432

THEOLOGY.

Duties and practical wifdom, as the ingenuity of man could never have
fanct ons, discovered. The Chriftian, with the feriptures in his hands,
of natural
can regulate his conduct by an infallible guide, and rest his
religion.

سمنا

54

tence to

Revelation,

our business to examine.
hopes on the fureft foundation. Thefe fcriptures it is now Duties and

PART II. OF REVEALED THEOLOGY.

Many pre- IN every civilized country the popular fyftem of theology has claimed its origin from divine revelation. The Pagans of antiquity had their augurs and oracles; the Chinese have their infpired teachers Confucius and Fohi; the Hindoos have their facred books derived from Brahama; the followers of Mahomet have their koran dictated by an angel; and the Jews and Chriftians have the fcriptures of the Old and New Testaments, which they believe to have been written by holy men of old, who fpake and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghoft.

That the claims of ancient Paganism to a theology derived from heaven, as well as the fimilar claims of the Chinese, Hindoos, and Mahometans, are ill founded, has been shown in various articles of this work, (fee CHINA, HINDOSTAN, MAHOMETANISM, MYTHOLOGY, and POLYTHEISM); whilft, under the words RELIGION, REVELATION, and SCRIPTURE, we have fufficiently proved the divine infpiration of the Jewish and Chriftian feriptures, and of course the divine the Jewish origin of Jewish and Chriftian theology. Thefe indeed are not two fyftems of theology, but parts of one fyftem which lations are was gradually revealed as men were able to receive it; and alone true. therefore both fcriptures must be ftudied by the Chriftian

$5. Though

and Chri 1tian reve

36 Common

divine.

There is nothing in the facred volume which it is not of importance that he fhould underftand whofe office it is to be a teacher of religion; for the whole proceeds from the fountain of truth: but fome of its doctrines are much more important than others, as relating immediately to man's everlasting happiness; and thefe it has been cuftomary to arrange and digeft into regular fyftems, called bodies or inftitutes of Chriflian theology. Could thefe artificial fyftems be formed with perfect impartiality, they would undoubtedly be useful, for the bible contains many hiftorical details, but remotely related to human falvation; and even of its moft important truths, it requires more time and attention than the majority of Chriftans have to beltow, to discover the mutual connection and dependence.

Artificial fyftems of theology are commonly divided into divifions of two great parts, the theoretic and the practical; and these again Under the revealed are subdivided into many inferior branches. theology, theoretic part are fometimes claffed,

1. Dogmatic theology; which comprehends an entire fyftem of all the dogmas or tenets which a Chriftian is bound to believe and profefs. The truth of thefe the divine must clearly perceive, and be able to enforce upon his audience: and hence the neceflity of ftudying what is called,

2. The exegefts, or the art of attaining the true fenfe of the holy feriptures; and,

3. Hermeneutic theology, or the art of interpreting and explaining the fcriptures to others; an art of which no man can be ignorant who knows how to attain the true fenfe of them himielf.

4. Polemical theology, or controversy; and,

5. Moral theology, which is diftinguished from moral philofophy, or the fimple doctrine of ethics, by teaching a much higher degree of moral perfection than the mere light of reafon could ever have discovered, and adding new motives to the practice of virtue.

The practical fciences of the divine are,

1. Homiletic, or paftoral theology; which teaches him to adapt his difcourfes from the pulpit to the capacity of his

hearers, and to pursue the best methods of guiding them by
his doctrine and example in the way of falvation.

2. Catechetic theology, or the art of teaching youth and
ignorant perfons the principal points of evangelical doctrine,
as well with regard to belief as to practice.

3. Cafuiflic theology, or the fcience which decides on doubtful cafes of moral theology, and that calms the fcru ples of confcience which arife in the Chriftian's foul during his journey through the prefent world.

fanctions of natural religion

ST

We have mentioned thefe divifions and fubdivifions of the fcience of theology, not because we think them important, but merely that our readers may be at no loss to under ftand the terms when they meet with them in other works. Of fuch terms we fhall ourselves make no use, for useless. the greater part of them indicate diftinctions where there is no difference, and tend only to perplex the ftudent. As the truths of Chriftianity are all contained in the fcriptures of the Old and New Teftaments, it is obvious that dogma. tic theology must comprehend the fpeculative part of that which is called moral, as well as every doctrine about which controverfy can be of importance. But no man can extract a fingle dogma from the bible but by the practice of what is here called the exegefis; fo that all the fubdivifions of this The fame thing is true arrangement of theoretical theology must be studied together as they neceffarily coalefce into one. of the three branches into which practical theology is here divided. He who has acquired the art of adapting his homilies to the various capacities of a mixed audience, will need no new ftudy to fit him for inftructing children, and the moft ignorant perfons who are capable of inftruction; and the complete mafter of moral theology will find it no very difficult task to refolve all the cafes of confcience which he can have reason to fuppofe will ever be fubmitted to his judgment. For these reasons we fhall not, in the fhort fummary which our limits permit us to give, trouble either our felves or our readers with the various divifions and fubdivifions of theology. Our preliminary directions will fhow them how we think the fcience fhould be ftudied; and all that we have to do as fyftem-builders, a title of which we are far from being ambitious, is to lay before them the view which the fcriptures prefent to us of the being and perfections of God, his various difpenfations to man, and the duties thence incumbent upon Chriftians. In doing this, we shall follow the order of the divine difpenfations as we find them recorded in the Old and New Teftaments, dwelling longest upon those which appear to us of moft general importance. But as we take it for granted that every reader of this article will have previously read the whole facred volume, we shall not fcruple to illuftrate dogmas contained in the Old Testament by texts taken from the New, or to confirm doctrines peculiar to the Chriftian religion by the teftimony of Jewish prophets.

SECT. I. Of God and his Attributes.

58 In every fyftem of theology the first truths to be be-The first lieved are thofe which relate to the being and attributes of revelation God. The Jewish lawgiver, therefore, who records the fuppofes earliest revelations that were made to man, begins his hiflory with a difplay of the power and wifdom of God in the be a known creation of the world.. He does not inform his country-truth.

6

men,

the Being

of God to

Part II.

THEOLOGY.

God and her, and expect them to believe, upon the authority of his
has attri divine commiflion, that God exits; for he well knew that
bures.
the being of God must be admitted, and tolerably juft no-
tions entertained of his attributes, before man can be re-
quired to pay any regard to miracles which afford the only
"In the beginning (fays
evidence of a primary revelation.
he) God created the heavens and the earth." Here the
being of God is affumed as a truth univerfally received; but
the fentence, fhort as it is, reveals another which, as we
fhall afterwards thew, human reafon could never have dif
covered.

59 Extraordi

nary deno

mination

Be

of the Supreme ing in the book of Genefis

It will however be proper, before we confider the crea-
tion of the world, and compare what the feriptures fay of it
with the opinions of the most enlightened ancients on the
fame fubject, to attend to the appellation which is here
given to God; and inquire what light is thrown upon it
by fubfequent revelations. The paffage in the original is
wana, where it is remarkable that the Creator is
denominated by a noun in the plural number, fignifying li-
terally "perfons under the obligation of an oath to perform
This is certainly a very extraordinary
certain conditions."
denomination for the one fupreme and felf-exiftent Being;
and what adds to the ftrangeness of the phrafeology is, that
the verb with which this plural noun is made to agree is
put in the fingular number. What now could be the facred
historian's motive for expreffing himself in this manner? His
ftyle is in general remarkable for its plainnefs and gram-
matical accuracy; and we believe it would be difficult to
find in all his five books a fingle phrafe not relating to the
Supreme Being in which there appears fuch a violation of
concord.

In anfwer to this queftion, it has been faid, that Mofes
ufes the plural noun to exprefs in a magnificent way the
majety of God, juft as it is cuftomary for kings and earthly
potentates, when publishing edicts and laws, to call them-
But there is no evidence on record that
felves we and us.
fuch a mode of fpeaking was introduced among kings at a
period fo early as the era of Mofes. Pharaoh was probably
as mighty a potentate as any who then reigned upon the
earth; but though he is often mentioned by the fame facred
hiftorian as iffuing edicts with regal authority, he is no-
where reprefented as speaking of himself in the plural num-
ber. Let it be observed, too, that whenever this phrafeo-
logy was introduced among men, the plural noun was in
every grammatical tongue joined to a plural verb; whereas
Mofes not only puts the noun and the verb in different
numbers in the verfe under confideration, but afterwards
represents the one as faying, "let us make man in our
image;" and, "behold the man is become as one of us."
Such phrafes as thefe laft were never ufed by a fingle man,
and therefore cannot have been borrowed from human idioms.
Do they then denote a plurality of gods? No; there is
nothing which the scriptures more frequently or more earneft-
The texts
ly inculcate than the unity of the divine nature.
afferting this great and fundamental truth are almoft num-
"Unto thee (fays Moies to his countrymen +) it
+ Deut. iv. berlefs.
35. and 39. was thewed, that thou mightest know that the Lord is God;
Know therefore that the
there is none elfe befides him.
Lord he is God in heaven above and upon the earth beneath:
there is none elfe. And again, "Hear, O Ifrael, the Lord our
God is one Lord," or, as it is expreffed in the original, "Je-
hovah our God is one Jehovah," one Being to whom exiftence
is effential, who could not have a beginning and cannot
have an end. In the prophecies of Ifaiah, God is intro-
duced as repeatedly declaring ‡, "I am Jehovah, and there
is none elfe; there is no God befides me; that they may
know from the rifing of the fun and from the weit, that
there is none befides me: I am Jehovah, and there is none elfe:
VOL. XVIII. Part II.

vi. 4.

Ifaiah xiv.

5, 6, 18,

21. xliv. 3.

bute

433 not any." In perfect harmony with thefe declarations of his attriIs there a God befides me? Yea there is no God; I know God and Mofes and the prophets, our Saviour, addreffing himself to his Father, fays, "This is life eternal, that they might John xvii. know Thee, the only true God, and Jefus Chrift whom Thou 3. haft fent ;" and St Paul, who derived his doctrine from his divine Mafter, affirms, that "an idol is nothing in the x Cor viii. world; and that there is none other God but one."

The unity of the divine nature, which, from the order and harmony of the world, appears probable to human reason, thefe texts of revelation put beyond a doubt. Hence the first precept of the Jewish law, and, according to their own writers, the foundation of their whole religion, was, "Thou shalt have none other gods before Me." Hence, too, the reafon of that flrict command to Jews and Chriftians to give divine worship to none but God: "Thou fhalt worthip the Lord thy God, and him only fhalt thou ferve;" because he is God alone. Him only mult we fear, because he alone hath infinite power; in him alone muft we truft, becaufe "he only is our rock and our falvation;" and to him alone must we direct our devotions, becaufe "he only knoweth the hearts of the children of men."

4.

60

crfons in

the God.

It is paft difpute, then, that the word one does not in. Denotes a dicate a plurality of gods. In the opinion, however, of plurality of many eminent divines, it denotes, by its junction with the, fingular verb, a plurality of perfons in the one Godhead; and head. fome few have contended, that by means of this peculiar conftruction, the Chriftian doctrine of the Trinity may be proved from the first chapter of the book of Genefis. To this latter opinion we can by no means give our affent. That there are three diftinct perfons in the one divine nature may be inferred with fufficient evidence from a multitude of paffages in the Old and New Teftaments diligently compared together; but it would perhaps be rafh to reft the proof of to fublime a myftery upon any fingle text of holy fcripture, and would certainly be fo to reft it upon the text in question. That Moles was acquainted with this doctrine, we, to whom it has been explicitly revealed, may reafonably conclude from his fo frequently making a plural name of God to agree with a verb in the fingular number; but had we not poffeffed the brighter light of the New Teftament to guide us, we fhould never have thought of drawing fuch an inference. For fuppofing the word as to denote clearly a plurality of perfons, and that it cannot poffibly fignify any thing elfe, how could we have known that the number is neither more nor lefs than three, had it not been afcertained to us by fubfequent revelations ?

There are indeed various paffages in the Old Teftament, of the phrafeology of which no rational account can be given, but that they indicate more than one perfon in the Godhead. Such are thofe texts already noticed; "and the Lord God faid, let us make man in OUR image, after our likeness;" and "the Lord God faid, behold the man is become like ONE of us." To thefe may be added the following, which are to us perfectly unintelligible upon any other fuppofition; "and the Lord God faid, let us go down, and there confound their language t." "If I be a Mafter (in † Gen. xi. the Hebrew adonim, MASTERS), where is my fear?" "The 6, 7. fear of the Lord (JEHOVAH) is the beginning of wisdom, ‡ Mal. i. 6. and the knowledge of the Holy (in the Hebrew HOLY ONES) is underftanding ." "Remember thy Creator (Hebrew, Prov. ix. thy CREATORS) in the days of thy youth *." "And now io. the LORD GOD and his SPIRIT hath fent me §." "Seek $ Ifaiah out of the book of the LORD and read; for my mouth itxii. 1. That these texts imply a plurality of divine perfons, Ifaiah hath commanded, and his SPIRIT it hath gathered them q.' It has been already ob. xxxiv. 15. feems to us incontrovertible. 3 I ferved, that when Mofes reprefents God as saying, let us

ye

make

* Eccl.

xlviii. 16.

(1) Petrus Alphonfi, an emineat Jew, converted in the beginning of the 12th century, and prefented to the font by Alphonfus a king of Spain, wrote a learned treatife against the Jews, wherein he preffes them with this fcripture, as a plain argument that there are three perfons to whom the great and incommunicable name of Jehovah is applied. And even the unconverted Jews, according to Bechi, one of their Rabbies, have a tradition, that when the high-priet pronounced this bleffing over the people - elevatione manuum fic digitos compofuit, ut Triada exprimerent, "he lifted up his hands, and difpofed his fingers into fuch a form as to exprefs a Trinity.' All the foundation there is for this in the fcripture, is Lev. ix. 22. As for the reft, be it a matter of fact or not, yet if we confider whence it comes, there is fomething very remarkable in it. See Obferv. Jof. de voif. in Pug. Fid. p. 400, 556, 557.

Part II,

butes,

THEOLOGY.

It is however to be rememGod and nor disbelieve that doctrine. his attri- bered, that all our notions of God are more or lefs analo gical; that they must be expreffed in words which, literally interpreted, are applicable only to man; and that propofitions understood in this literal fenfe may involve an apparent contradiction, from which the truth meant to be expreffed by them would be feen to be free, had we direct On this and adequate conceptions of the divine nature. account it is to be wifhed that men treating of the mystery of the holy Trinity, had always expreffed themfclves in fcripture language, and never aimed at being wife beyond what is written; but fince they have acted otherwife, we muft, in justice to our readers, animadvert upon one or two ftatements of this doctrine, which we have reafon to believe are earnestly contended for by fome who confider themfelves as the only orthodox.

In the fcriptures, the three perfons are denominated by the terms FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST, or by GoD, the WORD, who is alfo declared to be God, and the SPIRIT OF GOD. If each be truly God, it is obvious that they must all have the fame divine nature, just as every man has the fame human nature with every other man; and if there be but ONE GOD, it is equally obvious that they must be of the fame individual fubftance or effence, which no three men can poffibly be. In this there is a difficulty; but, as will be feen by and by, there is no contradiction. The very terms FATHER and SON imply fuch a relation between the two perfons fo denominated, as that though they are of the fame fubftance, poffeffed of the fame attributes, and equally 63 Subordina- God, just as a human father and his fon are equally men, tion of the yet the second must be perfonally fubordinate to the firft. In fecond and like manner, the HOLY GHOST, who is called the Spirit of third perGod, and is faid to proceed from the Father, and to be fent fons. by the Son, must be conceived as fubordinate to both, much in the fame way as a fon is fubordinate to his parents, tho' poffeffed of equal or even of fuperior powers. That this is the true doctrine, appears to us undeniable from the words of our Saviour himself, who, in a prayer addreffed to his John xvii. Father, ftyles him by way of pre-eminence, "the only true God," as being the fountain or origin of the Godhead from which the Son and the Holy Ghoft derive their true divinity. In like manner, St Paul, when oppofing the po. lytheism of the Greeks, fays exprefsly ‡, that " to us there is but one God, THE FATHER, OF whom are all things, and we in, or for, him; and one LORD JESUS CHRIST, BY whom are all things, and we by him."

3.

I Cor. viii. 6.

66

435

bures.

ciple, and the word was God. For God is the principle; God and
and because the word is from the principle, therefore the word his attri
is God. Agreeably to this doctrine, the Nicene fathers,
in the creed which they publifhed for the ufe of the uni-
verfal church, ftyle the only begotten Son, GOD OF GOD

θεος εκ θεου.

64

*See Ridge

ley's Body

65

Regardless however of antiquity, and, as we think, of the nenied by plain fenfe of fcripture, fome modern divines of great learn-fome mo ing contend, that the three perfons in Deity are all confub.dern diflantial, co-eternal, co-ordinate, without derivation, fubordina-vines, but tion, or dependence, of any fort, as to nature or effence; whilst We shall others affirm, that the fecond and third perfons derive from the firft their perfonality, but not their nature. confider thefe opinions as different, though, from the obfeurity of the language in which we have always feen them expreffed, we cannot be certain but they may be one and the fame. The maintainers of the former opinion hold, that the three perfons called Elohim in the Old Teftament, naturally independent on each other, entered into an agree ment before the creation of the world, that one of them fhould in the fulness of time affume human nature, for the purpose of redeeming mankind from that mifery into which it was forefeen that they would fall. This antemundane agreement, they add, conftitutes the whole of that paternal and filial relation which fubfifts between the first and second perfons whom we denominate Father and Son; and they hold, that the Son is faid to be begotten before all worlds, to indicate that He who was before all worlds was begotten, or to be begotten, into the office of redeemer; or, more decifively, to fignify that he undertook that office before the creation, and affumed to himself fome appearance or figure of the reality in which he was to execute it; and he is called us or the only begotten, because he alone was begotten into the office of redeemer *. To many of our readers we doubt not but this will ap-of Divinity. It is however fufficiently The exprefs pear a very extraordinary doctrine, and not eafy to be reconciled with the unity of God. overturned by two fentences of holy fcripture, about the doctrine of meaning of which there can be no difpute. "In this (fays scripture. St John t) was manifefted the love of God towards us, John iv because that God fent his only begotten Son into the world, 9. that we might live through him." Taking the word fon in its ufual acceptation, this was certainly a wonderful degree of love in the Father of mercies to fend into the world on our account a perfon fo nearly related to him as an only fon; but if we substitute this novel interpretation of the St John will then be made to say, words only begotten fon in their ftead, the apoftle's reafoning will lofe all its force. "In this was manifefted the love of God toward us, becaufe that God fent a divine perfon equal to himself, and no way related to him, but who had before the creation cove. nanted to come into the world, that we might live through him." Is this a proof of the love of the perfon here called God? Again, the infpired author of the epiftle to the Hebrews, treating of our Saviour's priesthood, fays, among other things expreffive of his humiliation, that "though he was a son, yet learned he obedience (or, as others would render the words ab axon, he taught obedience) by the things which he fuffered t." If the word fon be here un- Heb. v. 8. derstood in its proper fenfe, this verfe difplays in a very ftriking manner the condefcenfion of our divine Redeemer, who, though he was no less a person than the proper Son of God by nature, yet vouchlafed to learn or teach us obedience by the things which he fuffered; but if we fubftitute this metaphorical fonship in place of the natural, the reason"Though this divine ing of the author (for that he is reafoning cannot be de nied) will be very extraordinary. perfonage agreed before all worlds to fuffer death for the 312 icdemption of man, yet learned he obedience, or yet taught

That the primitive fathers of the Chriftian church main
tained this fubordination of the fecond and third perfons
of the bleffed Trinity to the firft, has been evinced with
fuch complete evidence by bishop Bull, that we do not per-
ceive how any man can read his works and entertain a
doubt on the fubject. We fhall transcribe two quotations
from him, and refer the reader for fuller fatisfaction to
fet. 4. of his Defenfio fidei Nicene. The firft fhall be a
paffage cited from Novatian, or whoever is the author of
the book on the Trinity published among the works of
Tertullian, in which the learned prelate affures us the fenfe
Quia quid eft Filius, non
of all the ancients is expreffed. Quia quid eft Filius, non
ex fe eft, quia nec innatus eft; fed ex patre eft, quia geni-
tus eft: five dum verbum eft, five dum virtus eft, five dum
fapientia eft, five dum lux cft, five dum Filius eft, et quic-
quid horum eft, non aliunde eft quam ex Patre, Patri fuo
originem fuam debens." The next is from Athanafius,
who has never been accused of holding low opinions re-
fpecting the fecond perfon of the holy Trinity. This
father, in his fifth difcourfe against the Arians, fays, xala
γαρ τον Ιωάννην εν ταύτη τη αρχή ην ο λόγος και ὁ λόγος, ην προς τον θεον,
Θεος γαρ εστιν η αρχή, και επειδαν εξ αυτής εστι, δια τουτο και θεος ην
•λoyosi according to John, the word was in this firft prin.

he

435

bute.

THEOLOGY.

God and he us obedience, by the things which he fuffered." What his attri- fenfe is there in this argument? Is it a proof of condefcenfion to fulfil one's engagement? Surely, if the meaning of the word fon, when applied to the fecond perfon of the bleffed Trinity, were what is here fuppofed, the infpired writer's argument would have been more to the purpofe for which it is brought had it run thus; "Though he was not a fon, i. e. though he had made no previous agreement, yet condefcended he to learn or teach," &c.

66 The fecond

The other opinion, whith fuppofes the Son and the Holy
Ghoft to derive from the Father their perfonality, but not
their nature, is to us wholly unintelligible for perfonality
cannot exift, or be conceived in a state of feparation from all
natures, any more than a quality can exift in a state of se-
paration from all fubftances. The former of thefe opinions
we are unable to reconcile with the unity of God; the lat-
ter is clothed in words that have no meaning. Both, as far
we can understand them, are palpable polytheifm; more
palpable indeed than that of the Grecian philofophers, who
though they worshipped gods many, and lords many, yet
See POLYTHE
all held one God fupreme over the rest.
ISM, n° 32.

But if the Son and the Holy Ghoft derive their nature
and third as well their perfonality from the Father, will it not follow
perfons not that they must be poflerior to him in time, fince every effect
pofterior to:
is pofterior to its caufe? No; this confequence feems to fol-
the firft.
low only by reafoning too closely from one nature to another,
when there is between the two but a very diftant analogy.
It is indeed true, that among men, every father muft be
prior in time as well as in the order of nature to his fon;
but were it effential to a man to be a father, so as that he
could not exift otherwife than in that relation, it is obvious
that his fon would be coeval with himself, though fill as
proceeding from him, he would be pofterior in the order of
nature. This is the cafe with all neceffary caules and ef-
fects. The visible fun is the immediate and neceffary cause
of light and heat, either as emitting the rays from his own
substance, or as exciting the agency of a fluid diffufed for
that purpofe through the whole fyftem. Light and heat
therefore must be as old as the fun; and had he exifted from
all eternity, they would have exifted from eternity with
him, though ftill, as his effects, they would have been be-
Hence it is, that as we
hind him in the order of nature.
muft fpeak analogically of the Divine nature, and when
treating of mind, even the Supreme mind, make use of
words literally applicable only to the modifications of mat-
ter, the Nicene fathers illuftrate the eternal generation of
the fecond perfon of the bleffed Trinity by this proceffion
of light from the corporeal fun, calling him God of God,
Fight of light.

Secinian

Another comparison has been made ufe of to enable us to form fome notion, however inadequate, how three Divine perfons can fubfiit in the fame fubftance, and thereby conftitute but one God. Mofes informs us, that man was made after the image of God. That this relates to the foul more than to the body of man, has been granted by all but a few grofs anthropomorphites; but it has been well obferved §, that the foul, though in itself one indivifible and $ Leslie's unextended fubftance, is conceived as confifting of three Controverfy, principal faculties, the understanding, the memory, and the will. Of thefe, though they are all coeval in time, and equally effential to a rational foul, the understanding is in the order of nature obviously the firft, and the memory the fecond; for things must be perceived before they can be remembered; and they must be remembered and compared together before they can excite voltions, from being, fome agreeable, and others difagreeable. The memory therefore may be faid to fpring from the understanding, and the will

from both; and as thefe three faculties are conceived to
conftitute one foul, fo may three Divine perfons parta.
king of the fame individual nature or effence conftitute
one God.

his attri

butes.

God and

67

diction in

the Catho

These parallels or analogies are by no means brought for. No contra
ward as proofs of the Trinity, of which the evidence is to
be gathered wholly from the word of God; but they ferve hic deftrine
perhaps to help our labouring minds to form the jufteft no- of the Tri
tions of that adorable mystery which it is poffible for us to nity.
form in the prefent ftate of our exiftence; and they seem to
refcue the doctrine fufficiently from the charge of contradic-
tion, which has been fo often urged against it by Unitarian
writers. To the laft analogy we are aware it has often been
objected, that the foul may as well be faid to confift of ten
or twenty faculties as of three, fince the paffions are equally
effential to it with the understanding, the memory, and the
will, and are as different from one another as thefe three fa-
culties are. This, however, is probably a mistake; for the best
philofophy feems to teach us, that the paffions are not in-
nate; that a man might exist through a long life a ftranger
to many of them; and that there are probably no two minds
in which are generated all the paffions (fee PASSION); but
understanding, memory, and will, are abfolutely and equally
neceffary to every rational being. But whatever be in this,
if the human mind can be conceived to be one indivifible sub-
ftance, confifting of different faculties, whether many or
few, why fhould it be thought an impoffibility for the infi-
nite and eternal nature of God to be communicated to three
perfons acting different parts in the creation and govern-
ment of the world, and in the great fcheme of man's re-
demption.

To the doctrine of the Trinity many objections have been
made, as it implies the divinity of the Son and the Holy
These we fhall notice
Ghoft; of whom the former affumed our nature, and in it
died for the redemption of man.
when we come to examine the revelations more peculiarly
Chriftian; but there is one objection which, as it refpects
the doctrine in general, may be properly noticed here. It
is faid that the firft Chriftians borrowed the notion of a
Tri-une God from the later Platonilts; and that we hear
not of a Trinity in the church till converts were made from
the school of Alexandria. But if this be the cafe, we may
properly afk, whence had those Platonifts the doctrine them.
felves? It is not furely fo fimple or fo obvious as to be like-
ly to have occurred to the reafoning mind of a Pagan phi-
lofopher; or if it be, why do Unitarians fuppofe it to in-
volve a contradiction? Plato indeed taught a doctrine in
fome refpects fimilar to that of the Chriftian Trinity, and
fo did Pythagoras, with many other philofophers of Greece
and the Eaft (fee PLATONISM, POLYTHEISM, and PYTHA-
GORAS); but tho' these fages appear to have been on fome
occafions extremely credulous, and on others to have indul-
ged themfelves in the moft myfterious fpeculations, there is
no room to fuppofe that they were naturally weaker men
than ourselves, or that they were capable of inculcating as
truths what they perceived to involve a contradiction. The
Platonic and Pythagorean Trinities never could have occur-
red to the mind of him who merely from the works of crea-
tion endeavoured to discover the being and attributes of
the Creator; and therefore as thofe philofophers travelled in-
to Egypt and the Eaft in queft of knowledge, it appears to
us in the highest degree probable, that they picked up this
myfterious and fublime doctrine in thofe regions where it
had been handed down as a dogma from the remoteft ages,
and where we know that fcience was not taught fyftemati-
cally, but detailed in collections of fententious maxims and
traditionary opinions. If this be fo, we cannot doubt but
that the Pagan Trinitics had their origin in fome primeval

reve

68 Objections,

69

Anfwered.