prehensible union, connection, indwelling, and co-existence, by which the Father was in the Son, and the Son in the Father; and, thirdly, by saying that in the Father and the Son there was an unity of will, design, and consent, and one divine power and dominion, originally in the Father, and derivatively in the Son.

Such seems to have been their system, and my design is, barely to represent it, and to do it justice.

In process of time Christians went into a notion that the Son was ταυλούσιος and μονούσιος, of the same individual substance with the Father, and with the Holy Spirit; and they seem to have done this, with a view to secure the doctrine of the unity.

The school-men took up the subject, and treated it in their way, which they called explaining, and which men of sense call impenetrable jargon.

Of all the modern writers upon this controversy, they who have undertaken to prove the doctrine of the Trinity by Cabbalism have talked in the most singular manner; though, I doubt not, with very honest and upright intentions.

A notable specimen of this way of talking is produced in Clarke's Letter to Wells. The author, whosoever he was, informs us, that Job xii. 12. with the ancient is wisdom, means With the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit; that the maid in Job xxxi. 1, 2. is the Virgin Mary; that Christ sent himself, and consequently prayed and returned thanks to himself, interceded with himself, &c. that whilst he was upon earth the kingdom of heaven was held in commission, and managed by the angels, &c. &c. He should have added to all his proofs the spurious text in 1 John v. 7. There are three that bear record, &c.

One

One Meyer wrote a book, De Mysterio S. S. Trinitatis ex solius Veteris Testamenti Libris demonstrato. The text which he urges as the most clear and conclusive of all, is Deut. vi. 4. Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord: in which he is not at all singular, many of his cabbalistic brethren having made the same remark on the same text.

Rabbi Judah hath preserved a tradition, that the ancient Jews in their Liturgy, used this form of pray ́er, I and HE, save, I pray: and this Galimatias is a mystical representation of the Trinity, according to some persons who were learned men, but too much addicted to Rabbinism. See Jac. Alting Gram. Hebr. Exerc. iii. and Vitringa in Jesai. xliii. p. 469.

The famous Postellus observed, that there were eleven thousand proofs of the Trinity in the Old Testament, interpreted rightly, that is, éтvμoroyinoμusinqnabbαλιτικώς.

"Your friend (says Clarke to Nelson) being a sin"cere and sober-minded man, has entered only a litσε tle way into these traditionary explications of Scripture; but those who have gone far into them,

have given such visionary and cabbalistical inter"pretations, especially of the Old Testament, as give "too sad occasion for infidels to look upon all reli

gion as enthusiasm, and particularly have caused "the study of the Hebrew language, which of itself “is a plain, easy, inartificial language, to be brought by men of weak judgment abusing it, into the ut"most contempt.'

66

دو

Abbadie, a man of vivacity and of a warm imagination, wrote two treatises: in the one he proved with much spirit and elegance the truth of natural and re

vealed religion, in the other he defended the divinity of Christ; but how? By laying down his own notion of it, and then arguing that if it was not true, our Saviour was what is too shocking to be named or thought of, and what no Mahometan would call him.

Few controversies have been carried on with less temper and with less prudence than this.

Before the fourth century was ended, the Consubstantialists differed and disputed amongst themselves, whether in the Trinity there were three hypostases, or one hypostasis: part of them hold the first, and part the second opinion; and it hath been supposed by some, that they had notions directly contrary to each other but the truth is, that they only misunderstood one another, and were in reality of the same mind.

For the word wisaris was ambiguous, and had two senses. In the first sense, hypostasis is the existence of a thing, or the manner in which it exists; in the second sense it is the existing thing, or the substance itself.

2

Three human souls have only one hypostasis, in the first sense, that is, one and the same kind of nature, consisting of intelligence, activity, &c. but in the second sense they are three hypostases, that is, three intelligent active beings.

The Consubstantialists who said, that in the Trinity there was one hypostasis, took the word in the first sense, and their brethren who said there were three hypostases, took the word in the second sense; and thus the dispute was verbal, and as soon as they

#

came

This odious indiscretion hath been frequent amongst disputers of more zeal than judgment,

came to understand one another, they were reconciled.

In the fourth century, the Consubstantialists began the persecution, by excommunicating and banishing their adversaries.

After the death of Constantine, Constantius persecuted the Consubstantialists; and the Arians under his protection (as afterwards under Valens) were guilty of many horrible outrages and cruelties, which must have hurt their cause greatly, and have made honest men hold them in abomination.

Julian gave liberty to all the contenders to fight it out in disputation, and recalled those whom Constantius had banished.

Jovian favoured the Consubstantialists during his short reign.

Valentinian, like a wise prince, kept an even hand between both parties, and would not be the tool of either.

Valens at the same time persecuted the Consubstantialists in his dominions.

Gratian and Theodosius oppressed the Arians.

The Arians were also divided into sects which anathematized and plagued each other. But Arianism subsisted, and made a considerable figure for above three hundred years, and was at last destroyed by violence and persecution. See Bayle's Dict. ARIUS.

In the fourth century were held thirteen councils against Arius, fifteen for him, and seventeen for the Semiarians, in all, forty-five.

How could the Arians, in the time of Constantius and Valens, bring themselves to such an unchristian persecuting temper? how could they oppress their fellow Christians the Consubstantialists, who, suppos

them to have been in an error, fell into it through á religious fear of ascribing too little to their Redeemer, and of not paying him sufficient honour? Can a man love his Saviour, and hate his brother for a mistake of this kind?

And how could the Consubstantialists persuade themselves that an Arian, who perhaps had suffered for professing Christianity in times of distress, who believed Christ to be his Maker, his Saviour, his King, and his Judge, would chuse to detract from his digni ty, and to offend him in whom he placed all his hopes of salvation? Human nature is not capable of this folly, and if the man was in an error, yet in such a person the error must have been involuntary, a mere defect of the understanding, and not a fault of the will.

A Christian, and a lover of peace, who lived in obscurity, and whose name I cannot tell, stood up, and said;

St

My brethren, The things to be believed are few, the things to be done are many; but you behave yourselves, as if the reverse of this were true. "Paul tells you, The Grace of God that bringeth salvation, hath appeared to all men; teaching us, that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live

16

soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world, looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearance of the great God, and (of) our Saviour Jesus "Christ. Concerning the nature of Jesus you can dispute incessantly, and concerning the word Grace

you will probably dispute no less; but the rest of "the sentence you disregard as of small consequence "or importance. What, I beseech you, must the Jews and the Pagans conceive of you and of your religion?

66