« AnteriorContinuar »
ty and Unity. Divine Nature is One. Three Persons have the attributes of divine nature in divinity of nature they must be One. Divine Government is One: Three Persons direct their energies to effectuate the self same ends of that One Government: in the purposes and power of divine Government they must be One. But divine nature and divine government are the very qualities, which essentially constitute Godhead. In Godhead then, the Three must in quality (we repeat the words to obviate misconception,) must in quality of Godhead be One. But if one in Godhead, they must essentially be One God.
LXXXVII. In all concerns of moment, before we depart from what has been long received, we may properly ask the question "Cui Bono?"" for what good purpose" are we to innovate? Let this question be proposed in the case before us. "For what good purpose of obtaining more distinct knowledge concerning the Essen-. tial Nature and Eternal Existence of God, should we reject the doctrine of a Trinity? For none. It would in that point of view answer no purpose whatever to reject the doctrine of a Trinity. Men, good and acting on the most pure intention, have indeed imagined they could comprehend God's Essential Nature and Eternal Existence better in Unity, than in Trinity. Their thought however could be but imaginary. For, provided they maintained (what most have maintained) not any Materiality, but the Spirituality of God, they could then no more form an accurate idea of God's Essential Nature and Eternal Existence in Unity, than they could in Trinity. They could precisely and distinctly know nothing in one, or in the other case. And wherefore? For the same reason that a Man born blind knows nothing of Light in the Solar Orb. We have no powers of mind commensurate to any particle of such a subject as divine Essential Nature and Eternal Existence.
LXXXVIII. Supposing, for the sake of argument, we reject Christianity; and reverting to what is called Natural Religion, let us stand upon that ground. The degree of knowledge, which could be acquired in Natural Religion, can be collected only from considering those, who have actually lived under that Religion. With that knowledge then, "what more perfect ideas respecting God's Essential Nature and Eternal Existence, could we form in our Minds, than those we now form?" The Master Moralist will tell us. Οτι μεν γας τα θεία ύπες ήμας, παντι δηλον. Αποχρη de του κρειττούς της δυνάμεως αυτες σέβειν. Ośō, Οἷοι δε εισιν, ετε εὗρειν ῥαδιον, ετε ζητειν θεμιτον.
(Xenophon's Epistle to Æschines, vol. V. part ii. p. 173. ed. Wells.) "That there are divine Beings above us, is to every person evident. And it is enough to worship them, on account of their superiority in power. But of what nature they are, it is neither easy to discover, nor lawful to inquire." That there really did exist divine power, and that the exercise of such power for the happiness of Man was demonstrable in the works of creation, and providence, Socrates in his valuable dialogues with Aristodemus and Euthydemus very forcibly maintained. But that we can know the essential nature of those Beings, in whom such power resided, that he denied; as may
be seen in several passages similar to the above, in the Writings of his modest and accomplished encomiast. What reason have we to think, that if we were standing on the same ground of natural Relig ion as Socrates, we should have more perfect knowledge of divine things, than Socrates? Did the philosophers of Rome know more? Did our British ancestors, who were Druidical; or our Anglo Saxon progenitors, who were Idolaters, know more? Certainly not, so long as they were heathens. Their more pure wisdom came from Chris tianity And from the same source comes our wisdom. But Christianity brought to them, delivers to us, and carries with it, wherever it goes, the doctrine of a Trinity.
LXXXIX. Supposing we reject Christianity, and adopt Judaism; let us see what satisfaction concerning the point in question, we shall thence derive. We no sooner open the Sacred History, than we find a word implying Plurality introduced as the title of the Almighty. However we may labour to account for this, yet after all it is a very striking circumstance, that when the Sacred Writer might have used a word of singular import (as he does elsewhere) and thus have precluded all ambiguity, he nevertheless uses a word of plural import thirty times, at the beginning of his History and in its primary chapters, and thereby admits ambiguity. And knowing, as we do, that from this and other circumstances, it has been maintained by very learned and considerate men, that the Jews held a Plurality in the Godhead, we should be led to conclude, that at least the doctrine of Unity is far from having been unquestionably the doctrine of the Jews. The point has been disputed, and is still controverted. With respect therefore to deriving any certainty on this doctrine from Judaism, we should be disappointed. The matter is doubtful.
XC. He that should say, "the doctrine of the Trinity has been disputed among Christians, and is therefore questionable," would say what is fact. But if he should urge this as a sufficient plea for rejecting the doctrine altogether, he would judge hastily, and conclude erroneously. For he should consider on which side of the question by far, very far the major part of Christians, from the Apostles to the Fathers, from the Fathers to us, through all ages of Christianity, have most decidedly determined. He should consider, that while only individuals, comparatively few, have occasionally denied the doctrine of a Trinity, whole nations in a continuance and in the most public manner have asserted that doctrine, through successive generations during the long course of Eighteen CentuOn these considerations, as the weight of general and public judgment is evidently against him, he should see there are strong grounds for suspecting, that they, who deny the doctrine of a Trinity, merely because it has been controverted, may possibly be wrong, and are probably wrong, in their dissent from that doctrine.
XCI. To him that should say, "the supporters of the Trinitarian doctrine were fallible men, and therefore might be mistaken;" the reply would be, "your remark is partly inaccurate, and partly correct. Inaccurate in the highest degree with respect to our
Lord, whose doctrine it is, and, who in his divine wisdom was absolutely infallible; inaccurate also according to the ideas of all Christians, with respect to the Apostles, whose inspiration, taken in the most limited sense, at least prevented them from being mistaken, when delivering fundamental Truths. With regard to other Writers, your remark is correct; they certainly were fallible men, and as such might be mistaken. But upon the same principle, you also may be mistaken. And among the infinitude of Writers, whether long since dead or still living, who on principles conscientious, and with talents adequate, have interpreted Scripture Texts relating to this subject, the most able and the most numerous Expositors will prove that you are mistaken; but that the maintainers of a Trinity are right in their opinion; on the grounds of Scripture, the grounds on which the question must ultimately stand.
XCII. For our religious principles, whilst they are confined to ourselves, we are responsible to God only. For the manner in which we openly declare our religious principles, and for the conduct we pursue under the influence of them, we are responsible to society also.
XCIII. As the forming of right opinions depends upon a combination of many circumstances, how far it may or may not be in our own power to form right opinions, admits of a question. But about the impropriety of injuring society by any mode of propagating our opinions, there should be no question. For, nothing can be more clear, than that man, living in society, is bound by moral and political obligations not to injure such society either by word or deed.
XCIV. Those, who hold the doctrine of a Trinity, however individually they may give different explications of it, are nevertheless Trinitarians as those, who protest against a particular Church, although unhappily among themselves they have separated from each other, by multifarious divisions, and discriminate each other by subtile distinctions implying even dimidiation, are nevertheless all Protestants. In the former case, disputes about exposition do not prove that therefore the doctrine of a Trinity does not exist in Scripture. In the latter case, dissensions about difficult and nice points do not prove that therefore the religion of Protestants is not to be found in Scripture.
XCV. To particular minds, particular passages of ancient Authors will frequently recur. What if these sentiments were often recollected?
αμφι δ' ανθρω
των φρεσιν αμπλακίαι
"around the minds of men hang innumerable errors." (Pind. Ol. 7.) "Seek not out the things that are too hard for thee; neither search the things that are above thy strength. But what is commanded thee think thereupon with reverence for it is not needful for thee
to see with thine eyes the things that are in secret. Be not curious in unnecessary matters: for more things are shewed thee than men understand." (Ecclesiasticus iii. 21, 22, 23.) The remembrance of these verities, founded on experience, how should it operate? It should teach Humility and Moderation.
XCVI. Be the subject what it may, in holding the same Doc. trine, taken in a general and enlarged sense, men may agree: in their sentiments about particular points and particular explanations of the principal Doctrine, they may nevertheless differ. And on this account neither side should censure the other. Till the minds of all men can in their talents and conceptions be entirely alike, the judgments of all men cannot be entirely alike. To expect it, were to expect an impossibility.
XCVII. So long as it preserves command of temper, decency of language, propriety of expression, adherence to sound argument either by reason or proof, candid allowance for difference of thinking, and above all, respect for Public Opinion on subjects of a seri ous and sacred nature, Partiality for one's own sentiments is venial. Venial therefore it will be in a Member of the Church of England, if he commends the Collect of his Church for Trinity Sunday, which precisely corresponds with his own views of the subject, as a very fine specimen of clearness and comprehension combined. . XCVIII. Considering the mutability of the human mind, and the several melancholy instances of well meaning persons, who under the debility of age have fallen from that rectitude of judgment, which they shewed in the vigour of life and in the full strength of their mental faculties, we cannot conclude our "Thoughts" on the Triune Golhead more properly, than by offering with all humility that solemn prayer, in which we are well instructed thus to supplicate for divine aid, in wisdom spiritual and in concerns temporal:
"Almighty and everlasting God! who hast given unto us thy servants grace, by the confession of a true faith, to acknowledge the glory of the Eternal Trinity, and in the power of the Divine Majesty to worship the Unity; we beseech Thee, that Thou wouldest keep us stedfast in this faith; and evermore defend us from all adversities; who livest and reignest One God, world without end. Amen,"
No. XVI. "Triad."] Cudworth's Intellectual System. Parker's Free and Impartial Censure of the Platonic Philosophy, p. 113. Maurice's Indian Antiquities, vol. IV, p. 426.
No. XXII. "Thirty times."] Allix's "Judgment of the Jewish Church against the Unitarians," p. 116, ed. 1699. See also, p. 119.
No. XXII. "Decalogue."] "That the plural word is used with the design of intimating a plurality in the Godhead, in some respect or other, it is strange that any one should doubt, who has observed, that it is used in places, in which if there be in truth no plurality in the Godhead, the inspired Writers must have been determined by the principles of their religion, studiously to avoid the use of a plural; especially as they had singulars at command. The plural is used in that very precept, which prohibits the worship of any God but one. "I Jehovah am thy Gods, that brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."-" Be not unto thee other GoDs beside me;" and in every subsequent part of the Decalogue, where God is mentioned, the plural word is introduced. In the second commandment, "For I Jehovah am thy Gods." In the third, "Take not the name of Jehovah thy Gods in vain.". In the fourth, "The Sabbath of Jehovah thy Gods." In the fifth, "The land which Jehovah thy Gods is giving thee." See p. 20, Animadversions on Dr. Geddes's Critical Remarks on the Holy Scriptures, printed by Wilkes and Taylor, 1803.
No. XXII, "repetition."] "Hear, O Israel (saith Moses) Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." Deut. vi. 4, as translated by the late good and learned Dr. Randolph, p. 131, vol. II. "A View of our Blessed Saviour's Ministry." The same passage is translated by Dr. Randolph thus also; "Jehovah our Gods is one Jehovah." This, adds (Dr. R.) if he did not hereby design to denote a Plurality of Persons in the Godhead, should seem to be a strange form of expression. P. 7. " Vindication of the Worship of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," ed. 1775. "Let those, who have any doubt whether Elohim when meaning the true God, Jehovah, is plural or not, consult the following passages, where they will find it joined with Adjectives, Pronouns, and Verbs plural." P. 22. Ed. 1792. Hebrew and English Lexicon by Parkhurst, who refers to twenty-five texts, in the Old Testament, on this occasion. The same Expositor thus explains JEHOVAH-" the peculiar and incommunicable name of the Divine Essence (see Is. xliii. 8. Hos. xii. 4, 5.) subsisting in a Plurality, i. e. Trinity of Persons." See Deut. vi. 4. xxviii. 58. Lexicon, p. 173.