b

as would appear from comparing two scriptural Catechisms together in disputed points.-Nevertheless, I should imagine, that some good might be attained, in some instances, by the measure here proposed. It was, I doubt not, an ease of mind to Eusebius to use πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως, as he thereby suited his own opinions, and avoided any invidious opposition to them.-And "the Son of God" has been used by different persons, united in worship, in different senses.-The more candid people are, the more use will they make of this expedient.

Episcopius, as a Leader of the Arminian sect, has composed (or was greatly instrumental in composing) a confession of Faith, in terms chiefly scriptural: the intent of this was to comprehend men of different religious opinions in one religious Society and the effect has been in some measure answerable to the design. For the leading writers of the Arminians do differ in many points, though they unite in public Doctrine. However, this agreement has its limits; Papists are excluded from Arminian Societies as Persecutors, and those Protestants who favour Predestinationa.

In my Sermon on the Athanasian Creed, I have recommended inserting Mark xvi. 16. repeatedly, instead of the damnatory clauses.

43. With

Compare an orthodox scriptural Catechism, with Biddle's; in Cambr. Library, the former is E-5-72; the latter C-1466. Dr. Priestley has compiled a Scriptural Catechism.

b Eusebius's Creed is in Socrates, L. i. c. viii; and a Translation into English, in Dr. Rutherforth's last Charge, p. 82. And in the Histories of the first Nicene Council.

• Book iii. Chap. iv. Sect. 5.

See Episcopius, T. 2. part 2. p. 69.-An account of the Confession, Part 2. p. 169. Also Mosheim, 8vo. vol. V. p. 461. Cent. 17.-2. 2. 3. 12. The Pref. of Curcellæus, Sect. 6. was mentioned before, Art. i. Sect. 10, near end; and Sect. 21. of this Art.

Arminius died in 1609; Episcopius in 1643.

h

43. With regard to what might be done by Dissenters towards a coalition, little need be added to what was said under the preceding Article. It appears from thence, that they may more easily yield than we. Such is the nature of what we hold, that they might suffer us to proceed in our own way, though with contemptuous pity. They might suffer us as fools gladly, seeing they themselves are wise. But Dissenters from the Church of England are not all upon the same footing. The ancient Arians (and some, I suppose, of their way of thinking continue), spake high things of Christ: the original Socinians did the same:-But, with regard to Dissenters in general, on the subject of the second Article, we may say, that our claim to their assistance in reconciling and uniting, is built on the nearness of our Doctrines to theirs; particularly in all points nearly affecting Piety and Virtue; on our not having, in many of the disputed points, what can properly be called an Opinion; and on their relating not to man, and what he has to do; but to the Divine nature, and what is to be done on the part of God. But I do not perceive, that Dissenters are contriving healing measures; they seem all mere Advocates.

The doctrine of Atonement we take no notice of at present.

• Sect. 15.

44. We

f 1794. I am mortified to find, that Dr. Priestley holds the contrary: Letters, p. 20, 22; and expresses wishes of being accommodated.

8 Lard. vol. IV. p. 127. Dr. Priestley's Letters, p. 100: and other Letters to Dr. Price. Waterland's Case of Arian Subscription, p. 33.

h See Cat. Racov. p. 52, 53, and 115, with preceding. For modern Socinians, see Sect. 12. or Dr. Priestley's Letters, p. 101. iBook iii. Chap. iv. Sect. 4. and 5. quoted Art. i. Sect. 15.

44. We are, in the last place, to see what openings there seem to be for improvements relative to the subject of our Article. Here again, as I have lately observed, we have anticipated, under the first Article, what might have been offered under the second.

45. But yet it seems as if some improvement might possibly arise from examining, whether the expressions of Scripture, about which we contend, are to be studied in a scientific manner?-whether they are not some of them rather expressions of strong affection and sublime devotion?-Consider the case; in the first ages of Christianity, Christians seem to have felt a great deal of pious gratitude, and devout admiration; and to have uttered what they felt, in an artless manner. Passionate expressions are always understood as indefinite, and the language of Scripture being natural language, must be interpreted as such. Expressions that are merely sublime must be indefinite, I mean such as, in human language, relate to the nature and counsels of God; because they cannot convey distinct ideas; and they are the more indefinite, because they are affecting, or excite passion. Now, if the expressions of the earliest Christian writers were at first indefinite, they certainly ought always to continue so; to give any such a definite sense, is to misinterpret them. We have mentioned the word πλήρωμα, as an instance; others might be added; only there

с

a Art. i. Sect. 4.

is

b John iii. 12. might be applied here; substituting for belief, a necessary previous step, understanding: "If I have told you earthly things, and ye" understand not, how shall ye understand, "if I tell you of Heavenly things?"

Sect. 17. of Appendix to Book i.

d Heb. i. 3. brightness of his glory. Eph. i, 23. the fulness of him that filleth all in all. 1 Cor. viii. 6. Heb. ii. 10. the prepositions: see before Sect. 16. They shall be as the Angels. John xxi, 25, the world would not contain the books.

is danger lest it should be thought, of any one instance, that its being indefinite is too positively asserted. Instances here are only to give a general idea.

Making expressions to be, after this manner, taken in an indefinite sense (supposing that their right sense) would not only be an improvement in interpreting, but it would probably tend greatly to lessen dissension, and to promote devotion. People would not quarrel about the sense of a passage, which would only be understood as sentimental and affecting, any more than about an exclamation or an interjection. And, if senses of expressions were indefinite, they would be pliable; all might adopt them, in one way or other, without finding fault with their brethren: there would be no dread of consequences, and probably no jealousy or bitterness.-Then, Devotion arises naturally on the absence of dispute; and we should have a great number of fine sublime and pathetic expressions, which we have not now, to help our devotion'.

46. And, when we are looking forward to imaginary improvements, it is natural to consider, not only what will probably happen, but what may possibly. Now there seems nothing out of the reach of possibility in supposing, that persons, differing in the points which we have now been discussing, and even in other points, may join in divine worship, and with a sufficient agreement in opinion. A perfect agreement seems beyond all possible expectation; but a perfect ease, composure, and quiet of mind, and freedom from actual dissension, does not seem so. Such reflexions as we have been making must shew the mode of beginning, and the instances formerly produced

Book iii. Chap. iii. Sect. 4.

f It might be worth while to read here a passage, which Dr. Burney quotes from Augustin: see his account of the Commemoration of Handel, p. 90. and Hist. Music, vol. II, p. 172.

Some

produced must afford hopes of success. forbearance is certainly required, but not more than might be attained. The truth is, most men are under the dominion of some Hypotheses; in most things perhaps; but particularly in the mysterious parts of Religion, where education has given a particular view of the Scriptures, and controversy has fixed us in our favoured notions. After this, we are never so easy as in our own habitual train of ideas and conceptions. If this was once universally allowed, and throughly acquiesced in, it would be so far from dividing us, that it would be the means of our living quietly together, and even uniting in religious worship, without taking offence at each other's peculiarities. We should let the Quaker and the Dutchman keep their hats on, and they would let us take ours off. And the same mutual indulgence would take place in expressions of Devotion, and declarations of Faith, though made in the presence of all parties.

If it would not seem extravagant, I would propose, as a question for discussion, how much greater forbearance it would require for men, who differed in religious notions, to worship together, so as to attain the proper ends of religious society; than for men, who differed in their manner of eating and drinking, to partake of the same meal, so as to attain the proper ends of convivial society? Eating and drinking different things, you will say, arises only from a difference of taste, it is a matter of liking and disliking, it would be very idle, if people were to eat at separate tables, because they did

a See Dr. Priestley's Letters, p. 168.-In this passage I have the satisfaction to agree with this Author: not in many: I mean, of his controversial writings; in things unwritten I agree with him, I suppose, generally. For the instances just now mentioned, see Art. i. Sect. 15.