Imágenes de páginas


fallible Churches will inform us. They have inventions of their own which could never be found out by minds uninitiated in their mysteries. They inform us, though Scripture does not, that Christ had two natures, a human and a divine ; and that he speaks and acts sometimes in the one, and sometimes in the other nature. This, for a moment, being admitted, we naturally enquire, how is it to be ascertained when any of his discourses or actions are to be ascribed to him as God the Son, and wben as the man Jesus ? To a plain and unsophisticated reader this is a serious difficulty, dignus vindice nodus, a knot which can be untied only by the skill of the “ Infallible Church.”

By what rule Protestants are guided in this inquiry, or whether they have any rule, the writer must confess ignorance. The learned Rammohun Roy,* a name which there will be occasion often to nention in the sequel of this essay, has expressed a wish to be furnished with a list enumerating those expressions which are made in one and in the other capacity, with authorities for the distinction. What authorities should he expect but those of tradition and an Infallibie Church. The list, perhaps, might be furnished, but it would scarcely yield the satisfaction which he seems to require-since one clause of the same text, as he has himself remarked and illustrated, would require to be spoken by the divine, and another by the human nature ; and even the same clause might have to be understood as spoken sometimes by the one and sometimes by the other, as it chanced so suit the argument of the polemic or expounder. A principle of conformity to the creed which they have brought from the nursery or college, is the only rule, as far as the Unitarian can discover, which Trinitarians employ in making the distinction. This is the touchstone by which every text must be proved.

* An Indian Brahmin, who from a diligent perusal of the Sacred Scriptures, has become a convert to Christianity, and whose intimate and most accurately critical knowledge of oriental customs and languages eminently qualifies him both to understand and explain the inspired volume. His work entitled “ The precepts of Jesus, the guide to peace and happiness,' with his first, second, and final appeal to the Christian public, in reply to Dr. Marshman of Serampore, should be in the hands of all lovers of truth. It might have been expected that such a convert would have been welcomed with delight by every disciple of Jesus; but his love of truth preventing him from embracing certain “ peculiar doctrines" which, with all his eri. tical acumen, he could not find in the Bible; he became as much an object of obloquy to the “ Orthodox,” in the East, as his Unitarian brethren are in the West. His editor, at length, refused to publish his works, and he was under the necessity of purchasing types and a printing press, to have them printed beneath his own immediate inspection. Happily for the cause of genuine Christianity, they have reached the shores of Great Britain, and the • Isle of Saints,” and while paper, ink, and type, remaip, they will not perish ; though some ardent proselyters decry them, and say their author is no Christian. Thus did their Jewish brethren of old declare of Christ, that he was a Samaritan and had a devil!

[ocr errors]

who can

They cover the pure gold of gospel truth with the base alloy of human invention, stamp it with the image and superscription of Athanasius or Calvin, and circulate it as the true evangelical coin. When our blessed Saviour says, “I live by the Father,"—they exclaim, this is spoken in his human nature ! When he says, “My Father and I are one,” though it is clear as the sun, that he means one in the Unitarian sense; they immediately call out, here is a proof of the coexistence, coeternity, and consubstantiality of God and Christ! Mr. Pope adopts this mode of explanation, and alleges that “those passages wbich affirm the son's inferiority were not spoken of him whole and entire, but refer to his human nature, and mediatorial character; and that this view of the subject alone, barmonizes the seemingly contradictory descriptions which the Scriptures give of the Messiah.” Such vague

and unfounded notions as this may content those

prostrate the understanding;” but reason and common sense must protest against them. Can it be imagined that a distinction of such importance to the right interpretation of Scripture, should be sought for in them in vain? By admitting it as necessary to explain certain fancied contradictions, we are involved in ten-fold difficulties, from which we cannot be extricated, even by the power of an Infallible Church. While it aims, on the one hand, to exalt the Saviour to Supreme Deity, it degrades him, on the other, beneath the level of an honest and true man. It grants the Unitarian more than he either asks or will accept. It strips part of our Lord's declarations of their sacred influence, by representing them as spoken of himself in the nature of a common uninspired mortal, whereas the Unitarian receives them all as coming from the inspiration of the Almighty. . Nor is this all. It involves more awful consequences. We should have supposed from reading the Scriptures, “without note or comment.” that the Saviour's character presented to ug one symmetrical and consistent whole. But this invention affirms that he was not one but two persons; and since he did not always speak and act as a whole and entire, he must sometimes have spoken and acted as a part and a fraction. What he was ignorant of as a man, he knew as God. Each character had its peculiar language and mode of acting; and that which was utterly false, as coming from the one, was demonstratively true as coming from the other. He is, and he is not, omnipotent, and omniscient. He tells a female petitioner, that what she asks is not his to give-and notwithstanding, it is his to give! He cannot do what is requested of him, and yet it is perfectly in his power!

What havoc does such a fancy make of the character of him who was full of grace and truth ; who always acted with such perfect candour, and who branded hypocrites with his severest indignation ? Let those who advocate the doctrine abide the consequence.

Such, it seems, is the only way to harmortize the discordancies, of a system which has neither reason nor Scripture for its support. Were Unitarians to have recourse to any such miserable expedients what a clamour would be raised ? What epithets of abuse-what charges of blasphemy would be reverberated through the synods and convocations of orthodoxy! The dread sounds of heretics-lepers-infidels-atheists-deniers of the God that bought them, would be thundered in their ears: and all this for their adherence to the plain and unequivocal language of Scripture ! We understand the Saviour's words in the sense wbich we believe they were intended to convey, and it would excite our special wonder, were we not accustomed to it, to witness the irreverence and disrespect with which they are treated by the upholders of Trinitarianism. These, seem to make it their uniform practise to contradict the plainest declarations of our Lord, as if they had taken part with the Scribes and Phaa risees of old, and were determined to fix on him the very imputations which he repelled. When he says, “My Father is greater than I"--they virtually tell him that he utters a falsehood, for they know well that he is equal to the Father in all respects. When he denies that he knows when the day of judgment will arrive, they affirm that he knows it full well, and only imposes upon them by an equivocation. When he says, “It is not mine to give,” they exclaim, this is only an ingenious mode of escaping from importunity, for though he cannot give in his assumed character, he can give all things in his real one ! When he speaks of himself as of " a man who told the truth which he had heard of God," they say he is a man only in outward shew, but in reality the Omnipotent Jehovah! Thus, with the intention, as in charity we suppose, of exalting the saviour, they heap upon him the greatest dishonour. They make him equivocate, dissemble, and falsify, and impute to him such a mode of speaking and acting, as they would be ashamed to impute to any man of common integrity.

These enormities Unitarians avoid, by adhering to the plain meaning of Scripture. They feel assured that the Saviour did not equivocate, nor practise any species of deception. They cannot find a single text which leads to such a horrible suspicion ; neither are they able to discover any such contradictory views of his character and conduct as would lay them under the necessity of having recourse to Platonic inventions to reconcile them. They cannot “ entangle him in his talk”-nor refuse to him the testimony which was given by his enemies, “ Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth ; neither carest thou for any man, for thou regardest not the person of men.”—Mat. xxii. 16. They contemplate our Lord: not as a mysterious and ambiguous being, acting a double part, and paltering with language in a double sense, meaning one thing and expressing another-but as one being, sustaining ong

character, a beautiful; harmonious and consistent whole--without guile—of spotless purity, and unimpeachable rectitude, who spoke as inspired by the spirit of truth, and acted, in all respects, as became the Son of God, deputed with the high commission to instruct and reform the world ; to leave us an example that we should follow his steps, and live and die for our salvation.


The Titles and Epithets given to Christ in the Scriptures, no

proof of his Deity. Mr. Pope infers the Deity of Christ from certain titles and epithets given to him in the Scriptures: “the expression, Son of God," says he, “conveyed to the Jewish teachers and people the idea, that the person assuming the title asserted an equality with God.” Where did Mr. Pope learn this? What is the proof? The appellation was too familiar, and too frequently as. cribed to pious men to convey any such idea. Adam is de nominated the Son of God.—Luke, iii, 38. Israel is the Son of God. Thus saith the Lord, “ Israel is my Son, even my first born.”—Exod. iv. 22. David is the Son of God. - Psalm, lxxxix, 26, 27. Solomon is the Son of God. 2 Samuel, vii. 14. 1 Chron. xxii, 10. “ As many as received him," says John, (i. 12, 13.) “ to them gave he power to become the Sons of God, even to them that believe on his name; which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."'* “Do all things," says St. Paul, (Pbilip, ii. 14, 15,) “ without murmurings and disputings; that yo may be blameless and harmless, the Sons of God, without rebuke." And again, “ As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the Sons of God." All Christians are not only Sons but “ Heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.”-Rom. viii. 14, 17.

That the title was pre-eminently due to the Blessed Saviour, is cheerfully admitted—but it was his own assumption of it, it seems, that caused the Jews to understand it in a peculiar sense. Entertaining, as they did, such exalted notions of the Supreme Jehovah, it is utterly incredible that they had annexed to the title “Son of God," any such idea as that he who claimed it, asserted an equality with him, in the unlimited sense contended for by Mr. Pope -nor will the account of the transaction on which he founds his opinion, yield it any valid support. Let us examine. While Jesus was walking, in Solomon's porch, the

*“Can you produce a stronger or more explicit declaration of the di, vine generation of Christ than this is taken literally, of the divine generation of believers ? I am convinced you cannot, and yet they were not

The Apostle John an Uniturian.”

divine persons."


Jews came and asked liim, to declare explicitly if lie were the Christ? Our Lord answered, that he had told them before,— referred them, as he had referred the messengers from John the Baptist, to his miraculous works, accounted for their unbelief, and declared of his own sheep, that he will give them eternał life. They shall never perish, neither shaly any man pluck them out of my hand.” Why? Because, “My Father which GAVE them me is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.” God's omnipotence is the guarantee of my possession. “I and my Father are one ;" — John x. 30. É one thing,* not one intelligent being; one, not in essence, for to this there is not the slightest allusion, but one as to the particular point mentioned ; unanimous as to the security and salvation of the disciples. When he had ended his discourse, the Jews took up stones to stone him, not merely for uttering the words, I and my Father are one,” for to the Jews they conveyed no idea of Christ's claiming substantial identity with God-nor had any man yet been so absurd as to draw from a declaration of unity of purpose, a declaration of unity of essence—but as they themselves affirmed for “ blasphemy,” generally; and specifically, because “thou being a man makest thyself God.” (Elohim.T) By making himself God, they meant


* Newcome. Campbell. Cappe. Une seule chose-Le Clerc.

Une meme chose.-Port Royal, Simon & Saci. See Slichtingius & Wolzogenius in loc.

They did not understand verse 50, of an essential union, or of any union implying equality, for if they had, it would have been a far more plausible foundation for the accusation than that which they selected."-Fox.

The meaning is fully developed in John c. xvii. v. 20, 23, “ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me, through their word ; that they all may be one év, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

And the glory which thou gavest me, I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one, I in them and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved THEM, as thou hast loved me. “ I have planted,”. says Paul, 1 Cor. iii. 6, 8. Apollos watered. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one - The multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul.Acts, iv. 32. We being many are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that one body."-1 Cor. x. 17. Admitting the much disputed text, 1 John v. 7. of the three heavenly wit, nesses to be genuine, it must be interpreted in a similar sense.

+ The holy angels are styled Gods. " Thou hast made him a little lower Me-elohim than the Gods.”—Ps. viii. 5.

Also judges and rulers. 6. Thou shalt not revile the Gods,"-(or judges and rulers.) —Exod. xxii. 28. “God standeth iu the Congregation of the Mighty, he judgeth among the Gods. I have said, ye are Gods; and all of you are children of the Most High.”—Psalm, lxxxii. 1, 6. See also Exod. xxi. 6.

The ambassadors and prophets of God were also called Gods. " And the Lord sạid unto Moses, see, I have made thee Elohim, a God to Phas raoh,"-Exod. vii, 1. “ Thou shalt be to him instead of God."-iv. 16,

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »