but an attention to the true idiom of the scripture language, with such helps as they may easily find for the purpose, will satisfy them that the doctrine of the trinity furnishes no proper clue to the right understanding of these texts, but will only serve to mislead them.

In the mean time, this doctrine of the trinity wears so disagreeable an aspect, that

reasonable man must say with the excellent Archbishop Tillotson with respect to the Athanalian creed “ I wish

we were well rid of it.” This is not setting up reason against the scriptures, but reconciling reason with the scriptures, and the scriptures with themselves. On any other scheme, they are irreconcileably at variance.

I think every

THE

THE HISTORY OF OPINIONS WHICH PRECEDED THE DOCTRINE OF THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST, AND WHICH PREPARED THE WAY FOR IT.

Of thofe who are called Apoftolical Fathers,

T muft, I think, have been evident from

IT

With respect to the latter of these circumftances, I think I fhall be able to give my readers abundant fatisfaction, but with refpect to the precife time when, or the particular persons by whom, they were introduced, there is lefs certainty to be had. This, however, is of no great confequence, it being fufficient to fhew that they came in from fome foreign source, and after the age of the apostles, which accounts for their not noticing the doctrines at all.

The oldeft writer in whofe works these doctrines are unquestionably found is Juftin Martyr, who wrote about A. D. 140.

But

thers are, their works are not come down to us as they wrote them, or rather, except a fingle epiftle of Clemens Romanus, which contains no fuch doctrines as thofe of the divinity or pre-existence of Chrift, the works that are afcribed to them are almost entirely fpurious, and the time of their compofition is not cafily afcertained. I fhall make a few obfervations on all of them that contain any trace of the doctrines above mentioned. They are the fuppofed works of Barnabas, Hermas, and Ignatius.

Though I am well fatisfied that the only genuine epiftle of Clemens Romanus contains no fuch doctrine as that of the divinity or pre-existence of Chrift, yet, because it has been pretended that the latter, at leaft, is found there, I fhall produce the paffage which has been alledged for this purpose, and make a few remarks upon it.

"For Chrift is theirs who are humble, "and not who exalt them felves over his

"flock. The fceptre of the majefty of "God, our Lord Jesus Christ, came not in "the fhow of pride and arrogance, though "he could have done fo, but with hu

"mility, as the Holy Spirit had before fpoken concerning him*."

This paffage, however, is eafily explained, by fuppofing that Clemens alluded to Chrift's coming as a public teacher, when, being invested with the power of working miracles, he never made any oftentatious difplay of it, or indeed ever exerted it for his own benefit in any refpect.

But it has been faid that the context determines the coming of Chrift, of which Clemens fpeaks to be from a pre-existent ftate. He came not," fays Clemens," in "the pomp of pride and arrogance, al

66

66

66

though he had it in his power, but in "humility, as the Holy Spirit fpake concerning him.-To determine what this humility is, Clemens immediately goes on to cite the prophecies which describe "the Meffiah's low condition. The humility, therefore, of an ordinary condi

Ταπεινόφρονοντων γαρ εσιν ο χρισος εκ επαιρομένων επι το ποίμνιον αυτ8. Το σκηπίρον της μεγαλωσύνης το θεό, ο κύριος ημων χριςος Ιησες, τη ήλθεν εν κόμπω αλαζονείας, «δε υπερηφανιας, καιπερ δυναμε: Θ, αλλά ταπεινοφρονων, καθώς το πνευμα το αγιον περί αυτε ελάλησεν. Sect. 16. P. 154.

❝tion,