considering it as a testimony of the belief held by the primitive Christian church.

Extracts from Dr. Buchanan's « Christian Researches, concerning the Syrian Christians in India,” from page 106 to 126. Fifth edition, London, 1812.

The Syrian Christians inhabit the interior of Travancore and Malabar, in the south of India, and have been settled there from the early ages of Christianity. The Portuguese, on discovering them, found they had never heard of the Pope; that they maintained the order and discipline of a regular church, under episcopal jurisdiction; and that, for thirteen hundred years, they had enjoyed a succession of bishops, appointed by the Patriarch of Antioch; and insisted, “We are of the true faith, whatever you from the west may be; for we come from the place where the followers of Christ were first called Christians."

On this, the Portuguese began to persecute them, in order to force their submission to popery. They met with a resolute resistance; seized their bishop Mar Joseph, sent him prisoner to Lisbon, and then convened a synod at one of the Syrian churches, at which the Romish archbishop presided. At this compulsory synod, one hundred and fifty of the Syrian clergy appeared; they were accused of the following practices and opinions:

That they had married wives; that they owned but the two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's supper; that they neither invoked the saints, nor worshipped images, nor believed in purgatory; and that they had no other orders of dignity in the church, than bishop, priest, and deacon. These tenets they were called on to abjure, or to suffer a suspension from all church benefices. It was also ordered that all the Syrian books on ecclesiastical subjects, that could be found, should be burned, "in order (said the inquisitors) that no pretended apostolical monuments may remain."

:

The churches on the coast were thus compelled to acknowledge the supremacy of the pope, but they refused to pray in Latin, and insisted on retaining their own language and liturgy but the churches in the interior would not yield; their congregations hid their books and fled to the mountains. Two centuries had elapsed from that period to the time when they were visited by Doctor Buchanan: (this, with thirteen hundred years, brings us back to the third century, and, therefore, before the Council of Nice.) At one of these churches, the Doctor attended divine service on a Sunday. Their liturgy is that which was formerly used in the churches of the Patriarch of Antioch. The doctrines of the Syrian Christians (says the Doctor,) are few in number, but pure, and agree, in ecclesiastical points, with that of the church of England. The following are the chief doctrines :

First. They hold the doctrine of a vicarious atonement for the sins of men, by the blood and merits of Christ; and of the justification of the soul before God, by "faith alone," in that atonement.

Secondly. They maintain the regeneration, or new birth of the soul to righteousness, by the influence of the Spirit of God; which change is called in their books, from the Greek, the Meta-Noià, or change of mind.

Thirdly, In regard to the Trinity, the creed of the Syrian Christians accords with that of Athanasius, but without the damnatory clauses. In a written and official communication to the English resident at Travancore, the Metropolitan states it to be as follows:

"We believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, three persons in one God; neither compounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance; one in three, and three in one; the Father generator, the Son generated, and the Holy Ghost proceeding: none is before or after the other; in majesty, honour, might, and power, co-equal. Unity in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity. He then proceeds to disclaim the different errors of Arius, Sabellus, Macedonius, Manes, Marcianus, Julianus, Nestorius, and the Chalcedonians, and concludes, "That in the appointed time, through the disposition of the Father and the Holy Ghost, the Son appeared on earth, for the salvation of mankind; that he was born of the Virgin Mary, through the means of the Holy Ghost, and was incarnate, God and man.”

Mr. Welchman, in his highly useful Treatise on the Thirty-nine Articles, has briefly quoted the testimonies of Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenæus, Tertullian, and Cyprian, to this great truth; testimonies which, along with various others, are so accurately examined, explained, defended, and applied by the learned Bishop Bull in his work.

These ancient testimonies may, with the creeds already quoted, sufficiently establish the total opposition to the clear decision of the primitive Church, which marks the scheme of the Unitarians; who yet perpetually boast of their perfect agreement with the opinions of the earliest Christians; an agreement which they support only by assuming that their own doctrines are so clearly rational and scriptural, they must have been held by the first Christians; though it is a most certain fact, that the express and acknowledged testimony of the primitive and Catholic Church supports the Trinitarian scheme.

But as I mean not to enter on this controversy, so far as it depends on human authority, I shall only refer the student to the works of Bishop Bull, and of Archdeacon Welchman before quoted, and to the Letters of Bishop Horseley to Dr. Priestly; and I return to the immediate text of the first discourse.

Dr. Carpenter endeavours to weaken the argument from this passage, by observing, that in the preceding verse it is said, "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth," therefore it cannot be justly considered as implying the equality of the Son with the Father. But to this the answer is plain. When appearing as a man, though in reality he was God incarnate, it was very necessary and very important to declare to the apostles: To me, the Man Christ Jesus, all power is given in heaven and in earth, the proofs of which I have shown in my former miracles, and will by future miracles, by my perpetual presence with, and protection of my Church; this power is given to me, as man, because I am united with God; and as God, I am, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, to be acknowledged in baptism, as equally the object of faith, obedience and adoration.

But, says Dr. Carpenter," "baptising into the name of the person, is no proof of his divinity; otherwise Moses was God, (see 1 Cor. x. 2,) and all were baptised unto Moses, in the cloud and in the sea."

Now here also the answer is plain; it is not being baptised merely, but being baptised in the name of Christ, AS IN UNION with the Father and the Holy Ghost. It is incredible that our Lord, a teacher of truth, and abhorring idolatry, would have thus required faith in himself, as united with the Father and the Holy Ghost, if he had not been really so united; and if so united, he must be God. Nothing like this is said of Moses; nor was it ever said of Moses, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Such authority seems too extensive to be received or exercised by any being less than God; but for this also Dr. Carpenter has a new meaning, which removes all difficulty. It appears to him," "very probable our Saviour here employs the word heaven to denote the Jewish nation, and, of course, earth to denote the Gentile world: the assertion refers to the union, in the Gospel dispensation, of both Jews and Gentiles." This is surely clear and convincing; if it is not, he has still to observe, "that we probably have not facts enough to determine the precise meaning of the expression; but it appears clear, from the connexion, that it refers to the universality of his spiritual authority, and not to the degree or nature of the power by which it was exercised." Now, on the contrary, it seems clear to me, that the words, “all power in heaven and earth,” cannot be restricted, so as to mean only one species of authority, or to be supposed not to extend to every power, even of the highest degree, and the most exalted nature. The attentive reader must judge which of these interpretations is most clear, just and natural.

These criticisms have such influence with Dr. Carpenter, that he concludes: "I acknowledge myself unable to see how this passage can prove any thing respecting the Trinity; if that mysterious doctrine were proved, of course it would sufficiently well accord with it, and that, I think, is all." But does the doctor consider how much this all amounts to ? Could this passage sufficiently accord with the doctrine of the

6 Carpenter on Unitarianism, p. 130, 131.

7 Carpenter on Unitarianism, p. 198.

Trinity, except it clearly expressed it? and if that doctrine was clearly expressed by our Lord, and required by him to be acknowledged at baptism by every Christian convert, to the end of the world, is not the doctrine fully proved to be the very corner-stone of the Christian faith? From whom, or on what occasion, or in what form This I of words, can we imagine a clearer or a stronger proof of the Trinity? acknowledge myself unable to see. In truth the Unitarians may thus very easily get rid of every passage alleged in favour of the Trinity, if they may say of each in succession this of course accords sufficiently well with that doctrine, but still it is no proof of it, for that doctrine is mysterious, and cannot therefore be proved from this passage. By applying this assertion to every text as it occurs, all proof is effectually removed.

Bishop Burnet very clearly and strongly expresses the force of the argument for the Trinity, derived from the form of baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost:- By name (he observes) is meant either an authority derived from them in the virtue of which all nations were to be baptised, or that the persons so baptised are dedicated to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; either of these senses, as it proves them to be all persons, so it sets them in equality in a thing which can only belong to the divine nature. Baptism is the receiving men from a state of sin and wrath, into a state of favour, and into the rights of the sons of God, and the hope of eternal happiness, and calling them by the name of God: these are things which can only be offered and assured to men, in the name of the great and eternal God; and therefore, since, without any distinction or note of inequality, they are all three set together, as persons in whose name this is to be done, they must be all three the true God, otherwise it looks like just prejudice against our Saviour and his whole Gospel ; that by his express direction, the first entrance into it, which gives the visible and federal right to those great blessings that are offered by it, on their initiation into it, should be in the name of two created beings; if the one can be properly called so much as a being, by their hypothesis, and that in an equality with the supreme and uncreated being. The plainness of this charge, and the great occasion on which it was given, makes this an argument of such force and evidence, as may justly determine the whole matter."

NOTE III. Page 35.

Made himself equal with God. John, v. 18.

This, Doctor Carpenter, with Primate Newcome, translates "making himself like God," and observes, "this is the most literal construction of the words; yet the context would lead one to prefer, at the same time putting himself on a footing with God,' viz. by saying, "and I also work." It is here worthy of remark, how impossible it is to shut out the idea of our Lord assuming, by the manner he now spoke, a relation of God, whether of equality, likeness, or being on a footing with God, which it were surely most difficult to reconcile with the piety and humility of Christ, if he were no more than a mere man, a human being, having no existence before his human birth, and no influence on his followers since his death.

NOTE IV. Page 36.

Before Abraham was, I am. John, viii. 58.

Newcome, whom the Unitarian translators profess to follow, interprets this passage as denoting a continued existence, and quotes the words of Bishop Pearson : The use of the expression, I AM, sufficiently maintaineth, and the nature of the place absolutely requireth, that it should not denote a present being, but a priority of existence, together with a continuation of it to the present time: Before ever Abraham, the person of whom you speak, was born, I had a real being and existence, (by which I was capable of the sight of him) in which I have continued until now.” (Pearson on the Creed, p. 110.) Or, (adds the Primate, as his own remark,) there may be a reference to the name which God assumed, Exod. iii. 14. sy Ego sum qui sum, “ I am he that is."- "Our Lord having been the visible Jehovah, under the dispensations preceding the Evangelical." How directly does this eminent

prelate contradict the Unitarians, who so strenuously contend that Christ was a mere man, who had no existence before his human birth.

But what is most worth observation, is the sense Doctor Carpenter gives to this remarkable declaration of Christ: a sense which it appears Socinus, its first promulgator, believed was suggested to him by a divine inspiration. "Before Abraham, the father of many nations, shall become so, I am he:" that is before he who was called the father of many nations actually becomes so; I am the Christ, or, I must be acknowledged as the Christ. This is the answer supposed to be given to the question of the Jews, "Hast thou seen Abraham ?" And this interpretation, thus marvellously complex and obscure, and totally remote from the original, Dr. Carpenter declares preferable to any; because, says he, it is founded on a perfectly literal translation, and suits the sense and connexion. The perception of this suitableness and literal exactness is, I think, more wonderful than the original discovery of the meaning. The curious reader will be gratified by tracing the process of these discoveries, as described by Doctor Carpenter, p. 240 to 243-and Dr. Magee's excellent observations, vol. 1. Illustrations, No. 1. from p. 84 to 91, and vol. 3, postscript to the Appendix, p. 597, also 616.

NOTE V. PAGE 38.

1 Cor. viii. 6.

The argument here derived from this passage of St. Paul has long appeared to me clear, and important; yet the very same passage is adduced by Dr. Carpenter, as an irrefragable proof that one person only is God, and that person the Father; the Father of all, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I still, however, am consoled by finding other most respectable authorities appear to have thought with me. Primate Newcome remarks, that this passage designates Christ, as the visible instrumental cause of the creation of all things;" which, I conceive, establishes his divinity. Mr. Jones in his excellent work on the Trinity, thus argues, Chap. i. No. 33. Cor. viii. 6: "To us there is but one God the Father." If we compare this with the expression of St. Thomas, "My Lord and my God," we have the following argument to us there is but one God the Father-but to us Jesus Christ is God; therefore the Gospel has either preached two Gods, one distinct from the other, or that one God the Father is here; the name of a nature, under which Christ himself, as God, is also comprehended, and the same may be proved of it in several other places.

:

How cautious we should be of interpreting the expression," one God," and others of a similar kind, as strictly exclusive, when applied to the different persons of the Godhead, may be seen in the very next argument of Mr. Jones, in his 34th Number, page 30.

Matt. xxiii. v. 9, Call no man your Father upon earth, for ONE IS YOUR FATHER, which is in heaven.

Ibid. v. 10. Neither be ye called MASTERS, for ONE IS YOUR MASTER, EVEN CHRIST, (vide John, iii, 13,) which is in heaven.

If from the words, ONE IS YOUR FATHER, an argument is drawn for the exclusive divinity of the Father, the same argument would prove, that one person only is our master, and that this person is Christ, which excludes the persons of the Father and Spirit from the honour of that title, and therefore reduces the argument to an absurdity. We are to conclude then, that as the phrase, "one master,' cannot be meant to exclude the Father, so neither do other similar expressions applied to the Father, as" one is good," or "one is your Father," exclude the person of Christ; and if the reason of the thing teaches us that it cannot, the Scripture assures us, in fact, that it does not; the title of Father being also ascribed to the second person of the Trinity, for Christ, the Alpha and Omega,' says of himself, "He that overcometh shall inherit all things, and I WILL BE HIS GOD, and he shall be MY SON." Isaiah calls him the everlasting Father; and again it is written, They "are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection:" but says Christ, "I am the resurrection ;” 3 Luke, xx. 36. 4 John, ii,

1 Rev. xxi. 7.

2 Isaiah, ix. 6.

therefore he is God, and hath us for his children. If this be the case, the word Father cannot always be a name that distinguishes God from another person of God, but is often to be understood as a term of relation between God and man; a word not intended for God the Father only, the first person of the Trinity, but as it is referred unto the creature made and conserved by God, in which sense it belongs to the whole Trinity.

This reasoning of Mr. Jones applies directly to subvert the conclusion Dr. Carpenter thinks so irrefutably established.

But Whitby so fairly meets, and so fully confutes the argument which Dr. Carpenter derives from this passage, that I shall transcribe his comment, to satisfy the reader in this instance, and to lead him to resort to the same authority in other cases of similar apparent difficulty. Vide Whitby, 1 Cor. viii. 6.

"To us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in (or for) him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." "Hence (says Whitby) the Arians and Socinians argue against the deity of Christ, as he who saith there is one emperor, to wit, Cæsar, saith in effect, there is no other emperor but Cæsar. So he that saith there is one God the Father, saith in effect there is no other God besides the Father. Again, he who having separately spoken of one God, proceeds distinctly to speak of one Lord; to wit, Jesus Christ doth, by that distinct title, sufficiently show, Christ is not that God."

To this Whitby replies

"To the second argument the reply is obvious, by retorting the argument, as do the ancient commentators against this Arian objection, thus-That as the apostle, by saying there is one Lord Jesus Christ, cannot be reasonably supposed to exclude the Father from being the Lord of Christians, as he is often styled in the New Testament; so neither by saying, there is one God the Father, ought he to be supposed to exclude Jesus Christ from being also the God of Christians. So argue Origen and Novatian; especially if we consider first, that he is here styled that one Lord, by whom are all things, i. e. by whom all things are created,' Ephes, iii. 9 • All things which are in heaven or in earth,' Coloss. i. 16. For he that made all things is God.' Heb. iii. 5. And by the works of the creation is the Godhead known,' Rom. i. 20. And this is elsewhere made the very description of God the Father, that it is he by whom are all things, Rom. xi. 35, and Heb. ii. 10. And next, that all things were created, not only by this Lord, but is avrov for him also, Col. i. 16. Now this is the very thing which the apostle here ascribes to God the Father.

"Secondly, To the other argument I answer, that we and all the ancients assert, as truly as our opponents can do, the unity of the Godhead, and that Christ Jesus is not another God, but only another person from the Father, and that the application of the word God here to the Father, doth not necessarily exclude the Son from being God also, but only from being the fountain of the Deity, as the Father is. Thus when these words, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, Rev. i. 17, ii. 8, and xxii. 13, are by St. John applied to Christ, it cannot be concluded hence, that the Father is not also Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, as he is often called in the Old Testament; and though our Saviour be the proper title of our Lord Jesus, as his very name informs us, yet is the Father in Scripture styled our Saviour, 1 Tim. i. I, and ii. 3, and the Saviour of all men, iv. 10. The primitive fathers considering God the Father as the fountain of the Deity, and Jesus Christ as God of God, frequently assert two things, which may illustrate this passage:

First, That Christians acknowledged one God only, even the Father, and yet that Jesus Christ was truly God, of the substance of the Father.

"Secondly, That God the Father was the creator of all things, and yet that all things were created by the Word."

NOTE VI. PAGE 40.

"He is Lord of all." Acts, x. 36.

This the Socinian interpreters explain, "Lord of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews," referring to Rom. x. 12; and adding, "that St. Peter seems to have urged the argument (that God, as Lord of all, must alike intend the salvation of all) in this