worse, absurd. And, of course, as Mather pointed out by the standards of a faculty as limited as reason, it was. Neither reason nor science could properly "exhibit" this mystery, he said in the Biblia. All the descriptive terms the mind devised "persons," "essence,'' "procession," failed before its magnificence and power. Yet the Trinity deserved faithful respect nonetheless as one of the articles of revealed religion. 68
|
While Mather declared his respect for natural reason, in his praise of the glory of the Trinity he resorted unself-consciously, and perhaps insensibly, to the old Ramist logic. At the end of the chapter "Of Man" in The Christian Philosopher , a book celebrating the compatibility of the new science and the New Piety, Mather declared that the very construction of the universe was in some mysterious way analogous to the Trinity. "All intelligent compound Beings have their whole Entertainment in these three Principles, the DESIRE, the OBJECT, and the SENSATION arising from the Congruity between them . . . ," and this analogy, he inferred, permeated the entire spiritual and material world. So universal a pattern could have its source only in the archetype of the infinite God. Were men able to penetrate to its "Source," they would find the Holy Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Of course, they lacked this ability, but this did not prevent Mather from telling them what they would find if they had it. In the Godhead there existed a powerful " Desire , an infinitely active, ardent, powerful Thought , proposing of Satisfaction "; this representation was God the Father. Since only God could satisfy Himself, and fulfill the desire of happiness, He contemplated Himself, and the glorious '' Image of His person"; the OBJECT, then, of this reflection was God the Son. The joy, the love, the " Acquiescence of God Himself within himself, yields the SENSATION, the Holy Spirit." The relationships which exist within the Trinity, Mather explained, appear "analogically" in nature; they do not inevitably, or necessarily, assume the "relations" that we observe. But in the Godhead they are "glorious Relatives." 69
|
Mather did not admit that he was using the language and conceptions of Peter Ramus, the great logician in the founders' eyes. Every intellectual and every divine in New England knew these terms from their days at Harvard. They knew that although most things could be related in several ways, "Relatives"
|
|