Sermon 19. The Mysteriousness of our Present
Being 
"I will praise Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully
made; marvellous are Thy works, and that my soul knoweth right
well." Psalm cxxxix. 14.
{282} IN the very impressive Psalm from which these words are taken, this
is worth noticing among other things,—that the inspired writer finds
in the mysteries without and within him, a source of admiration and
praise. "I will praise Thee, for I am fearfully and
wonderfully made; marvellous are Thy works." When
Nicodemus heard of God's wonderful working, he said, "How can
these things be?" But holy David glories in what the natural man
stumbles at. It awes his heart and imagination, to think that God sees
him, wherever he is, yet without provoking or irritating his reason.
He has no proud thoughts rising against what he cannot understand, and
calling for his vigilant control. He does not submit his reason by an
effort, but he bursts forth in exultation, to think that God is so
mysterious. "Such knowledge," he says, "is too
wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it." Again,
"How precious are Thy thoughts unto me, O God!" {283}
This reflection is suitable on the Festival [Note] which we are at present engaged in celebrating, on which
our thoughts are especially turned to the great doctrine of the
Trinity in Unity. It is my intention now to make some remarks upon it;
not however explanatory of the doctrine itself, which we have today
confessed in the Athanasian Creed as fully and explicitly as it can be
set forth in human words; but I will endeavour from the text to show,
that the difficulty which human words have in expressing it, is no
greater than we meet with when we would express in human words even
those earthly things of which we actually have experience, and which
we cannot deny to exist, because we witness them: so that our part
evidently lies in using the mysteries of religion, as David did,
simply as a means of impressing on our minds the inscrutableness of
Almighty God. Mysteries in religion are measured by the proud
according to their own comprehension, by the humble, according to the
power of God; the humble glorify God for them, the proud exalt
themselves against them.
The text speaks of earthly things,—"I am fearfully and
wonderfully made." Now, let us observe some of the mysteries
which are involved in our own nature.
1. First, we are made up of soul and body. Now, if we did not know
this, so that we cannot deny it, what notion could our minds ever form
of such a mixture of natures, and how should we ever succeed in making
those who go only by abstract reason take in what we meant? The body
is made of matter; this we see; it has a certain extension, make,
form, and solidity; by the {284} soul we mean that invisible principle which
thinks. We are conscious we are alive, and are rational; each man has
his own thoughts, feelings, and desires; each man is one to himself,
and he knows himself to be one and indivisible,—one in such sense,
that while he exists, it were an absurdity to suppose he can be any
other than himself; one in a sense in which no material body which
consists of parts can be one. He is sure that he is distinct from the
body, though joined to it, because he is one, and the body is not one,
but a collection of many things. He feels moreover that he is distinct
from it, because he uses it; for what a man can use, to that he is
superior. No one can by any possibility mistake his body for himself.
It is his; it is not he. This principle, then, which thinks and
acts in the body, and which each person feels to be himself, we call
the soul. We do not know what it is; it cannot be reached by any of
the senses; we cannot see it or touch it. It has nothing in common
with extension or form; to ask what shape the soul is, would be as
absurd as to ask what is the shape of a thought, or a wish, or a
regret, or a hope. And hence we call the soul spiritual and
immaterial, and say that it has no parts, and is of no size at all.
All this seems undeniable. Yet observe, if all this be true, what is
meant by saying that it is in the body, any more than saying
that a thought or a hope is in a stone or a tree? How is it
joined to the body? what keeps it one with the body? what keeps it in
the body? what prevents it any moment from separating from the body?
when two things which we see are united, they are united by some
connexion which we can understand. A chain or cable {285} keeps a ship in
its place; we lay the foundation of a building in the earth, and the
building endures. But what is it which unites soul and body? how do
they touch? how do they keep together? how is it we do not wander to
the stars or the depths of the sea, or to and fro as chance may carry
us, while our body remains where it was on earth? So far from its
being wonderful that the body one day dies, how is it that it is made
to live and move at all? how is it that it keeps from dying a single
hour? Certainly it is as incomprehensible as any thing can be, how
soul and body can make up one man; and, unless we had the instance
before our eyes, we should seem in saying so to be using words without
meaning. For instance, would it not be extravagant and idle to speak
of time as deep or high, or of space as quick or slow? Not less idle,
surely, it perchance seems to some races of spirits to say that
thought and mind have a body, which in the case of man they have,
according to God's marvellous will. It is certain, then, that
experience outstrips reason in its capacity of knowledge; why then
should reason circumscribe faith, when it cannot compass sight?
2. Again: the soul is not only one, and without parts, but
moreover, as if by a great contradiction even in terms, it is in every
part of the body. It is no where, yet every where. It may be said,
indeed, that it is especially in the brain; but, granting this for
argument's sake, yet it is quite certain, since every part of his
body belongs to him, that a man's self is in every part of his body.
No part of a man's body is like a mere instrument, as a knife, or a
crutch might be, which he takes up and {286} may lay down. Every part of it
is part of himself; it is collected into one by his soul, which is
one. Supposing we take stones and raise a house, the building is not really
one; it is composed of a number of separate parts, which viewed as
collected together, we call one, but which are not one except in our
notion of them. But the hands and feet, the head and trunk, form one
body under the presence of the soul within them. Unless the soul were
in every part, they would not form one body; so that the soul is in
every part, uniting it with every other, though it consists of no
parts at all. I do not of course mean that there is any real
contradiction in these opposite truths; indeed, we know there is not,
and cannot be, because they are true, because human nature is a
fact before us. But the state of the case is a contradiction when
put into words; we cannot so express it as not to involve an
apparent contradiction; and then, if we discriminate our terms, and
make distinctions, and balance phrases, and so on, we shall seem to be
technical, artificial and speculative, and to use words without
meaning.
Now, this is precisely our difficulty, as regards the doctrine of
the Ever-blessed Trinity. We have never been in heaven; God, as He is
in Himself, is hid from us. We are informed concerning him by those
who were inspired by Him for the purpose, nay by One who "knoweth
the Father," His Co-eternal Son Himself, when He came on earth.
And, in the message which they brought to us from above, are
declarations concerning his nature, which seem to run counter the one
to the other. He is revealed to us as One God, the Father, One
indivisible Spirit; yet there is said to exist in Him from everlasting
{287} His Only-begotten Son, the same as He is, and yet distinct, and from
and in Them both, from everlasting and indivisibly, exists the
Co-equal Spirit. All this, put into words, seems a contradiction in
terms; men have urged it as such; then Christians, lest they should
seem to be unduly and harshly insisting upon words which clash with
each other, and so should dishonour the truth of God, and cause
hearers to stumble, have guarded their words, and explained them; and
then for doing this they have been accused of speculating and
theorizing. The same result, doubtless, would take place in the
parallel case already mentioned. Had we no bodies, and were a
revelation made us that there was a race who had bodies as well as
souls, what a number of powerful objections should we seem to possess
against that revelation! We might plausibly say, that the words used
in conveying it were arbitrary and unmeaning. What (we should ask) was
the meaning of saying that the soul had no parts, yet was in every
part of the body? what was meant by saying it was every where and no
where? how could it be one, and yet repeated, as it were, ten thousand
times over in every atom and pore of the body, which it was said to
exist in? how could it be confined to the body at all? how did it act
upon the body? How happened it, as was pretended, that, when the soul
did but will, the arm moved, or the feet walked? how can a spirit
which cannot touch any thing, yet avail to move so large a mass of
matter, and so easily as the human body? These are some of the
questions which might be asked, partly on the ground that the alleged
fact was impossible, partly that the idea was self-contradictory. And
these are just {288} the kind of questions with which arrogant and profane
minds do assail the revealed doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
3. Further consider what a strange state we are in when we dream,
and how difficult it would be to convey to a person who had never
dreamed what was meant by dreaming. His vocabulary would
contain no words to express any middle idea between perfect possession
and entire suspension of the mind's powers. He would understand what
it was to be awake, what it was to be insensible; but a state between
the two he would neither have words to describe, nor, if he were
self-confident and arrogant, inclination to believe, however well it
was attested by those who ought to know. I do not say there is no
conceivable accumulation of evidence that would subdue such a man's
reason, since we see sometimes men's reason subdued by the evidences
of the Gospel, whose hearts are imperfectly affected; but I mean, that
this earthly mystery might be brought before a man with about
that degree of evidence in its favour which the Gospel actually has,
not ordinarily overpowering, but constituting a trial of his
heart, a trial, that is, whether the mysteries contained in it do or
do not rouse his pride. Dreaming is not a fiction, but a real state of
the mind, though only one or two in the whole world ever dreamed; and
if these one or two or a dozen men, spoke to the rest of the world,
and unanimously witnessed to the existence of that mysterious state,
many doubtless would resist their report, as they do the mysteries of
the Gospel, on the ground of its being unintelligible; yet in that
case they would be resisting a truth, and would be wrong (not indeed
blameably {289} so, compared with those who on a like account reject the
Gospel, which comes to us as a practical, not a mere abstract matter),
yet they would undeniably be considering a thing false which was true.
It is no great harm to be wrong in a matter of opinion; but in
matters which influence conduct, which bear upon our eternal
interests, such as Revealed Religion, surely it is most hazardous,
most unwise, though it is so common, to stumble at its mysteries,
instead of believing and acting upon its threats and promises. Instead
of embracing what they can understand, together with what they cannot,
men criticize the wording in which truths are conveyed, which came
from heaven. The inspired Apostles taught them to the first Christian
converts, and they, according to the capacities of human language,
whether their own or the Apostles', partly one and partly the other,
preserved them; and we, instead of thanking them for the benefit,
instead of rejoicing that they should have handed on to us those
secrets concerning God, instead of thanking Him for His condescension
in allowing us to hear them, have hearts cold enough to complain of
their mysteriousness. Profane minds ask, "Is God one, or
three?" They are answered, He is One, and He is also Three. They
reply "He cannot be One in the same sense in which He is
Three." It is in reply allowed to them, "He is Three in one
sense, One in another." They ask, "In what sense? what is
that sense in which He is Three Persons,—what is that sense of the
word Person, such that it neither stands for one separate Being, as it
does with men, nor yet comes short of such a real and sufficient sense
as the word requires?" We reply {290} that we do not know that
intermediate sense; we cannot reconcile, we confess, the distinct
portions of the doctrine; we can but take what is given us, and be
content. They rejoin, that, if this be so, we are using words without
meaning. We answer, No, not without meaning in themselves, but without
meaning which we fully apprehend. God understands His own
words, though human. God, when He gave the doctrine, put it into
words, and the doctrine, as we word it, is the doctrine as the
Apostles worded it; it is conveyed to us with the same degree of
meaning in it, intelligible to us, with which the Apostles received
it; so that it is no reason for giving it up that in part it is not
intelligible. This we say; and they insist in reply, as if it were a
sufficient answer, that the doctrine, as a whole, is
unintelligible to us (which we grant); that the words we use have very
little meaning (which is not true, though we may not see the
full meaning); and so they think to excuse their rejection of them.
But surely all this, I say, is much the same as what might take
place in any discussion about dreaming, in a company where one or two
persons had experienced it, and the multitude not. It might be said to
those who told us of it, Do you mean that it is a state of waking or
insensibility? is it one or the other? what is that sense in which we
are not insensible in dreaming, and yet are not awake and ourselves?
Now if we have mysteries even about ourselves, which we cannot even
put into words accurately, much more may we suppose, even were we not
told it, that there are mysteries in the nature of Almighty God; and
so far from its being improbable that there should be mysteries, the
declaration that there {291} are, even adds some probability to the
revelation which declares them. On the other hand, still more
unreasonable is disbelief, if it be grounded on the mysteriousness of
the revelation; because, if we cannot put into consistent human
language human things, if the state of dreaming, which we experience
commonly, must be described in words either vague or contradictory,
much less is there to surprise us if human words are insufficient to
describe heavenly things.
These are a few, out of many remarks which might be made concerning
our own mysterious state,—that is, concerning things in us which we
know to be really and truly, yet which we cannot accurately
reflect upon and contemplate, cannot describe, cannot put into words,
and cannot convey to another's comprehension who does not experience
them. But this is a very large subject. Let a man consider how hardly
he is able and how circuitously he is forced to describe the commonest
objects of nature, when he attempts to substitute reason for sight,
how difficult it is to define things, how impracticable it is to
convey to another any complicated, or any deep or refined feeling, how
inconsistent and self-contradictory his own feelings seem, when put
into words, how he subjects himself in consequence to
misunderstanding, or ridicule, or triumphant criticism; and he
will not wonder at the impossibility of duly delineating in earthly
words the first Cause of all thought, the Father of spirits, the One
Eternal Mind, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who only hath
immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable, whom no man hath seen
nor can see, the incomprehensible infinite God. {292}
To conclude. One objection only, as it seems to me,
can be made to these reflections, and that is soon answered. It may be
said that, though there be, as there well may be, ten thousand
mysteries about the Divine Nature, yet why should they be disclosed in
the Gospel? because the very circumstance that they cannot be
put into words is a reason why this should not be attempted. But this
surely is a very bold and presumptuous way of speaking, not to say
more about it; as if we had any means of knowing, as if we had any
right to ask, why God does what He does in the very way He does it; as
if sinners, receiving a great and unmerited favour, were not very
unthankful and acting almost madly, in saying, Why was it given us in
this way, not in that? Is God obliged to take us into counsel, and
explain to us the reason for every thing He does; or is it our plain
duty to take what is given us, and feed upon it in faith? And to those
who do thus receive the blessed doctrine under consideration, it will
be found to produce special and singular practical effects on them, on
the very ground of its mysteriousness. There is nothing, according as
we are given to see and judge of things, which will make a greater
difference in the temper, character, and habits of an individual, than
the circumstance of his holding or not holding the Gospel to be
mysterious. Even then, if we go by its influence on our minds, we
might safely pronounce that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and of
other like mysteries, cannot be unimportant. If it be true (as we hold
it to be), it must be of consequence; for it tends to draw the mind in
one particular direction, and to form it on a {293} different mould from
theirs who do not believe in it. And thus what we actually are given
to see, does go a certain way in confirming to us what Scripture and
the Church declare to us, that belief in this doctrine is actually
necessary to salvation, by showing us that such belief has a moral
effect on us. The temper of true faith is described in the text,—"Marvellous
are Thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well." A religious
mind is ever marvelling, and irreligious men laugh and scoff at it
because it marvels. A religious mind is ever looking out of itself, is
ever pondering God's words, is ever "looking into" them
with the Angels, is ever realizing to itself Him on whom it depends,
and who is the centre of all truth and good. Carnal and proud minds
are contented with self; they like to remain at home; when they hear
of mysteries, they have no devout curiosity to go and see the great
sight, though it be ever so little out of their way; and when it
actually falls in their path, they stumble at it. As great then as is
the difference between hanging upon the thought of God and resting in
ourselves, lifting up the heart to God and bringing all things in
heaven and earth down to ourselves, exalting God and exalting reason,
measuring things by God's power and measuring them by our own
ignorance, so great is the difference between him who believes in the
Christian mysteries and him who does not. And were there no other
reason for the revelation of them, but this gracious one, of raising
us, refining us, making us reverent, making us expectant and devout,
surely this would be more than a sufficient one.
Let us then all, learned and unlearned, gain this great {294} benefit
from the mystery of the Ever-Blessed Trinity. It is calculated to
humble the wise in this world with the thought of what is above them,
and to encourage and elevate the lowly with the thought of Almighty
God, and the glories and marvels which shall one day be revealed to
them. In the Beatific Vision of God, should we through His grace be
found worthy of it, we shall comprehend clearly what we now dutifully
repeat and desire to know, how the Father Almighty is truly and by
Himself God, the Eternal Son truly and by Himself God, and the Holy
Ghost truly and by Himself God, and yet not three Gods but one God.
Top | Contents | Works
| Home
Note
Trinity Sunday.
Return to text
Top | Contents | Works
| Home
Newman Reader Works of John Henry Newman
Copyright © 2007 by The National Institute for Newman Studies. All rights reserved.
|