ART. III. The Origin of Arianifm difclofed. By John Whitaker,

B. D. Rector of Ruan Lanyhorne, Cornwall. 8vo. pp. 505. 10s. 6d. Boards. Stockdale. 1791.

THE

HE queftion concerning the origin of Arianifm might, to an ordinary inquirer, feem to call for no other folution, than a fimple reference to ecclefiaftical hiftory; and it might appear fufficient to fay, that Arianifm was a herefy (as the term is,) which arofe in the Chriftian church during the reign of Conftantine, and that it derives its name from Arius, a prefbyter of the church of Alexandria; who, in the difputes which at that time prevailed concerning the perfon of Christ, maintained, that, fince the Father begat the Son, there was a period when the Son did not exift, and that he was created out of nothing. Mr. Whitaker, however, undertakes to trace back Arianifm to an earlier fource, and maintains that it originated with the Jews, in the time of our Saviour.

Evidently as it appears from the ancient Hebrew fcriptures, that the proper unity of the Divine Nature was the fundamental article of the Jewith creed; and directly as it is acknowleged by thofe of the Chriftian Fathers who endeavoured to find fome traces of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Teftament, that this doctrine was purpofely concealed by Mofes and the prophets, or only expreffed in fuch obfcure hints as were not intelligible to the people; Mr. Whitaker ftrenuously afferts, that the Jews profefled the Trinitarian faith; that they derived it at firft from their ancestors the patriarchs; and that they retained it through all the ages of their hiftory, till the time of our Saviour. Without bringing forward the evidence for this notion contained in the Old Teftament, he grounds his opinion on the language of the Jews concerning the Mefsiah, and on that of our Saviour concerning himself, as given by the Evangelifts: which, he thinks, prove decifively, that the Jews expected the Meffiah to be a God, to be the Son of God, and to be coequal with God the Father, and that our Saviour af fumed to himself the honours of divinity. After quoting many of the paffages commonly cited from the gofpels in favour of our Saviour's divinity, Mr. W. concludes thus:

Dreft up in thefe appropriated robes of God's ftate, wearing God's crown, and wielding God's fcepter; does our Saviour repeatedly exhibit himself to our mind's eye. Nor could a particle of thefe high affumptions, have been borne by the Jews, have been received by the apoftles, and have been uttered by our Saviour, if they had not expected their Meffiah to come forward to them, and if he had not therefore reprefented himfelf to them, with all thefe circumftances and qualities of divine fovereignty. This alone can account for our Saviour's conduct, in claiming un grand prerogatives of

power, and claiming them in fo eafy and familiar a manner. This alone, too, can account for the behaviour of the apostles, in receiving them without amazement. They confidered them as effential parts of that venerable character, which they attributed to our Saviour. And this alone can additionally account, for the demeanour of the Jews under them; hearing them without fhowing any indignation at the general positions, even while they fhowed much at the particular application of them to himfelf. They acknowledged them to be the authoritative marks of the great Meffiah; but thought it blafphemy in him to challenge them, because they owned him not for the Meffiah.

Yet we need not reft the point, merely upon this ftrong bafis of evidence. We fee it pofitively afferted by the very hiftory. There the Jews appear expecting their Meffiah, to be the Sox of GOD, and, as fuch, to be EQUAL with GOD, an ASSESSOR with God upon his throne of Heaven, and the grand JUDGE of all the univerfe.

"Thou art," fays Peter to him, "Chrift, the Son of the living God;" and our Saviour adds in reply, "Bleffed art thou, Simon Bar jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." I believe," fays Martha to him, "that thou art the Chrift, the Son of God, which fhould come into the world." Nathaniel addreffes him in the fame ftrain of compliment, when he breaks out into that fudden burst of conviction: "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art THE KING OF ISRAEL.' All the difciples, on his fuccefsful rebuke of the winds and waves, came to him worshipping and crying out: "Of a truth thou art the Son of God."

Other quotations are added, by which, in Mr. Whitaker's opinion, it is pofitively fettled, that the Jews expected their Meffiah to be the Son of God, and, as fuch, to be equal with God, an Affeffor with God upon the throne of heaven, and the grand judge of all the universe.' Without staying to inquire whether Mr. W.'s premifes be fufficient to justify fo pofitive a conclufion, we pafs on to other evidence in proof of the fame point, brought from Jewish writings, prior in antiquity to the books of the New Teftament, or written about the fame period. Here the author's chief authority is Philo Judæus, whom he himself defcribes as a writer who has fhewn a pleafing, yet puzzling difquifitivenefs of genius,' who is continually affecting a strain of subtlety that disgufts us with injudicioufnefs, while it ftrikes us with its ingeniousness,' and whom, on account of his obfcure fubtlety, he compares to the filk-worm, who is fpinning a multiplicity of fine threads out of his own bowels, and is continually burying himself in his own web of filk.' Through the thick clouds of obfcure language, with which this writer has veiled his ideas, Mr. W. however, perceives the bright effulgence of our Saviour's REV. AUG. 1792.

6

D d

divinity.'

divinity. According to Mr. W. the term Logos, in the writ ings of Philo, is the philofophical denomination of Him, who, in the language of the New Teftament, is called the Son of God; and from the manner in which Philo fpeaks concerning the Logos, he endeavours to fhew that this learned Jew, and confequently his countrymen, believed him to be a derivative Being in the Godhead-a fecondary fort of God, a God fubordinate in origin to the Father of all, yet most intimately united to him, and sharing his moft unquestionable honoursthe acting Existence in the original creation of all things-the acting Manager of the world at prefent, or the Providence of God-the oftenfible, interpofing, energetic God of the univerfe the acting God, the deputy, and the equal of God the Father to the Jews, and to all mankind through all ages;-in a word, according to the canonical language of the Nicene Creed, "God off God," and "very God off very God."To eftablifh this pofition, many paffages are quoted from Philo, accompanied with ingenious commentaries to guide the reader's judgment in interpreting them. Of these we shall give the following fpecimen. Philo fpeaking of the immutability of the Logos, our author goes on:

This is ceding a kind of moral eternity to the Logos. But Philo alfo cedes to him a pofitive and phyfical one. We fee Philo indeed declaring before, that the Father, "when he willed to fabricate this vifible world, previously configurated out of himselt" the Logos, as a pattern for it. This feems to imply, that the Logos was only just a little prior to the existence of the world. But this is only a feeming implication. The real import is very different. Philo, like fome Chriftian writers fince who use the fame language, means only the deputation of the Son from the Father, for the creation of the world. This is demonftrably plain, from his and their language upon other occafions. Him whom they metaphorically notice, as generated from the Father juft before he created the world; they actually pronounce to be ETERNAL. Thus Philo tells us, that Mofes "called the foul the image of the Divine

* See Bull's Defenfio Fidei Nicænæ, Grabe, p. 118-119, 170-171, 190-191, and 278-279; a work, the chief of all Dr. Bull's very capital works in favour of the Trinity, which lies unhappily buried in its manly, generally tranfparent, but occafionally dark, Latinity, to the leaders of herefy among us; which therefore that principal leader, Dr. Priestley, has in great humility called upon each of his two grand adverfaries, Mr. Badcock and Dr. Horsley, to tranflate for him into English; and which, in pure charity to his infirmities, I could wish fomebody to tranflate, that he may at laft have the advantage of furveying fo clear, to convincing, and fo fpirited a compofition, the faithful fummary of ancient orthodoxy, and the invincible bulwark of modern,'

and

and the Invisible; confidering it to be the approved image, as being fubftantiated and moulded by the feal of God, of which the character is the eternal Logos *." If we are not yet fit to be

thought the fons of God," adds Philo, eternal image, the most holy Logos †.”

66

we may be at least of his And Philo at last attributes

to him the very fame eternity, which he attributes to the Father; by filing him, "the eternal Logos of the everlasting God 1.

66

Philo accordingly tells us, that "no one ought to fwear by God, because he cannot know the nature of God; but it is well, if we are masters of his name, which was that of the interpreter Logos; for this Being to us imperfect perfons would be God, but to the wife and perfect the Firft One." The moft noble of things is God," and he adds still more precifely," and the fecond God is the Logos of God §." Why," he asks in the fame language, "does he fay this, as of another God," In the image of God made I the man," but not in his own? This was delivered as very fine and wife oracle. For nothing mortal could be moulded to the image of Him, who is the Moft High and the Father of all; but of the Second God, who is his Logos ." Philo thus fpeaks in a ftyle, that may found to fome ears as not theologically juft; but that conveys fufficiently to our minds, his ideas of the Divinity (though fubordinate) of the Son of God. Nor is it in reality very different, from the canonical language of our principal creed; which equally ftates him, to be "God off God" and " very God off very God." But Philo goes on to repeat the fame truth, in different forms. This is of confiderable moment, to the weakness of the human intellect.

6 * Ρ.216-217. Είπεν αυτήν το θες και αορατες εικονα δοκιμον είναι νόμισας, εσιωθεισαν και τυπωθεισαν σφραγιόν θεω, ης ο χαρακτης εσιν αϊδια

λογο.

† P. . 341. Ει μηπω ικανοί θες παιδες νομιζέσθαι γεγόναμεν, αλλά το της αίδια εικονα αυτό, λόγω τε ιερωτάτες

1 Eufebius's Prepar. Evang. p. 190. Aoyos-o aïdios de tu diny. The eternity of the Meffiah was formally announced to the Jews, in this paffage of Micah, v. 2.: "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee fhall He come forth unto me, that is to be RULER IN ISRAEL; WHOSE GOINGS-FORTH HAVE BEEN FROM OF OLD, FROM EVER

LASTING." See this paffage appropriated to the Meffiah, by Mat.

ii. 6.'

Philo, p. 99. Eixows yag udiis qurvoi xať saute [zuta]. di ye u περί της φύσεως αυτε διαγνώναι δυναται. αλλ' αγαπητον έαν τα ονόματος αυτό δυνηθώμεν, υπερ ην τε ηρμηνες λογο. τέλος γαρ' ημών των ατέλων αν είη θε των δε σοφών και τελείων, ο πρωτα

5 Ρ. 103. Το δε γενικωτατον εσιν ο 9.3, και δευτερα. [not δεύτερο: ] ο θα λογο So Origen calls the Son" the fecond God," To JUTER 9 (Bull, p. 232). So alfo Julian in Cyrill viii. p 262.'

Eufebius, Prepar. Evang. p. 190. Δια τι, ως περι ετερες θεε, φης, τον Εν εικονι θεα εποίησα τον ανθρωπον, αλλ' όχι τη εαυτε; παγκαλώς και σαφως τέλι κεχρησμώδηται θνητον γαρ εδεν απεικονισθήναι προς των αναλατω και πατέρα των όλων έδύνατο, αλλά προς τον δεύτερον θεοί, ος εσιν εκείνο λογο. Dd 2

It

It adds not to his teftimony, but it convinces us of his meaning. It augments not the force of the truth, but it increates its impreffion upon our minds and fpirits. To pure defecated intellect, one fingie affertion would be fufficient; but to intellects like ours, fhackled by paffions, and clouded with prejudices, an iteration of the affertion in other language, but to the fame fignification, is ufeful, is important, is neceffary. That the Logos was eternal, would be enough to convince us that he was God; but yet to find him called God, to find him fo called in different manners and in diftant paffages, enhances greatly the conviction. And he, who confiders the nature of man from what he feels in himfelf, will rather multiply his proofs than abridge their number. "Invifible," Philo tells us in another place," and a fower of feed, and a fabricator and divine, is the Logos, who will lie up close to the Father *.” This is placing our Saviour, who is fimilarly avowed in fcripture to be he that foweth the good feed" in the world; exactly as St. John the apoftle places him," in the" very "bofom of the Father ." But Philo tells us in another place, what indeed cannot give the Logos a higher rank of honour in nature, but what will more pofitively affure him of this." He that is above thefe," he informs us, "the divine Logos, came not into a visible form; as being to be compared to none of the fenfible objects, but being himfelt the image of God, the most ancient of the univerfe of intellectuals. the nearest (there being no boundary of diftinction between them) to the only one who is fixed without falfhood ." In a paffage more obfcure than this, and very diftant, Philo fpeaks of a Being "mufical and grammatical, and alfo juft and fober, wife

• * Philo, p. 497. Αιγαίο, και σπερματικός, και τεχνικός, και θείος, επί λόγος, ως προσηκεν ως ανακεισεται τῷ παίι. That the Logos is called σπερματικα, reminds us of Mat. xiii. 37, ο σπείρων το καλον πέρμα, έσιν • ding te allewne. Concerning the lait claufe let me obferve, that the word age, in its original import, means coming up to, and fo fignifies as I have rendered it, close to. The word as too, which was peculiarly applied at the time (fee the Greek Gospels every where) to guefts lying down on a couch at table, reftrains @poonnorrwg to its native fente. And the paffige immediately cited by the text, coincides with and illuftrates it completely. See alfo Bull, p. 83, 272, and 274, exerat, in a paffage that at once gives and receives light, to and from the prefent.'

+ John 1. 18. Ο μονογενής υπο о ων εἰς τὴν κολπον τε πατρος. "This is exactly what the Jews teach of the Logos, whom they conceive to have been in the bosom of God, and being fo the Amen, the Son, or (as it is) the Omen, the Creator of all things; R. Menach. fol. 1. col. 1-2: where he quotes the most authentic authors of the fynagogue, who agree exactly upon that notion" (Allix's Judgment, p. 332).'

* Ι Ρ. 465. Ο δ' υπεράνω τελων, λογω θανα, εις ορά την εκ ήλθεν ιδέαν, ατε μηδένα των κατ' αίσθησιν εμφέρης ων, αλλ' αυτός εικών υπαρχον θεό, των νοητών απαξάπαντων ο πρεσβύλατο, ο εγγελάτο (μηδενα απο μεθόριες διαση ματος) το μόνο ο εσιν αψευδως αφιδρυμένο

too