Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

articles, and nice propositions." They not only differed from one another in their explications; but their best writers cannot be made orthodox, according to what we now call standard systems, without forced and unnatural comments. To believe and agree in the scripture account of the Trinity was thought sufficient, without differing about philosophical distinctions concerning the manner of it: till the Sabellian notion broke out, which seemed to explain the doctrine quite away; the supporters thereof supposing the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to be only three modes of operation: or rather, one Being, under two modes of operation; making the Son and Spirit mere attributes, or emanations from the Supreme Being; the Son the wisdom or reason of the Father, by which he made the world, &c. The Spirit a mere operation. This scheme was set up by Praxeas, about the end of the second century, at Rome: afterwards by Noetus, at Ephesus. And about the year 257, it was spread by Sabellius, at Pentapolis: from him it takes the name of Sabellianism. The rise of this sect gave occasion for the church to be more exact in their terms and explications.Notwithstanding, even in the middle of the third century, there seems not to be any systematic notion of the Trinity agreed upon in the church, which is evident from Dionysius of Alexandria, who fell into heresy in writing against Sabellianism, not knowing what to set up against it, till better informed by Dionysius of Rome.

The general opinion of these ancients, concerning the SON, was, "That he existed in the Father from eternity, and at the creation, the Father put him without him, to create the world; which they called bringing him forth, prolation, or generation. Whilst he was in the Father, he was GOD from eternity, as every thing that is in God,

is GOD; but by his coming out from the Father, as he became the Son of God, so from thence they stiled him God of God." If they had any notion of his existing as a person from eternity with the Father, it was either potentially, as Eusebius represents it in his account of the Nicene faith; or, according to Tertullian's distinction, as the ratio or reason of the Father from eternity, till brought forth into sermo or word, and so became distinct from the Father, and as such a SoN. That this was the general doctrine of the three first centuries, is allowed by Dr. Waterland, who cannot be suspected any ways inclinable to betray the cause of eternal generation. In this doctrine, the reader will observe, we have nothing of an eternal, but a temporary generation only.

That this was the notion which prevailed at the council of Nice is manifest, in that they anathematized all who should say, "That he did not exist before he was begotten." The word begotten here, is not to be understood of his generation of the virgin, for this decree was made against the Arians, who never denied his existing before that; but it refers to the generation described above. Arius and his followers, having explained this temporary generation into a real creation, maintaining Christ to be a mere creature; the synod, in opposition to this, brought in the word consubstantial, to shew, that though they thought the Son generated, yet he was not created as other creatures; but that he was GOD from eternity in the Father; though as a SON, he was generated and brought forth as above. This was the faith of the Nicene council in the fourth century; so that no such notion of eternal generation was in the church for three hundred years, as it is now explained.

As to the original of the doctrine of eternal generation, I will not positively determine, but if we may depend upon the authority of some, well acquainted with the antiquities of those periods, it was the invention of apostate Jews; " which selfcontradictory notions, (saith a very eminent author) with other things of their production, have more confounded the christian faith, than any other positions:" and further says, "that Peter Galatine cites the person whose manufacture this doctrine

was."

However, it is certain, that the doctrines of the primitive fathers are not the rule of our faith. I suppose very few of the greatest advocates for antiquity will acquiesce in that notion of their's, "Of the FATHER bringing forth the Son of himself at the creation, and putting him without him;" though it was general among them.

But if the antiquity of this doctrine should still be thought worthy of regard, and that it should have a place in our credenda, for its goodly age of one thousand four hundred years; then we are no more to judge of doctrines by their evidence, and agreeableness to scripture, but by their age; and if so, it would have been much to the advantage of this, that it had been three hundred and seventy-three years older. Indeed one thousand four hundred years is a great age; but if it began no sooner, it is not the true antiquity, and no more true for being of that age, than if it had been only fourteen days old.

Still, say its friends, it is venerable for its age. But should this be granted, some greyheaded errors, will for the same reason, claim the same respect. Sabellianism prevailed both in the

eastern and western churches, one hundred years before the council of Nice; till Arianism took up the ball, and turned the waters of contention into another channel; this was confirmed in several councils, and kept the seat of orthodoxy for many years. Now, it is certain these errors have a better right to the antique title, as the latter was the very occasion of inventing this hypothesis. I do not know what is meant by the stream of antiquity, so much boasted of in favor of this scheme, if it be not that it has been favored by the strongest party, and continued long; and if this be the rule to measure truth, the ancient errors should be naturalized among our systems: this is a fine argument in favor of popery, which, it seems, the longer it lasts, will be the better.

Having answered the arguments in favor of eternal generation, before I proceed to consider the texts produced for proof of it, I must remove a prejudice which some are ready to be overtaken with. It perhaps will be alledged, that though I have been finding fault with this scheme, because the terms therein are unscriptural; yet, in treating of the same doctrine, I use terms not to be found in scripture. To this I answer,

That though it would be highly commendable, in such sublime doctrines, if every one would both speak and write in the language of revelation as near as possible, since the truth is in danger, in a number of human consequences; yet, it should be carefully observed, that there is a great difference betwixt one bringing forth all the evidence he can for the illustration of any particular truth, that others may be invited to embrace it, upon the evidence offered which hath persuaded himself:-and another person or more, forming a scheme of human deductions for a rule of faith to be imposed

on others, upon the pain of damnation, whether A they have any evidence to believe them or not. mistake in the first case remains with the author; none is desired to believe further than they see evidence to support the truth:-but an error in the latter case is fundamental, and of the most dangerous consequence.

sequence.

Besides, I do not altogether reject the terms in the scheme, because they are not in scripture; but for their being such as will bear no tolerable meaning consistent with what is revealed of that doctrine. For the same reason, I dislike some explications of scriptural phrases, because they have not the least degree of analogy with the texts they are pretended explications of: and though I have used some terms not expressed in scripture, yet the sense is included therein by necessary con As for example, the words plurality and Trinity, though not in scripture, yet the plain and undeniable meaning of them is-"These THREE are one." The same may be said of the terms BEING, ESSENCE, EXISTENCE, &c. As to the terms SUBSISTENCE, and PERSON, which I have sometimes used, not because I think in a strict sense they are properly applicable to the subject, but for want of other words more proper in their stead; and because they will be best understood, long custom having established the use of them. It might give uneasiness to the minds of some christians to introduce any new terms into this doctrine, and so lose that advantage proposed from any clearer ideas included in them.

I conceive it will be acceptable to most of my readers, to be informed on what occasion those terms came to be applied to this subject. For this purpose let it be observed, that about the

« FöregåendeFortsätt »