a most satisfactory point of view. See his 9th Serm. Vol. VI. p. 226. Ed. 1771. Apposite will be the following Extract from a Letter, anonymous indeed, but well known to have been written by a Clergyman of superior talents, the Rev. Mr. Philpotts. — «The condemning or cautionary clauses (call them ‘¢ which you will) apply to the Catholic Faith generally, “and to the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incar- | *‘ nation in particular: and he who taxes them as un- * charitable, would do well to remember, that as they REFERENCES. | 147 “say not less, so neither do they say more, than our “ Lord himself pronounced of every one, ‘ that believ- “eth not.’ The only question which can be raised is *‘ about the truth of the doctrine ; for they who admit ‘it to be true, must see that it is fundamental ; and if ‘* fundamental, that the denial of it must come within ‘that denunciation, which He, who is emphatically ‘* styled ‘ Love,’ forbore not to make. Do we think ‘‘ that the expression of our Lord, general and unlimit- * ed as it is, does yet admit of all merciful allowance “¢ for non-belief arising from invincible or excusable ig- ‘““norance, and for misbelief arising from mere error, “from prejudice, from education, from unhappy cir- ‘** cumstances of any kind? So also we understand the “Creed. It applies the same solemn sanction of our “Lord to the truths which he commissioned his ** Apostles to teach ; and leaves it Unlimited as He “¢ left it.” P. 51. of ** A Letter to the Right Honour- ‘able Earl Grey,” in 1819. - Ibid. “ That Eternity from which Each has exist- “ed.” ] In all effects that are voluntary, the Cause ««must be prior to the effect, as the Father is to the «¢ Son in human generation. But, in all that are ne- “* cessary, the effect must be co-eval with the cause ; ‘‘as the stream is with the fountain, and light with “the sun. Had the sun been eternal in its duration, * light would have been co-eternal with it. Was the ‘* fountain from everlasting, the stream would be equally ** from everlasting too. And the Son of God, in the faith and confession of the Jews, was the Second «‘ Jehovah, or the mediate God of the Universe ; an «« Kternal De-rivation from the Eternal Fountain of «« Deity; an Everlasting De-radiation from the Ever- «« Jasting Sun of Divinity, in God the Father.” Whit- aker’s ‘* Origin of Arianism Disclosed,” p- 175. L 2 148 REFERENCES. ° «Ibid. “ Uno ore docuerunt.”] Defens. Fidei Ni- “cene. Thesis. p. 222, 228. 7 «¢ Fatemur, fatemur ultrd, Patrem solum esse aliquo *‘ respectu summum Deum; nempe quia, ut loquitur «¢ Athanasius, ryyn Ozorynros fons Deitatis ipse sit 5 «< hoc est, Solus a Seipso Deus, a quo Divinitatem suam ‘¢ accipiant Filius et Spiritus Sanctus. Interim con- ‘‘ stanter asserimus, Filium esse Lumen ex -Lumine, «« Deum ex Deo, ag coaue Deum Verum ex Deo Vero, ‘¢cum Patribus Nicenis.” Ibid. p. 52. Ibid. «‘ must be the origin.”] Correct therefore 1S Dodwell, when he asserts, ‘“‘ The Father alone is un- “ originate.” P. 35. of a Work entitled « The Atha- ‘«‘nasian Creed Vindicated,” by W. Dodwell, D.D. 1802. ? ‘© Ibid. ‘ Inability.”] See p. 299, &c. of Gisborne’s ‘«‘ Familiar Survey of the Christian Religion.” Ed. 1799. Ibid. « Conversion.”] So truly did St. Paul say, «¢ God was manifest in the flesh ; justified in the Spirit ; «¢seen of Angels; preached unto the Gentiles; Br- ‘¢ LIEVED ON IN THE WORLD ; received up into glory.” 1 Tim. ii. 16. Ibid. «¢ They both mean to inculcate one and the same ‘¢ doctrine.”] A comparative view of the Three Creeds, exhibiting the harmony which subsists between them, is given in p. 180. of a Work entitled ‘* The Scripture oct of the Trinity.” The Author is the Rev. Mr. Hartwell Horne ; from whose erudition and labour came Volumes replete with information, particularly use- ful to the younger Clergy. ‘Their title is, «« An Intro- «« duction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the «¢ Holy Scriptures.” Assent, however, cannot be given to all his commendations of Griesbach, who as a Biblical Critic was prejudiced, as a Collator partial, and REFERENCES. 149 thence as an Editor sometimes unfair. Two of Gries- bach’s Canons are these; * Lectio, pre aliis sen- “sum pietati (presertim Monastice) alende aptum “‘ fundens, suspecta est.” — « Inter plures unius loci ‘« lectiones ea pro suspecté meritd habetur, que Ortho- “‘doxorum dogmatibus manifestd pre ceteris favet.” (Nov. Test. Vol. I. Prolegomena, p. Ixii.) He admits, ‘there exist more than Three Principal Texts, per- ‘‘ haps Five or Six ; but Three only are brought under “ consideration.” «(Remarks upon the Systematic “ Classification, &c.” by Dr. R. Laurence.) Although most MSS. are decidedly for @zog in 1 Tim. iii. 16. yet he gives ‘Og. Chargeable as Griesbach is with these faults, he by no means deserves unqualified praise ; nor should his Edition be recommended to Young Students of Divinity. Ibid. «* we may obviously recognise.”] See p. 130. of Bishop Cleaver’s Seven Sermons. No. LXXXVI. “ commend.”] See pp. 8. 12. 25. in the First Sermon preached at the Bampton Lecture, by Mr. Kett. Ibid. See also Sermons First and Eighth ; Teo. 245. preached at the same Lecture, by Mr. Collinson. No. LXXXVII.- « Jortin.”] Charge II. p- 397. Vol. VII. Ed. 1772. No. LXXXVIII. « Thirlby.”] p. 26. « Dedicatio ” to his Edition of Justin Martyr’s « Two Apologies,” and ** Dialogue with Trypho.” See Jortin’s « Remarks “on Ecclesiastical History,” Vol. II. p. 155. Ibid. ** We adore.”] Justin Martyr, Apol. If. pp: 56. 98. Ed. Paris, 1636. Ibid. « Athenagoras.”] Jortin’s «« Remarks,” Vol. II. p. 85. Athenagore « Legatio pro Christianis,” pp- 10, 11. Added to Justin Martyr’s Works in the Paris Edition. L 3 150 REFERENCES. Tbid. “ fanciful.” Theophilus «Ad Autolycum,” L. IL. p.94. Added to Justin Martyr’s Works in the Paris Edition. No. XCIL. “ proximity of the times.” } This was judiciously considered and duly appreciated by the learned and wise Editor of the ‘* Reliquiz Sacre,”” who says, ‘ Illorum solim commodis_profiteor consulere, ‘qui hoc plurimum interesse fidei Christiane existi- ‘ment, ut sententie resque geste hominum, qui ab ‘‘ejus initiis etate propius abfuissent, accuratissimé ac “« diligentissimé exquirantur; hoc enim ad illustra- ‘‘ tionem et confirmationem veritatis in Ecclesia servate ‘¢maximée valere summi viri judicdrunt.” Vol. L p- 13. « Supposing the primitive Fathers to have been men ‘< of only common discernment and integrity, their tes- “ timony respecting the doctrines then actually received «by the Church, and maintained against the heresies «then prevailing, must have peculiar weight. “hose ‘among them, who had been personally conversant «with the Apostles, and who derived their knowledge «© of the Christian Faith from what they continually “ heard of their preaching and discourse, as well as from «their writings, seem to have claim to a regard only ‘<< short of that, which was due to their inspired Pre- <‘ ceptors. ‘To place such men as Clement, Ignatius, «and Polycarp, no higher in the scale of authority, ‘¢ with respect to the value of their testimony on these ‘points, than Bishops and Pastors in later times, «betrays an error of judgment, which on any other «subject of investigation analogous to this, would be « deemed preposterous.” P. 114. Serm. IV. of the «« Bampton Lecture,” preached by a man of much eru- dition, strong sense, and sound judgment, Dr. Van- Mildert, now Bishop of Landaff. REFERENCES. 151 No. XCIII. “ Ridley.” ] Eight Sermons, p. 56. No. CII. « that he denied.”’] See p. 377. ‘* Thesis,” annexed to <¢ Illustrations of the Truth of the Chris- “tian Religion ;’? by Edward Maltby, B.D. Ed. 1802. Ibid. * carries with it wherever it goes.’ ] Among the many instances, which might be adduced to con- firm the truth of this remark, there is one particularly striking. It is that of a people originally descended from Syrians of Antioch. They inhabit Mountains in the Hindostan Province of Travancore. They are sur- rounded by Heathens. Still, however, they retain the religious Principles of their Forefathers, and are Trini- tarians. ‘This fact we learn from the accounts fol- lowing. ‘The doctrines of the Syrian Christians are few in ‘number, but pure; and agree in Essential Points, ‘‘ with those of the Church of England.” «+ Christian ‘* Researches in Asia ;” by Dr. Buchanan, p. 216. “« It has long been believed that these Christians held ‘the tenets of the Nestorian heresy ; and that they “were obliged to leave their own Country in conse- ‘¢ quence of persecution. However, it appears that the ‘* Creed they now hold denies that heresy, and seems ** to coincide in several points with the Creed of Atha- “*nasius ; but without its damnatory clauses.”? Official Report made by the Rev. Dr. Kerr, Senior Chaplain to the Presidency of Madras, in 1805. ‘In a written communication to the Resident of “« ‘Travancore, the Metropolitan states their Creed (i.e. ‘that of the Syrian Church of Malayla) to be as ** follows: —<‘ We believe in the Father, Son, and «‘ Holy Ghost, Three Persons, in one God, neither “confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Sub- ‘stance.’ ’’ ** Christian Observer’? for 1807, p. 65. The Resident, to whom allusion is made, was Colonel L 4 L5z REFERENCES. Macaulay ; the Metropolitan, Mar-Dionysius; the people, according to their own denomination, ‘ Syrian «¢ Christians of Malayla.” «¢ One small Community of Christians did, indeed, ‘‘ exist from nearly the earliest times ; and the Syrian «Churches of Malabar, surrounded by idolatrous ‘bigotry, almost unknown and disregarded, still re- ‘«¢ main a living Monument of the Primitive Doctrines «of our Religion, and of the gracious Protection of the ‘‘ Blessed Founder, who promised to be with his faith- ‘¢ ful Disciples alway, even to the end of the World.”’ P. 16. of “A Sermon preached at Colombo, Au- « oust 1. 1813;” by the Rev. Mr. George Bisset. No. CIV. « from the Fathers to us.””] ‘ That this «¢ doctrine (7. e. of the Trinity) is true, I am fully con- ‘‘vinced. I read it recorded in the pages of Scripture. « T see it attested by the Writings of the Fathers. And «I find it displayed, in the generally uniform and ‘«‘unvarying Faith of the Church of Christ, from the ‘«‘days of the Apostles to the present period.” P. 5. of « Whitaker’s Origin of Arianism Disclosed.” ‘«¢ Our Reformers took up the doctrine of the Trinity, ‘as they found it; as the faith of the Universal “«¢ Church in all ages, and as the faith of the Church of «¢ England from the beginning.” Ibid. p. 454. «s We have seen, that from the time that this Reve- «lation took place, that is, from the time of the «< Apostles, to the end of the Second Century, in what- ‘ever region a Christian Church was established, a «Sacred Trias was universally admitted. Hence I ‘©make this inference; that, if an error of this sort ‘had arisen so early, yet it could not equally have pre- ‘‘ yailed in so many remote parts of the World. And — «« I proceed farther, and am persuaded, that this doc- ‘‘trine is so little obvious to the notions of Mankind, REFERENCES. 153 *“* that it could scarcely have been devised by the fancy ‘of Man; and if devised, still, as I have before stated, it could not have been so universally propa- “gated. It has now prevailed for ages: and we ‘receive and maintain it, not in consequence of our * private and partial opinion; but because it is accom- ‘panied with, and enforced by a Divine Sanction ; «and has the uniform suffrage of the wisest Men, who ‘have also transmitted it to us.’’ P.77. of “ The “Sentiments of Philo Judeus;”’ by Jacob Ugh Ns Ed. in 1797. No. CVIII. * however individually they may give *< different explications,’’ &c.] ‘* The Man, who pro- *« fesses each of the Sacred Three to have sufficient *«< divine Power and Capacity to sustain the Characters, * and fulfil the Offices attributed to them in Scripture ; ‘‘and pays due Honour to them according to those ‘«« Offices; may justly be owned by me, and received “as a Christian Brother; though we may differ much ‘¢in our Notions and Opinions about the explication of “the Blessed ‘Trinity; or though we may both be ‘‘ ignorant or doubtful of the true way of explaining it.” Proposition 22. p.12. in ‘* The Christian Doctrine of “the ‘Trinity,’ by I. Watts.—From that mutilated Edition of Dr. Watts’s Hymns, which studiously omits passages tending to inculcate the principal doctrines of the Gospel, a stranger to the original and entire com- positions would naturally infer he did not embrace those doctrines. ‘The contrary, however, is the fact. With avidity, therefore, is seized this opportunity of doing justice to the Christian Principles of this benevolent and pious Writer, by citing a paragraph which unequivocally proves him to have been a Trinitarian. Ibid. “ religion of Protestants.’’] See ‘* The Re- ‘“‘ligion of Protestants,” by William Chillingworth. 154 REFERENCES. And, Fulke’s ‘ Confutation of the Notes in the ‘¢ Rhemish Translation of the New Testament.” No. CIX. * apmrraxios.”?] After perseverance in labour successfully applied, and discriminating selection judiciously exercised during the early part of his Acade- mical Life, Mr. Henry Huntingford published a learned, useful, and desirable Work, the Title of which is ‘«¢ Pindari Carmina; Quibus accesserunt. Paraphrasis ** Benedictina, et Lexicon Pindaricum ex integro Dam- “mii Opere Excerptum.” He prefixed to it a brief but instructive yywporoyia. In that sententious col- lection is properly inserted the passage apd: 0° avdpwrwy Gpeow aprraxios, &e. Remarks on the First Edition of this Work, may be seen in the ‘ British Critic” for December, 1814; p- 582. *‘ New Series.”’ Vol. II. Ibid. “that are in secret.’”’] See a Discourse on Deut. xxix. 29. by Dr. John Sturges, of Winchester, in his Volume published 1792. No. CXI. ‘ temper.”] The several qualities here enumerated are all combined in that prime Scholar, acute Critic, excellent: Man, and faithful Friend, Dr. Charles Burney ; the Urbanity of whose manners is equal to the depth of his erudition; and both con- fessedly place him at the head of Literary Characters most eminent in this Nation. (Added in 1820) « Extinctus amabitur idem.” He is, alas! no more. A last adieu shall be bidden to him in these *words; ‘* Vale! humaniorum _literarum ‘s-decus,” _ * They are in the concluding sentence of an Epistle from Bentley to Grevius, p. 3. of a publication entitled “ Ricardi “Bentleii et Doctorum Virorum Epistole ;” edited by Dr.C. | Burney in a beautiful manner. A CHARGE PREVIOUS TO THE ORDINATION OF DEACONS AND PRIESTS. 1802. t ‘ "4 ie | ti a _ * at ¢ +. S* , re : am rn fi le ‘pe ea o eis 2 84 Trey ee “ Spenane nod A CHARGE: GENTLEMEN, | Sucn is the nature, and such are the purposes of that solemnity, for the discharge of which, by Divine per- mission ! we shall be assembled to-morrow ; that even slight reflection will be sufficient to convince us we ought not to engage in it without previous consider- ation. The Ministry, to which you intend devoting the principal part of your lives, is of apostolical institution. The duties of it are many, important, sacred. In con- sequence of ordination, you will be commissioned to take the lead in public prayer; to expound the Scrip- tures ; to instruct the ignorant; to remind the better informed ; to admit disciples by baptism; to prepare them for ratifying the baptismal vow by the primitive and holy rite of confirmation ; to visit the sick ; and, if you are priests, you will have authority to administer the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper; to declare the conditions ofGardon to the sincerely penitent, and thus comfort the souls of the afflicted. And that you may fulfil these duties in a manner more complete, and with effect more forcible, you will be required by principle and practice to resist vice; by precept and by example to encourage virtue. A solemnity at which you will be created ministers for executing offices of such description, on account of the circumstances with which it is attended, and of the 158 A CHARGE BEFORE ORDINATION very serious object proposed in its appomtment, de- mands of us antecedent preparation of thought and heart. It has been with the view of rendering us more ear- nest in our meditation on subjects connected with the occasion, that we have now read together some pas- sages from the services of ordination. The compilers of our Liturgy were men of unaffected and amiable simplicity ; men of sincere and fervent piety. They possessed a thorough knowledge of Holy Writ ; and they formed just conceptions of Christian. truths. The happy effects of these their excellencies and these their attainments appear in every page of our ritual: but perhaps no where more conspicuously than in the services of ordination. Every question proposed to the candidates ; every exhortation directed to them ; the selection of sentences and of larger portions from the Scriptures; and the especial injunction that the Litany should be introduced, and the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper be administered at all seasons of impart- ing authority for the exercise of sacerdotal functions ; these instances of judicious precaution and devout pro- vision mark the character of those who settled our es- tablished formularies, and they all claim our serious and earnest attention. For the respective ordination of deacons and priests are prepared two distinct formularies. This two-fold appointment of various services was suited to that diversity of ministration, which formerly belonged to the inferior and more limited employment of deacons, on the one hand; and to the superior and amplified powers of priests, on the other. From change of times, circumstances, and other causes, it hath arisen, that deacons should now perform several duties, which were reserved originally for the OF DEACONS AND PRIESTS. 159 office of priesthood. This enlargement of their com- petency conduces much to public convenience, and has therefore been sanctioned by long usage. Deacons, however, should thence infer, that as they are more as- similated in extent of authority, so they are more bound to observe the instructions, which in the service of ordination are given to priests ; and they should con- sider many particulars, which were once enforced on priests only, as now equally applicable to deacons also. In consequence of the similarity under which deacons and priests are now comprehended, with regard to official employment and clerical obligation; whether you are candidates for the one or the other order of the ministry, to all of you alike may be recommended some few remarks on three points of exhortation con- tained in the blended services. The three points are these : — 1. You are exhorted, ‘ neither yourselves to offend, ‘nor be the occasion that others should offend.” 2. * ‘To be diligent in prayer ; in reading the Holy ‘‘ Scriptures; and such studies as shall help to the ** knowledge of them.” 3. ‘To apply your endeavours to frame and fashion “* yourselves and your families according to the doctrine ‘© of Christ.” On each of these admonitory topics, brought, indeed, to your minds in the form of questions, but really in- tended as subjects of pressing advice, some observations shall now be offered. 1. To imagine that any of you will give offence, either by language or by actions of gross turpitude, were a supposition so disrespectful to your sense and principles of morality, that it ought not even for a moment to be entertained. But there are inadverten- 160 A CHARGE BEFORE ORDINATION cies, to which we are all exposed, and against which we cannot be too much guarded. In the concerns of life, many things might be men- tioned, which if they could possibly be taken m the ab- stract, and were totally unconnected with all dependen- cies of persons and effects, would be in themselves indifferent. If, however, they are considered, as they must be considered, with reference to collateral circum- stances, and according to the influence with which they may operate either in a smaller or a larger circle of the community, they become, from their relation and ten- dency, matters of importance. In the article of dress, for instance, we know that the outward garb can make man internally neither better nor worse. Taken therefore in the abstract, dress is a thing indifferent. But living, as we do, in society, and in the view of others, we are not at liberty to be guided merely by the refinements of abstract reasoning. We are bound to consider what is required of us by that society, in which we are situated; and we are expected to bear it in our recollection, that even our outward appearance will have its weight, either to beneficial or injurious ends. If to a certain kind of dress, society has by long (and, if you please, fanciful) prejudice, annexed an idea of that gravity, which is suitable to persons engaged in the sacred ministry, every prudent man will yield to that pre- judice, and adopt what the public opinion has sanc- tioned. For that minister offends society, brings dis- respect on his order, and thereby weakens the general cause he has undertaken to support, who appears habited in apparel, which through usage is thought improper, and which occasions him to be censured as light, vain, ' and conceited. From dress, let us pass on to amusements. OF DEACONS AND PRIESTS. 161 There are many amusements, which, if they could be followed without danger of being made precedents for misapplication of them, would in themselves be innocent. But we know there are some, who, through pravity, avail themselves of the slightest encouragement for their own improprieties. Others there are, who, in their imprudence, cannot discriminate between times and places. Whenever our example, either through the misinterpretation of the corrupt, may be pleaded as an excuse for culpable excess, or, through want of judg- ment in the undiscerning, may be the cause of unsuit- able and unseasonable conduct, the innocency of our amusements, producing effects thus injurious to morals, becomes questionable, and it is highly expedient to desist from them. But far more questionable will become their inno- cency, and much greater will be the expediency of relinquishing our amusements, if we are assured the pursuit of them disgusts persons of tender conscience. It behoves every minister to be circumspect, and to be thoroughly acquainted with the sentiments and dispo- sition of those among whom he is placed. If he per- ceives worthy and pious people disturbed, that their minister is engaged in diversions which correspond not with their opinions of the decent demeanour required in him who is to be an example of regular and quiet deportment, he will show his good sense, his value for reputation, his regard for the credit of his order, and, above all, his Christian charity, by sacrificing his diver- sions to the higher consideration of not giving offence. T'rom a heathen moralist we may derive instruction ; from an inspired Apostle we receive command. The remarks which have been made on dress and amuse- ments, may properly be supported by the sentiments of Tully, and the precepts of St. Paul. <« That we M 162 A CHARGE BEFORE ORDINATION « should have a due respect for all men;” that ‘it “betrays not only arrogancy, but profligacy, to dis- « regard the judgment of the good ;” that ‘* decorum «particularly consists in that modesty which will not «“ give offence ;” are the sentiments of Tully. (Off. 1. 28.) ‘ Let no man seek his own, but every man ‘ another’s welfare.” (1 Cor. x. 24.) ‘* Whether ye ‘¢ eat, or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory « vy : a ne Sax iy * ys 7 at a * cas “, e io Whee J 2 Ps OP fe. alt BAAS ; i caves bas TeHL ee SHas ies “ iets A aM MOE aX ii CONTENTS. 1. The Apostles, early Fathers, and later eminent Divines were intent on correcting Errors in Religion. 2. The discordance of opinions among Protestants is not to to be charged on the Reformation of Religion in the British Empire. 3. The Reformers of our English Church drew up a Rule of Faith,” with the view of preserving Uniformity in Belief and Worship. 4. The several instances of departure from that rule will be noticed by the Clergy, who will adopt the best method of opposing Errors. 5. The Clergy will examine Books, which contain erroneous Doctrines. 6. Compared with some tenets now holden, the Doctrines even of Socinus might be commended. 7. Socinianism has been exchanged for a new species of Uni- tarianism. 8. The standard of that new species is considered. 9. It is impossible that the Clergy should adopt the Standard of modern Unitarianism. 10. The works and names are mentioned of some few, among the many Authors, who within the course of seven years last past, have maintained our received Doctrines, and who professedly have written against the Unitarian version of the New Testament. 11. Conclusion. 4 2 i a oe : a Py, « job vee ni ’ . igsich | AG Seu ai ie ot Ob | oth ig ot oi tiie Cont A ries att Ae x A CHARGE. REVEREND BRETHREN, 1. Wuen, obediently to the command received from our Lord*, the apostles had begun and pursued their ministry by making converts; still mindful of the solemn charge with which they were commissioned, they prosecuted their work by endeavouring to keep sound in the faith, those converts whom they had made. With a view to the former purpose, they delivered the plain truths of Christianity in their preaching : that they might secure the latter object, they combated errors by their corrective and admonitory writings. ‘Thus the elements of Christian religion, communicated in such manner and in such proportion as their respective au- diences were capable of bearing, form the subjects of dis- courses made by St. Peter and St. Paul, as recorded in the Acts. Against the strong prejudices of Judaizing ; . against the multifarious and heterogeneous conceits of philosophising Christians; more particularly against the Docetzx, the Cerinthians, and Nicolaitans, were evi- dently directed, in greater part, the apostolical epistles.t As the human mind has never ceased to be fertile of ivention, through successive periods of the Christian era have arisen different occasions, which from time to time have called on some of the clergy for mental exer- tions, superadded to those which they regularly em- * St. Matt. 28. 19, 20. + See Macknight’s Section 3. in Preface to 1st Ep. St. John. 188 A CHARGE DELIVERED IN ployed in the discharge of congregational and parochial duties. Novel opinions widely diffused were to be met as widely by seasonable confutations, in treatises rather composed for controversy in the world at large, than calculated for the edification of private devotional as- semblies. ‘Thence originated many valuable works of the now too much neglected Fathers, who were eminent advocates of our faith in the early centuries: and from the same causes proceeded the noble specimens of erudi- tion, thought, and reasoning, which were produced by — equally pious and able divines, in centuries not yet re- mote from the present. 2. Whatever may be the subject under consideration, it is a received axiom that we are not to argue from the misapplication and improper use of any circumstance. On the ground of this maxim, let us proceed to the case of religion. If in its essential nature, in its doc- trinal precepts, in its ritual ordinances, a religious sys- tem is upon the whole good ; in fairness and in candour no objection can be made to it, although contingently it may have given occasion for some effects confessedly undesirable, but nevertheless extrinsic from its primary design. ‘These remarks are meant as brief answers to persons of a certain communion, who criminate the re- formation of religion inthe British empire, and charge it with being responsible for that discordance of senti- ment, by which Protestants in these dominions are un- happily divided. However such discordance is to be lamented, yet it is not imputable to the Reformation ; for it never was in the view or in the contemplation of our original reformers, that great diversity of religious tenets and of religious worship should exist among re- formed Christians in our part of the world. That it does exist, is owing to those who have thought proper to exercise their religious liberty in a manner which THE DIOCESE OF GLOUCESTER, IN 1813. 189 they conceived to be more salutary than adherence to what was intended by the fathers of our English church. The light of reformation in the spiritual world, was like the effulgence of the sun breaking forth from a cloud which had obscured its orb in the physical world. It threw clearness on ways, which, for a long period, had been but dimly discerned ; even the ways by which Christians, with competent guides, might not only pro- ceed, but might see and understand how they proceeded, towards the attainment of truth and salvation. If, in the freedom of their will, some Christians have chosen either to be their own directors, or to adopt guides who would strike into new ways, ways never described nor proposed by our reformers ; the consequences, such as they are, must rest on the persons deviating from the course originally marked out by our Reformation ; and not on our Reformation itself, which never designed . such departure. 3. Societies, even of humble condition, prescribe to themselves certain principles on which to act, and cer- tain modes by which to proceed. They well know, that unless these preliminaries are settled and recognised for observance by all their members, there could be no ~ security either for general concurrence of sentiment on the outlines of the purpose for which they meet as cone stituted bodies, nor for general uniformity of conduct in transacting the concerns of their respective commu- nities. ollowing the dictates of ordinary prudence, and guided by the spirit of apostolical instructions, our reformers drew up a rule of faith and worship for the Protestants of this country. ‘The substance of that rule is virtually diffused through the several parts of our Liturgy; the sum of it is systematically arranged and comprised in our articles. 4. In preparing the rule of faith, our reformers 190 A CHARGE DELIVERED IN were directed by that sense of the Holy Scriptures, which had been received in the primitive and best days of the Christian exra. It is matter of regret, that de- flection from their rule is now carried to the utmost limit which can be admitted consistently with any thing like a religious profession denominating itself Christian. The language and opinions resulting from such deca- dence cannot escape the observation of the clergy. But it may require some exercise of discretion and judg- ment to decide on the method im which it may be most proper to notice such language and opinions. Between the sritalleotual aa material soil, in sack respects, there is close analogy. Quid queque ferat regio; quid queque recuset ; Nec vero terre ferre omnes omnia possunt; * will be remarks not less in the consideration of the judicious preacher, than of the experienced husbandman. If every spot of ground will not alike receive, to advan- tage, every species of grain; so neither is every audi- ence competent to enter into every subject of divinity. Though by no means on all occasions, yet at seasons by far the more frequent and numerous, you will pro- ' bably think it most advisable, because most edifying, to oppose error, not by express mention either of the error itself, or of those who maintain it, but by posi- tive and direct assertion of our own doctrines ; by proof of their conformity with Holy Scriptures ; by enforcing observance of them under gospel sanctions. Still, however, though on the one hand you may deem it un- suitable, that your churches should be made places for theological controversy, or that your congregations saath be perplexed with subtile enquiries ; yet, on the other hand, neither will your prudence nor your zeal * Virg. Geor. i. 53.—ii. 109, THE DIOCESE OF GLOUCESTER, IN 1813. 191 permit you to act with that unaccountable indifference, so marked and reprehensible in the clergy of Trance, antecedently to the late brutal and sacrilegious revolu- tion. ‘To speak in common phrase, they suffered their cause to be written down, before they put pen to paper. To convey the same remark in terms more ornamental, as men, and as ministers, they allowed their civil and religious existence to stand on the verge of annihilation, before they put forth any of those mental energies, which, if seasonably applied, might have retarded the progress of sceptical faction and of infidel democracy. Not thus supine, for their own perdition, will be the clergy of Great Britam and Ireland. ‘The manifold channels of public communication will not all be left open for the diffusion of wrong opinions. Minds ac- tive, enlightened, pious, will avail themselves of all fair and laudable opportunities, by which, to the miscon- ceptions of novelty they may oppose the long received and more just representation of Christian truths ; truths, - which, if not delivered in express words, are at least collected by unforced and obvious deductions from the books of the New Testament. 5. When we can apply our attention either to the Holy Scriptures themselves; or to commentaries and books of theology, which in sentiment concur with the explicit * declarations of St. John and St. Paul ; with the strongt confessions of St. Thomas and. St. Peter ; with the belief of all the Evangelists and Apostles ; with the practical and devout usage of the earliest Christians, the usage originating in the fullest convic- tion of our Lord’s divinity ; we find employment in the study of such writings to be far more satisfactory than occupation in any pursuit unconnected with religion. * In St. John, i. 1.— Rom. ix. 5. + St. John, xx, 28, — St. Matt. xvi, 16.— Acts, x. 36, 192 | A CHARGE DELIVERED IN And it is more satisfactory, because the works which we contemplate confirm our best hopes of those bless- ings, which, through the mercies of redemption, and the grace of sanctification, we humbly trust to enjoy in a future state. Gladly should we dwell on writings of that description only: but as we are devoted to the Lord, we must be zealous for the honour and glory of his name ; as we are bound to labour for the good of mankind, we must consider what may be for the great- est private and public benefit in the cause of religion. When, therefore, to the faith professed by ourselves, and not by ourselves alone, but by others also; by men more numerous than to be easily calculated ; by men distinguished for mental abilities and exemplary good- ness ; by men, amongst whom all neither were nor are members of our national church, but thousands, on account of circumstantials alone, have been and are un- connected with the Church of England ; when to the faith professed by them, by us, by the immediate disciples of the apostles, objection is attempted to be set up and encouraged, by the dissemination of writings either palpably incorrect or defective in principles ; the task of examining such writings is imposed on some of us as a duty attached to our function.* And if time, op- portunities, and other’ requisites will fairly admit, we must exercise our patience by making research, even where, at every turn, we shall meet with such impro- priety as will raise dissatisfaction, if not disgust. The prosecution of that design will necessarily lead us to explore those books, which would substitute erroneous for true doctrines. Not, indeed, all the books which * Marista rayrwy EJATELDOY ELYCLL O€b THY TOUT OY ayovoy Toy dsdacnely TOUS ardovg Auxovta. —— Chrysostom “De Sacerdotio,” lib, 4. p. 79. Ed. Paris, 1614. THE DIOCESE OF GLOUCESTER, IN 1813. 193 are published with that view, and with which the press is daily teeming. No perseverance could be equal to that task ; for in sort they are manifold, in luxuriance abundant ; “ Sed neque quam multe species, nec nomina que sint, Est numerus: neque enim numero comprendere refert : Quem qui scire velit, Libyci velit aquoris idem Discere quam multe zephyro turbantur arene.” # If possible, however, we must select what may be con- sidered as text books of opinions different from our own; whether such opinions have been maintained for some length of time, or whether in origin they are of date more recent. 6. We live in an age, when, strange to observe, on comparison of his doctrines with modern tenets, we must allow some degree of commendation even to So- cinus himself. For although misinterpretation of various passages, which for establishing right doctrines are of material consequence, induced him to exclude from his summary of Christian faith many essential articles; and although, in consequence of such exclusion, he has framed but a jejune and imperfect system; yet he has not so reduced it, as to make it contain little more than that the Author of our religion was highly distinguished by being endowed with supernatural powers; that after his crucifixion and burial, he rose from the dead; that a general resurrection of the human race, at some future period, will be the consequence of Christ’s resurrection. On the authority of St. Matthew, i. 20—23. and of St. Luke, i. 35. (a circumstance deserving particular notice), Socimus maintains the miraculous conception. t From 1 St. John, ii. 2. he thinks it evident Christ is * Virg. Georg. ii. 103. + See Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, vol. i. p- 654. Ed. Fol. 1656.-—“ Divini Spirittis vi conceptum ac formatum.” ) 194 A CHARGE DELIVERED IN considered as abiding with the Father.* From St. Matthew, xxviii. 18.—St. John, xiii. 3.— Eph. i. 20. he infers all power in heaven and in earth is given to our Lordt; one act of which will be exercised in raising us from the dead to a life of immortality. He asserts the dominion of our Lord to be over all angels, and all spirits, both good and bad; speaking of both as existing in real personality§, and describing both as respectively employed in good and evil actions. .He affirms, and proves there can be no doubt, that our Lord hears our prayers, beholds our deeds, and discerns our thoughts. || He is of opinion they are not Chris- tians, who attribute not these properties to Christ.4] He declares, in behalf of himself and those who think with him, “* We confess and adore one Lord, the Son of «¢ God.” ** And having contended that our Lord takes care of his disciples; that he is enabled to confer on them all things which they may want, for their more easy progress in their course begun, and for their attain- ment of eternal life; that therefore he is to his faithful servants ‘loco ipsius Dei,” and reigns in the church ‘‘ pro ipso Deo;” that consequently divine worship 1s to be shown, and acknowledgment of his power is to be made by us to our Lord, from whom we are to implore help in all those cases which are connected with his care and government of his faithful servants; having insisted on these points, Socinus concludes the passage * See Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, vol.i. p.165.— « Hic “ porro apud Joannem fit diserté mentio, quod Christus sit Conso- “ lator et Advocatus noster apud Patrem. Ex quibus verbis videtur “ posse omnino concludi, Eum considerari tanquam apud Patrem «“ manentem.” . + Ibid. p.281. { Ibid. p. 656. § See also ibid, p. 174. and 196. concerning the personality, and the sinfulness of the devil. | Ibid. 656. q Ibid.656. See Appendix. ** Vol. ii. p. 375. THE DIOCESE OF GLOUCESTER, IN 1813. 195 in terms more than commonly strong; for he adds, ‘‘ Without which show (of worship) and acknowledg- ‘“‘ment (of power), certain it is, that no one is even ‘¢ worthy of being called a Christian.” * 7. Seldom does transition advance so rapidly, as that from the beginning to the end of its course it should on no space be comparatively retarded. The strength of manhood subsides into the infirmity of retiring years, before it smks into the decrepitude of old age. The warmth of summer is chilled by autumnal blasts, before it is exchanged for the severity of winter. The light of day fades into the dusk of evening, before it is ob- scured by nocturnal darkness. These are emblems of gradual declination from the original faith of Christians since the period of the Reformationt: they first fell off into the defects and errors of Socinianism ; and thence precipitated into a system, which rejects the peculiarly Christian articles embraced by Socinus in commen with most believers; but admits every tenet holden by him, in opposition to more universal belief. The system, with propriety, has by some been deno- minated the ‘“* Humanitarian ;” but it will be better known by the appellation more frequently used, and therefore shall here be styled the «* Modern Unitarian.” 8. The doctrines of the «« Modern Unitarian System” may be collected from that standard of them entitled <¢ "The New Testament in an Improved Version, with ‘* a corrected ‘Text, and Notes Critical and Explanatory.” The distinguishing characteristics of that work appear to be the following ; — * Vol.i. p. 246. + Paul of Samosata was a YiravOperierys in the third century. For the sake of accuracy, therefore, we are obliged to say, “since the period of the Reformation.” OZ 196 A CHARGE DELIVERED IN 1. A most unwarrantable defiance of manuscriptural and other copies. 2. An excessive liberty in figurative exposition. 3. A determined purpose that the whole of the New Testament shall by compulsion be made to bend, till it can be brought into conformity with a set of pre-con- ceived opinions. 1. Its most unwarrantable defiance of manuscriptural and other copies disregards those critical axioms, which, on account of their propriety, are deemed legitimate by biblical and classical commentators and editors m ge- neral, and which therefore in determining judgment, and for producing acquiescence, are admitted as decisive. Axioms, for instance, framed in these words : — “‘ Lectio, ‘‘in qua vetuste recensiones cuncte primitus consen- ‘‘ serant, indubic vera est.” * —‘“ Est autem fides testibus ‘¢ habenda, si sint non solim idonei et graves, verum ‘‘ etiam inter se consentientes.”t If the majority of ‘«¢ manuscripts be great, the probability (1. e. of the true ‘‘ readings) increases in proportion.” +—<* Though no ‘¢ single manuscript can be regarded as a perfect copy «of the writings of the Apostles, yet the truth lies ‘< scattered in them all.’’§ The work, of which we are speaking, not only dis- regards the critical axioms, which have been laid down by others, and those too most strenuous advocates for unreserved examination ; but it renders nugatory some observations made in its own preliminary introduction. The observations are these : — * Griesbach’s “ Prolegomena,” Nov. Test. Sect. 3. p.Ixxix. Hae, + Ibid. p.Ixix. t+ Dr. Herbert Marsh’s Translation of an “Introduction to the “ New Testament,” by John David Michaelis, vol.i. p, 332. § Ibid. p. 264. THE DIOCESE OF GLOUCESTER, IN 1813. 197 «The canon of the New Testament is a collection “of books written by the Apostles, or by men who “were companions of the Apostles, and who wrote ‘* under their inspection.” * *« These books are called the canon, from a Greek ‘*‘ word, which signifies a Rule, because to a Christian ‘¢ they constitute the only proper and sufficient rule of ‘¢ faith and practice.” t After having been thus taught, and most correctly taught, that the books of the New Testament are the only proper and sufficient rule of faith, we naturally conclude they are to be received as genuine in all their parts; and that they are warranted as genuine from beginning to end, on the best and sole grounds of proof by which any composition, written either antecedently to the existence of ourselves and contemporaries, or remote from the actual sight of ourselves and contem- poraries, is capable of being proved genuine. We can- not therefore but be surprised, when in the very 2d page of the New Version, under St. Matthew, i. 16., and in the 120th page, under St. Luke, i. 4., we meet with remarks endeavouring to show, that passages of such length as to extend through whole chapters «are of “« doubtful authority,” even although (to use the express words of the notes) “ they are to be found in all ma- ‘‘ nuscripts and versions, which are now extant.” As these remarks are made in defiance of all manuscripts and versions, they can proceed on nothing but conjec- ture. Now, if conjecture be admitted to such a degree, as that it shall be allowed to invalidate the testimony of whole paragraphs at pleasure, by pronouncing them to be interpolations, there is an end of canon. Canon * Introduction to “The New Testament in an Improved Ver- “ sion,” p. Vv. + Ibid. p.vi. 198 A CHARGE DELIVERED IN must be a rule fixed. But if conjecture may virtually take away a part here, and a part there, evidently that which may be so mutilated and so diminished at the option of surmise, cannot be a rule fixed. Thus the remarks, in effect, destroy what the preliminary observ- ations meant to establish, and leave us without a canon of the New Testament. When passages occur in but few manuscripts, and those not of the highest character, hesitation about re- ceiving them into the text is unquestionably allowable. But to the implied principle, in which those remarks originated, viz. ‘ that although passages are found in ‘all manuscripts and in all versions, we may never- «theless pronounce them to be interpolations;” to such a principle we must object strongly ; because the admission and application of it would im their con- sequences be pernicious to the cause of literature; per- nicious to social life; pernicious to the complete rec- titude of Christian faith. The admission and application of that principle would be no less pernicious to the cause of literature, than were the fury of Antiochus Epiphanes*, and the fanaticism of the Caliph Omart; or than would have been the strange fancy of the paradoxical Hardouin}, if it had met with encouragement, and had been re- ceived with approbation. The principle would not, * See “ The Old and New Testament Connected,” by Dean Prideaux. Part II. vol.iii. p. 258. Ed. 1749. + Ibid. p. 23. + Qui id (sc. Poema Jobi) infra captivitatem Babylonicam de- primunt, non multo sanius in Hebraicis judicare videantur, quam in Latinis Harpurnus; qui aurea Virgilii, Horatii ceeterorumque Poemata ferreis Monachorum sezculis adscripsit.— Bp. Lowth’s «“ De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum Prelectiones.” Not. p. 426. Ed. 1775, THE DIOCESE OF GLOUCESTER, IN 1813. 199 indeed, go entirely to destroy the existence of them ; but it would annul the utility of all manuscripts, and of all copies anterior to the present generation, by render- ing them ineffectual towards proving the originality and authenticity of any work, whether sacred or profane ; and thus, in that instance, would operate fatally as destruction itself. For, if perfect agreement of all manuscripts and versions will not demonstrate a com- position to be original and authentic; if in defiance of all manuscripts and of all versions, we may say, “ this ‘is an interpolation,” and ‘“ that is an interpolation,” such manuscripts and versions can be of no value for ascertaining what were or were not the writings of the ancients. Consequently, the destruction of them could not be more injurious to the cause of literature, than their being suffered to remain, if, notwithstanding their preservation, they are yet to guide our researches no further than mere option shall choose to grant. The admission and application of that principle would be pernicious to social life. For if, in contradiction to all the best written evidence which can be adduced, we are at liberty to affirm documents are corrupted by inter- polations, in cases the most serious, and in writings the most sacred within our knowledge, we may assume the same liberty on occasions of less moment, and in writings of less consequence ; in letters, for instance, or wills, or charters. Thus society would lose that certain dependence with which it now relies on divers modes of accurate information, where it cannot have personal evidence ; and by that loss would be reduced to a situation of general mistrust, in which men would believe nothing but what themselves or contemporaries had heard, seen, and attested personally ; a situation which would create perplexities so innumerable, that O 4 200 A CHARGE DELIVERED IN the business of the world could not proceed under them. The adinission and application of that principle would be pernicious to the complete rectitude of Christian Faith. For, it would leave us all free to imitate the Marcionites* and Ebionitest of old ; we might fashion the Gospel each according to his own pleasure; we might allow the credibility of no other facts, and ac- knowledge the obligation of no other doctrines than of those only which should coincide with our own self-will ; we might exclude many facts which stand recorded, and reject many doctrines which are inculcated through- out the whole of the New Testament, but are not cal- culated to flatter our prejudices, either intellectual or moral. | It is the part of prudence to be on its guard, and to be ready prepared with antidotes to evils worse than physical, even those of the understanding and mind.. If a morbid fear of believing too much would impel us to the rejection of what is authenticated by universality of concurrent proof; let us remember it may be counter- acted by the language of more sound and more just thought, speaking to this effect : — ‘‘ Bene tamen est, ‘quod multi antiqui codices scripti servati sunt, paula- ‘‘ timque eruti e Bibliothecis, per quos integer ad nos ‘‘ textus authenticus venit.”+ Ifthe same disordered ap- prehension should create propensity to innovate, by changing what- has been substantiated for something * See “ A new and full Method of settling the Canonical Au- thority of the New Testament ;” by Rev. Jeremiah Jones. Vol. i. p- 264. Ed. 1798, + Ibid. p.310. t See p. 165. of “Ioannis Augusti Ernesti Institutio Interpretis « Novi Testamenti;” Fourth Edition, with Notes by Ammon; Leipsic, 1792. THE DIOCESE OF GLOUCESTER, IN 1813. 201 which can be but fanciful; let us recollect that mis- chievous inclination may be repressed by the critical axiom, which even Griesbach prescribed to himself as a law :—<* Nil mutetur e conjectura; nil sine testium, ‘*‘ nempe codicum, versionum, patrum, auctoritate.” * Returning to the work, which is called «* The New ‘Testament in an Improved Version,” we may proceed to observe, | A second characteristic of that work is, an excessive liberty in figurative exposition. Serious enquiry cannot but discover, that if the aid of imagination be taken away, the system and its standard, like a baseless fabric, must sink into rus. It has commonly been conceived, that the Evangelists meant to give a compendious his- torical account of some extraordinary facts, with which should be interwoven the peculiar doctrines of the prin- cipal person concerned in those transactions. Certain it is, that in the early periods of the Christian era, both those who embraced, and those who did not embrace the new religion, understood the writings of the Evangelists, in the plain sense which their words would convey to hearers or readers, who, having been accustomed to Oriental diction, knew what allowance was to be made for figurative language. Certain also it is, that on the ground of those facts and doctrines, which the Evan- * Prolegomena Nov. Test. Griesbach. p Ixxxiii. vol.i.— In having restrained himself by that rule, Griesbach shewed his candour, and so far is to be commended. Most earnestly, however, it is to be wished, that he had also imposed on himself more cautious for- bearance in rejecting precedents and authorities of high character. He had then given a text more entitled to reception, than that which appears in his second Edition of the Greek Testament; a work exceptionable, and by no means to be recommended for general use. 202 A CHARGE DELIVERED IN gelists recorded, Justin Martyr, in the name of himself and of other believers, declares, ‘* We adore and worship «« Him (2 e. God the Father) and the Son who came ‘from Him; and the Prophetic Spirit.” * Athena- goras vindicates himself and other Christians, affirming they ‘ acknowledged God the Father, and God the “© Son, and the Holy Spirit, explaining both their ‘«¢ Power in Unity, and their Distinction in Order.” t Tertullian asks, ** Que est substantia Novi Testamenti, ** statuens legem et prophetas usque ad Ioannem, si non ‘“‘exinde Pater, Filius, et Spiritus, tres crediti unum ‘*¢ Deum sistunt?” + The testimony of Pliny, concerning the Christians in his time, 7. e. in “ the 65th or 66th ‘‘ year after our Lord’s ascension §,” proves “ Quod ‘‘ essent soliti stato die convenire, carmenque Christo ** quasi Deo dicere secum invicem.” These extracts are laid before you, with the design of demonstrating, that long antecedently to the Council of Nice,, the Evangelists were understood as intending to speak of realities, when they mentioned the most distinguishing and marked circumstances which related to Christ, whether in describing his whole character, or in setting forth the doctrines delivered by Him. For, nothing but conviction, that realities in those circumstances were meant by the Evangelists, could have induced the pri- * Exesvoy re nas Toy tap avrov Tiov, Ivevua tre ro mpopytimoy cebousba nar mporxuvotmey. — Just. Mart. Apol. 1. c.6. as quoted in the Latin Edition of Archdeacon Welchman’s Work on the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 13. Ed. 1793. + Tic ovy ovx ay ATOpyT as, Aeyovras Oeoy marepa, nxt Tiov coy nas IIvevpa ciytoy, OeuvuyTas avTWY nas THY EY TY EYwTEL DUVApLY, KEL THY EV ty Taber due aipEeriv, anovTas aBeous naroumevoug. — Athenagoras, ibid. p- 14. { Ibid. p. 15. § See p. 507. of “ The Truth of the Gospel shewed ;”’ by James Macknight, D. D. THE DIOCESE OF GLOUCESTER, IN 1813. 203 mitive converts to build on them principles, which not in a subordinate, but in the highest degree, were deemed essential. In contradiction, however, to those prin- ciples, and to the idea of realities, on which the tenets of the primitive Christians were founded, the notes sub- joined to the New Version are so directly pointed, and are thence so calculated to mislead from substance to shadow, that they compel us to ask, ‘* When we are ‘‘ reading the Gospels, are we reading historical nar- ‘‘ ratives? or are we reading a continued series of alle- ‘‘ gory, or of metonymy, or of metaphor?” The notes* tell you, ‘‘ Satan is the personification of the ‘‘ principle of opposition—the principle of moral evil ‘‘ personified.” The Holy Spirit, into the worship of which we are initiated by our baptismal form, according to them t, means only confirmation of our religion « by ‘« the gifts of the Holy Spirit,” and does not imply «a ‘« distinct personal existence.” In perfect correspond- ence with which assertion, when they explain the text where St. Paul tells the Corinthians, the Spirit divides miraculous operations, imparting to each person “ seve- “rally as He willeth ;” they say, ‘ Divine inspir- ‘‘ ation is here personified.” + Yet, in three verses of the very same chapter §, “The Spirit, Lord, God,” are so expressly introduced, that Markland points out the passage for particular notice in these words, ‘ Observe ‘“‘the distinct mention of the three Persons in the «Trinity in these three verses.’ || The pre-existence of our Lord, in divine nature, antecedently to Abraham, * P. 166. under St. Luke, xiii. 16.— p. 229. under St. John, viii. 44 — See also p. 245. under St. John, xiii, 27. + P.’73. under St. Matt. xxviii. 19. f{ P.395. under 1 Cor. xii. 11. § 1 Cor. xii. 4, 5, 6, || Markland’s Observation is in p. 338. of “ Critical Conjectures “ on the New Testament ;” by W. Bowyer. Ed. 4to. in 1782. 204 A CHARGE DELIVERED IN is interpreted to be only, that our Lord “ was desig- nated to his office before Abraham was born.” * And the emphatical declaration, ‘‘ Before Abraham was, I am,”’ by a degrading construction, is brought down to mean no more than that our Lord’s mission was settled and certain before the birth of Abraham.’’t— * O quot «*« Alembicis opus fuerit, ad hanc sententiam ex textu ‘«* verborum Christi plano et perspicuo eliciendam!’? + In these and similar modes of exposition, however inge- nious may be the refinement, it is nevertheless no more consistent with Gospel History, than the hypothesis either of those who contended there was nothing mate- rial, or of those who maintained every thing, to the exclusion of mind, was throughout the universe all material, could be according to the nature of inanimate or animate existence, of irrational or rational being. Each case exhibits instances tending to demonstrate, that if in philosophical and theological researches we deviate from common sense corrected by well-informed understanding, and guided by the exercise of sober judgment ; and if we choose rather to follow the wan- * P.230. of the New Version, under St. John, viii. 58. + Ibid. under St. John, viii. 59. { This is the exclamation of Glassius, when he is commenting on the Socinian interpretation of St. John, viii. 59. To the words quoted he adds, “Certé neque xara rch, neque xara Yavuay in “illo (sententia) extat. Et si Scripturam ita orge6aoty volupe est, “quis in illé nativam suam integritatem et perspicuitatem re- “ tinebit?” The Socinian interpretation is, ‘“ Before Abraham “can become the father of many nations, I am your Christ and ‘* Saviour.” Glassius proves this construction to be reconcileable neither with the time implied by the verbs ; nor with the manner in which the words are connected; nor with the meaning of the expressions. — See p. 429. and three following, in the work entitled “ Philologiz Sacre Libri Quinque,” by Glassius. THE DIOCESE OF GLOUCESTER, IN 1813. 205 derings of imagination ; it is impossible to foresee the conclusions, in which our pursuits may terminate. A third characteristic of the work, to which we have been adverting, is a determined purpose that the whole of the New Testament shall by compulsion be made to bend, till it can be brought into conformity with a set of preconceived opinions. With the view and in the hope of accomplishing this purpose, it proceeds by the following means : * — By giving to conjecture a degree of authority which can belong ron to manuscripts. By ricttind figure instead of admitting that reality which the text ACE indicates. By assuming there is an ellipsis, where it does not exist; and then, in order to supply the imaginary omission, by introducing words in a manner so forced, as to violate all rules of interpretation. By distorting words from their plain meaning. By so interpreting and so commenting, as if it were true that the same word must always have the same force in its import, and.that the same phrase must always express the same meaning ; whereas it is well known, that the import of a word will often be more or less strong and emphatical, according to the time, place, and occasion in which it is used; and the sense in which the same phrase is to be understood in different passages, can frequently be collected only from the tenor of the context in which the phrase is interwoven. By abbreviation of time, and by limitation of action, where neither is warranted. By contradicting the scope of the Old Testament in its sacrificial appointments and prophetic declarations ; and also the whole purport of the New Testament, * For proofs, see Appendix. 206 A CHARGE DELIVERED IN which .is expressed as literally as can be spoken by language, concerning the atonement.* 9. Such, on examination, appears to be the standard of the modern Unitarian system ; a work which might be said to unevangelise the Gospel, if indeed the New Version and its notes were allowed to be in all parts correct. But, before we of the clerical order can make that concession, we must experience a strange revolu- tion in our habits and in our minds. For we must not only discard our Liturgy, which is a most invaluable and practical comment on the New ‘Testament; we must not only reverse the ideas, which the use and authority of past ages have affixed to words im the original texts, and in the most approved translations of Scripture ; we must not only reject the received modes of analysing a sentence, but we must forget the grounds on which Julian and Celsus objected to Christianity ; we must forget the occasion on which St. John wrote the introduction of his Gospel against the Gnosticst and their xons; we must forget that the very cause which stimulated the Jewish Sanhedrim to be earnest for his death, was Christ’s asserting the divinity of his Naturet; we must forget that Isaiah, in predicting the extraordinary advent of the Messiah, and in describing * See Bp. Butler’s “ Analogy ;” Part II. ch.v. s.6. p.298— 306. Ed.1771. + His omnibus occurrendum videbat Joannes, ne post futura etas incerto opinionum fluctuaret ; preecipué vero Gnosticis, qui inter suos /Honas nominabant Asya, item Zwoy, item Movoyevy et Lwrnpa — et alium rursus dicebant esse Mundi Opificem, alium Christum, alium Jesum. Ostendit ergo Joannes omnes istos titulos uni eidemque Jesu Christo congruere.” — Pol. Synops. Procem. Evang. S. Joannis. { Compare St. Matt. xxvi. 65, 66. — St. Mark, xiv. 63, 64. — St. John, xix. 7. THE DIOCESE OF GLOUCESTER, IN 1813. 207 his character, first calls Him “ Immanuel* ;” and then denominates Him “ Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty “God.” Prepared, indeed, must that person be to give gold for brasst, and silver for drosst ; to take a coarse daubing for a fine original picture, or a dead corpse for an animated body, who would change our received translation of the New Testament, and our Liturgy which contains a summary of its doctrines, for a work in its principles so scanty, cold, and cheerless; a work which would leave us with no Sacrifice atoning for our sins ; with no Holy Spirit, who, if we earnestly sup- plicate Him, will direct us in the perplexities of our minds, will comfort us in the anguish of our souls ; with no Advocate, who will make our imperfect prayers acceptable to the Almighty ; with no Lord, to whom we may cry for help, m the time when we need . support under difficult trials$; with no confidence that although our bodies will die, yet our souls will continue to retain the powers of sense, thought, and activity ; with no prospect but that body and soul shall lie dormant, till the final period of general. resurrection. | * Isaiah, vii. 14.— ix. 5. See Bp. Lowth’s notes on those pas- sages, annexed to his New Translation of Isaiah. + Il. 6. 236. Xpucex yournewoy. _ / Isaiah, 1. 22. § The note subjoined to 2 Cor. xii. 8. in the New Version, denies that the example of St. Paul can authorise us in praying to Christ. To the same effect isthe note on Acts, vii. 59., on which passage, observable are the words of Markland: “It is so far from “‘ being necessary to understand @es after exmadouuevoy, that it is “‘ quite contrary to Stephen’s intention, which was to die a martyr “ to the divinity of Christ. So that it is him only he invokes, as if «it had been written ETLXAAOUILEVOY (roy Kupsoy Tycovy) “ab NEyovtTa, Kupse “ Iycov, debas, &c., calling upon the Lord Jesus, and saying, Lord “ Jesus, receive my spirit.” — Bowyer’s Conjectures. || The notes on Philip. i. 21. and 1 Thess. iv. 18. in the New Version, suggest no other expectation. 208 A CHARGE DELIVERED IN — Yet scanty, cold, and cheerless as are the principles of this standard and system, they have proved in- jurious ; for they encourage means, by which to ex- clude from common readers the peculiar doctrines of Christianity. The truth of this assertion will suffi- ciently appear from a single instance. We are all well acquainted with what in its genuine substance was an edifying book, «« The Great Importance of a Religious « Life.’ The third chapter of it dwelt particularly on the redemption of mankind by the Son of God* ; whom it describes as the propitiation for our sins; and whom it sets forth as the object of devout praise m a state of eternity. Zeal for proselytism has stooped so low as to take that book in hand ; by exenteration to pluck from it all the contents which in a distinguished manner were Christian; and then, under the title which it first boret, to throw it again into the world devoid of its Christian doctrines, like an empty casket plundered : of its jewels. Surely such a procedure will justify an intimation that vigilance against error must still be exerted. 10. Continuance of such exertion will prosecute the good work in which men of erudition and _ research, of perspicacity and judgment, of faith and conscience in the sight of their God and Saviour, have successively been engaged. Thanks be to God! His gracious Providence has never left us destitute of circumstances favourable in- their nature and tendency. If, within the course of some few years past, endeavours have been used to mistate the doctrines of Christian _relli- * In the Thirty-first Edition. — See p. 84. 93. 76. + For a minute statement of the several parts in which Mr. Melmoth’s original work has been altered by the modern Uni- tarian editor, we are indebted to the “ British Critic” for January, 1813. — See p. 48. THE DIOCESE OF GLOUCESTER, IN 1813. 209 gion; for our consolation and joy, within the same period, supporters of the Gospel and of Gospel truths’ have intrepidly stood forth and victoriously combated the writings of misrepresentation. This remark might be verified by appeal to many Works produced in the present century. Propriety, however, suggests, that we should confine ourselves to those only, the contents of which are immediately applicable to the subjects just considered, tending as they do either to confirm right opinions, or to correct mistaken sentiments of religion. Under such description will come the following works : “« A Collection of Evidences for the Divinity of our ‘‘ Lord,” by Mr. Freston.* «* Certain Principles ex- ‘‘ amined, in Eight Discourses,” by Mr. Falconer. The second, third, fourth, sixth, ninth, and eighteenth sec- tions of «* An Address to his Parishioners,” by Dr. Valpy. ‘* Critical Reflections upon the important ‘* Misrepresentations contained in the Unitarian Ver- ‘* sion of the New Testament,” by Dr. Laurence. The third edition of ‘ Discourses on the Scriptural Doc- “trines of Atonement and Sacrifice,” by Dr. Magee. «¢ Animadversions on the Unitarian Translation of the «« New Testament,” by Mr. Rennell. « Remarks on ‘‘ the Version of the New Testament lately edited,” by Mr. Nares. ‘To the authors of those Works are due, and are now made, our grateful acknowledgments for their seasonable labours ; by which strength is given to our former Rei astone increase is added to the knowledge before acquired ; and from their being placed in points of view, under which they had not hitherto commonly appeared, many subjects now engage our * These discourses expose the contradictions, the unphiloso- phical requisitions, the unwarrantable assumptions, in Mr. Evanson’s “ Dissonance of the Four Evangelists.” See p. 22. 57. 81. 87. 90, 146, 210. of the “ Discourses,” on those several points. P 210 A CHARGE DELIVERED IN attention, which heretofore were not so accurately noticed. 11. Encouraging is the retrospect on those writers. And why should we doubt that others of a similar kind will assist our cause, as occasion may require? ‘The fountains of our education are still pure. ‘The clergy of the United Kingdom are still earnest and learned. In the highest degree of estimation are still holden the works of Hooker, Chillingworth, Hammond, Stilling- fleet, Barrow; of Pearson, Bull, Sherlock, Butler, Wake, Secker. These are circumstances which indicate the prevalence of right taste, and of right principles in those sources of philology and religion from which, with reason, we may hope will proceed a copious supply of ability well qualified, and of resolution determined to maintain the cause of truth. And as the sentiments of the heart will find corresponding utterance, when that is dishonoured which we should hold in most sacred veneration, even the name of the Lord our Redeemer, most high in the glory of God the Father! * we may confidently expect there never will be wanting defenders of our received doctrines, received by us of the present age; by the fathers of the English church at the period of the Reformation; by the primitive Christians of highest antiquity; because consonant with the sub- stance of all the apostolical epistles ; because inculcated by that most extraordinary convert and preacher St. Paul, who expressly styles Christ, ‘ over all, God blessed for ever!” + received, because warranted by the more than usually grand introduction of St. John’s gospel; received, because conformable with our Lord’s declaration of the Divine purpose, “that all men * « Gloria in Excelsis,” in the Communion Service. + Rom. ix. 5. THE DIOCESE OF GLOUCESTER, IN 1813. 21] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father * ;” received, because deducible from the very words by which at our baptism we devoted ourselves to the acknowledgment and religious worship of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. To that Trinity in Divine power, and Unity in Divine nature, may we never cease to render praise in the language of our ac- customed doxology. But retaining the usage, and per- petuating the sentiments of the ancient churcht, with all the humility and with all the gratitude which be- come Christians who are blessed with creation, redemp- tion, and sanctification, ‘‘to the Father, and to the Son, “and to the Holy Ghost,” let us steadfastly perse- vere in ascribing “ glory.” t * St. John, v. 23. + See Dr.Comber’s “Companion to the Temple,” p. 71. Fol. Ed. 1688.— Mr. Shepherd’s “ Critical and Practical Elucidation “ of the Morning and Evening Prayer,” p. 101. Ed. 1796. { “ Baptising, we use the name of the Father, of the Son, and of “ the Holy Ghost: confessing the Christian Faith, we declare our “belief in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost: “ascribing glory unto God, we give it to the Father, and to the “ Son, and to the Holy Ghost. It is arodekic tov opBov Ppovnuatos, “ the token of a true and sound understanding for matter of doctrine “about the Trinity, when, in ministering baptism, and making “ confession, and giving glory, there is a conjunction of all three, “and no one of the three severed from the other two.” — Hooker’s ** Ecclesiastical Polity,” p. 246. Fol. Ed. 1682. Book v. s. 42. sidtoerbe! | hath Poh & ake we vation ‘ein ie ist vay dt i inte ok 342 ik 138 . e te iy fit eek f . ey as Basha: nat (eiadagemane abit ary oka He stern he cece Hit tigi EAE Pr: tat mis ae sitar feinea tesenat & ire ahi ft eiiwite Mh eh a “hee Pedr on hie it iak atten iro aafittor i Agb ahora 7 ra ; ud say i 4 Le is a Se te eet See tere te ee 4a. ; f cok Hfambsols as Jel seouede io bbe oeh ii rai Pek. Bio ae . ou , oe #7 Es ak 7 + - ee "EG 7 Te 5 % Yaw 5 . aH ieee TS ¥: ive ethics" re of cy (ou : ee 2 ee ee ee ee ig . tet ’ “a, Ja - rs % A at 4 fi AeA Lad e. ne @7 a fa +5 of aa ' vi aid ss i A os : 4 ‘E) Pe a Loe 7 i y : i é a. Ned a , C5 bs Spee iit Reig se ET Perec eae Ly Se sasha ie nee "in tot Aen Salyntyt ak og < aOlAe(iO RN 2 eats ris ag Rea me sgn Disihh wey ait F aR fpigind aie hatte: Otte WL 88 ao a: OO LE Duk SOL a: TOY a 4, ts itt, py, E “hii ; niyo aS " } 15 NG ra acy My ote sit % ‘ima rie och gant eh ¢ peri haee ae = A, “go gialsed Sir, shiek ol ality Odd dallas tishgk ¢ Epod- geht ho? ? are . oe a Per lsts lok ath at Ban fee ‘tlhe th Bietge istierh, ee ahi te 7. ati, iho oF Daa: “3 Binh a i ob i arith ait hoy Posie, eis q: . a z ay yey ye 2 ta al BS er (i loth, oil ei % ene AS eae 3) 4 sy: ee x oS Bir, » ei a a * ey Hs ath a aa 7adiG ‘oh ‘ae i are es Ae as Joti #20 es jot ad {i igalg ‘ at ¥ ee ‘ ) aE Mee bs i e ah _—. Ad) + 5 aan ‘Et ates Mig Vo 3 ; hay - ue ey ae) | Pp es APPENDIX. P. 194. our Lord hears our prayers. ] Interrog. Quid de exauditione precum, deque non modo actionum sed cogitationum nostrarum cognitione statuis? annon his preeditum Jesum Christum esse censes ? Respon. Nihil hic dubii esse potest. Quomodo enim sine his nos regere ac gubernare posset, et nostri curam habere ? Interrog. Quid igitur censes de iis, qui ista Christo non tribuunt ? Respon. Censeo, illos non esse Christianos, quippe qui re ipsa Christum non habeant, et Jesum esse Christum licet fortasse aperté verbis non audeant, re tamen ipsa omnino negent. — Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, vol. i. p. 656. P. ib. We confess and adore.| Unum Deum Patrem omnis principii atque originis expertem, et unum Dominum Dei filium, hominem illum Jesum Nazargzenum crucifixum et re- suscitatum confitemur, et adoramus. — Bibl. Fratr. Polon. vol. ii. p. 375. | P. ib. that our Lord takes care.) Ceeterdm, quod dixi- mus de recté ac plené hoc intelligendo, quod Jesus habeat potestatem nobis zeternam vitam dandi, significat, debere non tantum agnosci, preeter id, quod doctrina Christi ejusmodi sit, ut, si quis secundum illam vivat, vitam seternam sit habiturus, Jesum illo ultimo die suscitaturum a mortuis suos fideles, et transformaturum corpora nostra vilia, ut sint conformia cor- pori illius glorioso; sed etiam, nunc perpetud habere curam P 8 Q14 APPENDIX. omnium suorum, omniaque illis posse largiri ac suppeditare, quibus indigeant, quo facilius possint in coepto cursu pergere ac perseverare, et tandem vitam zeternam adipisci: id quod Christum habere agnosci nequit, quin simul agnoscatur, illum esse suis fidelibus per totum hunc cursum, usque ad ipsum judicii digne loco ipsius Dei, et pro ipso Deo in Ecclesia regnare; et inde necessarid consequitur et cultus divini ex- hibitio et agnitio potestatis implorando ipsius Jesu opem in iis omnibus, ubi habeatur ratio curee ac gubernationis praedicte, quam Jesus suorum fidelium habeat, SINE QUA EXHIBITIONE ET AGNITIONE CERTUM EST, NEMINEM VEL DIGNUM QUIDEM ESSE, QUI CHRISTIANUS APPELLETUR. — Bibl. Fratr. Polon. vol. i. p. 245. P. 205. means.] That the work entitled the ** New Testa- ment in an improved Version,” resorts to the several means stated in p. 205. will appear on reference to the passages men- tioned under the seven heads immediately subsequent. 1. By giving to conjecture, dc.] See p.2. note under St. Matt. i. 16. — and p. 120. note under St. Luke, i. 4. 2. By substituting figure, §c.] See p. 73. note on St. Matt. XXvili. 19.—p. 166. note on St. Luke, xi. 16.—p. 276. note on Acts, v. 3.— p. 343. note on Rom. i. 4. — p. 395. note on 1 Cor. xii, 11. 3. By assuming, §c.] See p. 201. Version of St. John, i. 10. The version of this passage, and the note subjoined, are ex- traordinary. The version is, “ the world was enlightened by him.” The note maintains the propriety of this version ; first, by asserting that in the New Testament the word eyevero never bears the sense of creating ; secondly, by com- paring St. John, i. 10. with St. John, i. 6. and with St. Matt. xxiii. 15. On which two points we may thus remark, Ist; Although the second aorist of yivoucs is not found in the New Testament with the signification of creating, yet another tense of that verb is so used. In his epistle to the Hebrews, xi. 3., St. Paul alludes to that primary cause, the Divine command, which called the universe into existence. He describes the effect of that command to have been «s¢ to wy ex Caswopevay ta BAsmopeve yeyovevat. "The scope of the Apostle’s subject, and the most natural mode of interpretation, lead us APPENDIX. 215 to render yeyovevas by the term created or made. ‘The infer- ence is, if any one tense of yivouas may be used with the sig- nification of creating, zyevzro may be so used. 2dly, St. John was warranted in using eyevsto with that sig- nification ; for Josephus, his contemporary, adopts ysvo#as in the same acceptation. That historian, in his chapter on cos- mogony, has these sentences; yever$as gus exeAsurev 6 Osos. Lib. I. ci. s. 1. Kas. roy xoopov ev && rag Tauris NpEpatss Mwiions xai mavra ta ev avtw gyor yeverbas. Ibid. When he comes to the mention of Adam and Eve, he says, ‘O 8 av§pw- mos ovtTos Adamos exandyt onwaiver be ToUTO, xaTa yAwTTay TyHY “E6pasmy, [lupsoc, emelonmep amo THs ubbas yys Pupabesons evyeryover. Ibid. s. 2. Kas 6 Adapos moocanberay aurny eyympioey e& ExvTou yevowevyy. Ibid. If a writer, so respectable as Josephus, would use yivoucs to express creation, no reason can be as- signed why St. John should not use the same word for the same purpose. 3dly, St. John was not only warranted, but there was pecu- liar propriety in his using ysvoucs to express creation. Itis one of the very words used in a work with which the Evangelists and Apostles were conversant; the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament.* The first book of the Pentateuch de- rives its name Isveors from yivouas. Some part of that verb, in the sense of creating or making, occurs often in the first chapter of Genesis, e.g. Kas esmev 6 Osos, yerybytwm Gus xa eyeveTo Gus, V. 3.—yevndntw otepewua ev wecw Tov W0aTos, V. G.— yevnintooay PwoTypss ev TH TTEpewuats Tov ovpavov, v.14. ‘Thus we see yivou.as, in the sense of creation, was of scriptural usage. And as St. John was describing the very same creation which is described by the Septuagint, he could have adopted no term, for that purpose, with greater propriety, than the term adopted in the Septuagint. 4thly, That in St. Matt. xxiii. 15. the word mpocyauros must be understood after yevyras is, indeed, true. But between the * The Evangelists, we may presume, chose rather to follow in general that common version, against which the Jews had then nothing to object, and for which the first converts had a high veneration. — P. 7. of “ The Modes of Quotation,” by Dr. Owen. Vie 216 APPENDIX. ellipsis in that passage, and the imaginary ellipsis in St. John, i. 10., there is this material difference. The supplying of the former from zpocyAvtoy, which is so near yevytas, must be obvious to any scholar of the plainest understanding. Whereas, the proposed insertion of regwricpmevos after yevytas in v. 10. is so little ao xoivov, is so very remote from ordinary usage, that the conception of it could enter only into a mind more than commonly inventive and studious of novelty. 5thly, Ifit could be allowed that in v. 10. regwriopevos ought to be understood after yevyrai, then, indeed, the mode of in- terpreting v.10. and v.6. should be the same. But it is utterly impossible to admit wegwriopevos into v.10. ‘The in- sertion of it is neither necessary nor proper. Not necessary, because the affirmative proposition 6 xocpos 6” autou eyeveTo IS in itself equally complete as the affirmative proposition mavra — 8” avrov eyeveto inv. 3. Lersner speaks of “ Fictee Ellipses.” He explains his meaning thus: “ Ellipses autem fictas voco, quum vocabula dicuntur omissa esse, quae ad plenam oratio- nem, senstsque Integritatem non sunt necessaria.” Preef. to Lampert Bos. Ed. 7. Under that description falls’ the imaginary ellipsis of tefwricpevos in v. 10. But, moreover, the insertion of that word in v.10. would be improper, with a view both to analysis and subject. ‘To analysis, because, between ¢wrife in v. 9. and eyevero in Vv. 10. intervenes the clause ev rw xocuw yy, “ He,” (for avroy at the end of v. 10. by its gender proves that yy refers to the Aoyos, and not to ¢ws,) “* He was in the world.” Now the introduction of this clause is not in any such manner as can indicate that suspension of thought between ¢wrié=1 and eyevero, which we commonly understand when a passage is merely parenthetical. It has all the requisites which can constitute the commencing clause of a new sentence, proceeding to farther progress in the series of description. Being of such a nature, it stands as an insuperable impediment to any reference from eyevero in v. 10. to gwriZes in v. 9. The insertion of wegwricwevos after eyevero in v. 10. would be improper with a view to subject. For the effects of such insertion would be, to resume an idea from which the mind of the evangelist had passed, and to exclude a new idea, APPENDIX. pA by a which his mind had entered. In v. 9. he meant to assert, in opposition to Cerinthus, that Christ, and not either any fon, or John the Baptist, was the ‘** True Light;” and that by Christ were made communications of religious know- ledge to the human race. Having finished that description of Christ, the evangelist, in v. 10. proceeds to oppose Cerinthus on another ground. He asserts that Christ, and not any inferior spirit, by Cerin- thus called Aymiouvpyos, was the Creator of the world. According then to our received, which is in fact the right, translation of v. 9. and 10. the evangelist sets forth the dignity of Christ under a twofold character, viz. that of a spiritual Illuminator; and that of an efficient Creator. But if regwric- wevos is to be obtruded on us in vy. 10., the latter character will be superseded, and a very material doctrine of the evan- gelists, in opposition to the tenets of Cerinthus, will lose the support which is given to it by a just interpretation of v. 10. On account of that important circumstance, and also because the idea of forcing tz¢wticmevos into v.10. is not only far- fetched, but also repugnant to the most simple and legitimate modes of analysis and interpretation; the version, and the manner of supplying the imaginary ellipsis in v. 10., must be rejected as innovations unwarrantable. 4. By distorting, &c.] See p. 81. note on St. Mark, iii. 29. —p. 200. Notes on St. John, i. 1, 2, 3. —p. 234. Version of St. John, x. 18. and note. — p. 252. Note on St. John, xvii. 5. —p. 345. Version of Rom.i. 20. — p. 359. Note on Rom. vill. 34, —p.421. Note on 2 Cor. ii. 14.— p. 426. Note on 2 Cor. xill. 14. — p. 433. Note on Gal. iv. 4. — p. 440. Note on Eph. i. 10. — p. 441. Note on Eph. i. 20. — p. 455. Note on Phil. ii. 6. — p. 462. Note on Col.i. 16.—p. 484. Version of 1 Tim. iii. 16. and note.-—p. 517. Note on Heb. ix. 14, — p. 522. Version of Heb. ii. 3. and note. — p. 546. Version of 1 St. Pet. iii. 22. and note—p. 554. Note on 2 St. Pet. ili. 12. — p. 560. Note on 1 St. John, iii. 8. 5. By so interpreting, Sc.] See p. 34. Version of St. Matt. xiv. 33.—p. 73. Note on St. Matt. xxviii. 19. — p. 199. Version of St. Luke, xxiv. 52. — p. 200. Version of St. John, 218 APPENDIX. i. 1. and notes, — p.211. Note on St. John, ili. 31.—p. 222. Note on St. John, vi. 62.—p. 230. Note on St. John, vill. 58. 6. By abbreviation, c.] See p.42. Note on St. Matt. xviii. 20. —p. 62. Note on St. Matt. xxv. 46. — p. 73. Ver- sion of St. Matt. xxviii. 20. and note. —p.285. Note on Acts, vii. 59. —p. 424. Note on 2 Cor. xii. 8. — p. 556. Note on 1 St. John, i. 1. 7. By contradicting.] See Note on St. Matt. xx. 28. — p. 63. Note on St. Matt. xxvi. 28. — p.440. Note on Eph. i. 7.—p. 482. Note on 1 Tim. ii. 6.—p. 499. Note on Tit. ii. 14.— p. 545. Note on 1 St. Peter, ii. 18.— p. 557. Note on 1 St. John, ii. 2. —p. 562. Note on 1 St. John, iv, 10, CHARGE, DELIVERED IN THE DIOCESE OF HEREFORD, AT THE PRIMARY VISITATION; In 1816. i : We . Saat soaion: ge, eal: >, ‘ie Se atic 3 ae sien en see . ed ie Rip. Ayia iseeiiig ae ‘Bee ere ee it ne 150 99 Weare Sas a iat. Siglo i" yeaa fs) 1 fag os ae aay was P Dab SS pk TAN Bake pi pamlege Dred: ied, SAsthebe 2 hoc or Pere te . a Sere * arty Lea ‘EN ¥ iy ed K } : ; cy re re a oe era. ae o } pe pe | yy p20 eh “ pa om p8 1 %. ,. ve « .~ ; Wc : Tea , e i : ’ ee 5 Baise SLT as WS { ; ma Pee - : ; er M # ‘ey bee) © Vx a ert eae ‘ f + pi oe F = Gal's fin ge vy Cae T2 eea Se a ere 2 Tee a eee ee ey | ; y Bs; 5 3 ~~ F > s f a ; ; - ; : —- he os ( oy Lee =f i. te LF bi af "2 fam = : : ‘ , Lu « * Ss ee Git LOE, aston ee nd Poipe ra P aa v : =a ' F j ahr 4 , > 7 Fl ne " a on ar 4 a Cae = ' » ' ' ; 2 i ‘ te ' vy . ¥ MET L /- Ty ee. i Vi 4 alt at. Oe oba O ee eee Lepore ae tic a} 4 5 ‘i a |My ~ 4 et ie ke ey 4 es yale ; 4 + > x “2 wy : 4 t Vy - fat Biss vores TIELY) Y AD is J * 4 ¢ han $ ape oy it , , i ae # i Sahil; ~ L f ~ 9 Ay es 6 ‘wl: ee a $i cus me 7 F oy I hes Ay ta» jes A CHARGE. REVEREND BRETHREN, 'T'o clerical, as to other professional men, their parti- cular vocation suggests abundant matter for Introduc- tory Discourse, even where novelty of connection and other impediments have yet allowed but few oppor- tunities for the happiness of personal acquaintance. ‘Che wonders of creation ; the fall of man; the promise of a Redeemer; the types of his Sacrifice; the succes- sion of prophecies foretelling his advent ; the appear- ance of our Lord in a human form; the marvellous operations which proved his Divine nature ; his atoning death ; his glorious resurrection ; his implied doctrine of tri-une Godhead; his ascension ; the predicted effu- sion of the Holy Spirit; the gift of tongues; the ordinary graces of the Holy Spirit; the propagation and increase of Christianity: — These are prominent parts in the extended series of revealed religion ; and as they are all deeply interesting to us, we might enter at once on either of them as a topic fit for this solemn meeting. Among the articles of faith which distinguish and exalt Christianity, for the commencement of an episcopal address, at a primary visitation, the divinity of, our Lord presents itself as a leading and proper subject. It is the doctrine on which, in secret, we daily meditate ; the doctrine on which, in public, we earnestly dwell ; the doctrine on which depends our saving help, even 299 A CHARGE DELIVERED IN the efficacy of atonement and certainty of redemption. Why the Humanitarians are zealous in teaching miscon- struction of those scriptural passages, which demon- strate the divine nature and the eternal pre-existence of our Lord, themselves best know. Undeniable, however, it is, that they do labour for that perilous end.* In proportion, therefore, to the assiduity employed by them in support of their cause, it is our province to counteract their designs, principally by inculcating the plain sense of Gospel truths; and partly also, when oc- casions like the present recur, by showing how much the Humanitarians are mistaken in some of their main positions. | They affirm that the doctrine of our Lord’s divine na- ture was not holden by Christians who lived antecedently to that period, when in the fourth century of our Christian era the Nicene Fathers composed their creed : by which they would be understood to mean, that the doctrine originated in the articles settled by that con- fession of faith. This assertion 1s not more correct, than another which is sometimes made; viz. that Christianity became the prevailing religion in the Roman empire, because Constantine the Great em- braced and favoured it by the publication of edicts. In each of these cases, the order of things is inverted. If we turn to the writings of Tertullian and Arno- biust, we shall see that before Constantine professed himself a convert, the Christian religion had been adopted by persons of all ranks and descriptions, except the priests, throughout the Roman empire. And on * Particularly their chief writers, Jones, Aspland, Belsham. + See Macknight’s “ Truth of the Gospel History,” p. 492. 494. 517. And, Seigneux de Correon’s notes on Addison’s Evidences of the Christian Religion, p.219. 221, 222., translated by Dr. Purdy. THE DIOCESE OF HEREFORD, IN 1816. 223 examination of several works, derived from primitive Christians, we are justified in concluding that the Nicene Fathers made our Lord’s divinity an article of faith, because that doctrine had long since been maintained, and in succession delivered down to them through all preceding centuries. ‘They did not frame a new article ; they did but recognise and incorporate into their symbol an article already sanctioned by their Christian fore- fathers. When the Gospel was first preached to the heathen world, it was not an age of barbarous ignorance, but of high cultivation, so far as respected the knowledge of arts and sciences. In the cities which at that time were most celebrated, in Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Alexan- dria, ‘Tarsus, Rome, existed persons of considerable credit for intellectual attainments. From these places emanated mental improvements, the energies of which were exerted with force through what might then be termed the civilised world. Thence resulted competency for the production of those numerous writings, in which the primitive Christians showed they had thoroughly considered and perfectly understood the grounds on which rested what they had embraced, and what they ably defended *, the Christian religion. The few volumes of their books remaining entire have long been obtain- able, and come within the course of ecclesiastical study. ‘That emphatical sentence of Justin Martyrt, concerning * See “The authenticity, &c. of the New Testament,” by Godfrey Luss, translated by R. Kincpom.— p. 101. Justin Martyr. —p- 108. Tatian.—109. Ireneeus.—117. Athenagoras.—122. Theo- philus of Antioch. — 125. Clemens of Alexandria. — 128. Tertul- lian. — 151. Hippolytus. — See also Jortin’s “ Remarks on Eccle- siastical History,” vol. i. p. 84—95. + In Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho. It is quoted by Jortin, in p. 17. “ Discourses concerning the Truth of the Christian Religion ;” and by Wilson, p. 54. of “ Illustrations,” &c. QA A CHARGE DELIVERED IN our Lord, Qeog xarcitas, xat Oeog eors, Hat ETT HH, with others of a similar kind in their general tendency, are within your recollection. It would, therefore, be super- fluous in this assembly to recite extracts from their works. But an appeal to the Fracments of early writings, which were anterior to the council of Nice, might not be improper. For as those remains have been heretofore scattered through various books, manuscripts, and places, they have lam more concealed, and thence have been neither easy of access, nor obvious to our notice. ; Since the time when that immortal and irrefragable work*, the “‘ Defensio Fidei Nicene,” first appeared, the literary and Christian world has seen nothing more learned and satisfactory than a recent publication, the title of which is “ Reliquia Sacre.” t By unwearied perseverance through many years, employed in most diligent domestic search and in most extensive foreign inquiry from European depositories of ancient learning, the editor has collected whatever documents of primitive * Bishop BuLv’s. + By the Rev. Martin Joseph Routh, S. T. P. President of Magdalen College, Oxford. The first and second volumes were published in 1814, the third in 1815. The object and nature of this publication will best be collected from the editor’s own words. “ Non poterat non frequenteér animo meo occurrere, quam utili is opera studiorum commodis inserviret, qui isthec opuscula et fragmenta in unam syllogen redigere conaretur; precipué vero, si opuscula nonnulla huc usque in Bibliothecis Europzis delitescentia in lucem extraheret ; et quicquid germanum preterea suppeditarent catene inedite, aliaque id genus collectanea, publici juris faceret.” — Vol. i. p- vill. & ix, “Multa tamen ego emocracpare allaturus sum, que Historie Literariz Sacra Scriptoribus ignota sunt ; plura autem ab iisdem indicata, sed communi hactents usu sejuncta, utpote que in libris vel magne molis vel raris inventu, seepe delitescunt.”” — Ibid. p. XIx. THE DIOCESE OF HEREFORD, IN 1816. 22) faith could there be found. These, with passages dis- persed in different and distant parts of works better known, he has combined in one body; examined with minute attention ; illustrated with profound erudition ; and edited with scrupulous care. He has thus furnish- ed us, if not with entirely new, yet with more prompt and obvious testimonies ; some of which shall now be adduced as containing evident proofs, that when the Humanitarians assert the divinity of our Lord’s nature was a doctrine not received before the council of Nice, they palpably err. . Among those who vindicated themselves and their holy faith against the calumnies of Pagan writers in the second century, Melito was conspicuous. In a frag- ment of his ‘* Apology for the Christian Religion ” is made this declaration, ‘We are not. worshippers of ‘« senseless stones, but of the only God, who is before all, ‘* and over all; and we are moreover worshippers of his ‘ Christ, who before ages is verily God the Word.” * The same author left a work entitled Kegs evrwparov @