Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

Xenophon, Josephus, or any other honest but fallible historian. Now who would venture to assert, that in the pages of the most faithful uninspired historian of antiquity, there may not be some very important circumstances so misrepresented, that the account given is absolutely false?— Who would venture to affirm positively, that in the last speech of Cyrus, as recorded by Xenophon, (supposing it to be true that on his death bed he made a speech at all,) we have the very language, or even the , general import of what was delivered by that monarch, on that occasion? But if Dr. Priestley's principles are adopted, there is just as much reason to suspect, that many important circumstances of Christ's life, and many of his words, are totally misrepresented, through the inattention, ignorance, and prejudice of the Evangelists. And if so, who can now distinguish between what Christ truly did, said, and taught, and what the Evangelists erroneously represent as his doings, sayings, and instructions?

[blocks in formation]

If this be a true exhibition of Paul's character as a writer of scripture, we are, of course, not to take his epistles as our guide, any farther than we find that he reasons, in our view,conclusively-And just as much may be said for Plato, Mohamed, or Franklin.

Hence the extreme difficulty of reasoning with Unitarians on Theological subjects. Quote a text opposed to their religious opinions, and they will, probably, first attempt to show that it is not found in some ancient manuscript, or that it is a mere figure of speech. If you beat them out of these holds, their dernier retreat is to the fallibility of the scripture writers-Here they take

their lurking places. Is it a saying of Christ you quote? The reply is ready-"The Evangelist may have been himself mistaken, and have given a representation contrary to truth." Is it a text from the epistles of Paul? The answer is, "Paul wrote without any particular inspiration," and sometimes " reasons inconclusively."--Here they will lurk, until you are leaving them; and then they will triumphantly pursue you, quoting scripture, and proclaiming in the language of the Abstract, that "the Bible is their creed!"

But whatever professions of attachment they may make to the scripture, it is certain they have adopted what they are pleased to call "an improved version of the New Testament," which rejects, as spurious, important parts, found in our common Testaments. Yet without giving his readers any intimation of this, our author tells us, that Unitarians believe that the scriptures contain authentick records of God's dispensations and of his revelations, and that Unitarians have written in their defence.

In reading that article of the Abstract, in which these professions are expressed, a discriminating cautious theologian, possessing a high regard for every jot and tittle of the Bible, would probably suppose that a creed which, in a guarded and rather ambiguous manner, recognises the Old and New Testaments merely as containing authentick records of the dispensations of God and of his revelations to men, paid these sacred books rather a cold compliment. He would not even be satisfied with the additional consideration, that some men of celebrity who adopt such a creed, have written in their defence. Yet, judging from what our author here says, even some theologians and most other men but moderately acquainted with theological language and unfurnished with other means of knowing Unitarian peculiarities, would in all probability suppose that Unitarians take, without exception, all the parts of the Old and New Testament as

the ground of their faith, and the rule of their practice. But this would be an impression very different from what we have shown to be the true state of the fact.

If a man points me to a ship and cargo that he desires me to buy, and, after having examined the state of the vessel and the bills of the articles she contains, I make the purchase, I should then be very much disappointed and chagrined, were I informed that of this cargo here is a box of watches belonging to one man, and there a cask of guineas the property of another. Similar effects I have found to be produced on some honest minds, by reading certain exhibitions of Unitarian creeds. I have known inquiry to be made of some candid unsuspecting persons, how they were pleased with a particular Unitarian pamphlet; and the reply to have been, "very much indeed, because, just as we have been always taught, it speaks well of the scriptures." And when told that Unitarians usually reject considerable portions of the sacred volume, they appeared quite surprised, and replied, "You must certainly be mistaken, sir, for this pamphlet not only speaks well of the Bible, but also quotes largely from its contents." And when it was proved to them that the fact was certainly so, they appeared quite mortified and vexed at the deception practised upon them.

There is something in the conduct of Unitarians which renders it at least probable that, devoted to the cause of proselyting, they, like the Jesuits, when first introducing themselves as teachers of religion among people whose habits of education are opposed to their success-by keeping concealed those of their dogmas that would render them less acceptablecunningly accommodate themselves to their circumstances.

It is admitted that, according to the notions entertained in military establishments, to hold out false signs, so as to deceive and mislead the enemy, is a kind of cunning, not only admissible but praiseworthy.

This kind of artful accommodation, has the sanction of the most successful conductors of both ancient and modern warfare. That by this means Unitarians may, for a time at least, be successful in swelling their ranks and elevating their standard, cannot be doubted. For persons early taught to reverence the Bible as the word of God, even though they be not pious, would generally reject or receive with great caution, the instruction of those religionists who, in whole or in part, deny its authenticity, or call in question its divine authority. But by insinuating their own belief in the scriptures as generally received, Unitarians evade all opposition from habits of education, and introduce themselves, at once, into the confidence of those whom they would proselyte.

And after this difficulty is thus artfully avoided, it must be admitted that, among many classes of men, Unitarianism, beyond most other systems of religion, has many advantages for making proselytes.-She has nothing rigid either to be prac tised or believed. It is true she does not appear with advantage in the hovels of wretchedness, nor in the house of sickness, mourning, or death. It is true that the weary and heavy laden pilgrim who would find rest for his soul, chills at her breath and shrinks from her touch; yet, divested of many of the strict requirements of most other systems, she is far less offensive than they are, to the vicious, the conceited, the proud, and to most of the prosperous and the wealthy. To these classes of men, who from their pursuits of business and pleasure have but little time, and less inclination for examining what the scriptures teach of God and the way of salvation, and who therefore draw their conclusions on those all important subjects, not from divine revelation, but from their own notions of analogy derived from worldly objects, and from what is still worse, their own depraved feelings-it is not wonderful that the doctrine of the Trinity, and the manifestation of God in the

flesh, should appear absurd; and that they should prefer a system more accommodated to their carnal tempers, and their notions of worldly things: especially when such a system excludes from its requirements the orthodox notions of regeneration, faith and repentance, which are always humbling and painful to the haughty, unsubdued feelings of an unsanctified heart.

Now, though we are willing to admit the merits of the writer in his exhibition of this article of his creed, if merely its adaptation to proselyting can confer merit, or if it is to be judged by the same standard with which the manoeuvres of a Hannibal and a Bonaparte are to be determined, yet the case is materially altered when we consider him as a minister of religion, solemnly professing to give us an exhibition of theological truth. But even here we will not try him by the strictest standard; for, though we would appeal from a military tribunal, yet we need not arraign him before the throne of religion, but only ask at the judgment seat of common honesty, whether a man who rejects a part of the scriptures, ought so to present his creed to the world, as to induce men to think that he believes the whole? If the scriptures be true, "there is death in this pot."

"Unitarians believe one of the great truths taught in the scriptures, to be the unity and supremacy of God. As there is but one God, who made the heaven, the earth, and the sea, and all that in them is, so the scripture teaches that He alone is to be worshipped. That the Father is the only proper object of worship, is a truth which is urged upon us, both by the commands and example of our Saviour. Then said Jesus unto him, get thee hence Satan, for it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.' After this manner, therefore, pray ye-our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name,' &c. 'But the hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father, in spirit and in truth.' And in that day ye shall ask me nothing, Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he shall give it you.' In these texts of scripture we have the

express commands of Christ to worship the Father only."—Abstract, pages 4th and 5th.

"Unitarians believe one of the great doctrines taught in the scriptures, to be the unity and supremacy of God." So do we-and also, that as there is but one God, who made the heaven, the earth and the sea, so the scripture teaches, that he alone is to be worshipped. But then we believe of Christ, "the Word who was made flesh and dwelt among us," that "all things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made-that by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers-all things were created by him and for him." We believe also, that "he that built all things is God," and we cannot resist the conclusion from such premises, that Christ is God, and therefore to be worshipped.

With regard to our Saviour, it is not to be supposed that he would worship himself; but that he did permit himself to be worshipped by others, in numerous instances, is a fact which defies contradiction. And if he urged, by his commands, that the Father is the only proper object of worship exclusive of himself, he himself countenanced a violation of But he did not his own commands. teach this. The text proves no such thing. This will be particularly clear, if we advert to a few other texts, which candour requires an exhibition of, in connexion with those contain

ed in the Abstract.

"Whatsoever ye ask, in my name, that will I do.'-John xiv. 13. If ye ask any thing in my name, I will do it.'-14.

That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father.'-John v. 23. We agree, that it is a religious obligation of the utmost importance, to render homage to no other being than the supreme God. Who, then, is he whom all the angels of God are commanded to worship?"-Emory's Reply.

"Now, we still maintain, that if these texts mean any thing, they prove the Father to be the only object of worship, notwithstanding Mr. Emory says they

prove no such thing. He has been careful, however, not to tell us what they do prove."-Remarks on Emory's Reply.

As Mr. Emory wrote on the spur of the occasion, and appears, intentionally, to have confined his remarks to very narrow bounds, he has contented himself with showing by a comparison of other texts, that the interpretation of these passages given by the writer of the Abstract is erroneous, without entering into as minute an examination as we could have wished, and as, perhaps, in other circumstances, he would have done.

But it appears very much like a wholesale way of arguing, on the part of the Remarker, to refute Mr. E. by roundly asserting, that if these texts mean any thing, they prove the Father to be the only object of worship!

If I am not very much mistaken, some of these texts prove that Christ, no less than the Father, is to be worshipped-a doctrine just the reverse of what they are so confidently adduced to support.

"Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan, for it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." Matt. iv. 10. This text is a reply to the devil, who endeavoured to induce the Saviour to fall down and worship him. The question, then, is not whether God is to be worshipped in the person of the Father only, but whether God only, or God and the devil too, are to be worshipped. Christ's answer is, God only, not God and the devil too. The text then proves, that the true God is to be worshipped, and consequently, if Christ be one person of the true God, it proves that he is to be worshipped.

"Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name," &c.-Matt. vi. 9. According to Trinitarian notions of interpretation, the word Father in application to God, is used in two different senses. In those cases in which men address God by the appellation of Father, it is applied to the unity of the Su

preme Being-Jehovah, God, the Trinity. This arises from the fact, that the triune God, is the author and preserver of men. In other instances, when the first person is to be distinguished from the second, it is applied to the first. (See Stockius and Schleusner's Lexicons on the original word.)

Our Father which art in heaven," on Trinitarian principles, may be explained to be equivalent to, "Our God which art in heaven;" and "your Father which seeth in secret," to your God which seeth in secret." The preface to the Lord's prayer then, would simply teach, that prayer is to be addressed to God.

[ocr errors]

Again, John iv. 22.-" But the hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth." The Samaritans, indeed, attended to some forms of religion, and worshipped something; but they knew not what. But the Saviour informed the woman, that the time was come in which they were not thus ignorantly to worship, but that they should serve God in spirit and in truth. That the Father means God here, appears from the next verse, which seems to be partly exegetical of the one now under consideration; and hence it commences, "God is a spirit," &c. Then, the sense of the verse is-But the hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship God in spirit and in truth.

These passages prove that God is to be worshipped. But if the three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, subsisting in one undivided essence, make the true God, then these texts, so far from teaching that wor

It is worthy of remark, that Father is never applied to the person of the Son. The only text that appears to opinion, is a passage in the 6th verse of this oppose the ninth chapter of Isaiah, where he is called "the everlasting Father." But every Hebrew scholar knows that this is eternity of his existence, or of his being the a Hebrew phrase, expressive either of the Father, that is, the Possessor, of the coming age-the gospel dispensation.

served.

ship is due to the Father only, prove text, let two preliminaries be obthat the Spirit and the Son are also to be worshipped.

The argument here employed against the divinity of the Son is defective in two essential points. In the first place, it begs the question; and in the next place, reasons in a circle. Upon the supposition that the doctrine of the Saviour's divinity be true, we have shown that these passages prove him to be a proper object of worship. They must, therefore, have been adduced on the supposition that it is false. But this is producing evidence to prove it is false, upon the supposition that it is false! If carried out the reasoning runs thus: The Son is not God, because he is not worshipped. But how do you prove that he is not worshipped? Ans. These texts prove that none but God is to be worshipped. Ques. But how does it appear, that Christ is not God? Here the answer comes back to the old ground-These texts prove that none but God is to be worshipped.

As to John xvi. 23-" And in that day ye shall ask me nothing, verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you," if I am not mistaken, it implies something not very favourable to the Unitarian hypothesis.

Mark the words with which it is introduced-"And in that day ye shall ask me nothing." Strongly implying, that the disciples had been in the habit of asking Christ, precisely in the sense that on that day they should ask the Father. For if our author will have asking in the latter case to mean prayer, it must equally mean so in the former. And if they had not been accustomed to asking Christ, what necessity could there have been for this direction? If Christ had taught them that he was not God, and had in their knowledge always prevented men from worshipping him, what probability could there have been that they would ask or worship him, when he was taken entirely away from them?

In showing the meaning of the

1. The occasion on which the text was uttered-Christ is here giving his disciples directions, preparatory to his leaving them. While they enjoyed his blessed society, they had received instruction from his own lips. About to leave them, he informs them that for all necessary instruction, in preparing for the great work of the ministry, in which they were shortly to be engaged, they must at that appointed time ask the Father.

2. In the impartation of the extraordinary gifts to be bestowed upon the apostles and disciples, each of the persons of the Trinity had his appropriate work. In accomplishing it, Christ must leave the world."Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you, that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart I will send him unto you." John xvi. 7. And interceding with the Father, he must take a part with him in sending the Holy Ghost. John xiv. 16. And I will pray the Father and he will give you another Comforter, &c. It was the work of the Holy Ghost "to teach the disciples all things" necessary for them to know, and "to bring all Christ's instructions to their remembrance." And the Father's part, as we see from the last text quoted (John xiv. 16.), was to regard the prayers of the Son, and to unite with him in sending the Holy Spirit.

From the general strain of these chapters, taken in connexion, the subjects evidently alluded to are, the Saviour's ascension, and the descent of the Holy Spirit. And as Christ is the only Mediator between God and man, it was only through his name, the Holy Spirit, or any other good gift, could be imparted to sinful unworthy men. Hence the direction to ask in his name.

Infinite wisdom had so ordained, that it was not until Christ should obtain victory over death and the grave, and ascending on high should

« VorigeDoorgaan »