But that we can know the essential nature of those Beings, in whom such power resided, that he denied ; as may be seen in several passages similar to the above, in the Writings of his modest and accomplished encomiast. What reason have we to think, that if we were standing on the same ground of natural Religion as Socrates, we should have more perfect knowledge of divine things, than Socrates? Did the philosophers of Rome know more? Did our British ancestors, who were Druidical; or our Anglo-Saxon progenitors, who were Idolaters, know more? Certainly not, so long as they were heathens. Their more pure wisdom came from Christianity: and from the same source comes our wisdom. But Christianity brought to them, delivers to us, and carries with it, wherever it goes, the doctrine of a Trinity.

CIII.

Supposing we reject Christianity, and adopt Judaism; let us see what satisfaction concerning the point in question, we shall thence derive. We no sooner open the Sacred History, than we find a word implying Plurality introduced as the title of the Almighty. However we may labour to account for this, yet after all it is a very striking circumstance, that when the Sacred Writer might have used a word of singular import (as he does elsewhere), and thus have precluded all ambiguity, he nevertheless uses a word of plural import thirty times, at the beginning of his History and in its primary chapters, and thereby admits ambiguity. And knowing, as we do, that from this and other circumstances, it has been maintained by very learned and considerate men, that the Jews held a Plurality in the Godhead, we should be led to conclude, that at least the doctrine of Unity is far from having been unquestionably the doctrine of the Jews. The point has been

disputed, and is still controverted. With respect therefore to deriving any certainty on this doctrine from Judaism, we should be disappointed. The matter is doubtful.

66

CIV.

He that should say, "The doctrine of the Trinity has "been disputed among Christians, and is therefore questionable," would say what is fact. But if he should urge this as a sufficient plea for rejecting the doctrine altogether, he would judge hastily, and conclude erroneously. For he should consider on which side of the question by far, very far the major part of Christians, from the Apostles to the Fathers, from the Fathers to us, through all ages of Christianity, have most decidedly determined. He should consider, that while only individuals, comparatively few, have occasionally denied the doctrine of a Trinity, whole nations in a continuance and in the most public manner have asserted that doctrine, through successive generations during the long course of Eighteen Centuries. On these considerations, as the weight of general and public judgment is evidently against him, he should see there are strong grounds for suspecting, that they who deny the doctrine of a Trinity, merely because it has been controverted, may possibly be wrong, and are probably wrong, in their dissent from that doctrine.

66

CV.

To him that should say, "The supporters of the "Trinitarian doctrine were fallible men, and therefore might be mistaken;" the reply would be, "Your "remark is partly inaccurate, and partly correct. In"accurate in the highest degree with respect to our Lord, whose doctrine it is, and who in his divine "wisdom was absolutely infallible; inaccurate also

66

66

"according to the ideas of all Christians, with respect "to the Apostles, whose inspiration taken in the most "limited sense, at least prevented them from being "mistaken, when delivering fundamental Truths. With "regard to other Writers, your remark is correct; they certainly were fallible men, and as such might "be mistaken. But upon the same principle you also "may be mistaken. And among the infinitude of Writers, whether long since dead or still living, who "on principles conscientious, and with talents adequate "have interpreted Scripture Texts relating to this subject, the most able and the most numerous Expositors will prove that you are mistaken; but that the maintainers of a Trinity are right in their opinion; "on the grounds of Scripture, the grounds on which "the question must ultimately stand."

66

66

CVI.

For our religious principles, whilst they are confined to ourselves, we are responsible to God only. For the manner in which we openly declare our religious principles, and for the conduct we pursue under the influence of them, we are responsible to society also.

CVII.

As the forming of right opinions depends upon a combination of many circumstances, how far it may or may not be in our own power to form right opinions, admits of a question. But about the impropriety of injuring society by any mode of propagating our opinions, there should be no question. For nothing can be more clear, than that man living in society, is bound by moral and political obligations not to injure such society either by word or deed.

CVIII.

What if those, who protest against a particular Church, have among themselves unhappily separated from each other by multifarious divisions, and discriminate each other by subtile distinctions implying even dimidiation? They are nevertheless Protestants. In like manner, All, who hold the doctrine of a Trinity, however individually they may give different explications of it, are nevertheless Trinitarians. In the former case, dissensions about difficult and nice points do not prove that therefore the religion of Protestants is not to be found in Scripture. In the latter case, disputes about exposition do not prove that therefore innumerable Texts, from which the doctrine of a Trinity may be inferred and demonstrated, do not exist in Scripture.

CIX.

To particular minds, particular passages of ancient Authors will frequently recur. What if these sentiments were often recollected?

66

αμφι δ' ανθρω

πων φρεσιν αμπλακίαι
αναρίθμητοι κρεμανται.

"around the minds of men hang innumerable errors." (Pind. Ol.7.) "Seek not out the things that are too "hard for thee; neither search the things that are above thy strength. But what is commanded thee, think thereupon with reverence: for it is not needful for thee to see with thine eyes the things that are in "secret. Be not curious in unnecessary matters: for "more things are shewed unto thee than men under"stand." (Ecclesiasticus, iii. 21, 22, 23.) The remembrance of these verities, founded on experience, how should it operate? It should teach Humility and

CX.

Be the subject what it may, in holding the same Doctrine, taken in a general and enlarged sense, men may agree in their sentiments about particular points and particular explanations of the principal Doctrine, they may nevertheless differ. And on this account neither side should censure the other. Till the minds of all men can in their talents and conceptions be entirely alike, the judgments of all men cannot be entirely alike. To expect it, were to expect an impossibility.

CXI.

So long as it preserves command of temper, decency of language, propriety of expression, adherence to sound argument either by reason or proof, candid allowance for difference of thinking, and above all, respect for Public Opinion on subjects of a serious and sacred nature; Partiality for one's own sentiments is venial. Venial therefore it will be in a Member of the Church of England, if he commends the Collect of his Church for Trinity Sunday, which precisely corresponds with his own views of the subject, as a very fine specimen of clearness and comprehension combined.

CXII.

Considering the mutability of the human mind, and the several melancholy instances of well-meaning persons, who under the debility of age have fallen from that rectitude of judgment, which they shewed in the vigor of life and in the full strength of their mental faculties, we cannot conclude our "Thoughts" on the Triune Godhead more properly, than by offering with all humility that solemn prayer, in which we are instructed thus to make supplication for such a measure of divine