Praxeas the Unitarian, comes the nearest it, if not quite up to it; but, supposing one writer, in controversy, to hit off expressions a few times containing the very doctrine afterwards professed publicly; that falls far short of that doctrine being solemnly professed in a Church, though it is a step towards it: there are many sayings in modern controversial writers, which are estimated no higher than the illustrations of a private man; and are not admitted into any Confessions, Creeds, Articles, Catechisms; and yet they may represent the sense of Scripture very justly :-But, till notions are publicly professed, the generality of men are ignorant of them and it is not known for certain, whether such notions ever will become doctrines, properly so called. Controversy may more properly be said to be bringing the Doctrines into form, than to have already established them. Warburton says true things in controversy, which cannot be called received doctrines; as, that there is no promise of a future state in the dispensation of Moses.

Bingham says several things of weight, to prove the early reception of the Doctrine of the Trinity; but perhaps nothing more forcible than that the Orthodox were reviled by the Sabellians, and other Unitarians, as Tritheists. But does this prove, that the Trinity was fully professed? not entirely. Celsus reviled Christians for being Polytheists; does it therefore follow, that they had many objects of worship?

a Cap. 2. 3. 13. See Bingham, vol. I. bottom of p. 572. col. 2. 13. 2. 4.

b Dr. Priestly thinks, that even Tertullian had not the same idea affixed to the word Trinity, which we have. Because, though in one passage he speaks as if he had, in others he speaks as if he had not: whereas, a modern would speak as if he had, in all passages.

13. 2. 2, &c.

worship?-it seems to prove, that addresses were offered up to Christ; and perhaps to the Holy Spirit; but these might be offered in an artless and affectionate manner, without speculative system, or dogmatical precision; which is all that we call into question.-These very Sabellians, &c. who charged the Catholics with Tritheism, though more open to the charge themselves, were called Patripassians;-would they allow that to be a proof, that they really said the Father suffered on the Cross? and that they made no distinction whatever between the Father and the Son? It is very unsafe to argue upon opprobrious terms; reviling is rhetoric; moreover, it seems possible, that the Catholics, or orthodox, might restrain the forwardness of the Sabellians, on the one hand, and of the Arians on the other, before the right doctrine was fully settled: we have supposed, that such restraining was the means of settling the right Doctrine. You may see one man carry a notion too far one way, another run into the opposite extreme; you may pronounce both in fault or error, and yet never determine the right medium precisely. If this be so, the Catholics might, in answer to their opprobrious arguments, be called Tritheists, before the Doctrine of the Trinity could be said to have come to maturity. Indeed, their being called Tritheists as much proves, that they denied the Unity of God, as that they, properly speaking, professed the Trinity. Besides, it should be considered, that some have been really Tritheists; and that those, who were so, were as far removed from the true doctrine of the Trinity as Arians or Sabellians. If we

are

d The Heathens spoke of Christians as Polytheists, on account of this Doctrine. Theodoret says, the Trinity was not clearly revealed to the Jews, lest they should be Polytheists.- See Lard. Works, Index, Trinity.

are to conclude any thing from the Catholics being called Tritheists, why not that they were really Tritheists?

This seems the proper place to mention the Priscillianists, they being reckoned a sort of Sabellians: but as Mosheim says, that none of the ancients have given a satisfactory account of them, and as Lardner found it necessary to collect every thing in antiquity concerning them, in order to get an idea of them, there being no writings of their own extant, I must content myself with a conjectural solution of an expression in the Athanasian Creed, which seems to be levelled at their error: I mean the conclusion, "So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts." It seems not improbable, that the Priscillianists, as a sort of Sabellians, might be represented as so completely taking away all distinction between the Persons of the Trinity, that it was the same thing to them of which Person any thing was affirmed; whatever might be affirmed of the Father, might be affirmed equally of the Son, or of the Holy Ghost: Hence it would be deduced, that a Sabellian Trinity consisted of "three Fathers," or "three Sons," or "three Holy Ghosts." The next step to which would be, that the Priscillianists made three Fathers, and three Sons, and three Holy Ghosts. At least, I see no better way of accounting for the expression of τρεις παρακλήτους in the second Anathema of the Council of Bracara, A. D. 563: or for " Trinitas Trinitatis" in the 49th Apostolical Canon.

Hitherto, we have referred more to the second person of the Holy Trinity than to the Third: we may therefore take notice of the notion of Erasmusa, that the Holy Ghost was not called God till the fourth Century;

Sec Bingham, 13. 2. 4. vol. I. p. 572.

Century; if we err with such great authorities as Augustin and Erasmus, we shall suffer no great disgrace. We are not indeed now speaking immediately of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, but yet it may be proper here to say something of that Doctrine, as one constituent part of the Doctrine of the Trinity.-Bingham's chief argument against Erasmus is, that Adorations were paid to the Holy Ghost long before the fourth Century: it is not here wholly improper to say, that, though the Holy Ghost were called God at any time, and were proved to be God; it does not follow, that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was professed; for Tritheists would allow the Holy Ghost to be God, and they are by no means Trinitarians. But what we would chiefly observe, as being most pertinent to the observation of Erasmus, and most useful for getting an idea of the History, is, that adorations might be paid to the Holy Spirit, and yet his Divinity not acknowledged, as a Doctrine. From the earliest times of Christianity, high strains of Devotion were used, either to God, without distinction of persons; or to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, or to the only-begotten Son, or to the Paraclete, which is the Holy Ghost; or to two or all of them and these were used rightly; in right circumstances; and the connexion and precedence of the several Divine Persons was artless but natural, and such as the subject, or the course of the expression, happened to require: without reserve, without speculation: gratitude, admiration, devout love, kept the understanding from running into dry disquisitions.-When Christians were accused of the errors of Polytheism, they denied them, and shewed, that their theory was to worship one God in Unity; this they said, so long as they were obliged to attend to theory;-but, at other times, they

caught

caught the glorious hymns of Scripture, and uttered them fervently; without cold hesitation, or metaphysical distinction".

With regard to the Holy Spirit, it may not be improper farther to add, that what we have as the original Nicene Creed, contains nothing about the Holy Spirit, except these words; kai eis tò ayiov TVEUμa from which his Divinity could only be collected, at most. I know it is urged, that the remaining part of what we now use as the Nicene Creed, was only omitted, as unnecessary, because the dispute with the Arians was only about the Son:-but does not this shew, that a doctrine was not usually declared and established, till controversy made such declaration needful?

Lactantius, placed in the year 306, seems to speak with some degree of indifference, as if it were enough for Christians to worship two persons of the Trinity instead of three, the Father and the Son. Indeed, the objection, which had been made, did not force him to introduce the duty of worshipping the Holy Ghost; but yet it would now seem very unnatural and unorthodox to say, that we ought to worship the Father and the Son; and then add nothing concerning the Holy Spirit.Jerom and others reckon Lactantius not quite right in his opinions concerning the Holy Ghost; and speak of him as taking what is said of the Holy Ghost, as if it were said of the Father or of the Son; and denying (in effect at least) the Personality

of

a It does not follow, supposing the Holy Ghost not to have been called God at first, that he might not have been called so with propriety; if occasion had so required.

For what is here said concerning the Nicene Creed, see Usher de Symbolis, p. 13, and 17. Rutherforth's Charges, p. 84, 85, and 70. Lardner, vol. IV. p. 191.-Lord King on the Creed, p. 319.

Inst. 4. 29.