Imágenes de páginas

we have to oppose the Arians on one side, and the Sabellians on the other, lest while they take offence at both these parties being deprived of all opportunity of evasion, they cause some suspicion that they are themselves the disciples either of Arius, or of Sabellius. Arius confesses "that Christ is God," but maintains also, “that he was created and had a beginning." He acknowledges that Christ is "one with the Father," but secretly whispers in the ears of his disciples, that he is "united to him," like the rest of the faithful, though by a singular privilege.” Say that he is consubstantial, you tear off the mask from the hypocrite, and yet you add nothing to the Scriptures. Sabellius asserts, “that the names Father, Son, and Spirit, are expressive of no distinction in the Godhead.” Say that they are three, and he will exclaim, that you are talking of “three Gods.” Say "that in the one essence of God there is a trinity of Persons,” and you will, at once, express what the Scriptures declare, and will restrain such frivolous loquacity.” Calvin adds, “But I have found, by long and frequent experience, that those who pertinaciously contend about words, cherish some latent poison.”

Let us, then, recognize the necessity and importance of the term, trinity. Names are things. And so long therefore, as the doctrine taught by this word is assailed and denied, we have no alternative. Nor could the facts, proved, as we shall show, from Scripture, be probably expressed in a simpler form than in saying, that the God who is one and who is yet God as Father, as Son, and as Holy Ghost, is a TRINITY.

"Ineffable, all-powerful God, all free,
Thou only liv'st, and each thing lives by thee;
No joy, no, nor perfection to thee came
By the contriving of this world's great fame:
Ere sun, moon, stars, began their restless race,
Ere painted was with light Heaven's pure face,
Ere air had clouds, ere clouds wept down their show'rs.
Ere sea embraced earth, ere earth bare flow'rs,
Thou happy liv'dst, world nought to thee supply'd,
All in thyself, thyself thou satisfy'd ;
Of good no slendor shadow doth appear,
No age-worn track, which shin'd in thee most clear
Perfection's sum, prime cause of every cause,
Midst, end, beginning where all good doth pause.
Hence of thy substance, differing in nought,
Thou in eternity thy Son forth brought;
The only birth of thy unchanging mind,
Thine image, pattern-like that ever shin'd;
Light out of light, begotten not by will,
But nature, all and that same essence still
Which thou thyself, for thou dost nought possess
Which he hath not, in aught nor is he less
Than he his great begetter ; of this light,

Eternal, double kindled was thy spright
Eternally, who is with thee, the same
All-holy gift, Ambassador, knot, Flame:
Most sacred Triad, O most holy One!
Unprocreate Father, ever procreate Son,
Ghost breath'd from both, you were, are still, shall be,
(Most blessed) Three in One, and One in Three,
Incomprehensible by reachless height,
And unperceived by excessive light.
So in our souls three and yet one are still,
The understanding, memory and will ;
So (though unlike) the planet of the days,
So soon as he was made, begat his rays,
Which are his offspring, and from both was hurl'd
The rosy light which consolates the world,
And none prevent another : so the spring,
The well head, and the stream which they forth bring
Are but one self same essence, nor in aught
Do differ, save in order ; and our thought
No chime of time discerns in them to fall
But three distinctly 'bide one essence all.
But these express not thee: who can declare
Thy. being? men and angels dazzled are.
Who would this Eden force with wit or sense,
A cherubim shall find to bar him thence.
O! King, whose greatness none can comprehend,
Whose boundless goodness doth to all extend ;
Light of all beauty, Ocean without ground,
That standing, flowest ; giving dost abound;
Rich Palace, and In-dweller, ever blest,
Never not working, ever yet in rest :
What wit cannot conceive, words say of thee,
Here, where we, but as in a mirror see,
Shadows of shadows, atoms of thy might,
Still only-eyed when staring on thy light;
Grant, that, released from this earthly jail,
And freed from clouds, which here our knowledge veil,
In Heaven's high temples where thy praises ring,
In sweeter notes I may hear angels sing.

[Drummond of Hawthorden. Hymn to the Fairest Faire.

Note A. The alleged Unitarianism of Locke, Newton, Milton, Clarke, Watts, and

Grotius. Although Unitarians claim pre-eminent honour because they base their opinions on reason alone, yet none are more anxious than they to sustain and patronize them by the authority of great names.

Mr. Locke's Essay was believed by some to lead inferentially to the rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity; and therefore, say Unitarians, Mr. Locke was a Unitarian. But in his elaborate and extended letters to Bishop Stillingfileet, Mr. Locke repudiates the charge, and proves that, as no such consequence was intended by him to be deduced from his Philosophy, so, in fact, no such consequence does, or can fairly be considered to follow from it. In his vindication of himself, Mr. Locke occupies nearly as much room as his entire essay, and as he was a bold and open expounder of his views, we may conclude that he had not adopted sentiments contrary to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. That he held such views, he solemnly denied, in words, and by his subscription to the Articles of the Church of England and communion at her altars. He acknowledged the doctrine of Christ's satisfaction for sins, and in his last moments he thanked God "for the love shewn to man in justifying him by faith in Jesus Christ,

8-Vol. IX.

and in particular for having called him to the knowledge of that Divine Saviour."

Sir Isaac Newton, in a letter to James Pearce, says, "Your letter a little surprised me, to find myself supposed to be a Socinian or Unitarian. I never was, nor am now, under the least temptation of such doctrines." "I hope you will do me the favor to be one of the examiners of my papers: till which time, you will do kindly to stop so false a report."*

In his work against the genuineness of the passage in 1 John, Sir Isaac remarks, t-“It is no article of Faith, no point of discipline, nothing but a criticism concerning a text of Scripture, that I am going to write about." But he says, clearly enough, that he was not a Socinian. For, speaking of the passage in Cyprian's works, in which he asserts the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, he says, “The Socinians here deal too injuriously with Cyprian, while they would have this place corrupted,—these places being, in my opinion, genuine." The two passages of Cyprian are the following: “Si templum Dei factus est, quaere cujus Dei? Si Creatoris ; non potuit, quia in eum non credidit : Si Christi: nec ejus fieri potuit templum, qui negat Dominum Christum : Si Spiritus Sancti ; quum tres unum sint, quomodo placatus ei esse potuit, qui ant Patris aut Filii inimicus est? Dicit Dominus Ego et Pater unum sumus: et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est: Et Hi Tres Unum Sunt." No one can doubt Cyprian's belief of the doctrine of the Trinity. And when we connect Newton's censure of the Socinians, with his conviction of the genuineness of these Trinitarian passages of Cyprian,—with the absence of all objection to the doctrine of the Trinity in his letter to Le Clerc,--and his adherence to the Church of England,—what can be reasonably inferred, but that he was not only a decided Anti-Socinian, but a believer of the established doctrines of the Church? There is one passage in his Letter to LeClerc, which strongly marks the mind of a believer in the Trinity. “In the Eastern nations, and for a long time in the Western, The Faith subsisted without this verse, (1 John v: 7,) and it is rather dangerous to Religion to make it now lean on a bruised reed." The Faith, he says, once subsisted without this verse; that is the faith, of which this verse now makes, or is supposed to make, a part or evidence ; namely, Faith in the Holy Trinity. This Faith, he says, was prior to, and independent of, the verse. Faith, then, in the Holy Trinity, is called by The Faith, or the primitive Christian Faith. Again, he says, “It is rather a danger to Religion to make it lean on a bruised reed." By religion (the Christian Religion) here also must be meant Faith in the Holy Trinity ; for the general truth of Christianity cannot be said to lean on this verse ; nor any other doctrine, but the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The language, therefore, of this passage, evidently comes from one, who considered the Christian Religion, the Faith, and Faith in thhe Holy Trinity, as synonymous terms.

Dr. Clarke is another authority claimed by Unitarians. But, while inclined to modify the doctrine of the Trinity, Dr. Clarke believed that "with this first and supreme cause, or Father of all things, there has existed from the beginning, a second divine Person, which is the Word or Son."

“With the Father and the Son there has existed, from the beginning, a third Divine Person, which is the Spirit of the Father and the Son."

See the statement of his literary friend, who , lived with him until death, in Works, vol. ix: p. 173, 8vo ed. See also numerous passages in proof of his anti-Socinian views in Hales on the Trinity, in vol. i: p. 275, 276, and in Bishop Burges's Tracts on the Divinity of Christ, p. 211, &c.

Giving a reason why Christ was not a mortal man, Locke uses this language : "Being the Son of God, he was immortal, like God, his Father." Now, to be immortal, with respect only to the future, is to be immortal like the angels, or the human soul; but to be immortal like God, his Father. is "to have neither beginning of days nor end of life," as St. Paul says of the Son of God, that is to be eternal and uncreated. To be immortal, then, like God, his Father, is to be iinmortal through his divine Sonship, that is, because he is of the same nature with his Father, or by consubstantiality of nature.

*This letter is quoted by Mr. Belsham in his Calm Inquiry, p. 474. * See Burges's Tracts, pp. 197-222.

By existing from the beginning, Dr. Clarke does not mean, as the Unitarians do, from the beginning of the Gospel dispensation, but speaking of the Son existing "before all worlds," and "without any limitation of time," that is, from eternity; and so of the Holy Spirit.

"After the accomplishing of man's redemption, by his sufferings and death on the Cross, for the sins of the world, our Lord (says Dr. Clarke,) is described in Scripture as invested with distinct worship in his own person, and receiving prayers (adoration, in the 3d edition) and thanksgiving from his Church." As proofs of such worship, Dr. Clarke refers to a variety of texts, which mention his disciples worshipping him, honouring him as well as the Father, baptizing in his name, angels worshipping him, every knee bowing at his name, calling upon his name, invocating him in prayer, and praying for grace, peace, blessing, direction, assistance and comfort from him.

The Chevalier De Ramsay, who was witness to the last sentiments of Dr. Clarke, assures us that he very much repented having published his work on the Trinity.—[See Whitaker's Origin of Arianism, pp. 456-470.) And in a paper presented to the Upper House, he formally and solemnly declared his opinion to be, "that the Son of God was eternally begotten, by the eternally incomprehensible power and will of the Father; and that the Holy Spirit was likewise eternally derived from the Father, by and through the Son, according to the eternal, incomprehensible power and will of the Father."

Another eminent man, claimed as an Unitarian, is Grotius. Grotius has, however, given indisputable proof of his anti-Socinianism. This we might establish by showing that he admits the words of Thomas, "My Lord, and my God," to be an acknowledgment of Christ's Divinity ; that he follows the usual interpretation of John i: 1-14, making Christ the incarnate Word, and the Creator of the World, &c.

In the year 1617, he published his Defensio Fidei Catholicæ de Satisfactione Christi adversus Faustum Socinum. The friendly correspondence which he afterwards carried on with Crellius, excited some doubts of his orthodoxy. To repel these doubts, he prefixed to an edition of his tract De Satisfactione Christi, in 1638, (one and twenty years after its first publication,) a Letter to G. J. Vossius, in which he confirms his former sentiments on the subject of Atonement, by an appeal to his Annotations on the Bible, and to his tract De Jure Belli et Pacis ; and asserts his belief in the Trinity. In his treatise De Veritate Religionis Christianæ L. V., he vindicates christians from the charge of worshipping three Gods against the Jews on their own principles, and from their own writings; to which treatise he refers in his Letter to Vossius : Triados probationem in eo libro directe aggressus non sum, memor ejus quod a viro magno socero tuo andiverem, peccasse Ressæum, &c. Illud addam, si quis meam de summa Trinitate sententiam scire cupiat, reperturum quod satis sit in Poematis nuper editis. Amplior explicatio in notis reservanda est. Poetry is the natural language of religion, Sacer interpresque Deorum.

Another name most unwarrantably claimed as in his last days favouring Unitarianism, is Dr. Watts. For this bold and daring sacrilege and profanation of a good man's name, there is, as I have shewn elsewhere, no manner of proof.*.

The great Milton is another authority on which Unitarianism delights to rest with confidence. Milton, during his life, held communion as far as he did commune, only with those who believed in the doctrine of the Trinity. He has published the boldest prayer to the Triune God in the English language. He was universally regarded as a Trinitarian during life, and since his death, until the year 1823, when the posthumous work on christian doctrine attributed to him, was discovered. Of the authenticity of this work, very serious doubts may be entertained, both on the ground of its internal style, which is in perfect contrast to Milton's prose works, and of deficient external evidence. The very fact that Milton, who was a martyr to his free and bold expression of opinion, and a leading controversialist, should not have published this treatise, but have left

*In two Articles published in the different Periodicals. See also Milner's Life of Watts.

it to the chances of destruction, is, in itself, strong proof against its authenticity.

But granting that this work is Milton's production, it may have been, for all we can tell, the work of his yet unsettled and wayward youth, whose sentiments he lived afterwards to correct.

But it is, after all, only in one point, and to a certain extent, that this treatise apposes the views of Trinitarian Evangelical Christians. On the subjects of man's fall, depravity, guilt and ruin,-of the covenants, both of works and grace,-of original sin, and its imputation to all mankind, of regeneration, repentance, justification, sanctification, adoption, perseverance, election, predestination, assurance, atonement, and the prophetical, sacerdotal and kingly offices of Christ,-in short, on all that enters into, defines, and constitutes the system of evangelical, orthodox Christianity, this treatise is evangelical, and in direct antagonism to the system of Unitarianism, from which it is as far removed as Heaven from earth.

Against Socinian views of the inspiration and authority of Scripture, and of the nature of Christ and the Holy Spirit, this treatise wages open and avowed conflict.

Equally opposed is the teaching of this work on the subject of the Trinity, to the views of any body of Unitarians now existing.

The author does not believe in a Tri-unity of three persons in one Godhead, but in three distinct and separate beings, each of whom is God, and possessed of all divine attributes, prerogatives, powers and worship. The Son, however, was created or generated by the Father, and is inferior to Him, and the Spirit, who was also created, is inferior to both.

The Son received from the Father both "the name and nature of Deity," (vol. i., p. 126, Boston ed.)—"coequality with the Father," (p. 193.) In becoming man, therefore, the Son "emptied himself of that form of God in which he had previously existed,"—(p. 193.) The Father "imparts his glory to the Son,- (p. 192.) The Son possesses self-existence, (p. 177.) omnipresence, (p. 178,) omniscience, (p. 179,) omnipotence, (p. 180,) though not absolutely, or independently, of the Father.

"When the Son is said to be the first born of every creature, and the beginning of the creation of God,” nothing can be more evident than that God, of his own will, created, or generated, or produced, the Son before all things, endued with the Divine nature, as in the fulness of time he miraculously begat him in his human nature of the Virgin Mary. The generation of the Divine nature is described by no one with more sublimity and copiousness than by the Apostle to the Hebrews, (i., 2, 3,) whom he appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds ; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, &c. It must be understood from this, that God imparted to the Son as much as he pleased of the Divine nature,-nay, of the Divine substance itself.

This point also appears certain, notwithstanding the arguments of some of the moderns to the contrary, that the Son existed in the beginning, under the name of the logos, or word, and was the first of the whole creation, by whom afterwards all other things were made, both in Heaven and earth. Joha i., 1-3, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” &c. : xvii., 5, “And now, O Father, glorify me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”—Col. i., 15, 18. Pages 112, 106.

These extracts are made from the chapter on the Son of God, which is published by Unitarians as a tract. But there is another full chapter of Christ as á Redeemer," [ch. xiv.,] which Unitarians have not published in connexion with the other, and thus give to their readers a very imperfect and false view of the doctrines of this work. In this chapter Milton says [p. 383.) “Redemption is that act whereby Christ, being sent in the fulness of time, redeemed all believers at the price of his own blood, by his own voluntary act, conformably to the eternal counsel and grace of God, the Father."

Again, page 386 : "Two points are to be considered in relation to Christ's character as Redeemer : his nature and office. His nature is two-fold -Divine and human."

Again, page 388: "With regard to Christ's Divine nature, the reader is referred to what was proved in a former chapter concerning the Son of

« AnteriorContinuar »