e

and intelligent volitive power; and if the Spirit has a primary immediate consciousness inherent in himself, as Mr. Watts grants, it evidently follows, that the Son and Spirit are real perfons. Thus I have amply proved, that the doctrine of the real, tho' not separate, personality of Father, Word, and Spirit, is the true Scripture doctrine. And as it is the Scripture doctrine, fo it has been the faith of the Chriftian Churches, in all ages. All true believers, fince Chrift, have profeffed three real divine perfons; and why we should leave this good old way, I fee no reason. I know this argument is often banter'd, because the Papifts pretend the fame, tho' very unjustly, for their innovations; but with me it is of great weight, that the faith I attempt the defence of, is the faith of the churches of Chrift from the beginning. Tho' God might leave the whole world in darkness, during that great and long apoftacy, which he foretold, does it follow, that he would leave his faithful people, who were before that apoftacy, who were recover'd from it, and who fince, were recover'd from it, to take up with wrong ideas of the three divine perfons? It is ftrange that the Spirit of God, who was to lead his people into all truth, fhould never clear their notions as to the great doctrine of the Trinity, but fhould leave them to conceive of himself and the Word, as of two perfons, when they were only two powers, of one divine perfon. I can hardly think that all true Christians have hitherto been mistaken, and that the time is now come for any great light to afford them clearer and brighter ideas of the three divine persons, into whose name they have been

Page 219.

p. 130.

L 2

bap

baptized. The glorious doctrine of three real divine perfons, in one divine nature, has always been the faith which Chriftians have learned from their Bibles; and I doubt not but it will keep its ground, when all the different schemes fram'd by men fhall fink into oblivion, and will ftand unfhaken, till the last trumpet fhall found, that time fhall be no more.

CHAP. V.

An Examination of Mr. Watts's Account of the Perfon of Christ.

TH

HE doctrine of three divine perfons, fubfifting in one divine nature, is of all myfteries, known only by revelation, the greatest: Next to that, is the union of the divine and human natures, in the one person of Christ our Redeemer. This has been as much a ftone of ftumbling, as the former, to men of corrupt minds, and curious fancies. The way how two natures, infinitely diftant one from the other, as to kind, can be fo united, as to conftitute but one perfon, is above our finite comprehenfion : and the lefs we trouble ourselves about the mode of things which are so much above us, the fewer abfurdities we fhall run into.

a

• Simon

In the early ages of Christianity, Magus pretended, that Chrift only took flesh, and fuffered, in appearance; or that his affump

&

a Simon Samaritanus, ex quo univerfare haerefes fubftiterunt, habet hujufmodi fectae materiam: - ipfum veniffe, defcendiffe eum transfiguratum, pareret ipfe, cum non effet homo; putatum cum non effet paffus. Ed. Ben.

ut in hominibus homo ap& paffum autem in Judaea Irenaeus, Lib. I. c. 23. p. 99.

tion of the human nature was nothing more than phantafm or fhew. In this he was follow'd by Menander, Saturninus, and Bafilides, band afterwards by Marcion, and d Manes; the feveral afferters of this notion were called Docetæ.

Cerinthus and his followers allow'd, that Jefus was really a man; but not knowing how to account for the perfonal union of the two natures in him, they pretended that Chrift was a diftinct being, a divine power, or one of the invifible Acons, who came down on Jefus at the time of his baptism, and reveal'd to him the unknown Father, and enabled him to perform works above the power of a man, but left him at his crucifixion, flying back to the pleroma, or divine fulness, from whence he proceeded at firft, fo that he made two perfons in Chrift. This error was propagated, as to the main of it, by f Carpocrates, whofe followers were eminently ftil'd Gnoftics, and by Valentinus; tho' thefe heretics differ'd in their explications of it, and fome added more monftrous absurdities to it than others.

Vide Lib. I. c. 23. p. 100. Epiphan. Haeref. xxii. Sec. 1. Vol. I. p. 60, 61. Ed. Par. Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. Lib. IV. c. 7. p. 98, 99. Ed. Par. Epiphan. Haer. xxiii. Se&t. 1. p. 62. Haer. xxiv. Sect. 1. p. 68.

• Vid. Tertullian. contra Marcionem.

d Vide Manetem in difputat. cum Archelao. p. 188, 189. Ed. Fabric. in Spicileg. Patrum Saec. iii. ad calc. Vol. II. Ed. Hippolyt. & eundem in fragment. epiftolar. In Fabricii Biblioth. Gr. Vol. V. p. 284, 285.

Vid. Irenaeum. Lib. I. cap. 26. p. 105. Lib. III. cap. 11. p. 188, 189.

f Vid, eund. Lib. I. cap. 25. P. 103.

A very large account of Valentinus's fentiments may be feen in Irenaeus.

In

In the third century, one Bero confounded the two natures in Chrift, maintaining that the flesh affumed by the Word was cooperative with the Divinity, and that the Divinity fuffer'd with the flesh we fhould have known nothing of this heretic, had not Hippolytus, Bishop of Aden, or Porfo, in Arabia, wrote against him, of i whofe book fome fragments are remaining.

In the fourth century, Apollinaris the younger Bishop of Laodicea, a perfon of great learning, which he had fhew'd in defence of Chriftianity, giving way, at laft, too much to vain philofophy, and fearing left, if Chrift were allow'd to have taken into union with his divine perfon, the complete human nature, it would follow, that there were two perfons in him, formed a fcheme, which fuppofed that Chrift had but one

rational nature, and that the Deity animated his body, and fupplied the place of intellectual faculties, and confequently muft fuffer with it: to which fome of his followers have added these ab

* Βήρων δ τὶς ἔναγκος, μεθ' ἑτέρων τινών, τὴν Βαλεντίνε φαντα σίαν ἀφέντες, χειρονι κακῷ κατεπάρησαν· λέγοντες τὴν ᾗ προσληφθεί σαν τῷ λόγῳ σάρκα γενέθαι ταυτεργὸν τῇ Θεότητι, Σαὶ τὴν προσ ληψιν, τὴν Θεότητα 5 γενέσθαι ταυτοπαθῆ τῇ σαρκι 2ὰ κένωσιν, Hippolyt. c. Beronem. Fragm. V. Vol. I. p. 228. Ed. Fabric.

Some have thought these fragments of Hippolytus not to be genuine, but I could never meet with any reafon for such a furmife. The title of them is, κατὰ Βήρων & καὶ Ἡλικὸς, τῶν diperin, but as this Helix is never mentioned in them, and as two copies of Nicephorus of Conftantinople, which are at Paris, and in which these Fragments are quoted, read yλoxíwv©, the laft learned Editor, M. Fabricius, thinks the Title ought to be, κατὰ Βήρων Ο καὶ ἡλικιωτῶν τῶν αἱρετικῶν, againft Bero and his fellow heretics, which is not improbable.

κ. Ὁ δυσσεβής 'Απολλινάριο ἐν τῷ πει σαρκώσεως αυτῷ λόγῳ, πρόσεχε οία φησίν. Ω καινή κτίσις, καὶ μίξις θεσπεσία· Θεὸς καὶ σὰρξ μίαν ἀπετέλεσαν φύσιν. Eulogius apud Photium Biblioth. cod. ccxxx. p. 850. Ed. P. Steph.

furdities,

1

furdities, that the flesh of Chrift was not of the Virgin, but came down from heaven, and was con-fubftantial with the Deity. The Apollinarian Herefy was one thing, which occafion'd the emperor Theodofius the great, to affemble the council of Conftantinople, in which it was con.demn'd.

In the fifth century, Neftorius maintained, that the divine and the human natures in Chrift were two perfons, and was condemned by the council of Ephefus. In oppofition to him, Eutyches, running into a contrary extreme, afferted, that there was but one nature in Chrift, and that the human nature was abforbed of the divine; he was condemn'd by the council of Chalcedon, which afresh likewife condemn'd Neftorius. Both these opinions are maintained fome Chriftians, in the eaft, to this day, tho' it is to be hoped, they do not rightly understand them.

All the errors which have been mentioned, relating to the perfon of Chrift, have taken their rife from this arbitrary maxim, that two natures cannot be fo united, as to become one perfon; fo that we may fee, that vain and conceited men going upon the fame principles, may run into different extremes, rejecting the truth which is the middle way, and the only safe and fure track.

i 1 Ει τις 3 Θεότοκον των Μαρίαν ὑπολαμβάνει χωρὶς ἐπὶ τῆς Θεότητος· ἔι τις ὡς με σωλήνος, ας τὴν παρθένε δραμεῖν, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἐν αὐτῇ Διαπεπλάς λέγοι, θεϊκῶς ἅμα καὶ ἀνθρωπικῶς· θεϊκῶς ὅτι χωρὶς ἀνδρὸς· ἀνθρωπικῶς ἢ ὅτι νόμῳ κυήσεως, ὁμοίως ἄθεο, Gregorius Nazianzen. Orat. li. Vol. I. p. 738. Ed. Par. [ De fectatoribus Apollinaris loquitur.]

m Πας ἅδης ἠρέυξατο ὁμοέσιον ἐιπεῖν τὸ ἔκ Μαριὰς σῶμα τῇ TOй Aéys OSÓTYTI. Athanafius Epift. ad Epictet. Vol. I. p. 58. Ed. Par.

It