ページの画像
PDF
ePub

But then, I think, it ought to be remembered, that though the generality of christians have professed to believe in a Trinity, or trine Deity, and thereby have difsented from the rest of the world, in the article of the unity of God; yet this has not been the case of a few christians, nor can any such doctrine, or such disent, be justly charged upon their master. Jesus Christ considered and represented that one single individual intelligence, or agent, whom he characterised by the term father, to be greater than all, to be him in whom fupreme dominion singly and solely resides ; and this

appears to be the case from the histories of Christ's life and ministry, as those histories have been transmitted down to us. And, indeed, if any such doctrine had been taught by Jesus Christ, then, in some men's opinion, that doctrinewould have been a weighty objection against the divinity of his mission, at least, so far as such doctrine did concern it. I have already obferved, that necessarily existing mind must be either unity, or infinity, betwixt which, I apprehend, there can be no mediuin; and therefore, if three neceffarily existing minds are adınitted, then the questions will be, why not three hun

N

dred?

dred? or three thousand? and so on; fee ing nature does not seem to admit of any pop that is short of infinity, as, has been already observed. So that, had Jesus Chrift taught this doctrine of a trine or compound Deity, then it admits of a question, whether any external evidence, how great or of what kind soever, could possibly have proved it's divinity, or rendered it credible, or worthy of acceptance amongst mankind?

This doctrine of a * triangular God, (if LI may

be allowed to express it thus) is what, I think, those who profefs to believe and maintain ought carefully to re-examine, and that for these reasons, viz. First, because it does not appear to have been taught by their master; and this, surely, to chriftians, may be considered as a weighty objection against it. Secondly, it may be considered as a corruption of religion, in the grand article of the unity of God; and, as such, it may be looked upon to be an error of the first magnitude. Thirdly, it seems to

set.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

* An equilateral triangle seems designed to be the cinturiod symbol or visible representation of the Trinity, o corepound Deity: ss it is painted upon, or over the mees, in (ome cindian churches,

[ocr errors]

set christianity below even the pagan theology; for though the pagans acknowledged many tutelar Gods, yet they admitted of but one fupreme Deity. Fourthly, this doctrine of a trine Deity stands in the way, and puts an effectual bar to the conversion of Jews, Turks and Pagans to christianity; and prevents them from examining the evidence, upon which the truth and divinity of the christian religion is supposed to be grounded: For as the unity of God is deemed a fundamental principle of religion, by Jews, Turks, and Pagans ; lo a corruption of this article, (which the doctrine of a trine Deity is judged to be) is, with them, most apparently false religion ; of which no external evidence can possibly prove it to be otherwise ; and therefore, no evidence is to be attended to, which may be brought to prove it. And, as the generality of the

profeffors of christianity, for many ages past, have blended the doctrine of a trine Deity with christianity, and thereby have put an effectual stop to it's progress in the world, by putting an invincible bar in the way of the conversion of Jews, Turks, and Pagans ; so, surely, this of itfelf thould be a Jufficient rcalon, to Christians, to re-consider this mat

N 2

ter;

ter ; and if it should be found to be an error, then to purge themselves of it, and, thereby, to separate from christianity a doctrine, which is very offensive to a great part of our species. Lastly, this doctrine of a trine Deity, tho' of long standing in the christian church, ought carefully to be re-considered, because the piety and devotion of Christians are particularly interested in it, as such piety and devotion are liable to, and may be improperly and fallly directed and applied. For if what exists necessarily be only one single individual intelligence, or mind; then, to address' three such minds, either separately, or in conjunction, must be greatly improper and contrary to true piety. And, indeed, whether there be only one, or whether there be three ne. cessarily existing minds, in either case such impropriety seems to take place, in the use of the form of devotion before-mentioned. For supposing there be three neceffarily existing minds, who are so closely and inseparably united, as that they are one in counsel and design, in godship and dominion; then these three must, by mutual consent and agreement, either act separately, and each one perform his part, in whatever is produced by them, and which, indeed, seems to be sup

pored

re

posed in the form of devotion before-men-
tioned, wherein the work of redemption is
ascribed only to the fon, or second person in
the Trinity; or else they must all act in
conjunction, and be co-efficients in all divine
operations. If the former be the case, that
is, if these three divine persons act separate-
ly, and each one alone performs his part ;
then, I think, if we would act properly, and
as the nature of the case seems to
quire, we must address each one separately,
according to the part he acts, and not ad-
dress them all in conjunction, as if they were
co-efficients in acting. If the latter be the
case, that is, if all three do act in conjunction,
and are co-efficients in all divine operations ;
then, I think, if we wouldact properly, we must
address them not separately, but all three in
conjunction and that, not only in partnership
and society, but also as co-efficients in the
case. And whereas, in the form of devotion
referred to, three minds are addressed to, each
one separately, and likewise all three in con-
junction ; therefore, such address must, I
think, in one or other of it's branches, be
greatly improper, and contrary to true piety;
even supposing there are three necefiary ex-
isting minds, though that is a point which
may, perhaps, be doubted of.

N
3

I

N 3

« 前へ次へ »