Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

mean by any of these terms, as applied to him, the very same that we mean by them when they are applied to any thing else, viz. that in which certain properties inhere, or to which they belong? And you will not pretend to say that we have as clear an idea of this threefold nature of God, as we have of the simple nature of man, of a tree, or of a stone, the properties of which we can distinctly perceive, so that we can, with the greatest certainty, say that they are possessed of them.

Here we have only one essence, or substance, call it which you please, with properties belonging to it; whereas you say, that "these three distinctions in God, be they what they will, are intimately and inseparably united, so as to constitute one undivided essence, one and the same being."* Each of these distinctions, if it be any thing at all, must have its own essence, or substance, and yet it is necessary that these three essences or substances, should constitute no more than one essence, or substance. Do not pretend, Sir, that there are any difficulties in nature, of which you speak,† (and by the consideration of which you hope so to humble our understandings, as that we shall admit of any absurdity you shall propose to us,) comparable to such a contradiction as this. If, to your arguments you can even add miracles, the doctrine you propose could not be received. While a man retains the use of his senses, and requires ideas in order to make propositions, it is not possible that he should believe it.

I have shewn that when you speak of three distinctions in God constituting only one God, you give us no ideas at all, and yet require a solemn and important affirmation. I shall now shew you that, when you do not sufficiently attend to this threefold distinction in God, you have an idea of one God inconsistent with every thing you say of the three.

You say, "We are ready to allow that, in an abstract sense, the title of God is more emphatically applied to the Father than to the other two, when he is considered as the fountain of the Godhead; and also that this appellation, when applied to any one single person, has not the same exact and adequate signification as when we ascribe it to three persons conjointly." You also say, "The Father has a pre-eminence and priority of order, office, and caus ality."S Now, what more could you say to describe the

* Address, p. 4. (P.)

↑ Ibid. p. 4. (P.)

+ Ibid. p. S2. (P.)
Ibid. p. 15. (P.)

difference between God and a creature, than to say that the former is the cause of the latter? Here, Sir, are clear ideas, but they are utterly discordant with what you subjoin to the former of these propositions, that "the idea of paternity and unorigination gives the Father a superiority, or rather a priority of order, which yet is by no means incompatible either with the notion of coexistence or perfect equality;"* and also to what you subjoin to the latter of these propositions, viz. that "he is in no sense superior, as to excellence or duration." The ideas are absolutely contradictory, and can never be predicated of the same things. For, what can be more so, than that a thing caused should be equal to its cause?

You have nothing like this doctrine of the superiority of the Father, in the Athanasian Creed. There all the three persons are represented as being possessed of all the properties of Godhead, which are distinctly enumerated; and it is declared of them, that " none is afore or after other; none is greater or less than another." This creed, therefore, and your idea of the Father being the cause of the Son's existence, can never be reconciled. On this idea of yours there is one God, from whom Christ, as well as all other things, derives his being; but according to the Athanasian Creed, all the three persons are absolutely independent of each other, and none of them is either the cause of the other, or possessed of any kind of superiority. Whoever composed this creed, he would have disclaimed your idea of the supremacy of the Father, in any sense whatever.

LETTER VII.

I am, &c.

A Comparison between the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that of the Trinity; of the Damnatory Clause in the Athanasian Creed, and of some Arguments for the Doctrine of the Trinity from the Scriptures.

REV. SIR,

You labour hard, with your seven reasons, but all to no purpose, to shew that the doctrine of the Trinity rests on a better foundation than that of Transubstantiation. But you say, that "had Christ asserted even this in express terms, I should certainly have thought myself bound to believe it, ↑ Ibid. p. 29. (P.

* Address, p. 5. (P.)

↑ Ibid. p. 15. (P.)

notwithstanding all the arguments from reason, which I now think so conclusive against it."* In this you discover the remains of your former Catholic principle, of the submission of reason to faith. Now, of the two, the doctrine of Transubstantiation is revealed in much plainer terms than that of the Trinity for it is said, in some sense or other, that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ; but it is no where said, that there is a threefold distinction in the Divine nature, in any sense whatever. All the real difference between the doctrine of Transubstantiation and that of the Trinity is, that the former implies a physical impossibility, since no two different substances can have the same properties; and the latter a mathematical one, since three cannot be one, or one, three. It is not, as I have said, in the power of miracles to prove either; though it is in the power of church authority, and church preferment, to make men declare their unfeigned assent to both; and if to these, to any other propositions whatever.

Your natural candour startles at the damnatory clause in the Athanasian Creed, and, like the Bishop of St. David's, you take it to be a very innocent thing; but your explanation is wrapped up in more words than his. "With respect to the uncharitable clauses," which you say, "are usually set in so very unfair a light, it cannot be too strongly inculcated, that whatever the church declares concerning the terms of salvation relates only to the gospel covenant, and the ordinary course of God's dispensations, in the line of revealed religion, without pretending to exclude from the general mercies of our common Father, or the benefits of Christ's redemption, any such of his creatures as have not forfeited their claim to favour, by a wilful transgression of such laws as they had sufficient means to become acquainted with."+

Your meaning, Sir, in this language, as an apology for the Athanasian Creed, is utterly impenetrable to me. I only know that, according to this creed, if the language of it have any meaning, I, and all mankind, at least all who have heard of it, (though this is an exception which the creed itself has not made,) are to be damned everlastingly if we do not believe it, and that you, Sir, from mere good nature, seem desirous that we may not.

Among the texts of scripture by which you prove the divinity of Christ, there are some which I never heard of

* Defence, p. 74. (P.)

+ Address, p. 42, (P.)

before; for example, you represent Christ as saying, “I am the Lord of hosts. I am the first and the last, besides whom there is no other God. I am the most high God, besides whom there is no Saviour. In piercing me they pierced the Lord their God. I am the mighty God and everlasting Father. I, by my own power, remit the sins of men. I am the character of God's substance, &c. Whatever you ask in my name, I, who am God, will do it. Baptism without my name is as little valid as without the name of the Father," &c. &c. &c.*

Now, this, Sir, is altogether your own language, and not that of Christ. It is not scripture, but a miserable perversion of scripture, and implies nothing less than contradiction and blasphemy. For according to this, the Father himself is not God. Nay, if he had no existence, there would have been no want of him. And when you talk of the blood of God,† and of God incarnate dying, the language is so unscriptural, and so shocking, that I am struck with horror, and can proceed no farther. Surely, such uncouth and unscriptural language, which your unscriptural and irrational hypothesis obliges you to make use of, sufficiently exposes itself.

A

REV. SIR.

LETTER VIII.

The Conclusion.

I am, &c.

IF, as I have said, you had not ingrossed all the words expressive of wonder and astonishment that the English language furnishes, I should have applied some of them on closing, as well as on entering upon, this review of your most extraordinary performance. That young men, who have not read or thought on the subject, and whom their parents and tutors have sufficient reason, of some kind or other, not to lead to read or think about it, should subscribe the Thirtynine Articles, or any thing else, is not surprising. Nor is it much to be wondered at, that a person should think he has sufficient reasons, of some kind or other, to quit the Church

+ Ibid. (P.)

Ibid. p. 17. (P.)

* Address, p. 21. (P.) Yet too common with Trinitarians. Thus Watts, in what he afterwards described as "the days of his younger assurance," besides the extravagancies in his Hymns, has, in his Lyric Poems, sung of a dying and a rising Deity. In his censure of "Locke's Annotations," he has even borrowed from Homer the notion of "a bleeding God." (Works, VII. p. 261.) Young, also, in his Night Thoughts, describes the crucifixion of Christ as "Extended Deity for human weal."

of Rome, and to become a member of the Church of England; because, in certain situations, and with respect to certain persons, the latter may have many things to recommend it, which he cannot have in the former. But that a person, with a mind so enlightened as yours is, should undertake a defence of your conduct, and write upon the subject, and in so palpably weak a manner as you have done; that you should perhaps have deliberately transcribed what you had written, and then have carefully corrected the press; so that the same thoughts and language must have passed in review before you several times, and yet, that you should not perceive the extreme futility of your reasoning, and how much you are exposing the cause which you would wish to recommend, may well excite wonder.

But as the term wonder is only expressive of ignorance, I will not say that I wonder; but only, that I now see that there is something in the Church of England which has more power than I was aware of, to blind the eyes of men, in other respects honest and ingenuous; and to produce a degree of self-delusion almost equal to any thing that we see in Bedlam.

This consideration makes me truly thankful to God that my situation and circumstances have been different from yours; for I am far from thinking that either my understanding, or my heart, is naturally better than yours. But what must we think of a system which has such a power of perverting the best faculties and dispositions that God has given to man!

Let all who are happily out of the influence of this fascination join in the most ardent prayers, and the most earnest, but peaceable endeavours, for the demolition of it. Like Ulysses, let us feel for the fate of our fellow-men, who are so dreadfully metamorphosed by it; and labour to undo the charm which makes them think and feel so differently from what they naturally would do.

[blocks in formation]
« FöregåendeFortsätt »