Tomline on Article I: Of Faith in the Holy Trinity

This first article asserts the Being and Attri- butes of God, which are the foundation ©f all religion ; and it farther declares, that the God- head consists of three persons, which, though it appears to have made a part of the original

revelation

AET. I.] Ej^posUion of the Thirty-nine Articles. 59

revelation to mankind, wad so far forgotten or obscured, dmt it may be considered as ono of the dmracteristic doctrines of the Gospel*

The universal consent of mankind has ever

been admitted as a strong argument in favour of

the existence of a God. We learn from die

kisbofry of former times, and from the observatkm

of modem travefters, that in every country, and tt

every period, some idea of a, Superior Being, and

some species of (fivtne ww^np, have prevailed.

** Ifcis,” says Dr. NichoBs, ” is very good evi*

4ence of the reality of a Supi^me Being ; and

[…]

^na^al pt*inciples of i:eas<)mng, it is a better firaD-

[…]

#f tome pwticalar private ^persons, who are mom

IhJble to he mistaken than the most learned anil

[…]

sbtfte time^ cWher, in theMaHrly tiges oftfie woiM,

[…]

stttpld clan or two of barbarous people, who havB

[…]

of

6o Exposition of the [part, hi,

of such people’s practices and opinions may not have been exactly enough made by those traders who have made these reports, for want of their lingua, and by reason of their short and imper- fect conversation with them ; or, however, were the observation true, the contrary opinion of a few stupid people, who are almost degenerated into beasts, is but a sorry pretence to set up against the judgment of so many civilized nations, in so many successive ages of the world, confirmed by the reason of so many wise andI learned men, who have been educated in them (a)” — ” Those nations, of which these reports are given out, are. so extremely sunk from all that is wise and regular, great and good^ in human nature, so rude and untractable, and so incapable of arts and discipline, that if the rq>orts concerning them are to be believed, and if that weakens the argument from the common consent of mankind on the onehand, it strengthens it on another ; while it appears that human na- ture, when it wants this impression, wants with it all that is great and orderly in it, and shews a brutality almost as low and base as is that of beasts (b).''' But though all civilized nations have concurred in the belief of one or more

Gods,

(a) NichoUs’^ Commentary upon Art.

(b) Burnet on the Articlei.

^HT. 1.] Thirty-mne Articles. 6i

Cfods, there has been an infinite diversity in thei modes of divine Worship; and the errors and absurdities, with which all religions, except those of Moses and of Christ, have abounded, fully evince the weakness of the human intellect when unassisted by revelation. Some few individuab, in the different ages of the world, have indeed rejected all belief in the existence of a God; but ive may generally trace the rejection of a Dei^ to the source of pride or of profligacy ; and even the late public avowal of Atheism, by those who have usurped the government in a neighbouring country, originating from a philosophy falsely so called, and accompanied by crimes unparalleled in the annals of mankind, cannot be consideredas in any d^ee afiecting the argument arising from general consent, especially when it is remembered that this apostacy from religion is clearly foretold in the holy Scriptures (c).

But a more direct proof of the being of a God may be derived from the universe itself; we are not only conscious of our own existence, but we

also

•

Cc> Vide Mr. Kett’s ” History the Interpreter oS Prophecy;” a very interesting work, written with great elegance and judgment, and which I recom- mend to all who are desirous of becoming acquainted with the prophecies of the Old and New Testaments, especially those which relate tothe preaeot^imes.

bo know that there exists a ff&oit wmty of Qtji things, both material and spiritual. It is eqifJly inconceivable that these things should lm,Y§ existed from all etomity in their present static, 9ir Chat they should have fallen into this 9tate chance ; and consequently as there was a fp when they did not exist, and as it was impositi4? finr them to produce themselv, it follows, thft there was some exterior agent or creator to wh@p the world owed its beginning and form; that agent r creator we call God. ’ W/e r/’ says lUlshlip .Pearson, the Great Artificer .of the ipprk) ip the work of his own haAdjB adad by the exjisA ‘Of any thing we dnonslxate the first cause . of fflP things (d)” And since it is absurd itp suppcm lliat these are two prune causes of aU thpgs, p iMpreme governors of the world, or twp icnstent and independent Beings of infinite in- sections, we are obliged to conclude that God is One. The Supreme Bein bowtver, has not left this important truth to the deduction of hunaa reason only, but has confinned and established it i)j Revelation. The unity of God is expressly declared in many passages of Scripture: ” Hear, O Isra; the Lord our God is one Lord f.”- Unto thee it was shewed, that diou miitest

know

JLHT. I.] Thirty-nine Article. €3

[…]

%eside him (/).—■” He is God in heaven

above and upon the eai^ beneath ; there is

tione ebe Cg)y—” I am ttie first, and I am the

last ; and besides me tJiere is no God (h).”* —

”^^ We know iJiat there is none other God but

[…] is one God (jy—Vr^,

liierefore, cannot but agree to tfie first assertion

in this article, in opposition to the sinful presum^^

lion of atheists, and to the False polytheism of

Iheherthen, that THERE is one, and but oki:

[…]

Epistle to the ^Riessaionians applies the epithets

-** Bvittgand true” to God; ” Ye turned to Gt>d

%fom idols to serve the living and true God (ky^

And the prophet Jeremiah says, ” The Lord is

ihe true God, he is the Uvijig Grod (I). Hf* “is

[…]

l9fM (in) ; he is self-existent, deriving his being

Iftmi no exterior catwe ; ” In him we live (n).-

— ’^ He giveth life to all things (0).” He is

the fountain and origin of Gfe to all the animated

.{part of the creation ; he is the true God, ai

distinguished

. (f) petit, c. 4. V. 35. (g) Deut. c. 4. v. 39.

(%;) Is. c. 44. v. 6. (i) 1 Cor. c. 8. v. 4.

iy) 1 Tim. c. 2. v. 5. (k) 1 Thess. c. 1. v. 9.

(i) Jer. c. 10. V. 10. (m) John, c. 5. v. 26.

(n) Acts, c. 17. v. 28. (q) Acts, 0. 17. v. 25.

64 Exposition of the [fart 1 11.

distinguished from the vain gods of the Gentiles, ^^ This is life eternal, that they might know tfaM the only true God (p)”

The article next states, that. God is £V£a- LASTING ; that is, that he has existed from all past eternity, and will continue to exist to all future eternity (q). The Supreme Creator of all things must necessarily have existed from all eter- nity, since he could not have caused his own ex- istence; and he must continue to exist ^to all eternity, since a being cannot cease to be, when there is no superior by whom his annihilation, or any alteration in him can be produced, and when there is nothing in his own essence which is sub- ject to change or decay. We may rely upon the truth and certainty of these conclusions, but at

•

the same time we must acknowledge that our capacities can by no means comprehend how a being exists necessarily, independently, and eter- nally (r), God is in several passages of Scrip- ture

(p) John, c. 17. V, 3.

[…]

(r) ” It is to be observed,” says Dr. Clarke, ” that the Scripture, as it does not much insist upon prov- ing to us the being of God, but rather always sup- poses that to be already known by the light of nature, so also, when it mentions any of the natural attributes

of

-ART. I.] ThxTty-mne Articles. 65

ture styled eternal and everlasting: ’ The eternal Crod is thy refuge […] Hast thou not heard that the everlasting God £ednteth not, neither is weary (t)” — ” ‘Now unto the King eternal im- mortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and ory, for ever and ever (uy — ” According to the commandment of iheeverlastirGoACx)’ And in the Revelation of St. John, the eternity of God is thus described : I am Alpha and Omega, the Bening and the Ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty (y).

To suppose that God is circumscribed by body, consists of material parts, or is liable to passions, would be so utterly inconsistent with our ideas of infinite perfection, with our notion of a Being who is equally present every where, and who is free fix)m every possible defect, that

we

of the divine essence, it does not usually enlarge upon the proof or explication of them, but generally makes mention of them oocasionally only, and as presup- posing them beforehand well known by men’s rea- son.” Vol. 1 . Serm. 5. To which may be added, the tradition of the revelations to Adam and the early pa^ triarchs,’ and the evidence from prophecies and mi- racles continually before the people to whom the Old Testament was immediately addressed.

(9) Deut. c. 33. V. 27. (t) Is. c. 40. V. 28.

(u) X Tim. c. 1. V. 17. (x) Rom. c. 16.. v. 26.

(y^Rev. c. 1. V. 8.

66 Earpasitim of the [part iir.

we must witi)out hesitation pronoimee that

God is WITHOUT BODY, PARTS, OR PASS 10^99,

God is a spirit (z) and a spirit hatft not fiesh or bones (a)” […] is not a man tlt he should lie neither the son of man that he should repent (by , When, therefore, the Scrip- tures speak of the fiauce, eyes, ears, and hande of God, or (rf* his grief, jealousy, anger, and oth mental emotions, we are to considier that sueft language is only accommodaited to the under- standings of men ; and that those pr()erties and qualities do in fact by no meims belong to the Supreme Being. We can form no concepticm of the agency of a pure spiritAial substance, and therefore, in speaking of God, we are under tilt necessity of using terras derived from ourselve!, and which we cannot but know to be in reality inapplicable to hun.

God having created all things out of nothing, and given to them their various and respective powers, and being aWe to change, annUidate, and dispose of every thing in the universe, in any manner which he [leases ; and no substance either animate or inanimate, material or immaterid, being capable of resisting or impeding his wi9; it follows that the power of God is infinite.

“In

(x) John, C.4. T.24* (a) Luke, c.«4. v. 39. (b) Numb. C.23. V. 19.

ART. I.] Thirty -mne Articks. 67

” In thy hand O God, is there not power and mit, so that none is able to withstand thee (c)V’—” The Lord of Hosts hath pur- posed it, and who shaD disannul it ? his hand is stretched out, and who shaD turn it back (d)V — ” He worketh all things after the counsel of his own will (e). — With God all things are possible r/;/— ” With God nothing shall be hnposble (g)y — ” He doth according to his triSi in the army of heaven, and among the in- habitants of the earth, and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What dost thou (h) […] The Lord appeared unto Abraham, and said unto him, I am the Almity God (i) — ” The Lord God omnipotent reigneth (h)."" — But tiiough with the holy patriarch we confess that ” God can do every thing (/,” we must re- member that Omnipotence itself does not ex- tend to contradictions or impossibilities ; ” God cannot lie (m)y inasmuch as that would be

contrary

(c) 2 Chr. c, 20. V.6. (d) Is. c. 14. v. 27.

(e) Ephes. c. 1. v. 1 1. (f) Mat. c. 19. v. 26.

(g) Luke, c. 1. V. 37. (h) Dan. c.4. v. 35.

(i) Gen. c. 17. v. 1. (k) Rev. c. 19. v. 6.

(I) Job, C.42. V. 2.

(m) Heb. c. 6. v. 18. Impossibile est ei mentiri ; et impossibile istud non infirmitatis est, sed virtutis et majestatis, quia Veritas non recipit mendacium, nee Dei virtus levitatis errorem. Ambrose.

F 2

68 Exposition of the [part iir^

contrary to his perfect nature { nor can he recal past events, which is manifestly impossible (nX When, therefore, we say that the power of God is infinite, we mean that God is able to perform all things, which do not imply in themselves con- tradiction or impossibility.

The WISDOM of God is inferred from the ge- neral construction and government of the world, in which an attentive observer cannot but see evident marks of design, and in which all things are admirably adapted to their respective ends and purposes : ” O Lord, how manifold are thy works ; in wisdom thou hast made them aU (o)J* We cannot form an idea of wisdom superior to that which is thus displayed ; nor can we con- ceive how the wisdom, or any other attribute, of the Deity, should be circumscribed by any boundary or limit; and therefore we conclude. M’ith the royal psalmist, that ” the wisdom of God is infinite (p)>^

The INFINITE WISDOM of God may also be* considered, as including the knowledge of all events^ past, present, and future, and of the thoughts, motives, and intentions of all his creatures. This

knowledge,

[…]

ARt. I.] Thirty-nine Articles. 6g

Imowledge without restriction or exception, seems necessarily to belong to the Creator of the Uni- verse, from whom every power, property, and relation is derived : Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world (q). — ” He that planted the ear, shall he not hear ? he that formed the eye, shaH he not see ? he that teacheth men knowledge, shall not he know (r) […] Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight ; but all things are naked, and opened unto the eyes of htm with hom we have to do […] The Lord searcb- th all hearts, and nnderstandeth all the imaginar- tions of the thoughts fO-”— ’ The Lord is a God of knowledge […] O the depth of the riches 1)0th of the wisdom and the knowledge of

By infinite goodness is meant a disposition to communicate every possible degree of happiness to all created beings, of which their nature is ca- pable. That this attribute belongs to God is evi- dent from ‘lus general government of the worid, and particularly from his dealings with man- ldnd« It has pleiEised God to place men in a

state

(q) Acts, c. 15. V. 18. (r) Ps. 94. v. 9 and 10. {s) Heb. c. 4, V. 13. (t) 1 Chr. c. 28. v, 9.

(u) 1 Sam. c 2. y. 3. (x) Rom. c. 1 1. v. 33.

F 3

70 Exposition of the [pabt iii.

state of probation, and to endue tfaem with free

agency, which is essential to responsibility ; he

has furnished them with the means of attaining

every degree of happiness consistent Mith the

character of free and accountable beings ; he has

given them 4aws as rules of their conduct; he

has proposed the most powerful and animating

motives to obedience ; and he has promised bis

assistance to those who sincerely endeavour to

perform his will. Since then every thing which

God ha£ made is good ; since he has provided

for the preservation of all things, for their jhto-

per continuance and well-being; since he ha3

bestowed many noble endowments, and a great

variety of comforts and blessings, upon his

rational creatures in this world ; and since he has

voluntarily and upon easy conditions, offered

them everlasting happiness in a future life, to

which no human merit could have the remotest

claim, surely we may pronounce that the goodn^as

of God is infinite, ^^ boundless as his universal

works, and endless as the ages of eternity (yX^*^

^’ The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies

are over all hi3 works […] O give thanks

unto the Lord, for he is good; for his mercy

endureth for ever (a)’^

Upon

(y) Clarke, vol. i. Sermon 14*

(z) Ps. 145. v. 9. (a) Ps. 136. v, 1.

jjiT. l] Thirty-nine Articles. 71

Upon theBb grounds we believe that God is

KiESS.

As the irorld oottid not Imve existed from eternity, or boue caused its own existence, it must have derived its being from God ; and that God was the maker of all thin’gs both VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE, is repeatedly asscitod in Scripture : In she days the Lovd made hea- vea and earth (b)J’ — ” In srix days the Lord lade heaven and eardi, the sea, and aU tlmt in them is (c).’ — ’ Thoa hast created afl thmgs, and for tby pleasure liisj are and were ere- aled (d).” — ” By him were afl things related Aait are in beaven, and that are in eaith, vi- sible and invisible (e) :”— Ood, having created $Bk things, continues to preserve them in a state witaible to the paipcses for which they wei designed, and by his wperiiitending providence constantly governs tlie universe he created. Nothing can happen without the direction or permission df that fiemg who is tue source of all power; he appdnted and mippoits the generaS course of nature; end he intemipts k by his )Krticular interposition, whenever it seems good to Ins infinite wisdom : ” God veth to aJl, Bfe,

and

“(b) Ex. c. 21, V. 17. (c) Ex. c to. V. 11.

(d) Rev. C.4. V. 11. (e) Col. c i. v. 16.

‘4

72 EjppasUion of the [part hi.

and breath, and all things (f […] He is before all things, and by him all things consist […] How could any thing have endured, if it had not been thy will; or been preserved, if not called by thee (h) ?”— Thou, even thou, art Lord alone ; thou hast made heaven, the hea- ven of heavens, with all the host ; the earth, and all things that are therein; the sea, and all that is therein ; and thou preservest them all (i).” […] says bishop Pearson, ” the continued conservation of the creatures is in equal latitude attributed unto God with their first production ; because there is an absolute necessity of preserving us from returning unto nothing by annihilation, as there was for first bestowing an existence on us by creation. God doth sustain, uphold, and constantly preserve all things in their being which they have (k).” — Thus God is not only the maker, but also the

We now come to the latter part of this article, in which the gospd doctrine of the Trinity, or of three persons (I) in the Divine Essence, is asserted.

That

(f) Acts, c. 17. V. 25. (g) Col. c. 1. v. 17

(h) Wisdom, c. 11. v. 23. (i) Neh. c. g. v. 6.

(k) Pearson, Art. 1.

(l) TertuUian, the oldest Latin father extant, uses the word Persona as applied to the Trinity. The word used by the Greek fathera is vvo^o^k and v^ftrvoi •

AET. I.] Thirty-nine Articles. 73

That nearly aU the pagan nations of antiquity, in their various theological systems, acknow- ledged a kind of Trinity in the divine nature, has been fully evinced by those learned men, who have made the heathen mythology the subject of their elaborate enquiries. Hie almost imiversal prevalence of this doctrine in the Gentile king- doms must be considered as a strong argument in favour of its truth. The doctrine itself bears such striking internal marks of a divine original, and is so very unlikely to have been the inven- tion of mere human reason, that there is no way of accounting for the general adoption of so sin- gular a belief, but by supposing that it was re- vealed by God to the early patriarchs, and that it was transmitted by them to their posterity. In its progress indeed to remote countries, and to distant generations, this belief became depraved and corrupted in the highest degree; and he alone ^^ who brought life and immortality to li^t,” could restore it to its original simplicity and pu- rity. The discovery of the existence of this doc- Jtrine in the early ages, among the nations whose records have been the best preserved, has been of great service to the cause of Christianity, and completely refutes the assertion ; of infidels and isceptics, that the sublime and mysterious doc- trine of the Trinity owes it origin to the

philosophers

[…]

jQSOiers of Greece. ” If ire extaend,” says Mr. Maurice, our eye through die remote region cf antiquity, we shall find this very doctrine, iRfhich the primitive Christians are said to have borrowed from die Platonic school, universal and inunemorially flourishing in all those coun- tries, whe history and tradition have united to £x those virtuous ancestors of the human race, mboy Ibr.thek distinguished attainments in piety, were admitted to a £uniHar intercourse witfa Jehovah aod the Angels the divine heralds of Us commands.”

The same learned audior justly considers flie two first verses o( the Old Testament as cMt- taiiiing very strong, if not decisive, evidence, in ampport of the tnrth of this doctrine : * Elohim, a noun substantive of the plural number, by wfaich die Creator is expressed, appears as evi- dendy to point towards a pfairatity of persons in die divine nature, as the varb in the singular, with which it is joined, does to the unity of dwt tMture: In principio creavit Deus; with strict attention to grammatical propriety, the passa cdiould be rendered. In principio creavit Dii, but our bdief in die unity of God foibida qb Ibus to trandate die word £k)him. Since, diene- for, Eloldm is plwal, and no rai can consist of less dian two in number, and since creation

can

ART. I.] Thirty-nine Articks. 75

can alone be the work of Deity, we are to understand by this term so particularly used in this place, God the Father, and the eternal XiOgos, or Word of God; that Logos, whom St. John, supplying ujs with an excellent comment upon this passfe, says, was in the beginmng with God, and who also was God. As the father and the Son ajne expressly pointed oat in the first verse of this chapter, so is the third person in tibe blessed Trinity not less decisively revealed to us in the second : And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.’ Calasio rendans this passage, Spiritus Dei motabat; but as Dr. Patrick rightly observed, this is not the exact meaning of the text, for the original verb trans- lated moved, should be rended brooded upon the water, incubavit, as a hen broods over her eff. Thus we see the Spirit exerted upon this occa- sion an active effectual energy, by that eneigy agitating the vast abyss, and infusing into it a powerful vital principle.”

’^ Elohim seems to be the general appdlation by which the triune Godhead is collectively di^ tinguished in Scripture ; and in the concise his- tory of the creation only, the expression Bara Elohim, the Gods created, is used above tlurty times. The combining this plural noun with a verb in the singular would not appear so

remarkable,

[…]

xemarkable^ if Moses had uniformly adhered to that mode of expression ; for then it would be evident that he adopted the mode used by the Gentiles, in speaking of their false gods in the plural number; but by joining with it a sin- gular verb or adjective, rectified a phrase that might appear to give a direct sanction to the -error of polytheism. But in reality the reverse is Ae fiu:t; for in Deuteronomy, c. 32. v. 15 and 1 7, and other places, he uses the singular number of this very noun to express the Deity, though not employed in the august work of creation; Dereliquit Eloah; sacrificaverunt desmoniis, non Eloah. But farther, Moses himself uses this very word Elohim with verbs and adjectives in the plural. Of this usage Dr. Allix enumerates two among many other glaring instances that mi^t be brought from the Pentateuch, the former in Genesis, c. 20. v. 13. Quando errare fecerunt me Deus ; the latter in Genesis, c. 35. v. 7. Quia ibi revekti sunt ad eum Deus ; and other inspired writers use it in the same manner in various parts of the Old Testament (m). It must therefore, to every reader of reflection, appear exceedingly singular, that when Moses was en- deavouring to establish a theolo^cal system, of

which

(m) Job, c. 35. V. 10. Jos. c. 24. v. 19. Ps. 109. T. 1 . EccL c. 1 2. V. 3. 2 Sam. c. 7. v. 23.

ABT. I-] Thirty-nine Articles. 77

which the unity of the Godhead was the leading principle, and in which it differed . from bII other systems, he should make use of terms direcdy implicative of a plurality in it; yet so deeply was the awftd truth under consideration im- pressed upon the mind of the Hebrew legislator, that this is constantly done by him ; and indeed^ as Allix has observed, there is scarcely any me- thod of speaking from which a plurality in Deity may be inferred, that is not used either by him- self in the Pentateuch, or by the other inspired writers in various parts of the Old T^tament ‘A plural is joined with a verb singular, as in the passage cited before from Genesis, c. 1 . v. 1 . A plural is joined with a verb plural, as in Genesis, c. 35- V. 7. * And Jacob called the name of the place Bethel, because the Gods there ap- peared to him.’ A plural is joined with an ad- jective plural. Josh. c. 35. v. 19. * You cannot serve the Lord for he is the holy Gods.’ To diese passages, if we add that remarkable one from Ecclesiastes, * Remember thy Creators in tile days of thy youth,’ and the predominant use of the words, Jehovah Elohim, or, the * Lord thy GodSy’ which occur a hundred times in the law (the word Jehovah implying the unity of the essence, and Elohim a plurality in that unity) we must allow that nothing can

be

yS JSipasitim of the [part hi,

[…]

• Thoi] the august name of Jehoyah in a tomt pecufiar manner belongs to God the Fa* tiler, yet is that name, in various parts of Scrip- ture, applied to each person in the Holy Trinity. The Hebrews considered that name in such a sacred lit, that they never pronounced it, and used the word Adonai instead of it. It was in- deed a name that ranked first among their pro- ibundest Cabala ; a mystery, suWfane, ineffably incommunicable. It was called Tetragrammaton, or the name of four letters, and these letters are Jod, He, Vau, He, the proper pronunciation of which, from long disuse, is said to be no longer known to the Jews themselves. This awful name was first revealed by God to Moses from the centre of the burning bush ; and Josephus who, as well as Scripture, relates this circum- stance, evinces his veneration for it, by calling it the name which his reKgion did not permit him to mention (n). From this m ord the pagan titfe of lao and Jove is, with the greatest probability, supposed to have been originally formed ; and in the Golden Verses of Pythagoras, there is an oath still extant to this purpose, * by him who has the foTtr letters.’ As the name Jehovah, how- ever,

(n) Ant. Jud. lib. 2. cap. 5.

ART- 1.] Thirty-nine Articles. *ig

every in some instances applied to the Son and the Holy Spirit, was the proper name of God the Fatiher, so is Logos in as pecnEar a manner the appnniated name of God the Son. Ihe Chaldee Paraphrasts translate Hbt original Hb- hrew text by Mimra da Jehovah, HteraRy, the Word of Jehovah, a term totally different as bishop Kidder has incontestably proved, in its signification, and in its general application among Ae Jews, from the Hebrew Dabar, which simply means a discourse or decree, and is properly ren dered by Pithgam (oj. In the Septnagint trans- lation of the Bible, a work supposed by the Jews to have been ondertaken by men immediately inspired from above, the former term is uni- versally rendered Aoyo?, and it is so rendered and so understood by Philo and all the more antient Rabbins. The name of the third person in the ever-blessed Trinity has descended unaltered irom the days of Moses to our own time ; for, as well in the sacred writings as by the Targumists, and by the modem doctors of the Jewish church, be is styled Ruach JEiakhodesh, the Holy Spirit. He is sometimes, however, in the Rabbinical books, donominated by Shechinah, or Glory of Jehovah ; in some places he is called Sephirah,

or

(o) Demonstration of the Messiah, part 3d, pp. 108, 109*

So Ej^position of the [part iir«

or Wisdom ; and in others the Binah, or Un- derstanding Cp). From the enumeration of these circmnstances, it must be sufficiently evident to the mind which unites piety and reflection, that so &r from being silent upon the subject, the an- tfent Scriptures commence with an avowal of this doctrinei and that, in fact, the creation was the result of the joint operations of the Trinity.”

^’ If the argument above offered should stiD appear inconclusive, the 26th verse of this chapter (Gen. 1 .) contains so pointed an attestation to the truth of it, that in my opinion, when duly consi- dered, it must stagger the most hardened sceptic; for in that text not only the plurality is imequi- vocally expressed, but the act which I have before observed is the peculiar prerogative of Deity, is mentioned together with that plurality, the one circumstance illustrating the other, and both being highly elucidatory of this doctrine : ’ And God (Elohim) said. Let us (q) make man

in

(p) Dr. AUix’a Judgment, p. 168.

(q) The antient Chrietians looked upon this as a plain intimation of a plurality of persons in the God- head : Epiphanius says, ^* This is the language of Grod to his Word and only begotten, as all the faithful be- lieve.” HsBres. 23. n. 2. and vide Hceres. 44. n. 4. and Hcer. 46. n. 3. where he says, ” Adam was vfirAa^/*fMc

[…]

hand of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Vide Patrick in loc.

ART. I.] Thirty ^fiine Articles. 8i

in our image, after our likeness.’ Why the Deity should speak of himself in the plural num- ber, unless that Deity consisted of more than one person, it is difficult to conceive ; for the answer given by the modem Jews, that this is only a -figurative mode of expression, implying the high dignity of the speaker ; and that it is usual for earthly sovereigns to use this language by way of distinction, is futile, for two reasons. In the first place, it is highly d^rading to the Supreme Majesty to suppose he would take his model of speaking and thinking firom man, though it is < highly consistent with the vanity of man, to arrogate to himself (as -doubtless was the case in the licentiousness of succeeding ages) the style and imagined conceptions of Deity ; and it will be remembered, that these solemn words were spoken before the creation of that being, whose false notions of greatness and sublimity the Al- mighty is thus impiously supposed to adopt In truth, there does not seem to be any real dignity in an expression, which, when used by a human sovereign in relation to himself, approaches very near to absurdity. The genuine fact, however, appears to be this. When the tyrants of the East first began to assume divine honours, they assumed likewise the majestic language, appro- priated to, and highly becoming, the Deity, but yoL» II. G totally

82 EzfdsHioh t>f tki [pAAt ttt.

[…]

tendfiiicy

[…]

M 2

^4 Ej.‘pMtion 0/the [paet iir^

(tds work, of recommending, in the most earnest manner, both his Dissertations and his History to the’ attention of all those who are desirous of

’ seeing strong additional li^t thrown upon some of the most important doctrines of the Holy Scriptures. Every friend to revealed religion will consider himself 9s indebted to the laborious re- searches of Mr. Maurice, while every admirer of an animated and elegant style will read his worksi with peculiar satisfaction.

The first passage I shall adduce from the New Testament in proof of this important doctrine of the Trinity, is, the charge and commission which our Saviour gave to his apostles, to ’^ go and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy

’ Ghost (t)” The Gospel is every where in Scrip- ture represented as a Covenant or conditional offer of eternal salvation from God to man, and Baptism was the appointed ordinance by which men were to be admitted into that Covenant, by which that offer was made and accepted. This Covenant being to be made with God himself, the ordinance must of course be performed in his name; but Christ directed that it should be paformed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; and therefore we

conclude

(t) Matt c. 28. V. ig.

Aax. I.] Thirty-nine Articles. 85

conclude that God is the same as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Since Baptism is to be performed in the name of the Father, ih6 Son, and the Holy Ghost, they must be all three persons ; and since no superiority or dif- ference whatever is mentioned in this solemn form of Baptism, we conclude that these three persons are all of one substance, power, and eter- nity (uj. Are we to be baptised ‘in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and is it possible that the Father should be self- existent, eternal, the Lord God omnipotent; and that the Son,, in whose name we are equally baptised, should be a mere man, bom of a woman, and subject to all the frailties and imperfections of human nature ? or, is it possible that the Holy Ghost, in whose name also we are equally bap- tised, should be a bare energy or operation, a quaUty or power, without even personal existence? Our feelings, as well as our reason, revolt from the idea of such disparity.

This argument will derive great strength from the practice of the early ages, and from the ob- servations

[…]

Or. 3. contr. Ar.

Q 3

S<5 Ejpposition Cftkt P A KT 1 1 1 .

jjeirvatiotid which we toeet with in seral of thtf Atitient fkthars relative to it. We teAm firott AmIn’ose, that persons at the titne of their Bap tism, declared their belief in the thiree person of die Holy Trinity, and that they were dipped in the water three times : in his Treatise upon the Sacraments he says, ” Thou wast asked hi thy Baptism, Dost thott bdieve in God thd Father Almighty ? and thou didst teply, I believe, and thou wast dipped; a second time khoti wast asked, Dost thou believe in Jesus Chri&t th6 Lord ? thou didst attswer again, I believe, ktA thou Wast dipped; a third time the questSm wai tepeated, Dost thou believe in the Hdy Ghofet? and die answer wafe, I believe, thtt thoti wast dipped a third time (x)’ It is to b6 noticed, that the belief, here expressed sepa)rately in the three persons of the trinity, is pfecisdy the same hi all. TertuHian, Basil, tind Jerom all mention this practice of trine immersion, being derived from apostolical traditioti; aUd Jerome ejcpressly sayS, ” We are thrice dipped in the Wtttet-, that tiiie mystery Of the Trinity tnay petdr to be but one. We are not baptised in the names x Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but ixi one natney which Is God’; tod therefore, though we t)e thrice put under water to repre-

fiOIlt

(x) De Sac. lib* 2. cap. 7,

[…]

(y) Hieron cent. Luc. cap. 4. lib. 2. in Ephes* 14.

(z) De Sp. Sanct.lib.2. inter. Op. Hier.

/m) Cyp. ad J»b.

(b) Athanas. Disp. cont. Ar.

G4

88 Exposition of the [part hi,

of Nice decreed, ” If they do not ansM^er to this doctrine of the Trinity, let them not be baptised.”

Thus the mysterious union of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as one God, was, in the opinion of the purest ages of the Christian church, clearly expressed in this form of Bap-* tism. By it the primitive Christians understood the Father’s gracious acceptance of the atone- ment offered by the Messiah ; the peculiar pro- tection of the Son, our great high priest and in- tercessor; and the readiness of the Holy Ghost to sanctify, to assist, and to comfort all the obedient followers of Christ, confirmed by the visiUe gift of tongues, of prophecy, and divers other gifts to the first disciples. And as their great Master’s instructions evidently distinguished these persbns from each other, without any difference in their authority or power, all standing forth as equally dispensing the benefits of Christianity, as equally the objects of the faith required in converts upon admission into the church, they clearly under- stood that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, were likewise equally the objects of their grateful worship: this fully appears from their prayers, doxologies, hymns, and creeds, which are still extant.

The second passage to be produced in support

of

ART. I.] Thirty-nine Articles. 89

of the doctrine now under consideration^ is, the doxology at the conclusion of St. Paul 8 Second Epistle to the Corinthians : ” The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fel- lowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you.” The manner in which Christ and the Holy Ghost are here mentioned, implies that they are persons, for none but persons can confer grace or feDowship ; and these three great blessings of grace, love, and fdlowship, being respectively prayed for by the inspired apostle from Jesus Christ, God the Father, and the Holy Ghost, without any inti- mation of disparity, we conclude that these three persons are equal and divine. This solemn bene- diction may therefore be considered as another proof of the Trinity, since it acknowledges the divinity of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Ghost.

The third and last passage which I shall quote upbn this subject, is the following salutation or benediction in the beginning of the Revelation of St. John : ” Grace and peace from Him which is, and which was, and which is to come ; and from the Seven Spirits which are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ.” Here the Fa- ther is described by a periphrasis taken from his attribute of eternity, and the seven spirits is a mystical expression for the Holy Ghost, used upon this occasion either because the salutation

is

go Expmtion of the [part iii.

is addressed to seven churches, every one of which had partaken of die spirit, or because seven wm a sacred number among the Jews, denoting both variety and perfection, and in this ease alluding to the various gifts, administrations, and opera tions of the Holy Ghost. Since grace and peace are prayed for from these three persons jointly and without discrimination, we infer an quality in their power to dispense those blessings ; and we farther xnclude that these three persons to gelher constitute the Supreme Being, who is aione the object of prayer, and is one the givear of every good and of every perfict jft.

It might be rig^t to remark that the seven gpl- lits cannot mean angels, since prayers are never in Scripture addressed to angels, nor are blessings ever pronounced in their name (c).

It is unnecessary to quote any of the num^ous passages in which the Father is singly called

God,

(e) I purposely omit the eontested passage in the First Epistle of St John, ’ There are three thtt bar record in heaven, ibe Father, the Word wd the Holy Ghost ; and these three are one.” In any case \t would be improper to produce a doubtful text in sup- port of so important a doctrine as hat of the Trinity ; but I must own, that after an attantive considemtioa of tube o(U2trovfrsf fctotive to tthatpasMSi I Mil finced that it is spurious.

[…]

Ood, as some of tliein muFt be recollected by ^ery one, and the divinity of the Father is not <^liBed in question by any sect of Christians; and those passages which prove the divinity of the . Son and of the Hdy Ghost separately, wiD be more properly considered mnder the second and fifth articles. In the meantime we may observe, that if it shall appear, as I trust it wiH, from Scripture, that Christ is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, it will fdlow, since we are assured that there is but one God, that the three per- sons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, by a mysterious union, constitute tue one God, or as this article expresses it, that Theke is a Trikity in Unity; and in the unity of THIS Godhead there be three persons of one substance, power, and eternity, THE Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

The word Trinity does not occur in Scrip* ture, nor do we find it in any of the early con- sessions of faith ; but this is no argument against the doctrine itse^ since we learn from the fa- thers of the first three centuries, that the divinity of the Son and of the Hcrfy Ghost was, ftom the days of the apostles, acknowledged by the Catholic church, and that those who main- tamed a contrary opittion were considered as

haretios;

g2 Exposition of the [part hi.

heretics (d) ; and as every one knows that neither the divinity of the Father, nor the unity of the Godhead, was ever called in question at any period, it follows that the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity has been in substance, in all its consti- tuent parts, always known among Christians. In the fourth century it became tlie subject of eager and general controversy ; and it was not till then that this doctrine was particularly discussed. While there was no denial or dispute, proof and defence were unnecessary: ” Nunquid enim perfecte de Trinitate tractatum est, antequam oblatrarent Ariani (e) ? ” But this doctrine is positively mentioned as being admitted among catholic Christians, by writers who lived long before that age of controversy. Justin Mar- tyr, in refuting the charge of Atheism urged against Christians, because they did not be- lieve in the gods of the heathen, expressly says, “We worship and adore the Father, and the Son, who came from him and tau^t us these things, and the prophetic Spirit (f) ;” and soon after, in the same Apology, he under- takes

(d) Vide Letters between Dr. Horsley and Dr. Priestley, Dr. Knowles’s Primitive Christianity, and Wilson’s Illustration of the Method of Explaining the New Testament by the early opinions of Jews and Christians concerning Christ.

(e) Augustine.

(f) Just. Mart. edit. Par. 1636, page 56.

ART. I.] Thirty-nine Articles. 93

takes to shew the reasonableness of the honour piud by Christians to the Father in the first place, to the Son in the second, and to the Holy Ghost in the third, and says, that their as- signing the second place to a crucified man, was, by unbelievers, denominated madness, because they were ignorant of the mystery, which he then proceeds to explain (g). Athenagoras, in reply- ing to the same charge of Atheism urged against Christians, because they refused to worship the false gods of the heathen, says, ” Who would not wonder, when he knows that we, who call upon God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, shewing their power in the unity, and their distinction in order, should be called Atheists (h) ? ” Clement of Alexandria, not only mentions three divine persons, but invokes them as one only God. Praxeas, Sabellius (i)y and other

unitarians,

(g) Page 60.

(h) Aihensig. ad Colum. Just. Mart. p. 11. edit. Par. 1615.

(i) Praxeas and Sabellius taught an unity of persons as well as of substance, supposing that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, were only different terms for the same person, which led to the heresy of the Patri- passians, who affirmed, that the Father was incarnate, and suffered upon the cross. It is curious to observe the contrast which the antient Ebionites and the Enodem Socinians form to these opinions. Praxeas lived in the second^ and Sabellius in the third century.

94 Ejfptmtion of the [part ih.

unitananSy accused the orthodox Christians of tritheism, which is of itsetf a clear proof that the orthodox worshipped the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and though in reality (hey considered these three persons as constituting the one true God, it is obvious that their enemies might easily represent that worship as an ac- Icnowledgment of three Gods. TeituHian, in writing against Praxeas, maintains, that ” A Trinity rationally conceived, is consistent wiA truth; and that unity irrationally conoeived, forms heresy.” He had before said, in speang of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that ” there are three of one substance, and of one conditian, and of one power, because there is one God :’ arid he afterwards adds, ** The connection of Ae Father in the Son, and of the Son in the -Com- forter, makes three united together, tlie one with the other ; which three are one thingy not one person ; as it is said, I and the Father are one thing, with regard to the unity of substance, not to the singularity of number : ” and he also ex- pressly says, ” The Father is God, ad the Son IS God, and the Holy Ghost is God ; ” and again, ” The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, believed to be three, constitute one God.” And in anothw part of bis works he says, ” There i&a Trinity of one Divinity, the Father, id the Soo

and

AUT. I.] Thirty-nine Articles. ^5

Bttd the Holy Glicwt” And TertulBan not only mttmtains theise doctrines, but assffrts that th^ were prior to any teresy, and had indeed been tJte faith of Chrirtians from the first promulga- tion of the Gospel (k). To these writers of the second century we may add Origen and Cyprian in the third ; the former of whom mentions Bap- tism ({gliding to its appointed form) as the

*” source

[…]

96 Exposition of the [paet iiu

<< source and fountBin of graces to him who de- dicates himself to the divinity of the adorable Trinity (Ij:’ And the ktter, after reciting the same form of Baptism, says, that ” by it Christ ddivered the doctrine of the Trinity, unto whidi mystery or sacrament the nations were to be bap* tised.”

It would be easy to multiply quotations upoB this subject ; but these are amply sufficient to shew the opinions of the early fathers, and to refute the assertion that tue doctrine of the Trinity was an invention of the fourth century.

To these positive testimonies I will subjoin a negative argument : those who acknowledged the divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost, are never called heretics by any \iTiter of the first three centuries ; and this circumstance is surely a strong proof that the doctrine of the Trinity waH the doctrine of the primitive church ; more 0H|>eciully, since the names of tiiose, who first cl(!f)ied the divinity of Christ and of the Holy (jlioftt, are transmitted to us as of persons who (liMHcnUd from the common faith of Christians.

Hut, while we contend that the doctrine of the ‘JVinity in Unity is founded in Scripture, and

supported

(I) Orig. Tom. 6. in Rom»

ART. I.] Thirty-nine Articles. 97

Supported by the authority of tbe early Chris- tianSy we must acknowledge that it is not given to man to understand in what manner the three persons are united, or how, separately and joindy, they are God. It would, perhaps, have been well, if divines, in treating this awful and mysterious subject, had confined themselves to the expressions of Scripture ; for the moment we begin to explain it beyond the written Word of God, we plunge ourselves into inextricable diffi- culties. And how can it be otherwise ? Is it to be expected that our finite understandings should be competent to the full comprehension of the nature and properties of an infinite Being? ” Can we find out the Almighty to perfec- tion (mjy’* or penetrate into the essence of the Most […] God is a Spirit (wj,” and our gross conceptions are but ill adapted to the con- templation of a pure and spiritual Being. We know not the essence of our own mind, nor the precise distinction of its several faculties ; and why then should we hope to comprehend the personal characters which exist in the Godhead ? If I tell you earthly things, and you understand them not, how shall ye understand if I tell you heavenly things? When we attempt to investigate the nature of the Deity, whose existence is com- mensurate (m) Job, c. 11. V. 7. (n) John, c. 4. v. 24.

9^ Exposition of the [part iii,

mensurate with eternity, by whose power the universe was created, and by whose wisdom it is governed; whose presence fills all space, aud whose knowledge extends to the thoughts of every man in every age, an^ to the events of all places^ past, present, and to come, the mind is quickly lost in the vastness of these ideas, and unable to find any sure guide to direct its progress, it be- comes, at every step, more bewildered and en- tangled in the endless mazes of metaphysical abstraction. — ” God ip a God that hideth him- self (o).” — ” We cannot by searching find out God (p).” — ” Behold God is great, and we know him not (q)-” — ” Such knowledge is too wonderful and excellent for us ; it is high ; we caf>not attain unto it (r)”

(o) Job, c 23. V. 9. (p) Job, c. 11. v. 7. (q) Job, c. 36. V. %f). (r) Psalm, 139. v. 6.

Awr. il] Tkirty-v^ne Articles. gg