« PreviousContinue »
such forms of speaking, as Gd the Son, God the Holy Ghost, are never used by any of the facred writers, in any part of the New Testament.
From the whole we may conclude, that the general tenor of the Old and New Testament teaches us, in the most positive terms, that there is but ONE GOD, that God is ONE PERSON, and that this person is the FATHER. We ubject, therefore, to the doctrine of the trinity, because it contradicts this general tenor, and because all the passages, produced by the Trinitarians, will adınit of a fair interpretation, on unitarian principles. (ei) .
(1) The Trinitarians affert, that notwithstanding they believe a trinity of persons in the divine eilence, they preserve the unity. But it may be clearly de nuni.' trated they do not. The Father they maintain is God, the Son, God, and the Holy Ghof, God They mainta n also, that they are three distinct persons, that is, that one is not the other. On these principles it necessarily follows, that the Father is Gnd exclusively of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that the Son is God exclufively of the Father, and of the Holy Ghost, and that the Holy Ghost is God exclufively of the Father, and of the Son. In other words, it follows, that there must be three Gods,
Again, if the foregoing statement be just, the three taken together must be more than any one of them taken separately. If, therefore, one be of himself God, the three taken together
Of the Sense in which Christ is the Lord of David, and
of the Meaning of the Phrase, Son of God, as applied to Christ.
R. Hawker observes in his first sermon, that
the words of his text, Matt. xxii. 42, “ are not a little demonstrative of the great point in question,” (f) To me they appear to have nothing to do with it. It seems from the preceding verses, that the Pharisees and Sadducees had been proposing a number of questions to our saviour, for no other purpose than that of ensnaring him.
must be more than God. Or if the three taken together make but one God, one of them taken separately must be less than God.
The author cannot but observe in this place, that the reason, the Unitarians reject the doctrine of the trinity, is not because it is a doctrine above their comprehension, but because of the contradictions involved in every explanation of it. An account of thele contradictions may be seen in Mr.Cooper's Summary of Unitarian Arguments, which may be purchased separately from his other Essays.
(f) P. 18.
He was well acquainted with their views, and, in order to put them to filence, asks, What think ye of the Christ? whose son is he? They Jay unto him the son of David. He faith unto them, How then doth David in Spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, st thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool ? If David then call him Lord, how is he his fon? Mr. Hawker is of opinion, that, in this passage, our blessed Lord meant to infer, that somewhat above the nature of a human being was appointed to distinguish the character of the Messiah ; that notwithstanding Christ, according to the flesh, was to spring from the feed of David, yet, at the same time, by his superior nature, he was to be David's Lord ; and that it is highly probable a convi&tion of this kind was wrought in the minds of his hearers, because the evangelist adds, They were not able to answer him a word, neither durft any man, from that day forth, ask him any more questions. (g)
But this does not seem to be a just interpretation. Are we not rather to suppose; that Jesus Christ is the son of David, by natural descent, and that he is his Lord, in consequence of his office, being, as the Meffah, not only the Lord of David, but the Lord of all mankind ? We may account for the effect the question produced on the minds of the Jews, if we consider, that being totally ignorant of the nature of the Messiah's kingdom, it was impossible for them to determine in what refpe& he was the Lord of David.
of (g) P. 19. 20.
Our saviour's own words confirm this explanation. David, he says, calls him Lord in spirit, by which we are to understand the spirit of prophecy; a certain proof that he was not his Lord at the time he wrote the prophecy, which he would have been had he then existed as the Son of God. All he intended was, that the office of the Messiah would be of such a nature, that he might properly be called the Lord of Duvid, whenever he should be born into the world.
After this argument, on which Mr. Hawker professes to lay no stress, he proceeds to the confideration of the question, What think ye of Christ, whose fon is he? (h) And here he asks, according to the opinion of our modernUnitarians, fimply no other than a man, or, agreeable to the doctrine of the established church, is he the Son of God?" Now what will those of his readers, who are unacquainted with the principles of the ' Unitarians, conclude from this, but that we deny Jesus Christ to be the Son of God? This I allure them is far from being the case. We as firmly be
• Is he,
(h) Page 20.
lieve that Jesus Christ is the Son of God as Mr.
In the first place, Jesus Christ, in the New Testament, is called the Son of God, on account of his miraculous conception and birth. Luke I. 35. And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee : therefore all that holy thing, which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.
Here, says Mr, Hawker, is an express and positive reason assigned why Jesus is called the Son of God. From the Holy Ghost coming upon Mary, and the power of the Highest overshadowing her ; by which our blessed Lord deriving his existence in the flesh from a Divine Power, and without the intervention of an human father, he was truly and properly C