celebration of it to be on the first Sunday after Pentecoft; and accordingly on this day it has been kept by the church of Rome, and the church of England ever fince.

SECTION XI.

A general View of the Recovery of the genuine Doctrine of Christianity concerning the Nature of

Chrift.

W

E are not able to trace the doctrine of the proper humanity of Chrift much later than the council of Nice; the Arian doctrine having been much more prevalent for a confiderable time afterwards, especially by the influence of the emperors Conftantius and Valens; and the Arians were no less hoftile to this primitive doctrine than the Trinitarians themselves. At length, though all the northern nations that embraced christianity were at first of the Arian persuasion, yet, chiefly by the influence of the popes, they became gradually Trinitarians, and continued fo till near the reformation.

The first traces that we perceive of the revival of the antient doctrine are among the Albigenfes. For I cannot fay that I perceive any among the proper Waldenfes, and the Albigenfes were probably rather Arians than what we now call Socinians. It would feem, however, that if the Waldenfes (the first reformers from popery, and who may be traced as far as the time of Claudius bishop of Turin) were Trinitarians, they did not originally lay much stress on that doctrine. For in their confeffion of faith, compofed in 1120, which was fixty or seventy years before Valdo of Lyons, there is nothing under the article of Jefus concerning his divinity, nor yet in that of 1544, which was prefented to the king of France. In these it was only faid that "Christ was promised

to the Fathers, and was to make satisfaction "for fin*." But after the time of the reformation by Luther, the Waldenfes, in a confeffion of faith prefented to the King of Bohemia, in 1535, acknowledge exprefsly "one effence of "divinity in three perfons, according to the "Nicene creed and that of Athanafius," both of which they mention†.

But no fooner were the minds of men at full liberty to fpeculate concerning the doctrines of christianity, and circumftances excited them to it, but, while Luther and Calvin retained the

* Leger's Histoire, p. 94. 109.

+ Ib. p. 97.

commonly

commonly received opinion with respect to Christ, there were many others of that age who revived the primitive doctrine, though there were Arians among them. The greater number, however, were of thofe who were afterwards called Socinians, from Fauftus Socinus, who diftinguifhed himself by his writings among thofe of them who settled in Poland, where they had many churches, and continued in a flourishing ftate till the year 1658, when they were, with great cruelty and injuftice, banished from that country. This event, however, like others of a fimilar nature, contributed to the spreading of their doctrine in other countries.

In England this doctrine appears to have had many advocates about the time of the civil war, the most diftinguished of whom were the truly learned and pious Mr. Biddle, and his patron the most excellent Mr. Firmin; and it does not appear that there were many, if any, Arians among them, the term unitarian being then synonimous to what is now called Socinian. Afterwards, however, chiefly by the influence of Mr. Whifton and Dr. Clarke in the established church, and of Mr. Emlyn and Mr. Peirce among the diffenters, the Arians became fo much the more numerous body, that the old unitarians were in a manner extinct. But of late years, Dr. Lardner and others having written in favour of the fimple humanity of Chrift, this doctrine has spread very

much, and feems now to be the prevailing opinion among those who have distinguished themfelves by their freedom of thinking in matters of religion. This has been more especially the cafe fince the application made to parliament by fome members of the church of England for relief in the business of fubfcription, and more particularly fo fince the erection of the unitarian chapel by Mr. Lindsey (who from a principle of conscience, on this ground only, voluntarily refigned his preferment in the church of England) and the publication of his Apology, with its Sequel, and other excellent works, in vindication of his conduct and opinion.

It is fomething extraordinary, that the Socinians in Poland thought it their duty as chriftians, and indeed effential to christianity, to pray to Jefus Chrift, notwithstanding they believed him to be a mere man, whose presence with them, and whose knowledge of their fituation, they could not therefore be affured of; and though they had no authority whatever, in the fcriptures for fo doing, nor indeed in the practice of the primitive church till near the time of the council of Nice. Socinus himself was of this opinion, and is thought to have given too much of his countenance to the imprisonment and other hardships, which F. Davides fuffered for oppofing it. However, the famous Simon Budæus was also of those who denied that any kind of worship ought to

be

be paid to Jefus Chrift, contrary to the opinion of Socinus *.

Many of thofe who went by the name of Anabaptifts at the beginning of the reformation, held the doctrine of the fimple humanity of Chrift; infomuch that before the time of Socinus, they generally went by that name. Among these, one of the first was Lewis Hetzer, who appeared in 1524, and who was put to death three years after at Conftance t.

Several of the Socinians of that age held the doctrine of the perfonality of the Holy Spirit, confidering him as a being of a fuper-angelic order. Of this opinion was Mr. Biddle.

The first Arians in England were of the opinion of the original Arians, viz. that Chrift was the first of all creatures, and even exifted from eternity, by an eternal derivation from his eternal Father, that he was the immediate maker of the world, and of all things vifible and invisible, and appeared in a divine character to the patriarchs and prophets before he was born of the virgin Mary. But, befides that this doctrine favours of that of the pre-existence of all human fouls, a doctrine which has no countenance in reafon or revelation (though it was generally held by phi

* Mosheim, vol. iv. P. 199. † Ib. vol. iv.

P. 183.