A COLLECTION OF LETTERS CONTINUED. LETTER XXIX. Weston-Favell, March 1745-6. DEAR SIR, IN a former letter I considered, Whether the blessed Spirit is really a distinct person: -whether this person is truly and properly God? It appeared from a variety of Scriptures, that both these questions were to be resolved in the affirmative. These preliminaries being settled, I would hope, with some perspicuity of reason and strength of argument, I now proceed, in consequence of my engagement, to examine Mr Tomkins's objections against the received custom of addressing divine worship to this divine Being. The author, I freely acknowledge, writes with a great appearance of integrity; with a calm and decent spirit of controversy; and with a very plausible air of truth. As the subject of his inquiry is of the highest dignity and importance, as his method of managing the debate is, to say the least, by no means contemptible, I cannot forbear expressing some surprise, that none of the ingenious dissenters to whom the piece is particularly inscribed, have thought proper to interest themselves in the dispute, and either confute what is urged, or else (like persons of that inviolable attachment to the pure scriptural worship which they profess) recede from the use of their allowed doxologies. VOL. VI. For my part, as I firmly believe it a proper practice to worship the Son, as we worship the Father, and to worship the Holy Ghost, as we worship the other persons of the undivided Trinity, I am so far from disapproving, that I admire our customary doxology, and think it a very noble and instructive part of our sacred service. Noble, because it exhibits one of the grand mysteries, and glorious peculiarities of the gospel; instructive, because it so frequently reminds the worshipper of a point which it so greatly concerns him to believe, and which is fitted to inspire the brightest, the strongest hopes, of final, of complete salvation. But lest this persuasion should be deemed the crude production of early prejudice, rather than the mature fruit of sedate consideration, we will very readily hear whatever can be alleged against it; and not willingly secrete one objection, or misrepresent one argument, occurring in the inquiry. "Let it be supposed," says our author, "that the Holy Spirit is one of the persons of the Godhead; I still query, What warrant Christians have for a direct and distinct worship of this third person in the Godhead?" (page 1.) I should think there can be no reasonable doubt, whether worship is to be paid to the Divinity. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, is a law of incontestable authority, and eternal obligation. As for the circumstances of worship included in its being direct, this cannot alter the case, nor render the practice improper. According to my apprehension, all true and genuine worship is direct. If it be addressed to the divine object at second hand, it has more of the nature of idolatry than worship. Such is the religious foppery of the Papists, who will not apply directly to the Father of everlasting compassion, but adore God as it were by proxy. With regard to the distinctness of the worship, this depends entirely upon the Scripture's distinguishing their persons. If this be clearly done, the distinctness of worship is properly authorized, and the fitness of it follows of course. If the inspired writers assure us that the Father is God, this is a sufficient warrant to pay divine honours to the Father. If the inspired writers affirm that the Son is God, this is a sufficient ground for ascribing divine honours to the Son. If the same inspired writers declare that the Holy Ghost is God, we need no clearer warrant, nor can we have a louder call, to pay him our devoutest homage. In a word, it is the voice of reason, it is the command of Scripture, it is founded on the unalterable relation of things, that worship, direct worship, distinct worship, all worship, be rendered to the Deity. So that the divinity of the Holy Ghost, exclusive of any apostolical precept or example, is an incomparably better reason for ascribing divine honours to this sacred person, than the bare want of such precept or example can be a reason to justify the omission, or condemn the performance of it. I am no advocate for implicit faith in any human determination or opinion. Should I see whole sects, or whole churches in a glaring error, such as I can prove from Scripture to be palpably wrong, and of pernicious tendency, I would make no scruple to remonstrate, dissent, and enter my protest. But in a case, which Mr Tomkins himself (page 2. line 19.) allows to be of a dubious nature; where I have no positive proof from God's holy word that the practice is unlawful or improper; I cannot but apprehend, that it becomes a modest person, diffident of his own judgment, to acquiesce in the general, the long-continued usage of all the churches. This is urged by an inspired writer as a forcible motive for rejecting a practice; and why should not I admit it as a motive of weight for adhering to a practice? We have no such custom, neither the churches of God, (1 Cor. xi. 16.) was an apostolical argument. And in an instance where we are not precluded by any prohibition of Scripture, I think the reasoning is equally conclusive if changed to the affirmative. |
