much more competent than we are, may be adduced reasons which will appear strong, to those who consider the proximity of the times, in which many of the Fathers wrote, to the commencement of Christianity; and the opportunities they had of collecting the sentiments of the Apostles themselves, some by personal intercourse, and others by not very remote tradition.

XCIII.

Having mentioned the Nicene and Constantinopolitan explications of the Christian Doctrine, Ridley observes, "The Fathers who lived about those times, a little "before or after the latest of those Councils, such as "Basil, the two Gregories, Didymus, and Cyril of "Alexandria, in their Discourses on the Holy Spirit, "drew their doctrines entirely from the Scriptures, "and did not then fashion, but succeeded to the Faith,

by tradition of those who presided in the Church "from the Apostolical age to their own times. To "which they appeal, producing their testimonies, and

66

66

tracing it up to the New Testament; where they challenge a cloud of witnesses." Ridley's "Eight "Sermons" shew him to have been a man of erudition, and well acquainted with the Writings of Heathen and Christian Antiquity.

XCIV.

Philostorgius (says Suidas) hath made mention of Basil, in words to this effect: "In those times "flourished Basil of Cæsarea of Cappadocia, and

Gregory at Nazianzen, and Appollinarius in Laodicea "of Syria. These three men contended for the doc"trine of Consubstantiality' against that of Different"Substance,' by far excelling all the advocates of that heresy, who had ever written before, or who have

"written since from that time to my own; so that "even Athanasius was thought a child when compared "with them. For they had made very great proficiency in what is called extraneous, i. e. profane "learning; and in the Sacred Writings, with respect "to whatever perfected the reading and quick re"collection of them, they had great experience; and "Basil the most of all." Philostorgius was an Arian. He was nevertheless candid enough not to withhold from these eminent persons their due praise, although they were of a different persuasion. In this he gave an example of moderation to be commended and imitated.

XCV.

Whether, among the early Christian Writers, the most approved by the Christian World in general, did or did not maintain the doctrine of a Trinity, is as much a question of Fact, as whether Sir Isaac Newton did or did not maintain the principles of gravitation and attraction. That such Writers did maintain that doctrine, no man can possibly doubt, who will read the work to which we have before referred, and which (to use Waterland's words) "will stand as long as clear sense, "sound reasoning, and true learning have any friends "left," the "Defensio Fidei Nicænæ."

XCVI.

By ascribing divine attributes to Three Persons, the ancient Christian Writers asserted a Trinity in the quality of Godhead; by maintaining the "Father" to be the only source of Divinity, they asserted Unity in the Power of divine Government.

XCVII.

Whence did the primitive Christians collect their ideas respecting the Trinity? From examining, and comparing with each other, various texts and various passages in the Scriptures; and by reasoning on the whole put together.

XCVIII.

St. Paul confuted the Jews, who denied that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, συμβιβάζων, "by bringing "together" a variety of texts from the Scriptures of the Old Testament. These he applied to Christ; and by shewing the correspondence of real character in him, with intimations given and delineations marked out, in the Sacred Writings of Moses and the Prophets, the Apostle proved what he wished to demonstrate. (Acts, ix. 22.) This method is analogous to the process of reasoning in the human mind. We put together various facts, and then draw our conclusion from those facts. It is the very characteristic of Man's nature, as Rational, to proceed thus.

XCIX.

We act in conformity with St. Paul's practice, and with the ordinary course of human reasoning, when we bring together various texts of Scripture, and thence prove the doctrine of a Trinity and Unity. Divine Nature is One. Three Persons have the attributes of divine nature in divinity of nature they must be One. Divine Government is One: Three Persons direct their energies to effectuate the self-same ends of that One Government: in the purposes and power of divine Government they must be One. But divine nature and divine Government are the very qualities, which essentially constitute Godhead. In Godhead, then, the Three must in quality (we repeat the words to obviate

misconception), must in quality of Godhead be One. But if One in Godhead, they must essentially be One God.

C.

If there be but one process, by which we can rightly solve a mathematical question; or if there be but one key, by which we can correctly decipher a diplomatic Writing; that process and that key must each, in its respective way, be most proper for application. Reasoning on analogy we may affirm, if there be but one Doctrine completely calculated to reconcile Scriptural Passages, which would otherwise be at variance with each other, that must recommend itself as the general standard for consistent explanation. Such then is our Doctrine of the Trinity. It does indeed involve mystery. But so likewise do those of a Resurrection and of Redemption. Yet, on the grounds of faith in Revealed Religion we admit them. Surely then, on the same grounds, we may and should admit the Doctrine of the Trinity.

CI.

In all concerns of moment, before we depart from what has been long received, we may properly ask the question "Cui Bono?" "for what good purpose" are we to innovate? Let this question be proposed in the case before us. "For what good purpose of obtaining "more distinct knowledge concerning the Essential "Nature and Eternal Existence of God, should we "reject the doctrine of a Trinity?" For none. would in that point of view answer no purpose whatever to reject the doctrine of a Trinity. Men, good and acting on the most pure intention, have indeed imagined they could comprehend God's Essential Nature and Eternal Existence better in Unity, than in Trinity. Their thought however could be but imaginary. For,

It

provided they maintained (what most have maintained) not any Materiality, but the Spirituality of God, they could then no more form an accurate idea of God's Essential Nature and Eternal Existence in Unity, than they could in Trinity. They could precisely and distinctly know nothing in one, or in the other case. And wherefore? For the same reason that a Man born blind knows nothing of Light in the Solar Orb. We have no powers of mind commensurate to any particle of such a subject as divine Essential Nature and Eternal Existence.

66

CII.

Supposing, for the sake of argument, we reject Christianity; and reverting to what is called Natural Religion, let us stand upon that ground. The degree of knowledge, which could be acquired in Natural Religion, can be collected only from considering those, who have actually lived under that Religion. With that knowledge then, "what more perfect ideas respecting God's Essential Nature and Eternal Existence, "could we form in our Minds, than those we now "form?" The Master-Moralist will tell us. Ότι μεν γαρ τα θεια όπερ ήμας, παντι δηλον. Αποχρη δε τῳ κρειττονι της δυναμεως αυτους σεβειν. Οἷοι δε εισιν, ούτε εὑρειν ῥαδιον, ουτε ζητειν θεμιτον. (Xenophon's Epistle to Æschines, Vol. V. part ii. p. 173. ed. Wells.) "That "there are divine Beings above us, is to every person "evident. And it is enough to worship them, on ac"count of their superiority in power. But of what "nature they are, it is neither easy to discover, nor "lawful to enquire." That there really did exist divine power, and that the exercise of such power for the happiness of Man was demonstrable in the works of creation, and providence, Socrates in his valuable dialogues with Aristodemus and Euthydemus very forcibly maintained.