and confuse rules of demeanour towards him; while a more particular and explicit apprehension of the Deity will of course produce a more particular and explicit service. It is true, where God has not afforded such distinct knowledge, a less perfect service may and must suffice: but wherever much is given, much will be required, and from peculiar circumstances will arise peculiar obligations. If God be Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the duties owing to God will be duties owing under that trine distinction; which must be paid accordingly: and whoever leaves out any of the three out of his idea of God, comes so far short of honouring God perfectly, and of serving him in proportion to the manifestations made of him. Supposing our doctrine true, (as we are now to suppose,) there will be duties proper to be paid to the Father as Father, and to the Son as Son, and to the Holy Ghost as the eternal Spirit of both; duties correspondent to their distinct offices and personalities, beside the duties common to all three, considered as one God. In short, the specification of our worship, and the right direction of it, are nearly concerned in this doctrine: and therefore, if worship be a practical matter, this doctrine also is practical, and not a point of mere speculation". That worship is a practical thing, I suppose no man of sense will dispute; or if any one does, it must be a dispute only about words, and not affecting the main thing: wherefore, it must be altogether wrong to imagine, that the doctrine of the Trinity is purely notional, or has no connection with practice. If the doc "See Dr. Webster's introductory Discourses to Maimburg's History of Arianism, p. 43, &c. Nihil falsius est ea Remonstrantium calumnia, qua articulum de S. S. Trinitate ullum ad praxin usum habere inficiantur. Omnis doctrina veritatis, secundum pietatem est. Tit. i. 1. Et hæc tam notabilis, tam fundamentalis, non esset? Imo totius fidei, totius veræ religionis scaturigo est.—Nulla etiam religio est, nisi quis verum Deum colat: non colit verum Deum, sed cerebri sui figmentum, qui non adorat in æquali divinitatis majestate, Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum. I nunc, et doctrinam eam ad praxin inutilem esse clama, sine qua nulla fidei aut pietatis Christianæ praxis esse potest. Witsius in Symb. Apost. p. 76. trine be true, it is sacrilege, and great impiety, in every Christian to refuse to worship Father, Son, or Holy Ghost but if the doctrine be false, it is polytheism and idolatry to pay religious worship to any person but the Father only. So much depends upon this single article. The author of Sober and Charitable Disquisition labours this point extremely, for several pages togethery, and has perhaps said as much and as well as the cause will admit of. He endeavours to clear the Arian worshippers of Christ from formal polytheism; and to retort the charge upon the orthodox worshippers; that so upon consideration that both parties may mean well, or in some respects may both offend, they may consent to bear with each. other, and to unite in Christian fellowship together. But, in my humble opinion, the thought is wide, and the project impracticable. There is no patching up any lasting or rational agreement of that kind, while the parties cannot unite so much as in the object of divine worship. He allows, that the opposers of Christ's Divinity, (properly so called,) can pay him no more than inferior worship, such as if tendered to God would manifestly dishonour and degrade him, would directly deny him to have divine perfections, and, instead of honouring him as God, would degrade him into somewhat that is not Godz. Can those then who believe Christ to be God, and who honour him as such, ever think it reasonable or pious, to hold communion with men who, by what they call inferior worship, do thus manifestly dishonour and degrade their God and Saviour, denying his divine perfections, degrading him into somewhat that is not God? Can the Catholic believers ever suffer or connive at such affronts offered (as they must esteem them) to God blessed for ever? How can they ever justify either to God, or to the world, or to their own consciences, such a guilty neutrality in an affair of the highest consequence, in an article of the last importance? Mutual forbearance Sober and Charitable Disquisition, p. 4—23. z Ibid. p. 8, 9. in doubtful points of speculative opinion, is very becoming fallible men, in consideration of our common frailty: but it is unreasonable, and morally impracticable, to come to any composition, where the parties differ so widely, and in so material a concern, as the object of divine worship. Religious men will be zealous for the honour of their Lord God, because they know that they ought to be so; neither will they nor can they countenance any coldness or indifference in so weighty a concern. Excessive heats perhaps may sometimes arise in such cases; for so long as religion is held in esteem, and believed to be worth the contending for, there must be contests about it, which may sometimes rise too high: but it is an error on the right hand, and much to be preferred to a cold indifference; as a strong athletic constitution, though subject sometimes to fevers, is yet vastly preferable to a constant lethargy. To return, the sum is, that the point of divine worship is a critical point, a difficulty which cannot be got over, while both sides retain their respective principles; one looking upon the Son and Holy Ghost as creatures, and the other esteeming them as one God with the Father. For supposing that both parties were to join in the same solemn acts of outward worship offered to Christ, (for that he ought to be worshipped both sides allow,) yet since the Catholic side conceive that those religious acts are on the other side defiled by an irreligious meaning, and amount rather to a solemn mockery of their God and Saviour, than to a respectful remembrance of him; and that they are in reality, though not intentionally, flat polytheism and idolatry; I say, while the Catholic believers are so persuaded, they cannot in prudence or in conscience, in piety to God or charity to men, consent to such known defilements of their solemn service; because it would be directly partaking in other men's sins. If it be said, that they need not judge all creature-worship to be polytheism and idolatry; I answer, they cannot avoid it, while they consider either Scripture itself, or the universal suffrage of antiquity in the best and purest ages. If it be further said, that they need not however think so hardly of creature-worshippers, as to charge them with guilt, since they may intend well; I answer, that a good intention is not sufficient to warrant an ill thing: besides that, were they ever so guiltless, yet those of the contrary persuasion could not be so in countenancing by their own communion, what they cannot but look upon as great impiety and profanation. So, turn we this matter which way we will, the point of worship must be a parting point betwixt them, while they retain their opposite sentiments, with regard to the strict and proper Divinity of Christ. : I shall not here enter into the debate about creatureworship, having distinctly and fully considered it elsewhere besides, that I may properly wave it, as it is wide and foreign to the cause now in hand. For whether such creature-worship be right or wrong, those that believe in Christ as a divine Person cannot join with those who worship him under the notion of a creature, and do not worship him as divine; because, it has been before intimated, such inferior worship, (whatever else we call it) is dishonouring and degrading him, and cannot but be rejected with abhorrence by all that seriously believe him to be really and strictly God. As to what the author of Sober and Charitable Disquisition objects, that possibly some of our own people, who believe Christ to be God, may yet consider him merely as Man, or as Mediatorb, and not as God, in their acts of worship, it may be purely a surmise: but however the fact stands, there is no argument in it. We cannot answer for vulgar Christians, as to the notions they may possibly entertain even of God the Father in their worship of him; ■ Defence, vol. i. Qu. xvi. p. 163, &c. Second Defence, vol. iii. Qu. xvi. p. 346, &c. Compare Bull's Primitiva et Apostol. Traditio. c. vi. p. 386, &c. Bishop Smalbroke's Idolatry charged on Arianism. Mr. Abr. Taylor's True Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 69, 448, &c. Dr. Bishop's Sermons, p. 271-281. Archbishop Tillotson's Sermons, vol. i. p. 547, &c. fol. edit. b Sober and Charitable Disquisition, p. 21, 22, 23. neither can we be certain, whether sometimes they rise higher than those of an Anthropomorphite. But I presume, if any vulgar Christians ignorantly or innocently mistake, they are very willing to be set right by their more knowing guides, or by other sensible friends: which makes their case widely different from that of those who take upon them to justify creature-worship upon principle, and who separate Christ from the one Godhead in the worship of him, knowingly, and out of set purpose and design. We are not involved in guilt, merely by communicating with persons, whose errors (though perhaps great) we know nothing of, or who probably would correct them upon better instruction, or the first gentle admonition. Guilt is contracted by communicating with those who openly and resolutely corrupt the faith (knowingly or ignorantly) in very important articles. To join with such persons, is partaking in their impiety: it is not charity, but men-pleasing, and betraying a disregard for the honour of God. But this general question will come over again, and will be more fully debated in a proper place. Enough has been said to show, that Christian-worship is very nearly concerned in the question about the Trinity; and therefore the doctrine is strictly practical, and has a close connection with the Christian life. I declined entering into the main debate about creature-worship, for the reasons above hinted. Yet because the author of Sober and Charitable Disquisition has advanced some things upon that article, which every reader may not know how to answer, I shall suggest a few considerations here by the way, to serve as hints or heads of solution to the difficulties objected. 1. If that gentleman means to say, that the outward acts of civil homage and religious worship are so equivocal and ambiguous, that there is no way left to distinguish them, it is disputing against fact, and amounts to telling us, that no one can distinguish in a case where no one can easily mistake, or ever has been mistaken. Civil homage is distinguishable |
