432 THEOLOGY. Duties and practical wifdom, as the ingenuity of man could never have سمنا 54 tence to Revelation, our business to examine. 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 2. Catechetic theology, or the art of teaching youth and 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 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- In anfwer to this queftion, it has been faid, that Mofes 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. his attri butes. * God and his attri butes. CHRIST, and the HOLY GHOST, which might have fug. gefted a thought that one only of the three is God; but in the name of the FATHER, and of the Son, and of the HOLY GHOST. Whatever honour, reverence, or regard, is paid to the first perfon in this folemn rite, the fame we cannot but fuppofe paid to all three. Is he acknowledged as the object of worship? So are the other two likewife. Is he God and Lord over us? So are they. Are we enrolled as fubjects, fervants, and foldiers, under him? So are we equally under all. Are we hereby regenerated and made the temple of the Father? So are we likewife of the Son and Holy Ghoft. "We will come (fays our Saviour ‡) John xiv. and make our abode with him." God and make man, the majefty of the plural number had not been adopted by earthly fovereigns; and it is obvious that the Supreme Being could not, as has been abfurdly fuppofed, call upon angels to make man; for in different places of *Job ix. 8. fcripture creation is attributed to God alone. Hence it is Ifa. xlv.paf- that Solomon speaks of Creators in the plural number, though fim. he means only the one Supreme Being, and exhorts men to remember them in the days of their youth. In the paffage firit quoted from ifaiah, there is a distinction made between the Lord God and his Spirit; and in the other, three divine perfons are introduced, viz. the Speaker, the Lord, and the Spirit of the Lord. It does not, how. ever, appear evident from thefe paffages, or from any other that we recollect in the Old Teftament, that the perfons in Deity are three and no more: but no fober Chriftian will harbour a doubt but that the precife number was by fome mears or other made known to the ancient Hebrews; for in quiries leading to it would be naturally fuggefted by the form in which the high-prieft was commanded to blefs the people. "The LORD bless thee and keep thee. The LORD make his face to fhine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee. The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and Numb. vi. give thee peace +." 24, 25, 26. 61 Of this benediction it has been well obferved, that if its three articles be attentively confidered, they will be found to agree refpectively to the three perfons taken in the ufual order of the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST. The Father is the author of blessing and prefervation. Grace and illumination are from the Son, by whom we have "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Jefus Chrift." Peace is the gift of the Spirit, whofe name is the Comforter, and whofe firft and beft fruit is the work of peace (1). Similar to this benediction, but much more explicit, is A Trinity in unity the the form of Chriftian baptism; which, to us who live under doctrine of the funfhine of the gospel, establishes the truth of the docfcripture. trine of the Trinity beyond all reafonable ground of difpute. "Go (fays our bleffed Saviour) and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft." What was it the apoftles, in obedience to this command, were to teach all nations? Was it not to turn from their vanities to the living God; to renounce their idols and falfe gods, and so to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft? What now muft occur to the Gentile nations upon this occafion, but that, instead of all their deities, to whom they had before bowed down, they were in future to ferve, worship, and adore, Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, as the only true and living God? To fuppofe that GoD and TWO CREATURES are here joined together in the folemn rite by which men were to be admitted into a new religion, which directly condemns all creature-worship, would be fo extravagantly unreasonable, that we are perfuaded fuch a fuppofition never was made by any converted Polytheift of antiquity. The nations were to be baptized in the name of three perfons, in the fame manner, and therefore, doubtlefs, in the fame fenfe. It is not faid in the name of GOD and his two faithful fervants; nor in the name of GOD, and 23. If thofe who believe the infpiration of the fcriptures could require any further proof that the Godhead comprehends a Trinity of perfons in one nature, we might urge upon them the apoftolical form of benediction; "The grace of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and the love of GOD, and the communion of the HOLY GHOST, be with you all *"* 2 Cor. Would St Paul, or any other man of common sense, have xiii. 14. in the fame fentence, and in the moft folemn manner, recommended his Corinthian converts to the love of God, and to the grace and communion of two creatures? We fhould think it very abfurd to recommend a man at once to the favour of a king and a beggar; but how infinitely fmall is the distance between the greateft earthly potentate and the meanest beggar when compared with that which muft for ever fubfift between the Almighty Creator of hea ven and earth and the most elevated creature? 62 But how, it will be asked, can three divine perfons be but one and the fame God? This is a queftion which has Difficulties been often put, but which, we believe, no created being in this dec. can fully answer. The divine nature and its manner of trine. existence is, to us, wholly incomprehenfible; and we might with greater reafon attempt to weigh the mountains in a pair of scales, than by our limited faculties to fathom the depths of infinity. The Supreme Being is present in power to every portion of space, and yet it is demonftrable, that in his effence he is not extended (fee METAPHYSICS, n°309, 310). Both these truths, his inextenfion and omniprefence, are fundamental principles in what is called natural religion; and when taken together they form, in the opinion of moft people, a myftery as incomprehenfible as that of the Trinity in unity. Indeed there is nothing of which it is more difficult for us to form a diftinct notion than unity fimple, and abfolutely indivifible; and we are perfuaded that fuch of our readers as have been accustomed to turn their thoughts inwards, and reflect upon the operations of their own minds, will acknowledge the difficulty is not much lefs to them. Though the Trinity in unity, therefore, were no Chriftian doctrine, myfteries muft ftill be believed; for they are as infeparable from the religion of nature as from that of revelation; and atheism involves the most incomprehenfible of all myfteries, even the beginning of exiftence without a caufe. We must indeed form the beft notions that we can of this and of all other myfteries; for if we have no notions whatever of a Trinity in unity, we can neither believe nor (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 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 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 But if the Son and the Holy Ghoft derive their nature 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 his attri butes. God and 67 diction in the Catho These parallels or analogies are by no means brought for. No contra To the doctrine of the Trinity many objections have been reve 68 Objections, 69 Anfwered. |