it must argue a great want of equity and candour, to rank this eminent man in the class of Arians, taking that term in its proper and natural signification; for he only maintained what some sublimer manner, in the Father, as his wisdom (for both these terms are used by the earliest wrior word; that Christ's real creation or generation those of the university and church of Lau- || sanne, who were suspected of entertaining erroneous opinions, were obliged to declare their assent to this Formulary, and to adopt it as the rule of their faith. This injunction was so much the more grievous, as no demand of that kind had been made for some time before this period; and the custom of requiring subscrip-ters) took place some time before the creation of the tion to this confession had been suspended in the case of several who were promoted in the university, or had entered into the church. Accordingly many pastors and candidates for holy orders refused the assent that was demanded by the magistrates, and some of them were punished for this refusal. Hence arose warm contests and heavy complaints, which engaged the king of Great Britain, and the states-general of the United Provinces, to offer their intercession, in order to terminate these unhappy divisions; and hence the Formulary lost much of its credit and authority. world; that the council of Nice itself established no other eternity of Christ; and, finally, that the Arian doctrine, in these points, was the original doctrine of Christ himself, of his holy apostles, and of the primitive Christians. Mr. Whiston was confirmed in these sentiments by reading Novatian's treatise concerning the Trinity, but more especially by the perusal of the Apostolical Constitutions, the antiquity and authenticity of which he endeavoured, with more zeal than precision and prudence, to prove, in the third part of his Primitive Christianity Revived. This learned visionary, and upright man, was a considerable sufferer by his opinions. He was not only removed from his theological and pastoral functions, but also from his mathematical professorship as if Arianism had extended its baneful influence Nothing memorable happened during this period in the German churches. The Reformed church that was established in the Palati-peared rigid and severe to all those, of both parties nate, and had formerly been in such a flourishing state, suffered greatly from the persecuting spirit and the malignant counsels of the votaries of Rome. XXVII. The Socinians, dispersed through the different countries of Europe, have not hitherto been able to form a separate congregation, or to celebrate publicly divine worship, in a manner conformable to the institutions of their sect, although, in several places, they hold clandestine meetings of a religious kind. The person that made the principal figure among them in this century, was the learned Samuel Crellius, who died in an advanced age at Amsterdam: he indeed preferred the denomination of Artemonite to that of Socinian, and departed in many points from the received doctrines of that sect. The Arians found a learned and resolute patron in William Whiston, professor of mathematics in the university of Cambridge, who defended their doctrine in various productions, and chose rather to resign his chair, than to renounce his opinions. He was followed in these opinions, as is commonly supposed, by Dr. Samuel Clarke, a man of great abilities, judgment, and learning, who, in 1724, was accused of altering and modifying the ancient and orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.* But even to the science of lines, angles, and surfaces. This measure was undoubtedly singular, and it ap who were dispassionate enough to see things in their true point of light; and, indeed, though we should grant that the good man's mathematics might, by erroneous conclusions, have corrupted his orthodoxy, it will still remain extremely difficult to comprehend, how his heterodoxy could hurt his mathematics. It was not therefore consistent, either with clemency or good sense, to turn Mr. Whiston believe the explication of the Trinity that is given out of his mathematical chair, because he did not in the Athanasian creed; and I mention this as an instance of the unfair proceedings of immoderate zeal, which often confounds the plainest distinctions, and deals its punishments without measure or pro. portion. Dr. Clarke also stepped aside from the notions commonly received concerning the Trinity; but his modification of this doctrine was not so remote sentiment of Whiston. from the popular and orthodox hypothesis, as the His method of inquiring into that incomprehensible subject was modest, and, at least, promised fairly as a guide to truth. For he did not begin by abstract and metaphysical reasonings in his illustrations of this doctrine, but turned his first researches to the word and to the testimony, being persuaded that, as the doctrine of the Trinity was a matter of mere revelation, all human explithe New Testament, interpreted by the rules of cations of it must be tried by the declarations of grammar, and the principles of sound criticism. It was this persuasion that produced his famous book, entitled, The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, wherein every Text in the New Testament relating to that Doctrine is distinctly considered, and the Divinity of our blessed Saviour, according to the Scriptures, proved, and explained. The doc trine, which this learned divine drew from his researches, was comprehended in 55 propositions, which, with the proper illustrations, form the se*It is too evident that few controversies have cond part of the work. As the reader will find so little augmented the sum of knowledge, and so them in that work at full length, we shall only obmuch hurt the spirit of charity, as the controversies serve here, that Dr. Clarke, if he was careful in that have been carried on in the Christian church in searching for the true meaning of those scriptural relation to the doctrine of the Trinity. Mr. Whis- expressions that relate to the divinity of the Son ton was one of the first divines who revived this and the Holy Ghost, was equally circumspect in controversy in the xviiith century. About the year avoiding the accusation of heterodoxy, as appears 1706, he began to entertain some doubts about the by the series of propositions now referred to. There proper eternity and omniscience of Christ. This led are three great rocks of heresy on which many bold him to review the popular doctrine of the Trinity; adventurers on this Anti-Pacific ocean have been and, in order to execute this review with a degree seen to split violently. These rocks are Tritheism, of diligence and circumspection suitable to its im- Sabellianism, and Arianism. Dr. Clarke got evi portance, he read the New Testament twice over, dently clear of the first, by denying the self-existence and also all the genuine monuments of the Christian of the Son and the Holy Ghost, and by maintaining religion prior to the conclusion of the second centheir derivation from, and subordination to, the Fatury. By this inquiry, he was led to think, that, ther. He strenuously laboured to avoid the second, at the incarnation of Christ, the Logos, or Eternal by acknowledging the personality and distinct agenWisdom, supplied the place of the rational soul, or cy of the Son and the Holy Ghost; and he flattered TVEVμ; that the eternity of the Son of God was not himself with having escaped from the dangers of the a real distinct existence, as of a son properly co-eter-third, by his asserting the eternity (for he believed nal with his father by a true eternal generation, but rather a metaphysical existence in potentia, or in the possibility of an eternal production which Whis ton could not digest,) of the two divine subordinate is commonly called the Arminian Subordina- || country. persons. But, with all his circumspection, Dr. Clarke If Dr. Clarke was attacked by authority, he was also combatted by argument. The learned Dr. Waterland was one of his principal adversaries, and stands at the head of a polemical body, composed of eminent divines, such as Gastrell, Wells, Nelson, Mayo, Knight, and others who appeared in this controversy. Against these, Dr. Clarke, unawed by their numbers, defended himself with great spirit and perseverance, in several letters and replies. This prolonged a controversy, which may often be suspended through the fatigue of the combatants, or the change of the mode in theological researches, but which will probably never be terminated: for nothing affords such an endless subject of debate as a doctrine above the reach of human understanding, and expressed in the ambiguous and improper terms of human language, such as persons, generations, substance, &c. which, in this controversy, either convey no ideas at all, or false ones. The inconveniences, accordingly, of departing from the divine simplicity of the scripture-language on this subject, and of converting a matter of mere revelation into an object of human reasoning, were palpable in the writings of both the contending parties. For, if Dr. Clarke was accused of verging toward Arianism, by maintaining the derived and caused existence of the Son and the Holy Ghost, it seemed no less evident that Dr. Waterland was verging toward Tritheism, by maintaining the self-existence and independence of these divine persons, and by asserting that the subordination of the Son to the Father is only a subordination of office and not of nature: so that, if the former divine was deservedly called a SemiArian, the latter might, with equal justice, be denominated a Semi-Tritheist. The difference between these learned men lay in this, that Dr. Clarke, after making a faithful collection of the texts in Scripture that relate to the Trinity, thought proper to interpret them by those maxims and rules of right reasoning, which are used on other subjects; whereas Dr. Waterland denied that this method of reasoning was to be admitted in illustrating the doctrine of the Trinity, which was far exalted above the sphere of human reason; and therefore he took the texts of Scripture in their direct, literal, and grammatical sense. Dr. Waterland, however, employed the words persons, subsistence, &c. as useful for fixing the notion of distinction; the words uncreated, eternal, and immutable, for ascertaining the divinity of each per son; and the words interior, generation, and procession, to indicate their union. This was departing from his grammatical method, which ought to have led him to this plain conclusion, that the Son and the Holy Ghost, to whom divine attributes are ascribed in Scripture, (and even the denomination of God to the former,) possess these attributes in a This doctrine he illustrated with greater care and perspicuity than any_before him had done, and taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are equal in nature, and different in rank, authority, and subordination.* A great number of English writers have endeavoured, in a variety of modes, to invalidate and undermine the doctrine of the holy Trinity; and it was this consideration that engaged a lady,† eminently distinguished by her orthodoxy and opulence, to bequeath a valuable legacy as a foundation for a lecture, in which eight sermons are preached annually by a learned divine, who is nominated to that office by the trustees. This foundation has subsisted since the year 1720, and promises to posterity an ample collection of learned productions in defence of this branch of the Christian faith. manner which it is impossible for us to understand Those who are desirous of a more minute historical view of the manner in which the Trinitarian controversy has been carried on during the present century, may consult a pamphlet that was published in 1720, entitled, An Account of all the considerable Books and Pamphlets that have been written on either Side in the Controversy concerning the Trinity since the year 1712; in which is also contained an Account of the Pamphlets written this last year, on each side, by the Dissenters, to the end of the year 1719. The more recent treatises on the subject of the Trinity are sufficiently known. It will appear to those who read the preceding note [*] that Dr. Mosheim has here mistaken th true hypothesis of Dr. Clarke, or, at least, expresses it imperfectly; for what he says here is rather applicable to the opinion of Dr. Waterland. Dr. Clarke maintained an equality of perfections in the three persons, but a subordination of nature in point of existence and derivation. Lady Moyer. THE FIRST APPENDIX. MOSHEIM'S Eclesiastical History can be justly appreciated only by considering it as a general epitome. As such, it is indeed excellent; the arrangement is luminous; the style both of the author and of his translator, is in general perspicuous; and though topics of the greatest importance are, from the nature of the work, necessarily treated with a brevity which the reader may sometimes regret, the references at the bottoms of the pages inform him where he may, on every subject, find fuller information. It must, however, be confessed, that those references, being for the most part made to the works of German authors, are of less value to us than to those for whose use the history was originally composed; and, perhaps, it cannot be wholly denied, that the author, learned and pious as he undoubtedly was, either had not studied the works of the primitive fathers of the Christian church with sufficient care, or laboured under some prejudices, from which the most powerful minds are not wholly exempt, that made him refer to learned moderns for the decision of questions, which the ancients alone can decide. This we think, appears most remarkably in the view which he exhibits of the constitution, government, and discipline, of the primitive church, of which it is obvious that we can know nothing but from the testimony of the primitive writers. The Fathers, as they are called, may have been bad critics, as we think they generally were; they may have been extremely credulous, and ready to attribute, to the miraculous interposition of God, natural events, for which their philosophy did not enable them to account; and their speculative doctrines may have been often corrupted by that science, falsely so called, which spread from the Alexandrian school over the whole Christian world; but the integrity of men who laid down their lives for what they believed to be the truth, cannot surely be questioned. "I see no reason," said one, who did not pay to them undue deference, "why their veracity should be questioned, when they bear witness to the state of religion in their own times, because they disgraced their judgment, in giving ear to every strange tale of monkish extraction. Controversy apart, their testimony to common facts may yet stand good;" and surely the constitution, government and discipline of the church, were common facts, about which none of them could be deceived. The view however which Dr. Mosheim has given of the primitive church appears not to us to be countenanced by any primitive writer; and accordingly he rarely appeals directly to them in support of what he advances, but refers to modern authors, generally French or Germans, who have written on the subject, and who could write nothing on it authentic, which they did not derive from the ancients. * Warburton in his introduction to Julian. The qualifications indeed which he thinks essential to an historian, and the rules which he lays down for the manner of treating ecclesiastical history, though highly valuable in themselves, are by him stated in such a manner as cannot fail to excite, in the reflecting. mind, suspicions of the authenticity of his account of the government and discipline of the primitive church. After observing that, in order to render the history of the church useful and interesting, it is necessary to trace effects to their causes, and to connect events with the circumstances, views, principles, and instruments that have contributed to their existence, he adds, "In order to discover the secret causes of public events, some general succours are to be derived from the history of the times in which they happened, and the testimonies of the authors by whom they are recorded. But, beside these, a considerable acquaintance with human nature, founded on long observation and experience, is extremely useful in researches of this kind. The historian who has acquired a competent knowledge of the views that occupy the generality of men, who has studied a great variety of characters, and attentively observed the force and violence of human passions, together with the infirmities and contradictions they produce in the conduct of life, will find, in this knowledge, a key to the secret reasons and motives which gave rise to many of the most important events of ancient times. A knowledge also of the manners and opinions of the persons concerned in the eyents that are related, will contribute much to lead us to the true origin of things.* There is unquestionably much truth as well as good sense in this account of the qualifications requisite to render an historian instructive and interesting; for it is obvious that he who has merely studied human nature through the medium of books, not in the society of men, and who has not observed the motives which generally influence human conduct, can never trace events to their causes, or discover the springs of those actions on which perhaps the happiness or misery of millions may depend. But, if this knowledge of human nature be ever employed to counteract the testimony of ancient authors, who were under no conceivable temptation to write falsely; or if the actions of men in one stage of society be traced to the same motives from which similar actions are observed to spring in another stage altogether different, and in many respects the reverse; if, because men are prompted by avarice and ambition to solicit offices which at one period lead to honour and opulence, it be inferred that they must have been influenced by similar motives at a period when such of fices led not to opulence or honour, but to certain death, in its most hideous forms; if an historian reason thus from the observations which he has made on the force and violence Introduction, sect. xiii. of human passions, and set his conclusions in || communicated profligate and unworthy memopposition to facts recorded by ancient authors, bers of the church; restored the penitent to who were witnesses of what they relate; it is their forfeited privileges; passed judgment obvious that his confidence in the knowledge upon the different subjects of controversy and which he has acquired of human nature by dissension, that arose in the community; exmixing in society, may lead him into the great-amined and decided the disputes which hapest errors; by inducing him either to neglect entirely, or to inspect carelessly, those writings from which alone he can derive any authentic information concerning the events of which he is writing. That Dr. Mosheim was not entirely free from some bias of this kind, seems evident, as, without appealing to any ancient authority whatever, he represents the government of the primitive church as democratical-a form of government unknown in the religious societies of that age, as well heathen as Jewish. He had witnessed the tyranny of the Romish clergy, and had traced the steps and discovered the causes by which the bishops of Rome had gradually reached the summit of ecclesiastical usurpation; and not adverting perhaps to the fact that, before the conversion of Constantine, ecclesiastical preferment could be no object of worldly ambition or avarice, he appears to have hastily concluded that this progress had commenced from the very beginning. pened between the elders and deacons; and, in a word, exercised all that authority which belongs to such as are invested with the sovereign power, 914 Such, according to our author, was the government of the Christian church during the greater part of the first century; and he infers this supreme authority of the people from the Acts of the Apostles, chap. i. v. 15. vi. 3. xv. 4. xxi. 22; but it is difficult to conceive by what mode of interpretation these texts can be made to countenance the supreme authority of the people in the church. At the time of the transaction mentioned in the fifteenth and following verses of the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, we know, from the testimony of St. Paul,† that the number of believers in Jerusalem and its neighbourhood amounted at least to five hundred; but St. Luke assures us that the number of names met together at the appointment of Matthias to the apostleship, did not exceed one hundred and twenty. If the auAccordingly, as if the matter were self- thority of the people was at that period suevident, he affirms, in the introduction to preme, and if it belonged to them to elect by his work,* # L that, when we look back to the their own suffrages even a successor in the commencement of the Christian church, we apostleship to Judas, how came so very large find its government administered jointly by the a majority to be deprived of their right at the pastors and the people. But, in process of time, election of Matthias? On this question Dr. the scene changes, and we see these pastors Lightfoot says,‡ Quum Matthias et Joses coaffecting an air of pre-eminence and superiori- ram apostolis, ut par candidatorum, sisterenty, trampling upon the rights and privileges tur, haud constat universum fidelium cœtum, of the community, and assuming to themselves sive individuum quemvis in eorum electione a supreme authority, both in civil and religious suo nomine suffragia tulisse, quin in presbyterio potius, sive in collegio virorum 108, inter se coacto, jus et potestatem eligendi resedisse." And though in ordinary cases it belonged to the apostles to ordain, by imposition of hands, such as were chosen to fill any office in the church by those to whom they had deputed the right of election, yet in the present case, they left the determination between the candidates wholly to the giving-forth of lots, after solemnly praying that the divine head of the church would show which of them he had chosen to take part of the ministry and apostleship from which Judas had fallen; and all this was done, as the same learned writer observes, matters." Of this joint administration of the government of the original church by the pastors and the people, he thinks it not necessary here to offer any evidence whatever; but, when he enters on the subject as an historian, and observes that the form of government, which the primitive churches borrowed from that of Jerusalem established by the apostles themselves, must be esteemed as of divine institution, he gives the following account of that form, which he endeavours to support by the authority of Scripture. "In those early times, every Christian church consisted of the people, their leaders, and the ministers, or deacons; and these indeed belong essentially to every religious society. The people were, undoubtedly, the first in authority; for the apostles showed by their own example, that nothing of moment was to be carried on or determined without the consent of the assembly; and such a method of proceeding was both prudent and necessary in those critical times. It was, therefore, the assembly of the people, which chose their own rulers and teachers, or received them by a free and authoritative consent, when recommended by others. The same people rejected or confirmed, by their suffrages, the laws that were proposed by their rulers to the assembly; ex * Sect. vii. 66 utpote qui gradus apostolicos immediatâ quasi Christi manuductione adierint." The second text quoted by our author in support of the power of the people, appears to us to teach the very opposite doctrine in terms which cannot be mistaken. When the murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews arose on account of the neglect, real or supposed, of their widows in the daily ministration, the sovereign people did not take the treasure of the church into their own hands, and by their supreme authority appoint officers to distribute it to the poor with greater equity. They seem not indeed to have imagined that * Cent. I. part ii. chap. ii. sect. 5, &c. † 1 Cor. xv. 6. Oper. Omn. tom. ii. p. 758, edit. Roterodami they had a right to take any step whatever in || the matter, till "the twelve called them together, and said-Look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we (not ye) may appoint over this business;" thus giving the people authority to elect, specifying the number and qualifications of the persons to be elected, and still reserving to themselves the authoritative appointment of those persons to the work for which they were to be chosen. In the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles we are told, that a deputation was sent from Antioch to Jerusalem to consult not the people-but the apostles and elders about the necessity of circumcision; that, when the deputies had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and by the apostles and elders; that these distinguished persons came together to consider of the matter referred to their decision; that, after much disputing among the apostles and elders, the question was decided against the necessity of circumcision; and that then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with their synodical decree. In all this there is not the slightest countenance given to the authority of the multitude. The people were not called together on the arrival of the deputies from Antioch; and indeed their number was so great long before that period, that the tenth part of them could not have been contained in any house at the command of the apostles within the city of Jerusalem; nor would such a multitude have been allowed by the civil power to assemble quietly in the street or in the field. As many of them as could find admission were doubtless present at the deliberations of the apostles and elders on a question of such great and general importance; but the multitude is mentioned but once, and then as keeping profound silence. The synodical epistle to the Gentiles at Antioch and in Syria and Cilicia, is indeed written in the name of the apostles and elders and brethren; but this was, in those days, the common style of such epistles. Thus St. Paul's epistle to the Galatians is written, not in his own name only, but also in the names of all the brethren who were with him; and the first epistle of St. Clement his fellowlabourer (which is undoubtedly genuine) is in the name of "the church of God which dwelleth or sojourneth at Rome, to the church of God which sojourneth at Corinth;" though it is certain that all the brethren who were with St. Paul had no authority over the Galatians, nor the lay members of the church in Rome any right to expostulate with the church in Corinth. The synodical decree issued at Jerusalem may indeed, with the greatest propriety, be called the decree of the church, because it was enacted by the undoubted governors of the church; just as the acts of the British parliament are called the laws of Great Britain, though the people at large were not consulted in the framing of one of them. The last text appealed to by Dr. Mosheim as a proof of the supreme authority of the people in the church, not only proves no such thing, but, if it be at all applicable to the ques-II tion at issue, is of itself. a complete proof that they had then no such authority, and indeed that they were wholly unfit to be entrusted with such authority. The case was this., St. Paul, after an absence of some length from Jerusalem, returned to that city, and on the day after his arrival went into the house of James, who is represented as having all the elders about him; but, as is evident from what passed, with not so much as one of the multitude of laymen in the company. When St. Paul had declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry, James and the elders glorified the Lord, and said unto him, "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who believe; and they are all zealous of the law; and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying, that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it (what is to be done) therefore? The multitude must needs come together, (it cannot be but they will come together,) for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say unto thee: we have four men which have a vow on them; them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know (think or judge)* that those things whereof they were informed concerning thee are nothing but that thou thyself also walkest orderly and keepest the law." (Acts xxi. 19—24.) This advice St. Paul followed, not however in obedience to the people as possessing in his opinion the supreme authority in the church of Jerusalem, but to humour a harmless prejudice, upon that principle which induced him, as he declares to the Corinthians, "to become unto the Jews as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews: to them that were under the law, as under the law, that he might gain them that were under the law; to them that were without the law, as without the law, that he might gain them that were without the law;" and, even in matters indifferent," to become all things to all men, that he might by all means save some." Had the multitude possessed the supreme power in the church of Jerusalem, St. James and the elders would undoubtedly have called them together to hear St. Paul's declaration of the things which God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry, and not have left them to be drawn together by their own curiosity and zeal, when they should hear of his arrival. At any rate St. James and the elders could not have proposed, nor would St. Paul have agreed, to impose on the people by even an innocent deception, had those people in the church of Jerusalem been the first in authority; for, in that case, it would have been the duty of the two apostles and elders to give a full and fair account of their own conduct to their superiors. Lexicon, the reader will find a number of extracts * In Stephens' Thesaurus, and even in Scapula's from Xenophon, Plutarch, and other Greek writers, in which yox is of the same import with censeo, existimo, and judico in Latin. That it is used in that could not know that to be false, which was undoubt. sense by St. Luke is obvious, since the multitude edly true. † 1 Cor. ix. 20-28. |