Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

could they mistake, no person for a person, by fits and starts; nor could they, any more than myself, understand a person for a principle, a substance for a shadow, or how to create a thing out of nothing. I affirm with others, that the Logos of St. John is a person, not a metaphysical abstraction. The Platonists and Plato have very different notions of the divine Triad. The Platonists separate the divine hypostasis from its attributes, and make of them so many distinct principles; in Plato they go in union together, and form one wise and powerful Being.

Priestley. You surely cannot deny that the Christian Platonists, when they became Christians, discarded the notion of the eternity of the Logos as a person, and came back to the original belief, that it was an attribute and not a person.2

1 Gibbon says, "the theology of Plato might have been for ever confounded with the philosophical visions of the Academy, if the name and divine attributes of the Logos had not been confirmed by the celestial pen of the last of the Evangelists." (D.& F. c.xxi. p. 318.) But what room can there be, either for confusion or confirmation, when Logos has different and distinct meanings; and signifies in Plato, wisdom, a divine attribute indeed, and in the Evangelist denotes a person. - Dr. Craven's Jewish and Christian Dispensations, p. 247.

2 Tertullian, to prevent this very conclusion, that the Logos was, at some time or other, a mere attribute, remarks, that nothing empty and unsubstantial can proceed from God; for

Witness. If they did (and I question if more than a few did) look upon the Logos as a principle only of the Divine mind, they were led to adopt this notion from a comparison between the Logos and the reason of the human soul, or between the WORD and human speech.

Priestley. That some did think so, you admit. At all events, the orthodoxy of the second century was mingled with the notions of the Platonic school, and this is a fact which you will hardly deny.

Witness. Nor do I desire. Unitarians conceive they gain a conquest when they can stamp the Catholic faith with the brand of Platonism; for my own part, I deem it no disgrace; on the contrary, I rejoice and glory in the opprobrium, for I am free to confess that I maintain, not a perfect agreement with the Platonists on this point, but such a similitude as speaks a common origin, and affords an argument in confirmation of the Catholic doctrine, from its conformity to the most ancient and universal traditions.1

Court. Would you wish to ask any more questions?

Priestley. No, my Lord.
No, my Lord. I have done.

the Divine nature admitting neither quality nor accident, every thing belonging to it must be substance. - Horsley's Letter XIII.

See Bull's Prim. et Apost. Trad. de Jesu Christi Divinitate, ch. v.

Court. Who is your next witness?
Att. Gen. Call George Bull.

Court. Against which of the Defendants does this witness appear?

[ocr errors]

Att. Gen. Against them all, my Lord.

[blocks in formation]

Att. Gen. Because, my Lord, they each and all assert, and have publicly declared in their writings, that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was the invention of the third century, and I bring this witness to prove the direct contrary. Moreover, I have before me on the table the "Apology of Theophilus Lindsey on resigning the Vicarage of Catterick," and his "Sequel," the “Calm Inquiry,” "The Improved Version of the New Testament," and "The Reply to the Bishop of St. David's," which I shall prove to be the works of the Defendant Belsham.

Belsham. We admit the fact of these being our respective writings.

Att. Gen. And that they each and all deny the Trinity to be the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures ? Belsham. Yes; decidedly so.

Court. Proceed.

Att. Gen. Your name, sir, I believe to be George Bull.

Witness. It is.

E

Att. Gen. I am informed that you are the author of a book entitled, "Defensio Fidei Nicænæ."

Witness. I am.

Att. Gen. What is the object of that work? Witness. To prove the Godhead of the Son, and to show both the consubstantiality and the coeternity of Christ the Son of God, from the consent of the ancient doctors of the Church, who lived before the Council of Nice, with the Nicene Fathers, by a tradition derived from the apostolical age itself. Att. Gen. What are we to understand by the term consubstantial?

Witness. A participation of the very same nature. Att. Gen. What do the early Fathers assert, in your opinion, respecting the Divinity of Christ?

Witness. They prove that Jesus Christ, before he had that name or was born of the Virgin Mary, had a real existence in a far more excellent nature than the human, and in that nature appeared to the holy men of old as a foretoken of his future incarnation, and did preside over, and had care of the Church which was to be redeemed by his blood: so that from the beginning of the world, the whole order of divine economy was altogether transacted through him; yea, even before the foundation of the world, he was actually present with God his Father, and through him all the universe was created.

Court. Adduce your proofs.

Witness. Clement of Alexandria, who wrote A. D. 194, speaking of Christ, says, "Who is most manifestly God, who is made equal to the Lord of the Universe; because he was his Son, and exists in God."-The force of which expression lies in this, that every son is of the same nature and essence with his father, and that whatsoever exists in God himself, must necessarily be very God.1 Again, the same Father says, "He can want nothing, who has the WORD, the Almighty God; nor does he ever lack any of those things which are needful for him for the WORD is a possession that has nothing wanting to it, and which is the foundation of all plenty." — The plain meaning of which is, The WORD, as being God Almighty, can want nothing; and thence, can do and give all things to those who are His.

Att. Gen. You stated it as the doctrine and belief of the early Fathers that Christ in his preexisting state, that is, in the state of his existence before his coming as Messiah, appeared unto the holy men of old: do you mean to say that he is the Jehovah of the Old Testament?

1 Defensio Fid. sect. iv. ch. 2. 2 Defensio Fid. 2. vi. 4.

Est enim minime indigens, qui Verbum habet Deum omnipotentem, et nullo eorum, quibus opus habet, unquam eget; Verbum enim possessio est, cui nihil deest, et est causa omnis copiæ. — Pæd. iii. 7.

« ElőzőTovább »