"secret things" which belong unto God, and which exceed our comprehension. It has doubtless all along had many and very serious obstacles to encounter in its progress; so that its prevalence is clearly a Divine work: and though it may be removed from particular countries or places, it can never be wholly extinguished: nay, history evinces that its motion, on the whole, has been progressive; and there is not only prophetic assurance, but some probable reasons to suppose, that it will go on increasing, and, sooner or later, become universal. The universal establishment of Christ's kingdom is indeed the work of ages, but each age is bound by every tie to labour towards its completion.

The prophecies stand recorded in the Sacred Volume, as pledges to assure us of the final event; and they then only produce in our minds their intended influence, when they excite our most active endeavours to bring that event to pass. Though, therefore, it is not a sufficient objection to the truth of Christianity that it is not universal, it will be a most material objection against our conduct, if we do not try to make it universal, as far as we can; and if we do not endeavour to remove that hindrance to its extension which has arisen from the lives and practice of many of its professors having been marked by more than heathen contempt of religious obligations. It is painful to reflect, yet it is a fact too plain to be doubted, that, notwithstanding the pro-. portion of professing Christians to other religionists throughout the world is so small, yet much smaller is the number of those who are Christians indeed. "I should be thought to advance a paradox," says Mr. Addisont, "should I affirm, that there were more Christians in the world during those times of persecution" (the first three centuries)," than there are at present in these; which we call the flourishing times of

* This, however, can be no serious objection to its truth. See a Sermon by Dr. Gregory Sharpe, Master of the Temple, entitled, “Want of Universality no Objection to the Christian Religion;" where the Doctor proves that our holy religion pervades all countries, though no other religions have any footing wherever ours is established.

"Evidences of the Christian Religion," sect. ix. chap. 1.-A general view of the progress of Christianity in different countries, from its first promulgation till about the year 1730, may be seen in Fabricius's "Salu-. taris Lux Evangelii toti Orbi per Divinam Gratiam exoriens; or as extracted from that accurate treatise, by Dr. Apthorp, in the 2d vol. of his “Discourses on Prophecy." See also a work lately published in 4to. by Mr. H. Pearson, of St. John's College, Oxford, entitled, “A Dissertation on the Propagation of Christianity in Asia, in two parts; to which is prefixed, a brief historic View of the Progress of the Gospel in different Nations, since its first Promulgation: illustrated by a Chronological Chart.”

Christianity. But this will be found an indisputable truth, if we form our calculation upon the opinions which prevailed in those days, that every one who lives in the habitual practice of any voluntary sin, actually cuts himself off from the benefit and profession of Christianity, and, whatever he may call himself, is in reality no Christian, nor ought to be esteemed as such."

May God hasten the period when Christian nations shall be nations of Christians, and when the whole earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord and of his Christ!

THE three grand divisions of the Christian Religion, as now professed, are, according to the order of their first ap

pearance,

1. The GREEK and EASTERN CHURCHES ;

2. The CHURCH of ROME;

3. The PROTESTANT CHURCHES, SECTS, and DENOMI

NATIONS.

These, comprising the whole body of professing Christians throughout the world, will be considered in their order. But as it will often happen, in the course of the work, that reference will be made to DOCTRINAL DISTINCTIONS, and to the existing forms of CHURCH GOVERNMENT, it seems to be necessary that I should previously detail the divisions of professing Christians founded on difference of opinion, 1st, as to the Object of Divine Worship; 2dly, as to the Extent of the Blessings derived through the Gospel, and the Means whereby we become the Objects of Divine Favour; and, 3dly, as to Modes of Church Government.

I. Commencing, then, with the differences of opinion as to the Object of Divine Worship, the various hypotheses will be treated of in the following order:

1. That of the Trinitarians and Athanasians; who maintain that the Divine Nature, or a Divine Person, was so united to the human body and soul of Jesus, as to form one person, who is both truly God and truly man.

f

2. That of the Sabellians; who hold that Christ is in all respects the same as the Father, only under a different name; or, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are different names for the same Being, the only living and true God.

3. That of the Arians; who suppose that a pre-existent created spirit, of a higher or lower degree in the celestial hierarchy, animated the body of Jesus.

4. That of the Modern Socinians, or Socinian Unitarians; who assert that Jesus of Nazareth is a proper human being, but the greatest of all the Prophets of God.

II. The various opinions as to the Extent of the Blessings derived through the Gospel, and the Means of obtaining the Divine favour, will follow, under the titles,

1. Of Calvinism and Calvinists;

2. Of Arminianism and Arminians; and,

3. Of Antinomianism and Antinomians.

III. And the different modes of Church Government will be described in the articles immediately succeeding, in the following order ;

1. That of the Episcopalians;

2. That of the Presbyterians; and,

3. That of the Independents and Congregationalists.

DOCTRINAL DISTINCTIONS.

TRINITARIANISM, TRINITARIANS, AND

ATHANASIANS.

NAMES.

THE term Trinitarian is applied to all those that profess to believe the doctrine of the Holy Trinity*, in opposition to Arians and Socinians, who style themselves Unitarians and Anti-Trinitarians.

A great proportion of the Trinitarians receive the creed that goes under the name of Athanasius; and to these only, and not to all Trinitarians, should the term Athanasian be applied. The Presbyterians of all descriptions in Scotland, and the Independents and Particular Baptists in England +, with many others both at home and abroad, are Trinitarians, but do not receive the Nicene or the Athanasian Creed, although they hold the substance of the doctrine which those creeds contain. They cannot, therefore, be properly called Athanasians.

Notwithstanding the strongest evidence that is constantly given them to the contrary, the Jews, the Socinians, and others, still insist that Trinitarians destroy the Divine Unity, and worship three Gods, and, of consequence, are Tritheists. Some may perhaps have expressed themselves incautiously, or represented the three Persons to be so absolutely distinct, as to be in all respects three different Beings; but Tritheism is now expressly disavowed by all writers upon the subject; nor is it applicable to any class of Christians in the present day ‡. Even

Trinity is not a scriptural term, but was introduced into the church by Theophilus of Antioch, about the year of our Lord 150, to express the union of the three Persons in the Godhead.

By the Toleration Act, subscription was indeed required of the Dissenting Teachers, in England, to the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, as received by the Church of England; but from this they are now relieved by 19th of George III.

Some are of opinion, that it may be applied to those who make the Son essentially inferior to the Father, and yet call him God.-That the Son is

Crellius, who has been reckoned the most acute of the Socinians, is candid enough to acknowledge, that they who hold the Trinity are not justly chargeable with believing more Gods than one, because of the strict unity which they maintain to subsist in the Divine Essence*.

RISE, HISTORY, &c.

The enemies of the doctrine of the Trinity insist, that it was an invention of the first ages of the church; or, that it was borrowed from the Platonic school. But, in the opinion of its friends, the understanding of man can never be more grossly insulted, than when such people labour to persuade them, that a truth, so awfully sublime as that of the Trinity, could ever be the offspring of human invention; nor, according to them, can history be more violated, than when it is made to assign the origin of this doctrine to Plato †, or to any of the schools of Greece.

6.6

Equally above the boldest flight of human genius to invent, as beyond the most extended limit of human intellect fully to comprehend, is the profound mystery of the ever-blessed Trinity. Through successive ages, it has remained impregnable to all the shafts of impious ridicule, and unshaken by the bolder artillery of blasphemous invective. It is ever in vain that man essays to pierce the unfathomable arcana of the skies. By his limited faculties, and superficial ken, the deep things of eternity are not to be scanned. Even among Christians, the Sacred Trinity

subordinate to the Father, is what, says Dr. Eveleigh, "no sound member of the Catholic Church has ever denied." Yet Christian divines seem to have widely differed as to the nature and extent of this subordination; but most Trinitarians, I believe, maintain, that, with respect to our Lord's divinity, he is in no sense subordinate to the Father. "The subordination of the Son, admitted by Pearson, Bull, Waterland, Bishop Horsley, and others, implies no inferiority in the Divine nature of Christ, but a difference of order and office."-Mr. Gray's Bump. Lect. p. 134, Note; where the author refers his readers to "Defens. Fid. Nicæn. cap. 11.; Pearson on the Creed; Waterland on the Athanasian Creed, and Preface to Eight Sermons on the Defence of the Divinity of Christ; Bishop Horsley's 15th Letter to Priestley; Tertull. Advers. Prax. c. 9, 12, 13."

See the passage cited in Stillingfleet on "The Sufferings of Christ," part 2d, near the end, vol. iii. p. 407 of the Bishop's works, in folio. It is obvious to remark here, that the modern Socinians, now called Unitarians, do not think so favourably of Trinitarians and their doctrine: on the contrary, it is by no means unusual with them to rank together Trinitarianism and transubstantiation, as being no doubt, in their opinion, both entitled to the same degree of incredibility.

+ Dr. Cudworth proves, that there were others among the ancient Pagans, besides the Platonists, who had some notion of a Trinity.-See his Intellectual System, b. i. c. 4; Hutchinson's Trinity of the Gentiles; Bryant's Mythology, vol. ii. p. 169; and Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon, 3d edit. pp. 388-9.