« ÖncekiDevam »
ble in its nothingness, was a presbyterian minister, who commenced an Arian, and concluded an infidel."*
Dr. Sykes, in his Case of Subscription, undertook to hold up the credit of Arian subscription to Trinitarian articles against Dr. Waterland, who, for that subscription, charged the Arians with fraud and prevarication. And, since the middle of last century, the question concerning the divinity of our blessed Lord, has afforded matter for repeated and almost perpetual discussion. As it would be difficult, and indeed needless, to enumerate all the works that have appeared upon the subject, it may be sufficient that the most considerable part of them be mentioned here, and with reference, as far as may be, to the different periods and aspects of the controversy “ Those who disputed the supreme Godhead of Christ, were, for a time, chiefly of the Arian persuasion. This was the case with Mr. Hopkins, a clergyman in Sussex, who published, without his name, An appeal to the Common Sense of all Christian People, concerning an important Point of Doctrine, imposed upon their 'Consciences by the Authority of Church Government; and in particular to the Members of the Church of England. In opposition to this work was printed A sincere Christian's Answer to the Appeal to the Common Sense of all Christian People; in a Letter to the Appellant. By the Reverend Thomas M‘Donnell, D. D.-Mr. Hopkins's treatise gave occasion, we believe, to two or three other pieces in support of the common doctrine of the Trinity.
* Whitaker's Origin of Arianism, p. 498.
“ The next important publication of the Arian kind, was the Essay on Spirit ; ascribed to Dr. Robert Clayton, bishop of Clogher, and which was the beginning of a considerable controversy. The productions of the bishop's antagonists were as follow: A Letter to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Clogher, occasioned by his Lordship’s Essay on Spirit.—A Dissertation on the Scripture Expressions, the Angel of the Lord, and the Angel of Jesus Christ ; containing a full Answer to a late Essay on Spirit.-An effectual and easy Demonstration, from principles purely philosophical, of the Truth of the sacred, eternal, co-equal Trinity of the Godhead; by the Reverend John Kirkby.—A second Letter, tó the Bishop of Clogher.---An Answer to the Essay on Spirit ; by Thomas Knowles, M. A.-A full Answer to the Essay on Spirit. The writer of this tract was the Reverend Mr. William Jones, who hath appeared since, upon various occasions, as a zealous advocate for the Trinity. The Negative on that Question, Whether is the Arch-angel Michael our Saviour ? examined and defended; by Sayer Rudd, M. D.-A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, from the Exceptions of a late Pamphlet. A second Vindication. These two pieces were written by the late Dr. Randolph. The holy scriptural Doctrines of the Divine Trinity in essential Unity, and of the Godhead of Jesus Christ ; by John Scott, D.D.-An Essay towards an Answer to a Book, entitled, an Essay on Spirit; by Dr. M•Donnell. A short Vindication; by the same author.
“On the bishop's side of the question appeared, A Sequel to the Essay on Spirit; by Mr. Hopkins above mentioned. The Doctrine of the Trinity, as usually explained, inconsistent with Scripture and reason.—A Defence of the Essay on Spirit ;-and A plain and proper Answer to the Question, Why does not the Bishop of Clogher resign his Preferments ?- The two last tracts are supposed to have been the productions of Dr. Clayton himself. In this controversy, the books of principal importance were, on the one side, Mr. Hopkins's Sequel; and, on the other side, Dr. Randolph's Vindications.
“A more recent vindicator of the Arian hypothesis, was Mr. Henry Taylor, in his Apology of Benjamin Ben Mordecai to his Friends for embracing Christianity: to whom may be added Dr. Harwood, in his Five Dissertations; in the first of which he opposes the Athanasian Doctrine, and in the second the Socinian Scheme. Dr. Price does the same, with regard to both these Schemes, in his Sermons on the Christian Doctrine. A Defence of the Arian Hypothesis may likewise be seen in the fourth volume of the Theological Repository, p. 153-163; and in Mr. Cornish's Tract on the pre-existence of Christ.” *
* Dr. Kippis's Note to Dr. Doddridge's Lectures, Vol. II. p. 171, 172. To the above may be added, Mr. Tomkin's Je
According to Trinitarians, it is hard to say which of the two is the most unreasonable and unscriptural:—Socinianism, which never considers Christ as any thing but a mere man; or, Arianism, which never looks upon him as any thing but a suppositious God, “a deified creature, a visible and inferior Jehovah,” (H. Taylor.) Between these two, in their
" opinion, lies the true Christian faith; which, as it allows him to be perfect God, and perfect man, is never offended, or put to its shifts, by any thing that the Scripture may have said about him, in either capacity
sus Christ the Mediator, and, since Dr. Kippis's death, Mr. Carpenter's Lectures, lately printed, both of them on the Arian side; together with Mr. Belsham's (an Unitarian) answer to this last work, in his Letters upon Arianism, &c. just published.
Mr. Job Orton, the learned and pious author of the Life of Doddridge, &c. is said to have become an Arian some time before his death; though he never wrote any thing expressly on the subject of the Trinity. And the Works of Mr. Thomas Emlyn, repeatedly mentioned above, who was a native of Stamford, but for a long time a dissenting minister in Dublin, where he suffered much on the score of heterodoxy, were published in 3 vols. 8vo. by his son, Mr. Sollom Emlyn, eminent counsellor, with Me. moirs of the Author, who died in 1741.
NAMES. This sect received the name of Socinians, from Lælius and Faustus Socinus or Sozzini, uncle and nephew, of Sienna in Tuscany, who both taught the same doctrines; but the latter, who died in Poland in 1604, is generally considered its founder.—The modern Socinians, however, being strenuous advocates for the Divine Unity, now generally claim the appellation of Unitarians,* as more descriptive of their tenets
* Speaking for himself and his brethren, Mr. Belsham says of the term Socinians ;--- We do not answer to that name, nor do we approve of being distinguished by it. In the first place, because the doctrine we hold is not borrowed from Socinus, but is known, and universally allowed to have been coeval with the apostles. And, further, we differ very materially from the opinions of that very great and good man, and his immediate followers, who strangely imagined, that Christ, though a human being, was advanced by God to the government of the whole created universe, and was the proper object of religious worship. We call ourselves