Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

for himself"-"to seach the Scriptures, and judge whether these things are so.” To the wilful perverters of the truth who, like the Pharisees of old, will neither enter in themselves, nor “permit those who are willing to enter in”—who go about working upon the ignorance, the prejudices, and the fears of the multitude, to deter them from inquiring, he proclaims the sentence which his Saviour has denounced against such conduct; and knowing that gospel truth is “founded apon a rock against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail, he fearlessly, amidst obloquy and reproach, contends for the faith originally delivered to the saints."

My object, in the present, and some succeeding communications, is to show that these objections are unfounded ; that Unitarianism is not the cold and heartless religion it is represented; that it speaks in the language of comfort to the sinner, by exhibiting to him a God of love, “who wills all men to be saved, and come to a knowledge of the truth ;"_"a Saviour who can be touched with a feeling of our infirmities, for he was tempted in all things, like as we are, yet without sin.” When, therefore, the Unitarian rejects any opinions, venerable for their antiquity, and the hold of the popular mind which they have acquired, he acts not from any love of change, but because he cannot find these doctrines in the Holy Scriptures; and he prefers the teachings of God “to the words which man's wisdom teacheth.” His object is to present the religion of Jesus pure and unadulterated, in all its native loveliness and simplicity-freed from the obscurity and error of a Pagan philosophy, or the jargon of a scholastic phraseology, in which it has been too long envelopped; and to permit the rays of the sun of righteousness, without one intervening cloud, to shine forth upon a darkened and sinful world, in all their glory and splendour. In doing this, it will be necessary to advert to subjects which have already been fully and ably discussed in the pages of the Bible Christian; and which, therefore, might now, perhaps, be allowed to rest unnoticed; but, as I wish to defend Unitarianism from some of the calumnious charges preferred against it, I trust the following observations may not be deemed unworthy of a place in your useful periodical.

In order to do this, I propose to begin where all religion must be gin-with God. I shall inquire who is the God of the Unitarian, and of the Trinitarian—the grounds on which each believes in his own God;— I say his own God—for it will soon be very evident, that the God of the two parties is widely different in nature, constitution—if I may be allowed the expression—and mode of existence, as well as in point of character—of which we are much more competent to judge, and which is, to us, a matter of far more moment.

The God of the Unitarian is made known to him in the volume of

" To

[ocr errors]

divine revelation, in all his glory, blessedness, and perfection. What is there revealed he receives implicitly as divine truth; but when that holy instructor is silent, and man dares to proclaim as sacred truth, that which is unknown to the Bible, this he instantly and indignantly rejects. Of God, he will have no other teacher than God himself. Whilst he feels in his inmost soul, “that the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork; yet the sun of divine revelation shining upon these, the glorious works of the Almighty, is the light by which he reads in them the power, wisdom, and goodness of God—by which he sees there is but one Jehovah, and that Jehovah is one. The book of God, then, is the only creed of the Unitarian; and contains all respecting his nature, constitution, mode of existence, and character, on which he can assuredly rely. There is no difficulty, therefore, in stating what he believes ; and what, upon the principles of his own creed, he must reject. the law, and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

The Unitarian believes there is one God, and none other but he ; and with him, as with his great lord and master, this is the first of all the commandments. That he is a spirit, all-present, all-pervading, over all, through all, in all; that there is, and can be, but one allperfect spirit-none to whom he can be likened or compared-for, though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there are gods many, and lords many, yet to him there is but one God, the Father—the God and Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, his God and our God. He knows, on the authority of Christ, that the Father is the only living and true God; and, as such, he believes on him. He also believes that this one God is one ; for a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. This one Jehovah he regards as the only object of supreme worship. With Paul he bows his knees to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. He endeavours to comply with the example and instructions of his Saviour; and above all, in the duty of prayer, because he believes them to be full, complete, perfect. Looking to these, he finds that Christ never prayed to any except the Father-never taught his disciples to pray to any other; and when he commanded them to ask, and they shall receive, they were to ask the Father in his name; nay more, he has told them, that the true worshippers worship the Father, and all should worship truly after his example. The Unitarian has then the example, the command, and instruction of Christ to pray to the Father-and he who prays to any other object of worship can plead none of these to justify his conduct.

Let us place beside this the belief of the Trinitarian, respecting his God. In doing this, I shall quote principally from the Westminster Confession of Faith, as I shall, subsequently, have occasion frequently to refer to the same authority. Statements substantially the same will also be found in the 39 Articles of the Church of England.

In common with the Unitarian, the Trinitarian believes “there is but one only living and true God.” Conf. chap. i. To this he adds a long list of the attributes and perfections of God, to all of which the Unitarian most cordially assents. It is also evident he adopts his opinions on the authority of divine revelation only-for it is stated, Conf. chap. i. “although the light of nature, and the works we do, so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable—yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation.” So far both are agreed, and neither can be justly stigmatised as Deists, Infidels, &c.; for the belief of both rests, not on the light of nature, but of divine revelation. So far, too, both are Christian, for a belief in God, and of that Son, our Saviour, whom he sent into the world, founded on the authority of the Holy Scriptures, are fundamental doctrines of Christianity, and no subsequent difference of opinion in the interpretation of Scripture can overturn what is fundamental. Allsuch charges, then, as Deist, no Christian, &c. by either party, can only be made in ignorance, or spring from a bigotted unchristian spirit, and cannot be too strongly reprobated. Here, however, the agreement ends, for it is affirmed, Conf. chap. ii. "that in the unity of the Godhead there be three persons of one substance, power, and eternity, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.” Now, on their own showing, it is not true they are one substance, whatever meaning is attached to the word, for respecting that there is much despicable quibbling. If, as some say, it means subsistence, existence, then, as each of the persons is self-existent, there must be three distinct self-existents ; and yet there can be but one self-existent. Besides, the Father is of none- -neither begotten nor derived—the Son is of the Father begotten, and the Holy Ghost proceeds from both; but, a begotten or derived subsistence, &c. cannot be the same as an unbegotten underived existence, &c. Again, the Father is a spirit, one nature; but, Christ our Lord is “both God and man in two distinct natures, and one person." The Father never was man-never was born or partook of humanity—of one substance therefore they cannot be.

But, let us attend a little more minutely to the language in which the Trinitarian describes his God:-a Trinity, a triune God, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, three persons one God, &c. &c. Who affirms this? The Church. What Church? The Church of Christ? No: it is "built upon Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ being the chief corner-stone;" but neither Prophet, Apostle, nor the Lord Jesus ever used such language as this. It is utterly unknown to either the Old or New Testament. But, we are told, though the language is not to be found in the Bible, the doctrine is there. Then, why not use the words in which God describes bimself in preference to those "which man's wisdom teacheth?” Can human pride and folly go farther than this? But where is the doctrine taught in Scripture? We are told, “in every page of the Bible.” Now, where is the man who can point out one single instance in the whole volume of revelation in which it is said, that

“ three persons, three relations, three modes, three somewhats, three anythings—for all this Babel jargon, and much more, is employed to explain a Trinity-are ever said to be one God—the one living and true God. It is not in the Holy Scriptures. This is virtually admitted by. Mosheim, a celebrated historian of the Church-himself a Trinitarianwhen he says, that the doctrine was not fully completed until the sixth century; and thus, from the commencement of the public ministry of our Lord down to that period, Christians knew not their God worshipped they knew not what—and were utterly ignorant of what is now pronounced to be a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, essential to salvation. Nor is he singular in this admission; for many Trinitarians, men of learning and talent, have admitted, candidly and fully, that the doctrine of a trinity is not one of revelationis not to be found in the Bible ; that it is only an inference—rests only on the foundation of reason—and yet it is the most unreasonable proposition ever propounded. Let us try.

The Trinitarian says, "the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God-each of them possessed of every perfection ; that they are in all respects equal, self-existent, independent, eternal." He says, “the Father is of none.” He, then, is self-existent, &c. But, the Son is of the Father begotten : that is, derives his being from his Father, as every son must. How, then, can he be self-existent? A father must precede his son in existence. How can the Son be eternal, except the Father be more than eternal ? • The Holy Ghost proceeds from both.There are two of them then: two Gods. They are the “vast, the fountain,”-he the stream, the branch which proceeds from them. But how can the stream be independent of its fountain, the branch of its root?

The Trinitarian says, these three persons are each God. God is a being. This must be true, if there be any being in the universe. Would you have me believe, three beings are one being? yet; this you must affirm, or else say God does not exist - Christ never existed—and thus become both infidel and atheist.

Sherlock, a Trinitarian, says, the three persons in the Trinity are as distinct as Peter, James, and John. Peter is a man, James is a

2

man, &c. and yet these are not three men, but one man. But it is unnecessary to follow this farther. Inconsistency, contradiction, and absurdity cannot be carried farther than this.

But, we are told, the word person is not here used in its common and popular sense. Person means an intelligent being; and do you mean to affirm that the Father is not an intelligent being; that the Son is not, &c. &c. It is said it is used in its theological sense. Pray, what is that? When in the standards of your church, which you put into the hands of the young, the ignorant“such as are of the weaker capacity”-have you said what is the unusual meaning of this common and ordinary word ? Not in the Confession of Faith; not in the 39 Articles of the Church of England. The young, the weak, the ignorant, are left in utter ignorance of what they are to understand by this word; and, that too, op the all-important doctrine of the Trinity, whilst you have the audacity to declare, that except they keep this truth, which they do not know, whole and entire, they shall, without doubt, perish everlastingly. Is this the manner in which Christian ministers should discharge their duty to the flocks committed to their charge? Nay, you assist to lead them into error on this very subject. You teach them that each of the persons is God. You teach them to worship, adore each of the persons, as if each was a separate distinct God; and thus, practically, in the most solemn and important of all duties, they act as if there were three Gods. If an object of supreme worship be not God, to the mind of him that worships, then there never was a God. Yet no candid Trinitarian who prays to each of the three persons of the Trinity separately, will dare to say that he has not present to his mind three distinct objects of worship- that is, practically, three Gods. As well might you say that the Roman Catholic, whom the Orthodox calls an idolater, when he prays to the mother of God, is praying to the one God of the Bible ; as, that he who prays to the Son, has the same object of worship; the same God present to his mind, as when he prays to the Father. It is in vain to talk of consistency when men practically, in the highest duties of religion, act as if there were three Gods; and yet absurdly in theory profess, “there is only one, the living and true God."

But are the instructors of the ignorant, the learned themselves, better informed or more agreed about the meaning of the word person when applied to God? The writings of the most talented and learned Trinitarian divines, who have endeavoured to affix some definite meaning to this unmeaning and unscriptural term, prove directly the contrary. What diversities of opinion-what strifes and contentions -what bitter unchristian writings—what anathemas-what confusion worse confounded, as if God in His Providence intended to chastise

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »