Page images
PDF
EPUB

ther as much as three men can do, are not three men, but only one man.

If it be faid, with the Antenicene fathers, and with bishops Pearfon and Bull, among the modern English writers, that the Father is the fountain of deity, and that the fon is derived from him, whether neceffarily or voluntarily, whether in time or from eternity, they cannot be of the fame rank: but the Father will be poffeffed of an original, a real, and proper fuperiority to the Son; who will be no more than an effect upon the Father's exertion of his powers, which is, to all intents and purpoles, making the Son to be a production or creature of the Father; even though it fhould be fuppofed with the antients that he was created out of the substance of the Father, and without taking any thing from him. Moreover, as upon this fcheme the Son was never capable of giving birth to another perfon like himself, he must have been originally inferior in power to the Father, the fource from which he himself fprang. On this fcheme, therefore, there is no proper equality between these divine perfons; and the Antenicene Fathers did not pretend that there was, but diftinguished the Father by the epithet of autod, God of himself, and the Son by the inferior title of t ex day, God of God, or a derived God.

[ocr errors]

εκ

If it be faid that there is only one intelligent fupreme mind, but that it exerts itself three different ways, and has three different modes of action, or operation

Q2

operation (which was the opinion of Dr. Wallis, and that which was generally afcribed to the ancient Sabellians), with refpect to one of which the fame divine Being was called the Father, to another the Son, and another the Holy Spirit; there is no proper trinity at all. For on the fame principle one man, bearing three different offices, or having three different relations or capacities, as those of magiftrate, father, fon, &c. would be three different

men.

Some represent themselves as believing the doctrine of the trinity by afferting with Dr. Dod. dridge, that "God is fo united to the derived "nature of Chrift, and does fo dwell in it, that, "by virtue of that union, Chrift may be properly "called God, and fuch regards become due to him,

as are not due to any created nature, or mere "creature, be it in itself ever fo excellent."

What this union is, in confequence of which any creature can be entitled to the attributes and honours of his creator, is not pretended to be explained; but as we cannot poffibly have any idea of an union between God and a creature, befides that of God. being prefent with that creature, and acting by him, which is the fame thing that is afferted by the Arians or Socinians, thefe nominal trinitarians must neceffarily belong to one or other of thefe two claffes. This is fo evident, that it is hardly poffible

See his Lectures, propofition 128, P. 392.

ble not to fuppofe but that they must have been much affifted at least in deceiving themselves into a belief that they were trinitarians, by the influence which a dread of the odium and other inconveni · ences attending the Arian or Socinian doctrine had on their minds. The prefence of God the Father with any creature, whether it be called an union. with him, or it be expreffed in any other manner whatever, can be nothing more than the unity of the Father in that creature; and whatever it be that God voluntarily imparts, he may withdraw again at pleasure. And what kind of divinity muft that be, which is dependent upon the will of another?

Upon none of the modifications, therefore,. which have been mentioned (and all others may be reduced to thefe) can the doctrine of the trinity, or of three divine perfons in one God be fupported.. In most of them the doctrine itself is loft, and where: it remains it is inconfiftent with reafon and com-mon fenfe..

II. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST THE ARIAN HYPOTHESIS..

THE Arian doctrine, of the world having been made and governed not by the fupreme God himfelf, but by Chrift, the Son of God, though no contradiction in itself, is, on feveral accounts,, highly improbable.

Our reafoning from effects to caufes carries us no farther than to the immediate creator of the vifible univerfe. For if we can fuppofe that being to have had a caufe, or author, we may suppose that his cause or author had a higher caufe, and fo on ad infinitum. According to the light of nature, therefore, the immediate caufe or author of the vifible univerfe is the felf-exiftent first cause, and not any being acting under him, as his inftrument. However, the fcheme itself is not naturally impoffi ble, fince a being poffeffed of power fufficient to produce the vifible univerfe, which is a limited production, may be finite, and therefore may derive his power, and his being, from one who is fuperior to him. But though the Arian scheme cannot be faid to be in itself impoffible, it is, on feveral ac-counts, extremely improbable a priori, and there-fore ought not to be admitted without very ftrong and clear evidence..

If this great derived being, the supposed makerand governor of the world, was united to a human. body, he muft either have retained, and have exercifed, his extraordinary powers during this union, or have been divefted of them; and either fuppofi-. tion has its peculiar difficulties and improbabilities.

If this great being retained his proper powers. during this union, he must have been sustaining the whole univerfe, and fuperintending all the laws of nature, while he was an infant at the breaft of his

mother,

mother, and while he hung upon the crofs. And to imagine the creator of the world to have been in thofe circumftances is an idea at which the mind revolts, almost as much as at that of the fupreme God himself being reduced to them.

Befides, if Chrift retained, and exercifed all his former powers in this ftate of apparent humiliation, he must have wrought all his miracles by a power properly his own, a power naturally belonging to him, as much as the power of fpeaking and walking belongs to any other man. But this was exprefsly disclaimed by our Saviour, when he faid,, that of bimfelf he could do nothing, and that it was the Fai ther within him who did the works. Alfo, on this. fuppofition, it must have been this fuper-angelic being united to the body of Jefus, that raised him from the dead; whereas this is an effect which is always afcribed to God the Father only.

If, on the other hand, Chrift was divefted of his original powers, or emptied himself of them upon his incarnation, the whole fyftem of the government of the universe muft have been changed during his refidence upon earth.. Either fome other derived being (which this fcheme does not provide) must have taken his place, or the fupreme being himself muft have condefcended to do that which the fcheme supposes there was an impropriety in his doing. For certainly the making and the govern.. ing of the world would not have been delegated to:

another,

« PreviousContinue »