The description which Moses furnishes concerning the creation, as relating to circumstances previous to the existence of mankind, could be derived only from immediate revelation. It was received by the Jews with full conviction of its truth, on the authority of that inspiration under which Moses was known to act.[18] And when the creation of the world began, by the lapse of time, to be removed to a remote distance, God was pleased thus to provide a contemporary historian, and appoint a whole nation to be the guardians of his history; as well that this register might be the most authentic, as that all mankind might hence be instructed in the knowledge of a fact, which was so necessary for them to know, and yet so impossible to be otherwise ascertained.[19]
It may be proper to notice, that some futile objections have been made to the period which is assigned by Moses to the creation, as though it were too recent to be reconciled with reason and philosophical inquiry. How long matter remained in a quiescent state after its creation, we have no data to enable us to determine: but, as its resting in an animate state, so far as we know, could answer no valuable purpose, we may reasonably conjecture the time would not be long. The creation of the world began, according to Usher, before the Christian era 4004 years, if we follow the Hebrew text. The Septuagint version places it 5872, and the Samaritan 4700 before the vulgar era.—Sanchoniathon, the first Phenician historian, according to the most extended accounts of Porphyry, flourished long after Moses, probably not less than two hundred years. Manetho, high-priest of Heliopolis, wrote the Egyptian history only in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, not more than 300 years before Christ, and professes to have transcribed his Dynasties from some pillars of Hermes Trismegistus, written in the Hebrew dialect.—Berosus was the first noted Chaldean historian, and he was contemporary with Manetho.—The Chinese have not any work in an intelligible character above 2200 years old. One of the Chinese emperors, about 213 years before the Christian era, ordered all their historical records to be destroyed.—The Greeks could produce no dates beyond 550 years before Christ, and but little historical information prior to the Olympiads, which began 775 years before the Christian era. Orpheus and Museus, fabulous poets, were not so remote as Moses; for it is supposed they lived about 200 years after him, in the days of Gideon. Daries Phrygius and Dystys Cretensis, fabulous poets, wrote the history of the Trojan war, about 400 years after Moses. Homer wrote his poems after David’s time, and about 550 years after Moses. Herodotus, called the father of history, who flourished about 450 years before the Christian era, was the first Grecian historian that deserves the name; yet he begins with fable. Thucydides rejects, as uncertain, all that preceded the Peloponnesian war; and Plutarch, not one of the least historians among the Grecians, ventured not beyond the time of Theseus, who lived a little before the ministry of Samuel.[20] So that all these poets and historians flourished long after the time of Moses, some of them nearly a thousand years; for he wrote about A. M. 2460. The works of the Jewish lawgiver are not only the most ancient, but also the most authentic, of all the monuments of antiquity.
If the world were some thousands of years older, it must be much better peopled than it is at present. Population has always increased since the deluge, and yet there might be three times as many more inhabitants on the earth than it at present contains. It has been computed that at least 5000 millions of men might live at once on our globe: and yet it does not appear that there are really more than 1080 millions. In Asia are reckoned 650 millions; in Africa and America, 300 millions; and in Europe, 130 millions.
If we consider the arts invented by men, we shall find that few or none of them have been discovered more than two or three thousand years. Man owes not only to his nature and reason the aptitude he has for acquiring arts and sciences, but he is also led to this by necessity; by the desire he has to procure himself conveniences and pleasures; by vanity and ambition; and by luxury, the child of abundance, which creates new wants. This propensity is evident among all men, in all ages. History carries us back to the time when men had scarcely invented the most necessary arts; when those arts which were known were but very imperfectly understood; and in which they scarcely knew any thing of the first principles of the sciences.
About four thousand years ago, men were still in a state of great ignorance concerning most subjects; and if we calculate according to the progress which they made since that time, and afterwards go back to the remotest periods, we may with tolerable exactness fix the era when men knew nothing; which is, in other words, that of the infancy of the human race. Were their existence to be carried higher, it is utterly improbable that the most useful and necessary arts should have continued unknown to them through such a long series of ages. On the contrary, all that can be discovered by the human mind must have been known a long time ago. From this circumstance therefore we must conclude, that the origin of the human race can have no other era than that which Moses has assigned it in his history of the creation.[21]
If it be asked, What! was God a solitary Being? Did he exist alone, before this exertion of his glorious power? Formed as we are for society, we have no conception of any satisfaction arising from a state of absolute loneliness; nor can we conceive that the Deity should rest inactive from eternity, and not exert those amazing powers of which the stupendous creation proves he is amply possessed? There are some particulars naturally deducible from questions like these, which we cannot solve. We have no adequate apprehension of eternity; we are lost in the idea. And when we attempt to contemplate God existing from eternity without cause or as beginning to exist, we are utterly lost in the speculation; for among all the objects that come within the reach of our senses, we see nothing existing that has not had a cause to produce it. We frequently smile at children, when they ask their little simple questions, as we deem them; but we are mere children ourselves, in this profound ocean of wonder. But something very observable strikes an attentive reader in the Mosaic account of the creation, which suggests that the Deity is not a solitary Being, existing in such an absolute unity as to exclude all degree of personality or communion. For אלהימ Elohim, as we have already observed, the very first name by which Moses calls God, being plural, shows that though he exists in an undivided unity of nature, yet in a Trinity of Persons. And this notion of a plurality, so far from being contrary to reason, is more agreeable to it than any opinion of the absolute unity of the Divine nature. For conceive we only three Divine persons mutually to partake of the Divine essence or nature, to be united by the same perfect will, and to possess the same infinite powers and perfections; and all our apprehensions of the loneliness of solitary existence immediately subside; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, consummately happy in each other, have been from eternity reciprocal objects of complacence, and will remain such for ever. Let this argument be fairly and impartially considered, and the notion of a Trinity of Subsistences in a Unity of the Divine Nature, will appear far more consonant to reason, and liable to less objections, than that of mere solitary and absolute unity.[22]
[A further consideration of the suggestion in the close of the last paragraph.
Although nothing can be clearer than that the Divine Essence is one, simple, and indivisible; yet this does not prevent it from subsisting in personality, i.e. in a plurality of persons.
It must be carefully observed, that the plurality has regard to the persons, not to the Essence. We cannot say there is a plurality of Essences; but we can say, the Living, Rational, Benevolent, and Spiritual Essence subsists in three persons. This then is the modus existendi of the Divine Being.
Although we are assured this is his mode of existence, we do not pretend to comprehend the nature of it. We may, without any injury to the proposition, affirm, the nature of the fact is incomprehensible by created intellect. Yet the fact itself is sufficiently well attested, and is not repugnant to reason, though it is above the comprehension of reason.
It is believed by many very learned, pious, and eminent men, that the doctrine of a plurality of persons in the Godhead, can be established by an argumentation founded solely on the acknowledged nature of the Divine Being.
The Rev. James Kidd, Prof. of Oriental Languages, Marischal College and University, Aberdeen, with the approbation of many learned men in England, among whom is Dr. Adam Clarke, in whose house he delivered private lectures on his manuscript, has published a very able and satisfactory essay on this plan, of which a brief clue to the mode of argumentation is here attempted.
A. The Divine Being is a necessarily existent, and an eternally, immensely, and immutably Living, Intelligent, Rational, Moral, Benevolent, and Spiritual Essence.
B. The very Law of the nature of such a being, is eternal, immense, and immutable activity, energy, and efficiency, exercised eternally, immensely, and immutably, according to his own nature.
C. That such a being was as necessarily existent, perfect, and happy, before creation, and providence as since; and would forever continue as necessarily existent, perfect, and happy, if creation and providence should cease to be.
These three propositions are so obviously true, every reader will readily and cordially grant them. It is proposed, therefore, to show, from the nature of the Divine Being, that his Essence must subsist in a plurality of persons.
The proposition does not contemplate an explanation of the manner of this subsistence; nor, at present, the number of persons; but the simple fact, That from the very nature of the Divine Being, his Essence must subsist in plural personality.
The existence of a being, or the possession, or exercise of any principle, passion or attribute, implies personality, or individual identity, which is the same thing. The mind cannot conceive of existence, passion, principle, or action, without conceiving of them inhering in actually existing Essence, which must assume in the mind the idea of personality. Therefore, personality is strictly, and properly applicable to the Divine Essence. But the doctrine of a plural personality is to be established at present.
It will be easily conceived, and readily granted, that a being which exists necessarily, eternally, immensely, and immutably, as a Living, Intelligent, Rational, Moral, Benevolent, and Spiritual Essence, must have exercised Himself, and his perfections, necessarily, eternally, immensely, and immutably. This then is granted. But the mind will readily and easily perceive, that the Divine Being could not have exercised Himself thus, in the works of Creation and Providence. Because, it is readily admitted, there was a time when Creation and Providence began: during a whole eternity beyond this period, there was no existence except God Himself. Consequently, He cannot have been exercised according to his own nature and perfections, eternally, in reference to Creation and Providence.
Again: He cannot have exercised his perfections immensely, in reference to Creation and Providence: because, however extensive we may conceive the empire of Creation and Providence to be, it is not immense; it is actually limited, and, therefore, could not admit of an immense exercise of his nature and perfections.
It is readily granted, that the Divine Being was as necessarily, and perfectly happy before Creation and Providence as since; and if Creation and Providence should cease, his happiness would continue the same: hence, it follows, necessarily, that the happiness of the Divine Being was, is, and ever will be entirely independent of Creation and Providence.
But the happiness of any being consists, essentially, in the exercise of its powers and perfections according to the law of its own nature. And as it has been shown, that the happiness of the Divine Being is eternal, immense, and immutable, it follows, He must have exercised Himself eternally, immensely, and immutably.
As it has been granted, That from the very nature of the Divine Being, He must have been eternally, immensely, and immutably active and happy, according to the law of his own nature: and it has been proven, That He could not have been eternally, immensely, and immutably active and happy, in reference to Creation and Providence, it follows, necessarily, that the means and principles of these eternal, immense, and immutable activity and happiness, must exist in his own constitution, and be exercised entirely within Himself.
This conclusion cannot be denied, granting the premises in the propositions A. B. C. in reference to the Divine Being. It remains to be proven, That such principles, and means of eternal, immense and immutable activity and happiness cannot be conceived of in the constitution of the Divine Being, without conceiving his essence to subsist in plural personality.
The consideration simply of the nature and eternal activity of the Divine Being would establish the idea of plural personality in his Essence: because the mind cannot conceive, that the same single being can be both agent and object, in reference to the same action. And as it has been proven, that previous to the existence of Creation and Providence, God existed eternally alone, consequently, no possible form of existence but Himself, and yet he was eternally, immensely, and immutably active and happy; it will follow irresistibly, that there must be a plurality in his single Essence; and the mind naturally assumes, this plurality is personal; as it cannot conceive of activity, and happiness without conceiving them to belong to person, or persons. And as action implies both agent, and an object distinct from the agent; and there being no such agent, or object existing without the Divine Being, it must be infered, that these agent and object, concerned in the eternal activity and happiness of his nature, must exist inherently, eternally, immensely, and immutably within Himself.
Thus we are compelled to admit a plurality of persons in the Divine Essence.
It will be recollected, the Divine Being has not only exercised Himself eternally, but also immensely, according to the law of his own nature and perfections: i.e. He has necessarily, and eternally exercised Himself to the extent of his nature and perfections. This will be readily admitted when we reflect, that unless we admit the exercise of the nature and perfections of God to their full extent, we must admit a redundancy in the Divine Nature, and perfections, which would be manifestly absurd, as it would imply imperfection. For it would imply (if we may dare say so) that there is an efficiency, or ability in the Divine Being, which He has never exercised to its full extent; and in proportion to the deficiency in the exercise, we must conclude this efficiency or ability is useless, which would be repugnant to the true idea of the Divine Being.
It is therefore, proven, That the Divine Being necessarily exercised Himself immensely, because his nature, and perfections are immense. But it will be readily perceived, this could not be done in the works of Creation and Providence: because, however vast they may be, they are not immense: and, therefore, could not admit of the immense exercise of his nature and perfections to their full extent: from which it must follow, inevitably, That the immense exercise of his own nature and perfections must be within Himself.
As it has already been proven above, that this internal exercise in the Divine Essence necessarily implies plurality in the Godhead; so now also, is it proven, that the admission of such plurality is the only view competent to show HOW the Divine Being could have exercised his own nature and perfections immensely, as the attribute of immensity appertains to God only.
As it is granted, that the Divine Being was necessarily as happy before Creation and Providence as since, and would continue so, should Creation and Providence cease; of course his happiness consists in the exercise of his own nature and perfections according to their own law. But, in order that the Divine Being should be eternally, immensely, and immutably happy, the whole of the Divine Nature and perfections must be exercised eternally, immensely, and immutably. But if we divest the Divine Essence of its plural personality, we cannot conceive that some of the divine perfections can be exercised at all. For example: the divine goodness, love, wisdom, intelligence, and all his moral perfections. We surely cannot say, He manifests his goodness to Himself; or exercises his love towards Himself; or employs his wisdom in understanding Himself; all of which ideas are obviously absurd. But so soon as we admit the idea of a plural personality, or the subsistence of the Divine Essence in a plurality of persons, we can conceive the moral perfections exercised in Himself, between the persons of the Godhead. This is the only ground on which we can conceive of his eternal, immense, and immutable happiness. For we can readily conceive of the distinct persons in the Divine Essence, communicating mutually to each other the whole of the divine moral perfections; and thus conceive of the perfect and independent happiness of God.
The only remaining view of this subject would be this: the activity, energy, and influence of the Divine Being can only regard Creation and Providence. But as there was a past eternity before Creation and Providence began, in which the Divine Being existed, He must be considered as having been inactive, solitary, and unconscious; (because there cannot be consciousness where there is not action,) the whole and every part of which view is derogatory to the acknowledged character of God. How much more reasonable is it to conceive the Divine Essence to subsist in a plurality of persons, and thus to conceive, consistently, of the eternal, immense, and immutable activity and happiness of the Divine Being?
Thus we see, that what the Scriptures declare concerning the plurality of persons in the Divine Essence, cannot be otherwise, as is demonstrated above, from the necessary nature of the glorious Divinity.
The demonstration might be extended to each of the divine perfections, and the same result would be obtained. The above remarks are a mere clue to the argument which is possible, and satisfactory; founded on the necessary nature of Jehovah.
The key to the whole demonstration is this:
1. The Divine Being, from his very and necessary nature, must be eternally, immensely, and immutably active.
2. He must be eternally, immensely, and immutably happy.
3. In order to be eternally, immensely, and immutably active and happy, He must be exercised to the whole extent of his nature and perfections, eternally, immensely, and immutably.
4. That such an exercise of his nature and perfections, in an eternal, immense, and immutable manner, cannot be, in regard to Creation and Providence; because, Creation and Providence are not eternal, immense, and immutable.
5. As there was not any thing before Creation and Providence, but God Himself, it must follow, necessarily, that the eternal, immense, and immutable activity and happiness of the Divine Being were within Himself entirely.
6. As it is impossible for the human intellect to conceive, that a being can be both agent and object, in the same action, and the activity of the Divine Being has been shown to have been within Himself entirely; it follows, That the Divine Essence must have subsisted eternally, immensely, and immutably in a plurality.
7. And as the mind is forced to admit a plurality in the Divine Essence, it naturally, and necessarily assumes persons for this plurality; and thus concludes, There must be a plurality of persons in the Godhead as the Scriptures declare.
From the foregoing elements of the argument, it will be very easy to observe, if a plurality must be admitted, there is no objection in the mind to admit it is triple; and hence, as the substance of the Divine Essence has been shown to exist necessarily in a plurality, the mind conceives a triple plurality, as easy as any other, and thus conceives the reasonableness of the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity.
The most successful argument against this conclusion is this: It is impossible to conceive how three can be one. This is admitted, when the objects designated by “three” are the same as the object designated by “one.” But this is not the case in the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity. The term Trinity applies to the persons in which the Divine Essence subsists, and not to the essence itself. So the term Unity applies to the Essence only, and not to the persons. This simple distinction removes the whole force of the objection.
The Unitarians, therefore, do us wrong when they say, we believe three are one. And Trinitarians do themselves wrong when they say, to the three one God: because, it is not true that there is a “three one God.” But it is a glorious truth, That the Divine Essence subsists in three persons, eternally, immensely, and immutably.
It is very natural to suppose, that God imparted a knowledge of Himself to our first parents in Paradise. The Scriptures clearly support this supposition. This knowledge would, of course, include the doctrine of the Trinity; and we cannot admit for a moment, that so important a doctrine as the plurality of persons in the Godhead, could have been wholly lost by mankind, though it might become obscured. Accordingly we find the traditionary remains of this doctrine throughout the Old World.
“The Hindoos” says M. Sonerat, “adore three principal Deities, Brouma, Schiven, and Vichenou, who are still but one; which kind of Trinity is there called Trimurti, and signifies the re-union of those powers. The generality of Indians at present, adore only one of these three divinities; but some learned men, beside this worship, also address their prayers to the three united. The representation of them is to be seen in many pagodas, under that of human figures with three heads, which on the coast of Orissa, they call Sariharabrama, on the Coromandel coast, Trimourti,” &c.
This account of M. Sonerat is very pertinent, and is confirmed by Dr. Buchanan who made extensive researches in that country. See his Star in the East.
The same tradition is found in China. “Among the ancient Chinese characters” says Dr. A. Clarke, “which have been preserved, we find the following Δ like the Greek delta. According to the Chinese dictionary Kang-hi, this character signifies union. According to Choueouen, a celebrated work, Δ is three united in one. The Lieou-chou-tsing-hoen, which is a rational and learned explanation of ancient characters, says; “Δ signifies intimate union, harmony, the chief good of man, of the heaven, and of the earth; it is the union of three.”
Lao-tse says; “He who is as visible, and yet cannot be seen, is denominated lieou; he who can be heard, and yet speaks not to the ears, hi; he who is tangible, and yet cannot be felt, is named ouei: in vain do you consult your senses about these three; your reason alone can discourse of them, and it will tell you they are but one,” &c.
One of the missionaries at Peking, who wrote the letters from which I have made the above extracts, takes it for granted, “that the mystery of the Trinity was known among the ancient Chinese, and that the character Δ was its symbol.” Dr. A. Clarke, on the 1st chap. John’s Gospel.
The existence of this same tradition in China is conveyed to us through another channel. “It was the leading feature in Lao-Kiun’s system of philosophical theology, and a sentence which he continually repeated as the foundation of all true wisdom, that Tao, the eternal reason, produced one; one produced two; two produced three; and three produced all things.” Le Compt’s Memoirs of China.
Traditions of this doctrine are found also in Chaldea and Persia indeed throughout the East; from whence all agree they were imported, through Phœnicia, into Egypt, and thence into Greece. The great and original sources of information being in the neighborhood of the Euphrates, where the first post-diluvian families resided; and the mighty intellects which were to influence the world, by the materials which were drawn from thence, being in Greece, the consequence was, we find the Grecian philosophers travelling up the streams of knowledge to the fountains, and thence returning to enlighten the world by the results of their researches. For example: Pythagoras, Plato, and others visited Egypt first, thence to Phœnicia, and thence to Chaldea, and the East, from whence they undoubtedly drew their theology. (Nor should it be forgotten that their philosophy was theological.) The concurrent testimony of history establishes this fact. The consequence of all this is, the doctrine of the Trinity was known to the Greek philosophers, who preserved it to the world in their incomparable writings, a collateral testimony of the authenticity of the Scripture doctrine. For this opinion we have the highest authority in the republic of letters.
“It is said that the first Christians borrowed their notion of a Triune God from the later Platonists; and that we hear not of a Trinity in the church till converts were made from the school of Alexandria. But if this be the case we may properly ask, Whence had those Platonists the doctrine?
“It is not surely so simple, or so obvious as to have occurred to the reasoning mind of a pagan philosopher; or if it be, why do Unitarians suppose it to involve a contradiction?—The Platonic and Pythagorean Trinities never could have occurred to the mind of him, who, merely from the works of creation, endeavored to discover the being and attributes of God; and therefore as those philosophers travelled into Egypt and the East in quest of knowledge, it appears to us in the highest degree probable, that they picked up this mysterious and sublime doctrine in those regions where it had been handed down as a dogma from the remotest ages, and where we know science was not taught systematically, but detailed in collections of sententious maxims, and traditionary opinions. If this be so we cannot doubt but that the pagan trinities had their origin in some primeval revelation. Nothing else indeed can account for a doctrine so remote from human imagination, and of which we find vestiges in the sacred books of almost every civilized people of antiquity. The corrupt state in which it is viewed in the writings of Plato and others, is the natural consequence of its descent through a long course of oral tradition. The Trinity of Platonism therefore, instead of being an objection, lends, in our opinion, no feeble support to the Christian doctrine, since it affords almost a complete proof of that doctrine having made a part of the first revelation to man.” Ency. Brit. Art. Theology.
“Some have indeed pretended, that the Trinity, which is commonly called Platonic, was a fiction of the later Platonists, unknown to the founder of the school: but any person who will take the trouble to study the writings of Plato will find abundant evidence that he really asserted a Triad Of divine hypostases, all concerned in the formation, and government of the world.” Ency. Brit. Art. Platonism.
“Pythagoras, though inferior to Plato in reputation, and lived before him, held the same doctrine, and derived it from the same sources. He visited Egypt, Persia, Chaldea, &c., and thence returned to Greece.” Ency. Brit. Art. Pythagoras.
These quotations are directly from the Encyclopedia Britannica, than which no authority can be better. I might increase the quotations to the same effect from Dr. Oglevie, the learned Cudworth and others, were it necessary. The above is thought sufficient to establish the fact, That the doctrine of a Trinity in Unity was once prevalent in the Pagan world, and that remains and traditions of it are yet abundant through all the East, where the revelations of God were made to mankind.]
If it be asked, “Why did God conceal himself from eternity till within six thousand years; for, according to Divine revelation, it is not yet so long since the world was made?” I answer, God is at perfect liberty to do what he pleases, to do it when he pleases, and to give no account of the reasons of his conduct. If he had pleased to create the world as many millionsof years sooner, as there have been days since its creation, the same question might have been asked, Why did he not create the world sooner, and thereby discover himself? For the longest time that can be imagined is just as nothing in comparison with eternity. If God had pleased, he might have concealed his existence and perfections to all eternity, or, in other words, never have made any thing. Seeing therefore it was only of his sovereign pleasure that he made creatures, to whom he might manifest himself, surely he had a right to fix on the time for doing it. We are sure he is infinitely wise, and consequently all his works are done in the fittest time, and best manner.
God made the world, not because he needed the praise or service of creatures to add to his blessedness; for he who is self-existent must necessarily be infinitely perfect and absolutely independent; and would always have remained the same happy Being, enjoying his own excellencies and perfections, had no creature ever been made. But it was for the manifesting of his own glorious attributes, and communicating happiness to creatures capable of it, that he, in the beginning, created this magnificent fabric of the heavens and the earth, with all things therein, whether visible or invisible, animate or inanimate, material substances or immaterial spirits. For he created beings of different ranks and powers, to whom he might manifest himself, or communicate his goodness. Some of these were pure intellectual spirits, fit for the felicity and employments of the heavenly state, to stand in his immediate presence, and execute his righteous commands: but these were created before the solar system; for the angels, those “sons of God,” called “morning stars,” were present, and sung together for joy, when “the foundations” of this world were laid. Others he formed out of the earth, with life, sense, and instinct, but destitute of reason, designing them to be subservient to the necessities or conveniences of a higher order of beings. Besides these he created other beings of a middle rank, partaking of an earthly part, fashioned with infinite skill and art, of exquisite symmetry, and adorned with great external beauty; and of a spiritual part akin to angels, and but little inferior to them, being in their constitution a compound of the animal and angelic natures.
It is not by reason alone then, or the light of heathen philosophy, but “through faith,” in the infallible testimony of Divine revelation, “we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” The sun, moon, stars, and earth, which we see, were not made of matter which had existed from eternity, as some of the heathen philosophers supposed, but of what God created anterior to the formation of those wonderful orbs. The word κατηρτισθαι, framed, signifies not only to make or produce simply, but properly to place or set in joint the parts of any body or machine in their right order. Accordingly Plato says, that in making the world, God proceeded with the exactness of a geometrician, arranging every thing in complete symmetry. All this was done by the word of God, which is not to be understood of any articulate sound, but of the simple act of his own will; he willed the universe, with all its variety of furniture, into existence. And this is a matter of faith, to be believed; not to be known by mere reason; for reason, without faith, can apprehend a formation of things from matter previously made ready.