Page images
PDF
EPUB

who, with fo much illiberality, abufe the Chriftian doctrine of the Trinity, and the Chriftians who maintain it. Let us now return.

If Plato was not the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity to the Chriftians, Plato and his philofophical interpreters were the origin of Arianifm. Arius was himself a presbyter of Alexandria; and at Alexandria was the school whence all the most celebrated Platonifts proceeded. With their writings he was perfectly well acquainted; and, probably, not approving of their and Plato's principle, which had a direct tendency to the introduction again of a multiplicity of Gods into the world, he thought he would fteer a middle courfe between their opinions and the principle of the Chriftians. The principle of the Christians was, that there were three equal perfons in the Divine unity: that of the Platonists was, that there were three divine principles, differing in nature from each other, which they called, the Father; the Word, or Nous; and Yuxy Tou Kooμov,' the Soul of the World. Some of them even stopped fhort of this, and conceived the λoyos not to have a diftinct existence, but, to be the wisdom, the intelligence, of the Father, as if he existed only in idea; whence proceeded the error of thofe heretics who maintained, that CHRIST the Word was avpwmos. Differing in opinion from these, and not willing either to concur in the introduction of polytheism into the world, or to affirm that CHRIST was

C 2

[ocr errors]

a mere

[ocr errors]

a mere man, Arius taught that CHRIST was God as well as man; that in fubftance he was 'Ouoiovoio5, like unto the Father, and that he was begotten of him, but inferior, and fubject to his will. Here, then, how, in fact, does Arius differ from the Platonifts? Nay; how does he differ from the general principle of the Heathens, with their Di Majores & Minores? If CHRIST was GOD, as Arius acknowledges, and, if he was inferior, and fubject to the will of God, as he maintains likewife, then must CHRIST have been fubject, and inferior to himself; for, there is no medium between what is, and what is not, GoD. By the word Gop, we understand the firft fupreme, eternal, unfubjected, caufe of alt existence and this Chrift is, if he is GoD; but, if he is, in his fubftance, inferior to GoD, and is GOD in fubftance himfelf, then is he inferior to himself; which is nonfenfe, on a fuppofition that · there is but one GoD: but, if the Arians fuppofe that CHRIST is an inferior GOD, then how, in this respect, does Arianifm differ from the Polytheism of the Heathens? If CHRIST is GOD, as the Arians acknowledge; and if he is inferior to GoD, as they maintain likewife; then are there more Gods than one: there is a Major and a Minor God; and, confequently, the Arian differs nothing from the Hea-then. The doctrine of Arianifm is the Monftrum, and not the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is an uniform, confiftent, doctrine; and, when it afcribes Divinity to the Son and the

4

HOLY

It

HOLY GHOST, aferibes it in fuch a manner as by no means to impeach the unity of the Godhead. is grounded on Divine revelation; it defends itfelf by no other arguments and proofs, but fuch as revelation affords; nor ever owed its origin to philofophy, falfely fo called, or the bewildered disputations of an Alexandrian fchool. Its bafis is the Scripture, and the Scripture alone; and, unfupported by that, it has no other refource. But, what is the resource of the Arians? Not the Scripture; but vain reasonings of their own, the idle fophiftry of perverse minds, puffed up with the imaginary knowledge of things which lie infinitely beyond their reach. The Mahometan, and the Socinian, are much more confiftent in their falfe theories than the Arian. The former acknowledges one only GoD, and that he has no fon, nor partner. He acknowledges that CHRIST was born of a Virgin, and that he had a pre-existence, but holds the Chriftian in abhorrence. The Socinian profeffes, that there is one GoD only; he faith that CHRIST was a mere man; he rejecteth what St. Matthew and St. Luke have faid concerning him; and denies that CHRIST had any preexistence; but, withal, profeffes himself to be a Chriftian.

Arius profeffes to believe, that there is one God only, who is the Father; that he has a Son, who is JESUS CHRIST; that JESUS is of a fubftance like unto the Father; and that he is GOD. The incon

[blocks in formation]

fiftency of this needs not be pointed out; it is evident; for, if he is GoD, and not of the fame fubstance with the Father, then is he GoD, diftinct from the Father; confequently, there are two distinct Gods and yet the Arians profess to believe, that there is one God only, in direct oppofition to their own profeffion, that there are two Gods, of fubftances diftinct from each other. It is not at all improbable, that these abfurd and contradictory tenets of the Arians gave birth to the errors of Socinus; errors with which at present the minds of too many are bewildered; and, therefore, perhaps, it may not be amifs to fubjoin a word or two concerning them.

From whatever fource the errors of Socinus were derived, the modern Socinians have opened for themselves a fountain of very great antiquity. No longer characterizing themselves by the title of their founder and Kanyarns, they have renounced the name of Socinus, and chufe to be diftinguished as Unitarians, being equally adverfe to the Arians as to the Catholic Chriftians. Their origin, as they chufe to inform us, is from one Ebion, in the Apoftolic age, who, with his followers, maintained, that JESUS CHRIST had no existence prior to his birth of Mary the wife of Joseph; and, in order to support their affertion the better, as they received the Gofpel of St. Matthew, which was point-blank against them, they rejected the three first chapters of it.

Here,

Here, then, we are to enquire who this Ebion was. Moft probably no fuch perfon ever exifted, unless it was Cerinthus himself; for, Ebion is not a proper name, but a name of difgrace, which the first Christians affixed to the original perverters and corrupters of the Gospel. The name is very well explained in the interpolated Epiftle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians. Εαν τις λεγη μεν ενα Θεον, ομολογη δε και Χριςον Ιησουν, ψιλον δε ανθρωπον είναι νομίζη τον Κυριον, ουχι Θεον μονογένη, &c. εςιν ὁ τοιουτος πένης την δι άνοιον, ως επικαλείται Εβίων. Such an one labours under a poverty of understanding, as the furname Ebion fignifies. In a note on this paffage is given an extract from Eufebius, confirming the truth of what is there faid, with regard to the fignification of the word Ebion; and, as the epiftle is faid to have been interpolated long after the time of Eufebius, the interpretation, very probably, was borrowed from Eufebius. The words are, του Εβιων ονοματος την της διανοιας πτωχειαν αὐτῶν ὑποφαινοντος, ταύτη γαρε πικλην ὁ πτωχος παρ' Ἑβραιοις ονομάζεται. Ebionis nomine

i paupertatem mentis eorum denotante, fic enim pauper apud Hebræos nominari folet. (Eufeb. 1. 3. Hift. Ecc. xep. x) Hence, then, it appears, that Ebion was κεφ. κζ.) a name applicable to any of the infatuated corrupters of Christianity; and, therefore, we may conclude, (however some of the Fathers speak, as if there really had existed such a perfon as Ebion,) yet, that the name never was the perfonal name of any particular man, but was only characteristic and applicable to

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »