.^6»1-«^*»*J*. X A N HISTORY OF THE CORRUPTIONS O F CHRISTIANITY, IN TWO VOLUMES. By JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, LL.D. F.R.S. PIDiT THOU KOT low COOD SZIO IN THY FIELD ? WKEKCE THIN HATR IT TAHXa ? MATT. IIW. 27. VOL. I. BIRMINGHAM: Printbd by PIERCY and JONES, for J. JOHNSON, NO. 72, ST PAUL'* CHVRCH YARD, LONDON. M,OCC,LXXXII. TO THE REVEREND THEOPHILUS LINDSEY, A. M. DEAR FRIEND, \X7ISHING, as I do, that my name may ever be coiinefted as clofely with yours after death, as we have been connedled by friendlhip in life, it is with peculiar fatisfaftion that I dedicate this work (which I am willing to hope will he one of the moft iifeful of my publications) to you. To your example, of a pure love of truth, and of the moft fearlefs integrity in aflerting it, evidenced by the facrifices you have made to it, I owe much of my own wifhes to imbibe the fame fpirit j though a more favourable education, and fituation a 2 in iv. DEDICATION. in life, by not giving me an opportunity of diftinguifhing myfelf as you have done, has, likewife, not expofed me to the tempta tion of afting otherwife j and for this I wifh to be truly thankful. For iince fo very few of thofe who profefs the fame fen- timents with you, have had the courage to aft confiftently with tliem, no perfon, what ever he may imagine he might have been equal to, can have a right to prefume, that he would have been one of fo fmall a number. No perfon ca,n fee in a ftronger light than' you do the mifchievous confequences of the corruptions of that religion, which you jui1;Iy prize, as the moft valuable of the gifts of God to man ; and therefore I flat ter myfelf, it will give you fome pleafvire to accompany me in my refearches into the origin and progrefs of them, as this will tend to give all the friends of pure chrift- ianity the fuUeft fatisfadlion that they re- fleft no difcredit on the revelation itfelf j fince it will be feen that they all came in from a foreign and hoftile quarter. It will likewiie afford a plealing prefage, that our religion will, in due time, purge itfelf of every thing that debafes it, and that for the prefent prevents its reception by thofe who are DEDICATION. v. are ignorant of its nature, whether hving in chriftian countries, or among Mahome tans and Heathens. The grofs darknefs of tliat night which has for many centuries obfcured our holy religion, we may clearly fee, is paft; the morning is opening upon us ; and we can not doubt but that the light will increafe, and extend itfelf more and more, unto the perfeB day. Happy are they who contri bute to diffufe the pure light of this ever- lajiing gojpel. The tiigg. is coming when the detefiion of one error, or prejudice, re lating to this moft important fubjeft, and the fuccefs we have in opening and en larging the minds of men with refpeft to it, will be far more honourable than any difcovery we can make in other branches of knowledge, or our fuccefs in propagating them. In looking back upon the difmal fcene which the ftiocking corruptions of chrifti- anity exhibit, we may well exclaim with the prophet, Hoiv is the gold become dim, hoxa is the mojl fine gold changed. But the tho rough examination of every thing relating to chriftianity, which has been produced by a 3 the vi. DEDICATION. the corrupt ftate of it, and which nothing elfe would probably have led to, has been as the refiners fire with refpeft to it ; and when it {hall have ftood this teft, it may be prefumed that the truth and excellency of it will never more be calledin queftion. This corrupt ftate of chriftianity has, no doubt, been permitted by the fupreme go vernor of the world for the heft of purpo- fes, and it is the fame great being who is alfo now, in the courfe of his providence, employing thefe means to purge his fioor. The civil powers of this world, which were formerly the chief fupports of the anti- chriftian fyftems, who have given their power and firength unto the beaJi (Rev. xvii. 13.) now begin to hate her., and are ready to make her defolate and naked, v. 16. To anlwer their own political purpofes, they are now pro moting various reformations in the church ; and it can hardly be doubted, but that the difficulties in which many of the European nations are now involving themfelves, will make other meafures of reformation highly expedient and neceflary. Alfo, while the attention of men in power is engrofled by the difficulties that more DEDICATION. Vii. more immediately prefs upon them, the fendeavours of the friends of reformation in points of doSirine pafs with lefs no tice, and operate without obftruftion. Let us rejoice in the good that refults from this evil, and omit no Opportunity that is furnifhed us, voluntarily to co operate with the gracious intention of divine providence ; and let us make that our primary objeft, which others are doing to promote their own linifter ends. All thofe who labour in the difcovery and communication of truth, if they be adtuated by a pure love of it, and a fenfe of its importance to the happi- nefs of mankind, may confider them felves as workers together with God, and may proceed with confidence, afTured that their labour in this caufe Jhall not be in vain, whether they themfelves fee the fruit of it or not. The more oppofitioh we meet with in thefe labours, the more honourable it will be to us, provided we meet that oppofition with the true fpirit of chrifti anity. And to aflift us in this, we fhould frequently refleft that many of our op- a 4 ponents viii. DEDICATION. ponents are proh^ly men who wilh as well to ^ godTpel as we do ouifelves, and really think th^ dfi God fervic^ by oppofing us. Evai prejudice and bigotry, arifing from fuch a principle, are refpe6t- able things, and entitled to the greateft candour. If our religion teaches us to love our enemies, certainly we fliould love, and, from a principle of love, ftiould en deavour to convince thofe, who, if they were only better informed, would em brace UB as friends. The time will come when the cloud, which for the prefent prevents our diftin^ guiftiing our friends and our foes, will be difperfed, even that day in which the fe- crets of all hearts will be dijclojed to the view of all. In the mean time, Ipt us think as favourably as poffible of all men, our particular opponents nqt excepted ; and therefore be careful to conduft all boftility, with the pleafing profpedt that one day it will give place to the moft perfe^ amity. You, my friend, pecuharly happy in a moft placid, as well as a moft determined mind, have nothing to blame ypurfelf for in DEDICATION. ix. in this" refpe6b. If, on any occafion, I have indulged too much afperity, I hope I Ihall, by your example, learn to correal myfelf, and without abating my zeal in the common caufe. As we are now both of us paft the meridian of life, I hope we ftiall be look ing more and more beyond it, and be preparing for that world, where we fhall have no errors to combat, and confequently where a talent for difputation will be of no ufe ; but where the fpirit of love will find abundant exercife ; where all our labours will be of the moft friendly and benevolent nature, and where our employ ment will be its own reward. Let thefe views brighten the evening of our lives, that evening, which will be enjoyed with more fatisfaftion, in propor tion as the day fliall have been laborioufly and well fpent. Let us then, without re- lu6lance, fubmit to that temporaiy reft in the grave, which our wife creator has thought proper to appoint for all the human race, our Saviour himfelf not wholly excepted j anticipating with joy the glorious morning of the refurreElion, when X. DEDICATION. when we Ihall meet that Saviour, whof(5 precepts we have obeyed, whofe fpirit we have breathed, whofe religion we have de fended, whofe cup alfo we may, in fome meafure, have drank of, and whofe honours we have aflerted, without making them to interfere with thofe of his father and our father, of his God and our God, that fupreme, that great and awful being to whofe will he was always moft perfedlly fubmiffive, and for whofe unrivalled pre rogative he always fliewed the moft ar dent zeal. With the trueft affedtion, I am. Dear Friend, Your Brother, In the faith and hope of the gofpel, * J. PRIESTLEY. Birmingham, Nov, 1782. The preface. A FTER examining the foundation of our chriftian faith, and having feen how much valuable information we receive from it, in my Inftitutes of natural and revealed religion, it is with a kind of reludtance, that, according to my propofal, I muft now proceed to exhibit a a view of the dreadful corruptions which have debafed its fpirit, and almoft annihilated all the liappy efFc(5ts which it was eminently calculat ed to produce. It is fome fati&faftion to us, however, and is more than fufficient to an- fwer any objeilion that may be made to chriftianity itfelf from the confideration of thefe corruptio.ns, th'it they appear to have been clearly forefeen by Chrlft, and by fcveral ofthe apoftles. And we have at this day the ftill greater fatisfaclion, to perceive that, accord ing to the prtdidions contained in the books of fcripture, chriftic:r;ity has begun to recover itfelf from this corrupted ftate, and that the reformation advances apace. And though fome -of the moft fhocking abufes ftiU conti nue in many places, their virulence is very ge nerally alatedj and the number is greatly in- creafed xii. PREFACE. creafcd of thofe who are moft zealous in the profelEon of chriftianity, whofe lives are the greateft ornament to it, and who hold it in fo much purity, that, if it was fairly exhibited, and univerfally underftood, it could hardly fail to recommend itfelf to the acceptance of the whole world, of Jews and Gentiles. The clear and full exhibition of truly re formed chriftianity fcems now to be almoft the only thing that is wanting to the univerfal pre valence of it. But fo long as all the chrifti anity that is known to heathens, Mahometans, and Jews, is of a corrupted and debafed kind ; and particularly while the profefllon of it is fo much connefted with worldly intereft, it is no wonder that mankind in general refufe to ad mit it, and that they can even hardly be pre vailed upon to give any attention to the evi dence that is alledged in its favour. Whereas, when the fyftem itfelf ftiall appear to be lefs li able to objeftion, it is to be hoped, that they may be brought to give proper attention to iti and to the evidence on which it refts. Difagreeable as muft be the view of thefe corruptions of chriftianity, to thofe who love and value it, it may not be without its ufe, even with refpect to themfelves. For the more their abhorrence and indignation are excited by the confideration of what has fo long pafled for chriftianity, the more highly will PREFACE. xiii. will they efteem what is truly fo ; the contrafl: will be fo ftriking, and fo greatly in its fa vour. * Both thefe valuable ends, I hope, will be, in fome meafure, anfwered by this attempt, to exhibit what appear to me to have been the great deviations from the genuine fyftem and fpirit of chriftianity, and the caufes that produced them. The following work has been fo long pro- mifed to the public, that I cannot help being apprehenfive left my friends, and others, (hould not find their expeftations from it fully an fwered. But they ftiould recoUeft, that it was originally promifed on a much fmaller fcale, viz. as the concluding part of my Inftitutes of natural and revealed religion, which were drawn vp for the ufe of young perfons only. I have fince feen reafon to extend my views, and to make this a feparate work, larger than the whole of the Inftitutes j and perhaps I may not have fuccecded fufficiently well in the uni form extenfxon of the whole defign. If, there fore, in any refpeft, either the compofition, cr the citation of authorities, Ihould appear to be more adapted to my firft defign, I hope the candid reader will m^dce proper allowance for it. If my proper and ultimate objc£l be con- Cdered, I flatter myfelf it will be thought that I have siv. PREFACE. I have given reafonable fatisfadtion with refpeft to it ; having ftiewn that every thing which I deem to be a corruption of chriftianity has been a departure from the original fcheme, or an innovation. It will alfo be feen, that I have, generally been able to trace every fuch cor ruption to its proper fource, and to fliew what circumftances in the ftate of things, and efpe- cially of other prevailing opinions and preju dices, made the alteration, in doftrine or pra6lice, fufficiently natural, and the intro- duftion and eftabliftiment of it cafy. And if I have fucceeded in this inveftigation, this f>iftorical method will be found to be one of the moft fatisfadory modes of argumentation, in order to prove that what I object to is really a corruption of genuine chriftianity, and no part of the original fcheme. For after the cltMreft refutation of any particular doftrine, that has been long eftablirtied in chriftian churches, it will ftill be a(ked, how, if it be no part of the fcheme, it ever came to be thought fo, and to be fo generally acquiefced in ; and in many cafes the mind will not be pcrfeftly fatisfied till fuch queftions be an fwered. Befides this, I have generally given a fliort account of the recovery of the genuine doc trines of chriftianity in the laft age, though this was not my piofefled objed; and a full hiftory of the reformation, in all its articles, might PREFACE. XV, might be the fubjeft of another large and very inftruftive work, though I apprehend not quite fo ufeful as I flatter myfelf this will be. I have not, however, taken notice of every departure from the original ftandard of chriftian faith or pradice, but only, or at leaft chiefly, fuch as fubfift at this day, in fome confiderable part of the chriftian world ; or fuch as, though they may not properly fubfift themfelves, have left confiderable veftiges in fome chriftian churches. I have not omitted at the fame time, to recite, as far as I was able, both the feveral fteps by which each corruption has advanced, and alfo whatever has been urged with the greateft plaufibility in favour of itj though I have made a point of being as fuc- cindl as poftible in rhe detaU of arguments, for or againft any particular article of faith or praftice. In one article, however, I have confiderably extended the argumentative part, viz. in my account of the doftrine of atonement. To this fubjeft I had given particular attention many years ago, and Dr. Lardner and Dr. Fleming having feen what I then wrote, pre vailed upon me to allow them to publifti what they thought proper of it. This they did under the title of The fcripture doSfrine of re- mijjion, in the year 1761. When I publiflied die Theological Repojitory I correfted and en larged svi. PREFACE. larged that traft, and intended to write a ftill larger treatife on the fubjeft, with the hiftory of the doftrine annexed to it. I ftiall now, however, drop that defign, contenting myfelf with giving the fubftance of the arguments in this work. In the Conclujim of this work, I have taken the liberty, which I hope will not be thought improper, to endeavour to call the attention of unbelievers \.o the fubjedt of the corruptions of chriftianty (being fcnfible that this is one of the principal caufes of infidelity) and alfo that of thofe who have influence with refpcift to the prefent eftablifliments of chriftianity, the re formation of many of the abufes I have de-t fcribcd being vci 7 much in their power. There is nothing, I hope, in the manner of thefe addrefl'es that will give offence, as none was intended. I truft, that from a fenfe of its infinite importance, I am deeply concerned for the honour of the religion I profefs. I would, therefore, willingly do any thing that may be in my power (and I hope with a temper not unbecoming the gofpel) to make it both pro perly, K»^fr^o« ¦ 356 SECTION II. PART I. Of the worfhip of faints in the middle ages and till the reformation. 362 SECTION II. PART II. Of the worfhip of the virgin Mary. — 375 SECTION II. PART III. Of the worfhip of images in this period. 383 SECTION II. PART IV. Of the reJpeSt paid to relics in this period. 394 PART V. The hillory of opinions concerning tbe Jtate of the dead. — — 400 SECTION r. Of the opinions concerning the dead till the time of Auftin. 407 SECTION II. I Of the opinions concerning the ftate of the dead, from the time of Auftin to the refor mation. 414 SECTION III. Of the revival of the genuine doitrine of revelation conceming the Jtate of the dead. 423 ERRATA. VOL. I. N. B. (b) iignifies from the bottom of the pagir. Page 38, 1. 4, (b) for this read ihat, 1. 3, (b) for that read this. 68, 1. 4, dele fill.. 70, 1. 3, read an infinite /atisfaliion to have been made. 137, 1. I, for adopted read adapted. 179, 1. 4, (b) for hecaufe readyir 'which caufe. 213, for Seftion v, read iv, and alter Seflions , VI, VII, and VIM, in like manner. 277, 1. 6, for mortification read modification.. 347, 1. ij, for underi'ved read derived. 364, 1. 17, for de/cription read in/criptien. 394, 1. 12, for o//frfr read er other. 417, Note, for Plutarch read Petrarch. CORRECTIONS, VOL. L P. 103, 1. 16, dele by the council of Nice. 1 3 J, 1. 8, read at this addition. 151, 1. 7, read chriftianity being. 204, 1. 4, reaA favoured the Jfraelites. N. B. Such overfights ofthe printer, or of the writer* as any perfon who can obferve is alfo able to correal, are not noticed. t H E HISTORY OF THE CORRUPTIONS o F CHRI STIANITY. PART I. The hiflory of opinions relating to Jefus Chrifl. The INTRODUCTION. TH E unity of God is a dodrine on which the greateft ftrefs is laid in the whole fyftem of revelation. To guard this moft important article was the principal objed of the Jewifti religion; and, notwithftanding the pronenefs of the Jews to idolatry, at length it fully anfwered its pur pofe, in reclaiming them, and in imprefling the minds of many perfons of other nations in favour of the fame fundamental truth. The Jews were taught by their prophet."* to cxped a Mcfliah, who was to be defcended B from 2 The Hi/lory of from the tribe of Judah, and the family of David, a perfon in whom themfelves and all the nations of the eaith ftiould be blefled ; but none of their prophets gave them an idea of any other than a man like themfelves, in that illuftrious chafader ; and no other did they ever exped, or do they exped to this day. Jefus Chrift, whofe hiftory anfwers to the defcription. given of the Mefliah by the pro phets, made no other pretenfions ; referring all his extraordinary power to God, his father, who, he exprefsly fays, fpake and aded by him, and who raifcd hira from the dead; and it is moft evident that the apoftles, and all thofe who converfed with our Lord, before and after his refurredion, confidered him in no other light than fimply as a man approved of God, by figns and wonders whieh God did ly him. Ads ii. 2Z. Not only do we -find no trace of fb pro digious a change in the ideas which the apoftles entertained concerning Chrift, as from that of a man like themfelves (which It muffe be acknov^ledged were the firft that they en tertained) to that of the moft high God,, oy one who was in any ienfe their maker ov preferver, that when their minds were moft fully enlightened, after the defcent of the holy opinions concerning Chrifl. 3 holy fpirit, and to the latefl^ period of their miniftry, they continued to fpeak of him in the fame ftile ; even when it is evident they muft have intended to fpeak of him in a manner fuited to his ftate of greateft exal tation and glory. Peter ufes the fimple lan guage above quoted, of a man approved of God immediately after the defcent of the fpirit, and the apoftle Paul, giving what may be called the chriftian creed fays, i Tim. ii. 5. There is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Chrift Jefus. He does not fay the God; the God man, or the Juper angelic being, but fimply the man Chrift Jefus; and nothing can be alledged frora the New Teftament in favour of any higher nature of Chrift, except a few paflTages interpreted without any regard to the context, or the modes of fpeech and opinions of the times in which the books were written, and in fuch a manner, in other refpeds, as would authorize our proving any dodrine whatever from them. From this plain dodrine of the fcriptures, a dodrine fo confonant to reafon and the antient prophecies, chriftians have at length come to believe what they do not pretend to have any conception of, and than which it is not pofllble to frame a more exprefs contradidion. For while they confider Chrift B a as 4 The Hiftory ef as the fupreme eternal God, the maker of heaven and earth, and of all things vifible and invifible, they moreover acknowledge the Father and the Holy Spirit to be equally God, in the fame exalted fenfe, all three equal in power and glory, and yet all three con- ftituting no more than one God. To a perfon the leaft interefted in the in quiry, it muft appear an objed of curiofity to trace by what means, and by what fteps, fo great a change has taken place, and what circumftances in the hiftory of other opini ons, and of the world, proved favourable to the fucceflive changes. An opinion, and efpe cially an opinion adopted by great numbers of mankind, is to be confidered as any other faSt in hiftory ; for it cannot be produced without an adequate caufe, and is therefore a proper objed of philofophical enquiry. In this cafe I think it not difficult to find caufes abundantly adequate to the purpofe, and it is happily in our power to trace almoft every ftep by which the changes have been fucceflively brought about. If the intereft that mankind have generally taken in any thing will at all contribute to intereft us in the inquiry concerning it, this hiftory cannot fail to be highly interefting. For perhaps in no bufinefs whatever have the opinions concerning Chrifl. 5 the minds of men been more agitated, and Jpeculative as the nature of the thing is, in few cafes has the peace of fociety been fo much difturbed. To this very day of fuch importance is the fubjed confidered by thou- fands and ten thoufands, that they cannot write or fpeak of it without the greateft zeal, and without treating their opponents with the greateft rancour. If good fenfe and humanity did not interpofe to mitigate the rigour of law, thoufands would be facrificed to the caufe of orthodoxy in this fingle arti cle j and the greateft number of fufferers would probably be in this very country, on ac count of the greater freedom of inquiry which prevails here, in confequence of which we en tertain and profefs the greateft diverfity of opinions. The various fteps in this interefting hiftory ir is now my bufinefs to point out, and I wifti that all my readers may attend me with as much coolnefs and impartiality as I truft I ftiall myfelf preferve through the whole of this inveftigation. B t SECTION The Hiftory of SECTION I. Of the opinion of the antient Jewifh and gen tile churches. THAT the antient Jewifti church muft have held the opinion that Chrift was fimply a man, and not either God Almighty, or a fuper angelic being, may be concluded from its being the clear dodrine of the fcrip ture, and from the apoftles having taught no other; but there is fufiicient evidence of the fame thing from ecclefiaftical hiftory. It is unfortunate, indeed, that there are now ex tant fo few remains of any of the writers who immediately fucceeded the apoftles, and efpecially that we have only a few inconfi- derable fragments of Hegefippus, a Jewifh chriftian, who wrote the hiftory of the church in continuation of the ASfs of the Apoftles, and who travelled to Rome about the year 160 ; but it is not difficult to colled evi dence enough in fupport of my aflertion. The members of the Jewifti church were, in general, in very low circumftances, which may account for their having few perfons of learning among them ; on which account they were much defpifed by the richer and more learned gentile chriftians, efpecially after the deftrudion of Jerufalem, before which event all Opinions concerning Chrifl. j all the chriftians in Judea (warned by our Saviour's prophecies concerning the defolation of that country) had retired to the north eaft of the fea of Galilee. They were like- wife defpifed by the gentiles for their bigotted adherence to the law of Mofes, to the rite of circumcifion, and other ceremonies of their antient religion. And on all thefe accounts they probably got the name of Ebionites, which fignifies poor and mean, in the fame manner as many of the early reformers from popery got the name of Beghards, ^nd other appellations of a fimilar nature. The fate of thefe antient Jewifti chriftians was, indeed, peculiarly hard. For, befides the negled of the gentile chriftians, they were, as Epiphanius informs us * held in the greateft abhorrence by the Jews from whom they had feparated, and who curfed them in a folemn manner three times, whenever they met for public worfliip. In general, thefe antient Jewifti chriftians re- tamed the appellation of Nazarenes, and both Origen and Epiphanius acknowledge that the Nazarenes and Ebionites were the fame people, and held the fame tenets, though fome of them fuppofed that Chrift was the fon of Jo- feph as well as of Mary, while others of them held that he had no natural father, but had a miraculous birth. § Epiphanius in his ac- • Ha:r. 29. Opera, vol. i.p. 124. §Ib. p. 125. B 4 count 8 The Hiflory of count of the Nazarenes (and the Jewifti chrif tians never went by any other name) makes no mention of any of them believing the divinity of Chrift,' in any fenfe of the word. It is particularly remarkable that Hegefip pus, in giving an account of the herefies of his time, though he mentions the Carpocra tians, Valentinians, and others who were ge nerally termed Gnoftics (and who held that Chrift had a pre-exiftence, and was man only in appearance) not only makes no mention of this fuppofed herefy of the Nazarenes or Ebionites, but fays that, in his travels to Rome, where he fpent fome time with Ani cetus, and vifited the biftiops of other fees, he found that they all held the fame dodrine, that was taught in the law, by the prophets, and by our Lord.* What could this be but the proper unitarian dodrine, held by the Jews, and which he himfelf had been taught ? That Eufebius doth not exprefsly fay what this faith was, is no wonder, confidering his prejudice againft the unitarians of his own time. He fpeaks of the Ebionites, as perfons whom a malignant dsemon had brought into his power, § and though he fpeaks of them as holding that Jefus was the fon of Jofeph, • Eufebii, Hift. L. 4. C. 22. p. i8z. § lb. L. 3. C. 27. p. IZ! as Opinions concerning Chrifl. 9 as well as of Mary, he fpeaks with no lefs virulence of the opinion of thofe of his time, who believed the miraculous con ception, calling their herefy madnejs. Vale- fius, the tranflator of Eufebius, was of opinion that the hiftory of Hegefippus was negleded and loft by the antients, becaufe it was ob- ferved to favour the unitarian dodrine. It is poftible alfo, that it might be lefs efteemed on account of the very plain unadorned ftile, in which all the antients fay it was written. Almoft all the antient writers who fpeak of what tliey call the herefies of the two firft centuries, fay that they were of two kinds, the •firft were thofe that thought that Chrift was a man only in appearance, and the other that he was a mere man.* TertuUian calls the former Doc0ta, and the latter Ebionites. Auftin, Ipeak- ing of the fame two feds, fays, that the for mer believed Chrift to be God, but denied that he was man, whereas the latter believed him to be man, but denied that he was God. Of this latter opinion Auftin owns that he himfelf was, till he became acquainted with the writings of Plato, which in his time were tranflated into latin, and in which he learned the dodrine of the Logos. ^ Lardner's Hift. of Heretics, p. 17. Now IO Tbe Hiflory of Now that this fecond herefy, as the later writers called it, was really no herefy at all, but the plain fimple truth of the gofpel, may be clearly inferred from the apoftle John ta king no notice at all of it, though he cenfures the former, who believed Chrift to be man only in appearance, in the fevereft manner. And that this was the only herefy that gave him any alarm, is evident from his firft epiftle chap. 4, ver. 3, where he fays that every fpirit which confejes that Jefus Chrift is come in the flejh (by which he muft have meant is truly a man) is of God. On the other hand, he fays every fpirit which confefles not that Jefus Chrift is come of the flefti is not of God, and this is that fpirit of Antichrift, whereof ye have heard ihat it fliould came, and even now already is it in tbe world. For this was the firft corruption of the chriftian religion by the maxims of heathen philofophy, and which proceeded af terwards, till chriftianity was brought to a ftate little better than paganifm. That chriftian writers afterv.rards fliould imagine that this apoftle alluded to the uni tarian herefy, or that of the Ebionites, in the incrodudion to his gofpel, is not to be won dered at ; as nothing is more common than for men to interpret the writings of others according to their own previous ideas and conceptions of diings. On the contrary, it feems opinions concerning Chrifl. 1 1 feems very evident that, in that introdudion, rhe apoftle alludes to the very fame fyftem of opinions which he had cenfured in his epiftle, the fundamental principle of which was that, not the fupreme being himfelf, but an ema nation from fiim, to which they gave the name of Logos, and which they fuppofed to be the Chrift, and inhabited the body of Je fus, was the maker of all things; whereas he there affirms that the Logos by which all things were made, was not a being diftind from God, but God himfelf, that is, an attri bute of God, or the divine power and wifdom. We fhall fee that the unitarians of the third century charged the orthodox with introduc ing a new and ftrange interpretation of the word Logos. * That very fyftem, indeed, which made Chrift to have been the eternal reafon, or Logos of the Father, did not, probably, exift in the time of the apoftle John ; but was introduced from the principles of platonifm afterwards. But the Valentinians, who were only a branch of the Gnoftics, made great ufe of the fame term, not only denominating by it one of the jeons in the fyftem defcribed by Irenasus, but alfo one of them that was endowed by all the other asons with fome extraordinaiy gift, to which perfon they gave the name of Jejus, Saviour, Chrifl, and Logos. § * See Beaufobre, Hiftoire dc Mahicheifme, vol. i. p. 540. % Opera, L. i. Sec. 4. p. 14. The 12 The Hiftory of The word Logos was alfo frequently ufed by them as fynonymous to aon, in general, or an intelligence that fprung, mediately or immedi ately, from the divine efl"ence.* It is, therefore, almoft certain, that the apoftle John had frequent ly heard this term made ufe of, in Ibme errone ous reprefentations of the fyftem of chrifti anity that were current in his time, and there fore he might chufe to introduce the fame term in its proper fenfe, as an attribute of the deity, cr God himfelf, and not a diftind being that fprung from him. And this writer is not to be blamed if, afterwards, that very attribute was perfonified in a difft;rent manner, and not as a figure of fpeech, and confequently his language was made to convey a very differ ent meaning from that which he affixed to it. Athanafius himfelf was fo far from denying that the primitive Jewifli church was properly unitarian, maintaining the fimple humanity and not the divinity of Chrift, that he endeavours to account for it by faying, § that " all the Jews ** were fo firmly perfuaded that their Mefliah was " to be nothing more than a man like thcm- •' felves, that the apoftles were obliged to " ufe great caution in divulging the dodrine " of the proper divinity of Chrift. " But what the apoftles did not teach, I think we fliould • Beaufobre, vol. i, p. 571. j De Sententia Dionyfii, Opera, vol. i, p. 553. be opinions concerning Chrifl. 13 be cautious how we believe. The apoftles were never backward to combat other Jewifti prejudices, and certainly would have oppofed this opinion of theirs, if it had been an error. For if it had been an error at all, it muft be allowed to have been an error of the greateft confequence. Could it roufe the indignation of the apoftle John fo much as to call thofe Antichrift, who held that Chrift was not come in the flefti, or was not truly man, and would he have paflTed uncenfured thofe who denied the divinity of his Lord and mafter, if he himfelf had thought him to be true and very God, his maker atj well as his redeemer ? We may therefore fafely conclude that an opinion allowed to have prevailed in his time, and maintained by all the Jewifti chriftians afterwards, was what he himfelf and the other apoftles had taught them, and therefore that it is the very truth; and confequently that the dodrine of the divinity of Chrift, or of his being anv more than a man, is an innovation, in what ever manner it may have been introduced. Had the apoftles explained themfelves dif- tindly and fully, as its importance, if it had been true, required, on the fubjed of the proper divinity of Chrift, as a perfon equal to the Father, it can never be ;in.iyincd that the 14 ^be Hiftory of the whole Jewifli church, or any confiderable part of it, fliould fo' very foon have adopted the opinion of his being a mere man. To add to the dignity of their mafter, was natu ral, but to take from it, and efpecially to degrade him from being God, to being man, muft have been very unnatural. To make the Jews abandon the opinion of the di vinity of Chrift in the moft qualified fenfe of the word, muft at leaft have been as difficult as we find it to be to induce others to give up the fame opinion at this day; and there can be no queftion of their having, for fome time, believed what the apoftles taught on that, as well as on other fubjeds. Of the fame opinion with the Nazarenes, or Ebionites among the Jews, were thofe among the gentiles whom Epiphanius ca.llcd Alogi, from their not receiving, as he fays, the account that John gives of the Logos, and the writings of tnat apoftle in general. But Lardner, with great pro bability, fuppofes,* there never was any fuch he refy as that of the Alogi, or rather that thofe to whom Epiphanius gave that name, were un- juftly charged by him with rejeding the writ ings of the apoftle John, fince no other per fon before him makes any mention of fuch a thing, and he produces nothing but mere hearfay in fupport of it. It is very poffible, ' Hift. of Heretics, p. 447. however. opinions concerning Chrifl. i^ however, that he might give fuch an account of them, in confequence of their explaining the Logos in the introdudion of John's gofpel in a manner different from him, and others, who in that age had appropriated to themfelves the name of orthodox. Equally abfurd is the conjediure of Epi phanius,* that thofe perfons, and others like them, were thofe that the apoftle John meant by Antichrifl. It is a much more natural in ference that, fince this writer allows thefe unitarians to have been cotemporary with the apoftles, and that they had no peculiar ap pellation till he himfelf gave them this of Alogi (and which he is very defirousf that other writers would adopt after him) that they had not been deemed heretical in early times, but held the opinicvn of the antient gentile church, as the Nazarenes did that of the Jewifti church; and that, notwithftanding the introdudion, and gradual prevalence of the oppofite doc trine, they were fuffered to pafs uncenfured, and confequently without a name, till the fmallnefs of their numbers made them par ticularly noticed. » It is remarkable, however, that thofe who held the fimple dodrine of the humanity of Chrift, without aflTerting that Jofeph was his •¦Hxr. 51. S. 3. Opera, vol. i. p. 424. f P- 4^3- natural 1 6 fhe Hiftory of natural father, were not reckoned heretics by Irenaeus, who wrote a large work on the fubjed of herefies ; and even thofe who held that opinion are mentioned with refped by Jufbn Martyr, who wrote fome years before him, and who, indeed, is the firft writer ex tant, of the gentile chriftians, after the age of the apoftles. And it cannot be fuppofed that he would have treated them with fo much refped, if their dodrine had not been very generally received, and on that account lefs obnoxious than it grew to be afterwards. He exprefl'es their opinion concerning Chrift, by faying that they made him to be a mere man, (J-iA®- avSfwff©-) and by this term Irenasus, and all the antients, even later than Eufebius, iueant a man defcended from man, and this phrafeology is frequently oppofed to the doc trine of the miraculous conception of Jefus, and not to that of his divinity. It is not therefore to be inferred that becaufe fome of the antient writers condemn the one, they meant to pafs any cenfure upon the other. The manner in which Juftin Martyr Ipeaks of thofe unitarians who believed Chrift to be the -fon of Jofeph, is very remarkable, and fliewf that though they even denied the miraculous conception, they were far from being reckon ed heretics in his time, as they, were by Ire naeus opinions concerning Chrifl. 17 njEus afterwards. He fays, * " there are fome " of our profeflion who acknowledge him " (Jefus) " to be the Chrift, yet maintain that " he was a man born of man. I do not " agree with them, nor Ihould I be prevailed " upon by ever fo many who hold that opi- " nion ; becaufe we are taught by Chrift " himfelf not to receive our dodrine from " men, but from what was taught' by the " holy prophets and by himfelf." This language has all the appearance of an apology for an opinion contrary to the ge- j,neral and prevailing one, as that of the hu manity of Chrift (at leaft with the belief of the miraculous conception) probably was in his time. This writer even fpeaks of his own opinion of the pre-exiftence of Chrift (and he is the firft that we certainly know to have maintained it, on the principles on which it was generally received afterwards) as a doubtful one, and by no means a necefl'ary article of chriftian faith. " Jefus," fays he §, " may ftill be the Chrift of God, though I " ftiould not be able to prove his pre-exift- " ence, as the fon of God who made all " things. For though I fliould not prove that " he had pre-exifted, it will be right to fay " that, in this refped only, I have been de- • Dial, Edit. Thirlby, p. 235. 5 lb. p. 225. C " ceived 1 8 The Hiftory of " ceived, and not to deny that he is the " Chrift, if he appears to be a man born " of men, and to have become Chrift by " eledion." This is not the language of a man very confident of his opinion, and who had the fandion of the majority along with him. The reply of Trypho the Jew, with whom the dialogue he is writing is fuppofed to be held, is alfo remarkable, lliewing in what light the Jews will always confider any dodrine which makes Chrift to be more than a man. He fays, " They who think that Jefus was " a man, and, being cliofen of God, was •* anointed Chrift, appear to me to advance a " more probable opinion than yours. For all " of us exped that Chrift will be born a man " from man ( a^SfUTr®- .| m^fuira ) and that Eli? " as will come to anoint him. If he tliere- " fore be Chnft, he muft by all means be a " man born of man*." It is well known, and mentioned by Eu febius §, that the unitarians in the primitive church, always pretended to be the oldeft chriftians, that the apoftles themfelves had taught their dodrine, and that it generally prevailed till the time of Zephyrinys bifliop * Edit. Thirlby, p. 235. § Hift. p. 252. of opinions concerning Chrifl. 19 of Rome, but that from that time it was cor rupted. With fuch apparent unfairnefs does Eufebius treat thefe unitarians, as to fay* that Theodotus, who appeared about the year 190, and who was condemned by Vidor the fucceflfor of Zephyrinus, was the firft who held that our Saviour was a mere man ; when in refuting their pretenfions to antiquity, he goes no farther back than to Irenaeus and Juftin Martyr ; though in his own v/ritings alone he mi.q;ht have found a refutation of his afiertion. Epipharmis fpeak- ing of the fame Theodotus, fays that his he- rely was a branch ( a-noirircKri^a. ) of that of the Alogi, which fufficiently implies that they ex- ifted before hiin §. The Alogi, therefore, appear to have been the earlieft gentile chriftians, and Berriman fuppofes them to have been a branch of the Ebionites. f In fad, they muft have been the fame among the gentiles, that the Ebionites were among the Jews. And it is remarkable that as the children of Ifrael retained the worfliip of the one true God all the time of Joftuia, and of thofe of his cotemporaries who outlived him ; fo the generality of chrift ians retained the fame faith, believing the ftrid. unity of God, and the proper humanity ' Hift, L. 5. S. 2. p. 252. § Ha:r. 540pcra, vol, i, p. 461. t Hiilorical Account, p. 82. C 2 of 26 The Hiftory of of Chrift, all the time of the apoftles, and of thofe who converfed with them, but began to depart from that dodrine prefently after wards ; and the defedion advanced fo faft, that in about one century more, the original dodrine was generally reprobated, and deem ed heretical. The manner in which this cor ruption of the antient dodrine was introdu-^ ced, I muft now proceed to explain. SECTION IL Of the firft ftep that was made towards the deification of Chrift, by the perfonification of the Logos. I AS the greateft things often take their rife from the fmalleft beginnings, fo the worft things fometimes proceed from good intentions. This was certainly the cafe with refped to the origin of chriftian idolatry. All the early herefies arofe from men who wiflied well to the gofpel, and who meant to recom mend it to the heathens, and efpecially to philofophers among them, whofe prejudices they found great difficulty in conquering. Now we learn from the writings of the apof tles themfelves, as well as from the teftiraony of later writers, that the circumftance at which mankind in general, and efpecially the more philofophical Opinions concerning Chrift. 21 philofophical part of them ftumbled the moft, was the dodrine of a crucified Saviour. They could not fubmit to become the difciples of a man who had been expofed upon a crofs, like the vileft malefador. Of this objedion to chriftianity we find traces in all the early writers, who wrote in defence of the gofpel againft the unbelievers of their age, to the time of Ladontius ; and probably it may be found much later. He fays * " I know that " many fly from the truth out of their abhor- «' rence of the crofs". We, who only learn from hiftory, that crucifixion was a kind of death to which flaves and the vileft of ma- lefadors were expofed, can but very imper- fedly enter into their prejudices, fo as to feel what they muft have done with refped to it. The idea of a man executed at Ty burn, without any thing to diftinguifh him from other malefadors, is but an approach to the cafe of our Saviour. The apoftle Paul fpeaks of the crucifixion of Chrift as the great obftacle to the recep tion of the gofpel in his time; and yet, with true magnanimity, he does not go about to palliate the matter, but fays to the Corinth ians (fome of the politeft people among the Greeks, and fond of their philofophy) that Epitome, Cap, ji.p. 143. C :i "he 22 The Hiftory of " he was determined to know nothing among " them but Jefus Chrift and him crucified" : for though this circumftance was " to the " Jews a ftunibling block, and to the Greeks " fooliflmefs, it was to others the power of " God and the wifdom of God." i. Cor. i. 23. For this circumftance at which they cavilled was that in which the wifdom of God was moft confpicuous; the death and refurredion of a man, in all refpeds like themfelves, being better calculated to give other men an aflTurance of their own refurredion, than that of any iupcr-angelic being, the laws of whofe nature they might think to be very different from thofe of their own. But " as " by man came death, Jo by man came alfo " the reJurre£lion of the dead." i. Cor. xv. 21. Later chriftians, however, and efpecially thofe who were themfelves attached to the principles of either the oriental or the greek philofophy, unhappily took another method of removing this obftacle ; and inftead of ex plaining the v/ifdom of the divine difpenfa- tions in the appointment of a man, a perfon in all reJpeEls like unto his brethren, for the redempcion of men, and of his dying in the moft public and indifputable manner, as a foundation for the cleareft proof of a real refurredion, and alfo of a painful and igno minious death, as an example to his follow ers opinions concerning Chrift. 23 ers who might be expofed to the fame, i^c. &c. they began to raife the dignity of the perfon of Chrift, that it might appear lefs difgrace- ful to be ranked amongft his difciples. To make this the eafier to them, two things chiefly contributed, the firft was the received method of interpreting the fcriptures among the learned Jews, and the fecond was the philofophical opinions of the heathen world, which had then begun to infed the Jews themfelves. It has been obferved that after the tranf- lation of the Old Teftament into Greek, which was done probably in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, in confequence of whicli the Jewifli religion became better known to the Greeks, and efpecially to the philofophers of Alexandria, the more learned of the Jews had recourfe to an allegorical method of interpreting what they found to be moft objeded to in their facred writings ; and by this means pretended to find in the books of Mofes, and the prophets, all the great principles of the Greek philofophy, and efpecially that of Plato which at that time was moft in vogue.* In this method of interpreting fcripture, Philo, a learned Jew of Alexandria, far excelled all who had gone before him ; but the chriftians of • Platonifme devoile, p. 246. C 4 that a4 The Hiftory ef that city, who were themfelves deeply tinc tured with the principles of the fame philo fophy, efpecially Clemens Alcxandrius, and Origen, who both believed the pre-exiftence of fouls, and the other diftinguifliing tenets of Platonifm, foon followed his fteps in the interpretation of both the Old and the New Teftament. One method of allegorizing, which took its rife in the Eaft, was the perfonification of things without life, of which we have many beautiful examples in the books of fcripture, as of wifdom by Solomon, of the dead by Ezekiel, and of _/?« and death by the apoftle Paul, Another method of allegorizing was finding out refemblances in things that bore fome relation to each other, and then repre- fenting them as types and antitypes to each other. The apoftle Paul, efpecially if he be the author of the epiftle to the Hebrews, has ftrained very much, by the force of ima gination, to reconcile the Jews to the chriftian religion, by pointing out the analogies which he imagined the rites and ceremonies of the Jewifti religion bore to fomething in chrif tianity. Clemens Romanus, but more efpe cially Barnabas, puffied this method of allego rizing ftill farther. But the Fathers who fol lowed them, by employing both the methods, and mixing their own philofophy with chrif tianity. opinions concerning Chrifl. 55 tianity, at length converted an innocent al legory into what was little better than pagan idolatry. It had long been the received dodrine of the Eaft, and had gradually fpread into the weftern parts of the world, that befides the fupreme divine mind, which had exifted with out caufe from all eternity, there were other intelligences, of a lefs perfed nature, which had been produced by way of emanation from the great original mind, and that other in telligences, lefs and lefs perfed, had, in like manner, proceeded from them : in ftiort, that all fpirits, whether dasmons, or the fouls of men, were of this divine origin. It was fuppofed by fome of them that even matter itfelf, which they confidered as the fource of all evil, had, in this intermediate manner, de rived its exiftence from the deity, though others fuppofed matter to have been eternal and felf-exiftent. For it was a maxim with them all, that " nothing could be created " out of nothing." In this manner they thought they could beft account for the ori gin of evil, without fuppofing it to be the immediate produdion of a good being, which the original divine mind was always fuppofed by them to be. In 26 The Hiflory of In order to exalt their idea of Jefus Chrift, it being then a received opinion among the philofophers that all fouls had pre-exifted, they conceived his foul, not to have been that of a common man (which were gene rally fuppofed to have been the produdion of inferior beings) but a principal emanation from the divine mind itfelf, and that an in- tellicrence of fo high a rank either animated the body of Jefus from the beginning, or entered into him at his baptifm. There was, however, a great diverfity of opinion on this fubjed ; and indeed there was room enough for it, in a fyftem which was not founded on any obfervation, but was the mere crea ture of fancy. But all chefe philofophizing chriftians had the fame general objed, which was to make the religion of Chrift more re- pucable, by adding to the dignity of our Lord's perfon. Thus, according to Lardner, j- Cerinthus, one of the firft of thefe philofophizing chrift ians, taught that there was one iupreme God, but that the world was not made by him, but by angels ; that Jefus was a man born of Jofeph and Mary, and that at his baptifm the Holy Spirit, or the Chrift, delcended up on him ; that Jefus died and rofe again, but that the Chrift was impaffible. On the ¦f Hiftory of heretics, p. 150, other opinions concerning Chrifl. 27 other hand, Marcion held that Chrift was not born at all, but that the fon of God took the exterior form of man, without be ing born, or gradually growing up to a pro per fize, and Ihewed himfelf at once in Ga lilee, a man full grown, f All the heretics, however, of this clafs, whofe philofophy was more properly that of the Eaft, thought it was unworthy of fo exalted a perfon as the proper Chrift to be truly a man, and moft of them thought he had no real flefli, but only the appearance of it, and what was incapable of feeling pain, &c. Thefe opinions the apoftles and efpecially John had heard of, and he rejeded them, as we have feen, with the greateft indigna tion. However, this did not put a ftop to tlie evil, thofe philofophizing chriftians either having ingenuity enough to evade thofe cen fures, by pretending it was not their opini ons, but others foinewhat different from theirs, that properly fell under them; or new opini ons really different from them, but derived in fact from the fame fource, and having the fame evil tendency, rifing up in the place of them: for they were all calculated to give more dignity, as they imagined, to tlie per fon of their mafter. The moft remarkable f Ibid. p. 227. change 28 The Hiftory ef change in thefe opinions was that, whereas the earlieft of thefe philofophizing chriftians fuppofed, in general, that the world was made by fome fuperior intelligence of no benevo lent nature, and that the Jewifli religion was prefcribed by the fame being, or one very much refembling him, and that Chrift was fent to redify the imperfedions of both fyftems; thofe who fucceeded them, and whofe fuccefs at length gave them the title of orthodox, corrupted the genuine chriftian principle no lefs, by fuppofing that Chrift was the being who, under God, was himfelf the maker of the world, and the medium of all the divine communications to man, and therefore the author of the Jewiffi religion. As Plato had travelled into the Eaft, it is probable that he there learned the dodrine of divine emanations, and got his ideas of the origin of this vifible fyftem. But he fometimes expreflcs himfelf fo temperately . on the lubjed, that he feems to have only alle gorized what is true with refped to it ; Ipeak- ing of the divine mind as having exifted from eternity, but having within itfelf ideas or archetypes of whatever was to exift without it, and faying that the immediate feat of thefe ideas, or the intelligence which he ftiled Logos, was that from which the vifible creation imme diately fprung. However, it was to this prin ciple opinions concerning Chrifl. 29 ciple in the divine mind, or this being de rived from it, that Plato, according to Ladan- tius,* gave the name of a Jecond God, laying " the Lord and maker of the univerfe, whom " we juftly call God, made a fecond God " vifible and fenfible." By this means, however, it was, that this Logos, originally an attribute of the divine mind itfelf, came to be reprefented, firft by the philofophers, and then by philofophizing chriftians, as an intelligent principle or being, diftind from God, though an emanation from him. This dodrine was but too conveni ent for thofe who wilhed to recommend the religion of Chrift. Accordingly, they imme diately fixed upon this Logos as the intel ligence which either animated the body of Chrift, or which was in fome inexplicable manner united to his foul (but the former was the earlier opinion of the two) and by the help of the allegorical method of interpreting the fcriptures, to which they had been fuffi ciently accuftomed, they eafily found autho rities there for their opinions. Thus, fince we read in the book of Pfalms, that by the word oJ the Lord (which, in the tranflation of the Seventy, is the Logos) the * Epitome, Cap. 42. p. 106. Heavens 20 The Hiflory of Heavens were made, &c. they concluded that this Logos was Chrift, and therefore that, un der God, he was the maker of the world. They alfo applied to him what Solomon fays of wifdom, as having been in the beginning with God, and employed by him in making the world, in the book of Proverbs. But there is one particular pafl'age in the book of Pfalms in which they imagined that the origin of the Logos, by way of emanation from the divine mind, is mc^ clearly ex- prefled, which is what we render. My heart is inditing a good matter. PJalm xlv. i, this matter being Logos in the Seventy, and the verb «peuyo(A(»®' throwing out. Nothing can ap pear to us more ungrounded than this fup- pofition, and yet we find it in all the writers who treat of the divinity of Chrift for fe veral centuries in ecclefiaftical hiftory. After this we cannot wonder at their being at no lofs for proofs of their dodrine in any part of fcripture. But Philo the Jew went before the chriftian* in the perfonification of the Logos, and in this mode of interpreting what is faid of it in the Old Teftament. For he calls this divine word a Jecond God, and fometimes attributes the creation of the world to this fecond God, thinking it below the majefty of the great God himfelf He alfo calls this perfonifi ed opinions concerning Chrifl. 31 cd attribute of God his wpoloyoK®' or his firfl born, and the image of God. He aifo fays that he is neither unbegotten, like God, nar beo-otten, as we are, but the middle between the two extremes, f We alfo find that the Chaldee paraphrafts of the Old Teftamentoften render the word of God, as if it was a being diftind from God, or fome angel who bore the name of God, and aded by deputation from him. So, however, it has been inter preted, though with them it might be no more than an idiom of fpeech. The chriftian philofophers having once got the idea that the Logos might be interpreted of Chrift, proceeded to explain what Joim fays of the Logos in the introdudion of his gofpel, to mean the fame perfon, in dired oppofition to what he really meant, which was that the Logos by which all things were made was not a being diftind from God, but God himfelf, being his attribute, his wifdom and power, dwelling in Chrift, fpeak- ing and ading by him. Accordingly we find fome of the earlier unitarians charging thofe who were called orthodox with an innova- t See Platonifme Devoile, p. 105, and Le Clerc's, comment on the introduftion to the firft chapter of John. tion 32 The Hiftory of tion in their interpretation of the term Logos. " But thou wilt tell me fomething ftrange, " in faying that the Logos is the Son." Hip polytus contra Noetum, quoted by Beaufobre.* We find nothing like divinity afcribed to Chrift before Juftin Martyr, who from be ing a philofopher became a chriftian, but always retained the peculiar habit of his for mer profeffion. As to Clemens Romanus, who was cotemporary with the apoftles, when he is fpeaking in the higheft terms concern ing Chrift, he only calls him the fcepter of the majefty of God. f Whether Juftin Martyr was the very firft who ftarted the notion of the pre-exiftence of Chrift, and of his fuper- angelic or divine nature, is not certain, but we are not able to trace it any higher. We lind it, indeed, briefly mentioned in the Shepherd of Hermas, but though this is fup pofed by fome to be the Hermas mentioned by Paul, and to have Written towards the end of the firft century, others fuppofe this to be the work of one Hermes, brother of Pius, bifliop of Rome, and to have been writ ten about the year 141, or perhaps later; and as this work is not quoted by Irenasus, and con-' tains fuch a pretenfion to vifions and revelations, as I cannot but think unworthy ofthe Hermas • Hiftoire de Manicheifme, vol. i, p, 540. t Epiftle, SeOion 16. mentioned opinions concerning Chrifl. jj mentioned by Paul, I cannot help being of this opinion. He fays,* " having feen an old " rock and a new gate, they reprefent the " fon of God, who was more antient than " any creature, fo as to be prefent with the "• Father at the creation," " ad condendam " creaturam." The book was written in Greek, but we have only a Latin verfion of it, Juftin Martyr being a philofopher, and Xvriting an apology for chriftianity to a phi lofophical Roman emperor, would natural ly wifti to reprefent it in what would appear to him, and other philofophers, the moft: favourable light; and this difpofition appears by feveral circumftances. Thus he reprelents virtuous men, in all preceding ages, as being in a certain fenfe, chriflians ; and apologiz ing for calling Chrift the/o« of God he fays,f that " this cannot be new to them who (peak " of Jupiter as having fons, and efpecially of " Mercury, as his interpreter, and the inftruft- " or of all men," (Xoyov spfiJi«t!]iKo» xomraiOw* ilJ«a-xaXo». J On the fame fubjed he fays, § " if Chrift " be a mere man, yet he deferves to be called " the Son of God, on account of his wifdom, " and the heathens called God (i. e. Jupiter) " the father of Gods and men ; and if, in an " extraordinary manner, he be the Logos of " Lib. 3. Sim, 9. S, 12. p. 115. t ^pi^.l. I. Ed. Thirlby, p. 31. § p. 33. D " God, 34 The Hiftory of " God, this is common with thofe who call " Mercury the Logos that declares the will " of God," (Aoyo* Toy x«p« Sen «yy«^Tlxo».) With this difpofition to make his religion appear in the moft refpedable light to the Heathens, and having himfelf profeflTed the dodrine of Plato, can it be thought extra ordinary, that he eagerly catched at the doc trine of the Logos, which he found ready formed to his hands in the.^works of Philo, and that he introduced it into the chriftian fyftem ; that Irenaeus, who was alfo edu cated among the philofophers, about the fame time, did the fame thing ; or that others, who were themfelves fufficiently pre-difpofed to ad the fame part, ftiould follow their example ? That the dodrine of the feparate di vinity of Chi'ift was at firft nothing more than a perfonification of a divine attribute, or of that wifdom and power by which God made the world, is evident from the manner in which the earlieft writers who treat of the fubjed mention it. Juftin Martyr, who was the firft who undertook to prove that Chrift was the medium of the divine difpenfations in the Old Teftament, as * that, " he was the f Dial. Ed, Thirlby, p. 263. " perfon opinions concerning Chrifl. ^c " perfon fometimes called an Angel, and " Ibmetimes God, and Lord, and that he " was the man who fometimes appeared to " Abraham and Jacob, and he that fpake " to Mofes from the fiery bufli," does it, as we have feen above, with a confiderable degree of diffidence ; faying that, " if he *' fliould not be able to prove his pre-ex- " iftence, it would not therefore follow that " he was not the Chrift." And as new opini ons do not readily lay firm hold on the mind, forms of expreflion adapted to preceding opinions, will now and then occur, £ftid as good fenfe will, in all cafes, often get the better of imagination, we fometimes find thefe early writers drop the perfonification of the Logos, and fpeak of it as the mere attribute of God. Thus Theophilus, who was cotemporary with Juftin, though a later writer, fays,* that when God faid let us make man, he fpake to nothing but his own Logos, or wifdom; and according to Origen, Chrift was the eternal reaibn, or wifdom of God. He fays§, that, " by the fecond God, we mean only a virtue" (or perhaps power) " which comprehends all other * Ad. Aut, Lib. 2. p, 114. § Contra Celfum, Lib, 5. p, 259. D 2 " virtues. 36 The Hiftory of " virtues, or a reafon which comprehends dl " other reafons, and that this reafon (^oy®') is " particularly attached to the foul of Chrift." Alfo explaining John i. 3, he fays, " God can " do nothing without reafon (»¦«?« ^oyoO i. e. " without himfelf" (w«f t«uTo») *. Athenagoras, who wrote in the fecond cen tury, calls Chrift§, the firft produdion (yii-mna) of the Father; but fays he was not always adually produced, {ym^tm) for that from the beginning God, being an eternal mind, had reafon (^oy©-) in himfelf, being from eternity rational (^oyix®'.) Tatian, who ^z.% alfo his cotemporary, gives us a fuller account of this matter. He fays,t " when he (that is, God) pleafed, the word " {Logos) flowed from his fimple eflence -, " and this word not being produced in vain, " became the firft begotten work of his fpirit. " This we know to be the origin of the " word: but it was produced by divifion, " not by feparation, for that which is di- *' vided (/iipwrSiO does not diminifli from that " which it derives it power. For as many " torches may be lighted from one, and yet " the light of the firft torch is not dimi- • lb. p. 247. § Apol. p, 83. t Contra Grscos, p. 145. " niflied. opinions concerning Chrift. 37 " niflied, fo the word {Logos) proceeding- *' from the power of the Father, does not " leave the Father void of Logos. Alfo, if " I fpeak and you hear me, I am not void " of fpeech {Logos) on account of my fpeech " {Logos) going to you," If Irenaeus had this idea of the generation of the Logos, as no doubt he had, it is no wonder that he fpeaks of it as a thing of fo wonderful a nature. " If any one," fays he, " * afks us, how is the Son produced from " the Father, we tell him that whether it be " called generation, nuncupation, or adapertion, " or by whatever other name this ineffable " generation be called, no one knows it ; " neither Valentinus, nor Marcion, nor Satur- *' ninus, nor Bafilides, nor Angels, nor Arch- " angels, nor Principalities, nor Powers ; " but only the Father who begat, and the " Son who is begotten." TertuUian, whofe orthodoxy in this refped was never queftioned, does not feem, how ever, to have any difficulty in conceiving how this bufinefs was, but writes in fuch a man ner, as if he had been let into the whole fecret; and we fee in him the wretched ex pedients to which the orthodox of that age "Lib, 2. Cap. 48. p, 176. D 1 had 38 The Hiftory oJ , had recourfe, in order to convert a mere attribute into a real perjon. For it muft be underftood that when the dodrine of the divinity of Chrift was firft ftarted, it was not pretended, except by Irenseus in the paf- fage above quoted (who was writing againft perfons who pretended to more knowledge of this myfterious bufinefs than himfelf) that there was any thing unintelligible in it, or that could not be explained. Every thing, indeed, in that age was called a myftery that was reputed Jacred, and the knowledge of which was confined to a few ; but the idea of unintelligible, or inexplicable, was not then affixed to the word myftery. The heathen myfteries, from which the chriftians borrowed the term, were things perfedly well known, and underftood by thofe who were initiated,_ though concealed from the vulgar. " Before all things," fays this writer*, " God was alone ; but not abfolutely alone, " for he had with him his- own reajon, fince " God is a rational being. This reafon the *' Greeks called Logos, which word we now " render Jermo. And this you may more *' eafily underftand that from yourfelf, con- " fider that you, who are made in the image " of God, have reafon within yourfelf. When * Ad Proxeam, cap, j. p. 502. " you opinions concerning Chrifl. ^9 " you filently confider with yourfelf, it is *' by means of reafon that you do it*." Upon this ftating of the cafe, it was natu ral to objed, that the reafon of a man can never be converted into a Jubflance, fo as to conftitute a thinking being, diftind from the man himfelf. But, he fays, that though this is the cafe with refped to man, yet nothing can proceed from God but what is fubftantial. " You will fay " fays he § " but what is Jpeech befides a word or Jound, " fomething unfubftantial and incorporeal. " But I fay that nothing unfubftantial and " incorporeal can proceed from God, becaufe " it does not proceed from what is itfelf " unfubftantial ; nor can that want fubftance, " which proceeds from, fo great a fub- " ftancef." • Ante omnia Deus erat folus. Ceterum ne tunc quidem folus ; habebat, enim, fecum, rationem fuam. llationalis enim Deus. Hanc Graeci ^oyof dicunt, quo vocabulo etiam fermonem appellamus. Idque, quo facili us intelligas ex teipfo, ante recogrtofce et ex imagine et fimilitudine dei, quum habeas et tu in temetipfo rati onem, qui es animal rationale. — Vide quum tacitus tecum ipfe congrederis, ratione hoc ipfum agi intra te, &c. § Ib. Cip. 7. p. 503. f Quid eft enim dices fermo nifi vox, et finus oris. Vacuum nefcio quid, et inane, et incorporale. At ego nihil dico de deo inane et vacuum prodire potuifte, ut non de inani et vacuo prolatum, nee carare fubftantia, quod de tanta fubftantia proceiFit, ieq, D 4 Having, 4° The Hiflory of Having, in this manner (lame enough to be fure) got over the great difficulty of the converfion of a mere attribute into a fub ftance, and a thinking fubftance too, this wri ter proceeds to afcertain the time when this converfion took place ; and he, together with all the early Fathers, fays that it was at the very inftant of the creation. " Then" fays he,* " did this fpeech afllime its form and " drejs, its found and voice, when God faid, " Let there be light. This is the perfed ** nativity of fhe word, when it proceeded from " God. From this time making him equal " to himfelf" (by which phrafe, however, we are only to underftand like himfelf) '* from " which proccffion he became his fon, his " firft born, and only begotten, begotten " before all things ."f This method of explaining the origin of the perfonality of the Logos continued to the council of Nice, and even afterwards. For Ladantius, who was tutor to the fon of Con^ ftantine, gives us the fantie account of this • Ib. f Tunc ipfe fermo fpeciem et ornatum fuum fumit, fonum et vocem, quum dicit Deus fiat lux. Ha;c eft; nativitas perfefta fermonis, dum ex deo procedit. Ex- inde eum parem fibi faciens, de quo procedendo filius faflus eft primo genitus, et ante omnia genitus, et unige- jiitus, et folus deo genitus. bufinefs, opinions concerning Chrifl. 41 bufinefs, with fome little variation, teaching us to diftinguifh the fon of God from the angels, whom he likewife conceived to be emanations from the divine mind. " How" lays he t " did he beget, him ? (that is " Chrift) The facred fcriptutes inform us " that the fon of God is the fermo, or ratio, " (the fpeech or reafon) of God, alfo that " the other angels are the breath of God " Jpiritus dei. But Jermo (fpeech) is breath " emitted, together with a voice, exprefllve of " fomething ; and heczuCe Jpeech and breathing " proceed from different parts, there is a " great difference between the fon of God, " and the other angels. For they are mere " Jilent breathings (fpiritus taciti) becaufe " they were created not to teach the know- " ledge of God, but for Jervice (ad miniftran- " dum). But he being alfo a breathing " (fpiritus) yet proceeding from the mouth *• of God with *a voice and found, is the " word; fqr this reafon, becaufe he was to " be a teacher of the knowledge of God, " &c.". He therefore calls him Jpiritus vocalis. Then, in order to account for our breathings not producing fimilar fpirits, he fays that " our breathings are dijfoluble, be- " caufe we afe mortal, but the breathings " of God are permanent; tliey live and feel, f Inft. Lib. 4. Sec. 8. p. 371. " becaule 42 The Hiftory of " becaufe he is immortal, the giver of fenfi " and life." All the early Fathers fpeak of Chrift as not having exifted always, except as reafon exifts in man (viz) an attribute of the deity ; and for this reafon they fpeak of the Father as not having been a Father always, but only from the time that he made the world. " Be fore any thing was made," fays Theophilus,* God had the " Logos for his council ; being " his «a? or ipfofwit (reafon or underftanding) " but when he proceeded to produce what " he had determined upon, he then emitted " the Logos, the firft born of every creature, " not emptying himfelf of Logos (reafon) " but 'koyov ytvuiKTUf (begetting reafon) and " always co'hverfing with his own Logos" (reafon). Juftin Martyr alfo gives* the fame expla^ nation of the emiffion ofthe Logos from God, without depriving himfelf of reafon, and he illuftrates it by what we obferve in ourfelves. For "in uttering any word," he faysf, we beget a word {Logos) not taking any thing. from ourfelves, fo as to be leflened by it, but as we fee one fire produced from another. • Ad. Autolycum, Lib. 2, p. 129. t Edit, Thirlby, p, 266. Clemens opinions concerning Chrifl. 43 Clemens Alexandrinus calls the Father alone without beginning (ai-apx®-) and immediately af ter he charaderizes the Son, as the beginning, and the firfl fruits of things (apxi* >=«' "¦¦ta.fxn" tm tH^m) from whom we muft learn the Father of all, the moft antient and beneficent of be ings*. TertuUian exprefsly fays that God was not always a father, or a judge, fince he could not be a father before he had a fon, nor a judge before fin ; and there was a time when both fin and the fon (which made God to be a judge and a father) were not§. This language was held at the time of the council o(^ Nice, for Ladantius faysf, " God, before he undertook the making of " the world, produced a holy and incor- " ruptible fpirit, which he might call his " Son ; and afterwards lie by him created 'f innumerable other fpirits, whom he calls " angels." The church, fays Hilary, "J knows " one unbegotten God, and one only begot- " ten Son of God. It acknowledges the Fa- " ther to be without origin, and it acknow- " ledges the origin of the Son from eternity, ' Strom. Lib, 7. Opera, p. 700. % Ad Herniogenem, cap. 3. p. 234. f Inft. Lib. 4. p. 364. X De Trinitate, Lib, 4. , " not 44 The Hiflory of " not himfelf without beginning, but from " him who is without beginning (ab ininiti- " abilij." It is not impoffible that Hilary might have an idea of the eternal generation of the Son, though the Fathers before the council of Nice had no fuch idea. For the Platonifts in general thought that the creation was from eternity, there never having been any time in which the Divine Being did not ad.- But, in general,' by the phrafe from eternity, and before all time, &c. the antient chriftian writers feem to have meant any period before the creation of the world, Confiftently with this reprefentation, but very inconfiftently with the modern dodrine of the Trinity, the Fathers fuppofed the fon of God to have been begotten voluntarily, fo that it depended upon the Father himfelf whether he would have a fon or not. " I " will produce you another teftimony from " the fcriptures," fays Juftin Martyr, f " that " in the beginning, before all the creatures, " God begat from himfelf a certain reafon- " able power (iwafu, xoywD.) who by the fpi- 'f rit is fometimes called the glory of God, " fometimes God, fometimes the Lord, and " Logos, becaufe he is fubfervient to his t Edit. Thirlby, p. 266. " Father's opinions concerning Chrifl. 45 " Father's will, and was begotten at his Fa-' " ther 's pleafure." Novatian fays,* " God the Father is there- " fore the maker, and creator of all things, " who alone hath no origin, invifible, im- " menfe, immortal, and eternal, the one '* God, to whofe greatnefs and majefty no- " thing can be compared, from whom, when " he himfelf pleafed, the word {Sermo) was " born." Eufebius, quoted by Dr. Clarke, § fays, though light does not fliine at the will of rhe luminous body from the neceffary pro perty of its nature ; the Son became the image of his Father from his will and choice; for God at his pleafure (^a^rSsif) became the Father of the Son. The Fathers of the council of Sirmiumf fay, " if any fay that the Son was not be- *' gotten at the will ofthe Father, let him be " an anathema. For the Father did not be- " get the Son by a phyfical neceffity of na- " ture, without the operation of his will, " but he at once willed, and begat the Son, " and produced him from himfelf, without " all time, and without fuffering any dimi* " nution from himfelf." Hilary mentions his ' De Trinitate, cap. 10. p. 31. § p, 252. t Clarke, on the Trinity, p, 252, approbation 4$ The Hiflory of approbation of this fentiment, but we fliall fee that Auftin correds him for it. A ftrong paflage in favour of the voluntary produdion of the fon of God may alfo be feen quoted from Gregory Nyffen, by Dr. Clarke, in the place above referred to. SECTION III. That Jupremacy was always afcribed to tbe Father bejore the council of Nice. WE find upon all occafions the early chrif tian writers fpeak of the Father as fu perior to the Son, and in general they give him the title of God, as diftinguiihed from the Son ; and fometimes they exprefsly call him, cxclufively of the Son, the only true God; a phrafeology which does not at all accord with the idea of the perfed equality of all the perfons in the Trinity. But it might well be expeded, that the advances to the pre fent dodrine of the Trinity fhould be gra dual and flow. It was, indeed, fome centu ries before it was completely formed. It is not a little amufing to obferve how the Fathers of the fecond, third and fourth centuries were embarraflTed with the heathens on opinions concerning Chrifl. 47 on .the one hand, to whom they wiftied to recommend their religion, by exalting the perfon of its founder, and with the antient Jewifli and Gentile converts (whofe preju dices againft polytheifm, they alfo wiflied to guard againft) on the other. Willing to con ciliate the one, and yet not to offend the other, they are particularly careful at the fame time that they give the appellation of God to Jefus Chrift, to diftinguifti between him and the Father, giving a decided fuperiority to the latter. Of this I think it may be worth while to produce a number of exam ples, from the time that the dodrine of the divinity of Chrift was firft ftarted, to the time of the council of Nice ; for till that time, and even fomething later, did this language continue to be ufed. Clemens Romanus never calls Chrift, God. He fays*, "Have " we not all one God, and one Chrift, and " one fpirit of grace poured upon us all?" which is exadly the language of the apoftle Paul, with whom he was in part cotemporary. Juftin Martyr, who is the firft that we can find to have advanced the dodrine of the di vinity of Chrift, fays§, " He who appeared to " Abraham, and to Ifaac, and to Jacob, was " fubordinate to the Father, and minifter to * Seft. 46, ^ p. 279. " Jlis 48 The Hiflory ef " his will." He even fays*, that " the Father " is the author to hiirl both of his exiftence, *' and of his being powerful, and of his being " Lord and God." " All the evangelifts," iays Irenasus § have delivered to us " the dodrine of one God, " and one Chrift the fon of God"; and in voking the Father j; he calls him the only God ; and according to feveral of the moft confiderable of the early chriftian writers, a common epithet by which the Father is di- ftinguiftied from the Son, is that he alone is (ai/loSf©-) or God of himfelf. Origen, quoted by Dr, Clarkef, fays, " to " them who charge us that we believe two " Gods, we muft reply, that he who is God " of himfelf (otWi©-) is the God (<.S.».) for " which reafon our Saviour fays, in his prayer " to the Father, that they may know thee, the " only true God. But whatever is God be- " fides him who is fo tf himfelf, being God " only by a communication of his divinity, " cannot fo properly be called (o 8«®-) the God, " but rather (Se®-) God," The fame obferva tion had before been made by Clemens Alex andrinus, who alfo calls the Son a creature, * Edit. Thirlby, p. z8i. § Lib. 3. cap, i. p. 199. J Lib. 3. cap. 6. f Ib. p. 5. and opinions concerning Chrifl. 49 and the work of God*. Origen alfo fays. " According to our dodrine, the God and " Father of all is not alone great; for he " has communicated of his greatnefs to the " firft begotten of all the creation," {irfM<,r.a iraa-vii x1io-EW;.)-f- Novatian fays, § that " the Sabellians make " too much of the divinity of the Son, when " they fay. it is that of the Father, extend- " ing his honour beyond bounds. They dare " to make him not the Son but God the " Father himfelf. And again that they acknow- " ledge the divinity of Chrift in too boundlefs " and unreftrained a manner" (effrenatius et cffufius in Chrifto divinitatem confiteri) The fame writer alfo fays, J " The Son to whom " divinity is communicated is, indeed, God; " but God the Father of all is defervedly God " of all, and the origin (principium) of his " Son, whom he begat Lord." Arnobius || fays, " Chrift, a God, under the " form of a man, fpeaking by the order of " the principal God. Again*-*, then, at " length, did God Almighty, the only God, " fend Chrift." • Sandii Nucleus Hift. Eccl. p. 94, f Contra Celfum, lib. 6. p. 323. ^ cap. 23, { cap. 31. II .Ad Gentes, lib. 2. p. 50. »» p. 57. E Such 50 The Hiflory of Such language as this was held till the time of the council of Nice. Alexander, who is very fevere upon Eufebius bifliop of Nico media, who was an Arian, fays, in his cir cular letter to the bifliops, " the Son is of a " middle nature between the firft caufe of all " things, and the creatures, which were crea- " ted out of nothing." * Athanafius himfelf, as quoted by Dr. Clarke, f fays," the nature " of God is the caufe both of the Son, and " of the Holy Spirit, and of all creatures." He alfo fays, \ " There is but one God, be- " caufe the Father is but one, yet is the " Son alfo God, having fuch a famenefs as " that of a Soa to a Father," Ladantius fays, || " Chrift taught that there " is one God, and that he alone ought to " be worfliiped ; neither did he ever call him- " felf God, becaufe he would not have been " true to his truft, if being fent to take " away Gods (that is, a multiplicity of Gods) " and to afl^ert one, he had introduced ano- " ther befides that one. Becaufe he alfumed " nothing at all to himfelf, he received the " dignity of perpetual prieft, the honour of " fovereign king, the power of a judge, and " the name of God." • Theodorit, lib. i. cap 4. p. 17. f p. 276. % P- --2. H Inftitutionum, Lib, 4, cap. 13, Hilary Opmons concerning Chrifl. 51 Hilary, who wrote twelve books on the dodrine of the Trinity, after the council of Nice, to prove that the Father himfelf is the only felf exifting God, and in a proper fenfe the only true God (quod folus inna- fcibilis et quod folus verus fit) after alledg- ing a paffage from the prophet Ifaiah, quotes in fupport of it the faying of our Saviour. This is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God, and Jefus Chrifl whom thou haft Jent\. Much more might be alledged from this writer to the fame purpofe. Laftly, Epiphanius fays J " who is there " that does not affert that there is only one " God, the Father Almighty, from whom " his only begotten Son truly proceeded." Indeed that the Fathers of the council of Nice could not mean that the Son was ftrid- ly fpeaking equal to the Father, is evident from their calling him God of God, which in that age was always oppofed to God of himfelf («Jlo3.©.) that is felf exiftent or inde pendent ; which was always underftood to be the prerogative of the Father. It is remark able that when the writers of that age fpeak of Chrift as exifting from eternity, they did f De Trinitate, Lib. 4. p 56. I M*r. 57. Opera, vol. i. p. 483. E a not 52 The Hiftory of not therefore fuppofe that he was properly felf exiftent. Thus Alexander bifliop of Alex andria fays,§ " we believe that the Son was al- " ways from the Father ; but let no one by " the word always be led to imagine him felf " exiftent (ayi»»«1ia>-) for neither the term was, nor " always, nor before all ages, mean the fame " thing z.^ felf exiftent {a-ym-!^^)." On thefe principles the primitive Fathers had no difficulty in the interpretation of that faying of our Lord my Father is greater than I. They never thought of faying, that he was equal to the Father with refpeSt to his divinity, though inferior with refpeSl to his humanity ; which is the only fenfe of the pa,flage that the dodrine of the Trinity in its prefent ftate admits of For they thought that the Son was in all refpeds, and in his whole perfon, inferior to his Father, as having derived his beins; from him. 'D TertuUian had this idea of the paflfage when he fays, f " the Father is all fubftance, " but the Son is a derivation from him, and " a part, as he himfelf declares, the Father " is greater than I." It is alfo remarka ble, as Mr. Whifton obferves, that the an tient Fathers, both Greek and Latin, never § Theodorit, Lib. i. cap. 4. p. 19. f Ad Praxeam, Sec. 9, p. 564, interpret opinions concerning Chrifl. 53 interpret Phil. ii. 7. to mean an equality of the Son to the Father* . Novatian fays, " he " therefore, tliough he was in the form of " God, did not make himfelf equal to God " (non eft rapinam arbitratus equalem fe deo •' effe) for though he remembered he was " God of God the Father, he never compared " himfelf to God the Father, being mind- " ful that he was of his Father, and that " he had this becaufe his Father gave it " himt." It alfo deferves to be noticed, that not withftanding the fuppofed derivation of the Son from the Father, and therefore their be ing of the fame Jubflance, moft of the early chriftian writers thought the text / and my Father are one, was to be underftood of an unity or harmony of dijpojttion only. Thus TertuUian J obferves, that the expreflion is unum, one thing, not ene perjon ; and he ex plains it to mean unity, likenejs, conjunction, and of the love that the Father bore to the Son. Origen fays, let him confider that text, all that believed were oJ one heart and of one foul, and then he will underftand this, / and my Father are one. § Novatian || fays one • Colledlions p. log. -f- cap. 1-. p. 84. X Ad Praxeam, cap, iz. p. 513. ^ Contra Qelfum, Lib. 8. p. 386. || cap. 27. p. 99 F, ; tiling 54 The Hiftory of thing (unum) being in the neuter gender, fignifies an agreement of lociety, not an unity of perfon, and he explains it by this paflfage in Paul, he that planteth and he that water- eth are beth one. But tbe Fathers of the coun^ cil of Sardica, held A. D, 347, reprobated the opinion that the union of the Father and Son confifts in confent and concord only,* ^prehending it to be z ftriSt unity of fub^ ftance ; fo much farther was the dodrine of the Trinity advanced at that time. SECTION IV. Of the difliculty with which the doStrine of the divinity of Chrift was eftablifhed. IT is fufficiently evident from many cir cumftances, that the dodrine of the di vinity of Chrift did not eftablifti itfelf with out much oppofition, efpecially from the unlearned among the chriftians, who thought that it favoured of polytheifm, that it was introduced by thofe who had had a philofo phical education, and was by degrees adopt ed by others, on account of its covering the great offence of the crofs, by exalting the per- fonal dignity of our Saviour. * Theodorit, lib. 2, cap. 8. p. 82, T» Opinions concerning Chrifl. 55 To make the new dodrine lefs exception able, the advocates for it invented a new term, viz. (economy, or diflribution, as it may be rendered ; faying they were far from de nying the unity of God; but that there was a certain oeconomy, or diftribution refpeding the divine nature and attributes, which did not interfere with it ; for that, according to this oeconomy the Son might be God, with out detrading from the fupreme divinity of the Father. But this new term, it appears, was not well underftood, or eafily reliflied, by thofe who called themfelves the advo cates for the monarchy of the Father, a term much ufed in thofe days, to denote the fu- premacy and fole divinity of tlie Father, in oppofition to that of the Son. All this is very clear from the following paffage in Ter tuUian. f " The fimple, the ignorant, and the un- " learned, who are always a great part of the " body of chriftians, fince the rule of faith " itfelf" (meaning perhaps the apoflles creed, or as much of it as was in ufe in his time) " transfers their worfliip of many Gods to the " one true God, not underftanding that the " unity of God is to be maintained, but with •f- Ad Pr.-..\ca.Ti, Sec. 3. p. 50 :, E 4. " thr 56 The Hiflory of " the (economy, dread this oeconomy, ima- " gining that this number and difpofition " of a Trinity is a divifion of the unity. " They therefore will have it, that we are " worftiipers of two, and even of three Gods; " but tliat they are the worftiipers of one " God only. We, they fay, hold the mo- " narchy. Even the Latins have learned " to bawl out for monarchy, and fhe Greeks " themfelves will not underftand the oeco- " nomy ;" monarchy being- a Greek term and yet adopted by the Latins, and oecono my, though a Greek term, not being relifli ed even by the Greek chriftians.* Upon another occafion we fee by this wri ter how offenfive the word Trinity was to the generality of chriftians. " Does the num ber of Trinity ftill ftiock you V fays he f For • Simplices enim, nee dixerim imprudentes et idiots, qu:e major femper credentium pars eft, quoniam et ipfa regula fidei a pluribus diis feculi ad unicum deum ve rum transfert, non intelligentes unicum quidem, fed cum fua oEConomia efle, credendum, expavefcunt ad cecono- miam. Numerum et difpofitionem trinitatis divifionem pra;furaunt unitatis. Itaque duos et tres jam jaftitant, a nobis prxdicari, fe vero unius del cultores praifunxunt. Monarchiam inquiunt tenemus. Monarchiam fonare ftudent Latini, ceconomiam intelligere nolunt etiam Gra;ei. f Sic te adhuc numerus fcandalizat trinitatis. Ad Praxeam, Sec. 12. p. 506. this Opinions concerning Chrijt. 57 this reafon, no doubt, Origen fays, " that to " the carnal they taught the gofpel in a " literal way, preaching Jefus Chrift, and him " crucified^ but to perfons farther advanced, " and burning with love for divine celeftial «* wifdom" (by which he muft mean the phi lofophical part of their audience) " they com- " municated the Logos*." Origen candidly calls thefe adherents to the dodrine of the ftrid unity of God pious perfons ((pl^oS8B!). " Hence fays he, f we " may folve the fcruple of many pious per- " fons, who through fear left they fhould " make two Gods, fall into falfe and wick- *' ed notions." He endeavours to relieve them in this manner. " This fcruple of ma- '' ny pious perfons may thus be fol ved. Vie " muft tell them, that he who is God of him- " felf («t;1oSi®.) is God with the ardcle (0 Si'&-) " but that Chrift is God without the article " (Si®-)" as was obferved before. How far this foludon of the difficulty was fatisfadory to thefe pious unlearned chriftians does not appear. It does not feem calculated to re move a difficulty of any great magnitude. That thefe antient unitarians, under all the names by which their advcrfaries thought pro- • Preface to his comment on John, Opera, vol. 2. p. 25;. t Clarice on the Trinity, p. 302. per 58 '.•: The Hijtory ef per to difringuifli them, have been greatly mifreprefentcd, is acknowledged by all who are candid among the moderns. The learned Beaufobre, himfelf a trinitarian, is fatisfied that it was a zeal for the unity of God that adu- ated the Sabellians (who were no more than unitarians under a particular denomination.) Epiphanius fays, that when a Sabellian met the orthodox they would fay, " My friends " do we believe one God, or three * f " Eufebius fpeaking with great wrath againft Marcellus of Ancyra, allows that he did not deny the perfonality of the Son, but for fear of eftablilhing two Godsf. This alfo appears from the manner in which Eufebius expref- fes himfelf when he anfwers to the charge of introducing two Gods. " But you are afraid " perhaps, (poCn) left, acknowledging two dif- " tind hypoftafes, you fliould introduce two " original principles, and fo deftroy the mo- " narchy of God %." Bafil complains of the popularity of the followers of Marcellus, whofe difciple Pho- tinus is faid to have been, at the fame time that the name of Arius was execrated, t H«r. 62. Opera, vol. i. p. 514. f lb. p. 536, I Clarke on the Trinity, p. 309. (( Untfli opinions concerning Chrifl. 59 " Unto this very tim.e," fays he, in his letter to Athanafius,* " in all their letters they fail " not to anathematize the hated name of " Arius ; but with Marcellus, who has pro- " phanely taken away the very exiftence of " the divinity of the only begotten Son, and " abufed the fignification of the word Logos, " with this man they feem to find no fault " at all." It was impoffible not to perceive that this eeconomy, and the ftile and rank of God, given to Chrift, made a fyftem, intirely different from that of the Jews, as laid down in the Old Teftament. For chriftians either had not at that time laid much ftrefs on any argu ment for the dodrine of the Trinity drawn from the books of Mofes, or at leaft had not been able to fatisfy the Jews, or the Jewifh chriftians, with any reprefentations of that kind. TertuUian, therefore, makes ano ther, and indeed a very bold attempt for the fame purpofe ; faying that it was pecu liar to the Jewifli faith fo to maintain the unity of God, as not to admit the Son or Spirit to any participation of the divinity with him ; but that it was the charaderiftic of the gof pel, to introduce the Son and Spirit, as making one God with the Father. He fays, that God * Opera, vol. 3. p. 8«. was 6o Tbe Hiftory of was determined to renew his covenant in this new form. I ffiall give his own words, which are- much more copious on the fubjed in a note.* When the philofophizing chriftians went beyond the mere perlbnification of a divine attribute, and proceeded to fpeak of the real fubftance, as I may fay, of the divine Logos', they were evidently in danger of making a diverfity, or a feparation in the divine na ture. That the common people did make this very objedion to the new dodrine is clearly intimated by TertuUian. " When I " fay that the Fatjier is one, the Son ano- " ther, and the Spirit a third, an unlearned, " or perverfc perfon, underftands me as if " I meant a diverfity, and in this diverfity " he pretends tiiat there muft be a fepara- " tion of the Father, Son, and Spirit. |" * Judaica; fides ilia res fic unum deum credere, ut (ili um adnunierare ei nolis, et poft filium fpiritum. Quid enim inter nos et illos nifi differentia ifta. Quid opus evangelii fi non c\inde Pater et Filius et fpiritus unum deum fiftunt. Sic deus volult novare facramentum, ut nove unus crederetur per Filium et Spiritum, ct coram jam Deus in fuis propriis nominibus et perfonis cognof- ccretur, qui et retro per Filium et Spiritum predicatus non intelligebatur. Ad Praxeam Seft. 30. p. ji8. f Ecce enim dico alium elTe patrem, et alium filium, et alium fpiritum. Male accipit idiotes quifque autper- verfus hoc diftum, quafi diverfitatem fonet, et ex diver- fitate feparationem pretendat Patris, Filii, et Spiritus. Ad Praxeam Seft. 8. p. 504. The Opinidns concerning Chrift. 6\ The objedion is certainly not ill ftated. Let us now confider how this writer anfwers it: for at this time it was not pretended that the fubjed was above human comprehenfion, or that it could not be explained by pro per comparifons. In order, therefore, to fliew that the Son and Spirit might be produced from the Father, and yet not be feparated from him, he fays that God produced the Logos (Sermonem) as the root of a tree pro duces the branch, as a fountain produces the river, or the fun a beam of light*. The laft of thefe comparifons is alfo adopted by Athenagoras in his apology j, in which he de- fcribes a beam of light, as a thing not detach ed from the fun, but as flowing out of ir, and back to it again. For one Hierarchas had been cenfured for comparing the pro dudion of the Son from the Father to the lighting of one candle at another, becaufe the fecond candle was a thing fubfifting of itfelf, and intirely feparated from the former fo as to be incompatible with unity J. Juftin Martyr, however, as we have feen, made ufe of the fame comparifon, and as far as appears, without cenfure. But after his time the ideas of philofophizing chrifti- • Ad Pra-xeam, cap. 8. p, 504, f p, 86. X See Hilary de Trinitate, Lib, i.. Opera, p. 59. ans 6 a The Hiftory of ans had undergone a change. He and his cotemporaries were only folicitous to make out fomething like divinity in the Son, with out confidering him as united in one fub ftance with the Father, the unity of God being then defended on no other principle than that of the lupremacy of the Father ; fo that, though Chrift might be called God in a lower fenfe of the word, the Father was God in a fenfe fo much higher than that, that ftridly fpeaking it was ftill true, that there was but one God, and the Father only was that God. But by the time of Hilary the philofophizing chriftians, finding perhaps that this account of the unity of God did not give intire fatisfadion, were willing to reprefent the Son not only as deriving his being and his divinity from the Father, but as ftill infeparably united to him, and never properly detached from him ; and therefore the former comparifon of one torch lighted by another would no longer anfwer the pur pofe. But this could not be objeded to the comparifon of the root and the branch, the fountain and the ftream, or the fun and the beam of light, according to the philofophy of thofe times. For in all thefe cafes things were produced from the fubftance of their refpedive origins, and yet were not feparated from them. Thefe Opinions concerning Chrifl. S^ Thefe explanations fuited very well with the dodrine of the Trinity as held by the council of Nice ; when it was not pretended, as it is now, that each perfon in the Trinity is equally eternal and uncaufed. But they certainly did not fufficiently provide for the diftind perfonality of the Father, Son, and Spirit ; which, however, efpecially with ref ped to the two former, they afferted. With refped to the latter, it is not eafy to colled their opinions ; for, in general, they expref^ fed themfelves as if the Spirit was only a di vine power. In order to fatisfy the advocates of the proper unity of God, thofe who then main tained the divinity of Chrift, make, upon all occafions, the moft folemn proteftations againft the introdudion of two Gods, for the deification of the Spirit was then not much obje<5ted to them. But they thought thar they guarded fufficiently againft the worfliip of two Gods, by fljongly afferting the inferior ity and fubordination of the Son to the Fa ther; fome of them alledging one circum ftance of this inferiority, and others another. TertuUian cautions us not to deftroy the monarchy when we admit a Trinity, fince it is to be reftored from the Son to the Father ¦¦''. * Ad Praxeam, cap, 4. p. 502. Novatian 64 *fl>e Hiflory of Novatian lays the ftrefs on Chrift's being be gotten, and the Fadier not begotten. " If, fays he,* " the Son had not been begot- " ten, he and the Father being upon a le- " vel, they would both be unbegotten, and *' therefore there would be two Gods &c." Againf, he fays, " when it is faid that Mofes " was appointed a God to Pharoah, ffiall it " be denied to Chrift, who is a God noi: to " Pharoah but to the whole univerfe ? " But this kind of divinity would not fatisfy the moderns. Eufebius's apology for this qualified diti- nity of Chrift (for the manner in which he writes is that of an apology, and ffiews that this new dodrine was very offenfive to many in his time) turns upon the fame hinge with the former of thefe illuftrations of Novatian. " If" fays he J, " this makes them appre- " henfive left we ffiould feem to introduce " two Gods, let them know that, though " we indeed acknowledge the Son to be " God, yet there is abfolutely but one God, " even he who alone is without original, and " unbegotten, who has his divinity proper- " ly of himfelf, and is the caufe even to the " Son himfelf both of his being, and of his • cap. 31. p 122. f cap. 20. p. 77. t Clarke on the Trinity, p, 307. " being opinions concerning Chrifl. 65 " being fuch as he is; by whom the Son " himfelf confeffes that he lives, declaring " exprefsly I live by the Father, and whom " he declares to be greater than himfelf, and " to be even hi* God." This, indeed, is written by an Arian, but it is the language of all the Trinitarians of his time : for then it had not occured to any perfon to fay that the one God was the Trinity, or the Father Son and Spirit in conjundion, but always the Father only. The diftindion between per jon and being, which is the faivo at prefent, was not then known. Some perfons in op pofing Sabellius, having made three HypoJ- tajes, which we now render perjons, feparate from each other, Dionyfius bifliop of Rome, quoted with approbation by Athanafius himfelf^ faid that it was making three Gods*. I have obfe^rved before, and may have occafion to repeat the obfervation hereafter, that, in many cafes, the phrafeology remains when the ideas which originally fuggeftcd it have difappeared; but that the phrafeology is an argument for the pre-exiftence of the correfponding ideas. Thus it had been the conftant la^iguage of the church, from the time of the apoftles, and is found upon all occafions in their writings, that Chrifl Juf- fered ; meaning, no doubt, in his whole per- * Dc Synodo Nicaena, Opera v©L p. 275. F f<»h 66 The Hiflory of fon, in every thing which really entered into his conftitution. This, however, was not eafily reconcileable with the opinion of any portion of the divinity being a proper part of Chrift ,•• and therefore the Docetae, who firft afferted the divine origin of the Son of God, made no fcruple to deny, in ex- prefs words that Chrift fuffered. For they faid that Jefus was one thing, and the Chrift, or the heavenly inhabitant of Jefus, another ; and that when Jefus was going to be cru cified, Chrift left him. Irenasus writing againft this herefy, quotes the uniform language of the fcriptures as a fufficient refutation of it ; maintaining that Chrift himfelf in his whole nature, fuffered. " It was no impaffible Chrift," he fays,* " but " Jefus Chrift himfelf, who fuffered for us," It is evident, however, that this writer, who was one of tlie firft that adopted the idea of the divinity of Chrift (but on a princi ple different from diat of the Docetas, viz.- the perfonification of the Logos of the Fa ther) could not himfelf ftridly maintain the paffibility of his whole nature; for then he muft have held that fomething which was a proper part of the deity himfelf was capable of fuffering. He therefore, but in a very * Lib, 3, cap. 20. p. 246. aukward opinions concerning Chrifl. 67 aukward and ineffedual manner, endeavours to make a cafe different from that of the Docetae, by fuppofing a mixture of the two natures in Chrift. " For this reafon," he faysf, " The word " of God became man, and the Son of God " became the Son of man, being mixed with " the word of God, that receiving the adop- " tion, he might become the Son of God. " For we could not receive immortality, un- " lefs we were united to immortality," ^c. Origen alfo, in his third book againft Celfus*, Ipeaks of the mixture of the humanity with the divinity of Chrift. He even ipeaks of the mortal quality of the very body of Chrift as changed into a divine quality. This confufion of ideas, and inconfiftency, appears to have been foon perceived. For we prefently find that all thofe who are called orthodox ran into the very error ofthe Docetae; maintaining, that it- only was the human nature of Chrift that fuffered, while another part of his nature, which was no lefs effen- tial to his being Chrifl, was incapable of fuffering; and to this day all whp maintain the proper divinity of Chrift are in the fame dilemma. They muft either flatly contradid t lb. cap. 21, Opera, p. 249. • p. 136. F 2 the 68 The Hiflory of the fcriptures, and fay, with the Docetae, that Chrift did not fuffer, or that the divine na ture itfelf may feel pain. This being deemed manifeft impiety, they generally adopted ftill the former opinion, viz. that the human nature of Chrift only fuffered, and con tented themfelves with afferting fome inex plicable mixture of the two natures ; not withftanding the idea of one part of the fame perjon (and of the intelledual part too) not feeling pain, while the other did, is evidently inconfiftent with any idea of proper union, or mixture. The very next writer we meet with after Irenasus, viz. TertuUian, afferts, contrary to him, that it was not Chrift, but only the human nature of Chrift that fuffered. This voice, fays he, " My God my God why haft " thou forfaken me," was from the flefh, and " foul, that is, the man, and not the word, " or fpirit; that is, it was not of the God, " who is impaffible, and who left the Son " while he gave up his man to deafh-j-." What could any of the Docetae have faid more ? + Hic vox carnis et animse, id eft hominis, non fermo nis, non fpiritus, id eft non dei, propterea emifla eft, ut impaflibilem deum oftenderet qui fic filium dereliquit dum hominem ejus- tradidit in mortem. Ad Praxeam cap. ^o. p. 518. Arnobiua opinions concerning Chrifl. 69 Arnobius expreffes himfelf to the fame purpofe. Speaking of the death of Chrift, with which the chriftians were continually reproached. " That death, fays he*, which " you fpeak of, was the death of the man " that he had put on, not of himfelf, of " the burthen, not of the bearer f." Hilary, who wrote after the council of Nice, went even farther than this, and main tained at large, that the Body of Chrift was at all times incapable of feeling pain, that it had no need of refrefhment by meat and drink ; and that he eat and drank only to Ihew that lie had a body. " Could that " hand, fays he§, which gave an ear to the *' man that Peter fmote, feel the nail that " was driven through it ? and could that " flefh feel a wound, which removed the " pain of a wound from another?" Later writers, indeed, did not follow Hilary in this extravagance, but Epiphanius fays J, that Chrift, in his death upon the crofs, fuffered nothing in his divinity. Tliis too is the language of thofe who are called or- • Adverfus Gentes, Lib. i, p. 22. t Mors ilia quam dicitis afl"umpti hominis fuit, non ipfius, geftaminis, non geftantis. §Lil>. 10, p. 244. tHsr. 26. Opera, vol. i, p. 49. F 3 thodox 70 The Hi/lory oJ thodox at this day; but how this i» confift- ent with their dodrine of atonement, which fuppofes an infinite fatisfadion to have been made to the juftice of God by the death of Chrift, does not eafily appear. SECTION V. An account oJ the unitarians before the council of Nice. BEFORE I proceed to the Arian controver fy, I muft take notice of thofe who diftinguifhed themfelves by maintaining the proper humanity of Chrift in this early pe riod. That the chriftian church in general held this dodrine till the time of Vidor, was the conftant affertion of thofe who pro- feffed it about this time, and I think I have ffiewn that diis was true. One of the firft who diftinguiffied himfelf by afferting the fimple humanity of Chrift, was Theodotus of Byzantium, who, though a ., tan ner, is acknowledged to have been a man of ability, and even of learning. He is faid to have been well received at Rome, and at firft even by Vidor the biffiop of that city, who afterwards excommunicated him. About opinions concerning Chrifl. 71 About the fame time, appeared Artemon, from whom thofe who maintained this opi nion were by fome called Artemonites ; but it appears from the writings of TertuUian, that they were more generally called Mo- narchifls, from their afferting the proper uni ty of the divine nature, and the fupremacy of God the Father with refped to Chrift. By their enemies they were called Patripaffians, becaufe they were cfiarged with afferting that the Father was fo united to the perfon of Chrift, as even to have fuffered with him. But Lardner treats this as a calumny *. It fhould feem, however, that fome of them went fo far (fince TertuUian fo particularly quotes it as their own language f) as to fay that the Father felt compaffion for his fuffering Son. But this language might be ufed by them in a figurative fenfe, in which fenfe various paffions are in the fcriptures afcribed to God. Beaufobre § thinks them to have been in tirely free from this imputation, and ima gines it to have arifen from their adverfaries, defignedly or undefignedly, mixing their own ideas with theirs, and efpecially confounding the two terms Logos and Son of God. In con fequence of tliis, when the unitarians afferted that the Fathei* and the Logos were one perfon, • Hift. of Heretics, p. 413, t Ad Praxeam, Sedt. 29, p. 518. §vol, i, p. S29' F 4 they 72 The Hiflory of they would of courfe charge them with main taining that the Father fuffered in the Son. Indeed, TertuUian, as Beaufobre obferves, contradids himfelf when he charges the uni tarians with this opinion, becaufe in other parts of his writings, he exprefsly fays that they believed the Father to be impaffible*. Praxeas the Montanift, and a man of ge nius and learning, againft whom TertuUian writes, was an unitarian; and fo probably were many others of that fed.f. For their pecu liar opinions and pradices, as Montanifts, had no relation to any particular opinion concern ing jhe nature of Chrift. It is very evident that about this time the unitarians were very numerous in all parts of the chriftian world ; and as they were not diftinguiffied by having affemblies feparate from thofe of other chriftians, which Moffieim allow* J, their opinion certainly could not be deemed heretical. It is even acknowledged that many of thefe unitarians (though none of their writings are now come down to Us) were men of fcience. They are particular ly faid to have been addided to geometry, and are alfo faid to have treated queftions in • vol. I. p. 534. ¦^ Lardner's Hift, of Heretics, p. 398. % vol. \. p. igi. theology opinions concerning Chrift. 73 theology in a geometrical method ; but no particulars of this kind are now known to us. It is very poffible that this circumftance (which is mentioned by their adverfaries by way of reproach) might have arifen from their endeavouring to Ihew that if the Fa ther, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (if this laft was then confidered as a diftind perfon) were each of them God, in any proper fenfe of the word, there muft be more Gods than one. Such geometry as this, I doubt not, gave great offence. In the following century, viz. the third, we find Noetus^ Sabellius, and Paul bifhop of Samofata, the moft diftinguiflied among the unitarians. Noetus was of Smyrna, and is faid to have been a difciple of Artemon. Sabellius was. bilTiop, or prieft, of Cyrene' in Africa, in which countiy the unitarian opi nion, as taught by Noetus, is faid to. have been generally adopted. It is, indeed, faid by ecclefiaftical hiftorians, that ma ny bifliops in this countiy were brought over to this opinion by Sabellius. But it is much more probable that they held the fame opinion before. In that age the prevailing bias was to magnify the perfonal dignity of Chrift, and not to leffen it; fo that we find few or no clear inftanccs of any who, hav ing once maintainotl, that Chrift was either God, 74 The Hiftory of .God, or a fiiper- angelic being, and the maker of this world under God, came af terwards to believe that he was merely a man. Both Noetus and Sabellius, were ^ charged by their adverfaries with being pa tripaffians, but according to Epiphanius*, Noetus was fimply an unitarian, declaring upon all occafions with great boldnefs, that " he neither knew, nor worffiipped, any God " but one." The unitarians of that age af ferting, as the Socinians now do, that all the divinity of the Son, was that of the Father refiding in him, and ading by him, was fuf ficient to give a handle for that injurious reprefentation of their opinion. There was nothing peculiar in the doc trine of Sabellius, though he is generally charged vvith maintaining that there were three perfons in the Trinity, but that thefe three perfons or rather chara&ers {xfo,TU7r«) were on ly different names, or attributes, of the fame perfon, or being. If this was a fair repre fentation, Sabellius and his followers muft have meant to difguife their unitarian fen- timents in terms appropriated to the ortho doxy of their age. But" though many perfons are faid to do this at prefent, Sabellius him felf is not charged with it by any of his • Hir. 57. Opera, vol. i. p, 480. opponents. opinions concerning Chrifl. 75 opponents. On the contrary, he is gene rally faid to have been a difciple of Noetus. It is, therefore, probable, as Beaufobre con- jedures, that this reprefentation arofe from hi^ adverfaries mifapprehending what he faid concerning the Father and the Son being one, and concerning the Father being in him, and doing the works, as our Saviour expref fes himfelf. At the fame time Sabellius might mean nothing more than the moft avowed Socifiians mean by fuch language at this day. Paul, bifhop of Samofata, a man of genius and learning, but faid to have been of a profli gate life, and charged with the arrogance and ambition of other bifliops of great fees in thofe times, made himfelf obnoxious by maintaining the unitarian principles, and was condemned for them in feveral councils held at Antioch, as well as on other accounts. His opinions are acknowledged to have fpread much, and to have alarmed the Orthodox greatly §. But when we read of fuch perfons as this bifhop making many converts to the dodrine of the humanity of Chrift, I cannot help fufpeding, for the reafon mentioned above, that it is to be underftood of the numbers who were before of that opinion, being encouraged by men of their \ Sueur A. D. 265, learning. y6 The Hiflory of learning, ability, and influence to declare themfelves more openly than they had done before; having been overborne by the philo fophizing chriftians of that age, the current of mens opinions having for fome time fet that way. This Paul of Samofata, is reprefented by Epiphanius*, as alledging, in defence of his dodrine, the words of Mofes, the Lord thy God is one Lord; and he is not charged by him, as others were, with maintaining that the Fea ther fuffered ; and indeed from this time we hear no more of that accufation, though the tenets of the unitarians moft probably conti nued the fame. To thefe we might add, as falling within the fame century, Beryllus, bifliop of Boftra, in Arabia, faid to have been a man of learning and modefty, and to have' maintained that Chrift had no being before he was born of the virgin Mary, and had no divinity befides that ofthe Father refiding in himf. But he is faid to have been converted to the orthodox faith by Origen. It is to be regretted that we have no farther information concerning this bifhop and other cliriftians in Arabia. M-atiy of them, we are told, maintained, contrary to the; philo- . fophy of their times, that the foul. died with • Hasr. 65. Opera, vol. i. p. 608. f Eufebii, Hift. lib. 6, cap. 33, p, 297. the opinions concerning Chrift. 77 the body, and that all men would be in a ftate of infenfibility from the time of their death to that of the general refurredion §, I Ihall clofe this account of the antient unitarians with juft mentioning Photinus, bifhop of Sirmium, though he floufifhed af ter the council of Nice ; becaufe he is the laft of the unitarians we read of till the re vival of the dodrine in the laft age. For though it can hardly be fuppofed that the opinion of the fimple humanity of Chrift was wholly extind, thofe who maintained it were overborne and filenced by the Trini tarians on the one hand, and the Arians on the other. And, of the two, the latter were full as hoftile to them as the former. This Photinus is faid to have been a man of great eloquence. He continued in his bifhopric notwithftanding his being condemned in three feveral fynods or councils, efpecially in one held at Milan A. D. 345, being extremely popular in his fee ; but at length he was ex pelled by a council held at Sirmium itfelf in 351. This laft couacil was called by or der of the emperor Conftantius, and confifted chiefly of Arian bifhops. § Ib. cap. 37. p. t^il®-) that was to fucceed him with the apoftles after his afcenfion. But our Lord's language is, upon many occafions, highly figurative ; and it is the lefs extra ordinary that the figure called perfonification fhould be made ufe of by him here, as the peculiar prefence of the fpirit of God, which was to be evidenced by the power of work ing miracles, was to fucceed in the place of a real perfon, viz. himfelf, and to be to ihem what he himfelf had been, viz. their advocate, comforter, and guide. 4 That the apoftles did not underftand our Lord as fpeaking of a real perfon, at leaft afterwards, when §piey refleded upon his meaning, and faw the fulfilment of his pro- mife, is evident from their never adopting the fame language, but fpeaking of the fpi rit as of a divine power only. The apoftle Paul Opinions concerning Chrifl. 89 Paul exprefsly fpeaks of the fpirit of God as bearing the fame relation to God, that the fpirit of a man bears to man, i Cor. ii. II. What man knoweth the things of a man but the fpirit of man which is in him ; even Jo the things of God knoweth no man but the fpirit of God. Befides, the writers of the New Tefta ment always fpeak of the Holy Spirit as the fame fpirit by which the antient pro phets were infpired, which was certainly ne ver underftood by them to be any other than the divine being himfelf, enabling them, by his fupernatural communications, to fore tel future events. Alfo, the figurative language in which the Holy Spirit and his operations, are fometimes defcribed by them is inconfiftent with the idea of his being a feparate perfon ; as be ing baptized with the fpirit, being filled with the fpirit, quenching the fpirit ; i£c. in all which the idea is evidently that of a power, and not that of a perjon. For thefe reafons I think it poffible, that we ihould never have heard of the opinion of the real diftind perfonality of the Holy Spirit, if it had not been for the form of baptifm fuppofed, but without reafon, to be given 90 The Hiftory of given in the gofpel of Matthew, where the apoftles are direded to baptize in the name of tbe Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For though the meaning of thefe words, as explained by pretty early writers in the pri mitive church is nothing more than " bap- " tizing into that religion which was given " by the Father, by means of the Son, " and confirmed by miraculous power," and this particular form of words does not ap pear to have been ufed in the age of the apoftles, who feem to have baptized in the name of Jefus only ; yet fince this form did come into univerfal ufe, after forms began to be thought of importance, and in it the Father and Son were known to be real per fons, it was not unnatural to fuppofe that the Spirit, being mentioned along with them, was a real perfon alfo. It was a long time, however, before this came to be a fixed opinion, and efpecially an article of faith, the chriftian writers be fore and after the council of Nice generally ipeaking of the Holy Spirit in a manner that may be interpreted either of a perjon or of a power. But it is evident, that when they feem to fpeak of the Holy Spirit as of a perfon, they fuppofe that perfon to be much inferior to God, and even to Chrift. Some of them might poflibly fuppofe that the Ho- opinions concerning Chrift. 91 ly Spirit was an emanation from the divine effence, and fimilar to the Logos itfelf; but others of them fpeak of the Holy Spirit as a creature made by Chrift, by whom they fuppofed all other creatures to have been made. With refped to the apoftolical Fathers, their language on this fubjed is fo much that of the fcriptures, that we are not able to col led from it any peculiar or precife ideas. It is probable, therefore, that they confider ed the Holy Spirit as a power, and not a perfon. Juftin Martyr, who was one of the firft that fuppofed the Logos to be Chrift, never fays, in exprefs words, that the Spirit is God, in any fenfe ; 'and when he mentions wor fhip as due to the Spirit, it is in the fame ?fentence in which he fpeaks of it as due to angels. " Him" fays he * meaning God, " and the Son that came from him, and the " hoft of other good Angels, who accompany " and refemble him, together with the pro- " phetic Spirit, we adore and venerate; in " word and truth honouring them." In ano ther placet he fays " we place the Son in *' the fecond place, and the prophetic Spirit • Apol. I . p. 4.3. t ^^- ?• '9' « in 9l The Hiftory of « in the third." Again*, he places " the " Logos in the fecond place, and the Spirit " which moved on the water in the third." It is not improbable but that this writer might confider the Holy Spirit as a perfon, but as much inferior to the Son, as he made the Son inferior to the Father. TertuUian in one place evidently confounds the Holy Spirit with the Logos, and therefore it is plain that he had no idea of a proper third perfon in the Trinity. Speaking j- of the Spirit of God which over-fhadowed the virgin Mary, he faid, " It is that Spi- *' rit which we call the word. For the Spi- " rit is the fubftance of the word, and the *' word the operation of the fpirit, and thofe " two are one." But in another place he fays, " the fpirit is a third after God, and " the Son ; as the fruit, proceeding from *' the branch, is the third from the root§." Origen fpeaks of it as a doubt whether the Holy Spirit be not a creature of the Son, fince all things are faid to have been made by him J. • Apol. I.p. 87. t AA Praxeam, cap. 26. p, 515. \ Ib. cap. 8. Opera, p. 504, X In Joannem Opera, tom. 2. p. 276. Novatian, opinions concerning Chrift. ^^ Novatian, fays*, " that Chrift is greater " than the paraclete ; for the paraclete would " not receive from Chrift, unlefs he was " lefs than Chrift." The author of the Recognitions, a Ipurious but an antient work, and never charged with herefy t, fays, " that the Holy Spirit, the " paraclete, is neither God, nor the Son, but was made by him that was made, or begotten {faEius per fa£ium) viz. by the Sonj the Father only being not begotten or made. One reafon why thofe Fathers who had modified their theological tenets by the prin ciples of the heathen philofophy did not readily fall into the notion of the perfona lity, or at leaft the divinity, of the Holy Spirit, might be that there was nothing like it in the philofophy of Plato, which had affifted them fo much in the deification of Chrift. A third principle was indeed fome times mentioned by the Platonifts, but this was either the foul of the world, or the ma terial creation itfelf; for there are different reprefentations of the Platonic dodrine on this fubjed. • cap. 24. f lib. J. cap. 8. At 94 T'he Hiftory of At length, however, the conftant ufage of the form of baptifm mentioned by Mat thew, together with the literal interpretation of our Saviour's defcripdon of the Holy Spi rit, probably, gave moft of the primitive chriftians an idea of its being a perfon; and the reft of the language of Scripture would naturally enough lead them to conclude that he muft be a divine perfon. But it was a long time before thefe things coalefced into a regular fyftem. The Fathers of the council of Nice faid nothing about the divinity, or the perfona lity of the Holy Spirit ; nor was it cufto- maiy in the time of Bafil to call the Holy Spirit God. Hilary interprets baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, by the equivalent expreffions of the author, the only begotten, and the That little is faid concerning the feparate divinity of the Spirit of God in the fcripture is evident to every body; but the reafon that Epiphanius gives for it will not be eafily imagined. In order to account for the apof tles faying fo little concerning the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and omiting the mention • De trinitate, lib. 2. Opera, p. '22. of opinions concerning Chrift. 95 of him after that of the Father and the Son j (as when Paul fays, there is one God, and Fa ther of all, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jefus Chrift, by whom are all things) he fays that " the Apoftles writing by the infpira- " tion of the Spirit, he did not chufe to in- " troduce much commendation of himfelf, " left it fhould give us an example of com- " mending ourfelves.*" What is moft particularly remarkable is, that the Fathers of the council of Sardica, held in 347, a council called by the autho rity of the emperors Conftance and Conftan tius, a hundred and fixty bifhops being pre fent, of whom Athanafius himfelf was one, and two hundred more approving of the de crees after they had been fent to them (a council in which it was decreed that the Fa ther, Son, and Spirit, was one hypoflafls, which they fay the heretics call »»•«, and that the Father never was without the Son, nor the Son without the Father) did not diftinguifti between the Holy Spirit and the Logos, any more than TertuUian did in the paffage quoted above. They fay " We believe in the pa- " raclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Lord " himfelf promifed and fent. He did not " fuffer, but the man which he put on, • Her. 57. Opera vol, i. p. 485, " and 96 The Hiftory of " and which Chrift took from the virgin " Mary, which could fuffer: for man is H- " able to death, but God is immortal.*" Bafil fays that " the Spirit is fuperior to " a created being, but the title unbegotten " (ayts»n»') is what no man can be fb abfurd " as to prefume to give to any other than " to the fupreme God." Then fpeaking of his not being begotten, like the Son, but proceeding from the Father ; he fays " nei- " ther let any man think that our refufing " to call the Spirit a creature is denying " his perfonality," (i The Hiftory of tunity of explaining it to therq. But no thing of this kind occurs in the whole courfe of his preaching; and though he frequently fpeaks of his death, it is never as having had fuch an end. Our Lbrd fpeaks of repentance, of good works, and of the mercy of God in the very fame ftrain with that of Mofes and the pro phets, and without giving any intimation that their dodrine was defedive on thofe heads. In his account of the proceedings of the day of judgment, the righteous are reprefented as thinking humbly of themfelves, but they never refer themfelves to the fufferings or merit of their judge, as the ground of their hopes ; though nothing can be conceived to have been more natural, and pertinent on the occafion. Whenever our Lord fpeaks of the objeCl of his miffion, and death, as he often does, it is either in a more general way, as for the. falvation of the world, to do the will of God, to fulfil the fcripture prophecies, &c, or more particularly, to give the fuUeft proof of his miffion by his refurredion from the dead, and an affurance of a fimilar refurredion of all his followers. He alfo compares his be ing raifed upon the crofs to the elevation of the ferpent in the wildernefs, and to feed buried tbe Doctrine of Atonement. i6i buried in the ground, as neceffary to its fu ture increafe. But all thefe reprefentations are quite foreign to any thing in the dodrine of atonement. When our Lord takes fo much pains to reconcile the apoftles to his death, in feveral difcourfes, of which we have a par ticular account in the gofpel of John, he never tells them that he muft die ia order to procure the pardon of their fins ; nor do we find the leaft hint of it in his folemn interceffory prayer before his death. On the contrary, he fpeaks of their fuffer ings and death in the fame light as his own. To James and John he fays, ye fhall, indeed, be baptized with my baptijm, and drink oJ the cup which I drink oJ, Mark x. 38. And he recommends his own example to them, in laying down his life for them, John XV. 12, After he is rifen from the dead, he keeps the fame profound filence on the fubjed of the fuppofed true and only great caufe of his death ; and as little do we find of it in the hiftory of the book of Ads, after the minds of the apoftles were fully illuminated with the knowledge of the gofpel. They only " call upon all men every where to re- M " pent 1 62 The Hiflory ef " pent and believe the gofpel, for the re- *' miffion of their fins," The apoftle Peter, in his difcourfe to the Jews, irpmediately after the defcent of the Holy Spirit, and again in the temple, upon the cure of the impotent man, paints in the blackeft colours the fin of the Jews in cru cifying our Lord j but though he exhorts them to repentance, he fays not one word oi JatisfaCiion, expiation, or atonement, to al lay any apprehenfion they might have of the divine juftice. And a fairer opportunity he could not have wiffied to introduce the fub jed. How fine a turn might he have then given to the popular cry of the fame nation, at the time of our Lord's crucifixion. His blood be on us and on our children. Inftead of this, he only exhorts them to repent, and to believe that Jefus was the Meffiah, for the remiffion of their fins. What he fays concerning the death of Chrift, is, only that be was delivered to them by the determinate council and fore-knowledge of God, and that with wicked hands they had put him to death. Ads n, 23, iii, 17. Stephen, in his long fpeech at his trial, makes frequent mention of the death of Chrift, but he fays not one .wpfd of his be ing tbe Dodrine of Atonement 163 ing a propitiation for fin, to lead his hear ers to confider it in that light. What could ha:ve been a fairer opportu nity for introducing the dodrine of fatif- fadion for fin by the death of Chrift, than the evangelift Philip had, when he was ex plaining to the eunuch the only prophecy in the Old Teftanrient which can be con- ftrued to reprefent it in that light ; and yet in the whole ftory, which is not a very con- cife one, there is no mention of it. And when the eunuch declares his faith, which gave him a right to chriftian baptifm, it is fimply this, that " Jefus is the Son of God." The apoftle Peter, preaching to Cornelius, the firft of the proper Gentile converts, is ftill filent about this fundamental article of the chriftian faith. Much he fays of Jefus Chrift, that God anointed him with the Holy Spirit, and with power, that he went about doing good, ^c. He alfo fpeaks of his death, and refurredion, but nothing at all of our good works being accepted through his fuf ferings or merit. On the contrary, what he fays upon the occafion, may, without any forced conftrudion, be turned againft this favourite opinion. Of a truth I perceive that Cod is no rejpeder of perjons, but that, in M 2 every ¦164 Tbe Hiftory ef every nation, he that feareth bim, and work eth righteoufnefs, is accepted ef him. Ads X. 34. The apoftle Paul before the Jews at An tioch, Ads xiii. 28, at Theffalonica, ch. 17, before Agrippa, ch. 26, and at Rome, ch. 28, on all thefe occafions, treats, and fometimes pretty largely, concerning the death of Chrift; but never with any other view than as an event that was foretold by the prophets. He ffiews the Jews the aggravation of their fins, and exhorts them to repentance and to faith in Chrift, but nothing farther. In his preach ing to heathens at Lyftra, Ads 14, and at Athens, ch. 17, he difcourfes concerning the fupremacy and goodnefs of the one living and true God; and exhorts them to turn from their lying vanities, for that though " at the times of their former ignorance " God had winked, he now commands all " men every where to repent ; becaufe he " has appointed a day wherein he will judge " the world in righteoufnefs, by that man " whom he has ordained, whereof he hath " given affurance unto all men in that he " hath raifed him from the dead." Now in all this, there is not one word of the true gofpel fcheme of falvation by Jefus Chrift, according to fome. There is nothing evan gelical; all is legal and carnal. When the Dodrine of Atonement. 165 When we find the apoftles to be abfolutely lilcnt, where we cannot but think there was the greateft occafion to open themfelves freely concerning the dodrine of atonement ; when,. in their moft ferious difcourfes, they make ufe of language that really fets it afide; when they never once diredly affert the ne ceffity of any fatisfadion for fin, or the in- fufficiency of our good works alone to en title us to the favour of God and future happinefs, muft we build fo an important article of faith on mere hints and inferences from their writings ? The dodrine is of too much importance to ftand on fuch 3 foundation. It has been pretended, that the apprehen fion of fome farther fatisfadion being made to divine juftice, befides repentance and re formation, is neceffary to allay the fears of fincere penitents. They would elfe, it is faid, be fubjed to perpetual alarms, left all they could do would be ineffedual to re ftore them to the divine favour. But till clear inftances be produced of perfons adu ally diftreffed with thefe fears and doubts, I can treat this cafe as no other than an imaginary one. In fad, there is no reafon to believe that any of the human race, if they be left to M 3 their l66 The Hiftory ef their own natural unperverted apprehenfion of things, will ever fall into fuch doubts and uncertainties as all mankind are fome times reprefented to be involved in. On the contrary, that God is a merciful being feems to have been a favourite opinion of all man kind in all ages; except in fome religious fyftems in which the objed of worffiip was not tbe true God, but fome being of a low and revengeful nature, like the moft capri cious and depraved of mankind. We have feen in the Old Teftament, that the Jews had never any other idea than that God was placable on repentance. We find no other fentiment in Job, or his friends, and certainly no other among the Ninevites, or among the Jews of later ages, as the books of Apocrypha, Philo, Jofephus, and all their later writings, teftify. We alfo fee nothing of any other opinion in the doc trine of the Hindoos, or other orientiat nations. It is remarkable that Dr. Clarke, when* like others before him, he reprefents all man kind as abfolutely at a lofs on what terms God would receive offenders into his favour, produces not fo much as a fingle fad or quotation, in fupport of what he afferts, thougfi he is known to be peculiarly happy in hia choice the Dodrine of Atonement. 167 choice of the moft pertinent ones on all other occafions. He gives us, indeed, a general reference to Plato's Alcibiades the fecond ; but I do not find, in all the converfation be tween Socrates and Alcibiades in that dia logue, that either of them drops the leaft hint of their uncertainty about the divine favour in cafe of fincerity, or the leaft doubt that human virtue is not, of itfelf, a fuffici ent recommendation to his acceptance. All that they appear to be at a lofs about is for fome one to teach them what to pray for, left, through their ignorance, they ffiould afk of the Gods things hurtful to themfelves.. They exprefs no want of any perfon to in tercede with God for them, or one whofe fufferings or merit, might avail with God for their acceptance. Befides, if men ffiould have any doubt concerning the divine placability, I do not fee that they muft therefore imagine that he •would accept the fufferings of another in-. ftead of theirs ; but rather, that he would be abfolutely inexorable, and rigorous, in ex- ading of themfelves the puniffiment of their crimes. Fears of this kind it is very pof fible that men may have entertained, but then there is nothing in the dodrine of atonement that is calculated to allay fuch fears. But the divine declarations concerning his own M 4 placabUity l68 The Bftory ef placability, which abound in the fcriptures, muft be fufficient to anfwer every purpofe of that kind. It is urged, however, in favour of the dodrine of atonement, that the fcheme is abfolutely neceffary in the moral government of God, becaufe that, upon different prin ciples, no fatisfadion is made to his offended juftice. But I anfwer, it becomes us ever to bear in mind that the divine juftice is not a blind principle, which, upon provo cation, craves fatisfadion indifcriminately, of all that come within its reach, or that throw themfelves in its way. In the deity, juftice can be nothing more than a modifica tion of goodnefs, or benevolence, which is his fole governing principle, the objed and end of which is the fupreme happinefs of his creatures and fubjeds. This happinefs be ing of a moral nature, muft be chiefly pro moted by fuch a conftitution of the moral government we are under, as ffiall afford the moft effedual motives to induce raen to regulate their lives well. Every degree of feverity therefore, that is fo circumftan- ced as not to have this tendency, viz, to promote repentance and the pradice of vir tue, muft be inconfiftent with the funda mental principle of the moral government of God, and even with juftice itfelf, if ic have the Dodrine of Atonement. 169 Iiave the fame end with divine goodnefs, the happinefs of God's creatures. Now, that any feverity is neceffary to be cxercifed on fuch offenders as are truly pe nitent, even in human governments, is owing to the imperfedion of government when ad- miniftered by men. For were magiftratea judges of the hearts of men, there would refult no manner of inconvenience from par doning all offenders who were become truly penitent and reformed; fince hereby the offenders themfelves would become ufeful members of fociety, and the penetration of the magiftrates would effedually prevent any perfons from taking advantage of fuch lenity. This is exadly the cafe in the moral go vernment of an all feeing God. Here, there fore, meafures formed upon the juftcft prin ciples of equity may be taken, without hazard ing the ends of government, meafures which might be pernicious in any human admini- ftration. In the all perfed government of God, therefore, there is no occafion to ex ercife any feverity, even on penitents them felves. How abfurd then it would be to exercife it on others, which yet the dodrine of atonement requires. Certainly, then, ic muft give the mind unfavourable impreffions of 170 Tbe Hiftory of of the divine government, which, if not' correded by fomething elfe, muft have an unfriendly afped upon their virtue. Yet, notwithftanding this, the influence which the dodrine of atonement has upon pradice is flrongly urged in its favour. Admitting, however, that the popular doc trine of atonement ffiould raife our ideas of the juftice, or rather the feverity of God, it muft, in the fame proportion, fink our ideas of his mercy; io that what the dodrine may have feemed to gain on the one hand, ic loies on the other. And, moreover, though in order to the forgivenefs of fin, fome far ther feverity on the part of God be fup pofed neceffary, yet, according to the doc trine of atonement, this feverity is fo cir- cumftanced, as entirely to lofe its effed. For if the feverity be to work upon men, the. offenders themfelves ffiould feel it. It will be the fame thing with the bulk of man kind, who are the perfons to be wrought upon, whether the divine being animadvert upon the vices that are repented of, or not, if the offenders ^now that they themfelves ffiall never feel it. This difinterefted genero- fity might, indeed, induce fome offenders to ipare the lives of their fubftitutes; but if the fufferings had been endured already by fome perfon of fufficient dignity, on the be- ' half the Dodrine of Atonement. \-i half of aU future tranfgreffors, it is impof fible to conceive how the confideration of it ffiould be any reflraint at all; fince no thing that any man could then do would expofe any other to farther fuffering. SECTION II. Of the true end and deflgn of the death of Chrift. HAVING ffiewn that the death of Chrift is not to be confidered as having made atonement, or fatisfadion, to God for the fins of men, I ffiall now endeavour to ffiew what the end and ufe of it really were. Now the principal defign of the life, as well as the death of Chrift, feems to be not fo much what we may exped to find in any particular texts, or fingle paffages of the evangelifts, or other writers of the New Teftament, as what is fuggefted by a view of the hiftory itfelf, what may be called the language of the naked fads, and what can not bilt be underftood whereever they are known. What has been written by chriftians may affift us to conceive more accurately concerning fome particulars relating to chrifti- uiity, buc that muft be of more importance, which 172 "^be Hiflory ef which does not require to be written, what the fads themfelves neceffarily fpeak, with out any interpretation. Let us, therefore, examine what it is that may be clearly de duced from the hiftory, and how much of chriftianity could not but have been known, if nothing had been written, provided a ge neral idea of the life and death of Chrift could have been tranfmitted to us in any other way. If, then, wc attend to the general fadi recorded by the evangelifts, we cannot buc find that they afford the moft fatisfadory evidence of a refurredion and a future life. The hiftory of Jefus contains (what cannot be faid of any other hiftory in the world) an authentic account of a man like our felves, invefted by almighty God with moft extraordinary powers, not only teaching, without the leaft ambiguity or hefitation, the dodrine of a future life of retribution for all mankind, and direding the views of his difciples to it, in preference to any thing in this world; but paffing his own life in a voluntary exclufion from all that men call great, and that others purfue with fo much affiduity ; and, in obedience to the will of God, calmly giving up his life, in circum ftances of public ignominy and torture, in the fulleft perfuafion, that he ffiould receive it tbe Dodrine of Atonement. 173 it again with advantage. And in the ac- compliffiment of his own predidion, he adu ally arofe from the dead the third day. Af ter this, he was feen by all thofe perfons who had the moft intimate knowledge of him before, and he did not leave them till after having converfed with them, at intervals, for a confiderable time, in order to give them the moft fatisfadory evidence of the identity of his perfon. Since, then, the great objed of our Lord's miffion was to teach the dodrine of a refur redion to a future immortal life, we fee the neceffity of his own death and refurredion as a proof of his dodrine. For whatever he might have Jaid, or done while he lived, he could not have given the moft fatisfadory proof even of his own belief of a refurrec- tion, unlefs he had adually died in the full expedation of it. Hence it is that the apof tles glory in the confideration both of the death, and of the refurredion of Chrift, as I Cor. i. 22. The Jews require a fign, and the Greeks Jeek after wifdom ; but we preach Chrifl crucified, to the Jews a fiumbling block, and to the Greeks foolifhnejs ; but unte them who are called both Jews and Greeks, Chrifl the power oJ God, and the wijdom oJ God; alfo I Cor. xv. 14, &c. If Chrifl be not rifen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith 174 TT>e Hiftory ef faith is alfo vain. But now is Chrifl rifen from the dead, and is become the firft fruits ef them ihat ftept. There is another manner in which we may be affifted in forming an idea of what is moft effential to chriftianity. Suppofe a num ber of perfons, educated in the chriftian faith, to be eaft upon a remote ifland, without any bible. It is probable they would firft of all lofe all diftind remembrance of the apoftolical epiftles, which may ffiew that thefe are a part of the New Teftament the leaft neceffary to be attended to. After this, they would be apt to forget the particular dif^ courfes of our Lord ; but the laft thing they would retain would be the idea of a man, who had the moft extraordinary power, fpend- ing his time in performing benevolent mira cles, voluntarily fubmitting to many incon- veniencies, and laft of all to a painful death, in a certain expedation of being prefently raifed to an immortal life, and to great hap pinefs, honour, and power after death; and that thefe his expedations were adually ful filled. They would alfo remember that this perfon always recommended the pradice of virtue, and affured his foUowers that they would alfo be raifed again to immortal life and happinefs, if they perfevercd in well doing, as he had done, Now the Dodrine of Atonement. ii ^ Now, allowing that thofe perfons, thus cut off from all communication with other chriftians ffiould retain only thefe general ideas of chriftianity (and it is hardly to be conceived that they could retain lefs) yet, would any body fay that they were not chrifti ans, or that they were not poffeffed of the moft important and pradical truths of chifti- anity, thofe truths which are moft inftru- mental in purifying the heart and reforming the life ? Though there is no occafion to cite par ticular texts for what is clearly fuggefted by the hiftory itfelf, and what could not but be known of it, if all that has been writ ten concerning it were loft, yet exprefs texts are by no means wanting to fliew that the true and proper defign of the gofpel, and confequently of the preaching and of the death of Chrift, was to afcertain and exem plify the great dodrines of a refurredion and of a future ftate. I ffiall content myfelf with reciting only a few of them. John vi. 29. This is the will of him that fent mc, that every one who fees the Son, and believeth on him, fliould have eternal life, and I will raife him up at the laft day. xi, 25. I am the^ refur redion and the life. He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet fhall he live, and wbojoever Uveth and believeth in me fhall never die, lyS Tbe Hiflory of die, ch. X. lo, I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abun dantly. Rev. i. 8, / am he that liveth and was dead, and behold I am alive for ever- mere, and have the keys of death and of the grave. The apoftles, in all their writings, feem clearly to have underftood this to have been the principal objed of the miffion of Chrift. Thus Paul fays concerning Chrift, 2 Tim. i. 10, he abolifhed death, and brount life and immortality to light through the gofpel. This dodrine of a refurredion to immor tal life, and the making an exprefs regard to it the principal fandion of the laws of virtue, is not only effential in the chriftian fcheme, but is an advantage peculiar to chriftianity. The difcourfes of our Saviour relating to this fubjed appear, at firft fight, to be in a ftrain quite different from that of any other teacher of virtue before him, in fpired or uninfpired. And what is above all, the example oi a man, either living or dying, in the certain profped of a fpeedy refurredion to an immortal life, was never before exhibited on the face of the earth. The oSjcd of the miffions of other prophets was always fomething inferior, and introdudory to this. It the Dodrine of Atonement. 177 It is allowed that the argument for our having an intereft in a future life, drawn from the confideration of the refurredion of Chrift, is weakened by any opinion that re prefents him as of a nature fuperior to our own. But if, with the author of the epiftle to the Hebrews, we conceive him to be in all refpeds as we are, his refurredion can not but be confidered, as a pattern and a pledge of ours. Hence the peculiar propri ety of the divine appointment, explained by Paul, I Cor. XV. 21. That Jince by man came death, by man fhould alfo come the refurredion of the dead; and that, as in confequence of our relation to Adam all fliould die, fo in con fequence of our relation to Chrift, who is called the Jecond Adam, we ffiould all be made alive. The fame argument is alfo more fully illuftrated by the fame apoftle in the jth chapter of his epiftle to the Romans, in which, what we fuffer by one man is con- trafted by what we gain by another man. The great objed of the miffion and death of Chrift being to give the fulleft proof of a future life of retribution, in order to fup- ply the ftrongeft motives to virtue, we fee the greateft propriety in thofe texts, in which this ultimate end of his fufferings is imme diately conneded with them, as Titus ii. 14. Who gave himjelj for us, that be might redeem N us 178 The Hiflory of ¦us from all iniquity, and purify to himfelf a peculiar people zealous of good works. Eph. v, 25. Chrift loved the church and gave himfelf for it, that he might fandify, and cleanfe it, (sfc. Rev. i. 5. Unto him that loved us, and wafhed us from our fins in his own blood, isfc. Alio, true religion being by means of chriftianity extended to the gentile world, as well as the Jews, this ultimate end, viz. the abolition of the Jewiffi ritual, at leaft with refped to the Gentiles, is fometimes immediately conneded with the mention of his death, as Eph. ii. 13. But now in Chrifl Jefus they who were a far off are made nigh, by the blood of Chrift. Col. ii. 14. Blotting oui the hand writings of ordinances, that was againft us, which was ^contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it io his crofs. Befides the principal objed of the death of Chrift, other ufes of it are occafionally mentioned, but they are fuch as are per fedly confiftent with this. For inftance, Chrift having fubmitted to all thefe fuffer ings for fo great and benevolent a purpofe, it was highly, proper that he ffiould be re warded for it; and .the divine being has, therefore, in this cafe, exhibited an ifluftri- ous example of the manner in which he will always crown obedience to his will. More over, the Dodrine of Atonement. 179 over, Chrift, being a man like ourfelves, and therefore influenced by hopes and fears, it was reafonable that he ffiould have a view to this glorious reward, in order to fupport him under his fufferings, as is particularly expreffed in the following paffages. Rom. xiv. 9. For this end Chrift both died, and rofe again, and revived, that.- he might be Lord both of the dead and of th'e living. Heb. xii. 2. Who for the joy that was fet before him endured the crofs, defpifing the fhame, and is fat down at the right hand of the throne of God. As Chrift was intended to be our example, and pattern, in his life, death, and refur redion from the dead, his fufferings were abfolutely neceffary to qualify him for the work on which he was fent. This ig ex preffed in the following paffages, which alfo clearly ffiew the neceffity of his being a man like ourfelves, in order to undergo fuffer ings like ours. Heb. ii. 10. For it became him for whom all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many Jons unto glory, to make the captain of their falvation perfed through fufferings; for, both he that fandifieth, and they who are Jandified, are all of one (that is, of one nature and rank) becaufe he is not afhamed to call them brethren. For as much then as the children are partakers of flefli and blood (that is, arc men) he alfo himjelf likewije took N a part i8o The Hiflory of part ef the fame (that is, was a man alfo.) Wherefore, in all things, it behoved him to be made like unte his brethren. For in that be himfelf has fuffered, being tempted, he is able to fuccour tbem thai are tempted. Though he was a Som, yet learned be obedience by the things which he fuffered, and being made perfed, he became tbe author of eternal falvation to them thai obey bim. As Chrift was the perfon foretold by the antient Jewiffi prophets, and he carried the proper and ultimate objed of the law of Mofes into execution, in a more extenfive manner than it had ever been done before, giving a proper extent and force to its mo ral precepts, Chrift is properly faid to have come to fulfil ihe law, and for the accom- pliffiment of ancient prophecies. Matt.v. 17, Think not that I am come io deflroy the law, or tbe prophets; I am not come to deftroy, but to fulfil. Ads iii. 18. But thofe things which God before had fhewed by the mouth of all his pro phets, that Chrift fhould fuffer, he hath fo fulfilled, Laftly, as the end of Chrift's miffion ne ceffarily required him to undergo a great variety of fufferings, he is, with propriety, faid to come in order to exhibit to mankind a moft perfed example of voluntary obedience to the will of God, under the fevereft trial of the Dodrine of Atonement. i8i of it ; and his example is juftly propofed to us under our trials and fufferings. Pet. ii. 21. Chrifl alfo hath fuffered for us, leaving us an example, that we fhould follow his fleps. I John iii. i6. Hereby perceive we the love of God, becaufe he (that is Chrift) laid down his life for us ; and we ought alfo to lay down our lives for the brethren. SECTION III. Of thejenje in which the death of Chrifl is repre fented as a facrifice, and other figurative re prejentations oJ it. T TAVING explained the one great and pri- X*X mary end of the life and death of Chrift, and alfo pointed out the other fecondary and fubordinate ends which were likewife really an fwered by it, I ffiall now attempt to illuftrate t^e figurative reprejentations that are made of it by the facred writers. Thefe have unfortu nately miflcd many chriftians, and have been the occafion of their entertaining opinions con cerning the end of Chrift's coming into the world, quite different from thofe which ap pear upon the very face of the hiftory; opi nions which are contradided by the whole te nor of revelation, and which are extremely in - jurious to the charader of the ever-bleffed God. N 3 The 1 32 The Hiftory of The moft remarkable of thefe figurative re prefentations of the death of Chrift, is that in which he is compared to a facrifice, and as a figure, it is juft and beautiful. In every facri fice the vidim is flain for the benefit of the perfon on whofe account it is offered ; fo Chrift, dying to procure the greateft poftible benefit to the human race, is faid to have given his life a facrifice for us ; and moreover as the end of the gofpel is to promote the re formation of finners, in order to procure the pardon of fin, the death of Chrift is more ex prefsly compared to a. fin offering. Thefe points of refemblance between the death of Chrift and the Jewiffi facrifices, fuffi ciently juftify and explain thejanguage of the fcriptures relating to it. From this circiftn- ftance, however, has arifen a notion, that the facrifices prefcribed in the Jewiffi law were types oi this great, complete, and expiatory facrifice of the death of Chrift, which now fu- percedes and abrogates them. On account, therefore, of the great ftrefs which has been laid on this view of the death of Chrift, I ffiall confider it more fully than it would otherwife deferve. All the texts in which Chrift is indifputably reprefented as a facrifice, are the following. Eph, V, 2. Chrift alfo hath loved us, and given himfelf the Dodrine of Atonement. 1 83 himfelf for us, an offering and a facrifice to God, of ajwtet Jmelling Javour. Heb. vii. 27. Who needed not daily to offer Jaer ifices, firft for his own fins, and then for the people ; for this he did once when he offered up himfelf. The fame allufion is alfo frequent in this epiftle. We find it alfo I Pet, i. 2, 18. Rev. V. 6. and i John ii. 2. and he is the propitiation for our fins. The fame .expreffion occurs, ch. iv, 10. But thefe two are the only places in which the word propitia tion (i?vas-fi©-) occurs in the New Teftament. With refped to thefe texts, it is obvious to remark, that the far greater part of them are from one epiftle of an unknown writer (for it is not certain, at leaft, that the epiftle to the Hebrews was written by Paul) which is allowed, in other refpeds to abound with the ftrongeft figures, metaphors, and allegories j and the reft are too few to bear the very great ftrefs that has been laid upon them. Be fides the manner in which this idea is introduced in thefe texts, which is only indiredly, inti mates plainly enough, that a few circumftances of refemblance are fufficient to juftify the allu fion. Had the writers really confidered the death of Chrift as the intended antetype of the fa crifices under the law; had this been the great and principal end of his death, it would have been afferted in the fulleft and plaineft man ner, and references to it would certainly have N 4 bewi 1 84 The Hiftory of been much more dired and frequent than they are. It is fomething fimilar to this view of the death of Chrift, as a facrifice, that he is alfo called a prieft, and a bigh prieft, efpe cially by the author of the epiftle to the Hebrews. But this very circumftance might have given us to underftand, that both the reprefentations are merely figurative, becaufe both taken together are hardly confiftent, at leaft they make a very harffi figure, and in troduce confufion into our ideas. That the death of Chrift is no proper fa crifice for fin, or the intended antetype of the Jewiffi facrifices, may be inferred from the following confiderations. I. Though the death of Chrift is fre quently mentioned, or alluded to, by the antie.it prophets, it is never Ipoken of as a lin offering. For the propriety of our tranf lation of Ifaiah liii. lo. may be doubted j or if it be retained, it cannot be proved to exhibit any thing more than a figurative al lufion. Now that this great event of the death of Chrift ffiould be foretold, with fo many particular circumftances, and yet that the proper, the ultimate, and the great end of the Dodrine of Atonement. 185 of it ffiould not be pointed out, is unac countable. 1. Great weight Is given to this obferva tion by the converfe of it, viz. that the Jewiffi facrifices are no where faid, in the Old Teftament, .to have any reference to another more perfed facrifice, as might, have been expeded if they really had had any fuch reference.. On the contrary, whenever the legal facrifices are declared by the prophets to be infufficient to procure the favour of God, as they often are, the only thing that is ever oppofed to them, as of more value in the fight of God, is good works, or tnoral virtue, as Pf li. 16. Thou defirefl noi facri fice, elfe would I give it. Thou delightefl not in burnt offerings. The Jacrifices of the Lord are a broken fpirit ; a broken and a contrite heart, 0 God, thou wilt not dejpije. To the fame purpofe fee Ifaiah i. 1 1, Cs?tf. Hof vi. 6. Amos V. 22. Mic. vi. 6. The wifeft of the Jews in our Saviour's time fpeak exadly in the fame ftrain, and in the prefence of our Lord himfelf; who is io far from difapproving of it, that he gives his own fandion to the fentiment in the moft open manner. A fcribe lays, Mark xii. 32. There is one God, and there is none other but be i and to love him with all the heart, &c. is 1 86 The Hiflory ef is betier than all burnt offerings and facrifices. And when Jefus faw thai he anfwered dif- creetly, he faid unto him, thou art not far from the kingdom of God. Having a perfed know ledge of the Law, he was prepared for em bracing the Gofpel. The general ftrain of the paffages, quo ted and referred to above, cannot but ap pear very extraordinary, if the Jewiffi facri fices had in reality, any reference to the death of Chrift, and were intended to pre figure it, as types to an antetype. 3. Many other things, befides the death of Chrift, are exprefsly called facrifices by the facred writers ; and if it be univerfally al lowed to be in a figurative fenfe only, why may not this be the cafe with the death of Chrift alfo ? If Ixvi. 20. They fhall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the Lord. Rom. xii. i. That ye prefent your bodies a living facrifice, holy, and acceptable to God, which is your reafonable fervice. 4. Chriftians in general are frequently called friefts, as well as Chrift himfelf i Pet. ii, 5. Te are a holy prieftbood, to offer up fpiritual fa- •'crififes. 5-Th.e the Dodrine of Atonement. 187 5. The death of Chrift cannot be confider ed as a proper facrifice for fin, becaufe many things effential to fuch a facrifice were wanting in it, efpecially its not being provided and pre-' fented by the finner. 6. We meet with many figures in the writings of the apoftles no lefs bold than this. Thus the body of Chrift is the veil through which we pafs to the holy of holies. We are faid to be circumcijed in his circum cifion, and to be buried with him by bap tifm. Our fins are crucified with him, and we rife again with him to newnefs of life. After meeting with figures like thefe (and many more might be mentioned quite as harffi as thefe) can we be furprized that Chrift, who died to promote the reforma tion of the world, ffiould be called a Jac'ri- fice for the fins of men ? StiU lefs fliall we wonder at this, if we confider how familiar all the rites of the Jewifli religion were to the minds of the apoftles, fb that whatever they were writing about, if it bore any refemblance to that ritual, it was fure to obtrude itfelf It muft alfo be confidered, that the death of Chrift was the greateft objedion to chriftianity both wifh Jews and Gentiles; and what could, tend more to remove this prejudice, with both 1 88 The Hiftory of both of them, and efpecially the Jews, than taking every opportunity of defcribing it in language which to them was fo familiar and refpedable ? 7. It has been faid by fome, that facrifices were originally intended to prefigure the death of Chrift ; and that, in themfelves con fidered, they were of fuch a nature, that they would never have been thought of by man, without an exprefs command from God. But whether facrifices were originally ap pointed by God, or a method which men them felves thought of (which I think not impro bable) of expreffing their gratitude to God, for his favours to them, when we confider the cir cumftances in which they were ufed, they ap pear eafily to fall under either the general no tion of gifts, or the more particular one of en tertainments, furniffied at the expence ofthe per fon who was dependant and obliged. They were therefore always confidered as acknowledgments for favours received from, or of homage due to, God or man. In like manner, they might be ufed to deprecate the anger of God or man, or to procure favours of any other kind, by begetting in the mind of our patron an opi nion of our refped and efteem for him. To the Dodrine of Atonement. 189 To all thefe purpofes ferved facrifices before and under the law of Mofes. Without a facri fice, or fome other gift, the Jews v/ere not al lowed to approach the tabernacle, or the temple, that is, the houfe of God. They were exprefs ly commanded never to appear before God empty, left wrath fhould be upon them, which was agree able to a cuftom that is ftill univerfal in the Eaft, never to appear in the prefence of any prince, or great man, without a prefent. That the offering of an animal upon the al tar, was confidered, in the law of Mofes, in the fame light as any other offering or gift, and a facrifice for fin, as any other facrifice, is evi dent from feveral fads in the Jewiffi hiftory, and from feveral circumftances in their ritual. In many cafes, where a perfon was not able to provide an animal for a facrifice, an offering of flour was accepted. The Philiftines alfo, when they were convinced of their fault in taking captive the ark of God, returned it with a prefent of golden mice and emrods, to make atone ment for them, evidently in the place of a fa crifice; and from the Grecian hiftory it appears that (»»aS^n«1a,) or prefents of gold, filver, fta- tues, &c. were confidered by them as equi valent to expenfive facrifices for any purpofe whatever. In 190 Ibe Hiftory of In tlie Jewiffi ritual the ceremonies attend ing a facrifice for fin did not differ in any thing material, from thofe that were ufed in any other facrifice. Whatever was the occa fion of the facrifice, the perfon who offered it, laid his hand, in a folemn manner, on the head of the vidim, which was the formal prefentation of it, the animal was flain, and the blood fprinkled. Part of the vidim was always burnt on the altar, a part was the portion of the prieft, and in fome cafes the remainder was caten by the offerer. When, therefore, the Jews facrificed an animal as a fin-offering, the ufe and fignification of the facrifice itfelf, were the fame as if it had been intended to procure any other favour ; and there was no more bear ing of fin, or any thing properly vicarious in the offering of the animal that was made a fin-of fering, than if it had been facrificed on an oc cafion of thankfgiving, or on any other ac count. From all that has been faid concerning fa crifices under the Law, and the hiftory of their ufes, they appear to have been confidered as circumftances attending an addrefs to the deity, and not as things that were of any avail in themfelves. It was not the facrifice, but the prieft that was faid to make atonement ; nor was a facrifice univerfally neceffary for that purpofe. the Dodrine of Atonement. 191 purpofe. For, upon feveral occafions, we read of atonement being made when there was no facrifice. Phineas is faid to have made atone ment for the children of Ifrael by flaying the tranfgreffors. Num. xxv. 13. Mofes made atonement by prayer only, Ex. xxxii. 30. And Aaron made atonement with incenfe. Whenever the writers of the Old Teftament treat largely concerning facrifices, it is evident the idea they had of them was the fame with that which they had concerning gifts, or pre fents of any other nature. Thus the Divine Being is reprefented as faying, Pf Iviii. 8, &c. / will take no bullock out of thy houfe, nor he- goat out of thy fold ; for every beafl of the forefl is mine, and the cattle upon a thoufarid hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains, and the wild beafl s of the field are mine. If I were hun gry, I would not tell thee ; for the world is mine, and the fullnejs thereof. Will I eat the flefh of bulls, or drink the blood oJ goats ? Offer unto God thankjgiving, and pay thy vows unto the Mofl High, &c. Laftly, if the death of Chrift had been a proper facrifice, and the forgivenefs of fins had depended upon it only, we ffiould hardly have found the rejurredion of Chrifl reprefented as having had the fame ufe, as Rom. iv, 45. He ivns raifed again for cur juflification. As figures 192 The Hiftory ef figures of fpeech, thefe things are confiftent enough, but not otherwife. 8. Had the death of Chrift been fimply and properly a facrifice, we ffiould not exped to find it denominated in any manner that was inconfiftent with this reprefentation, which, however, is very common in the fcriptures. If there be a refemblance to the death of Chrift in thofe things to which they compare it, the writers arc fufficiently juftified, as fuch figures of fpeech are adapted to give a ftrong view of what they wiffi to de>fcribe; but if no figure be intended, they are chargeable with real inconfiftency, in caUing the fame thing by different names. If one ofthe repre fentations be real, and the reft figurative, how are we to diftinguiffi among them, when the writers themfelves give us no intimation of any fuch difference ? This circumftance alone feems to prove that they made ufe of all thefe reprefentations in the fame view, which, there fore, could be no other than as comparifons iti certain refpeds. Becaufe the word atonement frequently oc curs in the Old Teftament, and in fome cafes atonements are faid to have been made for fin by facrifices, this whole bufinefs, has, on this account more particularly, been thought to re fer to the death of Chrifl:, as the only atoning facrifice. the Dodrine of Atonement. 193 But this notion muft be given up if we con fider the meaning of atonement under the Jew iffi difpenfation. From comparing all the paffages in which atonement is mentioned, it is evident that it fignifies the making of any thing clean, or holy, fo as to be fit to be ufed in the fervice of God, or, when applied to a perfon, fit to come into the prefence of God; God being confidered as, in a peculiar manner, the king and fovereign of the Ifraelitiffi nation, and as it were, keeping a court among them. Thus atonement was faid to be made for the altar. Exod. xxix. ;^6, and for a houfe after having been infeded with leprofy. Lev. xiv. 58. Aaron made atonement for the Levites, Num. viii. 12. when they were dedicated to their office and miniftry, when no fin, or offence, is faid to have been done away by it. Atone ment was alfo made at the purification of a leper. Lev. xiv. 18. Burnt offerings that were wholly voluntary are faid to be accepted to make atonement for the offerer. Lev. i. 3. Atonements were alfo appointed after invo luntary uncleannefs, and fins of ignorance, as well as in fome cafes of wilful tranfgreffion, upon repentance and rellitution; but in this cafe it liad no relation to the pardon of fin in the fight of God, but only to the decency *nd propriety of public worfliip, for which, O a man 194 ^f Hiflory ef a man who had fo offended was confidered as difqualified. GuUt, in a moral fenfe, is never faid to be atoned for by any facrifice, but the contrary is ftrongly expreffed by Da vid and others. The Engliffi word atonement, occurs but once in the New Teftament, and in other places the fame word in the original («aIaWiayti) is rendered reconciliation ; and this word is never ufed by the Seventy in any paffage re lating to legal atonements. Had the death of Chrift been the proper atoning facrifice for the fins of men, and as fuch, been prefigured by the atonements in the Jewiffi difpenfation, we might have ex peded not only to have been exprefsly told fo (if not from the firft, at leaft after the fulfilment of the prophetic type) but alfo that the time, and other circumftances of the death of Chrift, ffiould have correfponded to thofe of the types of it. Chrift being put to death at the feaft of paffover might lead us to ima gine that his death had fome reference to that bufinefs; but if he had died as a pro per expiatory facrifice, it might have been ex peded that he would have died on the day cf expiation, and at the time when the high prieft was entering into the holy of holies. Had this been the cafe, I much doubt whe ther tbe Dodrine of Atonement. 195 ther it would have been in the power of any reafons, though ever fo folid, to have prevented men from confidering the one as a proper type of the other. Now the want of this coincidence ffiould lead our minds off from making fuch a comparifon. In one paffage of the New Teftament Chrift is faid to have died as a curfe for us. Gal." iii. 10. Chrift has redeemed us from the curj^ eJ the law, being made a curje for us. Mention is made of feveral kinds of things accurfed under the Jewilh conftitution, but in general they were things devoted to deftrudion. Chrift, therefore, may, in a figu rative way of fpeaking, be confidered as a curJe for us, in confequence of his devoting himfelf to death for us. But that this can be nothing more than a figure, is evident becaufe this idea of a curfe is inconfiftent with that of a facrifice, and therefore ffiews that both thefe reprefentations are to be conr- fidered as mere figures of fpeech. Thougli in fome of the heathen facrifices the vidfm was an animal abhorred by the God to which it was offered, as the goat facrificed to Bac^ chus; yet in the Jewifh facrifices rhe vidim was always a clean and ufeful animal, and perfed in its kind. And, nothing accur/e^ was ever fuffered to be brought to the altar O 2 'bf 196 Tbe Hiftory of of God. Cities and cattle accurfed were in the Law devoted to utter diftrudion. Not one flieep or ox of all the cattie of Jericho, or of the Amalakites, was permitted to be facrificed. Chrift is alfo compared to the pafchal lamb among the Jews, i Cor. v. 7. Chrift our paffover is facrificed for us. Alfo when the legs of Jefus were not broken upon the crofs it is faid, John xix. 36. Thefe things were done that the fcriptures might be fulfilled, a bone of him fliall not be broken, evidently referring to the fame words in Ex. xii. 46, which relate to the pafchal lamb. There are, moreover, feveral other cir cumftances in the evangelical hiftory which lead us to this view of the death of Chrift, efpecially that of his being crucified at the feaft of paffover, and of his inftitution of the Lord's fupper at that time, and feem- ingly in refemblance of' it, as if it was to be confidered in the fame light. However, the pafchal lamb was far from being a proper facrifice. It is never fo denominated in the Old Teftament, except once. Ex, xii. 27, where it is called the facrifice of the Lord's paffover. But this could be only in fome fecondary or partial fenfe, and not in the pro per and primary fenfe of the word. For there was the Dodrine of Afonement. 197 was no prieft employed upon the occafion, no part was burned or offered unto the Lord. And certainly no propitiation or atonement is faid to have been made by it, and there fore it was very far from being a fin offer ing. Chrift, with refped to his death, is by himfelf compared to the Jerpent which was expofed by Mofes in the wildernefs, that thofe of the people who looked upon it might be cured of die bite of fuch ferpents. Here the analogy is obvious. The diftempers of which they were cured were of the body, buc thofe of which we arc cured by the gofpel are of the mind. Johniii. 14, And as Mo- Jes Ufted up the ferpent in the wildernejs, Jo muft tbe Jon of man be lifted up. Ch, xii, 32. And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me. In this latter teyx the allufion is perhaps different from that above mention ed; for here Chrift, being raifed above the earth by means of the crofs, is reprefented as drawing men from earth towards Heaven. I ffiall clofe this account of the figura tive reprefentations of the death of Chrift that occur in the New Teftament, with a view of the principal ufes that the facred writers make of it in illuftrating other things. They ffiew that the apoftles were glad to O 3 take 198 The Hiflory of take every opportunity of confidering the death of Chrift in a moral view, as afford ing the ftrongeft motives to a holy life. They alfo ffiew a fondnefs for very ftrong figures of fpeech. For the greater part of the metaphors in the following verfes are much bolder, and more far fetched than comparing the death of Chrift to a facri fice. Rom. vi, 3. Know ye not, that fo many of you as were baptized into Jefus Chrift, were baptized into his death. Therefore we are buried with him by baptifm, unto death; that, like as Chrift was raifed up from ibe dead by ihe glory of bis Father, even fo we alfo fhould walk in newnefs of life, &c. Gal. ii. ao. / am crucified with Chrift, neverihelefs T live, yet not I, bui Chrift liveth in me, ch. vi. 14. God forbid thai I fliould glory, fave in tbe crofs of our Lord Jefus Chrift, by which the world is crucified to me, and I unto the •world. See alfo, Eph. ii. 5, 6, SECTION the Dodrine of Atonement. 1 99 SECTION IV. Various kinds of phrafeology refpeding the death of Chrift explained. BESIDES the death of Chrift being ex prefsly called a facrifice, and various facrifical expreffions being applied to it, the language of fcripture is thought to favour the dodrine of atonement in various other re fpeds, perfedly correfponding with the idea of its being a proper facrifice, and irrecon- cileable with other views of it. I ffiall there fore, briefly confiderevery reprefentation which I can find of this nature, I, Chrift is frequently faid to have died for us. But, in general, this may be inter preted of his dying ojt our account, or for our benefit. Or, if, when rigoroufly inter preted, it ffiould be found that if Chrift had not died, wc muft have died, it is ftill, however, only confequentially fo, and by no means properly and diredly fo, as a Jubfli- tuie for us. For if, in confequence of Chrift not having been fent to inftrud and reform the world, mankind had continued unreform- ed, and the neceffary confequence of Chrift's coming was his death, by whatever means, O 4 and 200 The Hiftory of and in whatever manner it was brought about, it is plain that there was, in fad, no other alternative, but his death, or ours. How natural then was it, efpecially to writers ac cuftomed to the ftrong figurative expreffion of the Eaft, to fay that he died in our ftead, without meaning it in a ftrid and proper Ienfe, as if God had abfolutely required the death of Chrift, in order to fatisfy his juftice for our fins, and as a neceffary means of his forgiving us. Nothing but declarations much more definite and exprefs, contained at leaft in fome part of fcripture, could au thorize us to interpret in this manner fuch general expreffions a.s the following. John X. II. I am ibe good fhepherd ; tbe good fhep- herd gi-veth his life for ihe fheep, ch. xv. 13, Greater love bath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friend, i Pet. iii. 18. Chrift hath once fuffered for fin, the juft for the unjuft, ihat he might bring us io Gcid. John xi. 50. It is expedient for us that one man pould die for the people, and that the whole nation perifh not. A ffiepherd, in rifking his life for his ffieep, evidently gives his life for theirs, in a fuffi ciently proper fenfe ; becaufe if he had not thrown himfelf in the way of the wild beafts that were ruffiing upon his ffieep they muft have died. Buc here was no compad between the the Dodrine of Atonement. 201 the beafts and the ffiepherd ; the blood of the ffieep was not due to them, nor did they ac cept of that ofthe ffiepherd in its ftead. This cafe is, therefore, no proper parallel to the death of Chrift, on the principle of the doc trine of atonement. 1. Chrift is faid to have given his hfe as a ranfom (^I'^fo^) for us, but it is only in two paf fages that this view of it occurs, viz. Matt. XX. 28. and Mark x. 45, both of which con tain the fame expreffions, as delivered by our Saviour on the fame occafion. The fon of man came not to be mimftered unto, but to minifler, and to give his life a ranfom for many, i Tim. ii. 8 . Who gave himjelf a ranjom (ailiXtjIfov) for all. We meet, however, with other expreffions fimi lar to thefe, as Tit. ii. 14. Who gave himfelf for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify to himfelf a peculiar people, zealous of good works. In all thefe cafes, the price of redemption is faid to have been given by Chrift, but had we been authorized to interpret thefe expreffions as if we had been doomed to die, and Chrift had interpofed, and offered his life to the Fa- ther in the place of ours, the rcprefentarion might have been expeded to be uniform ; whereas, we find, in general, that the price of our redemption is given by God, as John iii. 16. God 202 The Hiftory tf 16. Godfo loved the world that he gave his only begotten fon, ihat whofoever believeth on him fhould not perifh, but have everlafting life. Rom. viii. 32. He that fpared not his own fon, but de livered him up for us all, how fhall he not with kim freely give us all things ? This language, on the part of God, or of Chrift, is very proper, confidered as figurative. For if nothing but the miffion of Chrift could have faved the world, and his death was the neceffary confequence of his undertaking it, God is very properly faid to have given him up for us ; or fince he undertook the work vo luntarily, and from the love that he bore to man, he alfo may be faid to have given his life as a ranfom for ours ; and thus thefe texts come under the fame general idea with thofe ex plained above. In a figurative fenfe the gof pel may be faid to be the moft expenfive pro- vijion that God has made for recovering men from the power of fin, in order to purchafe them, as it were, for himfelf 3. Chrift is faid to bear the fins of men in the following texts. If liii. 11. He fliall bear their iniquities, v. 12. He bore the fins of many . I Pet. ii. 24. Who his own felf bore our fins, in his own body, on the tree. Heb. ix. 28. So Chrift was once offered to bear the fins of many. But the idea we ought to annex to the term bearing the Dodrine of Atonement. 203 bearing fin, is that of bearing it away, or remov ing it, an effed which is produced by the power of the gofpel. Thefe texts are, therefore, fimi lar to I John iii. 5. And ye know that he was manifeft ed to take away fin, and in him was no fin. The phrafe, bearing fln, is never applied, under the Law, but to the Jcape-goat, on the day bf expiation, which was not facrificed, bur, as the name expreffes, was turned out into the wildernefs. We fee clearly in what fenfe the evangelift Matthew, underftood the paffage above quoted from Ifaiah ; when, fpeaking of fome of our Saviour's miraculous cures, he fays, ch. viii. 17. That it might be fulfilled which was fpoken by the prophet Ifaiah, himfelf took our infirmities, and bore our flckneffes. Now how did Chrift bear the difeafes of men ? not by taking them on himfelf, and becoming difeafed as they had been, but by radically curing them. So alfo Chrift bears, that is, bears away, or removes, the fins of men, by healing their diftempered minds, and reftoring them to a found and vir tuous ftate, by the power of his gofpel. 4. Some who are willing* to give up the idea of Chrift dying as a proper facrifice for us, or in our ftead, fay neverthelefs, that God forgives the fins of men /or the fake of the me^ rits, or at the interceffion of Chrift, and that this 204 ^* Hiflory of this appears to be analogous to the divme con dud in other refpeds ; as God is often faid to ffiew favour to fome on the account of others, and efpecially to have fpared the Ifraelites on account of their relation to Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob ; and for this reafon they fay we are required to aflc in ihe name of Chrift. The texts, however, which bear this afped, are ve ry few, perhaps none befides the following, I John ii. I. If any man fin, we have an advo cate with ihe father, Jefus Chrift tbe righteous. It is not denied, that it may be confiftent with the maxims of divine government, to ffiew favour to fome perfons on the account of others to whom they bear a near relation. It is a wife maxim in human government, be caufe we are, in many cafes, as much concern ed for others, as for ourfelves ; and therefore a favour to a man's children, and pofterity, may be the proper reward of his own merit, and alfo anfwer other ends of a reward, by being a motive to other perfons to behave well. But in general, favours difbibuted in this manner, are fuch as it is perfe6Uy confiftent with divine reditude to grant to men without any regard to others, as giving the land of Canaan to the pofterity of Abraham, &c. When the Jews incurred adual guilt, they were always puniihed like any other people, and by no means ipared on account of their relation to Abraham. the Dodrine of Atonement. 205 Abraham. On the contrary, they are often faid to have been more feverely puniffied for not improving their privileges, as his defcend- ants, Sec. Admitting, however, that God may be re prefented as forgiving fin, in particular cafes, on this principle; if all fln be forgiven for the fake of Chrift only, we ought, at leaft, to have been exprefsly told fo. Our Saviour never fays that forgivenefs of fin was procured by him, but he always fpeaks of the free mer cy of God in the fame manner as the pro phets who preceded him; and it is particu larly remarkable that in his laft prayer, which is properly interceffory, we find nothing on the fubjed. If any ftrefs be laid on Chrift being, faid to be our advocate, the Holy Spirit is much more frequently and properly called fo ; and by our Lord himfelf; and he is reprefented by Paul as ading the part of an advocate and intercef- for. Rom. viii. 26. The Spirit itfelf maketh interceffion for us. Repentance and the remiffion of fin are faid to be preached in the name of Chrifl. Luke xxiv. 47. and through him. Ads xiii. 38. And all who believe in him are faid to have remiffion Q^Un, through his name, ch. x, 43. But this phrafe^ 206 Tbe Hiftory of phrafeology is eafily explained on the idea that the preaching of the gofpel reforms the world, and that the remiffion of i!n is confequent on reformation. In one paffage, indeed, accord ing to our tranflation, God is faid to for give fin for the fake of Chrifl. Eph. iv. 32. Be ye kind io ene another, tender hearted, forgiving ene another, even as God fer Chrift's fake has forgiven you. But in the original it is in Chrift, and may be underftood of ihe gofpel ef Chrift. Had fin been forgiven, in a proper and ftrid fenfe, for the fake of Chrift, the word freely would hardly have been ufed, as it often is, with relation to it, as in Rom. iii. 34. for this implies that forgivenefs is the free gift of God, and pro ceeds from his effential goodnefs and mercy, without regard to any foreign confideration whatever. The very great variety of manners in which the facred writers fpeak of the method in which the pardon of fin is difpenfed, is a proof that we are to allow fomething to the ufe of figures in their language upon this fubjed; for fome of thefe phrafes muft be accommodated to the others. In general, the pardon of fin is reprefented as the ad of God himfelf, but in fome particular cafes it is faid to be the ad of Chrift. Matt. ix. 6. But ihat ye may knovj that tbe Son ef man bath power on earth io forgive fln. Col. iii. 13. the Dodrine of Atonement. 207 iii. 13. Even as Chrifl hath forgiven you, fo alfo do ye. But upon a careful examination of fuch texts as thefc^ and the comparifon of them with thofe in which the pardon of fin feems to be reprefented as difpenfed in confideration of the fufferings, the merit, the rejurredion, the life, or the obedience, of Chrift (for all thefe views of it occur) we cannot but conclude that they are partial reprefen tations, which, at proper diftances, are allow ed to be inconfiftent, without any charge of impropriety ; and that, according to the plain general tenor of fcripture, the pardon of fin, is in reality, always difpenfed by the free mercy of God, on account of mens perfo nal virtue, a penitent upright heart, and a reformed exemplary life, without regard to the fufferings, or merit, of any being whatever. On this fubjed I would refer miy readers to a veiy valuable effay on the dodrine of atonement in the Theological Repofitory*, in which the writer (who is the Rev. Mr. Turner of Wakefield) ffiews that in the Old Tefta ment to make atonement for any thing or perjon, fignifies, as I have mentioned above, making it, or him, clean, or proper for the divine Jervice ; and that in the New Tefta ment, fimilar expreffions, which are there •Ijpl. 3. p. 385,40. ufed co8 The Mflery of ufed by way of figure or allufion, relate to the eftabliffiment and confirmation of the advantages we at prefent enjoy by the gof pel, and particularly the free and uninter rupted liberty of worffiipping God accord ing to the inftitutions of Chrift, granted to us in the gofpel; juft as the legal atone ments ferved fimUar purpofes under that dif penfation*. But he fays he doth not re coiled any texts in which the death of Chrift ¦ is reprefented as the caufe, reafon, or motive, why God has conferred thefe blcffings on man. The advocates for the dodrine of atone ment muft be cmbarraffed, when they con fider, that, the godhead of Chrift being in capable of fuffering, his manhood alone was left to endure all the wrath of God that was due for every fin which he forgives ; and furely one man (and that which adu ally fuffered of Chrift, on their own prin ciples, was no more) could never make a fufficient atonement for the fins of the whole world, or even of the eled only, efpecially confidering, as they do, that the fufferings of Chrift were but temporary, and the puniffi ment due to fin eternal. • vol. 3. p. 431. • There the Dodrine of Atonement. 209 There is a confiderable difference in opinion, alfo, with refped to the place, or fcene of this expiatory fuffering. In general it is thought to have been, in part, at the time of the agony in the garden, and in part on the crofs. But to account for this extraordinary fuffering, they are obliged to fuppofe fomething un common, and undefcribable in it, to which nothing in the common feelings of human na ture ever correfponded, though ,at the fame time, it was only human nature that fuffered. Biffiop Burnet was aware of this difficulty, and he expreffes his ideas of it in a very natural manner, fo as to ffiew clearly how his fcheme was prcffed with it. In his Expofltion of the 39 articles*, he fays, " It is not eafy for us to ap- " prehend in what that agony confifted. For " we underftand only the agonies of pain, or " of confcience, which laft arife out of the *' horror of guilt, or the apprehenfion of the " wrath of God. It is, indeed, certain that " he who had no fin could have no fuch " horror in him ; and yet it is as certain *' that he could not be put into fuch agony " only through the apprehenfion and fear of " that violent death which he was to fuffer " the next day. Therefore we ought to con- " elude that there was an inward fuffering • p. 67. P « in aio The Hiflory of " in his mind, as well as an outward vifible^ " one in his body. We cannot diftindly " apprehend what that was, fince he was fure " both of his own fpotlefs innocence, and of " his Father's unchangeable love to him. Wc " can only imagine a vaft fenfe of the hein- " oufnefs of fin, and a deep indignation at the " diffionour done to God by it, a melting ap- " prehenfion of the corruption and miferies " of mankiijd by reafon of fin, together with " the never before felt withdrawing of thofe " confolations that had always filled his foul. " Buc what might be farther in his agony " and in his laft derelidion we cannot dif- " tindly apprehend. Only this we perceive, " that our minds are capable of great pain, " as well as our bodies are. Deep horror, *' with an inconfolable fliarpnefs of thought, " is a very intolerable thing. Notwithftand- " ing the bodily or fubftantial indwelling of " the fulnefs of the godhead in him, yet he " was capable of feeling vaft pain in his " body, fo that he might become a complete ** facrifice, and we might have from his fuf- " ferings, a very full and amazing appre- " henfion ofthe guilt of fin. AU thofe ema- " nations of joy with which the indwelling " of the eternal word had ever tUl then fiUed " his foul, might then, when he needed them " moft, be quite withdrawn, and he be . left " merely to the firmnefs of his faith, to his " patient the Dodrine of Atonement. 211 " patient refignation to the will of his hea- " venly Father, and to his willing readinefs " to drink of that cup which his Father had " put in his hand to drink." All this only ffiews how rniferably men may involve themfelves in fyftems unfupported by fads. Our Saviour, as an innocent man, cpuld have no terrors of a guilty confcience, and therefore he could feel nothing but the dread of his approaching painful and igno minious death. But having a clearer idea of this, as we perceive in the hiftory, and con fequently of the agony of it, than other men generally have of approaching fufferings, the apprehenfion which he was under, no doubt, affeded his mind more than we can well con - ceive. Thofe who confider Chrift as fome thing more than a man, cannot imagine how he ffiould be fo much affeded in thofe cir cumftances ; but there is no difficulty in the cafe with thofe who confider him as a being made exadly like themfelves, and perhaps of a delicate tender habit. As to the fins of others, it is natural to fup pofe that his mind would be lefs at leifurc to attend to them then, than at any other time, his mind being neceffarily occupied with th© I'enle of his own fufferinge ; and accordingly we find that all he fays upon that occafion P 2 refpeds 212 The Hiflory of refpeds himfelf only. Father, if ii be poffible, lei this cup pafs from me. Neverthelefs, not as I will, bui as ihou wilt. That the pre fence of God forfook him, whatever be meant by it, is not at all fupported by fad; and when he was much oppreffed with fbrrow, an angel was fent on purpofe to comfort and Ib-ensthen him. "o"- He went through the fcene of his trial and crucifixion with wonderful compofure, and without the leaft appearance of any thing like agony of mind. His faying. My God, my God, why haft thou forfaken me, was probably, nothing more than his reciting the firft verfe of the 22d Pfalm, to which he might wiffi to dired the attention of thofe who were prefent, as it contained many things peculiarly appli cable to his cafe. There is nothing in this fcene, any more than in his agony in the gar den, but what is eafily explicable, on the fup pofition of Chrift being a man ; and to fuppofe that he was then under any agony of mind, impreffed upon him, in any inexplicable man ner, by the immediate hand of God, in order to aggravate what he would naturally fuffer, and thereby make his fufferings an adequate expiation for the fins of the world, is a mere arbitrary fuppofition, not countenanced by any one circumftance in the narration. Calvin, the Dodrine of Atonement. 213 Calvin, as we ffiall fee, fuppofed the great fcene of our Saviour's fufferings to have been in hell, in the interval between his death and the refurredion. But this is an hypo thefis no lefs arbitrary and unfupported than any other. Having now feen what the fcriptures con tain concerning the dodrine of atonement, let us fee what chriftians in after ages have built upon it. The foundation, we ffiall findy Very inadequate to the fuperftrudure. SECTION V. Of the opinions of the apoftolical Fathers. WHEN any mode of fpeech may be underftood either in a literal or in a figurative fenfe, there muft be fome diffi culty in afcertaining the real meaning of the perfon who makes ufe of it. For it is the fame thing as if the word was properly am biguous. Thus a papift and a proteftanc equally make ufe of the words of our Sa viour, this is my body, but it does not there fore follow that they think alike with re fped to the Lord's fupper. For one of them ¦\ifes the expreffion as a mere figure of fpeech, P 3 meaning 214 ^b» Hiftory of meaning that the bread and wine are re prefentations) or memorials, of the body and blood of Chrift; whereas the other takes them to be the body and blood itfelf, with out any figure. In like manner, it cannot be determined from the primitive chriftians calling the death of Chrift a facrifice for fin, a ranfom, &'c. or from their faying, in a general way, that Chrift died in our ftead, and that he bore our fins, or even if they carried this figura tive language a little farther, that they really held what is now called the dodrine of atone ment, viz. that it would have been incon fiftent with the maxims of God's moral go vernment to pardon any fin whatever, unlefs Chrift had died to make fatisfadion to di vine juftice for it. Becaufe the language above mentioned may be made ufe of by perfons who only believe that the death of Chrift was a neceffary circumftance iri the fcheme of the gofpel, and that this fcheme was neceffary to reform the world. According to the modern fyftem, there is nothing in any of the good works of men that can at all recommend them to the fa vour of God; that their repentance and re formation is no reafon or motive with him to forgive their fins, and that all the mercy which the Dodrine of Atonement. 415 which he ever ffiews them is on the account of the righteoufnefs of Chrift, imputed to them. But it wiU appear that this language was altogether unknown in the early ages of chriftianity ; and accordingly Bafnage*, in- genuoufly acknowledges, that the antients ipeak meagrely (maigrement) of the fatisfadi on of Chnft, and give much to good works; a fufficient indication, I ffiould think, that they had no fuch ideas as he had concern ing the fatisfadion of Chrift, and that they confidered the good works of men as in themfelves acceptable to God, in the fame manner as the virtue, or merit of Chrift was acceptable to him. I ffiall, however, quote from the early chriftian writers as much as may enable us to perceive how they thought with refped to this fubjed. In the epiftle of Clemens Romanus are fome expreffions which, taken fingly, might feem to favour the dodrine of atonement. But the general ftrain of his writings ffiews that he had no proper idea of it. Exhort ing the Corinthians to repentance, and to virtue in general, he mentions the example of Chrift in the following manner, " Let " us confider what is good and acceptable, •' and well pleafing in the fight of him that •Hiftoire des eglifes refgrtnees, vol, i. p. 75. P 4 " made 2i6 Ihe mflery ef " made us. Let us look ftedfaftly to the " blood of Chrift, and fee how precious his " blood is in the fight of God, which be- " ing ffied for our falvation, has obtained " the grace of repentance for all the world*." This feems to be little more than a repe tition of what is faid in the book of Ads, of Chrift being exalted as a prince and a faviour, io give repentance and remiffion of fins. He farther fays§, " Let us fearch into *' all ages that have gone before, and let us " learn that our Lord has, in every one of *' them, ftill given place for repentance to " fuch as would turn to him." He then mentions the preaching of Noah to the old world, and of Jonah to the Ninevites, of whom he fays, " Howbeit they, repenting *' of their fins, appeafed God by their prayer, ** and were faved though they were ftrangers " to the covenant of God." After this he recites what Ifaiah, Ezekiel, and other pro phets have faid to this purpofe; and in all his fubfequent exhortations he feems to have no idea of any thing but repentance and the mercy of God, and the immediate confequence of it, without the interpofition of any thing elfe. " Wherefore, fays hef. Let us obey •Se£t. 7. Cotilerii, edit, vol, i, p, 150. §Ib. f Sea. 9, " his the Dodrine of Atonement. 217 " his excellent and glorious will, and im- •' ploring his mercy and goodnefs, let us *' fall down upon our faces before him, and ** eaft ourfelves upon his mercy." This writer alfo fpeaks of virtue alone as having immediately great power with God. " And efpecially*, let them learn how great *' a power humility has with God, how much " a pure and holy charity avails with him, " how excellent and great his fear is, and " how it will fave all fuch as turn to him " with holinefs in a pure mind." He ipeaks of the efficacy of faith in the fame language with the apoftle Paul. " The Jews," he fays§, " were all greatly glorified, not for " their own fakes, or for their own works, " or for righteoufnefs which they themfelves *' had wrought, but through his will" (in confequence of the bleffing promifed to Abra ham). " And we alfo, being called by the " fame will in Chrift Jefus, are not jufti- " fied by ourfelves, either by our own wif- " dom, or knowledge, or piety, or the works " which we have done, in the holinefs of " our hearts, but by that faith by which " God almighty has juftified all men from " the beginning." But by faith this writer ©nly means another virtue of the mind, viz. •Seft. 21. §Sea. 32. that 2i8 The Hiftory of that regard to God, belief in his promifes, and fubmiffion to his will, which fupports the mind of man in great difficulties and trials. This was plainly his idea of the juf- tification of Abraham himfelf " For what, « was our Father Ab.'aham bleffed*, was it " not that through faith he wrought righ- " teoufnefs and truth," It is poffible that perfons not acquainted with the writings of the apoftolical Fathers would imagine that, when they ufed fuch phrafes as being juftified by the blood of Chrift, they muft mean, as fome now do, that with out the death of Chrift our repentance would have been of no avail ; but when we con fider all that they have written, and the language of thofe who followed them, who treat more fully on the fubjed, and who appear not to have been fenfible that they thought differently from them with refped to it, we ffiall be fatisfied that thofe phrafes conveyed no fuch ideas to them as they now do to us. Barnabas, fpeaking of the Jewiffi facrifices, fays§, " Thefe things, therefore, has God " aboliffied, that the new law of our Lord ** Jefus Chfift, which is without the yoke ? Sea. 31. § Sea. 2. Cotilerii, edit. p. 57. " of the Dodrine of Atonement. 219 " of any fuch neceffity, might have the fpi- *' ritual offerings of men themfelves. For " fo the Lord faith again, to thofe hereto- " fore ; Did I at all command your Fathers, " when they came out of the land of Egypt, " concerning burnt offerings or facrifices. " But this I commanded them, faying, let " none of you imagine evil in your hearts *' againft his neighbour, and love no falfe " oath. For as much then as we are not *' without underftanding, we ought to ap- " prehend the defign of our merciful Father. " For he fpeaks to us, being wiUing that we, " who have been in the fame error about " the facrifices, ffiould feek and find how to " approach unto him ; and therefore he thus " befpeaks us ; The facrifice of God is a bro- " ken fpirit. A broken and a contrite heart '' God will not defpife." This is not fub ftituting the facrifice of Chrift in the place of the facrifices under the law, but moral virtue only. In the fhepherd of Hermas (if this ffiould be thought to be the work of the Hermas men tioned by Paul) we find nothing of the doc trine of atonement, but ftrong expreffions de noting the acceptablenefs of repentance and good works only. " Then, fays he*, ffiall ' Vif. 2. Seft, 2. " their 220 The Hiftory ef " their fins be forgiven, which they have *' heretofore commited, and the fins of all the ** faints, who have finned even unto this day, *' if they will repent with all their hearts, and " remove all doubt out of their heart." He farther fays *, " Whoever has fuffered for the *' name of the Lord are efteemed honourable *' by the Lord, and all their offences are " blotted out, becaufe they have fuffered " death for the name of the Son of God." It feems pretty evident that fo far we find no real change of opinion with refped to the efficacy of the death of Chrift. Thefe writers adopt the language of the apoftles, ufing the term facrifice in a figurative fenfe, and repre fent the value of good works, without the leaft hint or caution left we ffiould thereby rletrad from the merits of Chrift, and the dodrine of falvation by his imputed righteoufnefs. •Sim. Q. Sea 28. SECTION ^be Dodrine of Atonement. 22 1 SECTION VI. Of the opinion of the Fathers till after the time of Auftin. THAT it was not the received dodrine of the chriftian church within this period, that Chrift did, in any proper fenfe, make the divine being placable to men ; but that the pardon of fin proceeded from the free mercy of God, independently of his fufferings and merit, may, I think, be clearly inferred from feveral confiderations. I . This dodrine, on which io much ftreis has been laid by fome moderns, is never enumerated as an article of chriftian faithy in any antient Jummary of chriflian dodrine; and the early chriftian writers, eipecially thofe who made apologies for chriftianity, had fre quent occafion to do it; and we have feve ral fummaries of this kind. To fay nothing of the apologies of Juftia Martyr, Athenagoras, and TertuUian, who give accounts of the principal articles of chriftian faith, but may be thought to do it too concifely for us to exped that they fliQuld take notice of fuch a do(5trine as this (though 224 The Hiflory of (though the great importance ' of it, in tlie opinion of thofe who hold this dodrine, is fuch, as ought to have given it the prefe rence of any other) I cannot help laying particular ftrefs on the omiffion of it by Lac tantius, who treats profeffedly of the fyftem of chriftianity, as it was generally received in his days. Yet in his Divine Inflitutions, there is fo far from being any mention of the neceffity of the death of Chrift to atone for the fins of men, that he treats of the nature of fin, of the mercy of God^ and of the efficacy of repentance, as if he had ne ver heard of any fuch dodrine. We fee his fentiments on thefe fubjeds very fully in his treatife De Ira Dei*. And when he profeffedly confiders the reafons of the in carnation and death of Chrift§, he only fays, that, " example was neceffary to be ex- " hibited to men as well as precepts, and " therefore it was neceffary that God ffiould " be cloathed with a mortal body, be tempt- " ed, fuffer, and die." He gives no other reafon whatever. Again, he faysf, " Chrift " was made fleffi, becaufe he was not only '' to teach, but alfo to do, and to be an ' Cap. 19. 20. § Epitome chap. 50. p. 142, t Cap. 5. p. 143. " esample. the Dodrine of Atonement. 223 ** example, that none might alledge in their " excufe the weaknefs of the fleffi." Cyprian, an earlier writer often mentions the humiliation and fufferings of Chrift, buc always either as an example, or fimply as foretold by the prophets. Arnobius fays, That*, " Chrift permitted " his man, that is, the man to whom he " was united to be killed, that, in confe- " quence of it (viz. his refurredion after- " wards) it might appear that; what they " had been taught concerning the fafety of " their fouls was fafe, or to be depended " upon, and that death was not to be de- " feated any other way." Auftin, in feveral places, fpeaks of the* end of Chrift's life and death, but never as deligned to make fatisfadion for the fins of men, but generally as an example. " In " his paffion he ffiewed what we ought to " endure ; in his refurredion, what we are- " to hope for§." Speaking of the incar nation in general, he faysf, " Chrift af- " fumed a human body, and lived among " men, that he might fet us an example of " living, and dying, and rifing again." • Lib. I. p. 24. i Lardner's Credibility, voL 10. p. 299. f U>- Wheo 224 '^be Hiflory of When he fpeaks figuratively, it is plain he did not carry his ideas fo far as the or thodox now do. " In his death," he fays, *' he made a gainful traffick, he purchafed " faithful men, and martyrs. He bought us *' with his blood. He laid down the price " of our redemption." But he likewife fays, ** the martyrs have returned what was laid " out for them, that is, have given what *' was purchafed, even their lives." Some orthodox writers complain of the im perfed knowledge which the primitive chrif tian writers had of the chriftian fyftem in this refped. Gallseus obferves, according to Lard ner f, that Ladantius faid little or nothing of Chrift's prieftly office. Lardner himfelf, adds, " I do not remember that Jerom hath " any where taken notice of this, but it is ** likely enough to be true; and that Lac- " tantius did not confider Chrift's death in " the modern way, as a propitiatory facrifice " for fin, or a fatisfadion made to divine *' juftice for the fins of the human race, " may be argued from the paffages which ** he quotes from it concerning the value " of repentance, and the ends of Chrift's " death," He adds that " many other an- '* tient chriftians will come in for their ffiare + Lardner's Credibility, vol, 7. p, 145. " in the Dodrine of Atonement. 225 ** in this charge." For according to Flacius Illyricus, " the chriftian writers who lived foon *' after Chrift and his apoftles, difcourfed like *' philofophers, of the Law, and its moral pre- " cepts, and of the nature of virtue and vice, *' but they were totally ignorant of man's na- " tural corruption, the myfteries of the " gofpel, and Chrift's benefit. His country- *• man, Jerom," he fays, " was well fkiUed in " the languages, and endeavoured to explain " the fcripture by verfions and commentaries ; ** but after all, he was able to do but very lit- ** tie, being ignorant ofthe human difeafe, ** and of Chrift the phyfician, and wanting *' both the key of fcripture, and the lamb of ** God to open to him," The fame Flacius, or fome other learned writer of his time, obferves concerning Eufe bius, biffiop of Cefarea, that " it is a very low " and imperfed defcription which he gives of " a chriftian,. making him only a man, who by " the knowledge of Chrift and his dodrine, is " brought to the worffiip of the one true God, ** and the pradice of fobriety, righteoufnefs, ** patience, and other virtues. But he hath " not a word about regeneration, or imputed " righteoufnefs," I cannot forbear adding what Dr. Lardner very pertinendy fubjoins to this quotation, Q^ >• Poor, 226 The Hiflory of " Poor, ignorant, primitive chriftians, I won- ** der how they could find the way to heaven, *' They lived near the times of Chrift and his " apoftles. They highly valued, and diligcnt- " ly read the holy fcriptures, and fome of " them wrote commentaries upon them ; but *' yet, it feems, they knew little or nothing of " their religion, though they embraced and ** profeffed it with the manifeft hazard of all *' earthly good things ; and many of them laid " down their lives rather than renounce it. " Truely we of thefe times are very happy in " our orthodoxy ; but I wiffi that we did more " excel in thofe virtues which they, and the " fcriptures likewife, I think, recommend, as " the diftinguiffiing properties of a chriftian, ** And I am not a little apprehenfiv^e, that ma- " ny things which now make a fair ffiew " among us, and in which we mightily pride " ourfelves, will in the end prove weeds only, " on which the owner of the ground fets no " value," 2. Some controverfies were ftarted in the primitive times which could not have failec^ to drav/ forth the fentiments of the orthodox defenders of the faith on this fubjed, if they h^d really believed the death of Chrift to be a proper facrifice for fin, and that without it, God either could not, or would not, pardon any fin. AU the Dodrine of Atonement .^ 1V] All the Docetae, and the Gnofticks in ge neral, who believed that Chrift was man on ly in appearance, and did not really fuffer, could have no idea of the meritorious nature of his death, as fuch ; and yet this is never objeded to any of them by Irenseus, or others, who write the moft largely againft them. The Manicheans alfo did not believe that Chrift died, and confequentially, as Beaufobre, who writes their hiftory, obferves, they muft neceffarily have afcribed the falvation of the foul to the dodrine and the example of Chrift; and yet none of the primitive Fathers who write againft them obferve, that the great end of Chrift's coming into the world would then be defeated, in that the fins of inen would not be fatisfied for *. Auftin, who writes againft the Manicheans, and from whom, on account of his dodrine of grace md original fin, we might exped a complete fyftem of atonement, never objeds to them their want of l"uch a dodrine, but combats them on other principles. 3. Had the antient chriftian writers had the ideas which ibme of the moderns have concerning the all-fufficient facrifice of Chrift, and the infufficiency of good works, * Lardner's Credibility, vol. 6. p. 294. Qj2 they 228 The Hiflory ef they could not have expreffed themfelves as they generaUy do, with refped to the value of repentance and good works iri the fight of God. Cyprian fays, " What finners ought to do, '* the divine precepts inform us, viz. that " fatisfadion is made to God by good works, " and that fins are done away by the merit *' of compaffion." Operationibus juftis deo fatisfieri, mifericordiae meritis deo placari. * Ladantius fays§, " L^t no one who has " been led into fin by the impulfe of paffion " defpair of himfelf, for he may be reftored " if he repent of his fins, and by good works " make fatisfadion to God (fatisfaciat deo) : " For if we think our children to be <;;or- " reded when they repent of their faults, why " ffiould we defpair of the clemency of God " being pacified , by repentance (penitendo " poffi placari)." Again f, "Whoever, there- " fore, obeys the divine precepts is a worffiip- " per of the true God, whofe facrifices are " gentienefs of mind, an innocent life and " good works." • De Opera et eleemofynis. Opera T, p. 19?.. § Inft. lib, 6, cap, 24. p. 631, f Ib. p. 636. They tbe Dodrine of Atonement. i'i<} The manner in which Auftin fpeaks of the merit of good works, ffiews that he could not have had any proper idea of the fatisfac- tion of Chrift, " By thefe alone," he fays, " We fecure happinefs. In this way we re- •' cover ourfelves. In this way we come to " God, and are reconciled to him, whom we " have greatly provoked. When we ffiall be " brought before his prefence, let our good " works there fpeak for us, and let them fo " fpeak that they may prevail over our of- " fences. For which fo ever is moft will " prevail, either for puniffiment, or for " mercy*." 4. The merit of martyrdom was held in the higheft efteem by all the primitive chriftians. If, therefore, good works in general were tliought by them to have merit with God, much more may we exped to find that they had this idea of what they confidered as the moft heroic ad of virtue. And indeed the language of the primitive chriftians on the fubjed of martyrdom is exceedingly incon fiftent with any notion of atonement for finr by the death of Chrift alone, without regard to any thing that man can do for himfelf. • Lardner's Credibility, vol. lo. p. 303, Qj Ignatius 230 The Hiflory ef Ignatius, in a fragment of an epiftle pre ferved by Chryfoftom, fpeaking of certain crimes fays, that they could not be wiped out even by the blood of martyrdom. He alfo wiffies that his own fufferings might be accepted as a purification, and price of redemp tion for them (mfivj^ft* x«i atlt^vx"*) *. Origen fays, " Chrift has laid down his " life for us. Let us alfo lay down our lives, " I will not fay for him, but for ourfelves, " and for thofe who may be edified by our " martyrdom. ^And perhaps as we are re- " deemed by the precious blood of Chrift, " Jefus having received a name above every " name, fo fome may be redeemed by the blood " of the martyrs f." And yet'tJ** writer fays, " Chrift offered his own life not unlil^e thofe, " who of their own accord, devotedVthem- " felves to death to deliver their countj/y from " fome peftilence, &c.§" As this language could only be figurative in this ii^riter, we may conclude, that it is no otherv».ife to be interpreted when we meet with it in other writers of thofe times. 5. The great virtue which the antient lea thers afcribed to baptijns and the Lord's Jup- • Le Clerc's Hiftoria Eccl. A. D. iiC. f Lardner's Credibility, vol. 5. p. 226. § Contra Celfum, p. 24. per the Dodrine of Atonement. 231 per, with refped to the forgivenefs of fins, ffiews plainly, that they did not confider the wrath of God as pacified by the death of Chrift once for all. And though the Lord's fupper was a commemoration of the deatli of Chrift, it is plain that they did not confider the adminiftration of it merely as an applica tion of his merits or fufferings to themfelves ; but as having a virtue independent of that, a virtue originating from the time of the cele bration. This will be abundantly evident when I come, in the courfe of this work, to ffiew the abufes of thofe inftitutions. How ever, what they fay concerning baptiim will not admit of fuch an interpretation as ibme perfons, not well acquainted with their wri tings, might be difpoicd to put on fmiilar ex preffions relating to the eucharifti Among others, TertuUian frequendy fpeaks of baptifin as waffiing away the guilt of fin. In feveral of the antient liturgies, particularly that of Chryfoftom, the prieft prays that the eucharift may ferre for the remiffion of fins and the communication of the Holy Spirit. It is well knovhi, that at length, the church of Rome, in purfuance of the fame train of thinking, came to confider the eucharift to be as proper a Jacrifice as the death of Chrift itfelf, and as having the fame original inde pendent virtue. Q.4 Many 232 The Hiftory of 6. Many of the antient writers, in imita-" tion of the author of the epiftle of the He brews, call the death of Chrift a facrificet and alfo fay that it was prefigured by the facrifices under the Law, But that this was no fixed determinate view of the fubjed with them, is evident from their language upon other occafions ; efpecially when, like the pro phets of old, they oppofe good works, and not ihe death of Chrift, to the facrifices un der the Law, as being of more value than they were. Ladantius, in his Epitome of Divine In ftitutions, fpeaking of facrifices, fays*, " the " true facrifice is that which is brought from " the heart," meaning good works. With refped to the fame he alfo faysf, " Thefe " are vidims, this is a piacular facrifice, " which a man brings to the altar of God, " as a pledge ofthe difpofition of his mind." Though, therefore, in the Clementine li turgy, contained in the Apoftolical Conftitu- tions'\, Chrift is called a high prieft and is faid to be himieli the facrifice, the fhepherd, and alfo the fheep, " to appeafe his God and " Father, to reconcile him to the world, and • Cap. 58. p. 173. § Cap. 67. p. 215. t Brett's Edit, p, 8. « to the DoClriiie of Atonement. 233 " to deliver all men from the impending " wrath," we muft not infer (notwithftand ing in thefe general terms, this writer feems to exprefs even the proper principle of the dodrine of ~ atonement) that, if he had dwelt longer on the fubjed, he would have been uniform in his reprefentations. If this was the opinion of the author of that liturgy, and thofe who made ufe of it, it did not, generally prevail. For the principles of that dodrine will very clearly appear to have been altogether unknown to the moft eminent wri ters of that age. One might have imagined that when Juftin Martyr fays* that, " Chrift took (e.A«(p6j) the " fins of men," his idea had been that he made himfelf refponfible for them. Buc the tenor of all his writings ffiews that he was very far from having any fuch idea. He will not even admit that, in any proper fenfe, Chrift can be confidered as having been made a curfe for us. He faysf, that " when in " the Law they are faid to be accurfed who " were crucified, we are not to fuppofe that " the curfe of God lies againft Chrift, by " whom he faves thofe who have done things " worthy of a curfe." Again he fays, " if ^' the Father of all chofe that his Chrift • Apol. 1. Edit. Thirlby, p, 73, f Dial- lb, p. 343- « ffiould 234 '^be Uiftoty of " ffiould receive {iti»>Jti%M) the curfes of all " men (that is, be curfed or hated by all " men) knowing that he would raife him " again after he Was crucified and dead, will " you confider him who indured thefe things, " according to his Father's will, as accurfed ?" Auftin, fays*, " Chrift took their puniffi- " ment but not their guilt." And again, " by ** taking their puniffiment and not their guilt, " he aboliffied both the guilt and the punifli- " ment." But it is to be confidered, as was obferved above, that Auflin was certainly ig norant of the principle of the dodrine of atonement; fo that we Can only fuppofe him to have meant that Chrift ffiffered upon Our account, and for our benefit; and though if he had not fuffered, we muft; it would have been not diredly, but by remote eenfc quence. His faying that Chrift did not take tlie guilt of our fins, ffiews clearly that he had n6 idea of his bearing our fins in the conftmon acceptation of the word, fo as to make himfelf anfWerable for them; and there- i^t he cottld not, in a proper fenfe, be faid to take the puniffiment of theni. 7. When the antient chriftian writers do fpeak of fhe milTioft and death of Chrift, as rcverfing * Grotius De Satisfaftiofte, Opei^a vol. 4. p. J45- the the Dodrine of Atonement. 235 fhe effeds of fin, and reftoring things to the fame ftate in which they were before the fall, fo as to make man once more immortal, their idea was not that this was effeded by procur ing the pardon even of that fin of Adam, by which death was entailed upon his pofterity ; but by means of Chrift doing (which indeed they did not clearly explain) what Adam was not able to do. " For this reafon," fays Ire naeus*, " was the word of God made man, " and he who was the fon of God, became the " fon of man, that man, being mixed with " the word of God, he might, by receiving " the adoption, become the fon of God. For " we could not otherwife receive immortality, " unlefs we were united to incorruptibUity " and immortality. But how could we be " united to incorruptibility and immortality, " unlefs chat which we are had became incor- " ruptible and immortal; that fo, what was " corruptible, might be abforbed by what was " incorruptible, and what was mortal by im- " mortality, that we might receive the adop- " tion of Ions?" I am far from pretending to explain, and much lefs to defend this paffage of Irenaeus. But it is evident, that it is not capable of re ceiving any light from the principle of the • Lib. 3. cap. 21, p, 249. dodrine 236 The Hiftory of dodrine of atonement. If this writer had had the fame idea that many now have of it, he could not have been fo cmbarraffed on the^ fubjed. The fame general objed of the death of Chrift is expreffed by Ladantius, but without annexing to it any particular explanation, in the foUowing ' paffage of his Epitome *. " Therefore the fupreme Father ordered him " to defcend upon earth, and put on a human " body, that being fubjed to the paffions of " the fleffi, he might teach virtue and pati- " ence, not by words only, but alfo by ac- " tions. Wherefore he was born again of a " virgin, without a father, as a man, that, as " when he Was created by God alone, in his " firft fpiritual nativity, he was made a holy " fpirit, fo being born of his mother alone, in " his fecond carnal nativity, he might become " holy fleffi; that by his means the fleffi which " had been fubjed to fin, might be delivered " from death." Athanafius did plainly confider Chrift as dying in the place of men who were fubjed to death. But he does not fay that it was to fa tisfy the juftice of God for their fins, but to procure the refurredion of mankind in gene- • Cap. 4 J, p. 113, *^ ' ral. the Dodrine of Atonement. 237 ral, the wicked as well as the righteous, to a future life ; which is by no means the idea of thofe who now maintain the dodrine of atone ment, though it may be faid to be an approach towards it. " It was," fays he*, " an inftance of his " love to mankind, that both inftead of the " death of all men before, the law which re- " lated to that mortality, might be difannul- " led, as having its power entirely fatisfied in " the Lord's body, and fo had no more place " againft the reft of mankind; and alfo, that " he might recover and revive thofe men that " were returning to corruption from death, " by making their bodies his own, and by *' the grace of the refurredion; and fo might " extinguiffi the power of death with refped " to them, as ftubble is plucked out of rhe " fire. For the word being confcious that " the mortality of all men could not other- " wife be put an end to than by the dying " of all men, and it being impoffible that the " word, which was immortal, and the Son of " the Father, ffiould die ; for this caufe he " took to himfelf a body that could die, that " the fame body, by partaking of that word, " which was over all, might be an equiva- f' lent for the death of all, and yet might • Opera, vol. i, p. 6|. " afterwards 2j8 The Hiftery of " afterwards continue incorruptible, on ac- " count of the word that was the inhabi- " tant, and fo corruption might afterwards " ceafe from all men by the grace of the " refurredion," Alfo in the liturgy afcribed to Neftorious, Chrift is faidf to have " un- " dergone for men the puniffiment due to " their fins, giving himfelf to die for all " whom death had dominion over." It is evident, from ajl thefe paffages, that thefe writers had no idea of Chrift's fo fuffer ing for men, as to indure for them any part of the puniffiment that was to be inflided in a future world, but only to procure the re- verfion of the fentence paffed upon man in confequence of the fall of Adam ; fo far, that, though all men ffiould adually die, they ffiould not continue fubjed to death, but have the benefit of a refurredion. 8. It appears, that by fome means or other, probably the too literal interpretation of the figurative language of fcripture, fuch an ad vance was made towards the dodrine of atone ment, in the period of which I am now treat ing, that it was generally fuppofed that the death of Chrift was a price paid for our re demption from the power of death, and that t Brett, p. 94. without the Dodrine of Atonement. 239 without it there would have been no refur redion from the dead. But this fyftem was io far from being completed, that thefe writers could not determine to whom this price was paid ; and in general it was agreed that ic was paid to the Devil, to whom mankind had been given over, in confequence of the fin of Adam. Origen was clearly of this opinion. *' If," fays he*, " we are bought with a price, as " Paul affirms, we muft have been bought from '' fome perfon whofe flaves we were, who al- " fo demanded whac price he pleafed, chat " he mighc difmifs from his power thofe " which he held. But it was the devil that " held us. For to him we had been given " over for our fins. Wherefore, he demand- " ed the blood of Chrift, as the price of our " redemption." He goes on to obferve, that " till the blood of Chrift was given, which " was fo precious that it alone could fuffice " for the redemption of all, it was neceffary " for all thofe who were under the Law to give " each his own blood, in a kind of imitation " of a future redemption ; and therefore that " we, for whom the price of Chrift's blood " is paid, have no occafion to offer a price ** for ourfelves, that is tbe blood of circumci- * Opera, vol, 2, p. 486. « fion.'f 24° The Hiftery of " fion." In this place, therefore, he fuppo fes that the rite of circumcifion, and not tho facrifice of animals, was intended to pre figure the death of Chrift, and to ferve as a kind of temporary fubftitute for it. This writer alfo compares the death of Chrift to that of thofe in the heathen world who devoted themfelves to death, to aver? public calamities from their country, " It " is requifite *, for fome fecret and incom- " prehenfible reafons in nature, that the vo- " luntary death of a righteous man ffiould " difarm the power of evil demons, who " do mifchief by means of plagues, dearths, " tempefls, &c. Is it not probable, there- ** fore," he fays, " that Chrift died to break " the power of the great daemon, the prince " of the other daemons, who has in his power " the fouls of all the men that ever lived in <« the worid," This opinion, however, of the price of our redemption being paid to the devil, appears not to have been univerfally acquiefced in ; and Gr. Nazianzen takes it up as a queftion that had not been difcuffed before ; and after propofing feveral fchemes, and not appearing to be fatisfied with any of them, he gives his * Contra Celfnm, p. 25. own the Dodrine of Atonement. 241 own opinion with confiderable diffidence, "We " may inquire," he fays*, "into a fad, and " an opinion, which had been over-looked by " many, but which I have dUigently confi- " dered, viz. to whom, and for what, was the " blood of Chrift ffied. We were in the pof- " feffion of the devil, being fold to him for " fin, we having received the pleafures of fm " in return. But if the price of redemption " could only be received by him who had " poffeffion of us, I afk to whom was this " blood paid, and for what caufe? For if " it was paid to that wicked one, it 'was " ffiameful indeed ; and if he not only re- " ceived a price from God, but God himfelf " was that price, for fuch a price it was cer- " tainly juft that he ffiould fpare us. Was " the price paid to the Father ? But how, for <' we were not held by him, and how could " the Father be delighted with the blood of " his only begotten Son, when he would not " receive Ifaac who was offered to him by " Abraham? Or rather did the Father re- " ceive the price, not becaufe he defired, of " wanted it, but becaufe it was convenient •' that man ffiould be fandified by what was " human in God, that he, by conquering the *' tyrant, might deliver us, and bring us to " him." •Orat 42. Opera, p. 691. R The 242 Ibe Hiftory ef The opinion which this writer mentions in the laft place, and that to which we may, there fore, fuppofe he was moft inclined, is that the death of Chrift, is, in ibme manner, inftrumental to OUT Jandiftcation, that is, to our being made fit to be offered to God, and to be made his property, after having been in the power of the devil, but he does not fay that it was for our juftification. He, therefore, had no pro per idea of what is now called the dodrine of atonement. Indeed, he expreffes himfelf with fo much uncertainty, that fome may ftill think, he was, upon the whole, of the opinion of Origen, viz. that the price of our redemp tion was paid to the devil, but that it was more than he was fairly intitled to. That the devil was the perfon to whom the price of our redemption was due, " feems to have been the general opinion of fpeculative writers tiU the age of the fchoolmen. ' Am- brofc fays*, "• we were pledged to a bad cre- " ditor, for fin. Chrift came, and offered his " blood for us." This writer has a diftinc- tion with refped to our redemption by Chrift, which is fomething curious. For he fays,, " the fleffi of Chrift was given for the falva7 *' tion of the body, and his blood for th* ?' falvation of the foul." I do not know that • Grotii Opera, vol. 4, p. 344. any the Dodrine of Atonement. 24J any of the moderns follow him in this. Op tatus Milevitanus alfo ipeaks ofthe devil being in poffeffion of mens fouls, before they were redeemed by the blood of Chrift*. Auftin writes fo fuUy on this fubjed, and his opinions in general acquired fuch an af- cendancy in the weftern church, for many centuries after his Jeath, that I ffiall give a larger extrad from his writings. " What," fays* hfc§, " is the power of that blood, in *' which if we believe we ffiall be faved, and " what is the meaning of being reconciled " by the death of his Son ? Was God the " Father fo angry with us, that he could not *' be pacified without the death of his Son? " By the juftice of God the race of man was " delivered to the devil ; the fin of the firft *' man being transferred co all his pofterity, " che debe of cheir firft parencs binding chem: « not chac God did ic, or ordered it, buc he " permicced chem co be fo delivered. But « the goodnefs of God did not forfake chem, " chough in che devil's power, nor even che " devil himfelf, for he lives by him. If, " cherefore, che commiffion of fin, chrough " the juft anger of God, fubjeds man to the " power of the devil, che remiffion of fins, • Opera, p. 80. §DeTrinitatc, lib. 13. cap. 11, Opera, voL 3. p. 414. R 2 "by 244 The Hiftory of " by the gracious forgivenefs of God, deli- " vers man from the devil. But the devil " was not to be overcome by the power, but " by the juftice of God ; and it pleafed God, " that in order to deliver man from the pow- " er of the devil, the devil ffiould be over- " come not by power, but by juftice. What " then is the juftice" (or rather righteoufnefs) " by which the devil wis conquered? what " but the righteoufnefs of Jefus Chrift ? And " how is he conquered ? becaufe, though ttere " was in him nothing worthy of death, he (that *' is, the devil) killed him. Was not then the *• devil to have been fairly conquered, though *' Chrift had aded by power, and not by righ- " teoufnefs ? But he poftponed what he could " do, in order to do what ought to be done. " Wherefore it was neceffary for him to be " both God and man ; map that he might " be capable of being killed; and God to " ffiew that it was voluntary in him. What " could ffiew more power than to rife again, " with the very fleffi in which he had been ^' kiUed. He, therefore, conquered the de- " vil twice, firft by righteoufnefs, and then " by power." He alfo fays*, " the blood " of Chrift is given as a price, and» yet the " devil having received it, is not enriched, ?P. 417- « but- the Dodrine of Atonement. 245 " but bound by it, that we might be deli- " vered from his bonds," This laft quotation contains an antithefis of which all the writers of that age were too fond, and to which they fometimes fa crificed more than they ought to have done. From the fame fondnefs for antithefis, with out perhaps intending to be underftood in the manner in which his expreffions will now be naturaUy underftood by many, he fays*, " jChrift alone fuffered puniffiment without " bad deferts, that by him we might obtain " favour without good deferts." Proclus of Conftantinople alfo, a writer of the fame age, but fomewhat later than Auftin, confidered the price of our redemp tion as paid to the devil, " The devil," he fays§, " held us in a ftate of fervitude, " boafting that he had bought us. It w.is " neceffary, therefore, that all being con- " demned, either they ffiould be dragged to " death, or a fufficient price be paid; and " becaufe no angel had wherewith al^^ ,to pay " it, it remained that God ffiould die for '' us." ^ Contra duas eplft. Pel. lib, 4. cap. 4, vol. 7. p. 915, I Grotii Opera, vol,*4. p. 346, R 3 9- Laftly, 246 ^be Hiftery of 9. Laftly, nothing, perhaps, can ffiew more clearly how far the primitive chriftians were from entertaining the idea that many now do concerning the efficacy of the death of Chrift, as inftrumental to the pardon of all fin, than their interpretation of fome of thofe texts in which the doftrine of atonement is now fuppofed to be contained. Clemens Alexandrinus explains Rom. iv. 25, he was delivered for our offences, by fay ing that Chrift was the corredor and diredor of finners, fo that he alone can forgive fins, being appointed a pedagogue by the uni verfal Father*. He explains Matt. xxvi. 28, in which our Lord calls the wine, his blood which is fhed for many%, " by his words or " dodrine, which was poured out for many, " for ihe remiffim of fins," and he interprets what our Lord fays in the 6th chapter of John's gofpel, about eating his fleffi and drinking his blood, of faith and hope, which fupports the foulf, and to prove that blood may re prefent word or dodrine, he alledges Gen, iv. 10, in which it is faid, the blood of Abel cried unto God, Upon the whole, I think it muft appear fufficiently evident, that the proper dodrine » Psed, lib. I. Opera, p. no. J P,is8, t ?• '"O. of the Dodrine of Atonement. 247 of atonement was far from being fettled in the third or fourth centuries, though fome little approach was made towards it, in confequence of fuppofing that what is called a ranjom in a figurative fenfe, in the New Teftament, was fomething more than a figure ; and therefore that the death of Chrift was truly a price paid for our redemption, not in deed diredly from fin, but rather from death, though it was noC fectled to whom this price ¦was paid. In general the writers of thofe times rather feem to have confidered God as the per fon who paid the price, than he that received it. For, man being delivered into the power ofthe devil, they confidered the price of redemption as paid to him. As to the forgivenefs of fins, it was reprefented by all the Fathers, and cven by Auftin himfelf, as proceeding from the free grace of God, from which free grace he was farther induced to give up his Son, as the price of our redemption from the power of the devil. We muft, therefore, proceed farther, before we come to any regular fyftem of atonement, founded on fixed principles, fuch as are now alledged in fupport of it. R 4 SECTION 24S The Hiflory of S. E C T I O N VII. Of the ftate of opinions concerning the dodrine of Atonement, from tbe time of Auftin to the Reformation. AFTER Auftin we find but few writers of eminence for feveral centuries, owing to the great confufion of the times; fo that he being the laft very confiderable writer in the weftern church, his works went down to pofterity with peculiar advantage, having no rival of any note. He was, therefore, confidered as an authority, and his opinions were feldom difputcd. But having himfelf formed no fixed opinion with refped to the dodrine of atonement, his dodrines oi grace, original fin, and predeftination, were not con neded with it, as they now "are. We ffiall find, however, that though not immediately, yet by degrees, fomething more J^ke the pre fent dodrine of atonement got eftabliffied before the aera of the reformation.- About two centuries and a half after Auftin, we find Gregory the Great, who was the moft confiderable writer in his^ime. But he alfo was far from having^^fny confiftent notions on this fubjed. For at the fame time i- that the Dodrine of Atonement. 249 that he infifts upon the neceffity of fome ex piation, he fays, that our redemption might have been effeded by Chrift in fome other way than by his death. He fays*, " The " ruft of fin could not be purged without " the fire of torment ; Chrift therefore came " without fault, that he might fubjed him- " felf to voluntary torment, and that he " might bear the puniffiment due to our " fins." But he fays^, " Chrift might have " affifted us without fuffering, for that he " who made us could deliver us from fuf- " fering without his own death. But he " chofe this method, becaufe by it he ffiew- " ed more love to us." In Theodorus Abucara, a Greek writer of the ninth century, we find fomething more like the dodrine of atonement, than in any writer in the Latin church. Indeed, as far as the ex- trad given us, by Grotius goes, it is very ex prefs to the purpofe. But how he would have explained himfelf if he had*written more large ly on the fubjed, I cannot teU. He faysj, " God, by his juft judgments demanded of us " all the things thaf are written in the Law ; " which when we could not pay, the Lord »' paid for us, taking upon himfelf the curfe •In Job 2.cap. 12, Opera,fol. 13. § In Job 30. cap. 26. Opera, fol. 123, u X Grotii, Opera, vol. 4, p. 347. " and 250 The Hiftory ef " and condemnation to which we were ob- " noxious." Again, he fays*, "Chrift, the " mediator, reconciled us to God." In the Latin church, however, the dodrine of atonement does not appear to have been fix ed in the eleventh century ; at leaft if we may judge of it by the writings of Anfelm, who was one of the greateft theologians of that age, and one of the firft who diftinguiffied him felf by that peculiar kind of acutenefs of fpe culation, which was carried much farther fome time afterwards, in what is called the age of the fchoolmen. This, however, we may fay, that all the ideas of Anfelm on this fubjed, would not be adopted by thofe who are advocates for the do6b"ine of atonement at prefent. He fays§, " that of innumerable other methods, " by which God, being omnipotent, might " have faved men, he chofe the death of " Chrift, that by it, he might, at the fame " time manifeft his love to men." " Was the " Father," fays he, " fo angry with men, that " unlefs the Son had died for us, he would " not be appeafed ? No : For the Father had " love for us even when we were in our fins." Yet he fays f , " Human nature could not be •" reftored- unlefs man paid what for fin ..he * P. 348. § Ad Rom, cap. 5. Opera, vol. 2. p. 31. -J- Cur deus homo, lib, 2. cap. 18. Opera,vol. 3. p. 63. " owed the Dodrine of Atonement. 251 " owed to God, and that which Chrift ought " not to pay but as man, he was not able to " pay but as God; fo that there was a neceffity ** that God ffiould be united to man," This feems, indeed, to be the proper lan guage of the dodrine of atonement. But he afterwards expreffes himfelf in a manner not quite fo favourable to that fcheme, for he fays, " As Chrift died without any fin of his own, " a reward was due to him ; and becaufe he, " being God, couid not receive any addition " of happinefs, the reward was beftowed on " thofe on whom he chofe that it ffiould be " conferred; and on whom could he more juft- " ly chufe to have it beftowed, than upon his " relations and brethren, whom he faw in fo " mife.-able a ftate ; that that might be remit- " ced to them which they owed for cheir fins, " and that might be given to them, which on " account of their fins they wanted," Something more like the dodrine of atone ment occurs in Theophilus, a Greek writer of the age of Anffclm. But the quotation from him in Grotius, is fo ffiort, that, as in the caie of Abucara, I cannot tell how he would have explained himfelf if he had written more large ly upon the fubjed. It may be obferved, how ever, that as Grotius was profeffedly coUeding authorities in fupport of the doftrine of acone- ment, 252 T'he Hiftory of ment, he would not have omitted any thing that he had found more to his purpofe. " The " Father," fays thi? writer *, " was angry; " wherefore Chrift being made a mediator re- " conciled him to us. How ? By bearing " what we ought to have borne, viz. death." By this, however, he might not mean the wrath ef God in a future ftate, but fimply death, refpeding the whole human race, which we have feen to be the opinion of the primitive Fathers. And this, indeed, might be all that Abucara intended to exprefs in the paffage above quoted. In the following century we meet with Peter Lombard, the greateft authority in the fchool of theology before the appearance of Thomas Aquinas; but in him we find no thing more fettled about the dodrine of atone ment than in the time of Auftin. This wri ter, in his book of Sentences, in which he meant to comprize the fum of univerfal theology, treating of the manner in which we are delivered from fin and the devil by the death of Chrift, faysf, that " in the death " of Chrift the love of God towards us is " made confpicuous, and by means of it we *« are moved and excited to love God, who ** hath done fo much for us, and thus wc » Grotii Opera, vol. 4. p. 348. -f- Lib. 3. dift, 19. 20, p. 596. " become the Dodrine of Atonement. 253 " become juftified, chat is, being free from " fin, we become righteous. The death of " Chrift, therefore, juftifies us, becaufe by " means of it love is excited in our hearts," He adds, but more obfcurely, that, " in " another manner alfo, we are juftified by " the death of Chrift, viz, becaufe by faith " in it we are freed from fin, looking to it " as the children of Ifrael looked to thp " brazen ferpent; fo that though after the " death of Chrift the devil may tempt us, " as he did before, he cannot conquer us " as he did before. Thus Peter was over- " come by temptation before the death of his " mafter, but afterwards behaved with the " greateft boldnefs before the Jewiffi rulers," Again, treating of the manner in which we are delivered from puniffiment by the death of Chrift, he fays, that " che penance en- " joined by the church would not fuffice " without the fufferings of Chiift, co-ope- " rating with it ; fo chat the fins of good men " before the death of Chrift were borne wich " by God untU that event," He fays, however, " we are not to fuppofe that the death of " Chrift fo reconciles us to God, as that he *' then begins co love chofe whom he before " had hated ; for, that God always loved men, " and that he mighc have chofen any other " method to redeem us from fin than by the " death 254 ^^ a8o The Hiftory of but that, though perhaps not at prefent, we ffiall in time be able, without any effort or flraining, to explain all particulai" expreffi ons in the apoftolical epiftles, &c. in a man ner perfedly confiftent with the general ftrain of their own writings, and the reft of the fcriptures. Tbe THE H I S T O R vY OF THE CORRUPTIONS o F CHRISTIANITY, PART III. T'he hiftory of opinions concerning Grace, Original Sin, and Predestination. INTRODUCTION. NEXT CO the opinions concerning the per jon of Chrift, none have agitaced che minds of men more, or produced more fe rious confequences, than thofe relating to the dodrines oi grace, original fin, and predeftina tion, which have fo many connedions, thac I think it proper to treat of them all together. That it muft be naturally in the power of man to do the will of God, muft be taken for granted, if we fuppofe the moral govern ment of God to be at all an equitable one. He that made man, certainly knew whac he was 282 The Hiflory of was capable of, and would never command him to do what he had not enabled him to perform ; fo as to propofe to him a reward which he knew he could never attain, and a puniffiment which he knew he had no power of avoiding. If it be worth our while to in quire at all into the government under which we live, we muft begin with affuming thefe firft principles. For, otherwife, we have nothing to do but to await whatever he who made us hath pleafed to determine concerning us, no thing that we can do in the cafe being able to alter it. Suppofing, therefore, that God did not mean to tantalize his creatures, in the moft cruel and infulting manner, every moral pre cept in the fcriptures is a proof that man has naturally a power of obeying it, and of infur- ing the reward annexed to the obfervance of it. Now moral precepts, with exprefs fanc- tions of rewards and puniffiments, abound in the fcriptures ; and men are even expoftu- lated with, in the moft earneft manner, and, perfuaded to the pradice of their duty, by the moft folemn affurances, that God is not willing that any fhould perifh, and by repeated warn ings, that their deftrudion will lie at their own door ; the general tenor of the preaching of the old prophets being turn ye, turn ye, from your evil way, why will ye die, 0 ye houfe of the Dodrine of Grace, fcff. 283 of Ifrael. Alfo, every thing that is of a mo ral nature in the New Teftament is uniform ly delivered in the fame ftrain. Notwithftanding this, it hath been imagined that all thefe reprefentations are to be accom modated to a fyftem, according to which, the whole race of mankind received fo great an injury by the fall of Adam, that from that time none of his pofterity have been capable even of forming a good thought, and much lefs of doing all that God requires of them ; and moreover, that they are all fo far involved in the confequences of his fall, and his fin •is confidered as fo much their own (he being their reprefentative, ftanding in their place, and ading for them) that they are even pro perly punifliable for it, and liable on that account to everlafting torment, though they had never finned themfelves. It is believed, however, that God hath been pleafed to fave certain individuals of mankind from this ge neral ruin, but that it was not from any ref ped to the better charader or condud of fuch individuals, but of his mere free and arbitra ry grace. It is alfo part of the fame fyftem, that every good thought and purpofe, in the hearts even of thofe who are thus eleded, is immediately infpired by God, and that with out this continual affiftance, to which they give the name o( grace, no man has any choice but> s84 The Hiflory of but of evil, from the moment of his birth to his death. It is not eafy to imagine, a priori, what could have led men into fuch a train of think ing, fo- evidently cofttrary to the plain dic tates of reafon, and the moft natural inter pretation of fcripture. There is, indeed, an appearance of humility in afcribing every thing that is good to Godi but to afcribe to him, as all men muft do, thofe powers by which we are enabled to perform good works, comes, in fad, to the fame thing. What bave we, as the apoftle fays, ihat we have not received ? How then are we the lefs indebted to God, whether he works all our works in us and for us, by his own immediate agency, or, he does it mediately, that is, by means of thofe powers which he has given us for that pur pofe ? With refped to the charader of the divine being, it certainly lofes more by the idea of the predeftination of the greateft part of mankind to inevitable deftrudion, than it can gain by the belief of an arbitrary in terference in favour of a few. The whole fcheme, therefore, certainly tends to make the divine charader and government appear lefs refpedable, indeed execrable. In fad, it is probable that fuch a fcheme as this, would never have entered into the mind the Dodrine of Grace, ^. 285 mind of any man, who had been left to his own fpeculations on the fubjed, or to his ftudy*^of the fcriptures. Accordingly, we find that the principal parts of this fyftem were firft fuggefted in the heat of controverfy ; and when the mind was once prepoffeffed in favour of fome of the maxims of it, the reft were gradually introduced to complete the-. fcheme; and the fcriptures, as in all other cafes, were afterwards eafily imagined to favour the pre-conceived hypothefis. Indeed, the more amiable part of the fyftem, or that which afcribes every thing that is good immediately to God, without refped to fecond caufes, has confiderable countenance from the piety of the facred writers ; but their language on this fubjed, will appear to be *sy«/?, as it is pious, when it is rightly in terpreted. Many perfons, no doubt, will be more eafily reconciled to the dodrine of eledion by previoufly imagining that they themfelves are in the number of the eled; and while they caji thus fancy themfelves to be the peculiar favouri^s of heaven, they can better bear to confider the reft of man kind, as abandoned by the fame being to a Severer fate. Alfo, in general, all men are fufficiently inclined to look off^ from the dark and moft objedionable fide of any fcheme of principles which they adopt. Wich 286 4 The Hiflory of With refped to tlje fall of Adam, all that we can learn from the fcriptures, interpreted literaUy, is that the laborious cultivation of the earth, and the mortality of his race, were the confequence of it. This is all that is faid by Mofes, and likewife all that is al luded to by the apoftle Paul, who fays, that by one man fln entered into the world. For what he adds all have finned can only mean that all are involved in that death, which was the confequence of his fin. If, indeed, this be interpreted literally, it wUl imply that all are involved in his guilt as well as in his fufferings. But this is fo unnatural an interpretation, and fo evidently contrary to fenfe and reafon (fin being in its own nature a perfonal thing, and not transfera ble) that the text was never underftood in this fenfe till the fyftem, the hiftory of which I am writing, was fo far advanced, as to require it, and to have prepared the minds of men for it. In like manner, the words of our Saviour, this is my body, were always underftood to mean a memorial of his bod^, ' till the minds of 'men were gradually pre pared to bear a literal interpretatiori of them ; and then that interpretation was made ufe of to fupport the dodrine which fuggefted it. 4 In like manner, there is a predeftination fpoken of by the apoftle Paul; but, in ge neral. the Dodrine of Grace, &c. 22ij neral, it means the good will and pleafure of God, in giving certain people peculiar privileges, and efpecially the knowledge of the gofpel, for the improvement of which they were anfwerable. If he does fpeak of future glory, as the confequence of this pre deftination, it v/as upon the prefumption, that they improved thofe advantages, and by that means made themfelves the proper fubjeds of future happinefs. Or, poffibly, in fome cafes, the apoftle, confidering God as the ultimate and proper author of every thing that is good, and of all happinefs, might overlook the im mediate means and fteps, and with this fenfe of piety, and comprehenfion of mind, might fpeak of future glory itfelf, as the gift of God, and therefore might make no diffe rence in his mind, at that time, between predeftination and foreknowledge. But the tenor of all his writings ffiews, that it was far from being his intention to reprefent fu ture glory as given by an arbitrary decree of God, without any refped to the good works which alone can fit men for itj which good works are as much in a man's power, as any other adion of which he is capable. Having premifed thefe general obiervati- ons, I now proceed to ffiew by what fteps thefe principles of the utter inabUity of man to do the will of God, as derived from thefall figs Tbe^Htftery of fall of Adam, the imputation of his fin to all his pofterity, and the arbitrary predefti nation of fome to eternal life, and the con fequent rejedion, or reprobation, of the reft of mankind, by which they are devoted to certain and everlafting deftrudion, were -firft introduced, and at length got the firm efta bliffiment they now have in the creeds of almoft all chriflian churches. SECTION I. Of tbe Dodrines of Grace, 6ff, before the Pelagian Controverfy. IT is remarkable that we find hardly any trace of what are now called the dodrines of grace, original fin, or predeftination before the Pelagian controverfy, which was near the end of the fourth century, I beUeve all the moderns are agreed, that it was clearly the opinion of all the antient Fathers, that God has left it entirely in the power of every man to ad well or ill, Bafnage, who was himfelf fufficiently orthodox in the modern fenfe of the word, acknowledges *, that though * Hiftoire des eglifes reformees, vol. i, p. 169. the the Dodrine of Grace, &c. 289 the Fathers in general thought that we are indebted to the grace of God for all our virtues, yet they fay that the beginning of falvation is from man, and that it depends entirely upon himfelf. It is not denied, however, but that they might believe an in ternal influence upon the mind on extraor dinary occafions; but, as Voffius obferves*, none before Auftin " fuppofed that there was an immediate concurrence of divine grace, neceffary to every good thought or adion, " God," fays, Juftin Martyr §, " has not " made man lik^ the beafts, who can do " nothing from choice and judgment; for " he would not be worthy of reward or " praife, if he did not of himfelf choofe * " what was good, but was made good; nor, " if he was wicked, could he be juftly puniffi- " ed, a^ not having been fuch of himfelf, " but only what he had been made," In fupport qf this he quotes If i. 16. Wafh ye," make ye clean, &c. Bafnage faysf, that the antients maintained free will with much warmth, granting men an entire power to be converted or not. Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen, he fays, were at the head of this party. • Hiftoria Pelagianifmi, p. 291. § Apol, I, Edit. Thirlby, p, 65. t Hiftoire des eglifes reformees, p. 76. U Ic 290 ^e Hiftory of It is remarkable that Auftin himfelf, be fore he engaged in the controverfy with Pe lagius, held the fame opinion concerning free will with the reft of the Fathers who had preceded him, and he was far from de nying this. In particular, he acknow ledges*, that before this time he had been of opinion, that faith, or at leaft the beginning of faith, and a defire of conver fion, was in the power of man. It was a faying of his§, " If there be not grace, how " ffiould God fave the world, and if there " be not free will, how can he judge the " world. No man," fays he, " can be juftly " condemned for doing that which he was " not able to refift f." Citing a paffage in the fon of Sirach, viz. God left man in tbe bands ef bis council, he placed life and death before him, ihat thai which he pleafed fhould he given him, he fays f , " Behold here is a very " plain proof of the liberty of the human " will ; for how does God command, if man " has not free wUl, or power to obey." He alfo proves II, that it is in our power to change the will, from thefe words of our • De Predeftinatione, lib. 1. cap. 3, Opera vol. 7. p. 1235. § Epift, 46, vol, 2. p. 160. f De Duabus animabus, cap, 10. Opera vol. 6. p, 153. X De Gratia, cap, 2. Opera vol. 7. p. 1299. II Contra Adimantum. cap. 26. Opera vol 6. p. 210. Saviour, the Dodrine of Grace, ^c. 291 Saviour, Make the tree good and the fruit good, ^c. We have almoft the fame unanimous opini on of the antients, concerning the effeds of the fln of Adam, as concerning the natural capacity of man with refped to virtue ani vice; and they had occafion to fpeak to this fubjed very early, in confequence of the opinion of the Gnofticks in general, and the Manicheans in particular ; who held that the fouls of men were originally of different ranks, and fprung from different principles, good be ings having produced fome of them, and bad beings the reft; on which account they faid fome were naturally carnal and others fpiritual. Accordingly, they had taught that fin arofe not from the free will of man, but from the fubftance of matter, which they held to be the only fource of evil; fo that fome fouls were wicked not by choice, but by nature. In oppofition to this, Origen maintained, that all fouls were by nature equaUy capa ble of virtue or vice, and that the differences among men arofe merely from the freedom of the will, and the various ufes of that free dom ; that God left man to his liberty, and rewarded or puniffied him according to the ufe he made of it*. • See his Philocalia, p. 50. &c. U 2 It 292 The Hiftory of It is evident, however, that Origen muft have maintained, according to his known phi lofophical principles, that perfed freedom with refped to virtue and vice was only enjoyed by man in his pre-exiftent ftate. For he, with other Platonifts, maintained that the ^ouls of men had finned in heaven, and there fore were united to fuch bodies as were a clog and a prifon to the foul, and that the flefh laid upon it a kind of neceffity of fin ning. Chryfoftom alfo fays*, that with an infirm body we derive from Adam a prone nefs to inordinate affedions. But he was far from fuppofing that men were in any other manner fufferers by the fall of Adam; and leaft of all that they were perfonally re fponfible for his condud of himfelf Le Sueur laments f, that this writer was not quite or thodox with refped to original fin, grace, and free will ; but he apologizes for him, as hav ing written before the herefy of Pelagius broke out. The Fathers who, in general, held that the puniffiment of Adam's fin was only mor tality, declare, that God fubjeded men to this mortality not out of anger, bur from wifdom and clemency, in order to beget in them a hatred of fin, and " that fin might • Opera, vol. 9. p, 136. f A. D, 407. " not the Dodrine of Grace, &c. 293 " not be eternal in them*," But Titus bi ffiop of Boftra, who was before Pelagius, taught that death was natural, and not the effed of fin §, Voffius acknowledges f, that Clemens Alex andrinus had no knowledge of original fin; and " Epiphanius blamed Origen, and John of Je rufalem, for faying that the image of God was loft in man after the expulfion of Adam out of paradileij:, Auftin himfelf, in his controverfy with the Manicheans, declared that it is impoffible that fouls ffiould be evil by nature || , So far was he from fuppofing that men were refponfible for Adam's condud, that he faid**, " no man " is wife, valiant, or temperate, with the wif- " dom, valour, or temperance of another, or " righteous with the righteouffiefs of ano- " ther." • Whitby on the Five Points, Preface, p. 9, § Bafnage, Hiftoire des eglifes reformees, vol ,1, p, 167, f Hiftoria Pelagianifmi, p, i6o, I Whitby, Ib, p, 391, II De Duabus Animabus, cap, 12. Opera, vol. 6. p. 155. &c. •• De libero arbitrio, lib. 2. cap. ig. Opera, vol, 1. p. 66i. V 3 The 294 "^^^ Hiftory ef The teftimony of the Fathers in this period is no lefs clear againft the dodrine oi predeftination to eternal life, without refped to good works. All the Fathers before Auftin, fays Whitby* , interpreted what the apoftle Paul fays of pre deftination, in the 8 th and 9th chapters of his epiftle to the Romans, of thofe whom God fore-knew to have good purpofes; and in a fimilar manner they explain all the other texts from which the dodrine of eledion and re probation is now deduced : and Auftin him felf, in his controverfy with the Manicheans, interpreted them in the fame manner. Me- lanchton fays that all the antients, except Auftin, afferted that there was fome caufe of eledion in ourfelves § ; and Profper, who took the part of Auftin, acknowledged thac the Pelagians treated his dodrine as a novelty f , Juftin Martyr could have no knowledge of arbitrary predeftination, when he faidf, " if " every thing come to pafs by fate, it is plain " that nothing will be in our power. If it " be fate that this man ffiall be good, and the " other bad, the one is not to be praifed, nor " the other blamed." • On the Five Points, p. 100. § Ib. p. 103. f Ib. 102. t_ Apol, I, Edit. Thirlby, p. 64. Didymus, tbe Dodrine of Grace, ^c. 295 Didymus, who taught theology at Alex andria (afterwards condemned for his adhe rence to Origen, but on no other account) fays, that predeftination depends upon God's fore-knowledge of thofe who would believe the gofpel, and live according to it*; and Jerom was fo far from believing the modern dodrine of eledion and reprobation, that he thought that no chriftian would finally periffi. It is fufficiently evident from thefe teftimo- nies, that the dodrine of the utter inability of man to do the will of God, of the corrup tion of our nature by the fall of Adam, and of our refponfibility for it, together with rhe dodrine of abfolute unconditional eledion of fome to eternal life, and of the reprobation of the reft of mankind, were altogether un known in the primitive church. We muft now confider the Pelagian controverfy, and the remarkable change which it occafioned with refped to thefe dodrines. * JBafnage Hiftoire des eglifes reformees, vol. i. p, 168. U 4 SECTION 296 The Hiftory of SECTION II. Of the Pelagian Controverfy and the State^ of Opinions in confequence of it. PELAGIUS was a Britiffi monk, aUowed by Auftin himfelf to have been a man of irreproachable morals, who travelled in company with Celeftius, another monk and a native of Ireland, and with him refided fome time at Rome, a little after the year 400. As far as appears, thefe two men had no opini ons different from thofe which we have feen to have been generally held by the chriftian writers of that age ; but being men of fenfe and vir tue, they oppofed with warmth fome grow ing abufes and fuperftitions, efpecially with refped to the efficacy of baptifm. This rite, we ffiall find, was vdiry foon imagined to have a power of wafhing away fln ; and a notion of a fimUar nature had alfo, prevailed refpeding the Lord's fupper. But it was the former of thefe fuperftitions that happened to come in the way of Pelagius to oppofe. As an argument that baptifm could not of itfelf, be of any avail to the pardon of fins, he urged the application of it to infants, who had no fin; he maintained that no thing the Dodrine of Grace, fc?f. 297 thing but good works are of any avail in the fight of God ; and that to thefe alone, which it is in every man's power to perform, the par don of fin is annexed. It does not appear that thefe dodrines, which were the outlines of what has fince been called the Pelagian herefy, met with any oppofition at Rome, But retiring from that city on the approach of the Goths, thefe monks went to Africa, and Celeftius remain ing there, Pekgius proceeded to Paleftine, where he enjoyed the protedion of John bi ffiop of Jerufalem, while his friend, and his opinions, met with a very different recep tion from Auftin biffiop of Hyppo; who, in his account of what followed, fays he was firft ftaggered at hearing it afferted, thac " infants were not baptized for the remiffi- " on of fins, but only that they might be " fandified in Chrift*," by which was proba bly meant, that they were dedicated to God, and deftined to be inftruded in the princi ples of the chriftian religion. Upon this, Celeftius and his friend were gradually engaged in a warm conteft, in the courfe of which (as was certainly the cafe with refped to Auftin, their principal oppo- • De Pee?atis, &c. lib, 3. cap, 6. Opera, voL 7. p, 725. nent) 298 The Hiftory of nent) they were probably led to advance more than had originally occurred to them, in or der to make their fyftem more complete. Among other things, they are faid to have afferted that mankind derives no injury what ever from the fall of Adam, that we are now as capable of obeying the will of God as he was, that otherwife it would have been abfurd and cruel to propofe laws to men, widi the fandion of rewards and puniffiments; and that men are born as well without vice as without virtue, Pelagius is alfo faid to have maintained that it is cven poffible for men, if .they will ufe their beft endeavours, to live entirely without fin. This Jerom fays, he borrowed from Origen, from whom it paf-. fed to Ruffinus, Evagrius, Ponticus, and Jo vinian, whom he calls the patriarchs of the Pelagian herefy, Pelagius did not deny what may be called external grace, or that the dodrines and mo tives of the gofpel are neceffary, but he admit ted nothmg oi internal grace. He acknowledg-. cd, indeed, that the power we have to obey the wUl of God, is the gift of God to us ; but he faid that the diredion of this power depends upon ourfelves. He is even faid to have advanced, after Titus of Boftra above-mentioned, that we do not die in confequence of the fin of Adam, but by the neceffity of nature, and thac tbe Dodrine of Grace, &c. 299 that Adam himfelf would have died if he had not finned •*=. Much farther was he from fup pofing that the fecond death, or the puniffiment of the wicked in a future world, was any con fequence ofthe fin of Adam. In feveral of thefe pofitions Pelagius appears to have gone farther than the generality of chriftians in his time, even of thofe in the Eaft, where he met with the moft favourable recep tion. He was particularly cenfured by Chry foftom and Ifidore, for afferting that man had no need of any inward affiftance, which was generally believed to be afforded, efpecially on extraordinary occafions, and that man had re ceived no injury whatever from the fin of Adam. Auftin, in his controverfy with the Pelagians, made no difficulty of renouncing many of the things which he had advanced againft the Ma nicheans. Whitby faysf, that he was not able to anfwer feveral of his former arguments, and that the exceptions which he made to fome of his own previous maxims were weak and abfurd. Thus he had before defined fin to be " the will to " do that from which we have power to ab- • Auftin De Hxrefibus Sec. 88, Opera vol. 6. p, 33. t On the Five Points, p, 391, " ftaini*' 300 The Hiftory of " ftain ;" but afterwards he faid, he had then defined that which was only fin, but not that which was alfo the puniffiment of fin. In oppofition to the dodrine of human me rit, he afferted that divine grace is neceffary to bend the wUI, for, that without this we are free only to do evil, but have no power to do good. As the heathens could not be faid to have had that grace of God, fpoken of in the gof pel, by the help of which alone Auftin fup pofed that good works were performed ; to be confiftent with himfelf, he maintained that none of the works of the heathens were pro perly good, and that even the good works of Cornelius would have availed nothing without faith in Chrift*. Sometimes, indeed, he would allow that the good works of the hea thens would entitle them to a temporal re ward, and leffen their future torments f . But he likewife diftinguiffied himfelf by faying that fuch good works were only a kind oi fliiningfins. In fupport of this dodrine, he faid that Chrift would have died in vain, if, in any other man ner than by faith in him, men could have at tained to true faith, virtue, righteoufnefs, and ' De Baptifmo, cap. 8. Opera vol. 7. p, 379. t Epift. s- Opera vol. 2, p. 25, Contra Julianum, lib. 4. cap. 3. Opera vol, 7. p, 1033, wifdom. the Dodrine of Grace, ^c. 301 •wifdom*. But in this he did not attend to the dodrine of Paul, who fays, that " they who " have not the law are judged without law; " they being a law to themfelves ; their own " confciences accufing or elfe excufing them." With refped to original fln, Auftin ftrenu- oufly maintained, that infants derive fin from Adam, and that his guUt was, in fome way, entailed upon them, fo thac they are obnox ious to puniffiment on account of it ; though he acknowledges it was no proper guilt of theirs, but only that of their anceftor, the_^« being an ad of his will onlyf. Afterwards, an improvement was made upon this dodrine by the difciples of Auftin, who afferted that a covenant was made with all mankind- in Adam, as their firft parent, and that he was made to reprefent them all; fo that, had he obeyed, all his pofterity would have been happy through his obedience ; but that in his difobedience they are all finners, his ad being imputed and transferred to them all. Auftin maintains that baptifm is neceffary to recover men from that ftate of perdition into which the fall of Adam had brought them, and therefore that all who were noc • Epift. 5. Opera vol. 2. p, 25, Contra Julianum, lib. 4. cap. 3. Opera vol. 7. p. 1029. •j- Opera, vol. i, p, 22. baptized .302 The Hiftery of baptized were in a ftate of damnation. To prove that infants had finned in Adam, he urged, that otherwife Chrift could not be their Saviour*. He appears, however, to have been ffiockcd at the thoughts of expo- fing infants to the torments of hell on ac count of the fin of Adam only ; and there fore he maintained, that though they were in hell, their puniffiment was fo little, that they would rather chufe to exift under it, than not to exift at all §. This was afterwards dreffed up as a divifion, or partition in hell, and was called Limbus Infantum. Before the Pelagian controverfy, Auftin had faid that the fouls of infants, dying unbaptized, went nei ther to heaven nor to hell, but went Co a place where they neither enjoyed the vifion of God, nor fuffered the pains of the damned f . Since, according to the preceding dodrine, the vei-y firft motion towards any good work, fuch as faith and repentance, is immedi ately from God, and it is not in the power of man to contribute any thing towards it, • Contra duas epiftolas Pelagianorum lib. i. cap. 23. Opera, vol. 7. p. 879. § Contra Julianum, lib. 5. cap. 8. Opera, vol. 7. p, 1085. f De libero arbitrio, lib. 3. cap. 23. Opera, vol. I. p. 695, Auftin tbe Dodrine of Grace, ^c. 303 Auftin was obliged, in purfuance of his doc trine, to maintain that God had, of his own arbitrary will, predeftinated to eternal life all that were adually faved, while the reft of mankind were left expofed to a puniffi ment which they had no power of avoiding. At the fame time, however, maintaining, according to the univerfal opinion of that age, that baptifm was the chriftian regenera tion, and v/affied away all fin, original and adual, he was under a neceffity of diftin guiffiing between regeneration and falvation; maintaining that juftifying faith, and rege- rating grace might be loft, or that the re generate might have all grace, but not thac of perfeverance, fince it depended upon the decree and good pleafure of God, whether they would perfevere to the end or not *. In this refped thofe who now maintain the dodrine of predeftination differ very confi derably from Auftin, maintaining that none arc truly regenerated, except the eled, and that all thefe will certainly perfevere to the end, and be faved. In the church of Rome, however, and alfo in that of England, rege neration and baptifm are confounded, and the terms are ufed as expreffing the fame thing. • Voffii Hiftoria Pelagianifmi, p. 565. Auftin, 304 ^he Hiftory of Auftin, whofe influence in the churches of Africa was uncontrouled, procured the opini ons of his adverfary to be condemned in a fy nod held at Carthage in 412; but they pre vailed notwithftanding. The Pelagian doc trine was received with great applaufe even at Rome. There the condud of the biffiops of Africa, who had ftigmatized it as heretical, was condemned, and pope Zozimus was at the head of thofe who favoured Pelagius. Auftin's dodrine of predeftination, in particular, was not confirmed by any council within a century after his death, and though it was defended by the moft celebrated divines in the Wefl:, it was never generally received in the Eaft, and was controverted by many in Gaul, and the favourers of it explained it with more or lefs latitude. This controverfy, which be gan with the dodrine of grace, and was ex tended to original fin and predeftination, rent the church into the moft deplorable divifions, in all fucceeding ages, and they have been continued, with little intermiffion, to the pre fent time. This controverfy Jifras, however, almoft whol ly confined to the weftern church, whUe the Greeks continued in the ftate in which the chriftian church in general has been repre fented to have been before the Pelagian con troverfy ; fuppofing that eledion, or predefti nation. tbe Dodrine of Grace, ^c. 305 nation, was always made with a view to mens good works, Chryfoftom, as well as John of Jerufalem, continued to hold opinions very different from thofe of Auftin, though thefe were very foon generally received in the weft ern church; and juft in the heat of this con troverfy, Caffian, a difciple of Chryfoftom, coming to Marfeilles, taught a middle dodrine, which was, that " the firft converfion of the " foul to God was the effed of its free " choice," fo that all preventing, as it was called, or predifpoflng grace, was denied by him; and this came to be the diftinguiffiing dodrine of thofe who were afterwards called Semipelagians. Profper and Hilary, who were biffiops in Gaol, gave an account of this doc trine to Auftin, but it was fo popular, thac he did noc venture to condemn ic altogether, or to call it an impious and pernicious herefy*. This controverfy alfo interefted many perfons, and much was written on both fides of the queftion. The peculiar opinion of the Semipelagians is expreffed in a different manner by different writers, buc all che accouncs fufficiendy agree. Thus fome reprefent them as maintaining that inward grace is not neceffary to the firft begin- • Bafnage, hiftoire des eglifes reformees, vol. i,p, 1 91. Mofheim, vol. i, p. 427. X ning 3o6 Tbe Hiftery of ning of repentance, but only to our progrefs in virtue. Others fay that they acknowledged the power of grace, but faid that faith depends upon ourfelves, and good works upon God; and it is agreed upon all hands, that thefe Se mipelagians held that predeftination is made upon the forefight of good works, which alfo continued to be the tenet ofthe Greek church. The Semipelagian dodrine is acknowledged by all writers to have been well received in the monafteries of Gaul, and efpecially in the neighbourhood of Marfeilles; owing in a great meafure to the popularity of Caffian, which counteraded the authority of Auftin, and to the irreproachable lives of thofe who ftood forth in defence of it. Profper writing to Auftin about thefe Semipelagians, fay.s, " they fur- " pafs us in the merit of their lives, and are " in high ftations in the church *. The affiftance of Auftin, though he was then far advanced in life, was .called in to combat thefe Semipelagians, and it was the occafion of his writing more treatifes on thefe fubjeds. In thefe he ftill ftrenuoufly maintained that the predeftination of the eled was independent of any forefight of their good works, but was ac- • Sueur, A, D. 429. cording the Dodrine of Grace, ^c. 307 cording to the good pleafure of God only, and that perfeverance comes from God and not from man. Notwithftanding the popularity ofthe Semi- pelagian dodrine, and its being patronized by fome perfons of confiderable rank and influ ence, the majority of fuch perfons muft have been againft it ; for we find that it was ge nerally condemned whenever any fynod was called upon the fubjed. But there were fome exceptions. Thus one which was affembled at Arle-s, about A. D. 475, pronounced an anathe ma againft thofe who denied that God would have all men to be faved, or that Chrift died for all, or that the heathens might have been faved by the law of nature*. Upon the whole, it cannot be faid that the dodrine of Auftin was completely eftabliffied for fome centuries ; nor indeed was it ever generally avowed in all its proper confequences, and without any qua lifications, till after the reformation, when the proteftants efpoufed it, in oppofition to the po piffi dodrine of merit. • Voffius, p. 696. Bafnage, Hiftoire des Eglifes reformees, vol. 1, p, 699, X 2 SECTION 3o8 Tbe Hiflory ef SECTION IU. Of the Dodrine of Grace, i^c. in ihe middle Ages, and till the Reformation, IT is pretty evident that, notwithftanding the great nominal authority of Auftin, whom it was feldom reckoned fafe exprefsly to contradid upon the whole, the Semipe lagian dodrine, may be faid to have been moft prevalent in England and in France, efpecially during the 6th and yth centuries. All the grace that was generally contended for in this period, was that which they fup pofed to be imparted at baptifm, or a kind of fupernatural influence which did not fail to accompany or to follow mens own endea vours. Confequently, the operation of it in pradice did not materiaUy differ from that of Semipelagianifm itfelf. All the difference in fpeculation was that, whereas Pelagius fuppofed the power of man, to do the will of God, was given him in his formation, and was therefore properly inherent in him, as much as his bodily ftrength, that which was aflferted by his opponents in thefe ages was fomething foreign indeed to a man's felf, and imparted at another time, or occafion ally, but ftill, in fad, at his command, and the the Dodrine of Grace, &c. 309 the dodrine of reprobation was never mUch reliffied* In a coiincil held at Orange in 529, againft the Pelagians and Semipelagians, it was de termined that, " all thofe who have been bap- " tized, and have received grace by baptifm, " can and ought to accompliffi the things " which belong to their falvation ; Jefus Chrift " enabling them, provided they will labour *' faithfully," and not only do the Fathers affembled upon this occafion profefs not to believe that there are men deftined to evil or fin by the will of God, but they . fay, that, " if there be any who will believe fo " great an evil, they denounce an hundred " anathemas upon them with all detefta- In this ftate things continued, the Pela gian or Semipelagian dodrine being gene raUy received, till about the middle of the ninth century. For, notwithftanding the cre dit of Auftin's name, and the authority of his ¦Writings, yet no books were more generally read in thofe ages than Cafftan's Colledions, which was thought to be the beft book of in ftitutions for a monk to form his mind .upon, and which gave a ftrong impreffion in favour of * Sueur. X3 the 310 The Hiftory of the dodrine of the Greek church. This was very apparent in the ninth century, when Godef chalchus was feverely reproved by Hincmar for afferting fome of Auftin's do6b'ines, and laying particular flrefs upon them. This Godefchalchus was a monk of Orbais in the diocefe of Rheims, who, being fond of Auftin's dodrines, carried them rather far ther than Auftin himfelf had done ; teach ing, among other things, that baptifm did not fave menf, that God had predeftinated the greateft part of mankind to damnation, and that none would be faved but the eled, for whom only Chrift had ffied his blood. In this he was oppofed by Rabanus Maurus, and a council being held on the fubjed, ac Mayence, and alfo at Creci, he was con demned, and at length died in prifon. Remi archbiffiop of Lyons wrote in his favour, and maintained that Godefchalchus had not faid , that God predeftinated the reprobate to fin and wickednefs, but only that he abandoned them to their own free will, to be puniffied becaufe they would not believe ; and in a council held at Valence in Dauphiny, in which Remi himfelf prefided, the decrees of the former councU were annulled. Buc ftill the members of this council founded the t Voffii Hiftoria Pelagianifmi, p. 734. dodrine the Dodrine of Grace, i^c. 311 dodrine of divine decrees on God's prcfci- ence that the wicked would deflxoy them felves. We find no other decifions of any fynod or council after this, and different opini ons continued to be held on che fubjed*. When we come to the age of the proper fchoolmen, it is fomewhat difficult, notwith ftanding they write profeffedly and at large on aU thefe fubjeds, to ftate their opinions with precifion, as they feem to confound themfi:lves and their readers with fuch nice diftindions. In general, Auftin being the oracle of the fchools, his dodrine was profef fed by them all, even by the Francifcans, as well as the Dominicans, They only pretended to difpute about the true fenfe of his writ ings. His general dodrine with refped to grace and predeftination was fo well eftabliffi ed, that we only find fome fubtle diftindi ons upon the fubjed, and ibme evafiojis of his dodrine by thofe who did not altoge ther rcbffi it. It was agreed among the theologians of this age, thac infanCs are properly chargeable with che fin of Adam, and liable co damna tion on that account, becaufe the will of Adam was in fome fort che wUl of che infanc. Tho- • Voffii Hiftoria Pelagianifmi, p, 734. X 4 nias 312 The Hiftory ef mas Aquinas endeavours to prove that it was only the firft fin of Adam that could be tranf- ferred to his pofterity, and that vitiated all his offspring, his fubfequent offences affed- ing himfelf only *, He farther maintains that original fin, being communicated in the ad of generation, a perfon born miraculoufly cannot have it§. According to fome of the fchoolmen, the power of man was but inconfiderable, cven before the fall, Peter Lombard faysf, that " by the grace of God given to man, he *' could refift evil, but could not do good. ** Free choice," he faysf, " is the faculty " of reafon and will, by which with the help ** of grace, we can chufe good, or without " it, evU," Thomas Aquinas not only afferted all Auf tin's dodrines, efpecially that of predeftina tion, but added this to it, that, whereas it was formerly, in general, held that the providence of God extended to all things, he thought that this was done by means of God's con curring immediately to the produdion of eve ry thought and adion. And, not to make God the author of fin, a diftindion was made « Summa, vol. 2. p. 166. § p. 168, t Sententia lib, z, dift. 4. p, 391. | lb. p. 392. between the Dodrine of Grace, l£c. 313 between che pofltive ad of fin, which was faid noc CO be evil, and its want of conformity to the law of God, which, being a negation, was no pofitive being*. There is no fmall difficulty in fettling the opinion of Thomas Aquinas about grace, though he writes fo largely on the fubjed. He fays§, that a man cannot even prepare himfelf for the grace of God without prior grace. Yet he fays in general f , that a man muft prepare himfelf for receiving grace, and that then the infufion of grace neceffarily foUows. He alfo faysij:, that a man's free will is neceffary to receive the grace by which he is juftified. And yet he fays||, that it cannot be known to any perfon, ex cept by revelation, whether he has grace. No modern fanatic can fay any thing more favourable to the dodrine of inftantaneous converfion than this writer does. " The " juftification of a finner," he fays**, " is " in an inftant," and again ij: J, that " it is " the greateft work of God, and altogether " miraculous." The manner in which this writer, and other catholics make room for the dodrine of merit, • Burnet on the Articles, p. 194. 5 Summa, vol, 2. p. 143. f p. 250. j'p. -55, II p. 251. *. p, 254. XI P- -55- together 314 ^be Hiflory of together with thefe high notions concerning grace, which they never profeffedly abandon ed, is not a little curious. " A man may " merit of God," fays Thomas Aquinas*, " not abfolutely, indeed, but as receiving a " reward for doing that which God enables " him to do." Yet he ftill acknowledges §, that a man cannot merit the firft grace either for himfelf, or for another, and that Chrift alone can do this. If Thomas Aquinas could find room fot the dodrine of merit in his fyftem, which was profeffedly built on that of Auftin; it may well be prefumed, that the difciples of Duns Scotus (the head of the Francifcan order, as Aquinas was the chief of the Dominicans) and who oppofed the dodrine of Aquinas as much as he could, were not lefs favourable to the dodrine of merit. Burnet fays f , that Scotus and the Francifcans denied the pre determination of the will, and afferted the proper freedom of it, and that Durandus denied that immediate concourfe of God with the human will, which had been afferted by Aquinas, but that in this he had not many followers except Adola, and a few others. * Summa, vol, z. p, 257, § p. 258. t Expofltion of the Articles, p. 194. At the Dodrine of Grace, &c. 315 At length the members of the church of Rome, not only attained to a firm perfuafion concerning the dodrine of merit, notwithftand ing the flender ground on which it was built, but imagined that not only Chrift, but alfo fome men, and efpecially martyrs, and thofe who lived a life of great aufterity, had even more merit than themfelves had occafion for; fo that there remained fome good works in the ballance of their account more than they wanted for their own juftification. Thefe they termed works ef fupererogation, and ima gined that they might be transferred to the account of other perfons. The whole accu mulated ftock of this merit was called che treafure of the church, and was chought to be ac che difpofal of the popes. Clement VI. in his bull for the celebration of the jubilee in J 350, fpeaks of this treafure as compofed of " the blood of Chrift, the virtue of which is " infinite, of the merit of the virgin mother of " God, and of aU the faints f." This dodrine was the foundation for thofe indulgetfces, of which an account will be given in another place, and the monflrous abufe of which brought about the reformation by Luther. f Memoires pour la vie de Petrarch, vol. 3- p. 75, SECTION 31 6 The Hiftory a) SECTION IV. Of the Dodrines of Grace, Original Sin, and Predeftination, fince the Reformation. AS good generally comes out of evil, fo fometimes, and for a feafon at leaft, evil arifes out of good. This, however, was re markably the cafe with refped to thefe doc trines in confequence of the reformation by Luther. Forthe zeal of this great man againft the dodrine of indulgejices, and that of meritt as the foundation of it, unhappily led him and others fo far into the oppofite extreme, that from his time the dodrines of grace, original fin, and predeftination, have been generally termed the dodrines of the reformation, and every thing that does not agree with them has been termed popifb, and branded with other opprobrious epithets. Thefe dodrines, I obferved, originated with Auftin, and though they never made much progrefs in the Greek church, they infeded almoft all the Latin churches. We fee plain traces of them among the Waldenfes, who were the earlieft reformers from popery. For, in the confeffion of their faith bearing the date of the Dodrine of Grace, (^c. 317 of 1 120, chey fayf, " We are finners in Adam " and by Adam," and in anocher confeffion, dated 1532, they fay;}:, that " aU who are or •• ffiall be faved, God has eleded from che " foundation of the world, and that whoever " maintains free will, denies predeftination, " and the grace of God." Wickliffe alfo be lieved the neceffity of man's being affifted by divine grace, and without this he could not fee how a human being could make himfelf acceptable to Godlj, But if we were fufficiently acquainted with all the opinions of the Waldenfes, and other early reformers, we might, perhaps, meet with many things chac would qualify che feerning rigour of thefe articles. It is certain, how ever, that neither among the antient reformers, nor among the Dominicans, or any others who leaned the moft to the dodrine of Auftin in the church of Rome, was the fcheme fo conneded in all its parts, and rendered fo fyftematical and uniform, as it was by Luther and the re formers who followed him, Befides thac Lu ther was led to lay the ftrefs that he did upon the dodrine of grace, in confisquence of che abufe of that of the dodrine of merit in the ichurch of Rome, he had himfelf been, as was f Leger Hiftoire p, 87. J p. 9^, || Gilpin's life of him, p. 75, obfciTcd 31 8 The Hiflory of obferved before, a monk of the order of Au- fjin, and had always been a great admirer of his writings, Alfo moft of thofe of the church of Rome who firft oppofed him were of a dif ferent perfuafion; the dodfines of Auftin hav ing been either abandoned, or nearly explained away, by the generality of the divines of that age. Upon the whole, therefore, it was not to be expeded, that fuch a perfon as Luther was, ffiould begin a reformation upon any more li beral principles. The fad, however, is no torious. Luther, fays Moffieim *, carried the dodrine of juftification by faith to fuch a length, as probably, contrary to his intention, derogated not only from the neceffity of good works, but even from their obligation and importance. He would not allow them to be confidered either as a condition, or the means of falva tion, nor even as a preparation for receiving it. He adds§, that the dodrine of abfolute predeftination, irrefiftible grace, and human impotence, were never carried to a more ex- ceffive length by any divine than they were by Luther. Arnfdorf, a Lutheran divine, main tained, he faysf, that good works were even an impediment to falvation. Flacius, another Lu theran, heldj, that original fin was not an ac- • Vol. 4. p. 36, § p. 40. t P- 39- i I"'- P- 43' cident the Dodrine of Grace, i^c. 319 cident, but of the very fubftance of human nature. In fome of the firft confeffion? of faith pub- liffied by the Lutherans, and others of the firft reformers, the dodrines of grace, original fin, and predeftination, are laid down with re markable rigour, and a ftudied exadnefs of expreffion. The Auguftan confeffion faysf, " On the account of Adam's fin we are liable " to the wrath of God, and eternal death, and " the corruption of human nature is propa- " gated from him. This vice of our origin " {Vitium Originis) is truly a damning fin, and " caufing eternal death to all who are not " born again by baptifm and the fpirit." We find, however, fome expreffions rather ftronger than even thefe in the Gallic confeffion J. " We believe that this vice" {tritium) meaning original fin, " is truly a fin, which makes all " and every man, not even excepting infants " in the womb, liable, in the fight of God, to " eternal death." If any dodrine can make a man fliudder, it muft be this. Believing this, could any man (unlefs he had a firmer perfua fion than moft men can, by the force of any imagination, attain to, of himfelf being among the number of the eled) blcfs God that he is a dcfcendant of Adam. f vol. 4. p. 9. X p- 80. Calvin 320 The Hiflory ef Calvin held thefe dodrines with no lefs ri gour ; and as the Lutherans afterwards aban doned them, they are now generally known by the name of Calviniftic dodrines. The antient Helvetic dodrines, fays Moffieim f, were Se mipelagian. Zuinglius faid that the kingdom of heaven was open to all who aded according to the didates of right reafon ; but Calvin, when he came among them, maintained that the everlafting condition of mankind in a fu ture world, was determined, from all eternity, by the unchangeable order of the deity, ari sing from his fole good pleafure, or free will J. Luther's rigid dodrine of eledion was op pofed by Erafmus, who wiffied well to the re formation, but was concerned as well for the violente with which it was carried on, as for the unjuftifiable length to which Luther car ried his oppofition, efpecially with refped to the dodrine of predeftination. Luther never anfwered the laft piece of Erafmus on the fub jed of free will; and Melandhon, the great friend of Luther, and the fupport of his caufe, being convinced by the reafoning of Erafmus, came over to his opinion on that fubjed. And it is very remarkable, that by degrees, and in deed pretty foon afterwards, the Lutherans in general changed alfo; and fome time after thq t Vol. 4. p. 73. X p. 80. death Dodrine of Grace, (^c. 321 death of Luther and Melandhon, the divines who were deputed- by the eledor of Saxony, to compofe the famous book entitled. The Con cord, abandoned the dodrine of their mafter, and taught that the decree of eledion was not abfolute, that God faves all who will believe, that he gives all men fufficient means of fal vation, and that grace may be refifted*. The principles of all the other reformed churches are, however, ftill Calviniftic, and among them thofe of the churches of Eng land, and of Scotland, notwithftanding the generality of divines of the former eftabliffi ment are acknowledged to be no great ad mirers of thac fyftem. In Holland, there was no obligation on the minifters to maintain what are called the Calviniftic dodrines till the fynod of Dort; when, by the help of fadion in the ftate, the Calviniftic party in that country prevailed, and thofe who oppofed them, and in confe quence of remonftraiing againft their proceed ings, got the name of Remonftrants, were cruelly pedecuted and bahiffied. It is re markable, however, as Moffieim obferves f, that fince the time of that fynod, the doc- • Bafnage, Hiftoire des eglifes reformees, vol. 3, p. 265. t Vol. 4. p. 499. y trine 322 The Hiftory ef trine of abfolute decrees has loft ground eve ry day. With refped to the church of Rome, it cannot be denied, that the caufe of found morality had fuffered much by means of many fophiftical diftindions, introduced by their divines and cafuifts about the time of the reformation, as by the diftindion of fins into venial and mortal; the latter of which only, they fay, deferve the pains of hell, whereas the former may be atoned for by penances, liberality to the church, &c. It was another of their tenets, that if men do not put a bar to the efficacy of the facraments, particularly that of penance ; if there had been 'but imperfed ads of forrow accompanying them (fuch as forrow for the difficulties a man brings himfelf into by his vices) the ufe of the facraments will fo far complete thefe imperfed ads of forrow, as to juftify us*. The Jefuits introduced feveral other ex ceedingly dangerous maxims with refped to morals.; but they were never received by the catholics in general, and were fufficiently ex pofed by their enemies the Janfenifts, within the pale of that church. The Fathers of the council of Trent, found much difficulty in fettling the dodrines of • Burnet on the articles, p. i6i, grace the Dodrine of Grace, iic. 323 grace anfl predeftination, many of the mem bers, particularly the Dominicans, being at tached to the dodrine of Auftin. At length their fole objed was to make fuch a decree as ffiould give the leaft offence, though it ffiould decide nothing. Among other things, it was determined that good works are, of their own nature, meritorious to eternal life; but it is added, by way of foftening, that it is through the goodnefs of God that he makes his own gifts to be merits in us*. It is the opinion of many in the church of Rome, and feems, fays Burnet §, to be eftabliffied by the council of Trent, that remiffion of fins is previous to juftification, and freely given by Chrift; in confequence of which a grace is infufed, by which a perfon becomes truly righteous, and is confidered as fuch by God ; but this, he adds, feems to be a difpute about words. / ¦ Ac che council of Trent, CaCarin revived an opinion which was faid Co have been in vented by Occam, and fupported by fome of the fchoolmen, viz. that God has chofen a fmall number of perfons, as the bleffed vir gin, and the apoftles, &c. whom he was de termined to fave without any forefight of their good works, and thac he alfo wills thac * Burnet on the articles, p. 156. § Ib, p. 160 Y 2 all 324 T'he Hiftory of all the reft ffiould be faved, providing for them all neceffary means for that purpofe, but, that they are at liberty to ufe or refufe them*. This opinion was that of Mr. Bax ter in England, from whom it is frequendy with us, and efpecially the Diffenters, called the Baxterian fcheme. Upon the whole, the council of Trent made a decree in favour of the Semipelagian dodrine. At firft Bellarmine, Suarez, and the Jefuits in general, were predeftinarians , but after wards the Fathers of that order abandoned that dodrine, and differed from the Semi pelagians only in this, that they allowed a preventing grace, but fuch as is fubjed to the freedom of the will. The author of this which is commonly called ihe middle fcheme, or the dodrine of fufficient grace for all men, was Molina, a Jefuit; from whom the favourers of that dodrine were called Molinifts, and the controverfy between them and the Janfenifts (fo called from Jan- fenius, a great advocate for the dodrines of Auftin) has been as vehement as any con troverfy among proteftants on the fame fub jed. And though befides the council of Trent, whofe decrees are copious enough, • Bafnage Hiftoire des eglifes reformees, vol. 3. p. 612. appeals the Dodrine of Grace, &c. 325 appeals were frequently made to the popes, and their decifions were alfo procured, the controverfy ftill continues. Of fo little effed is the authority of men to prevent different opinions in articles of faith. Different popes have themfelves been differently dif pofed with refped t© thefe dodrines ; and on fome occafions a refped for the Jefuits, who were peculiarly devoted to the popes, was the means of procuring more favour to the tenets which they efpoufed, than they would otherwife have met with. Among proteftants, there are great num bers who ftill hold the dodrines which are termed Calviniftic in their greateft rigour ; and fome time ago they were ufually diftin guiffied into two kinds, viz. the Supralap- farians, who maintained that God hacl origi nally and exprefsly decreed the fall of Adam, as a foundation for the difplay of his juf tice and mercy; while thofe who maintained that God only permitted the fall of Adam were called Sublapf arians, their fyftem of de crees concerning eledion and reprobation be ing, as it were, fubfequent to that event. But if we admit the divine prefcience, there is not, in fad, any difference between the two fchemes ; and accordingly that diftindion is now feldom mentioned. Ic 226 The Hiftory of It is evident that, at prefent, the advo cates for the dodrine of abfolute and un conditional eledion, with the reft that are called Calviniftic, confift chiefly of perfons of little learning or education ; and were the creeds of the eftabliffied proteftant churches to be revifed, the articles in favour of thofe dodrines would, no doubt, be omitted. But while they continue there, and while the fpirit of them is diffufed through all the public offices of religion, the belief of them will be kept up among the vulgar, and there will always be men enow ready to accept of church preferment on the condition of fub- fcribing to what they do not believe, and of reciting day after day fuch offices as they totally difapprove. Things have been fo long in this fituati on, efpecially in England, where the minds of the clergy are more enlightened, and where few of them, in comparifon, will even pre tend that they really believe the articles of faith to which they have fubfcribed, accord ing to the plain and obvious fenfe of them; and the legiflature has been fo often appli ed to in vain to relieve them in this mat ter, by removing thofe fubfcriptions, that we cannot now reafonably exped any reforma tion of this great evil, till it ffiall pleafe divine providence to overturn all thefe cor rupt ihe Dodrine of Grace, tic. 327 rupt eftablifhments oi what is called chriftianity, but which have long been the fecure retreat of dodrines difgraceful to chriftianity. For they only ferve to make hypocrites of thofe who live by them, and infidels of thofe who, without looking farther, either miftake thefe corrup tions of chriftianity for the genuine dodrines of it, or, being apprized of the infincerity of the clergy in fubfcribing them, .think thac all religion is a farce, and has no hold on the confciences of thofe who make the great eft profeffion of it. With all this, within ourfelves, how unfavourable is the afped that thefe dodrines exhibit to the world at large, and what an obftrudion muft they be to the general propagation of chriftianity in the world. I cannot help making this general reflec tion at the clofe of thefe three parts of my work, which relate to thofe grofs corruptions of chriftianity, which exift in their full force in all eftabliffied proteftanc churches. In what follows, che Catholics, as they are called, are more particularly concerned; though, it will be feen, that, even with refped to them, ma ny proteftant churches are far from being blamelefs. SECTION THE HISTORY OF THE CORRUPTIONS O F CHRISTIANITY. PART IV. The Hiftory ef Opinions relating to Saints and Angels. INTRODUCTION. THE idolatry of the chriftian church began with the deification and pro per worffiip of Jefus Chrift, but it was far from ending with it. For, from fimilar caufes, chriftians were foon led to pay an Undue re fped to men of eminent worth and fandity, which at length terminated in as proper a worffiip of them, as that which the heathens had paid to their heroes and demigods, ad- dreffing prayer to them, in the fame man ner, as to the fupreme being himfelf The fame undue veneration led. them alfo to a fuperftitions opinions relating to Saints and Angels. 329 fuperftitious refped for their reUcs, the pla ces where they had lived, their pidures and images, and indeed every thing that had borne a near relation to them ; fb that at length, not only were thofe perfons whom they termed Jaints, the objeds of their worffiip, but alfo their relics and images; and neither with re fped to the external forms, nor, as far as we can perceive, their internal fentiments, were chriftians to be at all diftinguiffied from thofe who bowed down to wood and ftone in the times of paganifm. That this is a moft horrid corruption of genuine chriftianity I ffiall take for granted, there being no trace of any fuch pradice, or of any principle that could lead to it, in the fcriptures ; but it may be ufeful to trace the caufes and the progrefs of it, from the ear lieft ages of the chriftian church to the pre fent time. And in order to do it as diftindly as poffible, I ffiall divide the hiftory of all the time preceding the reformation into two periods; the former extending to the fall of the weftern empire, or a little beyond the time of Auftin, and the latter to the refor mation itfelf; and I ffiall alfo confider fepa rately what relates to Jaints in general, to the virgin Mary in particular, to relics, and to images. SECTION 330 The Hiftory oJ Opinions SECTION I. P.^RT I. OJ the rejped paid lo Saints in general, till ihe fall of ihe Weftern Empire. f THE foundation of all the fuperftitious refped that was paid to dead men by chriftians, is to be looked for in the princi ples of the heathen philofophy, and the cuf toms of the pagan religion. It was from the principles of philofophy, and efpecially that of Plato, that chriftians learned that the foul was a thing diftind from the body, and capable of exifting in a feparate confcious ftate when the body was laid in the grave*. They alfo thought that it frequently hovered afcout the place where the body had been interred, and was fenfible of any attention that was paid to it. Chriftians, entertaining thefe notions, began to confider their dead as ftill prefent with • To give my readers full fatlsfaftion on this fubjeft, I muft refer them to my Difquifttions relating to Mat' ter and Spirit, in which the doftrine of a foul is traced from the Oriental to the Grecian philofophy, and is ihewn to have been a principle moft hoftile to the fyftem of revelation in every ftage of it» ' progrefs. , them. relating to Saints and Angels. 331 thein, and members of their fociety, and con fequently che objeds of cheir prayers, as chey had been before. We therefore foon find that they prayed for the dead, as well as for the living, and that they made oblations in their name, as if they had been alive, and had beeo capable of doing it themfelves. And af terwards, looking upon fome of them, and ef pecially their' martyrs, as having no want of their prayers, but as being in a ftate of pecu liarly high favour with God, and having more immediate accefs to him, it was natural for them to pafs in time, from praying for them, to praying to them, firft as interceffors to God for them, and at length as capable of doing doing them important fervices, without any ap plication to the divine being at all. The ido latrous ftfped paid to their remains, and to their images, was a thing that followed of courfe. The firft ftep in this bufinefs was a cuftom which cannot be faid to have bee%^nnatural, but it ffiews how much attention 'ought to be given to the beginnings of things. It was to meet at the tombs of the martyrs, not by way of devotion to them, but becaufe they thought that their devotion to God was more fenfibly excited in thofe places ; and few perfons, per haps, would have been aware of any ill confe quence that could have followed from it. In deed 332 The Hiftory of Opinions deed, had it not been for the philofophical opi nions above-mentioned, which were brought into chriftianity by thofe who before held them as philofophers, and which gradually infinuat- ed themfelves into the body of chriftians in ge neral, it might have continued not only a harmlefs, but an ufeful cuftom. » Chriftians meeting for the purpofe of de votion at thofe places, they would naturally blefs God for fuch examples of piety and for titude as the martyrs had exhibited, and excite one another to follow their examples. Indeed their very meeting together at thofe places for that purpofe, was doing them fb much honour, as could not fail, of itfelf, to make other per fons ambitious of being diftinguiffied in the fame manner after their deaths. It was alfo an early cuftom among chriftians to make offerings annually in the name of the deceafed, efpecially the martyrs, as an acknow ledgement, that though they were dead, they confidered them as ftill living, and members of their refpedive churches. Thefe offerings were ufually made on the anniverfary of their death. Cyprian fays, that " if any perfon ap- " pointed one of the clergy to be a tutor or " curator in his will, thefe offerings ffiould " not be made for him *." So that, as they • Opera, Epif. p, 3. confidered relating to Saints and Angels. 223 confidered the dead as ftill belonging to their communion, they had, as we here find, a me thod of excommunicating them even after death. The beginning of this fuperftitious refped for the martyrs, feems to have been at the death of Polycarp, and in forty years after wards it had degenerated into this grofs fu- perftition. For TertuUian fays, " We make " oblations for the dead, and for their mar- " tyrdom, on certain days yearly *.'' Afterwards this refped paid to martyrs and confeffors, or thofe who having been, doomed to death happened to be releafed, exceeded all bounds, and in many refpeds did unfpeakable mifchief to the church. Nothing was efteemed more glorious than what they called the crown of martyrdom ; and on the anniverfary feftivals, inftituted to the honour of each martyr, their memories were celebrated with panegyrical ora tions. In their prifons they were vifited by chriftians of all ranks, proud to minifter to them in the very loweft offices, and to kifs their chains; and if they happened to efcape with life from their torture, their authority was ever after moft highly refpeded in the decifion ' Pierce's Vindication, p. 515, of 334 '^^' Hiftory ef Opinions of all controverfies, in abfolving perfons from the ordinary difcipline of the church, and re ftoring them to communion on whatever terms they thought fit. As it happened that fome of thefe confeffors were not men of the beft moral charader, at leaft became corrupted, in confequence, per haps, of the fuperftitious refped with which they were every where received, Cyprian makes heavy complaints of the relaxation of church difcipline by this means. They were often exceedingly diffolute themfelves, and fcreened the vices of others. The refped N^aid to martyrs was gradually extended, m fome degree, to others, who alfo were confidered after their deaths as thofe who had triumphed over the world, and were gone to receive the prize for which they had con tended. In imitation of carrying in triumph thofe who won the prizes in the Grecian games, chriftians interred their dead with fing- ing of pfalms, and lighted tapers. " Tell " me," fays Chryfoftom, " what means the " lamps lighted at funerals ? Is it not becaufe " we accompany the dead, as fo many mag- " nanimous champions ? What mean the " hymns ? Is it not becaufe we glorify God, " and render thanks to him, that he has al- " ready relating to Saints and Angels. 22 S " ready crowned the deceafed, delivering him " from all his toil and labour *?" As thefe feftivals on the anniverfaries of the martyrs were not in general ufe till long after the death of the moft eminent of them, and particularly of all the apoftles and their cotem poraries, it was impoffible to fix the dates of them excepc by conjedure ; and we prefendy find that advantage was taken of this circum ftance to appoint cheir celebracion on chofe days which had been appropriaced to pagan feftivals. And as che chriftians of chac age, incroduced every mark of feftivity on thefe occafions, that the heathens had been accuft omed to in their former worffiip, there was no change but in the objed of it; fo thac the common people, finding the fame entertain ment at the ufual times and places, they were more eafily induced to forfake their old reli gion, and to adopt the new one, which fo much refembled it, and efpecially in the very things which had kept them attached to the old one. This circumftance would have grow ing weight in the time of the chriftian em perors, when the chriftian feftivals becoming more popular, would be attended by greater numbers, which would add confiderably to the entertainment. This was, indeed, the avowed • In Heb. Cap. 2, Hora, 4, Opera, vol. lo, p. 1784. defign 336 Tbe Hiftory of Opinions defign of placing the feftivals as they did ; and Gregory Thaumaturgus, who lived in the third century is particularly commended by Gregory Nvffenus for thus changing the pagan feftivals into chriftian holidays, allowing the fame car nal indulgences, with a view to draw the hea thens to tlie religion of Chrift," that the new religion might appear the lefs ftrange to them*. As the chriftians had been ufed to meet, for the purpofe of public worffiip, at the tombs of the martyrs ; when the empire be came chriftian they fometimes ereded mag nificent buildings on thofe places, and fuch churches were faid to be built to iheir ho nour, and were diftinguiffied by their names, as they continue to be to this day ; and when they had not the martyrs themfelves to bury there, at leaft they got fome of their relics. And when moft of the churches were diftinguiffied in this manner, it was the cuftom to give names to others merely in honour of particular faints, angels, &c. Thus we have churches dedicated to St, Mi chael, to Chrift, and the Trinity. In this manner by degrees, each remarkable faint had his proper temple, juft as the heathen gods and heroes had theirs. This pradice was approved by the greateft men of that ? Opera, vol, 2. p, 1006. age. relating to Saints and Angels. 221 age. Eufebius in effed fays. Why ffiould we not .pay the fame regard to our faints and martyrs, that the Pagans paid to their heroes *. SECTION I. Part IT. Of Pidures and Images in Churches. TEMPLES being now built in honour of particular faints, and efpecially the martyrs, it was natural to ornament them with paintings and fculptures reprefenting the great exploits of fuch faints and martyrs ; and this was a circumftance that made the chriftian Churches ftill more like the heathen temples, which were alfo adorned with fta- tues and pidures; and this alfo would tend to draw tht ignbrant thultitude to the new worffiip, making the tranfition the eafier. Paulinus, a convert from paganifm, a per fon of fenatbrial rank, celebrated for his parts and learning, and who died afterwards biffiop of Nola in Italy, diftinguiffied himfelf in chis way. He rebuilt, in a fplendid manner, his own epifcopal chufch, dedicated to Felix the martyr, and in the porticoes of it, he had * Jortin, vol. 3. 14. Z painted 338 The Hiftory of Opinions painted the miracles of Mofes and of Chrift, together with the ads of Felix and of other martyrs, whofe relics were depofited in it. This, he fays, was done with a defign to draw the rude multitude, habituated to the prophane rites of paganifm, to a knowledge and good opinion of the chriftian dodrine, by learning from thofe pidures what they were not capable of learning from books, or the lives and ads of chriftian faints*. The cuftom of having pidures in churches being once begun (which was about the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century, and generally by converts from pa ganifm) the more wealthy among the chrif tians feem to have vied with each other, who ffiould build and ornament their churches in the moft expenfive manner, and nothing per haps contributed more to it than the exam ple of this Paulinus. It appears from Chryfoftom, that pidures and images were to be feen in the prin cipal churches of his time, but this was in the Eaft. In Italy, they were but rare in the beginning of the fifth century, and a biffiop of that country, who had got his church painted, thought proper to make an « * Middleton's Letters, from Rome, p. 242. apology relating to Saints and Angels. 339 apology for it, by faying that the people being amufed with the pidures would have lefs time for regaling themfelves*. The origin of this cuftom was probably in Cappadocia, where Gregory Nyffenus was biffiop, the fame who commended Gregory Thaumaturgus for con triving to make the chriftian feftivals re- liemble the pagan ones. Though many churches in this age were adorned with the images of faints and mar tyrs, there do not appear to have been majiy of Chrift. Thefe are faid to have been in troduced by the Cappadocians ; and the firft of thefe were only fymbolical ones, being made in the form of a lamb. One of this kind Epiphanius found in the year 389, and he was fo provoked af it, that he tore it^ It was not till the council of Conftantinople, called In Trullo, held fo late as the year 707, that pidures. of Chrift were ordered to be drawn in the form of raen§. i S.ueur, A. 0. p. 401. ^ Ib. A, D. 707. Z r, SECTION 340 The Hiftory ef Opinions SECTION I. Part III. Of the Veneration for Relics. CONSIDERING the great veneration which chriftians in very early ages entertained for martyrs, we are not furprized that they ffiould pay a fuperftitious refped to their re lics ; but we do not find any account of their coUeding things of this kind in the ffi-ft or fecond century. Neither Trypho, Celfus,, nor any of thofe who wrote againft chriftianity at firft, make this objedion to it ; but Julian and Eunapius reproached the chriftians with it very feverely. It was, indeed, about the time that the empire became chriftian that the refped for relics began to make much progrefs. When Paleftine was purged from idols, raany perfons vifited it, and efpecially the tomb of our Saviour, out of pious curiofity ; and holy earth, as it was called, from Jerufalem was much valued in the time of Airftin. This refped for relics was much forward ed by the eloquence of preachers, and by no perfon more than Chryfoftom. " I efteem " the city of Rome," fays he, " not becaufe " of the pillars of marble, but becaufe of " the pillars of the church therein, the bo- "• dies- relating to Saints and Angels. 341 <' dies of St. Peter and Sc, Paul. Who can *' now afford me the favour of being ftretch- " ed out on che body of St. Paul, of being ^'nailed to his fepulchre, of beholding the " duft of that body which bose the marks of " the Lord Jefus, and that mouth by which " Chrift himfelf fpake. I long to fee the *' fepulchre' wherein is inclofed that armour " of righteoufnefs, that armour of light, thofe " members which ftill live, and which were " dead whilft living. I long to fee thofe " chains, thofe bonds, &c *." It appears that about the year 386, the pie ty of many perfons confifted chiefly in car rying and keeping bones and relics, and that many perfons, who traded in them, abufed the credulity of the people. A law was made by Theodofius to prevent this, but it had lit tle effed. Among other methods by which they gained credit for their relics, it was ufual in this age to pretend that revelations were made to perfons, to inform them where they ffiould difcover the bones of particular martyrs. The bodies of many of the martyrs having been buried in obfcure places, and expofed, ¦when the perfecution ceafed they were brought to light, and decently interred. Thus began • la Eph, Horn, 8, Opera, vol. 10, p. 1078. Z J the 342 The Hiftory of Opinions the tranftation ef relics, which was afterwards performed with great ceremony and devotion;' the poffeffion of them being efteemed the irvoft valuable of treafures, not lefs than the bones of fome of the heroes of antiquity, or particu lar images of fome of their gods, which had likewife been carried from place to place with great folemnity, and probably afforded a pat tern for this tranflation of chriftian relics. In 359, Conftantius caufed the bodies of St. An drew and St. Luke to be taken out of their fepulchres, and carried with great pomp to Conftantinople, to the temple of the twelve apoftles, which was a church that had been built to their honour by Conftantine. This is the firft example of the tranflation of the bo dies of faints into churches, and the cuftom being once begun, was afterwards carried to the greateft excefs*. But the tranflation ofthe relics of the mar tyr Stephen, in the time of Auftin, was one of the moft remarkable things of this kind in that age, and the account of it is given by Auftin himfelf. Thefe bones of St. Stephen, after they had lain buried and unknown for near four centuries, were faid to have been dif- covered by Gamaliel, under whom St. Paul had ftudied, to one Lucianus, a priefF; and be^r • gueur, A. D. 359. ing relating to Saints and Angels. 343 ing found by his diredion, they were removed with great folemnity, and, as was pretended, with many miracles, into Jerufalem. The fame of thefe relics was foon fpread through the chrift ian world, and many little portions of them were brought away by pilgrims, to enrich the .churches of their own countries. And wheJrever any relics were depofited, an ora tory or chapel was always built over them, and this was called a memorial of that mar tyr whofe relics it contained. Several relics of St. Stephen having been brought by diffe rent perfons into Africa, as many memorials of him were ereded in different places, of which three were particularly famous, and one of them was at Hyppo, where Auftin himfelf was bi fhop. In all thefe places, illuftrious miracles were faid to be wrought continuaUy. For long before this tirne miracle^ had been faid to be wrought by faints, living and dead. Thefe abufes did not advance to this height without oppofition, though the only perfon that diftinguiffied himfelf greatly by his remonftrances on this fubjed in this age was Vigilantius, a prieft of Barcelona. He faw that this fuperftitious refped for the faints, as they were called, their images and their relics, was introducing paganifm into the chriftian church, and he wrote againft it with great earneftnefs, " We fee," fays he, " a pagan rite Z 4 introduced 344 "^^^ Hiftory. of Opinions " introduced into our churches under the prcr" " text of religion, when heaps of wax can- " dies are Ughted up in the funffiine, andpeo- " pip every where kiffing and adoping, I " knovy not yhat contemptible duft, refjerv- " ed in little veffels, and wrapped up in " fine linen. Thefe men do great honour " truly to the bleffed martyrs, by lighting " up paltry candles to, thofe whom the lamb, " in the midft of the throne, illuminates " with all the luftre of hjs majefty." Je rom, who anfwered Vigilantius, did not de ny the pradice, or that it \yas borrowed, from the pagans, but he defended it. " Thaf," fays he, " was only done to idols, and was " then to be detefted, but this is doop tq " martyrs, and is therefore to be received*." • Middleton's Letters from Rome, p. 24a, SECTION relating to Saints and Angels. 34S S E C T I ^O N I, Part IV. Of Worfhip paid to Saints and Angels, HA.VING ffiewn the general progrefs. of the refped paid by chriftians to their faint:s and martyrs, and alfo to their images and relics, I ffiall ffiew by what fteps thefe faints and martyrs became the objeds of their proper devotion. But before chriftians prayed to their dead faints, they ufed to pray for them; and the foundation of botJi thefe pradices was the dodrine of a foul, as a fubftance diftind from the body, and ca pable of thinking and ading without it, which was borrowed from pagan philofophy. Moft of the Fathers were particularly ad dided to the dodrine of Plato, who taught that the fouls of the dead, after quitting their bodies, have influence in the affairs of men, and take care of them. Eufebius ap proved of the opinion, and endeavoured to confirm it. Theodorit alfo, in his fermon on the martyrs, tells the pagans, that it was the opinion of Plato, in order to ffiew that cliriftians have reafon to think the fame thing of their martyrs*. • Sueur, A, D. 407. . Tin 346 The Hiflory of Opinions Till the middle of the fourth century it was the general belief that the abode of the fouls of the faithful was in fubterraneous pla ces, or at leaft here below, near the earth; but towards the end of this century they were fuppofed by fome to be above, but not in the place where they could enjoy the beatific vifion of God. From the former opinion came the cuftom of praying for the dead, which be gan fo early as the beginning of the third century; the objeds of thefe prayers being their quiet repofe in their prefent fituation, and a fpeedy and happy refurredion. They even prayed for the virgin Mary; and there are alfo inftances of their praying for the damned, in order to leffen their torments. It was not very foon, a general or fix ed opinion, that the fouls of the dead were in places where they could hear and attend to what was paffing among the liv ing. But thinking more highly of martyrs than of other perfons, it was foon imagined that their ftate after death might be better than that of others. For, while the reft of the dead were fuppofed to be confined in Hades, which was 'a fubterraneous place, : waiting for the refurredion of their bodies, they thought that the martyrs were admit ted to the immediate prefence of God, and to a ftate of favour and power with him. Indeed. relating to Saints and Angels. 347 Indeed, fo early as the middle of the third century, when many went to folicit the prayers of thofe who were prifoners doom ed to death, they would reqyeft that, after their death, they would be mindful of the living ; and fome are even faid to have agreed with one another, that which ever of them ffiould die firft, he ffiould ufe his intereft in favour of the furvivor*. So far, however, was it from being ufual to pray to faints in the third century, that Origen fays, they were not to pray to any underived being (sAn rut ysmluv) not even to Chrift himfelf, but to God the Father of allf. Prayer io the dead began with the mar tyrs, as well as prayers for the dead, buc not till near the end of the fourth century, when it was imagined that they might hear thofe who invoked them near the place of their interment. But it appears by the Con- ftitutions, and feveral of the writings of that time, that the public offices were yet pre ferved pure. In the fifth century they prayed to God to hear the interceffions of the faints and martyrs in their behalf; but chere is a greac difference between this, and praying • Hiftory of Antient Ceremonies, p. 26, t Whitby on John xvii. 2. CO 348 The Hiftory of Opinions to the faints themfelves, as if they could hear and help the living ; and when the cuf tom of invoking them was introduced, ma ny had doubts, on the fubjed, and therefore to their invocations of them added, " if they " were prefent, and had any influence in " things below," &c. Auftin himfelf was much perplexed about this ; and in one place fays, " It is true the " faints do not themfelves hear what paffes " below, but they hear of it by others, who " die, and go to them*." In another place he fuppofes that the martyrs may affift the living, becaufe they attend where their monu ments are. Bafil, however, in his homily on the forty martyrs, fuppofes that they were prefent in the temples and joined in the pray ers of the faithful, but he does not fay that tiie faithful ffiould pray to themf. One of the firft inftances of dired invo cation of the dead, is that of Theodofius the younger, who cafting his eyes upon the coffin of Chryfoftom, aflied pardon of him for Arcadius his father, and Eudoxia his mother, becaufe he confidered that faint as more particularly prefent there than elfe- ? De cura pro mortuis, cap. 14. Opera vol, 4, p. 890, f Opera vol, i. p, 959, where relating to Saints and Angels. 349 where. But at that time they did not in voke the faints in general, as the apoftles, &c. but only thofe at whofe tombs they at tended; and there are but few examples of invoking the virgin Mary till far in the fifth century, Auftin is the firft who takes notice that ¦praying for the martyrs, which had long been the cuftom" of chriftians, did not agree with the invocation of them, which began to gaift ground in his time. He fays, that it injures the martyrs to pray to God for diem, and that when the church mentions them in her prayers, it is not to pray for them, but to be helped by their prayers. Yet, in all the genuine writing^ of Auftin, it does not appear that he ever di redly invoked the faints, except by way of apoftrophe, as an orator, or in a fimple wiffi that the faint would pray for him. Alfo pray ing for the dead in general, and even for the apoftles and martyrs, continued, and was not aboliffied but by the full eftabliffiment ofthe in vocation of them. Gregory the firft, who contri buted moft to it, in the beginning of the feventh century, fuppofed fome of the faints to enjoy the beatific vifion of God, though moft perfons ftill believed that not even the martyrs would be admitted to that vifion before the refurrec- tion ; and Flugh de Vidor, fo late as 11 30, fays, that many ftiU doubt whether the . faints hear 350 The Hiftory of Opinions hear the prayers of thofe who invoke them, and that it is a queftion difficult to decide *. It appears that Auftin was very fenfible of the growing fuperftition of his time, and faid, with apparent difapprobation, " I know there " are fome who adore fepulchres and paint- " ingsf." But this does not imply. a dired invocation of them. Paulinus of Nola, his cotemporary, went every year to Rome, to ffiew his refped to the tombs of the martyrs, becaufe, as he faid, he had great confidence in their interceffion; and about the year 337, Conftantine built a magnificent church in ho • nour of the twelve apoftles, intending to be buried there; that after his death he might partake of the prayers that would be made there in their honour J. But neither does this imply a dired invocation of them. In the antient litanies all the invocation? of ..our Sa viour ended with thefe words. Lord have mercy upon us {y-vfu I'Kuaot) repeated many times; but the litanies of the faints confifted of nothing more than an enumeration of their tities, to which, but in later times, they added the words ora pro nobis. Examples of the former may be feen in Bafil and Chr)ffoftom§, • Sueur, A, D. 407. f De moribn! ecclefia:, lib. 1 . cap. 34. Opera vol. 1. p. 774, X Sueur, A. D. 3J7. * lb. 463. In relating to Saints and Angels. 351 In the fifth, century no oppofition was made fo the invocation of faints. The common opinion then was, that their fouls were not fo entirely confined to the celeftial manfions, but that they vifited mortals, and travelled through various countries; though it was ftUl thought that they more efpecially frequented the places where their bodies were interred. Alfo, the images of the feints were by this time honoured with particular worffiip in fe veral places, and it was imagined by many, that this worffiip, or the forms of confecration, which were foon introduced, drew into the image the propitious prefence of the faint, or celeftial being, whom it reprefented; the veiy notion which had prevailed with refped to the fta- rues of Jupiter and Mercury, &c. This exceffive veneration for the dead, and for theie ;felics, was greatly promoted by the eloquent' preachers or declaimers of thofe times, Athanafius, Gregory Nazianzen, and Chryfoftom, diftinguiffied themfelves in this way. The laft of thefe writers, celebrating the ads of the martyr Babylas, biffiop of Antioch, fays, " The gentUes will laugh to " hear me talk of the ads of perfons dead " and buried, and confumed to duft; buc chey " are noc co imagine that the bodies of mar- " tyrs, like thofe of common men, are " deftityte of all adive, force and energy; " fince a greater power than that of the hu- " man. 35 i The Hiftory of Opinions " man foul is fuperadded to them, the power " of the Holy Spirit, which by working mi- ^' racles in them demonftrates the truth of " the refurredion*." To fee to what excefs this fuperftitious wor ffiip of the dead was carried, in the period of which I am now treating, I ffiall recite at length, from Dr. Middleton, a paffage of Theodorit the ecclefiaftical hiftorian, which ffiews us, as he fays, the flate of chriftia nity in the fifth century; " The temples of ** our martyrs," fays this hiftorian, " are ffiin ' " ing and confpicuous, eminent for their gran-i " deur, and the variety of their ornaments^ " and difplaying far and wide the fplendour " of their beauty. Thefe we vifit, not once, " or twice, or five times in the year, but fre- " quently offer up hymns each day to the " Lord of them. In health we beg the con- " tinuance of it. In ficknefs the removal of " it. The childlefs beg children ; and when " thefe bleffings are obtained, we beg the fe- " cure enjoyment of them. When we un- " dertake any journey, we beg them to be *• our companions and guides in it, and when " we return fafe, we give them our thanks. " And thac thofe who pray with faith and " fincerity obtain what they afk is msnifeftly " leftified by the number of offerings which * Middleton's Inquiry,, p. 152. " are relating to Saints and Angels. 2S2 " are made to them, in confequence of the " benefits received. For fome offer the figure " of eyes, fome of ieet, fome of hands, made " either of gold or of filver, which the Lord " accepts, though but of little value, mea- " furing the gift by the faculty of the giver. " But all thefe are evident proofs of the *• cure of as many diftempers, being placed " there as monuments of the fads, by thofe " who have been made whole. The fame " monuments likewife proclaim the power of " the dead, whofe power alfo demonftrates " their God to be the true God*." But we ffiall perhaps form a ftill clearer idea of the firm poffeffion that thefe fuper ftitions had obtained in the minds of the gene rality of chriftians, when we confider what little refped the manly fenfe of Vigilantius, who fet himfelf co oppofe che progrefs of chefe corrupc pradices, procured him from Jerom the moft learned writer of his age. Unhap pily we have nothing from Vigilantius, buc what his opponent himfelf has given us from him, in his anfwer. But even this is abun dantly fufficient to fatisfy us with refped to the good fenfe of the one, and the bigotted violence of the other, together with the cha rader of the age in which they lived. • Introduftory Difcourfe p. 6q. A a Vigilantius 354 ^^^ Mftory of Opinions VigUantius maintained, as the articles are enumerated by Middleton, that the honour paid to the rotten bones and duft of martyrs, keeping them in their churches, and lighting up wax candles before them, after the man ner of the heathens, were the enfigns of idol atry ; that the celibacy of the clergy, and their vows of chaftity, were the feminary of lewd- nefs ; that, to pray for the dead^ or to defire the prayers of the dead, was fuperftitious ; and that the fouls of the departed faints and martyrs were at reft in fome particular place, whence they could not remove themfelves ac pleafure, fo as to be prefent every where to che prayers of their votaries ; that the fepul chres of their martyrs ought not to be wor ffiipped, nor their fafts or vigils to be obfer ved ; and laftly that the figns and wonder* faid to be wrought by their relics, and at their fepulchres, ferved to no good end or purpofe of religion. Thefe were the facrilegious tenets, as Jerom calls them, which he could not hear with pa tience, or without the utmoft grief, and for which he declared Vigilantius to be a moft deteftable heretic, venting his foul mouthed blafphemies againft the relics of the martyrs, which were daily working figns and wonders. He bids him go into the churches of thofe martyrs, and he would be cleanfed from the cvii delating to Saints and Angels.^ 2S§ tvil fpirit which poffeffed him, and feel him felf burnt, noc by chofe wax candles, which fo much offended him, buC by invifible flames, which would force chat d^mon who talked within him, to confefs himfelf to be the fame who had perfonated a Mercury, perhaps a Bacchus, or fome other of their gods among the heathens. At this wild rate, fays Dr. Middleton, this Father raves on, through fe veral pages, iri a ftrain much more furious than the moft bigotted papift would ufe at this day in defence of the fame rites*. All the modern ecclefiaftical hiftorians give the fame account of this Vigilantius f. I muft not conclude the hiftory of this period •Ivithout obferving that fome undue refped was paid to angels, who were believed to tranfad much of the bufinefs of this world, by commiffion from God. This arofe from the opinions of the Gnoftics, and is al luded to by the apoftle Paul, who fays, that fome thtbugh a voluntary humility, worffiip ped angels, being vainly puffed up in their flefhly minds. Coll. ii. 18. It feems probable that fome undue refped was paid to angels, as well as to Chrift and • Introduftorjr Difcourfe, p. 131, &c. t Sec Molheim, vol. i. p. 393 A a 2 the 356 The Hiftory of Opinions the Holy Spirit, in the time of Juftin Martyr, for he fays*, " him (God) and the Son that " came from him, and che hoft of other good " angels, who accompany and refemble him, " together with the prophetic fpirit, we adore " and worffiip, in word and truth honour- " ing them." With this writer, however, and the chriftians of his time, it is not probable that this refped for angels amounted to pray ing to them. For we find that praying to angels, which had been pradifed in Phrygia and Pifidia, was forbidden as idolatrous, by the council of Laodicea in 364. SECTION I. Part V, Of the Refped paid to the Virgin Mary in this Period. AS our Saviour became the objed of worffiip before any other man, fo his mother foon began to be confidered with a fingular refped, and at length ffie engroffed fo much of the devotion of the chriftian world, that I ffiall make a feparate article of it, in each period of this part of my work. • Edit, Thirlby, p, 43. 183. It relating to Saints and Angels. 2S7 It is remarkable that, excepting what was faid to Mary by the angel, henceforth all ge nerations fhall call thee bleffed, no particular compliment is paid to her in all the hiftory of the evangelifts. She is only mentioned as a pious woman, among feveral others, and was committed to the care of John by our Lord, as he hung upon the crofs. Nay fe veral expreffions of our Lord, though not really difrefpedful, yet ffiew that, in his cha rader of a teacher fent from God, he con fidered her only as any other perfon or difciple. When ffie applied to him, about the failure of wine, at the marriage feaft in Cana, he replied. Woman what haft thou to do with m?, and gave her no fatisfadion with refped to what he intended to do. And again, when ffie and fome others of his relations were en deavouring to make their way through a crowd, in order to fpeak to him, and he was told of it, he replied. Who is my mo ther and who are my brethren ? He that does the will of God the fame is my brother and fift er, and mother. In the book of Ads her name is but once mentioned, as one of thofe who was affembled with the apoftles after the afcen fion of Jefus, Ads i, 14. fo that where, or how ffie lived, or died, we have no know ledge at all. On how narrow a foundation A a 3 does 358 The Hiflory of Opinions does the exceffive veneration that was after-r wards paid to the bleffed virgin, as ffie is now called, reft? The firft mention that we find of any parti cular refped paid to the virgin Mary was in the time of Epiphanius, when fome wo men ufed to offer to her cakes called collyrides, from which they got the name of CoUyridi ans ; and as men had no concern in it, ex cept by permitting their wives to do it, it is called by this writer a herefy of the wo men. He himfelf greatly difapproved of it, and wrote againft it. This may be thought extraordinary, fince oblations at the tombs of the dead were very common in this age. But as it was not known, where the virgin Mary was interred, the offering of cakes to ber was a new ftep in the worffiip of the dead, and was therefore more particularly noticed. It is plain, however, from his ac count of this affair, that prayers were then offered to the virgin Mary, and by fome of the orthodox, as they were called, though he himfelf rejeded the thought of it with indignation. In a piece of Athanafius, intitled De Sanc- tiffima Deipara, we find a long addrefs to the virgin, but it feems to have been a piece of oratory, anc^ we can hardly infer from it that relating to Saints and Angels. 2S9 that it was his cuftom to addrefs his devo tions to her. In it he fays, " Hear O daugh- " ter of David, and of Abraham; incline *' thine ear to our prayers, and forget not " thy people;" and again, " Intercede for us " lady, miftrefs, queen, and mother of God*, The firft who was particularly noticed, as introducing this worffiip of the virgin, is Peter Gnapheus, biffiop of Antioch in the fifth cen tury, who appointed her name to be called upon in the prayers of the church. This devotion, however, feems to have taken its rife towards the end of the fourth century, and in Arabia, where we read of a contro verfy refpeding her; fome maintaining, that after ffie was delivered of Jefus, ffie liv ed with her huffiand Jofeph as his wife. This was violently oppofed by others, who, running into the other extreme, wor ffiipped her as a goddefs, thinking it necef fary CO appeafe her anger, and feek her fa vour, by libacions, facrifices, the oblation of cakes, and fuch fervices, as Epiphanius cenfured. § To perfons much acquainted with eccle fiaftical hiftory, nothing of chis kind will ap pear excraordinary. Otherwife we might be • Opera, vol, i. p. 1041 § Moflieim, vol. i.p, 351. A a 4 furprized 360 The Hiftory of Opinions furprizedhow it ffiould ever have been confidered as a thing of any confequence, whether the mother of Chrift had any commerce with her huffiand or not. The prefumption is, that, as they lived together, at leaft after the birth of Jefus, ffie had. However the refped paid to virginity in that age was fo great, that it was thought to derogate from her virtue and honour, to fuppofe that flie ever had any commerce with man; and therefore, with out any proper evidence in the cafe, it was prefumed that ffie muft have continued a vir gin; and to maintain the contrary was even deemed heretical. In the council of Capua in 389, Bonofus a biffiop in Macedonia, was condemned for maintaining that Mary, the mother of Jefus, was not always a virgin, following it is faid, the herefy of Paulinus, When the dodrine of original fln was ftarted, . the veneration for the virgin Mary was fo great, that doubts were entertained whether ffie might not have been exempt from it, as well as her Son. Auftin maintained that no perfon ever lived without fin ex cept the virgin Mary, concerning whom, he, however, only fays he will not hold any controverfy, for the honour, that we owe to our Saviour*. • De Natura et Gratia, cap. 36. Opera, vol, 7, p. 747. After relating to Saints and Angels. 361 After the deification and worffiip of Chrift, it was natural that the rank of his mother ffiould rife in fome proportion to it. Accord ingly we find, that after Chrift was confi dered as God, it became cuftomary to give Mary the title of mother of God (SmV®-) This, however, was not done, at leaft generally, till after the council of Chalcedon in 451. This title of mother of God, happened to be a favourite term with ApoUinaris and his followers, and in confequence of this, per haps, it was, that Neftorius violently oppo fed this innovation, thinking it fufficient that Mary ffiould be called ihe mother of Chrifl. This oppofition, however, operated as in many other cafes, viz. to increafe the evil, ¦and in the third council of Ephefus, in which Neftorius was condemned, it was decreed that Mary ffiould be called the mother of God. From this time ffie was honoured more than ever; but ftiU ffie had not the titles that were given her afterwards of queen of hea ven, miftrefs of the world, goddefs, mediatrix, gate of paradife, ^c. SECTION 362 Tbe Hiftory ef Opinions S E C T I O N II, Part I, Of ibe Worfhip of Saints in tbe middle Ages, and till ibe Reformation, TILL the beginning of the fifth century prayers to faints were only occafional, as at the place of their interment, or on the anniverfary of their death, &c, becaufe at that time it was generally fuppofed that their fouls were hovering about that place, and there, alfo, was the fcene of all the miracles that were originally afcribed to them, ' But when it came to be a general perfuafion, that the fouls of the martyrs, and other per fons of eminent fandity, were admitted to the immediate prefence of God, and were capable of a general infpedion of the affairs of the world, prayers to them were no longer confined to the place of their in terment, or to the ghapels and churches ered ed over them. It was now imagined that the fouls of thefe illuftrious dead could hear the prayers that were addreffed to them in all places, and at all times. For, as for the great diffi culty of a human being (whofe faculties are of relating to Saints and Angels. 2^3 of courfe limited) being capable of knowing what paffes in more than one place at a time, they feem not to have confidered it. Or they might fuppofe the power of an un- embodied fpirit, not now confined to any particular corporeal fyftem, to be incapable of any limitation. Or they might fuppofe that God had endued them with faculties of which they were not naturally capable before. Certain, however it is, that in the middle ages, the common people addreffed their pray ers to dead men vsrith as little apprehenfion of their not being heard by them, as if they had been praying to the divine being himfelf In fad, the chriftian faints fucceeded, in all refpeds, to the honours which had been paid to the pagan deities ; almoft all of whom had been fuppofed to have been men, whofe extraordinary merit had exalted them to the rank and power of gods after their death. This analogy between the two religions made the tranfition very eafy to the bulk of the common people ; and the leading men among the chriftians perceiving this, and being them felves not averfe to the ceremonies and pomp of the antient idolatry, contrived to make the tranfition ftill eafier, by preferving every thing that they poffibly could in the antient forms of worffiip, changing only the objeds qf them. About 364 T'he Hiftory ef Opinions About the eleventh centuryithis was done without difguife ; and though images were not common, and we read of no ftatues in chrifti an churches at that time; yet, in other ref peds, the worffiip of the faints was modelled according to the religious fervices which had been paid to the heathen gods. Some time afterwards we find that chriftians had the fame temples, the fame altars, and often the fame images with the pagans, only giving them new names. Dr. Middleton was ffiewn an antique ftatue of a young Bacchus, which was worffiipped in the charader of a female faint*. The nobleft heathen temple now remain ing in the world is the Pantheon, or Ro tunda at Rome, which, as the defcription over the portico informs us, having been im- pioufty dedicated ef old by Agrippa to Jupiter, and all ihe Gods, was pioufty reconfecraied by pope Boniface the fourth io the bleffed virgin and all the faints. With this fingle alteration, fays Dr. Middleton f, it ferves as exadly for all the purpofes of the popiffi, as it did for the pagan worffiip, for which it was built. For as in the old temple every one might find the god of his country, and addrefs himfelf to that deity to wfhofe religion he was * Letters from Rome, p. 160. f Ib. p. 161, moft relating to Saints and Angels. 365 moft devoted, fo it is the fame thing now. Every one chufes the patron whom he likes beft; and one may fel here different fervices going on at the fame time at diffe rent altars, with diftind congregations around them, juft as the inclinations of the people lead them to the worffiip of this or that par ticular faint. As men are greatly influenced by names, it was even contrived that the name of the new divinity ffiould as much as poffible refemble the okl one. Thus the faint ApoUinaris was made to fucceed the god Apollo, and St. Martina che god Mars. Ic was farcher con trived that, in fome cafes, the fame bufinefs ffiould continue to be done in the fame place, by fubftituting for the heathen god a chrif tian faint of a fimilar charader, and diftin guiffied for the fame virtues. Thus, there being a temple at Rome in which fickly infants had been ufually prefented for the cure of their diforders, they found a chriftian laint who had been famous for the fame attention to children j and confecrating the fame tem ple to him, the very fame pradices are now continued as in the times of heathenifm*. Farcher, as ic had been cuftomary to hang up in the heathen temples, particularly thofe • Middl«to»'s letters, p. 167. of 356 The Hiftory of Opinions of Efculapius, pidures of fcenes in which per^ fons had fuppofed they had been relieved by the interpofition of their gods, and efpeci ally of limbs that had been difeafed, and were afterwards cured, &c. the fame cuftom, as I have hinted already, was very early in troduced into the chriftian churches; and in later ages, I doubt not, thefe exhibitions were more numerous than they had ever been in the times of heatheftifm. Dr. Middleton, who obferved the prefent popiffi worffiip with this view, mentions other points of refemblance, fo numerous^ and fo little varied, that he fays, he could have ima gined himfelf prefent in the antient heathen temples; and he is confident that a confide rable knowledge of the antient heathen ritual might be learned from them. Candles are continuaUy burning in the prefent churches as in the former temples, incenfe is always fmoking, many of the images are daubed with red ochre^ as thofe of the heathen gods often were, their faces are black with the fmoke of candles and incenfe, people are continually on their knees, or proftrate be fore them ; and, according to the accounts of all travellers, the prayers that are addreffed to them are of the fame nature, and urged with the fame indecent importunity. They are alfo followed by the fame marks of re- fentment,. relating to Saints and Angels. 367 fentment, if their requefts be not granted, as if they hoped to get by foul means, what they could not obtain by fair. Mr, Byron informs us*, that being in danger of ffiip- wreck, a Jefuit who was on board brought out an image of fome faint, which he de fired might be hung up in the mizen ffirouds ; and this being done, he kept threatening it, that if they had not a breeze of wind foon he would throw it into the fea. A breeze fpringing up, he carried back the image with an air of great triumph. As the heathens had gods of particular coun tries, fo the chriftians of thefe ages imagined that one faint gave particular attention to the affairs of one country, and another faint to thofe of another. Thus St. George was con fidered as the patron of England, St. Dennis of France, St. Januarius of Naples, &c. In all countries different faints were fuppo fed to attend to different things, each having his proper province. Thus St. George is in voked in battle, St. Margaret in child-bear ing, St. Genevieve for rain, arid St. Nicho las, or St. Anthony, by feamen, &c. Alfo, as with the heathens, the fame god •was thought to be worffiipped to more advan- • Voyage, p. 207. tags 368 Tbe Hiftory of Opinions tage in one place than another, this was imagined to be the cafe with refped to the new divinities. For, as there was a Jupiter Ammon, a Jupiter Olympius, and a Jupiter Capitolinus, fo the papifts have one virgin Mary of Loretto, another of Montferrat, &c. And though there be a church dedicated to the virgin in a town where a perfon lives, yet he will often think it worth his while to make a pilgrimage of fome hundreds of miles, to worffiip the fame virgin in fome other place, which ffie is fuppofed to honour with more particular attention, and to have diftinguiffied by more miracles, &c. So many perfons had acquired the reputa tion of Saints in the ninth century, that the ec clefiaftical councils found it neceffary to decree, that no perfon ffiould be confidered as a faint, till a biffiop in the province had pronounced him worthy of that honour; and the confent of the pope was likewife generally thought expedient, if not neceffary. No faint, how ever, was created by the authority of any pope before Walric, biffiop of Augffiurgh, received that honour from John the 15th, in the tenth century; though others fay it was Savibert who was firft canonized by Leo the third, after his life and pretenfions had been regularly examined*. At length Alex- • Moflieim, vol. 2. p. 158. Bafnage, Hiftoire des eglifes reformees, vol. 3. p, 691. ander relating to Saints and Angels. 369 ander the third, in the twelfth century, alert ed the fole right of canonization to the pope. This bufinefs of canonization was alfo co pied from paganifm, the fenate of Rome having taken upon it to pronounce what perfons ffiould be deified, and having decreed that honour to feveral of their emperors, to Vvhom temples were confequently ereded, and worffiip regularly paid. Alfo the title of Di- vus, which had been given by the decree of the fenate to deified men, was now adopted by the chriftians, and given to their canonized faints. The confequence of a regular ca nonization was, that the name of the faint was inferted in the calendar in red letters ; he might then be publicly invoked and pray ed to, churches and altars might be dedica ted to him, maffes might be faid in his ho nour, holidays mighc be kept in his naaje, his image alfo might be iet up and prayed to, and his relics might be reverently laid up, and worffiipped. Confidering who they were that direded this bufinefs of canonization, and what kind of merit weighed moft with them, it is no wonder that many of thefe canonized perfons were fuch as had little title to the appellation of faints. They were generally miferable en- «bufiafts, fome of them martyrs to their own B b aufterities 37o The Hiftory of Opinions aufterities, and fometimes men who had dii'- tinguiffied themfelves by nothing but their zeal for what was imagined to be the rights of ihe church, and their oppofition to the tem poral princes of their times ; fuch as Thomas a Becket of this country. As many of the perfons to whom divine honours are paid in catholic countries, began to be diftinguiffied in this manner before there were any regular canonizations, and in times of great ignorance, we are not furprifed, though we cannot help being amufed, at the grofs miftakes that were fometimes made in this ferious bufinefs; feveral of the names, the moft diftinguiffied by the honours that are paid to them, being thofe of perfons al together imaginary, fo that the objed of their worffiip never had any exiftence. Such is St. Urfula, and the eleven thoufand vir gins. This woman is faid to have been a native of Cornwall, who, with her virgins, travelled to Rome, and in their return through Germany, accompanied by pope Cyriacus, fuf fered martyrdom at Cologn. Baronius him felf fays there never was any pope of that name. In this clafs alfo* we muft put the feven fleepers, who are faid to have flept in a cave from the tirae of Decius, to that of Theodo- dofius relating to Saints and Angels. 27^ fius, or as they reckon it 162 years ; arid who, to the confutation of fome who denied the' refurredion, awakened after that interval, and looked as freffi as ever. No better claim has St. George the patron of this country, or St. Chriftopher, who is faid to have: been twelve ieet, or twelve cubits high, and to have carried our Saviouf- over an ai-m of the fea upon his back. From the words Vera Icon, or the true image, meaning that of our Saviour, impreffed upon a handkerchief, they have made faint Veronica, and fuppofed this handkerchief to have been given to her by our Saviour himfelf. Several rniftakes have been made by fup pofing that words beginning with an S, were intended to exprefs the name of fome faint, and from the remainder of the word they have accordingly compofed the name of an imaginary perfon. Thus, in all probability, from Sorade, the name of a mountain, they have got the name of St. Orefte, foftening the found after the Italian manner; and what is more extraordinary, from a fragment of an infcription, which, in all probability was originally prafedus viarum, the S only re maining of the word prafedus, and viar of the word following they have made St. Viar; arid the Spaniards, in whofe country this in- fcription was found, fancying that this new B b 2 faint 372 The Hiftory of Opinions faint had diftinguiffied himfelf by many illuftri'' ous miracles, folicited pope Urban to do fome thing to his honour*. In England particu lar honour was paid to St. Amphibolus, which appears to have been nothing but a cleke that had belonged to St. Alban f. Befides particular feftivals for particular faints, the papifts have a feftival for the com memoration of all faints in general, left, as we may fuppofe, any ffiould have been omitted in their calendar. This was introduced by Gregory the fourth. Thefe new objeds of worffiip prefently en* groffed almoft all the devotion of the vul gar, who think they may make more free with thefe inferior divinities than they can with the fupreme being ; fo that the name of the true God, the Father, is feldom made ufe of by them ^. And thofe perfons who have attached themfelves to any particular « Middleton's Letters from Rome, p. 173. t lb. p. 174, 4 Mr. Brydotfe fays (Travels Vol. 2. p. 127) he remarked with how little rcfpedl the people of Sicily paffed the chapds that were dedicated to God. The/ hardly deigned to give a little inelinatioft of the head; but when they came near thofe of their favour ite Saints, they bowed down te the very ground, f^nt relating to Saints and Angels. 373 faint have become moft paffionately fond of them, and have been led to magnify their power to a degree which excites both our pity and indignation *, There is a book en titled tbe Conformity of St. Francis, intended to ffiew how nearly he approached to Chrift, in his birth, miracles, and all the particu lars of his life. But nothing was ever fo extraordinary as the accounts of Ignatius, by his followers the Jefuits ; and it is the more fo, as he lived in modern times. Some of the Jefuits have faid, it was no wonder that Mofes worked fo many mira cles, fince he had the name of God writ ten upon his rod ; or that the apoftles worked miracles, fince they fpake in the name of Chrift : whereas St. Ignatius had performed as many miracles as the apoftles, and more than Mofes, in his own name. Others of them have faid that only Chrift, the apoftle • Mr, Swinburne fays (Travels, p. 174) that from what he faw, he is apt to fufpeft, that the people in Spain trouble themfelves with few ferious thoughts on the fubjeft of religion ; and that, provided they can bring themfelves to believe that their favourite Saint looks upon them with an eye of attention, they take it for granted that, under his influence, they are freed from all apprehenfion of damnation in a future ftate, and indeed, he adds, from any great con cern about the moral duties of this life, B b 3 Peter, 374 ^^^ Hiftory of Opinions Peter, the bleffed Virgin, and God, could even contemplate die fandity of St. Igna tius. They alfo applied to him this paffage of fcripture, God bas in thefe laft times fpoken unto us by his Son*. Though the ftate of the catholic church has been improved in feveral refpeds by means of the reformation, in confequence of which feveral abufes were fo fully expofed, that little has fince been faid in defence of them; yet, it was a long time before any thing was done by authority to remedy this ffiocking abufe. The councU of Trent con nived at all thefe things. They did nothing to check the invocation of faints, and in deed by their decrees, the applying to them diredly for help and affiftance is encouraged, But not long ago a very confiderable refor mation of the calendar, in this refped, was made by pope Benedid, the 14th. Together with the worffiip of faints, that of angels alio gained much ground in this period. Pope Gregoiy the 4th appointed a feftival in honour of St. Michael, whifh, in deed, had long been obferved both in the Eaft, and in Italy, and was then almoft uni- < Bafnage, Hiftoire des eglifes reformees, vol. 3. p. 693 verfal relating to Saints and Angels. 275 verfal in the Latin church. So proper ob jeds of worffiip are angels confidered to be by the papifts, that they pray to them di redly, for the pardon of fin, and eternal life*. Of all the faints, it is only the virgin Mary that is addreffed in fuch a high ftyle of devotion as this. SECTION II. Part II. Of the Worfhip of the Virgin Mary. WITH fuch an aftoniffiing increafe of the veneration of faints and martyrs, (chriftians having firft prayed for them, then hoped, and prayed for their interceffion with God, till at laft they made dired addref fes to them) it will naturally be exped ed that their devotion to the virgin Mary would advance no lefs rapidly. Accordingly we find fuch particular attention paid to her, that both the Son, and the Father, are with many perfons alipoft entirely overlooked. In words, indeed, they pretend that the devo- • Bafn.ige, vol. i. p. 308. B b 4 tici^ 376 The Hiftory of Opinions tion addreffed to her falls ffiort of that which is paid to Grod, as it exceeds that which is paid to other faints, calling the devotion that IS paid to God by the name of Latria, that to the faints Dulia, and that to the blef fed virgin Hyperdulia; but thefe diftindions are only nominal, and, in fad, if there be any difference, it feems to be rather in fa vour of the virgin, as appears by their ufing ten Aves, or falutations of the virgin, for one Pater, or the Lord's prayer, and by that humble proftration with which they conti nually pay their devotion to her. • The prayers that are conftantly addreffed fo her, are fuch as thefe, " Mary, the mo- " ther of grace, the mother of mercy, do *' thou defend us from our enemies and re- " ceive us in the hour of death : Solve vincla " reis, pardon the guilty ; Prefer Lumen ctecis, " give light to the blind." Alfo Jure matris redemptori impera " that is, by the right of a mo- " ther command our redeemer," is an allowed mode of addrefs to her*. The pfalms which contain an addrefs to God are applied to the virgin Mary by Cardinal Bonaventure in his Pf alter of the bleffed virgin; and one of their greateft dodors declared, that all things tijat are God's are the virgin Mary's; be- • Purnet on the articles, p. 308, caufe relating to Saints and Angels. 377 caufe ffie is both the fpoufe and the mq- ther of God*. Let us now fee by what fteps, this pro grefs was made; for, ftrong as was the pro- penfity to this kind of idolatry, times, and proper circumftances, were requifite to bring it to this height. It is faid that Peter FuUo, a monk of Conftantinople, introduced the name of the virgin Mary into the public prayers about the year 480; but it is certain ffie was noc generaUy invoked in public cill a Ibng time after thatf- Juftinian, in giving thanks for his vidories, and praying, only fays, " we afic this alfo by the prayers of " the holy and glorified Mary, mother of " God, and always a virgin;" it being the cuftom at that time to make ufe of the interceffion of the virgin, but not to invoke her diredly. When it was thought proper to keep up the feftivals and ceremonies of the pagan religion, and only to change the objeds of them, the virgin Mary was fure to come in for her ffiare of thefe new honours, together with other faints. Accordingly we find that, whereas the pagans had ufed, in che beginning of Febru- • Hiftory of popery, vol. i. p. 164, t Sueur, A. D. 483. ary 373 The Hiftory of Opinions aiy to celebrate the feaft of Proferpine with burning tapers ; to divert them from this im piety, chriftians inftituted on the fame day, the feaft of Purification, in honour of the vir gin Mary, and called it Candlemas, from the lights that were ufed on the occafion. This inftitution is afcribed to pope Vigilius, about the year 536, though others fix it to the year 543. But before this time there had been a a feaft on that day called ( "¦"^irailn ) or tbe meeting, in commemoration of Simeon meet ing Mary on the day of her purification, and taking Jefus in his arms, when he was pre fented in the temple. But there was not then any invoking of the virgin, no crying Ave maris ftella, nor lighting wax candles in her honour*. The feaft of the immaculate concep-* tion was alfo added about the fame time \. Though we know few particulars of the life oi the virgin Mary, and nothing at all con cerning her death ; yet, it was fo much taken for granted, that flie went immediately into hea ven (though other faints were obliged to wait for the beatific vifion till the refurredion) that about the ninth century a feftival was infti tuted in commemoration of her affumpiion. * Sueur, A. D. 543. f Moih£im, vol, i, p, 466. The relating to Saints and Angels. 379 The worffiip of the virgin Mary alfo received new acceffions of folemnity and fuperftition in the tenth century. Towards the conclufion of it, the cuftom of celebrating maffes and abftain- ing from fleffi-meat in her honour on Saturdays was introduced ; and after this, what was called the leffer office of the virgin was confirmed by Ur ban in the following century. In this tenth cen tury alfo, the r of ary and crown ofthe bleffed vir gin were firft ufed. The former confifts of fifteen repetitions of the Lord's prayer, and one hun • dred and fifty falutations of the bleffed virgin ; and the latter, according to the different opi nions of learned men concerning the age of the virgin, confift, of fix or feven repetitions of the L.ord's prayer, and accordingly of fix or feven times ten falutations of the virgin*. Peter Damiani fpeaks of the leffer office of the virgin as a new form of devotion, infti tuted in his time, as alfo of Satu.*-day beino- confecrated to her honour; as Monday was to that of the angels §. Wc have feen that fome perfons, in the for mer period, entertained a fiifpicion that the virgin Mary might perhaps be born without original fin. In the progrefs of things, which I have been defcribing, thefe fufpicions were not likely to lofe ground. However, it was Moflieim, vol. 2. p. 22^ § Fleury, A. D. 1260. far 380 The Hiftery ef Opinions far from being the univerfal opinion, that ffie was born in any more favourable circum ftances than other perfons. The firft con troverfy on this fubjed was about the year 1 1 26, when the canons of Lyons ftaited the opinion of the immaculate couceptien, as it now began to be called, and would have eftabliffied an office for celebrating it, but Bernard op pofed it. The Thomifts, or the followers of Thomas Aquinas oppofed that opinion till the year i joo, when Scotus a Dominican or Corde lier, firft made it a probable opinion, and his followers afterwards made it an article of faith, whilft the Francifcans or Jacobines held a con trary opinion ; and the controverfy between them continued three hundred years, and in deed has not regularly been decided to this day. The univerfity of Paris declared for the im maculate conception, and there were feveral popes on both fides of the queftion. John the aad, favoured the Jacobines on account of the hatred he bore to the Cordeliers, who took the part of the emperor Lewis of Bavaria, whom he had excommunicated, Sixtus the fourth, who was a Cordelier, favoured the opinion which had always been maintained by his or der; and in the year 1474, he publifhed a bull, in which he prohibited any cenfure of the opinion of the immaculate conception as heretical, and confirmed the new fervice that had been made for the feftival of that conception. This relating to Saints and Angels. 381 This controverfy continued till the coun cil of Trent, which confirmed the conftitu tion of Sixtus the fourth, but without con-' demning the opinions of the Jacobines *- This did not leffen the controverfy ; che Dominicans ftill maintaining the immaculate conception, and the Francifcans, oppofing it. Spain was perfedly in a flame about it, of which che very fign pofts of chis day bear witnefs. For travellers fay, that, in go ing from Barcelona to Granada, to the name of the virgin Mary, is always added Sm, peccado concebida, conceived without fln f . At length Alexander the 5th, unable to fettle the controverfy in any other manner, in 1667, or dered that there ffiould be no more preach ing on the fubjed §, The devotion paid to the virgin is very little, if at all, leffened fince the reforma tion. At Einfilden, or Notre Dame des Eremites, * Hiftory of the council of Trent, p. 103. t Mr. Swinburne fays (Travels p. 190) I believe thera is fcarcely a houfe in Granada that has not over its door in large red charafters, ./t-ve Maria fu- rifflmafen peccado concebida. A military order in that country fwear to defend by word and deed the doc trine of the immaculate conception. The peafants near AHcant, inftead of fainting ftrangers in any other way, baul out, Ave Maria purifflma, to which they ex- pefl to be anfwered fin peccado concebida, or deo gratiai, Ib. p. vo<^. ) Hifloire dei Papes, vol. 5. p. 342^ in 384 The Hiftery of Opinions in Switzerland, fays Mr. Coxe*, crowds of pilgrims from all quarters refort to adore the virgin, and to prefent their offerings ; and it is computed that, upon a moderate calculation, their number amounts yearly to a hundred thoufand. The laft circumftance that I ffiall relate, concerning the virgin Mary, is, that in 1566, Ibme Flemings began to wear medals in their hats in her honour, reprefenting what was fuppofed to be a miraculous image of her at Hale in Hainault, and which they wore, to diftinguiffi them from the proteftants of that country. The pope bleffed and con fecrated thefe medals, granting a remiffion of the puniffiment of fin to thofe that wore them. And this gave a beginning to the confecra* tion of medals f. • Travels, p. 57. f Hiftoire des papes, vol. 5. p. lo. SECTION relating to Saints and Angels. 383 SECTION II. Part HI. Of tbe Worfhip of Images in this Period. WE have feen how, in the preceding period, a fondnefs for pidures and images had made fome progrefs among chrifti ans, in confequence of an undue venerarion for the perfons whom they reprefented. In the natural progrefs of things, images were treated with more and more refped, till it was imagined that the homage paid to the faint required the fiine to be paid to his image. It was even imagined, that he was fo far prefent to the image, as to commu nicate to it the powers of which he himfelf was poffeffed ; the image being a kind of body to the foul of the faint. This was the very ftate of things among the heathens. For they imagined that, after the forms of confecration, the invifible power of the God, to whom any image was dedi cated, was brought to refide in it, and to entitle it to the fame refped as if it had been the God himfelf in perfon. Ac length, therefore, chriftians came to be idolaiers in the fame grofs fenfe, in which the heathens had ever been fo ; being equally worftiippers both 384 The Hiflory of Opinions both of dead men, and of their images. But no great progrefs had been made in this bufi nefs at the dole of the laft period. At that time pidures and images in churches were chiefly ufed for the purpofe of ornament, for the coinmemoration of the faints to which they were dedicated, and the inftrudion of the ignorant. Gregory the great, encouraged the ufe of them, fo that the honour paid to them was much increafed towards the end of the fixth century, and more in the follow ing. And when Serenus, biffiop of Marfeilles, feeing the bad confequence of introducing thefe images, not only ordered that no perfon ffiould fall down before them, or pay them any homage, but that they ffiould be removed from the churches of his diocefs, Gregory difapproved of his condud, praifing his zeal ; but blaming him for breaking the images. He, therefore, only defired that they might not be worffiipped, but would have them preferved in the churches, on the principle, that thofe, who could not read might be inftruded by them *. But in little more than a century, the fee of Rome changed its dodrine on the fub jed, Gregory the fecond being ftremious for the wot ffiip of images. * Soeur, A, D, 5991. The relating to Saints and Angels. 385 The firft who openly efpoufed the dodrine of images in the Weft was pope Conftan tine, the predeceffor of Gregory the fecond; and there feems to have been as much of policy, as of religion, in the meafures which he took with refped to it. The emperor Philip- picus had taken an adive part in oppofition to images, and had ordered them to be removed from churches, in order to put a ftop to the idolatrous veneration that was beginning to be paid to them. This, the pope, who wiffied for an occafion of quarrelling with the em peror, in order to make himfelf independent of him, refented fo highly, that, in a fynod, held on the occafion, he not only condemned his. condud in that refped, but excommuni cated him, as a heretic, and pronounced him unworthy of the empire, authorifing and ex horting his fubjeds to revolt from him. This new herefy was called that of the Iconoclafls, or the breakers of images. By picking this quarrel with the emperor, this pope and his fucceffors afferted not only their independence of the emperors of Conftantinople, but their fuperiority to them. Gregory the fecond, who fucceeded Con ftantine, and the emperor Leo Ifauricus, were at continual variance on this fubjed of images; the latter pulling them down from the church es, and the former excommunicating him for C c it. 386 Tbe Hiftory of Opinions it, and alio pronouncing his fubjeds abfolved of their allegiance to him, and forbidding them to pay him tribute. Something farther was done in favour of images by Stephen the third, or rather tlie fourth, in oppofition of Conftantine the fe cond, whom he had depofed, and who had called a fynod in which the worffiip of ima ges had been condemned. This Stephen call ed another fynod, in which, another inno vation in chriftian worffiip was made, or at leaft authorized, viz. the worffiipping of God himfelf by an image. For they con demn the execrable and pernicious decree of the former fynod, by which the condition of the immortal God was made worfe than that of men. " It is lawful," fay they, " to fet " up ftatues of mortal men, both that we " may not be ungrateful, and that we may- " be excited to imitate their virtuous adi- " ons; and ffiall it not then be lawful to " fet up the image of God, whom we ought " always, if it were poffible, to have before «' our eyes ?*" On this poor pretence was the authority of the fecond commandment, which exprefsly for- * Platina de vita Stephani III. bid* relating to Saints and Angels. 387 bids the worffiipping ofthe true God by images, entirely fet afide. This is fo palpable a con tradidion of the dodrine of the fcriptures, that the- fecond commandment is entirely left out in feveral of the copies of the ten command ments among the papifts, and one ofthe other i.s fpllt into two, for the fake of preferving the number ten, and to hide this falfification from the common people. The incenfing of ftatues, which had been a conftant heathen pradice, is faid to have been introduced into the chriftian worffiip of images by Leo the third. The worfliip of images had many fludu- ations in the Eaft, fome of the emperors favouring it and others difcouraging it; but at length the proper adoration of them was fully eftabliffied in the fecond council of Nice, held in the year 787, under the em peror Conftantine Porphyrogenita, or rather his mother Irene, a moft ambitious and vi olent woman. This, which was denominated the fecond Nicene council, decreed that ima ges ffiould be made according to the form of the venerable crofs ; meaning what we call crucifixes, or images of our Saviour upon the crofs ; that they might be made of any materials, that they ffiould be dedicated, and put into churches, as well as upon walls, Cc 2 ii^ 388 The Hiftory of Opinions in private houfes, and upon the public roads. It was appointed in this council, that, in the firft place, images ffiould be made of our Saviour, in the next place of the virgin Mary (called by them the immaculate mother of God) then of the venerable angels, and laftly of aU faints, that the honour of ado ration may be rendered to them; not, how ever, that of Latria, which they fay belongs only to the divine nature, but, "as we ap- " proach with reverence the type of the ve- " nerable and vivifying crofs, and the holy " evangelifts, with oblations, perfumes, and " lights. For the honour that is done to " the image is refleded upon the prototype, " and he who adores the image adores the " fubjed of it." They add, as ufual, " Let " all who think otherwife be excommuni- " cated." It is to be obferved that no fta tues, or even bafs reliefs, were permitted by this council. Thefe were not yet admitted into churches, as they were afterwards*. So paf fionately fond were the Greeks of this fpecies of worffiip, that they efteemed this fecond council of Nice as the moft fignal bleffing derived to them from the interpofition of heaven; and in commemoration of it infti tuted an anniverfary feftival, called the feaft ef orthodoxy •\. • Sueur, A. D. 787. f Molheim, vol, 2. p, ijo, ' The relating to Saints and Angels. 389 The Fathers of this council expreffed a deteftation of images reprefenting the deity, though they had the fandion of pope Ste phen's fynod in the Latin church ; and though this pradice was not foon general, even in the Weft, at length pidures and images, even of God the Father and of the Trinity became common. The council of Trent fa vours them, provided they be decently made; diredions are given concerning the ufe of images of the Trinity in the public offi ces; and fuch as held it unlawful to have fuch images were exprefsly condemned at Rome in 1690*. In the Weft, notwithftanding the favour ffiewn to images by the popes, the worfliip of them did not go down fb well as it did in the Eaft, owing to the oppofition that •was made to it by Charlemaigne, He call ed a councU at Franckfort in 794, in which the fecond council of Nice wai condemned. Images, however, were allowed to be kept in churches, for the purpofe of ornament and inftrudion, but worfhip was forbidden to be paid to them. The fame difpofition, fo hoftile to image worffiip, continued to in fluence the fucceffors of Charlemaigne. For we find that, in a fynod held at Paris, by * Burnet on the Aiticles, p. 293. C c 3 order 390 The Hiftory of Opinions order of Lothaire, in 825, on the fubjed of images, it was ordered as before, to keep them, but not to worffiip them. Another council was held at Paris by Louis the meek, in 844, in which the fame decrees were re peated. But the greateft oppofition to the worfliip of images in this age, was made by Clau dius, biffiop of Turin, a man of diftinguiflied abilities and zeal, and from whom the Wal denfes, who conrinued to oppofe this, and almoft every other corruption of the church of Rome, feem to have had their origin. This eminent biffiop not only wrote with great earneftnefs and force upon the fub jed; but perceiving how violently the com mon people went into the worffiip of ima ges, and that he could not by any other means check the progrefs of it, he ordered all the images and crofTcs in his diocefs to be de- moliffied. For this condud he was gene raUy blamed, even in France, and Germany, but not for oppofing the worffiip wliich was then paid to images*. About the fame time Agobard, biffiop of Lyons, wrote excellently againft the worffiip of images, and alfo againft dedicating churches to any but Godf. • Sueur, A. D. 827. f lb. The relating to Saints and Angels. 391 The worffiip of images, did not continue without fome interruption, afrer the fecond council of Nice, even in the Eaft. But as one woman, Irene, had procured their wor ffiip to be ordered at that time ; fo another woman, Theodora, governing her fon Michael the third, procured their final eftabliffiment in 842. But the Greeks never had any ima ges befides thofe on plain furfaces, or pidures: they never approved of ftatues. Notwith ftanding the oppofition to the worffiip of ima ges by the emperors of the Weft, yet ac length, through the influence of the Roman pontiffs, even the Galilean clergy began to pay certain kinds of religious homage to ima ges, towards the end of the ninth century, and in this they were followed by the Germans and other nations*. It has been afferted, thac properly fpeak ing, worfliip never was paid co images by chriftians, but that when they bowed before them, they only addreffed themfelves to the faints whom they reprefent. But that their regards do terminate in the image itfelf, as much as they do in any living man, whom they fliould addrefs, is evident, not only from a variety of confiderations, fuggefted by the hiftory of image v/orffiip, but from the ac- • Mofheim, vol. 2. p. 151. C c 4 know led gment 392 The Hiftory of Opinions knowledgment of thofe who pradice it; which puts it beyond all doubt, that they fuppofe a real power to refide in the image itfelf, juft as they fuppofe the fpirit of a man to be in a man. In the eleventh century it was debated in the Greek church, whether there was an in herent fandity in the images of the faints ; and though it was determined in a council, that the images of Chrift and of the faints did not partake " of the nature of the di- " vine Saviour, or of the faints ; " yet it was maintained that they were " enriched with a " certain communication of divine grace*. The Latin church has by no means been behind that of the Greeks in this refped. For, if we judge by the pradice of the church of Rome, and even by fome of their acknow ledgments, it will be evident that a proper Latria, or fuch worffiip as they themfelves think is due to God, is alfo to be given to images. Thofe who write in favour of it frequently cite this hymn, crux ave, fpes unica, '-auge piis juftitiam, reifque dona veniam ; that is, " hail crofs, our only hope, increafe " righteoufnefs in the godly, and pardon the 'f guilty." It is exprefsly faid in the Pon- • Molheim, vol. 2, p. 329. tifical relating to Saints and Angels. 393 tifical that Latria is due to the crofs. This favours the opinions of thofe who fay that Latria is to be given to all thofe images, to the originals of which it is due, as to Chrift j as the Dulia is to be given to the images of the faints, and the Hyper-dulia to thofe of the virgin Maryf, The council of Trent only decreed that due worfhip fhould be gi ven to iin.ages, but did not define what that due worffiip is. Among ads of worffiip, they reckon the oblation of incenfe, and lights ; and the rea fon given by them for all this, is, becaufe the honour of the image, or type, paffes to the original, or prototype ; fo that dired wor ffiip was to terminate in the image itfelf. And Durandus paffed for little lefs than a heretic, becaufe he thought that images were worffiipped only improperly ; becaufe at their prefence we call to mind the objed repre fented by them, which we worffiip by means of the image, as if the objed itfelf was be fore us, Thomas Aquinas, and many others after him, exprefsly teach that the fame ads and degrees of worffiip which are due to the ori ginal, are alfo due to the image. They think f Burnet on the Articles, p. 29;. that 394 "^^^ Hiftory of Opinions that an image has fuch a relation to the ori ginal, that both ought to be worffiipped by the fame ad ; nay that to worfliip the image with any other kind of ad, is to worffiip it on its own account, which they think is idol atry. On the other hand, thofe who ad here to the Nicene dodrine, fay that the image is to be worffiipped with an inferior degree of homage ; and that otherwife idol atry muft follow ; fo that which ever of the two fchemes be adopted, idolatry muft be the confequence, with fome other of the ad vocates for this worfliip*. * S P C T I O N 11. Part IV. Of the refped paid to Relics in this peHod, IF fo much refped was paid to the images oi faints, we ffiall not wonder that even more account was made of their relics, which bear a ftill nearer relation to them ; and jf an invifible virtue, viz. all the power of the faint, coqld be fuppofed to accompany every feparate image of any particular faint, they could not hefitate to afcribe the fame to eve- • Burnet on the Articles, p. 294, ry relating to Saints and Angels. 295 ry relic of him, even the cloth or rags that had belonged to him, and the very earth on which he had trod. A fuperftitious refped for relics, and efpe cially for the true crofs of Chrift, is obferved to have advanced much in the fixth century ; and many perfons then boafted of having in their pofleffion the real wood of that crofs. And when image-worffiip began, that of re lics followed, as an acceffary. The enffirin- ing of relics (in his zeal for which Ju lian IV, about the year 620 diftinguiffied himfelf) made the moft excellent fort of images, and they were thought to be the beft prefervative poffible, both for foul and body. No prefents were confidered as of more value than relics ; and it was an eafy thing for the popes to furniffi the world plentifully with them, efpecially after the difcovery of the Catacombs, which was a fubterraneous place where many of the Romans depofited their dead. It is obferved by hiftorians, that the de mand for relics was exceedingly great in the ninth" century, and that the clergy employed great dexterity in fatisfying that demand. Tn general, fome perfons pretended to have been informed in a dream, where fuch and fuch relics were to be found, and the next day they 396 The Hiftory of Opinions they never failed to find them. As the moft valued relics came from the Eaft, the Greeks made a gainful traffick with the Latins for legs, arms, flcuUs, jaw-bones, &c. many of them certainly of pagans, and fome of them not human ; and recourfe was fometimes had to violence and theft, in order to get poffeffion of fuch valuable treafure *. We may form fome idea of the value that was put upon fome relics in that fuperftitious and igr.orant age from the following circumftance, and this is only one inftance of great numbers that mijjlit be colleded from hiftory. -Boleflas, a king of Poland, wUling to ffiew his grati tude to Otho the third emperor of Germany, who had ereded his duchy into a kingdom, made him a prefent of an arm of St. Adalbert in a filver cafe. The emperor was far from flighting the prefent, but placed it in a new church which he had built at Rome in honour of this Adalbert, He alfo built a monument in honour of the fame faint §, The greateft traffick for relics was during the Crufades, and that many impofitions were pradifed in this bufinefs, was evident from the very pretenfions themfelves ; the fame thing, for example, the fkull of the fame * Mofheim, vol. 2. p, 141, § Sueur, A, D. I'ooo. perfon relating to Saints and Angels. 397 perfon being to be feen in different places, and more wood of the true crofs of Chrift, than, they fay, would make a ffiip. In this the Greeks had the fame advantage that the Romans had by means of the Cata combs, which contained a fufficient quantity of bones, to which it was eafy to give the names of celebrated chriftian martyrs, and, at a diftance from Rome no enquiry could be made concerning them. Befides all this, a happy method was thought of by Gregory the firft, or fome other perfon of that age, to multiply the virtue of relics, without multiplying the relics themfelves : For inftead of giving the relic of any faint, he contented himfelf with putting into a box a piece of cloth which was called brandeum^ which had only touched the relics. It is faid, that in the time of pope Leo, fome Greeks having doubted whether fuch relicks as thefe were of any ufe ; the pope, in order to convince them, took a pair of fciffars, and that on cutting one of thefe cloths, blood came out of it f . We cannot wonder at the great demand for relics, when we confider the virtues that were afcribed to them by the priefts and friars who f Bafnage Hiftoire des eglifes reformeei-, vol. i. p. 305. were 398 The Hiftory ef Opinions were the venders of them in that ignorant age. They pretended that they had power to for tify againft temptations, to increafe grace and merit, to fright away devils, to ftill winds and tempefts, to fecure from thunder, lightning, blafting, and all fudden cafualties and mif- fortunes; to ftop aU infedious diforders, and to cure as many others as any mountebank ever pretended to do. Who that had money would chufe to be without fuch powerful pre- fervatives ? The Fathers of the council of Trent ap pointed relics to be venerated, but, with their ufual caution, they did not determine the degree of it. This great abufe was effedually re moved in all proteftant churches at the re formation, though many other things equally near to the firft principles of chriftianity, were left CO che fagacity and zeal of a later period. Among the catholics the refped for relics ftill continues, though, with the general de- creafe of fuperftition, this muft have abated in fome meafure. The holy land is ftill a great mait for thefe commodities. Hafel- quift fays*, that the inhabitants of Bethlehem chiefly live by them, making models of the holy fepulchre, croffes, &c. Of thefe there was * Travels, p. 149. fo relating to Saints and Angels. 299 fo large a ftock in Jerufalem, that the pro curator told him he had to the amount of fifteen thoufand piafters in the magazine of the convent. An incredible quantity of them^ he fays, goes yearly to the Roman catholic countries in Europe, but moft to Spain and Portugal. Many are bought by the Turks, who come yearly for thefe commodities. Tbe THE H I S T O H Y OF THE CORRUPTIONS O F CHRISTIANITY. PART V. The Hiftory ef Opinions concerning the State of ihe Dead. INTRODUCTION. I THINK that I have fufficiently proved in my Difquifttions relating io matter and fpirit, that, in the fcriptures, the ftate of death is reprefented as a ftate of abfolute infenfibi lity, being oppofed to life. The dodrine of the diftindion between foul and body, as two different fubftances, the one material and the other immaterial, and fo independent of one another, that the latter may eveq die and pe riffi, and the former, inftead of lofing any thing, be rather a gainer by the cataftrophe, was originally a dodrine of the oriental phi lofophy. concerning the State of the Dead. 401 lofophy, which afterwards fpread into the wef tern part of the world. But it does not ap pear that it was ever adopted by the general- lity ofthe Jews, and perhaps not even by the more learned and philofophical of them, fuch as Jofephus, till after the time of our Savi our ; though Philo, and fome others, who re fided in Egypt, mighc have adopted thac ce- net in an earlier period. Though a diftindion is made in the fcrip tures between the principle, or feat, of thought in man, and the parts which are deftined to other fundions ; and in the New Teftament that principle may fometimes be fignified by the term foul, yet there is no inftance, either in the Old, or New Teftament, of this foul being fuppofed to be in one place and the body in ano ther. They are always conceived to go toge ther, fo that the perceptive and thinking power could not, in fad, be confidered by the fa cred writers as any other than :a property of a living man, and therefore as what ceafed of courfe when the man was dead, and could not be revived but with the revival of the body. Accordingly, we have no promife of any reward, or any threatening of puniffiment, after death, but that which is reprefented as taking place at the general refurredion. And it is D d obfervable 402 The Hiftory of Opinions obfervable that this is never, in the fcriptur^s> called, as with us, the refurredion of the body (as if the foul, in the mean time, was in fome other place) but always the refurredion ef ihe dead, that is, of the man. If, therefore, there be any intermediate ftate, in which the foul alone exifts, confcious of any thing, there is an abfolute filence concerning it in the fcrip tures ; death being always fpoken of there as a ftate of reft, of filence, and of darknefs, a place where tbe wicked ceafe from troubling, but where the righteous cannot praife God. This is the fum of the argument from the fcriptures, and comes in aid of the arguments from reafon and the nature of things, which ffiew the utter incapacity of any connedion be tween fubftances fo totally foreign to each other, as the material and immaterial principles arc always defcribed to be; things that have no common property whatever, and therefore muft be incapable of all mutual adion. I think I have ffiewn that, let the immaterial principle be defined in whatever manner it is poffible to define it, the fuppofition of it ex plains no one phasnomenon in nature; there being no more conceivable connedion between the powers of thought, and this immaterial, than between the fame powers, and a material principle ; and for any thing that appears, our ignorance concerning the nature of this prin ciple concerning the State of the Dead. 403 ciple ffiould lead us to fuppofe that it may, juft as wdl as chac ic may not, be compatible with matter. All that can be faid, is, that vie can fee no relation between the principle of fenfation and thoughCj and any fyftem of matter ; but nei ther do we perceive any relation which matter bears to gravity, and various other properties, with which we fee that it is, in fad, endued. The fame great being, therefore, that has endued matter with a variety of powers, with which it fcems to have no natural connedion, may have endued the living human brain with this power oi fenfation and thought, though we are not able to perceive hoiv this power ffiould refult from matter fo modified. And fince, judging by experience, thefe powers al ways do accompany a certain ftate of the brain, and are never found except accompa nying that ftate ; there is juft the fame rea fon, why we ffiould fay that they neceffarily inhere in, and belong to the brain in that ftate, as that eledricity is the neceffary property of glafs, and magnetifm of the load ftone. It is conftant concomitancy, and nothing elfe, that is the foundation of our conclufions in both cafes alike. There is not, in fad, any one phasnomenon in favour of the opinion of the foul being a fe- D d 2 parace 404 The Hiflory of Opinions parate fubftance from the body. During life and health, the fentient powers always ac company the body, and in a temporary cef- fation of thought, as in a fwoon, apparent drowning, &c. there never was an inftance, in which it was pretended that the foul had been in another place, and came back again when the body was revived. In all thefe cafes, the powers of fenfation and thought are, to all appearance, as much fufpended, as thofe of breathing and moving ; and we might juft as well inquire where the latter had been in the interval of apparent death, as where the former had been at the fame tune. There is, indeed, an imperfed mental pro- cefs going on during fleep ; but this feems to be in proportion to the imperfedion of the fleep ; for when it is perfedly found, and the brain probably completely at reft, there is no more fenfation or thought than during a fwoon or apparent drowning. Or, if there had been fufficient evidence of uninterrupted thought during the foundeft fleep, ftill it might be fuppofed to depend upon the powers of life, which were ftill in the body, and might keep up fome motion in the brain. The only proof of the power of thought not depending upon the body, in this cafe, would be the foul being afterwards confcious t« conceming the ^tate of the Dead. 405 to itfelf, that it had been in one place, while the body had been in another. Whereas in dreams we never have any idea but that of our whole-felves having been in fome different place, and in fome very different ftate, from that in which we really are. Upon che whole, therefore, there can be no more rea fon to think that the principle of thought be longs to a fubftance diftind from the body, than that the principle of breathing and of mov ing belongs to another diftind fubftance, or than that the principle of found in a bell belongs to a fubftance diftind from the bell itfelf, and that it is not a power or property, depending upon the ftate into which the parts of it are occafionally put. How men came to imagine that the cafe was otherwife, is not eafy to fay, any more than how they came to imagine that the fun, moon, and ftars were animated, and the pro per objeds of adoration. But when once, in confequence of any train of thinking, they could fuppofe that the effeds of the heavenly bodies, and of the other inanimate parts of nature, were owing to invifible powers re fiding in them, or to fomething that was not the objed of their external fenfes, they might eafily imagine man to have a principle of a fi milar kind; and then it was eafy enough to ad vance one ftep farther, and to fuppofe that D d 3 this 4o6 The Hiftory of Opinions this invifible principle was a thing independ-r ent of the body, and might fubfift when that wa.s laid in the grave. It was a long time, however, before men got quite clear of the idea of the neceffary connedion between the corporeal and the fpiritual part of man. For it was long ima gined that this invifible part of man accom panied the body in the place of its inter ment, whence came the idea of the defcent of ihe foul, ffiade, or ghoft, into fome fub terraneous place; though afterwards, by at tending to the fubjed, end refining upon it, philofophers began to think that this invifi ble part of man, having nothing grofs or heavy in its compofition, might afcend rather than defcend, and fo hover in fome higher region of the atmofphere. And chriftians, having an idea of a local heaven, fomcwhere above die clouds, and of God and Chrift, refiding there, they came in time to think that the fouls of good men, and efpecially of martyrs, might be taken up thither, or into fome place adjoining to it, and wliertf t:hey might remain till the refurredion. SECTION concerning the State of the Dead, 407 SECTION I, Of the Opinions concerning the Dead till the Time of Auftin. IN the fecond and third centuries, thofe who believed that there was a foul diftind from the body, fuppofed that after death it went to fome place under ground; but as this is not the dodrine of the fcriptures, it couldnothave been the general opinion of chrif tians at the firft; and how long they kept to the genuine dodrine of revelation, and the didates of reafon and common fenfe, in this refped, cannot be determined. It ap pears, however, that there were fome chrifti ans who did fo, and that in Arabia this dodrine was held by fome fo late as the third century. For we are informed that they maintained that the foul periffies with the body, but that it wUl be raifed to life again, by the power of God, at the refurredion. It is faid, however, that they were induced to abandon this opinion by the arguments and influence of Origen*, It was in Arabia alfo, that we find the opinion of Chrift having no proper divinity * Eufebii Hift. lib. 6. cap. 37. vol. 1. p. 299. F)d4 of 4o8 The Hiftory ef Opinions oi his own, but only that of the Father re fiding in him, and that he had no exiftence at all before his appearance in this world. This opinion is likewife faid to have been confuted by Origen*. Dupin fays, that Tatian alfo held the opinion of the Arabians with refped to the foul§. Ir is to be regretted that we have no far ther accounts concerning thefe chriftians, Ec clefiaftical hiftorians call them philofophers ; but the fyftem which they held was funda mentally different from that of any other philofophy in thofe times. It cannot, how ever, be fuppofed that this opinion was pe culiar to thefe people. The Jewiffi chrifti ans, at leaft, muft have retained it, and probably as long as they continued to fubfift. But we have no diftind account of their opinions, or of any thing relating to them. They were not writers themfelves, and thofe that were had little intercourfe with them, or value for them. Whenever the Jews received the opinion of the feparate exiftence of the foul, it was in the imperfed ftate above mentioned. For they held that there was a place below the earth, • Eufebii Hift. lib. 6. cap. 33. p. 297. § Bibliotheca Patrum. vol. i.'p. 55. which concerning the State of the Dead. 409 which they called paradife, where the fouls of good men remained ; and they diftinguiffied this from the upper paradife, where they were to be after the refurredion. The chriftians borrowed their opinion from the Jews, and fuppofed that Hades, or the place of fouls, was divided into two manfions, in one of which the wicked were in grief and torment, and in the other the godly were in joy and happinefs, both of them expeding the ge neral refurredion*. Into this general receptacle of fouls, it was the opinion of the early Fathers, that Chrift defcended, to preach ; they fuppofing thefe to be the fpirits in prijon mentioned by the apoftle Peter, i Pet. iii. 19. And as it is faid in the gofpel that he came not to call the righteous, but Jinners to repentance, fome of them fuppofed either that he did not give much attention to the good, or that they did not attend to him; for they fay that, whereas he brought away many of the wicked, he left thofe of the good where they were. But perhaps the original tradition was, that in confequence of converting them, he re moved them from the place where the wicked were confined, to this fubterraneous paradife, where the fouls of the righteous remain, in • Hiftory of the apoftles creed, p. 198, &c. joyful 410 The Hiftory ef Opinions joyful expedation of a happy refurredion. Others, however, thought that our Saviour preached fo effedually, as to empty the whole of this limbus patrum (for fo alfo they called the precinds within which thefe anti ent patriarchs were confined) and carried all the fouls with him into heaven*. But this muft have been a late opinion, becaufe it was not fuppofed in the time of the Fa thers, that the fouls of good men in gene ral would be with Chrift; and enjoy what was then called tbe beatific vifion of God, tiU the refurredion. This opinion is clearly ftated by Novatian, for he fays, " Nor are the regions below the " earth void of powers {poteftatibus) regularly " difpofed and arranged; for there is a place " whither the fouls of the righteous and of the *' wicked are led, expeding the fentence of " a future judgment-)-," This was evidently the uniform opinion of chriftian writers for many centuries after this time. The article concerning the defcent of Chrift into hell, in what we call the apoftles creed, is not mentioned by any writer before Ruffinus, who found it inhis own church at Aquileiaj • Burnet on the articles, p, .71, t De trinitate, cap. i.p, 5, but concer-ning the State of the Dead. 41 1 but ic was noc chen known at Rome, or in the Eaft. At firft alfo, the expreffion was y-cRaji^una, buc in the CTCcd of Athanafius, made in the fixth or feventh century, it was changed into Hades. But even then, it feems to have been put for burial, there being no other word expreffing the burial of Chrift in that creed *. But in the declenfion of the Greek, and chiefly in the Latin tongue, the term hades, or hell, began to be applied to the manfion of wick ed fouls ; fome of the Fathers imagining hades to be in the centre of the earth, others under the earth, and fome being uncertain about its fituation. The high opinion chac foon began co be entertained of the heroilm and merits of che mairyrs, led chriftians Co fuppofe chat a pre ference would be given Co their fouls after death. For while the fouls of ordinary chrif tians were to wait their doom in fome intermedi ate ftate, or to pafs to cheir final blifs through a purgation of fire, it came to be the general belief that martyrs were admitted to the im mediate prefence of God and of Chrift, the fire of martyrdom having purged away all their fins at once. It was che opinion of moft of che early Fa thers chac che world was to be deflroyed by * Burnet on the Articles, p. 69. file. 412 The Hiftory ef Opinions fire, and alfo that all men were to pafs through this ffie, that the good would be purified by it, and the wicked confumed. The former part of this dodrine they might learn from the apoftle Peter; but it does not clearly appear whence they derived the latter part of it. It is evident, however, that they had no proper idea of the eternity of hell torments. And it was the opinion of Origen, and after him of Gregory Nazianzen, and probably of others of the Fathers, that the wicked, after being thus puniffied according to their deferts, would come out purified, and obtain mercy *. Ambrofe thought that the wicked would re main in this fire, which was to confume the world, but how long does not appear f , Hi lary maintained, that after the day of judg ment all muft pafs through the fire, even the virgin Mary herfelf, in order to purify them from their fins. This opinion was the firft idea of a dodrine of Purgatory, which was fo great a fource of gain to the monks and priefts in after-ages. Auftin fpeaks very doubtfully with refped to the dead. He fometimes feems very pofi tive for two ftates only; but as he afferted the laft probatory fire, fo he feems to have thought that good fouls might fuffer fome grief in their • Sueur, A. D. 389. f Ib. A, D. 397- fequeftered concerning the State of the Dead. 413 fequeftered ftate, before the laft day, on account of fome of their paft fins, and that they might rife to their proper confummation by degrees. See his fentiments on this fub jed pretty much at large in his firft queftion to Dulcidius * ; where he inclines to think that they who have faith in Chrift, but love che world too much, will be faved but fo as by fire; whereas chey who, chough they profefs faith in Chrift, yet negled good works, wUl fuffer eternally. In his treatife De Civitate Deif, he does not feem difpofed to contro vert the opinion of thofe who fay that all will be faved at laft, through the interceffion of the faints. The Gnoftics are faid to have maintained that the greateft part of mankind would be annihilated at the day of judgment, which was probably the fame thing that was meant by thofe who faid that they would be confumed in the fire that was to deftroy the world. • Opera vel. iv. p. 658. f Lib. xxi. cap. 18. SECTION 414 ^** Hiftory of Opinion J' SECTION II. Of tbe Opinions conceming the State ef tbe Dead, from the Time of Auftin till the Refor mation. IN the laft period we have feen fomething like the doftrine of Purgatory, but it is fo exceedingly unlike the prefent doftrine of the church of Rome on that fubjed, that We can hardly imagine that it could even ferve as a foundation for it. The antient Fathers only thought that when this world would be de- ftroyed by fire, that fire would purify the good, and deftroy the wicked.' Whereas, this purgatory is fomething that is fuppofed ta take place immediately after death, to affed the foul only, and to terminate fooner or later, according to circumftances, efpecially the pains that are , taken in favour of the dead, by the maffes and other good offices of the living, as well as by their own benefadions and bequefts for religious ufes before their death. On the whole, therefore, it looks as if thi* dodrine of purgatory had been built upon fome other ground; and nothing is fo likely to furniffi a ground work for it, as the notions of the hea thens concerning the State of the Dead. 41 5 thens concerning the ftate of fouls in the regions below, which were always fuppofed capable of being brought back again. Alfo the po pular opinions of the northern nations con cerning the ftate of fouls after death were, in many cafes, fimilar to thofe of the Greeks and Romans; ani fuch opinions as thefe would not eafily quit their hold of the com mon people on their converfion to chrifti anity; and being held together with the opi nion of the Fathers above mentioned, the prefent dodrine of purgatory might, in time, be the produce of both. It is generally faid that the foundation of the prefent dodrine was laid by Gregory the great, who lived in the fixth century, about 160 years after Auftin. But his opinions on the fubjed were very little different from thofe of Auftin himfelf, and of others be fore him, of which an account has been given in the former period. Gregory, how ever, did fuppofe that there was a purgatory to expiate the flight offences of which very good men might be guilty ; but he does not fay that this puniffiment would always be by means of fire, nor did he fuppofe this expiation to be made in the fame place, but fometimes in the air, and fometimes in finks, &c. or places full of filth ^d nafti- ncfs. He alfo fpeaks of fome good men, whofe 41 6 The Hiftory of Opinions whofe fouls went immediately to heaven. BuC in one way he certainly did greatly promote the dodrine, viz. by the many idle ftories which he propagated about what happened to particular fouls after they had left their bodies, as concerning the foul of king The odoric, which was boiled in the pot of Vulcan *. Narrow, however, as thefe foundations were, the monks were very induftrious in building upon them ; finding it the moft profitable bufinefs they were ever engaged in; and about the tenth century the prefent fyftem feems to have been pretty well compleated. For then not even the beft of men were fuppof ed to be exempted from the fire of pur gatory; and it was generally reprefented as not lefs fevere than that of hell itfelf. But then fouls might always be delivered from it by the prayers and maffes of the living, which prayers and maffes might. always be had upon certain pecuniary confiderations ; arid the fa bles and fiditious miracles that were propa gated to fecure the belief of this new kind of future ftate, were innumerable. Thomas Aquinas fays, that the place of purgatory is near to that in which the damned • Sueur, A. D. 594. are concerning the State of the Dead. 417 are puniffied, that the pains of purgatory ex ceed all the pains of this life, that fouls are not puniffied by dasmons, but by divine juftice only, though angels or dasmons might condud them to the place. By the pains of purgatory, he fays, venial fins are expi ated even quod culpam, or from the guilt of them, and that fome are delivered fooner than othsrs*. The prefent dodrine of the church of Rome on the fubjed of purgatory is, that every man is liable both to temporal and eternal puniffi ment for his fins ; that God, on account of the death and interceffion of Chrift, does indeed pardon fin as to its eternal puniffi ment; but that the finner is ftill liable to temporal puniffiment, which he muft expiate by ads of penance and forrow in this world, together with fuch other fufferings as God ffiall think fit to lay upon him f . But if he does not expiate thefe in this life, there is a ftate of fufferings and mifery in the next world, where the foul is to bear the temporal puniffi ment of its fin, which may continue longer or ffiortcr till the day of judgment; and to the • Summa, vol. 3. p. 446. &c. f Petrarch fays, I pray God every day to make my pur gatory in this world. Memoires pour la vie de Plutarch, voL iii. p, 2-7. E e ffiortenlng 41 8 Tbe Hiftory of Opinions fliortening of this puniffiment, prayers and. works of fupererogation here on earth, or the interceffions of the faints in heaven, but above all things, the facrifice of the mafs, are of great efficacy. This is the dodrine of the church of Rome, as afferted in the councils of Florence, and of Trent*. Before this time, the opinions concerning purgatory were exceedingly various, with re fped to the place of purgatory, the nature of the pains of ir, and indeed every thing be longing to it. Eckius maintained that it was in the botcom of the fea. Others would have it to be in mount Etna, Vefuvius, or fome other burning mountain. Sir Thomas Moore fays, that the puniffiment will be only by fire, but Fiflier his fellow fufferer, by fire andj by water. Lorichius fays neither by fire nor wa ter, but by the violent convulfions of hope and fea.--. Fiffier maintained that the execu tioners would be the holy angels, but Sir Thomas Moore thought they would be the devils. Some again thought that only venial fins are expiated in purgatory, but others that mortal fins are expiated there likewife. Dcht nis the Carthufian, thought that the pains of purgatory would continue to the end of the world, but Dominicus a Soto limited it to ten • Bnrnet on the articles, p. 269, years, concerning the State of ihe Dead. 419 years, and others made the time to depend on the number of maffes, &c. that ffiould be faid on their behalf, or on the will of the pope. Thomas Aquinas, as has been feen above, makes the pains of purgatory to be as violent as thofe of hell ; whereas, the Rhe- mifts fay that fouls are not in a bad condition there, and Durandus, holding a middle opi nion, gives them fome intermiffion from their pains on fundays and holidays. Bede tells a long ftory of a Northumberland man, who after he died returned to life again, and faid that he had paffed through the middle of a long and large valley, which had two lakes in it, in one of which fouls were tormented with heat, and in the other with cold; and that when a foul had been fo long in the hot lake that it could endure no longer, it would leap into the cold one ; and when that became intolerable, it would leap back again. This uncertainty was fo great, that the whole dodrine muft have been difcredited, if it had not been for the profits which the popes, the priefti, and the friars, made of it*. The living being, by means of this doc trine of purgatory, deeply interested in the fate ofthe dead, and having them very much at their mercy, the miftaken compaffion and • Staveley's Rogiifh Horfeleach, p, 205. E e 2 piety 4io The Hiftory ef Opinions piety of many perfons could not fail to be excited in their favour. Before the tenth cen tury, it had been cuftomary in many places, to put up prayers on certain days for the fouls that were confined in purgatory, but thefe were made by each religious fociety for its own members and friends ; but in this cen tury a feftival was inftituted by Odilo biffiop of Clugny, in remembrance of all departed fouls, and it was added to the Latin calendar towards the conclufion of the century*. The Greeks, though in moft refpeds they had fuperftitions fimilar to thofe of the Latins, yet they never adopted their notions con cerning purgatory. At the time that this opinion was formed in the Weft, the two churches had very little intercourfe with each ' other ; and befides, the Greeks were fo ahen ated from the Latins, that the reception of it by the latter would have rendered the for mer more averfe to it. According to the dodrine of purgatory, the moment that any foul is releafed from that place, it is admitted into heaven, to the pre fence of God and of Chrift, and made as hap py as it can be in an unembodied ftate, whichk *^ Molheim, vol. 3. p. 223. was concerning tbe State of the Dead. 421 was contrary to the opiruon of the early Fa thers, viz. that all fouls continued in hades until the refurredion, or at moft that an ex ception was made in fevour of the martyr*. However, this dodrine of purgatory, and the opinion ofthe efficacy of prayers, and of maf fes, to procure complete happinefs for tbofe who v/ere expofed to it at length obliterated the antient do