Page images
PDF
EPUB

necessary, eternal, UNION of the Sacred Three."

Defence of Sherlock, p. 17.

Letter on the

This consideration appears to me satisfactorily to preclude the objection of our opponents, that we make three objects of worship. It may, I conceive, be justly laid down as an axiom, that the proper and formal object of all lawful religious worship is THE DIVINE BEING, under the most absolute and generic mode of consideration; or THAT which is the coNCRETE of all divine attributives. Whether, therefore, our immediate address in prayer and praise be the Deity conceived of absolutely, or the Father of mercies, or the Saviour, or the Sanctifier, we are equally directing our adoration to THE SAME Divine Object, under different aspects or modes of consideration. The revealed order in the economy of redemption and grace, and the authority of scripture, lead to the persuasion, that the most usual mode of our devotional addresses should be to the Father, with explicit reference to the mediation of the Son and the influence of the Holy Spirit: but, we conceive that the same order, and the same authority, warrant our calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our seeking the communion of blessings from the Holy Spirit. I would humbly submit, that there is a peculiar propriety in the mode of distinct address to the Saviour, when we are referring to his characters and offices; for instance, when we ascribe glory to the Lamb who was slain to redeem us by his blood ; when we advert to his blessed dominion, whose throne is for ever and ever, and the sceptre of his kingdom a sceptre of righteousness; when we are oppressed with infirmities and afflictions, and seek his power and grace to be made perfect in our weakness; and when, in the solemnities of death, we commit our eternal interest to Him who receives our spirits. In like manner, we may implore immediately from the Holy Spirit, instruction, sanctification, guidance, consolation; or whatever blessings have an especial reference to his gracious operations, as revealed in the scriptures.

[ocr errors]

6. That, whatever difficulties present themselves to us, in the contemplation of this subject, are reasonably to be imputed to the nature of the object contemplated, which must be of necessity infinitely beyond the grasp of any other than the

[ocr errors]

Divine Intellect itself; and to the range of the human faculties, limited at best, and still more contracted and disqualified by our sinful condition.

Obs. 1. There appear to be very reasonable grounds for supposing that this doctrine, or some other resembling it, would be a necessary deduction from the fact of the ABSOLUTE PERPECTION of the Divine Nature. The notion of Supreme and Infinite Perfection cannot but include EVERY POSSIBLE Excellency, or, in other words, every attribute of being which is not of the nature of defect. It must be premised that creation had a beginning. At whatever point that beginning may have been, whatever multiples of ages imagination or hypothesis can fix upon to carry that point backwards, the point will stand somewhere. Before that position, therefore, a duration without beginning must have elapsed. Through that period, infinite on one part, it is incontrovertible that nothing can have existed excepting the Glorious Deity. But, if the Unity of the Divine Nature be such a property as excludes every kind of plurality, the properties of active life, tendency to diffusion, and reciprocity of intellectual and moral enjoyment, (which are perfections of being,) must have been through that infinite duration, in the state of absolute quiescence. It seems to follow that from eternity down to a certain point in duration, some perfections were wanting in the Deity: the Divine Mind stood in an immense solitariness ; the infinitely active Life, which is a necessary property of the Supreme Spirit, was from eternity inactive; there was no

no species of communication existed; developement of intellectual and moral good, though in a subject in which that good had been necessarily, infinitely, and from eternity inherent. I feel the awful ground on which I have advanced, in putting these suppositions; and I would humbly beseech the Divine Majesty to pity and pardon me, if I am guilty of any presumption : —— I am also, fully attentive to the attribute of ALL-SUFFICIENCY as a necessary property of the Blessed and Adorable Nature. But when I have given every consideration of which I am capable, to this most profound of subjects, I cannot but perceive it as a strong and even invincible deduction of reason, that the denial of such a plurality in the Infinite Essence as shall admit of a develope3 c

VOL. II.

ment from eternity of the ever active life, and a communion from eternity in infinite good, is a denial to the Supreme Nature of something which is essential to Absolute and Infinite Perfection.

'I add, therefore, that, whatever improper use may have been made of the terms by impious familiarity, and whatever ridicule may have been cast upon them by profane opposition, the venerable confessions of antiquity appear to me to be entirely accordant with careful reasoning and with scriptural authority;

that the One Lord Jesus Christ is the Only-Begotten of the Father, before all ages; and that the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, equal to the Father and the Son in eternity, majesty, glory, and all perfection.

Obs. 2. I would submit a remark on the terms which were introduced by the early Christian writers, in treating on this subject; and upon which, as it appears to me, very unreasonable and unjust contempt has by some been cast. The principal of these are, Essence, ovoía Trinity, τpiás Subsistence, τρόπος ὑπάρξεως· Person, ὑπόστασις and πρόσωπον Mutual Inexistence, ἐμπεριχώρησις. The propriety of employing these expressions rests upon the same foundation as the use of general terms in all scientific investigations; namely, that they are abbreviations of language and serve as instruments of thought. Revelation, like physical nature, presents a vast collection of particular objects and facts and, in both, the processes of comparison, deduction, analysis, and combination, by which alone we can form comprehensive systems of knowledge, cannot be carried on, with convenience and perspicuity, without the use of general terms. It is unreasonable to object, that these identical words are not found in scripture. The proper consideration is, whether the objects and facts for which they are used as a compendious notation, are not asserted and implied in the scriptures. If a thoughtful and candid Unitarian would read a tract of the great nonconformist divine, Mr. Howe, the Calm Enquiry concerning the Possibility of a Trinity in the Godhead; it would probably have some effect in abating his objections; or it might, at least, convince him that imbecility of mind is not a necessary characteristic of a Trinitarian.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

THE Rev. Dr. Carpenter has recently published "An examination of Charges against Unitarians and Unitarianism;" in which he has favoured me with some strictures, on a few passages in the First Volume of this Inquiry. My previous impressions of his amiable and upright character have been strengthened by the perusal of his work. His candour, integrity, and good temper, besides his intellectual ability, give to his writings an immense advantage over the imbecile arrogance, the rash crudities, and the still more dishonourable artifices, of some persons on whom he has felt himself called to animadvert. Happy would it be for those persons, if they would seriously reflect on the guilt with which they defile their own souls, before their Saviour and Judge, and of the cruel injuries which they inflict upon his blessed and holy cause, by any modes of defending it which, their consciences cannot but tell them, are inconsistent with "simplicity and godly sincerity." It might also, as an inferior consideration, do them good to reflect, how little value, in the impartial estimation of posterity, will attach to their works, if their streams of talent and learning are polluted by the black infusion of bigotry, haughtiness, and injustice. The effusions of unchristian feeling will be viewed hereafter with grief and regret : but "the words of truth and soberness," spoken or written "in love," will abide the trial of time, and will furnish pleasing recollections in eternity. It is my sincere wish and endeavour to apply these sentiments, at all times and in all respects, to myself: and if, in any instance, I have violated them, I would be the first to condemn myself; and I hope I may say that such violation is not only contrary

to my principles, but repugnant to my habitual feelings and practice. Desiring always to maintain this spirit, I offer a brief reply to the remarks which the author has applied to me.

i. "With whatever sentiments, however, the reader who is hostile to Unitarianism still views the language of Dr. Priestley, he cannot but be convinced, that, by giving, as a CONTINUED QUOTATION from Dr. Priestley, a passage in which there are several transpositions and additions, in which, between parts separated only by a colon, there is more than a page of connected argument,* and in which, by an extraneous addition, an omission, and a curtailment, he has given a directly erroneous view of Dr. Priestley's object in his obnoxious statement, Bishop Magee is guilty, according to his own words, of GROSS FALSIFICATION of his author." Page 201.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

To the clause in this passage marked with the asterisk, Dr. Carpenter appends a note of which the following is a part :

"A similar instance of injustice occurs in Dr. Pye Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, vol. i. p. 58, where, adducing several of Dr. Priestley's most obnoxious, and, in my judgment, very hasty and censurable expressions, he gives, as one continued quotation, clauses from various papers, and even different volumes, of the Theological Repository; —— and, in one instance, gives as Dr. Priestley's, that which Dr. Priestley says another might argue."

To this charge I reply :

1. In the Note annexed to the passage on which my respected censor animadverts, I have expressly said, that these epithets and imputations occur in a series of Essays;” and I have minutely specified the different volumes and pages in which the expressions are respectively to be found. I would also request him to consider, whether the tenor of that Note, and some particular expressions in it, do not contain probable evidence, at least, that it was far from my intention to misrepresent Dr. Priestley's sentiments, or to treat his memory with disrespect.

2. The terms and clauses in question are given without any `alteration, as selected from the Essays referred to.

3. I cannot perceive that, in any respect whatever, Dr. Priestley's real sentiments are misrepresented by my statement. 4. In my sincere opinion and belief, these expressions,

« PreviousContinue »