Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

not being sound in the faith would immediately fasten upon them. No sect, whose creed they rejected, would be satisfied with them. It would be thought they did not preach he whole truth - that they did not believe in all the word of God. Should they adopt the creed of one church, they would bring upon themselves the unqualified censure of all of a contrary creed.

Nay, should the Lord Jesus Christ, himself, descend from heaven, appearing in the same form, and preaching the same doctrine as when on earth, there are probably but few churches, called orthodox, that would receive him. Unless he would so modify his gospel that they could hear the favorite language of their creed, they would not suffer him. But this he could not, and would not do, because the creeds are essentially contradictory.

SECTION IV.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

The doctrine of the Trinity in unity, as it appears in the creeds of modern times, asserts "that in the Godhead are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and that these three are One God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory."-Creed of the Theological School at Andover.

This definition may be abridged in the words of Dr. Watts, thus, "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit, three in one."

Three persons, each of whom is The doctrine of the Trinity, then,

Now this doctrine is to be rejected, because the belief of it is impossible. Three persons, each of whom is God, are three Gods. This proposition can no more be denied than the following one. man, are three men. asserts, that there are three Gods. It also asserts, that there is but one God. But no man ever did believe, or ever can believe, that there are three Gods, and that there is but one God. Some Trinitarians have, indeed, remonstrated against the charge of tritheism, and have asserted (but not proved) that the great body of Trinitarians, by the use of the word person, do not mean proper personality. But if they say one thing and mean another, if they say person, and mean something else, they dissemble. If they use words without meaning they talk nonsense. If they use words that mean - nobody knows what-they "speak into the air." This, however, is only an evasion to which

they resort in order to free their system from the "absurdities consequent upon the language of their creed."

The doctrine of the Trinity, as held by the great body of Trinitarians, is, unquestionably, that which it appears to be, the terms person and persons being taken in their proper and obvious sense.

"By person," says Dr. Waterland, whose writings are preeminent with Trinitarians, "I certainly mean a real Person, an Hypostasis, no Mode, Attribute, or Property. Each divine Person is an individual, intelligent Agent; but as subsisting in one undivided substance, they are all together, in that respect, but one undivided Agent. The church never professed three Hypostases, in any other sense, but as they mean three Persons."-See Norton's Statement of Reasons, p. 3.

Dr. William Sherlock, one of the most learned and respectable dignitaries of the Church of England, and celebrated as a polemic writer, says, "It is plain the persons are perfectly distinct, for they are three distinct and infinite minds, and therefore three distinct persons; for a person is an intelligent being, and to say, there are three divine persons, and not three distinct infinite minds, is both heresy and nonsense."— Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 66.

[ocr errors]

The distinction of persons cannot be more truly and aptly represented than by the distinction between three men for the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are as really distinct persons, as Peter, James, and John."—Ibid. p. 105. "We must allow the divine persons to be real substantial beings."-Ibid. p. 47.

[ocr errors]

Dr. Barrow says, We first should carefully and duly be affected with the gracious consent, and, as it were, confederacy of the glorious Three in designing and prosecuting our good; their unanimous agreement, in uttering

those three mighty words of favor to mankind, let us make man out of nothing, let us recover him from sin and perdition, let us crown him with joy and salvation.'

[ocr errors]

Mr. Norton gives the following: "There are few names of higher authority among Calvinists than that of Howe. The mode of explaining the doctrine to which he was inclined is well known. He was disposed to regard the three divine persons, as three distinct, individual, necessarily existing, spiritual beings,' who formed together 'the most delicious society.""

[ocr errors]

Mr. Flavel exhibits the covenant of Redemption thus: 1. Consider the persons transacting. These were the Father and the Son. 2. Consider the business transacted between them: the Redemption of God's elect. 3. Consider the quality of the transaction. It was by mutual stipulation. 4. Consider the Articles to which they both agree. God the Father promiseth to invest God the Son with a three-fold office: to make him a priest, a prophet, a king that he will assist and strengthen him: that he will crown his work with success; and reward him with great exaltation. God the Son stipulates that he will divest himself of his glory, and not refuse any the hardest sufferings it should please the Father to inflict upon him. 5. These Articles were by both parties performed precisely and punctually. 6. The compact between God the Father and God the Son, bears date from ETERNITY."t

Dr. Hopkins says, "The blessed Trinity, in the one God, may be considered as a most exalted, happy, and glorious society or family, uniting in the plan of divine operations, especially in accomplishing the work of redemption. In this, each one has his part to perform, according to a most wise, mutual regulation or agréement, which may be called * Barrows' Works, Vol. iv. p. 320.

† See Unity of God: by J. Leonard, page 210.

с

a covenant. In performing these several parts of this work, one acts as superior, another as inferior; or one acts under another, and by his authority, as appointed or sent by him. This, by divines, is called the economy of the work of redemption. According to this economy, the Son, the Redeemer, acts under the Father, and by his will and appointment, and in this respect takes an inferior part; and in this sense he is supposed to speak, when he says, The Father is greater than I."*

Now what can we infer from such statements, but the doctrine of three Gods? A family of what? A society of what? A compact, a covenant, an agreement, between what? Not men, nor angels. If we pay any regard to the meaning of words, and the force of language, we must consider them a family of Gods, a society of Gods, a com pany, or co-partnership of Gods. If such descriptions of the Supreme Being were found in the writings of Voltaire, they would be regarded as an attempt to burlesque Christianity. And while they appear in creeds professedly founded on the scriptures; while they are published in sermons, and proclaimed from the pulpit as essential to salvation, is it surprising that the gospel should have so little influence on the hearts and lives of men? What means could be devised more likely to make unbelievers and infidels? If the gospel is the basis of the moral vir tues, and indispensable to the welfare of mankind, is it surprising that its progress is so slow, and its influence so inefficient in promoting human virtue and happiness? Is it strange that the chariot of salvation should be so tardy, while its wheels are thus encumbered.

So far as the doctrine of the Trinity is proved to be absurd, or incapable of belief, it will not be expected to be found taught in the bible. But as innumerable modifica *See Bible News, page 128, 129.

[ocr errors]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »