Page images
PDF
EPUB

that "the Spirit compares fpiritual things with spiritual; but that these things are foolishness to the natural man who receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." See I Cor. ii.

Will Mr. Lindsey now persevere to say, that the doctrine of Chrift is not myfterious? The moral doctrines delivered by himself, I grant, indeed, are not fo; but on the contrary most perfpicuously clear; but a manifeftation of him who delivered those doctrines, and a revelation testifying of him, and fetting forth who he was, and is, and shall eternally be, and that "in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," Coloff. ii. 9; Is not this a mystery? "Now, without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness; God was made manifest in the flesh, juftified in the Spirit, feen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Tim. iii. 16. Let us then beware of the philofophy of the natural man, of the enticing words of man's wifdom, which St. Paul has warned us againft, because he well forefaw that it would ftand in the way and preclude "the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ." Coloff. ii. 2. This warning to beware of the deceits of philofophy is given at such a time, and in context with such a doctrine, as makes it utterly aftonishing to me how any man in his senses should attempt to warp it to the purposes of overturning our Saviour's divinity: We are defired to beware of it, because it might be opposite to the declaration which immediately follows, that "in Chrift dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;" that "Chrift is all in all;" that "Chrift forgave us all;" that " of the Lord we shall receive the reward of the inheritance, for we serve the Lord Chrift;" that "whatsoever we do, we should do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto man;" that

"Chrift

Chrift the Power of God, and the Wisdom of God," 1 Cor. i. 24. is omnifcient, and that "in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Coloff. ii. 3. and this the apostle affirms that he says, "left any fhould beguile you with enticing words," ver. 4. In fhort, St. Paul has given us this warning in the midst of his epiftle to the Coloffians, to which I refer as a most explicit declaration of our Saviour's divinity throughout. Let us just confider now, whether this warning can have any other object in view. Mr. Lindley's principal objection to the Godhead of Chrift, is, that it is not reconcilable to reafon; St. Paul fays, that the Greek requires wisdom. Mr. Lindsey says, that it is a doctrine fraught not only with impiety but abfurdity St. Paul fays, that it is to the Greek foolishness. Of what doctrines, of what philofophy now was St. Paul afraid? Will Mr. Lindsey say, that he feared that the Greeks would, from their demand for a reasonable doctrine, adopt a doctrine contrary to what he thinks reafonable himself? Or will he fay that the Apostle apprehended, from their averfion to that which was foolish, their adoption of a doctrine which he himfelf declares. to be foolish? If this be his mode of reafoning, it is fo self-fubverted that it requires only to be read for its own confutation. His pofition, that the Trinity is an idea adopted from Plato, is full of impiety, and so extreamly weak, that I am forry to see any man capable of promulgating it; and, were I not affured of this Gentleman's fincerity, from the proof which he has given to the world, that upon the whole he difbelieves our Saviour's divinity, I fhould incline to conceive that he meant to impofe the affertion on mankind upon the faith of a martyr. I will now advance one of a like nature, and affure Mr. Lindsey that the idea of the Unity of God is derived from the philosophy of Socrates, who, notwithstanding his having been educated in a country

where

where fuch a doctrine was efteemed impious, yet dared to preach this imagination of his own brain. How does this found? Juft as well as the other, and is advanced with fully equal truth. For my own part, I must now declare to this Gentleman, that, fo far from having drawn my faith in the Trinity from Plato, the only book I have ever read on the fubject, (except his own, which I was led to look into by my curiofity to fee the motives of his uncommonly confcientious conduct) is the Bible. That I have thence deduced the doctrine of the Trinity; that both the Old and the New Teftaments evince it; the Old, by typical and verbal prophecies; and the New, by the Events which juftify the prophecies; that our Saviour's life and lef fons teach it; and that the more explicit teftimony of the Holy Ghoft declare and enforce it; that, in the epiftles of St. Paul, evaded or trifled with, it is delivered in nearly fo many words. But I muft farther declare, that though it be not precifely fo denominated there, or in any part of the fcriptures, I cannot form an idea why I am not at liberty to give a name to that, which another fhall fo defcribe as to put it into my power to give it a name for the benefit of communication. The Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft, is a doctrine which I deduce from the facred writings, and to these three perfons I am furely at liberty to give a name that fhall at once comprehend them all, and ferve the purpose of more expeditiously conveying my mind on the subject, whenfoever I, fhall fall upon it, without levity. From the fame fource alfo I deduce the being of but one God; and as I have before given the name of Trinity to the three Perfons, to this Godhead I give the name of Trinity in Unity; and what fhall preclude my giving a name where the fcriptures have given the fubftance, I own I do not fee; nor can I conceive this objection to

[blocks in formation]

the Trinity of Perfons, and the Unity of the Godhead, to be a bit better grounded than that of the Quakers to the use of the word you, because the term is not to be found in the Bible. It is objected also to the doctrine of the Trinity, that the word was not formed till late in the fecond century. As to the date of a word I cannot fee it to be of any sort of consequence, if the idea to which it is annexed be but conveyed by it.. If we had not been termed Chriftians by the people of Antioch, and that the profeffors of Christ's religion had, as yet, continued without a name, would pofterity deny the exiftence of Chriftianity, or difpute the propriety of the term, becaufe it was of the eighteenth century ? The word Chriftians was equally applicable to us before we were called by it at Antioch, as after; and the word Trinity was equally applicable to the three perfons of the Godhead before mankind agreed to call them by it, as after.

But if the name only were in debate, I should be but very little concerned about it; the Unity of the Godhead, and the Divinity of the three Perfons being allowed, I care not by what appellation they are called : But I am forry to fee, at a time when I believe the doctrine is what Mr. Lindfey would confute, that he is weak enough to conceive that a difapprobation of the name will in the leaft contribute to his purpofe; for either he must conceive that it does, and fo trifle; or, not conceiving fo, acknowledge that he is talking about words only; and furely nothing can be more uncandid than fuch a process. He muft affuredly know that his delicate conduct will procure him more readers than he could with modefty have hoped for, had his book been put forth without fuch a concomitant circumftance; and also that, in the multitude of his readers, underftandings of every fize must be numbered; and it is

therefore

therefore impoffible but he must have forefeen that fome will be of fo contracted dimenfions, as to reckon the diflike of the word among the arguments against the fubftance named. To what purpofe elfe than that of deception is it advanced, that to Luther "the word Trinity founds oddly, and is of human invention, and that it were better to call Almighty God, God, than Trinity?" And that Calvin fays, "I like not this prayer, O holy, bleffed, and glorious Trinity, it faYours of barbarifm." Are Luther and Calvin among the opponents of the doctrine of the Trinity? No fuch thing; and Mr. Lindsey himself fhall tell you that they were well-known and warm contenders for what is called the doctrine of the Trinity, though they expreffed

fuch a diflike of the word itfelf. I cannot fee his inference, unless he would infinuate that a diflike of the word, is a diflike of the doctrine, and therefore avail himself of the authority of thefe "virtuous holy" men. But that authority is altogether against him, as himself acknowledges; and Calvin, by a horrible instance, proved the fincerity of his belief in the Trinity, for he actually brought Servetus to the stake for opposing it.

If this delicacy of Calvin, concerning the barbarism of a term, be admitted in argument, I fee no reason wherefore we should reject a claffic mythology; or why, when we fpeak of our Saviour's incarnation, we fhould not use the words with which Erafmus ridiculed the faftidious wits of Leo's polifhed court, and fay,

E cœlo defcendit filius Jovis." In fhort, I can fee no reason wherefore we fhould not, like Leo himself, país judgment upon the whole of the facred writings, declare them barbarous, and never read the Bible for fear of fpoiling our tafte. And with refpect to what is faid concerning Luther, however it may be afferted that he prefers the calling upon God, by the name of God,

« PreviousContinue »