Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

which the pride of their reason refused to submit to. He considers not that the Jews, and the earliest heretics, (much of the same temper with the Pagan philosophers,) were offended at nothing more than at the mystery of God incarnate; which we learn from Ignatius, Justin, PIrenæus, Tertullian, and other ancient writers: and he need but look into Justin, Tatian, and Origen, to find that the Pagans, in particular, were in the same sentiments, and joined in the same common charge against the Christian doctrine. Nay, it may farther appear from other evidences, that the very mystery of the Trinity, which is the "rock of offence" to some even at this time, gave very early offence to the Pagan wits; and was much disrelished by them: so averse were they to the receiving of mysteries: and the pride of reason wrought, at that time, much after the same manner as it does at this day; human nature being always the same. But it is now high time to proceed.

QUERY XXII.

Whether his (the Doctor's) whole performance, whenever he differs from us, be any thing more than a repetition of this assertion, that being and person are the same, or that there is no medium between Tritheism and Sabellianism? Which is removing the cause from Scripture to natural reason, not very consistently with the title of his book.

IT is of small importance to observe how the Doctor has proved such points, as he and we both agree in. He

P Secundum nullam sententiam hæreticorum Verbum Dei caro factum est. Iren. 1. iii. c. 11. p. 189.

c. 8.

Incredibile præsumpserant Deum carnem. Tertull. contr. Marc. 1. iii.

Alii quoque hæretici usque adeo Christi manifestam amplexati sunt divinitatem, ut dixerint illum fuisse sine carne; et totum illi susceptum detraxerint hominem, ne decoquerint in illo divini nominis potestatem si humanam illi sociassent, ut arbitrabantur, nativitatem. Novat. c. 18.

Lucian. Philopatr. Athan. Orat. p. 564.

might have spared the unnecessary pains, and have took a shorter way with us, had his cause been such as could be served by close argument. He need not have told us so often that the Father is eminently styled the one God, or that the Son is subordinate. We allow all that: the consequence which he draws from it, and covertly insinuates to his reader, is the thing we doubt of. This was the point which should have been laboured, for the conviction of wise and considering men. He has a deal to say in defence of what nobody opposes; and may there triumph securely without an adversary: but when he comes to the point of difference, the pinch of the question, there it is that he discovers his want of proof, and how little be has to depend on, besides that one precarious principle intimated in the Query; which indeed runs through his whole performance, and is often supposed, but never proved.

:

By this principle he teludes the force of the first chapter of St. John's Gospel: and he refers to it again upon u Acts xx. 28. * 1 Tim. iii. 16. John v. 18. By the same principle he evades the force of y John viii. 58. xii. 41. a v. 23. And so he might have done with any number of texts, however full and express for the received doctrine for, by the same b maxim, he draws over the Nicene Creed, and does not despair of bringing in the Athanasian also. From hence it is visible, wherein the strength of his performance lies; and what it is that he chiefly trusts to. It is not Scripture, it is not antiquity, but a philosophical principle; to which Scripture, Fathers, Councils, Creeds, every thing, must yield. And indeed had it been a principle of true and sound philosophy, every reasonable man would be willing to pay the utmost deference to it but it appears, at length, to be that kind of vain philosophy, which is often intruding where it has

:

[blocks in formation]

nothing to do. The subject is sublime, and above comprehension. We have no intrinsic evidence, no ideas, to build any thing certainly upon. Extrinsic evidence, divine revelation, is here all in all; and the only proper use of our rational faculties, is to inquire into the true and genuine sense of it. To philosophize here from the nature and reason of the thing itself, of which we know little, is choosing to be still in the dark, when we have light before us; and is not, properly, following our reason, but our conceits, fancies, and fond conjectures. You are pleased to say, in defence of the learned Doctor, that "if " he had done no more than proved intelligent being and 66 person to be the same, it must for ever remain an un"answerable difficulty," &c. Right, if he had proved what he has not, something might be said. I have d before observed to you, that the word being bears two senses; and that you yourselves will not call any thing a being, but a separate being. Excuse the Trinitarians for being reserved, after your example, in so tender a point; and for endeavouring to speak properly, as well as to think justly, in things pertaining unto God. All that the Doctor hath proved, or can prove, is only this; that separate persons are so many intelligent beings; which we readily admit: but united persons, or persons having no separate existence, may be one Being, one Substance, one God, notwithstanding. And that you may not think that I screen myself under dark words, or obscure distinctions, I will tell you frankly the meaning of what I have now said. It is little more than this, that persons so united as to make one Being, may be one Being. I suppose the affirmative, that they may be so united; having sufficient grounds for it in Scripture, and in Catholic antiquity. It lies upon you, in this case, to prove the negative, viz. that no union whatever can make two persons one Being, one rò Ostov, one God: you are to show the supposition to be impossible, in the nature of the thing: that is, (as I

d Qu. ix. p. 119.

humbly conceive,) you are to prove what you can know nothing of; and are to work up a demonstration without ideas. There the matter rests, and, I am persuaded, must rest, till you please to come out of metaphysics; and to put the cause upon the foot of Scripture and antiquity, the only lights in this matter. Strange that, at this time of day, any need to be told (what unbelievers only doubted of formerly) that Scripture is our rule to go by, for forming our notions of God; and not the light of nature, which is darkness in comparison.

You are offended at the Querist for saying, that the Doctor admits no medium between Tritheism and Sabellianism. I should have said, it seems, no medium for his adversaries; and you wonder at so palpable a mistake. Indeed the meaning of what I said was so palpable, that` there was no occasion for guard, while I supposed myself writing to a man of sense. You have took it right so far: the Doctor allows us, his adversaries, no medium. But I had an eye to something more, viz. that he has, by the same principle, left no medium for himself; as I shall show you in due time. I am only to observe now, that it is not from Scripture, or from Catholic antiquity, that the Doctor has learned this maxim, of no medium (for such as believe Christ to be essentially God) between Sabellianism and Tritheism. This was what I complained of, his making a pompous appearance of Scripture and Fathers, when the whole is made to depend upon a mere philosophical question, which is to be the rule and measure to try Scripture and Fathers by. Let Scripture or Fathers appear ever so strong and clear for such a medium, they are condemned beforehand, either to speak another sense, or to be of no weight or authority. If

• Οὔτε γὰρ φύσει, οὔτε ἀνθρωπίνῃ ἐννοία, οὕτω μεγάλα καὶ θεῖα γινώσκειν ἀνθρώ ποις δυνατὸν, ἀλλὰ τῇ ἄνωθεν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἁγίους ἄνδρας τηνικαῦτα κατελθούσῃ δωρεᾷ. Just. Mart. Paræn. p. 60.

Πανταχόθεν τοίνυν εἰδέναι προσήκει, ὅτι οὐδαμῶς ἑτέρως περὶ Θεοῦ ἢ τῆς ὀρθῆς θεσ σεβείας μανθάνειν οἷόν τε, ἢ παρὰ τῶν προφητῶν μόνον, τῶν διὰ τῆς θείας ἐπιπνοίας didacnóvtav iμãs. Ibid. p. 129. ed. Ox. Conf. Hippolyt, contr. Noët. c. 9.

this be the case, (as you seem to admit,) you ought to go upon very sure grounds. And yet the learned Doctor, instead of favouring us with any proof of his main position, which gives the law to the rest, has only often repeated it; which is no more than to say, there cannot be any medium in the case; no, there cannot. We do not pretend to be wise enough to know any thing, a priori, whether there can, or there cannot; but, a posteriori, we may inquire after fact: and if we find by Scripture, rightly understood, that there really is such a medium; we shall not be concerned for any pretended strength of your maxim against it.

:

Our defence then against the charge of Tritheism will be as follows. By comparing Scripture with Scripture, we plainly find that the divine unity is not an unity of Person: we observe, that there are more Persons than one dignified with the same high titles of Lord, God, &c. invested with the same high powers, attributes, and perfections; and entitled to the same honour, worship, and adoration and yet the Scripture never tells us of two true Gods; but constantly asserts that God is one. We take notice, that the Father is Jehovah, and Son is Jehovah, and yet the Lord Jehovah is one Lord; the Father creates, and the Son creates, and yet we have no warrant to say two Creators; the Father is worshipped, and the Son is worshipped, and yet we find no foundation for asserting two objects of worship, or two worships: in a word, the Father is God, and the Son is God, and yet we are nowhere taught to call them two Gods. The obvious conclusion, from these premises, is, that they are both one God, (otherwise indeed Ditheism is unavoidable,) and thus the Scripture-notion of unity is of more Persons than one in the same Godhead. What confirms us in this reasoning, is, that our blessed Lord has told us, that he and the Father are one; that whosoever hath seen him, hath seen the Father; that he is in the Father, and the Father in him; and very familiarly speaking of the Father and himself, he says, "we will come unto him,"

« PreviousContinue »