Page images
PDF
EPUB

object of divine worship. But the Dominicans opposed this doctrine, and appealed to Pius II. who contrived to put off the decision, so that the question remains undetermined in the church of Rome to this day.

Lastly, to conclude this section, I must observe, that about the tenth century, a festival began to be held in honor of the Holy Trinity, in some cathedrals, and in monasteries, and that John XXII. who distinguished himself so much by his opinion concerning the beatific vision, fixed the office for it in 1334, and appointed the celebration of it to be on the first Sunday after Pentecost; and accordingly on this day it has been kept by the church of Rome, and the church of England ever since.

SECTION XI.

A GENERAL VIEW OF THE RECOVERY OF THE GENUINE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIANITY CONCERNING THE NATURE OF CHRIST.

WE are not able to trace the doctrine of the proper humanity of Christ much later than the council of Nice; the Arian doctrine having been much more prevalent for a considerable time afterwards, especially by the influence of the emperors Constantius and Valens; and the Arians were no less hostile to this primitive doctrine than the Trinitarians themselves. At length, though all the northern nations that embraced christianity were at first of the Arian persuasion, yet, chiefly by the influence of the popes, they became gradually Trinitarians, and continued so till near the reformation.

The first traces that we perceive of the revival of the ancient doctrine are among the Albigenses. For I cannot say that I perceive any among the proper Waldenses, and the Albigenses were probably rather Arians than what we now call Socinians. It would seem, however, that if the Waldenses (the first reformers from popery, and who may be traced as far as the time of Claudius, bishop of Turin) were Trinitarians, they did not originally lay much stress on that doctrine. For in their confession of faith, composed in

[ocr errors]

1120, which was sixty or seventy years before Valdo, of Lyons, there is nothing under the article of Jesus concerning his divinity, nor yet in that of 1544, which was presented to the king of France. In these it was only said that "Christ was promised to the Fathers, and was to make satisfaction "for sin." But after the time of the reformation by Luther, the Waldenses, in a confession of faith presented to the king of Bohemia, in 1535, acknowledge expressly one essence of divinity in three persons, according to the "Nicene creed and that of Athanasius," both of which they mention.

But no sooner were the minds of men at full liberty to speculate concerning the doctrines of christianity, and circumstances excited them to it, but, while Luther and Calvin retained the commonly received opinion with respect to Christ, there were many others of that age who revived the primitive doctrine, though there were Arians among them. The greater number, however, were of those who were afterwards called Socinians, from Faustus Socinus, who distinguished himself by his writings among those of them who settled in Poland, where they had many churches, and continued in a flourishing state till the year 1658, when they were, with great cruelty and injustice, banished from that country. This event, however, like others of a similar nature, contributed to the spreading of their doctrine in other countries.

In England this doctrine appears to have had many advocates about the time of the civil war, the most distinguished of whom were the truly learned and pious Mr Biddle, and his patron the most excellent Mr Firmin; and it does not appear that there were many, if any, Arians among them, the term Unitarian being then synonymous to what is now called Socinian. Afterwards, however, chiefly by the influence of Mr Whiston and Dr Clarke in the established church, and of Mr Emlyn and Mr Pierce among the dissenters, the Arians became so much the more numerous body, that the old Unitarians were in a manner extinct. But of late years, Dr Lardner and others having written in favor of the simple humanity of Christ, this doctrine has spread very much, and seems now to be the prevailing opinion among those who have distinguished themselves by their freedom of thinking in matters of religion. This has been more especially the case since the application made to

parliament by some members of the church of England for relief in the business of subscription, and more particularly so since the erection of the Unitarian chapel by Mr Lindsey (who, from a principle of conscience, on this ground only, voluntarily resigned his preferment in the church of England) and the publication of his Apology, with its Sequel, and other excellent works, in vindication of his conduct and opinion.

It is something extraordinary, that the Socinians in Po land thought it their duty as christians, and indeed essential to christianity, to pray to Jesus Christ, notwithstanding they believed him to be a mere man, whose presence with them, and whose knowledge of their situation, they could not therefore be assured of; and though they had no authority whatever, in the scriptures, for so doing, nor indeed in the practice of the primitive church till near the time of the council of Nice. Socinus himself was of this opinion, and is thought to have given too much of his countenance to the imprisonment and other hardships, which F. David suffered for opposing it. However, the famous Simon Budæus was also of those who denied that any kind of worship ought to be paid to Jesus Christ, contrary to the opinion of Socinus.

Many of those who went by the name of Anabaptists at the beginning of the reformation, held the doctrine of the simple humanity of Christ; insomuch that before the time of Socinus, they generally went by that name. Among these, one of the first was Lewis Hetzer, who appeared in 1524, and who was put to death three years after at Con

stance.

Several of the Socinians of that age held the doctrine of the personality of the Holy Spirit, considering him as a being of a super-angelic order. Of this opinion was Mr Biddle.

The first Arians in England were of the opinion of the original Arians, viz: that Christ was the first of all creatures, and even existed from eternity, by an internal derivation from his eternal Father, that he was the immediate maker of the world, and of all things visible and invisible, and appeared in a divine character to the patriarchs and prophets before he was born of the virgin Mary. But, besides that this doctrine savors of that of the pre-existence of all human souls, a doctrine which has no countenance

in reason or revelation (though it was generally held by philosophers at the time that the Trinitarian and Arian doctrines were broached, and indeed served as a necessary foundation for them) it has staggered many, when they reflect coolly upon the subject, to think that so exalted a being as this, an unique in the creation, a being next in dignity and intelligence to God himself, possessed of powers absolutely incomprehensible by us, should inhabit this particular spot in the universe, in preference to any other in the whole extent of perhaps a boundless creation.

It cannot, also, but be thought a little extraordinary, that there should be no trace of the apostles having ever regarded their master in this high light. For, being Jews, they would certainly consider him at first as a man like themselves, since no Jew ever expected any other for their Messiah. Indeed, it can never be thought that Peter and others would have made so free with our Lord, as they sometimes did, if they had considered him as their maker, and the being who supported the whole universe; and therefore must have been present in every part of the creation, giving his attention to every thing, and exerting his power upon every thing, at the same time that he was familiarly conversing with them. Moreover, the history of the temptation, whether it be supposed to be a reality, or a vision, must be altogether improbable on such a supposition. For what could be the offer of the kingdoms of this world, supposing all of them, without exception, to have been intended, to him who made the world, and was already in possession of it. And there is no trace of the apostles, after their supernatural illumination, discovering the great mistake they had been under with respect to this subject. On the contrary, they continued to speak as if their former ideas of him had been just, never giving him any higher title than that of a man approved of God, &c.

If it be supposed that while Christ was on earth he ceased to discharge the high office he held before, viz: supporting all things by the word of his power, there will be some difficulty in supposing how, and by whom, it was performed in that interval. For certainly it would not have been delegated to Christ, or any other created being if there had not been some impropriety in its being done immediately by God himself. That our Lord had a knowledge of the rank he held before he came into the world, must, I think, be al

lowed by all Arians, if they give any attention to many cir cumstances in gospel history, especially to our Lord's praying for the glory which he had with the Father, before the foundation of the world, which all Arians suppose to refer to his pre-existent state.

For these, I suppose, and other reasons which might be alledged, a middle opinion has been adopted by some Arians. For they consider Christ merely as a pre-existent Spirit, but one who never had any business out of this world, and had no concern in making it; nor do all of them suppose that Christ was even the medium of divine communications to the patriarchs, &c. But then they do not seem to consider that many of the texts which, when interpreted literally, refer to the pre-existence of Christ, refer also, by the same mode of interpretation, to his be ing the maker of the world, &c. &c. so that if these texts do not prove both these particulars, they prove neither of them. If those texts which seem to speak of both these circumstances, viz: the pre-existence of Christ, and his making of the world, will admit of some other construction, much more may those which seem to refer to his pre-existence only.

Besides, if we once give up the idea of Christ having been the maker of the world, and content ourselves with sup posing him to have been a being of a much more limited capacity, why may we not be satisfied with supposing him to have been a mere man ?* The purposes of his mission certainly could not require more. For it cannot be said that any thing is ascribed to him, that a mere man (aided, as he himself says he was, by the power of God, his Father) was not equal to. And in other respects there seems to be a peculiar propriety in a man like ourselves being employed on such a commission as that of Christ, with respect to man; as his being an example to us, and especially in his resurrection being the resurrection of a man like ourselves, and therefore a more proper pattern of our own, and consequently a greater encouragement to us to look for the same. So that all the advantages of the Socinian hypothesis (and it cannot be denied to have some) are abandoned, and yet the peculiar ones of the original Arian hypothesis are not preserved, in the more qualified one, while no new

* Appendix F.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »